Generally speaking they both have a point.
h/t SM
Click Here To Submit A News Tip Or Story
3 Comments
I’ve published a few opEds on the jobs rallies with a local slant. Try this link and that link.
This particular piece was intended to annoy both sides, Tea Party and OWS, Democrats and Republicans. There is common ground. Zero tolerance for corruption heads my list and would solve the problems you identified. That would not require a Constitutional Amendment.
We do need a government more inclined to weigh the merits of arguments rather than by the weight of the purse. That’s why this county is facing 40 years of other people’s garbage sitting on the headwaters of the Kishwaukee River less than 1/4 mile away from an elementary school. Corporate interests were elevated over the life and safety of residents just so county board members could get their favorite pet projects financed.
But I digress.
Oops, can’t embed, I guess.
Here’s a link instead.
[editor’s note: link embedded]
Leave a Comment
You must be logged in to post a comment.
I am wondering why you only published commentary from national figures when we have local groups organizing around the issue of being not-governed by a group of non-representatives answerable to their corporate sponsors and not to the US people. Though the Tea Party and the Occupation movement may differ on many things, I believe there is a point of agreement on the fact that our government is not listening to “we the people”. Speaking on behalf of Rebuild the American Dream DeKalb (RADD), I believe that 99% of the citizens of this country would be better served if there were to be a Constitutional Amendment stating that corporations are NOT people and that elections should be publicly funded, with a restriction of $100 on donations by an citizen or group to any candidate. That would level the playing field and produce a government not beholden to monied or other interests. The people would still be free to petition their government but those elected would be more inclined to weigh the merits of arguments not the weight of the purse.