buy an election

One of the many reasons we need campaign finance reform is to keep big companies and lobbies from buying our elected officials.

Want to know why so many Senators are voting for Betsy DeVos?
Want to know why so many oppose common sense gun reform?
What to know why pharmaceutical companies can rip you off?
Want to know why Senators oppose funding green energy?

Take a look at who is funding their campaigns.

This is what media bias in Britain looks like. This is The Sun’s front page from tuesday, the day after the bombing in Manchester. They literally blame Jeremy Corbyn for the bombing. This kind of political propaganda that uses tragedy for political gain is fucking despicable. No matter your political persuasion you have to appreciate that this sort of exploitation of tragedy is not in the democratic spirit of this country. The Sun (and their ilk) are a blight on all that is good about journalism. 

There is now, rightly, a petition calling for boycotting of the Sun in Manchester

“The company [Cambridge Analytica] was founded in 2013 as an offshoot of its British parent company, SLC Group, and is partially owned by Robert Mercer — a hedge fund billionaire, Trump supporter, and top investor in Breitbart.”

Oh, him again. Just “follow the money” and you usually find a greasy, hateful billionaire.

Keep in mind, Mercer owes $6.8 billion to the US gov in taxes. [Mercer previously supported Ted Cruz, who promised to abolish the IRS.]

Monied interests are destroying democracy in the US. They think it would be cheaper to buy an election than pay their fair share.

HOW REPUBLICANS WIN ELECTIONS

STEP 1: GERRYMANDERING

In the process of setting electoral districts, gerrymandering is a practice that attempts to establish a political advantage for a particular party or group by manipulating district boundaries to create partisan advantaged districts.

Gerrymandering is named after Massachusetts governor, Elbridge Gerry because an election district created by members of his party in 1812 looked  like a salamander.

As you can see, the popular vote and the congressional seats won are very different. Some of these states have a Democratic majority voters, but still more seats go to republicans.

Honestly, can we just have computers make the districts???

STEP 2: REMOVE ELECTION FINANCE LAWS

“There is not going to be any real enforcement.”

“The few rules that are left, people feel free to ignore.”

Those are recent statements by two members of the Federal Election Commission — the government agency that is supposed to enforce our country’s campaign finance rules. You know it from Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission and McCutcheon v. FEC, the disastrous Supreme Court rulings that are allowing unlimited corporate spending to drown out the voices of everyday Americans in our political process. Corporations are now allowed to funnel unlimited money into SuperPACs that do not require to tell us who are funding their donations and advertisements.

Since Citizens United was decided in 2010, outside money in our elections grows while transparency shrinks. Outside spending on the 2014 elections alone was well over $500 MILLION. Backed by a geyser of money supplied by ultra-wealthy donors and corporations, radical right-wing extremists swept Senate and House races across the country. The Koch Brothers are doubling down and preparing to spend almost a billion dollars over the next two years. Not to mention Wall Street banks, Oil and Gas Industry, and every other corporation are looking to influence legislation.

What happens after these elections? Less than a quarter of all government contractors disclose their campaign donations. Corporations that receive government contracts shouldn’t be able to secretly spend big money electing and re-electing the same lawmakers who are handing out government contracts. With these Supreme Court rulings there is no government accountability and corporations are allowed to pay to play.

STEP 3: RESTRICT VOTING

Last year the Supreme Court’s 5–4 decision in Shelby County v. Holder gutted Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Before this ruling, Section 5 mandated that states with a history of racial discrimination seek “preclearance" to make any changes to voting procedures. Section 5 was extremely effective at ensuring that discriminatory voting procedures weren’t implemented. Now, individuals in these states are susceptible to an increased chance of discrimination when trying to head to the polls.

Since 2010, 21 states have added new voting restrictions. Extensive studies have showed that there has been only 31 out of 1,000,000,000 cases of voter fraud in the last 14 years. These photo ID laws that are sold to prevent fraud are only made to disenfranchise hundreds of thousands of student, minority, and elderly voters. Anybody whose name does not match when you first registered; if you are a woman and you registered to vote before getting married and your married name does not match or specifically transgender people. In Texas as one example, there are only 81 DMVs in its 254 counties. Furthermore, many of these IDs cost the individual, causing a election tax which is illegal. These states have also made attacks on early voting, and laws making it harder to register to vote. 

It is also illegal for developmentally and intellectually disabled people to vote in 39 states. At least 70% of polling sites nationwide are physically inaccessible and less than half of these sites offer curbside voting causing disabled people are about 20% less likely to vote than abled people.

The point is women, minority, lgbt and young voters tend to vote with the Democratic or third parties. The right to vote is fundamental to our democracy, but most Americans would be surprised to find out there is no affirmative right to vote in the U.S. Constitution.

Yeah, I’m not buying these Venezuelan election results. It’s like Sean Spicer saying over and over again that the crowds during the inauguration were the biggest in history.

41% participation my ass. Every non-official number circles the 10%.

Guess this is officially a dictatorship now?

David E. Johnson and Johnny R. Johnson, “A Funny Thing Happened On the Way to the White House: Foolhardiness, Folly, and Fraud in Presidential Elections, from Andrew Jackson to George W. Bush,” pg. 117 & 121:

As to his family wealth, [John F.] Kennedy laughed it off. To charges of “buying elections,” he said he had just received a telegram from his “generous Daddy” reading, “Dear Jack: Don’t buy a single vote more than is necessary. I’ll be damned if I’m going to pay for a landslide.”…

Surprisingly, Kennedy encountered little heckling about his wealth. At one stop he thought he was going to get it when a tough-looking laboring man asked him if he had ever done manual labor for wages. When Kennedy answered that he had not, the man replied “Well, let me tell you something. You ain’t missed a damned thing!”

  • jefferson: hamilton, can you comment on aaron burr's wife, theodosia provost?
  • hamilton: theodosia provost has been intimidating and bullying and poisoning this state for years. frankly, she's a real jerk. and if she thinks she can buy this election for her husband, she's wrong.
  • jefferson: sorry, i meant: can you comment on theodosia provost dying earlier today?
  • hamilton: ....she died? i... sad
  • jefferson: is that your official statement? "i, sad" ?

Bullshit is everywhere.

There is very little you will encounter in life that has not been, in some ways, infused with bullshit- not all of it bad.
General day-to-day free ranch manure is often necessary, or at least innocuous.
“Oh, what a beautiful baby.
I’m sure he’ll grow into that head.”
That kind of bullshit in many ways provides important social contract fertilizers and keeps people from make each other cry all day.

But then there’s the more pernicious bullshit, your premeditated institutional bullshit designed to obscure and distract.
Designed by whom?
The bullshit talkers.
It comes in three basic flavors:

One, making bad things sound like good things.

Organic all-natural cupcakes.
Because factory made sugar oatmeal balls doesn’t sell.
Patriot act, because are you scared enough to let me look at all your phone records act, doesn’t sell.
Whenever something is titled freedom, fairness, family, health, and America, take a good long sniff.
Chances are it’s been manufactured in a facilitate that may contain traces of bullshit.

Number two, the second way, hiding the bad things under mountains of bullshit.

Complexity- you know, I would love to download Drizzy’s latest Meek mill diss.
Everyone promised me that that made sense.
But I’m not really interested right now in reading Tolstoy’s Itunes agreement, so I’ll just click “agree”, even if it grants Apple prima noctae with my spouse.
Here’s another one– simply put, simply put, banks shouldn’t be able to bet your pension money on red. Bullshitly put, it’s- hey, this.
Dot-frank.
Hey, a hand full of billionaires can’t buy our elections, right?
Of course, not, they can only pour unlimited anonymous cash into 501-c6 and 527 unless they’re gonna be doing 50% issue education at- “I think they’re asleep now, we can sneak out.”

And finally- finally, it’s the bullshit of infinite possibility.

These bullshitters cover their unwillingness to act under the guise of unending inquiry.
We can’t do anything because we don’t yet know everything.
We cannot take action on climate change until everyone in the world agrees gay marriage vaccines won’t cause our children to marry goats who are going to come for our guns.

Now, the good news is this– bullshitters have gotten pretty lazy, and their work is easily detected.
And looking for it is a pleasant way to pass the time like an “I spy” of bullshit.
I say to you tonight friends the best defense against bullshit is vigilance.

So if you smell something, say something.

—  Jon Stewart
The whole "it came out of nowhere and is so forced" argument. So:

-The intensity of Oswald’s hostility as he shoots down Ed’s advancements following their first encounter.

-The clever brightness in Ed’s eyes as he says, “I know who you are….”

-“Help me, please.”

-Doting Edward tending to injured Oswald.

-“Where are my clothes?”

-Insisting that Oswald calls him “Ed.”

-Sitting in the bed together.

-The closeness of their faces on too many occasions.

-Piano serenades in the dark.

-Swapping intimate and personal stories about loved ones lost, again while sitting in the bed together.

-Oswald staring into Ed’s eyes, then chest, and trembling as Ed cocks his head in a dominant satisfaction.

-Chinese delivery musical dinner dates.

-The look Ed gives across the table when Oswald mentions the Mr. Leonard.

-Domestic bickering about spicy mustard and clogged plumbing.

-“Why did you even keep them in the first place,” and the bitter glaring at Kringle’s glasses.

-“Ed, about Penguin-” “You’d like to know the nature of my relationship with him.” “Y…yyyeah.”

-Ed sneaking to talk to Oswald at the GCPD.

-The promise to visit Gertrude’s grave, and finding lilies already there against her tombstone when Oswald visits.

-The uncontainable mouth-agape bright-eyed excitement at seeing each other again post-Arkham.

-The horrible sadness in Oswald’s eyes upon Ed rejecting Nicewald.

-Ed’s Arkham escape scene, in which he relents information to Selina only when she says she was there to rescue a friend of hers.

-Oswald visiting Ed in Arkham and sending him gifts.

-“Mr. Penguin-” “Oswald.”

-Oswald wearing more makeup in scenes with Ed.

-Oswald blackmailing Ed’s way out of Arkham as a “necessary part of the campaign,” when he already knew he was going to buy the election.

-The smirk upon realizing Oswald was there to rescue him from Arkham.

-Ed immediately hating Butch for no real apparent reason other than being Oswald’s #2.

-The love riddle, and the air heart that comes with it.

-“A man who loves no one is a man that cannot be betrayed.” “You betrayed me!”

-Oswald’s voice cracking and eyes tearing up upon thinking Ed had betrayed him.

-The look of annoyance on Ed’s face every time Oswald is pleased with Butch.

-“What more could someone ask for?” “Someone to share it with.”

-Not letting go of Oswald’s arm even after the subject changes to realizing where the Red Hoods were.

-Oswald striking/silencing Butch only after his words start attacking Ed, and the look of satisfaction on Ed’s face upon witnessing it.

-Grasping each other’s faces, and the way Ed looks at Oswald’s lips before staring into his eyes.

-Fireside conversations in the dark wearing Oswald’s robe.

-“I’d do anything for you.”

-The hug that was obviously angled for a kiss, and the hands along Ed’s back.

-The disappointment in Ed’s expression.

Did all of that just…not happen? Because if one of them were a woman, this ship would be more obvious than Mulder and Scully. It didn’t come out of nowhere, you were just viewing through a heteroguys-only lense. Stop shaming people for seeing what you couldn’t.

When Ed says that he wants to take away everything that Oswald loves, not only is he talking about himself, but he’s also talking about the love of the citizens of Gotham

His ultimate goal will be to make the city DESPISE Oswald, because that is what will hurt him the most.

Remember how touched Oswald was when he realized that the citizens really loved him and he didn’t need to buy the election?

Edward was the one who orchestrated that realization, who truly gave him that feeling of love and acceptance.

And now he wants to take it away. His greatest gift to Oswald.

PEOPLE POWER MOVEMENT STANDS WITH BALTIMORE: Statement of Solidarity with the Baltimore Uprising

Released May 1, 2015

We, the People Power Movement - Movimiento Poder Popular, celebrate May Day 2015 by expressing our solidarity with the Baltimore uprising in all its forms against racism, police brutality, and state violence. We especially support the Black and Brown youth of Baltimore who have courageously taken over and shut down the streets against vicious police violence.

We know, for instance, that the City of Baltimore provoked the high school student uprising that occurred Monday afternoon on April 27, 2015, by shutting down public transportation and deploying militarized riot police. We know that they left Black youth in the streets with no choice but to strike back and defend themselves against an invasion and occupation of their communities. And we know that those courageous Black youth stood their ground with bricks, rocks, and bottles, forcing police to retreat, a small victory that may have saved lives.

We also reject the corporate media’s racist misrepresentation of the Baltimore uprising as “violent” and the people as “looters”, “thugs,” and “criminals.”

They call them “looters” while Wall Street and U.S. corporations rob our communities between the bell sounds of the New York Stock Exchange. They pay the U.S. government, the military, and the CIA to put the economies of other Black and Brown countries in their pockets. They rob us by closing our public schools and community centers, paying workers poverty wages, defunding our hospitals, building more prisons, raising our rent and tuition, building million dollar malls and condos, bailing out banks, calling corporations “people,” buying out elections, and leaving homes vacant, all in the name of “freedom.” Overseas, they assassinate, invade, bomb, rape, occupy, pillage, colonize, and sign so called free trade agreements, all in the name of “democracy.”

They call them “thugs” while the biggest and most violent gangs in this country are the law enforcement agencies (which really enforce the laws of the elite) that terrorize us: the police, FBI, DEA, Transportation Security Administration (TSA), Department of Homeland Security, and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).

They call them “violent” and “criminal” while police officers roam wild committing acts of terrorism against poor and working class Black and Brown communities, all in the name of protecting and serving the real criminals: the elites, the rich who exploit our labor, plunder our resources, take our wealth, and destroy our communities, all with impunity. But get caught looking at a cop and “running while Black,” and you get the death penalty. The criminal (in)justice system truly is criminal. They tell them to be “nonviolent and peaceful” but never tell police to be “nonviolent and peaceful.”

We also caution against a common sentiment among our brothers, sisters, and comrades that shuns the militant actions of their peers and heightens division in the movement between "peaceful” and “violent” protestors. While we should be vigilant of agent provocateurs and police infiltrators who aim to sabotage the movement, we must also be critical of liberals, opportunists, and big “leaders” who aim to co-opt and sterilize the militant grassroots resistance that is necessary to gain our freedom. Martin Luther King Jr. told us that, “A riot is the language of the unheard.” Instead of blaming the youth for resisting by any means necessary, we should be blaming the injustices that provoke their anger. They are simply igniting the streets of Baltimore with the same fire set inside them by the banks, corporations, and their paid politicians and paramilitary forces.

From Moment to Movement: Educate, Agitate, Organize!

Although we understand that rioting is a natural reaction to racist police violence and class oppression, it is only an emotionally temporary outburst and not effective in winning our liberation. It may even be used to justify further repression. Instead, we advise our brothers, sisters, and comrades in Baltimore to keep the energy high and educate each other on the history of resistance—from the slaveships that left the African shores to the labor and Black Power movements. Through political education we can respond to injustice with discipline, unity, and organization in order to build strong, sustainable communities of resistance and elevate the long but worthy struggle to fight for Popular Control of our society and achieve Fundamental Social Change. We the oppressed live in a burning house of white supremacy, capitalism, and patriarchy. It is no use saving it. Our goal now is to dismantle it through political education and mass organized resistance in order to build a new society that is humane, peaceful, and just for all.

The Need for Internationalism

Finally, we highlight a global uprising currently being led by oppressed people around the world. Black people in Brazil are also rising up against racism and police violence, while others are mobilizing against neocolonialism in the Black nations of Haiti in the Caribbean, and Burkina Faso and Burundi in Africa. Malcolm X told us that when Black people on one side of the world rise up, an internal signal lights up among others throughout the African diaspora. The fight against U.S. imperialism is also thriving in countries like Cuba and Venezuela, where the people are building a new humane society, and in Mexico, where indigenous people are defending themselves with community-controlled police forces against neoliberalism and police terror. The U.S. government, of course, sees all of this as a threat to its decaying capitalist domination here and abroad. It is running on its last breath.The need for international solidarity is pertinent now more than ever. Black lives matter! All power to the people!

“When you talk about revolution, most people think violence, without realizing that the real content of any kind of revolutionary thrust lies in the principles and the goals that you’re striving for, not in the way you reach them. When someone asks me about violence, I just find it incredible, because what it means is that the person that is asking that question has absolutely no idea what Black people have gone through, what Black people have experienced in this country, since the time the first Black person was kidnapped from the shores of Africa.”

~ Angela Davis, 1972, The Black Power Mixtape (17:10)

Jane Lane or Daria Morgendorffer?

I personally choose Jane because it seems that even know everything is the truth about the way the people really are in not only the show, but in real life as well, like fads or trends, or the way the media tries to bullshit the minds of people into buying their product or electing them for some such as presidential debates. But one thing about Jane that I find Interesting is that even know she has just about the same thoughts and feelings as Daria, she still shows positive vibes about herself such as putting on make up before school, I don’t know maybe I’m just rambling but I still feel as though Jane has just a smudge more upbeat attitude about life even though the people she has to come in contact with. So you tell me Daria or Jane?

Chloé Bourgeois

Alternatively titled “Why this spoiled brat may turn into my favorite character yet.”

(Spoilers, obviously.)

The narrative of the show so far really, really wants us to hate Chloé. At every possible turn she is painted as an evil brat, she is a central cause of approximately a billion akumatizations, she’s a direct antagonist of the main character, and oh my god does she need more love from this fandom.

Chloé Bourgeois’ mother is either dead or so far absent from her life that she might as well be. Her father believes in buying love (and elections), and has never once been shown to be fair or reasonable to his enemies. Her singular parental unit has taught her that you show affection with gifts and by targeting others with abuse on the behalf of the person you like. That ‘popularity’ and 'success’ and ‘wealth’ and 'happiness’ are all synonyms. She has a large, empty room and an absentee father. In all likelihood she’s modeled her friendship with Sabrina based on how her father treats Sabrina’s father. She has no working model of a healthy relationship of any sort, and every single interaction with her peers crumbles into antagonistic or unhealthy crap almost immediately.

The only way  Chloé knows how to express affection is through extravagant gifts and photo-op style physical attention - gee I wonder who she learned that from - because she has absolutely no working examples of functional relationships in her life. She’s almost uncomfortably uninterested in Adrien’s lack of emotional response to her advances. (Adrien, whose father won’t let him have birthday parties and discourages emotional response at all.) She takes a truly incredible amount of advantage of Sabrina’s need to please. (Sabrina, whose idea of friendship is borderline-stalkerish and gets passionately, almost violently upset if you don’t accept her gifts.) If she were a grown adult who knew better I wouldn’t hesitate to dismiss her as a villain, but here’s the thing, she’s not. She’s a young teenager who has never had a single healthy relationship in her life, and this isn’t exactly her fault.

You know what’s really, really interesting to me, though? The similarities between Chloé and Adrien. Both raised by a single, wealthy father figure with no mother present in their lives, both raised primarily by an employee of their father - Chloé has the staff of her father’s hotel, Adrien has his father’s personal assistant - both are completely spoiled in terms of material wealth but entirely neglected emotionally, and both are expected to be the embodiment of perfection by their fathers. Chloé was Adrien’s only friend before he started school.

The singular, grand distinction between Chloé and Adrien - how one is an unrepentant BITCH and the other is a sweet sunshine child - is self esteem. Chloé KNOWS she deserves better, and acts accordingly - as best she knows how, that is. Adrien has No Clue his home life is less than ideal - besides the absence of his mother, that is. He thinks that not being allowed a birthday party is a reasonable thing, and he responds with depression symptoms and internalizing his feelings. Neither of these children are emotionally healthy and it just goes to show that “Anything for my princess” can be just as damaging of an attitude for a parent to take as “That’s enough emotions for today” - because neither of those attitudes are a substitute for actually parenting your child.

The thing that kills me though, is that while she may not know how to interact with her friends, or other human beings for that matter, and her sense of right and wrong is about as functional as you can expect the child of a politician to get, she wants to be a good person.

For fun, with her singular trusted friend or just alone in her bedroom, Chloé pretends to be the heroine of Paris. She sees what Ladybug and Chat Noir are doing and recognizes them above all others as heroes, as people to be emulated, and even though she has literally no idea how to be a good person, she so desperately WANTS to be a good person - a person like Ladybug - that she doesn’t correct people when they think she is ladybug. Chloé Bourgeois - little miss do you know who I am, I will call my father - freely tosses her own identity out the window in favor of walking in those shoes for just a split second, and the notion that Ladybug rejects her as a friend or doesn’t like her is emotionally distressing enough to cause her to be akumatized.

And like. Chloé has every reason to dislike Chat Noir and Ladybug, if you think about it, because her authority among her peers is based on her father being the mayor. These two vigilante heroes running around Paris SERIOUSLY undermine the authority of the legitimate government. Chloé doesn’t care, she loves them anyway - which is kind of profound, considering.

It’s hard to imagine that Chloé‘s  going to remain a villain and main antagonist on this scale as things progress. She’s primed for a redemption arc. Her place as secondary-antagonist within the narrative is already threatened by Volpina/Lila, and while Lila’s motivations will be revenge, it’s really hard to see Chloé’s motivations as anything more than a misguided sense of self-esteem.  Chloé doesn’t do what she does because being evil is fun, she does what she does because she doesn’t understand how else to interact with people. I would honestly be disappointed if the narrative doesn’t do something amazing with her character.

GoT finale, feudalism, and GRRM - quick musings

You know, I’m actually thinking about this a lot more, because it truly is 

that’s the issue.

Like, I talk a lot about how one of the main points of ASOIAF is how inherently untenable the feudal order is, right? And superficially I can see how people might be viewing the GoT finale as this like, destabilizing narrative (even if we’re going to ignore that feudal concerns appear and disappear in GoT as the plot demands, see: Stannis burning his only heir because he was 20 feet from Winterhell and it was flurrying).

Cheryl basically won by “conquest”, which apparently means Qyburn has the auspices to crown her and everyone now accepts this. She literally blew up the institutions that created order. Then in the North and Porne, there’s bastards leading things, because they don’t give a shit about feudal concerns anymore. Add to this the High Grandpa going on all season about fulfilling your societal function is a great sin because he partied once and it was terrible. D&D bend over backwards to show how quickly people shed any idealized notions of the feudal order in favor of…asspull politics. Or uh. Strong murderers? That might be the theme.

But the thing is, it’s…is “anachronistic” the right word? Because Martin’s whole thing is to show the unstable nature of Westeros’s toxic patriarchal feudal system by actually having people like, follow it, and we see the grief it can cause, the fact that Robb *had* to go to war to make a point because pissing contests matter that much, the fact that the hypocrisies surrounding the concept of the idealized knight. And it’s not that people won’t revolt in Westeros, because that’s exactly what the Sparrow movement was. It was a populist uprising. But one that still operated within the established structures, because it would have been out of place and random for these people to be suddenly spouting Marxist philosophy.

That’s the main issue here: it’s out of place for every single Pornish guard to be magically on-board with a coup because Doran was more about reconciliation than war. And even if in Porne they don’t care about bastardy, they sure as hell care about succession because this is why wars start. A House Sand is ruling? Did Faullaria legitimize herself? These would be questions that people needed answered.

Same with Cheryl’s coronation: she blew up the one known organization held dearly by the small-folk from which her throne derived power, and people calmly stood in the hall and clapped for her as a crown was put on her head? While her entire army was still out on the road with Larry, might I point out? When has a power-vacuum ever played out like this in the slightest? It is out of place, and just disingenuous to how anyone would react.

Then in the North, if we’re supposed to buy that Jon is elected for Jon’s own merits (which what are those, exactly? Marching face-first into a trap?), then why the fuck was Lyanna Mormont evoking oaths sworn to the Starks? Does it matter that he’s a Stark? Are they just going to call him “Stark”? They seem to *think* it matters that he’s Robb’s brother, so…

Like, not even mentioning Sansa’s claim is once again, wildly unrealistic in this society that is sometimes present. I mean, idk if we’re supposed to pretend that this is the same world where 5 wars were fought over the issue of legitimized bastards inheriting, but that no one would even say “oh hey but what about…” Like, that’s the main issue. The setting is meaningless. So how can there be this great exploration of the inherent instability of the feudal order, when it’s been adapting to plot demands for quite some time now?

I’ve had people asking me if it’s possible Cersei becomes queen or Jon becomes KiTN (I’d argue the will would turn up for the latter, but whatever), and like…kind of/maybe? But not in this context, because this context is just meaningless. It’s an anti-feudal narrative in the sense of two dudes in 2015 wrote a plotline that blows up a system they were bored of adapting. They didn’t give 2-seconds of a thought to how anyone, smallfolk to noble, would actually behave in this situation. 

youtube

Bernie Sanders on Democratic Socialism in the United States

Transcript:

In his inaugural remarks in January 1937, in the midst of the Great Depression, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt looked out at the nation and this is what he saw.

He saw tens of millions of its citizens denied the basic necessities of life.

He saw millions of families trying to live on incomes so meager that the pall of family disaster hung over them day by day.

He saw millions denied education, recreation, and the opportunity to better their lot and the lot of their children.

He saw millions lacking the means to buy the products they needed and by their poverty and lack of disposable income denying employment to many other millions.

Keep reading