Hasta La Gadget!

Likenesses of Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, Anthony Kennedy, Samuel Alito, John Roberts (created by Daniel Lowenstein) stand in front of the 10th Circuit Court of appeals in Denver after 2014 McCutcheon v. FEC decision Photo reprinted with permission of Laura Avant

The decades-long power grab by greedy oligarchs and the concomitant convulsion of democracy has been vastly accelerated by Supreme Court decisions that equate money and free speech, granting the latter to flush billionaires and effectively silencing the majority.

In Citizens United v. FEC in 2010, the five most conservative Supreme Court justices struck down the longstanding ban on corporate expenditures in federal elections. Their action opened the floodgates for vast amounts of secret money and unlimited contributions that distort elections and corrupt government policy-making, observed Fred Wertheimer, longtime national leader on money in politics and campaign finance reform. Furthermore, the “Citizens United and [subsequent] McCutcheon decisions…have empowered a new class of American political oligarchs and have come at the enormous expense of the voices and interests of more than 300 million Americans.”

Senator Bernie Sanders comments that since the Citizens United v. FEC decision, relatively few donors are exerting massive influence over U.S. politics and policy , the top .01 percent of income earners making more than 40 percent of campaign contributions. The Brennan Center reports that more than $1 billion in super PAC spending has occurred since Citizens United, with almost 60 percent of that money coming from 195 individuals and their spouses.

At the apex of extraordinary wealth sit David and Charles Koch, with a net worth of $44.9 billion and $44.8 billion respectively, oil barons whose wealth from Koch Industries continues to multiply despite the fall of oil prices by more than 50 percent since June 2014. The Koch brother’s political network has announced their plan to more than double what they spent on the 2012 elections (over $400 million), allocating almost $889 million for the 2016 elections. Said to total roughly as much as Republican Party’s three National Committees spent on the last presidential election, most of this staggering sum is “secret” money. The Kochs are not required to register under campaign finance laws, follow financial reporting rules of a political party, or reveal donors, even though they have effectively created a pseudo-political party of conservative rich activists. At their recent Palm Springs retreat hosting probable Republican presidential candidates, the Kochs’ network for the first time indicated an interest in weighing in on the presidential primary fight.

Sanders relates that in the ’90s unlimited corporate soft money flowed to both political parties, which voted to deregulate Wall St. and passed a “free trade” deal that shipped U.S. jobs overseas – just the beginning of the symbiotic relationship between money and power. The Trans-Pacific Partnership, one of a number of trade deals currently being negotiated, has been called “NAFTA on steroids,” having more to do with a huge corporate power grab than with trade.

Former Colorado HD2 candidate and Clean Slate Now board member Owen Perkins observes that the 2014 election was marked by record-breaking special interest money, $4 billion spent overall, and the lowest voter turnout since World War II – dual contributors to cynicism and the slide of democracy.

Insult upon injury, in 2014 the “Supreme Court Five” ruled in McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission that the cap on the amount of aggregate contributions made by an individual to candidates, parties and political committees be raised from $123,000 to $5.9 million.

Said Wertheimer, the McCutheon v. FEC decision represented just one more step by the Supreme Court majority to destroy the nation’s campaign finance laws. “The Court in McCutcheon overturned forty years of national policy and thirty-eight years of judicial precedent to strike down the overall limits on the total contributions an individual could give to federal candidates and to party committees in an election cycle…The McCutcheon decision represents the first time that the Supreme Court has reversed a holding in its landmark decision in Buckley v. Valeo and the first time the Court has struck down a core federal contribution limit.”

A symptom of the corrupt ties of money and power and the erosion of any semblance of U.S. democracy, current Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell requested permission to submit testimony in the McCutcheon case. The Supreme Court permitted his lawyer to present his views – that wealthy donors should be able to donate unlimited sums of money directly to political candidates.

It has become painfully obvious that government is not working for the people, and won’t until the corrupting influence of big money is eliminated or otherwise countered.

Some Antidotes to Big Money Control of Washington

Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens wrote in his dissent to Citizens United that corporate “‘personhood’ often serves as a useful legal fiction. But they are not themselves members of ‘We the People’ by whom and for whom our Constitution was established.”

Move to Amend is working to pass a 28th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution establishing that “money is not speech, and that human beings, not corporations, are persons entitled to constitutional rights.” A constitutional amendment requires the action of Congress (whose profligate actions it seeks to remedy). Note: A constitutional amendment must be proposed by either a 2/3 vote of both houses of Congress (the way most amendments have passed) or by a constitutional convention convened when the legislatures of 2/3 of states request. The amendment has to be ratified by the legislatures of 3/4 of the states, or by conventions in 3/4 of the states, depending on what Congress proposes.

In Denver on the fifth anniversary of Citizens United a coalition of groups held a Press Conference to share strategies for moving forward, even as they unveiled a “Democracy Wall” picturing messages from Colorado residents about corrupting effects of big money on elections.

Efforts to level the playing field between persons and corporations include passing anti-corruption laws at every level of government; requiring disclosure of political contributions; and helping small donors leverage their contributions to balance their participation with big money lobbies. Local Community Rights groups organizing in communities around the country also seek to pass local ordinances to protect their air, water and land, and state constitutional amendments to prevent corporate preemption of those laws.

Colorado Public Interest Research Group (COPIRG) unveiled their report Reclaiming Our Democracy: Moving from Big Money Dominance in the 2014 Midterms to a Small Donor Democracy. The report examines the role of money in the 2014 congressional elections, and demonstrates that matching small political contributions with limited public funds “can change the campaign landscape for grassroots candidates.”

Clean Slate Now advocates for legislation and candidates focused on campaign reforms, specifically promoting publicly financed campaigns and small donor empowerment, addressed in part by their endorsement of The Government By the People Act. Clean Slate tracks candidates who do or do not accept special interest PAC money.

Also represented at the event was an activist from Lafayette who has worked with the Colorado Community Rights Network. To date, over 150 local ordinances and charter amendments to restore local community rights and prevent corporate preemption have been passed in 11 states. In Colorado in 2013, aided by Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund (CELDF), the residents of Lafayette passed a Community Bill of Rights, which was added to their City’s Charter. It bans oil and gas extraction within the city limits, grants rights to Nature, and states that corporations are not people. Such acts challenge several centuries of court decisions and laws that bypass the basic democratic rights of people, and grant so-called corporate rights of “personhood.” Subsequently, the Colorado Oil and Gas Association (COGA), sued the City of Lafayette, claiming that a State law — the Colorado Oil and Gas Act — trumps the people’s right to self-determination. Lafayette citizens in turn launched a class action lawsuit to protect their community rights ban on fracking.

The group Represent.Us has initiated an Anti-Corruption Act, seeking to expand its adoption in cities and states across the country. In brief, it seeks to 1) Stop lobbyist bribery (i.e., banks should not give money to legislators who regulate them); 2) End secret money; and 3) Empower voters by granting a tax credit to those who remain within a certain contribution limit. In 2014 Tallahassee, Florida became the first U.S. city to adopt the American Anti-Corruption Act, requiring the establishment of an Independent Ethics Office to Oversee City Commissioners. Emphasizing a “cross-partisan” campaign, the Tallahassee coalition included a former president of the League of Women Voters, the chair of the Florida Tea Party, the chair of Florida Common Cause, and a former County Commissioner.

Naming the influence of big money on politics and policy the “next big American crisis,” advocates of reform note the system is rigged for big banks, energy companies and other special interests; that courts line up against the majority on basic democratic freedoms; while elections are handed over to big money lobbyists, with consequent congressional gridlock blocking reform.

With the intent of countering big money elections and multiplying the impact of small-dollar donors while amplifying their voices, Rep. John Sarbanes (D-Md) reintroduced the Government by the People Act (H.R. 20) on the fifth anniversary of Citizens United v. FEC. To encourage increased numbers of smaller donations to candidates, the Act would grant a tax credit to donors who do not give more than $300 cumulatively to any one Congressional candidate. It would amplify the voice of small-dollar donors by matching donations of $150 or less, providing a candidate forgoes big-money interests. Further matching funds would be available to candidates who meet fundraising thresholds in the final 60 days of a campaign. Over 150 congressional cosponsors are listed.

Rep. Sarbanes expressed the need to level the election playing field, to ensure that “the priorities and concerns of the people will once again find expression in the public policy that comes out of Washington.” Sarbanes is reportedly one of only 5 congressional members who did not take PAC money last year.

Other remedies to establish the people’s democratic control of government include efforts to open up the electoral process that is now controlled by the Republican and Democratic parties. Permitting “Yes” – “No” voting on all candidates, or multiple “Yes” votes could begin to level the playing field, and counter the “spoiler” effect that is based on the domination by two political parties.

Big-money politics is promoted by a corporate media that makes a killing every election season. Instead of media treating elections as a commercial endeavor, why not a public service that examines the issues and grants equal time to all serious candidates. Ballotpedia lists each state’s requirements to qualify for ballot access. In Colorado candidates for State House or Congress may have to collect 400 to 1,000 signatures, or 2-30 percent of the total number of votes cast for that office in the previous election.

Ballot access tracker Richard Winger notes that for presidential elections the bar is set much higher for minority and independent candidates than for for the two major party candidates.

In 14 years, you will be my 18-year-old son. We will have gone through many trials and tribulations together. We will be different people in 14 years. I will be a different mother. You will be a different child; mostly because you won’t be a child at all. You will be a teenager, a young adult, a — gulp — man. I will have no idea how we’ve gotten to that point. I will still watch you nervously as you push the boundaries. I will watch you leave the nest with mixed emotions. I will hope that what I’ve done has been enough.

But I’m sure I won’t be alone. Because I will have other moms beside me… hoping along with me…

1. I hope you’re successful, but not so successful that you’ve breezed through life.
2. I hope you’re smart, but not so smart that you’re bored in class.
3. I hope you’re kind, but not so kind that people walk all over you.
4. I hope you’re handsome, but not so handsome that girls throw themselves at you.
5. I hope you’re a mama’s boy, but not such a mama’s boy that you have no independence.
6. I hope you’re strong, but not so strong that people wonder if you do steroids.
7. I hope you’re patient, but not so patient that you sit back and watch life roll by.
8. I hope you’re passionate, but not so passionate that you marry the first girl you see.
9. I hope you’re balanced, but not so balanced that you become boring.
10. I hope you’re competitive, but not so competitive that you become a sore loser.
11. I hope you’re determined, but not so determined that you will destroy anything in your path.
12. I hope you’re optimistic, but not optimistic that you can’t accept reality.
13. I hope you’re brave, but not so brave that you get yourself into trouble.
14. I hope you’re happy, but… nothing. I just want you to be happy…

Originally appeared on MomShar.com

By Sierra Filucci, Common Sense Media Executive Editor of Parenting Content

How’s this for a scary statistic: Studies show that kids as young as 5 say they don’t like their bodies.

Common Sense Media’s survey of body-image research — Children, Teens, Media and Body Image — reveals many more surprising facts, but it also shows evidence that parents play a huge role in shaping how kids think and feel about their bodies. Starting to bolster kids’ body image early, even in preschool, can make a big difference in how kids feel about themselves as they grow up.

Here are five ways to immunize your kids against poor body image, with conversation starters, media picks and resources to support your discussions:

1. Avoid stereotypes in your kids’ media — starting when kids are in preschool. Look for TV, movies and other media that portray healthy body sizes and avoid sexualized or stereotypical story lines or gendered characters, such as young girls in makeup or boys who are always macho.

• Probe in an open-ended way for beliefs about gender and body types, and follow up with simple language to debunk stereotypes: “What do you think Andy would like for his birthday? Trucks? Do you think he’d like dolls, too?”
• Whenever possible, use gender-neutral or gender-diverse pronouns to reference characters, animals, and so on. For example, not every dinosaur is a “he” and kitten a “she.”

RESOURCES: Books That Promote a Healthy Body Image, 8 Girl-Power Apps for Young Kids, Positive Role Model TV for Girls, TV That’s Good for Boys

2. Call out stereotypes when you see them. When you see gender stereotypes in media — for example, during sporting events such as the Super Bowl — talk about them.

• As much as possible, minimize exposure to stereotypical depictions of men and women, but when kids see them, demonstrate that questioning how men and women are portrayed is valuable (and even fun). Ask: “Do you think she’s cold in that bikini?”
• Teach kids how magazine and advertising photos are altered by computers to make skin look smoother or people look taller. Make a game out of it: Spot the Photoshop!

RESOURCES: What Are Boys Learning from the Super Bowl?, The Ugly Truth Behind Pretty Pictures

3. Challenge assumptions. Ask kids what they think about heavyset or slim toys or characters on TV and in movies. Keep an ear out for kids expressing assumptions about real people based on their body sizes.

• Remind kids that bodies come in all shapes and sizes — even if they don’t see that on TV — and that variety is normal, healthy, and part of what makes life interesting.
• Tap into preschoolers’ ability to empathize by asking how they think a TV character felt when criticized for their appearance. Ask: “How would you feel if someone teased you like that?”

RESOURCES: Children, Teens, Media, and Body Image Infographic

4. Ban “fat talk” in your family. Parents — especially mothers — who complain about their appearances or bodies, even casually, make a big impact on how kids think about their bodies.

Model a positive attitude toward your own body, and encourage kids to think positively about what their bodies can do. Ask: “What can you do with those strong arms?”

Discuss health instead of weight or size. Ask: “How does your body feel when you play sports/exercise/run around?” Say: “My body feels so energetic when I eat healthy food.”

FACTS: According to Common Sense Media’s Children, Teens, Media and Body Image, 5- to 8-year-old children’s perceptions of their mothers’ body dissatisfaction predicts their own body dissatisfaction. And girls whose fathers tended to express concern about the girls’ weight judged themselves to be less physically able than those whose fathers didn’t.

5. Focus on behavior, talents, and character traits instead of physical size or appearance. When discussing fictional characters, celebrities, and friends and family, talk about what they do, not what they look like.

• Talk about qualities such as kindness, curiosity, and perseverance that you value more than appearance. Ask: “What makes a good friend?” Say: “She must have practiced for a long time to be good at dancing!”
• Prepare kids for when they hear others commenting, comparing, or criticizing bodies or appearance. Role-play situations where kids can try out different responses, such as: “I don’t care what she looks like. She’s friendly, and that’s what matters to me.”

RESOURCES: Girls and Body Image Family Tip Sheet, Boys and Body Image Family Tip Sheet, Boys, Girls, and Media Messages

Looking for Information About Other Common Parenting Concerns?
Healthy Screen Time Habits
Facebook, Instagram, and Social Media
Special Needs and Learning Difficulties

About Common Sense Media
Common Sense Media is dedicated to improving the lives of kids and families by providing the trustworthy information, education, and independent voice they need to thrive in a world of media and technology. We exist because our kids are growing up in a culture that profoundly impacts their physical, social, and emotional well-being. We provide families with the advice and media reviews they need in order to make the best choices for their children. Through our education programs and policy efforts, Common Sense Media empowers parents, educators, and young people to become knowledgeable and responsible digital citizens. For more information, go to:www.commonsense.org.

Nice to meet you, Grunky Peep, from Georgia Southern University.

College and professional sports are usually fertile ground for player names that border on the bizarre. And no one spins this trend better than “Key & Peele.” TheirEast/West College Bowl introduction parodies have introduced us to college superstars like Hingle McCringleberry, Jackmerius Tacktheratrix and the player fomerly known as Mousecop.

Now we have even more names to crack up over in this clip from their upcoming Super Bowl Special. But be careful now, there are some real players thrown into the mix too. They might have unreal names, but the have very real feelings.

The “Key & Peele Super Bowl Special” premieres January 30 at 10:00 p.m./9:00 CT on Comedy Central.

By: Rachael Rettner
Published: 01/27/2015 7:00 AM EST on LiveScience

Girls who drink a lot of soda and other sugary drinks may get their first menstrual periods earlier than girls who don’t often consume these drinks, a new study suggests.

The research involved more than 5,500 U.S. girls ages 9 to 14 who had not yet had their first periods at the study’s start. Researchers asked the girls questions about their diets, including how frequently they consumed soda and other sugar-sweetened beverages (such as fruit drinks and iced tea), and tracked the girls for five years (from 1996 to 2001).

Girls who drank more than 1.5 servings of sugary drinks daily started their menstrual periods nearly three months earlier than those who consumed two or fewer sugary drinks per week, the study found.

“Our study adds to increasing concern about the widespread consumption of sugar-sweetened drinks among children and adolescents in the USA and elsewhere,” study author Karin Michels, an associate professor at Harvard Medical School, said in a statement. The results are important because researchers have observed that girls in developed countries may be entering puberty at younger ages, but the reason for this change remains unclear, she said.

The findings held even after the researchers took into account other factors that may affect a girl’s age of first menstruation, including the girl’s height, body mass index, ethnicity, activity level and total food intake. [Wonder Woman: 10 Interesting Facts About the Female Body]

When the researchers looked at the effect of specific beverages, they found that those drinks with added sugar (such as soda) were linked with earlier periods, but those without added sugar (such as some fruit juices) were not.Consuming sugar-sweetened beverages has been linked to weight gain. And obesity, in turn, has been shown to increase the risk for early onset of menstruation. But the study found that BMI had only a small effect on the link between sugary drinks and early periods, meaning that other factors may be the driving force behind the findings.

For example, the researchers noted that eating foods (such as soda) that quickly raise a person’s blood sugar levels result in an increase in levels of the hormone insulin. This may, in turn, affect levels of sex hormones, which would influence menstruation.

Still, the study found only an association, and cannot prove there is a cause-and-effect relationship between sugary drinks and earlier periods.

It could be that girls who have started to mature early also tend to drink more sugary drinks because they are more mature, the researchers said. (For example, these girls may have different tastes, or may be treated differently by their parents, than girls who mature later.)

In addition, it’s not clear whether a three-month difference in when a girl starts getting her period would have a meaningful impact on her health. Dr. Joshua Yang, a pediatric endocrinologist at the Arnold Palmer Hospital for Children in Orlando, Florida, said that at an individual level, “three months really isn’t that big a deal” in terms of its impact on health.

The researchers said that a one-year decrease in the age at which a girl starts her period is linked with a 5 percent increase in the individual’s risk of breast cancer, and so a three-month decrease in age of first period could have a “modest impact” on breast cancer risk. Yang said he did not know of any studies that looked at whether a three-month decrease in age of first period would affect a woman’s breast cancer risk.

Still, the impact of sugar-sweetened beverage consumption on age of first period, and possible breast cancer risk, should not be overlooked, because unlike most other predictors of a girl’s age at her first period, sugar-sweetened beverage consumption is something people can change, the researchers said.

The study will be published online today (Jan. 27) in the journal Human Reproduction.

Follow Rachael Rettner @RachaelRettner. Follow Live Science @livescience, Facebook & Google+. Original article on Live Science.

Copyright 2015 LiveScience, a TechMediaNetwork company. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.