Red Mapping
 

Last night, NPR news reported on a phenomenon known as “Red Mapping.”

The Supreme Court’s ruling that corporations are individuals has allowed wealthy CEO’s and business owners to pour massive amounts of money into electing the candidate of their choice. One example of this is Art Pope, chairman of a discount store chain, who pumped millions of dollars into the 2010 North Carolina election for state representatives.

Pope and his family, either directly or through shell outfits, spent 40 million dollars on a series of smear campaigns – mostly through the mail – against Democratic candidates. 40 million dollars is an unheard of amount for a single individual to spend at the State level. The Dems were overwhelmed and Pope bought himself the North Carolina State Legislature. How nice for him.

Interesting stuff.

http://www.npr.org/2011/10/06/141078...licans-win-n-c

Thanks for that post...now I'm sorry I missed the program.
No wonder the Repubicans in Congress are de-funding NPR.

It seems that ever since Nixon's "Dirty Tricks Team" the Repubicans
have become more and more virulent in their tactics to block voting by
citizens that do not vote their Party line.

When it comes to their feeble rational of "preventing voter fraud"
there is no credibility... and I'd laugh if it was funny, but it's not.

Oooops, maybe I will laugh after all.
It seems the Repubicans just cain't hep it...

The only thing I am doubtful about here is that you seem to think this is something new. The USA gave the world the word Gerrymander, but if you analyse the power structure in the "democratic" phase of ancient Rome, it was equally corrupted by the influence of the rich and already-powerful. The same can be said for English democracy for most of it's history.

At times, and in places, there is improvement.

A free and critical media and an alert citizenry are the only factor that works against this corruption. The rights to vote, to access information, and to publish information and opinion critical of the powers-that-be are crucial.

Hence the struggle for the media. Having the right to publish is unimportant if the editor doesn't want to publish.

I see your point and agree.

I guess it's because I became politically aware during the Nixon years,
when Republican and Democratic party conventions here were nationally televised,
and you saw the sausage being made from beginning to end.

At that time there were the "Dixie Democrates"
and there were some (actual) moderate Republicans,
so polarization wasn't so extreme, except as it was forming
over the Viet Nam war and civil rights.

But that's when the Dixie Democrates moved into,
and the moderates were pushed out of the Republican party,
and when the Repubican's "Southern Strategy" began.
Because they were/are a minority party, this was also when
the Repubicans began their efforts at blocking voter access
and gerrymandering in the extreme.

None of the things mentioned in the NPR broadcast surprised me. I, too, came up in the Nixon years and have been skeptical of politicians every since. For those who like their scoundrels to be more modern, I give you Dick Cheney and Halliburten. The beat goes on.

Interestingly, Pope disregarded the media, getting the word out with massive direct mailings attacking democratic candidates and filled with misinformation and out right lies.

The NPR story was based on an article in this week's New Yorker by Jane Mayer. If you want to read a more in depth analysis, its here.

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2...urrentPage=all

Understand what is happening here. McCain expressed it once he listened to Supreme Court arguments. Purchasing government is now legal. Anyone can now spend as much as they want to purchase influence and power. No restrictions exist. Those with the deepest pockets are now preparing to spend where they could not spend due to now 'all gone' restrictions.

Americans are protesting for four weeks. It was about time. Majority Leader Cantor is therefore calling them a mob. Not protestors. Not patriotic Americans. He is calling them a mob because the rich are getting richer while common Americans are suffering almost tens years of reduced incomes.

I have watched the manimals go by
Buying shoes, buying sweets, buying knives.
I have watched the manimals and cried
Buying time, buying ends to other peoples lives.

@tw that line sounds vaguely familiar

The Tea Party Protesters were called "American citizens exercising their rights to free speech and freedom of assembly." The protesters on Wall Street and in various American cities are indeed called a "mob" and even accused of attempting to push the country into civil war. They are also accused of being "anti-capitalism," "anti-free market," and, of course, engaging in "class warfare." Guillotines, anyone? :right:

The far right does not want to have the status quo questioned - especially now that the supreme court has made it so easy for corps to buy state legislatures and members of congress. The elephant in the living room that the right refuses to discuss is the fate of our country. They would have us believe that tea party ideology is more important than jobs for our people, education for our children, medical care for ALL our citizens, and programs which help the elderly and the disabled to live with some human dignity.

Taken to its extreme, right wing ideology will turn the US into a 3rd world country with all power in the hands of a small, extremely wealthy elite backed by a powerful military (you will notice that the right wishes the military alone to remain unscathed by any budget cuts). It is disheartening, to say the least.

Jesus ƒuck, you mean these politicians you speak of actually try to get elected, and furthermore have groups called "parties" that devise ways of scheming for enough votes to make this happen? This is unprecedented--I daresay the sky is falling! I will rush right out and vote for the other guys.

.

Agreed. Which ever party is in power uses the Gerrymander to construct voting blocks that will support their parties future power prospects. It is not just the Republickins. In the last election the people spoke and through out a whole bunch of Demoncrats, no big deal, that is how the elections are suppose to work. If they vote the Dems out of the Senate in the next election, that is how it works.

The example of NC is one example. No different than the attempted influence of outside money in Wisconsin from the Unions or other attempts by Union money to influence votes. They have a long history of influencing and buying votes in many cities and states. George Soros is the equivalent of this guy Pope and the Koch brothers, and Soros has been around a lot longer. Now that rich conservatives have entered the game in the same way it is suppose to be a new and exciting expose. It's not.

Interesting perspective, which group hates the government? I see potential totalitarians in both camps, but at least the lefties don't have that 1930's style.

I wonder when they will run out of food and a place to take a dump? I am sure those businesses in Wall Street aren't letting them in the door.

There are parties that first work for the nation; second for the party. Then are parties that work 100% for the party to a destruction of all others. You do see a difference between the Nazi party and other political parties? Some are part of a healthy political process. One is only about themselves as the expense of all others.

Again the continuing process of hate for the American worker. They must be wrong because Cantor and Limbaugh's brainwashed disciples are told it must be so.

Clearly TheMercenary considers them a mob because their living standards are dropping every year. And because that could not happen due to tax cuts for the rich, voodoo economics, and "Reagan proved that deficits don't matter".

At what point do you apologize for so much evil created by wacko extremism? At what point do you admit American workers have finally had enough?

I have been following Occupy Denver and Porta Potties have been set up in the down town area. Supporters are dropping off food and other supplies as well as mailing them in. If a provincial place like Denver can deal with these logistics, I'm sure New York can. :rolleyes:

Agreed that outside money has always been used in an attempt to influence the political process. The thing that is different now is that the Supreme Court has ruled that corps can LEGALLY pour in far greater sums of money than previously due to their new status as "persons." The results of this ruling ARE new.

BTW, that's "threw" not "through." I am not normally a spelling Nazi, but I couldn't understand what you were saying until I re-read the sentence twice.

This "red mapping" sounds evil. I hate things that have an ominous title like that. I'd really go over the edge if someone had a phrase to describe this, that rhymes. Things that rhyme are always totally true. But in this case, that icky feeling I get from the phrase "red mapping" is all I need.

I didn't read the thread, because it smacks of politics.

There is something called Red Lining in lending..... where if you live in a bad neighborhood, the buyers look harder at the deal. It's technically illegal... like racial profiling... but I think it happens if it's a local bank sometimes.

Like... an applicant in Camden, might be less likely to get approved than one in Merchantville if it's a close thing.

Who is paying for them? If it is tax payer funds they should be removed immediately.

I have no problem with that.



The law is the law. If you want it changed get together a bunch of people and vote out the people you don't like in the next election. But if the last election is any measure I think you are in for harder times of making such changes in the next one...

In the greater scheme of things unimportant to me, could care less. Carry on... :rolleyes:

Are cars in Camden more likely to be vandalized/damages/stolen than in Merchantville?

Absolutely not! I bet their insurance is much lower as well.

YES.

... I bet car insurance costs more there

The "red lining" was something the banks and realtors did, secretly.
They drew lines around certain neighborhoods.
The banks would not issue mortages and the realtors would not show houses inside the red-lined areas.
HUD laws made such practices illegal.

Hmm... I was thinking that they were protecting theirs ASSet. I ASSume thats covered in the insurance end.

Do more people in Camden default? Could that be it?

And now the gobberment is talking about taking more of our tax dollars and bailing out the people who made bad decisions about their buying up to the next biggest house on our dime.

Yeah, it's OK for tax payers to pay for golden parachutes for CEO's, OK for tax payers to pay billions if not trillions to cover the losses from corporate greed and outright fraud and theft by financial institutions. But if an ordinary citizen has to take a crap? God forbid that the tax payer spends so much as a dime on maintaining civic cleanliness and to protect the public health. I don't know where your priorities come from, but the term "reducto ad absurbiam" must have been coined especially for you.

If I make it up to Denver to take part in any of the protests there. I'll be sure to lay a turd in the nearest legislative punch bowl, just for you. :p:

So far the only people mentioning guillotines with intent, Sam, are Rosie O'Donnell -- and you.

(Capitalization as original.)

Considering your ideas are one-eighty off from the actual situation -- you've got your right wing mixed up with your left under the impression you are anti-fascist or something -- I'd say you deserve some disheartening. You are still bitterly hostile to about every worthwhile thought ever thought, wildly and incontinently slurping up socialist ideas in their stead, as seen above. Fortunately for me, my mentality does not suck nearly so much as yours does -- kid, you really plan ahead and make an effort. In that vein, you might set up to move to, oh, Québec in late 2012, now that the electorate has seen the face of Socialism, and is going to put the boot to it the next general election.

A Little Soft, Mr. President?

Aimless Obama walks alone

P.S.: Sam, speaking of "especially for you," it's absurdam. Your willingness to try teaching your grandmother to suck eggs is surely charitable, but it does leave you on the same playing field with Gollum. UG.

Always nice to see that you still take everything literally. :rolleyes:

:behead:

I am simply holding the Right accountable for its actions. Its willing to bail out big biz and banks, but not help with a jobs bill (or anything else) for the common man. The only strategies the right seems to embrace are 1) no tax reform, no matter what - especially if it would effect the wealthy and 2) to dismantle the social safety net. These two policies are irresponsible and benefit the few at the expense of the mamy.

Well, you're wrong. I'm tired of being disheartened.

Aww, do you miss my old sig line? I'll put it back for a while just for you.

The Latin correction is noted. However, my comment was directed at Merc - a person less like my grandmother I cannot imagine. :eek:

Yea, those Capaitolistic policies that made our country great just suck ass if they don't benefit you directly.... That is your message.

There is no "public health" issue, that is a total straw man argument, what crap. Is this where you cry?

Maybe you could just join this stupid fucker who has done a huge amount of public lobbying to make his point made and I think represents most of the dumb fucks who are protesting...

as he shits on a cop car on camera.... Well done.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...OLICE-CAR.html

Well, now I understand one reason why your arguments are so often incoherent. You do not know the definition of capitalism as practiced (or as it is SUPPOSED to be practiced) in the United States:

(Wikipedia)

Capitalism does not mean that the government distributes cash handouts to whichever corp can exert enough pressure on Congress. Even Ayn Rand understood that, for crying out loud, and she didn't understand much.

You seem to have flunked science, in addition to civics. The problem is "crap." If you have people using alleys, parks and other public places to relieve themselves, you are encouraging the spread of disease, including such killers as cholera. Tax payers are better off installing a few porta potties.

Occupy's are currently costing taxpayers millions.

But bailouts cost hundreds of billions, and the interest on that is still accumulating.

How much is occupying Iraq still costing?

Given that the health of your government and nation is genuinely at stake, you shouldn't be arguing about a few hundred million for porta potties and police overtime.

How much do presidential candidates spend trying to get elected? Around a billion. Perspective, C-man.

ETA: umm, didn't mean this to sound hostile, Classic, but re-reading it, it might come across that way. So, like, peace, hugs and mung beans, dude.

The Constitution guarantees the right to free speech along with freedom of assembly. A few million dollars is a drop in the bucket for tax payers to make sure these freedoms are protected.

And what Zen said.

Thanks for making my point guys... :neutral:

Most of those costs are unforced. Port-a-potties are much cheaper than mass arrests.

Rand was the bomb. Atlas is shrugging. You funk politics. The local government at the point of protest has no responsibility to support the protesters with tax payer funds and they are costing the local governments millions of dollars.

"Capitalism is an economic system in which the means of production are privately owned and operated for profit, usually in competitive markets." Wiki.

Corps can make any amount of money and had it out to what ever organization they want. Government does not "hand out cash" to the corps. Or maybe you are trying to say that because the government gives a corp, like say GE, a tax break they are handing them money. That would be a big fail as well.

I agree with your Wiki definition, but I was not talking about tax breaks in my reply. I was talking about the government and, by extension, the tax payer, handing out billions to mismanaged financial institutions to prevent them from failing. That is anything BUT capitalism.

I think Rand would be horrified by present day developments. At least her characters knew how to run a business and were described as honest. Two attributes lacking in many CEO's today. :eyebrow:

http://www.newappsblog.com/2011/04/g...-sullivan.html

Tell it to Obama and Bush, they crafted it. And that was in the past. Great to see all these protests over what happened 3 years ago. I have no doubt that Obama would do it again, like he, Pelosi, and Reid totally screwed this nation with his "stimulus".

I think Rand would be shaking her head in disbelief that the thought of the destruction of this countries infrastructure via the Obama and Bush administrations over regulation appears to be a precursor to what happened in Atlas Shrugged.

Atlas isn't shrugging, he's choking. One wafer thin mint too many.

Well we will see when they start to close down businesses and people lose more jobs because of the actions of this government.

And because of their actions. They also have agency.

So be it. But in the end stop blaming the job makers and start looking at the regulators, that is where the problem hides.

Who currently controls the regulators?

Kinda weird/funny/sad explanation here. VERY partisan IMO.

from wiki ...

From your link:

This sums up the current situation perfectly.

What job makers? Are you talking about the ones who couldn't wait to make jobs in the third world and outsourced American jobs by the millions to Bangladesh and the like? Nice job, "job makers."

Or are you talking about the "job makers" who took advantage of the Bush era tax cuts by banking that extra money in the Cayman Islands and giving CEO's even more obscene renumerations than before?

Reinvesting in their own companies? Why would anyone do that? Such investments take time to come to fruition, but putting that money into the banks made for a great bottom line right away. During eight years under Bush, the economy gained a net 188,000 private sector jobs. So much for tax cuts encouraging job makers to actually create jobs.

And what few regulators we had in place more resembled the fox guarding the hen house than they did anything else.

Obama still cannot get a large number of his administrators into office. Republicans have put secret holds on these people - including a Nobel prize winner – even for three years because of ‘self admitted’ political reasons. To make sure Obama does not appoint these people anyway, wacko extremists have made sure Congress convenes at least every three days - even during Congressional recesses - so that Obama cannot appoint his people.

Griff had discussed this political game long ago. Wacko Republicans - not to be confused by patriotic moderate Republicans - want to harm America so that Obama will fail. Love it when deregulation created secret Wall Street shenanigans that created this recession, Bernie Madoff, K Street, unlimited campaign contributions so that the rich can buy government, welfare for the rich, ... and blame it all on Obama.

How do regulators do their job when Obama cannot even get his administrators into office? You do remember when they were openly saying, "We want Obama to fail". That means even stifling Obama's appointment so that government cannot do its job.

False and misleading.


http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...-jobs-created/