It has funded abstinence-only programs that have proven ineffective at reducing infection rates,

The article glosses over that pretty quickly. While this program saved lives, how many have been lost (and money wasted) because Bush refused to simply give people some condoms? Not really an accurate portrayal without including that in the tally.

edit: Here's some further reading for those interested Some relevant quotes:

Under the current policy, one third of the money allocated to HIV prevention goes to abstinence-only campaigns, often run by evangelical allies of the administration.

But this figure is also deceptive, because the prevention budget includes things like fighting mother-to-child transmission. In fact, a full two-thirds of the money for the prevention of the sexual spread of HIV goes to abstinence. What's left is targeted to groups considered high-risk. HIV-activists have spent the last two decades trying to show that condoms aren't just for prostitutes and the promiscuous; Bush has undone much of their work.

It doesn't just allow corporations to sue for harm to their profits, but also for harm to their expected profits.

I agree that history is cyclical, although I've always preferred the metaphor of a pendulum. My fear is that the conditions of our country will demand another FDR (and I agree we are close to that now), but they will never reach power because the system is structured against them.

"official figures showed 61 percent of Greeks had rejected a deal"

For elections, that's usually considered to be a large margin of victory.

It just has so much content. I've been enjoying this site a lot, but after the first couple posts of any tag, they start to be 2, 3 days old really quickly. Reddit was just a never ending stream of new content. I can't find anything else that satisfies my short attention span fueled desire to flip through links and comments.

Do you have any links to a good explanation of what Mondragon is and how it works?

It's not just about turnout for the 2012 election, it's about turnout for the primary. And young people turnout for primaries in even lower numbers, as do all voters across the board. It's why "establishment" candidates usually get the nomination.

That is also why Sanders might have a chance. In doesn't matter if CNN, ABC, and especially FOX aren't talking about him, because so few people vote in the primary. And those who do are way more invested in politics than the general public. They have almost certainly heard of him and know what he stands for. And if he gets the nomination, well, of course all the news outlets will start talking about him.

I've always argued that there will never be another FDR, not because he was one of kind, but because the system has changed so much. TV has had a huge influence on who we are willing to elect as a president. Somebody in a wheelchair would never stand a chance in today's world. And candidates are so dependent on money to win.

But maybe things have shifted again to a place where the next FDR can be elected. The internet has (started to?, already?) replaced TV as the dominant form of media consumption. Thus looking presidential under the cameras is no longer as important. TV ads are less influential. I don't know, I am not sure we've reached the tipping point yet, but I hope Bernie shows that we have.

I am fan of socialism in some areas, I'd like to see this community grow.

I've always been a fan of the phrase 'regulated capitalism', happy to see someone else use it.