From Ciara Torres-Spelliscy at Moyers & Co (BillMoyers.com), this alarming analysis of the dark money, i.e., unidentified billionaires who are buying our elections. Dark Money Turns Elections Into Trench Warfare.
If you read the entire article, you’ll learn about a number of pleasantly-named PACs invented by some unpleasant people, although the ads they produce are labeled with the pleasant name, rather than the list of really unpleasant people.
We should know the names of these people who are trying to brainwash us, shouldn’t we? If I see an ad against someone running for office–although, of course, these PACS are not supposed to be openly sponsoring or attacking named politicians (they’re supposed to be promoting “social welfare,” or some such)–it might help to know who’s paying for it.
Especially because of the high quality of the warm ‘n’ fuzzy TV commercials. Here’s a paragraph to contemplate:
Another source of Republican dark money was a group called Ending Spending, which spent $1.2 million. Ending Spending was created by TD Ameritrade founder and billionaire Joe Ricketts. If that name rings a bell, it could be because his children own the Chicago Cubs. While Ending Spending has not reported its spending for 2017 yet, its FEC reports for 2016 show $2.6 million in spending and zero contributors. This isn’t a typo. This is the problem with dark money. We can tell it is being spent at high levels but we can’t tell where the heck the money really came from.
Source: SCOTUS Set To Hear First Partisan Gerrymandering Case in a Decade | Brennan Center for Justice
And this, adding to everything we need to know about what happened in Wisconsin and other states, and how we now have to hold our breaths (crossing fingers aren’t enough) that Anthony Kennedy will do the intelligent thing–the thing he once suggested he’d do if a case could come up with a credible formula for identifying gerrymandering. Which this case does:
Source: Supreme Court Targets Rigged System of Redistricting | Brennan Center for Justice
Not my brief paragraph.
In the Volokh blog, I just ran into this despicable crapola from a “libertarian” lawyer named [David Kopel] writing about The Hearing Protection Act and ‘silencers’.
You did realize the NRA is now pushing an act (called, ahem, “The Hearing Protection Act”, although since so many of you have been going deaf because you’ve been forced to fire your heavy weapons without silencers, maybe I SHOULD HAVE WRITTEN THAT LOUDLY) through its wholly owned Congressional subsidiary, i.e., the majority, an act which would liberate the purchase of silencers from any interference, i.e., gun control laws.
Perhaps you, like I, wonder why people want to buy silencers. Of course that question gets us far past the bigger question: why do individuals want to own armories? Which brings us to the major question: why are so many millions of people in this country fantasizing paranoids who imagine themselves as super heroes, taking down villains?
Here’s David Kopel’s analysis of why people need silencers. (Maybe you should throw up now and read this on an empty stomach?)
Why do people own suppressors? There are three main reasons: reduction of noise pollution, hearing protection, and safety training. As for the first, hunting sometimes take place in state or national forests or other locations near where people live. During hunting season, nearby residents may be annoyed by the frequent sound of gunfire. Likewise, some people have built houses near established target ranges; when people at the range use suppressors, the ambient noise is reduced, although certainly not eliminated.
P.S. A reminder: “libertarianism” was invented by the Koch Bros, as they began their blitzkrieg called the Final Solution to Democracy.