Three makes a pattern so, with inequality at the top of the news - be it about champagne wars at the House of Lords or the inherent privilege of white males on the streets of America - it is time to have a conversation about the difference between privilege and patronage.
Many orchids are now endangered or going extinct, as we destroy their special habitats. As it is, our exploding populations are changing the climate and irreversibly extinguishing much of the beautiful tapestry of life on Earth, and our mega life support systems, our ecosystems.
The midterms are behind us. In 2016, one thing any Democrat running for president must do is compare the record of Barack Obama (and Bill Clinton) to that of George W. Bush.
Millions of Americans are still filing for bankruptcy because of medical debt, even though they have insurance. In 2015, families could be on the hook for 13,200 in out-of-pocket expenses before their coverage kicks in. That's far more than many household budgets will allow.
Last week, I wrote a piece in this space lamenting the fact that so many Democrats had voted for a budget package that gutted a key provision of the Dodd-Frank Act. The so called swaps push-out provision, now repealed, required banks to separate their speculative business in derivatives from depository banking covered by government insurance and further protected by the Federal Reserve. The broader budget deal, technically a continuing resolution to keep the government funded through next September, also cut a lot of needed public spending and added several odious riders, including one that raises the ceiling on individual campaign contributions to party committees about tenfold. Had Democrats resolutely opposed the deal, I argued, it would have revealed Republicans as friends of Wall Street and enemies of Main Street -- a useful party differentiation between now and 2016.
Since many traditional Democratic constituencies strongly oppose these deals it is reasonable to ask why the Obama administration is so intent on pushing them. The answer is simple: money.
Once a nation turns its back on a resolute determination to cultivate moral deservedness, political and financial superintendency passes to those who gain power illegitimately--a fact described eloquently by President Theodore Roosevelt.
Two weeks before Charles Schumer once again delivered for Wall Street with the omnibus budget deal, he gave a major speech in which he sounded like a progressive champion. He embodies the contradictions that will tear the Democratic Party apart over the next two years.
Beyond recklessly rolling back the financial protections of Dodd-Frank, Congress tacked on several other policy changes to the spending bill that threaten the lives and livelihoods of working families.
The vibrant public response to these police killings is heartening. We are taking to the streets, and rightly so. But where are our protests heading? What should we demand that adequately addresses this destruction of life and hope?
In spite of the intense, unyielding, never-ending opposition to the Affordable Care Act (ACA), or Obamacare, nobody can deny that Obama has tackled the problem of health care costs growing out of control when nobody before him would. And that's not all.
In this interview, he explores the work of Thomas Piketty and the need for the field of economics -- and the country -- to come to terms with the growing gulf between haves and have-nots.
With every protest, now, is a clear and hopeful war cry: We will be heard. We will not be dismissed.
Despite a deep, close and extremely lucrative relationship that lasted decades, JP Morgan Chase wasn't even required to publicly disclose the information that detailed its complicity in Madoff's scheme, including how much money it made and how.
If Warren did choose to enter Democratic primary contests, her backers would cheer wildly. And this would force Clinton to spell out her position on the issues and tell how a Clinton administration would differ from Obama's and husband Bill's.
By selling himself as someone who could get things done with Republicans, Obama gave them the power to make him a success or failure. Unsurprisingly, they chose the latter option. Is Hillary Clinton about to make the same mistake -- and will voters buy it if she does?