Dot Calm's Page of Truth & Sedition

The 14 Defining Characteristics Of Fascism

2012-01-28T07:58:00.000-08:00

By Dr. Lawrence Britt

Dr. Lawrence Britt has examined the fascist regimes of Hitler (Germany), Mussolini (Italy), Franco (Spain), Suharto (Indonesia) and several Latin American regimes. Britt found 14 defining characteristics common to each:

1. Powerful and Continuing Nationalism -- Fascist regimes tend to make constant use of patriotic mottos, slogans, symbols, songs, and other paraphernalia. Flags are seen everywhere, as are flag symbols on clothing and in public displays.

2. Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights -- Because of fear of enemies and the need for security, the people in fascist regimes are persuaded that human rights can be ignored in certain cases because of "need." The people tend to look the other way or even approve of torture, summary executions, assassinations, long incarcerations of prisoners, etc.

3. Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause -- The people are rallied into a unifying patriotic frenzy over the need to eliminate a perceived common threat or foe: racial , ethnic or religious minorities; liberals; communists; socialists, terrorists, etc.

4. Supremacy of the Military -- Even when there are widespread domestic problems, the military is given a disproportionate amount of government funding, and the domestic agenda is neglected. Soldiers and military service are glamorized.

5. Rampant Sexism -- The governments of fascist nations tend to be almost exclusively male-dominated. Under fascist regimes, traditional gender roles are made more rigid. Divorce, abortion and homosexuality are suppressed and the state is represented as the ultimate guardian of the family institution.

6. Controlled Mass Media -- Sometimes to media is directly controlled by the government, but in other cases, the media is indirectly controlled by government regulation, or sympathetic media spokespeople and executives. Censorship, especially in war time, is very common.

7. Obsession with National Security -- Fear is used as a motivational tool by the government over the masses.

8. Religion and Government are Intertwined -- Governments in fascist nations tend to use the most common religion in the nation as a tool to manipulate public opinion. Religious rhetoric and terminology is common from government leaders, even when the major tenets of the religion are diametrically opposed to the government's policies or actions.

9. Corporate Power is Protected -- The industrial and business aristocracy of a fascist nation often are the ones who put the government leaders into power, creating a mutually beneficial business/government relationship and power elite.

10. Labor Power is Suppressed -- Because the organizing power of labor is the only real threat to a fascist government, labor unions are either eliminated entirely, or are severely suppressed.

11. Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts -– Fascist nations tend to promote and tolerate open hostility to higher education, and academia.

It is not uncommon for professors and other academics to be censored or even arrested. Free expression in the arts and letters is openly attacked.

12. Obsession with Crime and Punishment –- Under fascist regimes, the police are given almost limitless power to enforce laws. The people are often willing to overlook police abuses and even forego civil liberties in the name of patriotism.

There is often a national police force with virtually unlimited power in fascist nations.

13. Rampant Cronyism and Corruption -- Fascist regimes almost always are governed by groups of friends and associates who appoint each other to government positions and use governmental power and authority to protect their friends from accountability.

It is not uncommon in fascist regimes for national resources and even treasures to be appropriated or even outright stolen by government leaders.

14. Fraudulent Elections -- Sometimes elections in fascist nations are a complete sham. Other times elections are manipulated by smear campaigns against or even assassination of opposition candidates, use of legislation to control voting numbers or political district boundaries, and manipulation of the media.

Fascist nations also typically use their judiciaries to manipulate or control elections.

Indiana Misplaces $300 Million Tax Money

2012-01-25T14:55:00.000-08:00

Doncha Just Hate When That Happens?

By Dan Carden

Indianapolis--Indiana’s governor announced Tuesday that state officials found the $300 million that went untouched, even as lawmakers made deep cuts to education.

Republican Gov. Mitch (the moron) Daniels said the money was collected but never transferred to the state’s general spending account, which lawmakers use to allocate funds to various programs and departments.

In the last two years, lawmakers cut education spending by $300 million as the state built a $1.2 billion nest egg but had stupid children. Many Republicans held the state as an example of fiscal responsibility and good management. (oops!)

Daniels didn’t say whether he thought the money should be spent or banked, triggering automatic taxpayer refunds under a plan he is responsible for pushing through the Legislature earlier this year.

*******************************************
A bargain is something you don't need at a price
you can't resist.
*******************************************

2012-01-24T07:15:00.000-08:00

* * * * * REMEMBER “LET THE EAGLES SOAR”? * * * * *

2012-01-24T07:04:00.000-08:00

*****************************************
$56 million/day--Mitt Romney--just an average
Joe who does his own laundry. Really.
*****************************************

What is Going On in This Country?

2012-01-23T22:11:00.000-08:00

The owner of a small Jewish publication in Atlanta is resigning over a column he wrote suggesting Israel might consider a hit on President Barack Obama.

Editor’s Comment: This country survived the assassination of a president in the 60s. I was a young mother at the time. I hadn’t voted for President Kennedy, but the fact that he was father to two small children moved me deeply. I began watching his press conferences early on in his presidency. He was respectful whenever he called on Helen Thomas, an old Palestinian reporter. President Kennedy was quick-witted and smart. His press conferences were a pleasure to watch.

Interim editor John McCurdy said Monday that Andrew Adler is relinquishing his day-to-day duties at The Atlanta Jewish Times.

Adler wrote Jan. 13 that Obama's assassination could be one of Israel's options in preventing Iran from getting nuclear weapons. He was roundly condemned by national and local Jewish groups after larger media outlets reported on his column.

McCurdy says Adler has apologized in interviews and plans to publish an apology in the next edition. It's unclear if Adler will sell the newspaper.

U.S. Secret Service spokesman Max Milien says the agency is following up on the matter.

Editor’s Comment: Assassination is not a matter to be taken lightly. As recently as one year ago, Gabrielle Giffords was seriously wounded in an assassination attempt that left six innocent people, including a child, dead.

Gingrich and his lovely wife, and his lovely wife, and his lovely wife...to be continued...

2012-01-23T13:30:00.000-08:00

By Sheryl Gay Stolberg

Washington—When Newt Gingrich was House Speaker, lawmakers would routinely arrive at his elegant suite in the Capitol and find an unexpected adviser sitting on the couch: wife #2, Marianne.

Like the wife who preceded her and the one who succeeded her, Marianne Gingrich was her husband’s political sounding board, “my best friend and closest adviser,” he once wrote.

As a young congressman, he took her to private sessions with David A. Stockman, Ronald Reagan’s budget director, and to a dinner in Manhattan with Richard M. Nixon, the former president.

Uncle Newtie sought Marianne’s counsel during meetings; although it made aides and colleagues uneasy, several said. She seemed to feel awkward, and sometimes had little to say. When Speaker Gingrich flew aboard Air Force One to Israel for the funeral of Yitzhak Rabin, Marianne was with him.

Now wife #2 is making news with her allegations (denied by Newtie), that he asked for an “open marriage” while he and Callista Bisek, now wife #3, were having an affair.

Wife #2's remarks on ABC News have thrust Newtie's colorful marital history—his pattern of replacing one wife with a younger one—into the spotlight on the eve of the South Carolina primary, just as his bid for the Republican presidential nomination is appearing to surge.

But more than a jilted spouse, Marianne Gingrich, wife #2, serves as a window into the complicated psyche of a man who, those who know him say, seems to need a woman by his side. Friends and colleagues agree that for all his ego and bombast, “Grandiosity has never been a problem with Newt Gingrich.”

Rick Santorum, a presidential rival, declared at Thursday’s presidential debate: Mr. Gingrich has leaned on his wives to help project his vision of himself.

“I think Newt is very dependent on having the support of someone, and obviously he has chosen women,” Sue W. Kelly, a former Republican congresswoman from New York, said Friday in an interview.

“He has a sense of a private personal destiny that is his alone, I don’t think he is certain of himself; he’s got to have someone there,” said Ms. Kelly, who described herself as “very fond of” Mr. Gingrich.

At 68, Gingrich has been in one marriage or another for nearly 50 years, and each of his three wives has played a role in assisting and in her own way advancing his political career.

Editor's note: Does Newtie get to have a fiftieth Wedding Anniversary? It could be a group anniversary bash.

“For Newt, the political life is everything and each of the women in his life was integrally involved in it,” said Chip Kahn, who managed Mr. Gingrich’s two failed Congressional campaigns in the 70s and now runs the Federation of American Hospitals in Washington. “They were advisers. They were sounding boards. They were people he took seriously.”

Wife #1, Jackie Battley, was his high school geometry teacher and seven years his senior. They married in 1962, while Newtie was a 19-year-old college freshman, over the objections of Mr. Gingrich’s mother and stepfather. Nine months later, Newtie and his betrothed had their first child.

Newtie was still married to Jackie when, in 1980, as a freshman congressman, he traveled to Ohio for a Republican fund-raiser (more than funds got raised) and met a county planner. Marianne Ginther was a pretty brunette in her 20s. They were married the following year, and Mr. Gingrich soon brought his new wife into the political fold. In 1984, he listed her as co-author on one of his books.

But by the mid-90s, as he made his political ascent, Newtie became involved with a House Agriculture Committee staff member, Callista Bisek, nearly 23 years his junior. They carried on a secret affair for six years,.

They were married in 2000, after Newtie left the speakership in 1999. Today, Wife #3, with her striking platinum hair and diamond baubles is the subject of controversy because Newtie spent hundreds of thousands of dollars at Tiffany—and bold suits is a constant presence on the campaign trail, often introducing Mr. Gingrich and looking on adoringly as he speaks. Collista is a business partner in developing his book and movie production company.

Many who know Mr. Gingrich see parallels with his earlier wives. “The way he is taking Callista everyplace,” one friend of his said, “that’s how he took Marianne everyplace.”

Mr. Gingrich has said he has been “very open about mistakes I have made,” and about “needing to go to God for forgiveness.” He has declined to discuss in detail his previous marriages, leaving it to his two daughters from wife #1 to defend his conduct.

Some observers, though, see political calculation in the way he moved from one marriage to the next.

Ya think?

“Gingrich is a pragmatist; he’s an ambitious politician and he trades in people the same way he trades in ideas,” said Steven M. Gillon, a historian at the University of Oklahoma who has written a book about Mr. Gingrich.

“Just as he redefines himself politically, he redefines the people in his life that support him in any particular phase. And I think that applies to the people he is married to.” (Hear that, gang?).

The Ice Queen, wife #3, better be careful... No Win and she's out. Yes Win and there will be new paramours to deal with until eventually, she's out. Newtie is a man of opportunity and he lies accordingly. Sadly, he believes his own lies. If they fail, he sheds his skin and morphs into another suit looking for wife #4.

2012-01-20T21:52:00.000-08:00

                 Here’s The Question...Is Rick Perry
__As Stupid as dubya?   __ Less Stupid? __ Stupider?

*******************************************
                              RICK PERRY
                       You Can’t Fix Stupid.
*******************************************

A Brief History of South Carolina

2012-01-20T14:16:00.000-08:00

One of the thirteen original colonies, South Carolina has had a rich and varied history. When Spanish and French explorers arrived in the area in the 16th century, they found a land inhabited by many small tribes of Native Americans, the largest of which were the Cherokees and the Catawbas.

The first European attempts at settlement failed, but in 1670 a permanent English settlement was established on the coast near present day Charleston. The colony, named Carolina after King Charles I, was divided in 1710 into South Carolina and North Carolina.

Settlers from the British Isles, France, and other parts of Europe built plantations throughout the coastal lowcountry, growing profitable crops of rice and indigo.

African slaves were brought into the colony in large numbers to provide labor for the plantations, and by 1720 they formed the majority of the population.

The port city of Charleston became an important center of commerce and culture. The interior or upcountry, meanwhile, was being slowly settled by small farmers and traders, who pushed the dwindling tribes of Native Americans to the west.

By the time of the American Revolution, South Carolina was one of the richest colonies in America.

Its merchants and planters formed a strong governing class, contributing many leaders to the fight for independence.

More Revolutionary War battles and skirmishes were fought in South Carolina than any other state, including major engagements at Sullivan's Island, Camden, Kings Mountain, and Cowpens.

South Carolina ratified the United States Constitution on May 23, 1788, becoming the eighth state to enter the union.

In the following years the state grew and prospered. With the invention of the cotton gin, cotton became a major crop, particularly in the upcountry. A new capital city, Columbia , was founded in the center of the state, reducing somewhat the political power of the lowcountry elite.

Dissatisfaction with the federal government and its tariff policies grew during this period.

In the 1820s South Carolinian John C. Calhoun developed the theory of nullification, by which a state could reject any federal law it considered to be a violation of its rights.

Armed conflict was avoided during this period, but by 1860 tensions between the state and the federal government reached a climax.

Unhappy over restrictions on free trade and about calls for the abolition of slavery, South Carolina seceded from the union on December 20, 1860, the first of the Southern states to do so.

When Confederate troops fired on Fort Sumter in Charleston Harbor on April 12, 1861, the nation plunged into Civil War.

The Civil War and its aftermath were devastating for South Carolina. The state lost nearly one fifth of the white male population, and its economy was shattered.

The final blow came in early 1865 when General William T. Sherman marched his troops through South Carolina, burning plantations and most of the city of Columbia.

The Reconstruction period that followed the war was marked by general economic, social, and political upheaval. The former white leaders found themselves without money or political power, while the large population of freed slaves sought to improve their economic and political positions.

When federal troops were withdrawn in 1877, white conservatives led by Governor Wade Hampton were able to take control of state government once again. The economy continued to suffer in the years that followed.

Cotton prices were low, and the plantation system that had brought South Carolina such wealth was dead. Populist reforms in the 1890s brought more political power to small white farmers, but African Americans were disenfranchised and increasingly segregated.

By the beginning of the 20th century, South Carolina was starting to recover economically. The textile industry began to develop first, then in the years that followed other manufacturers moved into the state, providing jobs and economic stability.

In recent years tourism has become a major industry, as travelers discovered the state's beaches and mountains. On September 21, 1989 Hurricane Hugo struck the coast, causing great damage to homes, businesses, and natural areas, but the state has made a remarkable recovery in the ensuing years.

The second half of the 20th century also brought enormous change in the status of black South Carolinians. The civil rights movement of the 1960s brought a relatively peaceful end to segregation and legal discrimination.

The most serious incident of this period occurred in 1968 at Orangeburg, where three black protesters were shot by state police.

Two years later three African Americans were elected to the state legislature, and many others have subsequently served in state and local offices.

As the century drew to a close, all of South Carolina's citizens were able to participate in the state's government and economy.

A Brief History of South Carolina

State Library of South Carolina

Bill Moyers Returns to Public Television

2012-01-19T12:34:00.000-08:00

Dear Friends,

You already may have heard that I'd be coming back in January with a new series on the public television station nearest you.

But you may not have heard exactly why. It's not just that I lack retirement skills, as my wife and co-editor, Judith, keeps reminding me. Or that the squeaky rocking chair on the front porch got on my nerves.

I'm coming back because in tumultuous times like these I relish the company of people who try to make sense of the tumult. These are the people I'll bring to our new broadcast, Moyers & Company.

Journalism has long been for me a continuing course in adult education. Given what's happening in this country, it's time to sign up for more classes.

The lack of civility and common sense that has paralyzed our democracy, the vast economic and social inequality that sends both left and right raging into the streets, the corrosive influence of money in politics -- we're in a tailspin with little hope for a course correction from our elected leadership or corporate-dominated media.

The need for voices of reason, simple and eloquent, has rarely been stronger.

Those voices, whether they be from artist or social critic, philosopher or poet, historian or physicist, can bring us truth, inspiration, even hope.

So I'll be reaching out in this new series to people engaged in the trials and errors of democracy, who have tested their ideas against experience, and who know that the health of our body politic is everybody's business.

They help us see the world anew, and to make informed choices.

This will be a political series, but not a partisan one. In the conversation of democracy, everyone's invited. That means you, too.

You're welcome to share opinions in the marketplace of ideas we'll be offering with our all-new website, billmoyers.com. Our aim is dialogue, not diatribe, and we want you in it.

So join us -- on Moyers & Company. (Truth is, I never really cared for that rocking chair.)

Yours Truly,
Bill Moyers

This work by Truthout is licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution

2012-01-16T19:59:00.000-08:00

By Jonathan Turley

Every year, the State Department issues reports on individual rights in other countries, monitoring the passage of restrictive laws and regulations around the world.

Iran, for example, has been criticized for denying fair public trials and limiting privacy, while Russia has been taken to task for undermining due process. Other countries have been condemned for the use of secret evidence and torture.

Even as we pass judgment on countries we consider unfree, Americans remain confident that any definition of a free nation must include their own — the land of free. Yet, the laws and practices of the land should shake that confidence.

In the decade since Sept. 11, 2001, this country has comprehensively reduced civil liberties in the name of an expanded security state. The most recent example of this was the National Defense Authorization Act, signed Dec. 31, which allows for the indefinite detention of citizens.

At what point does the reduction of individual rights in our country change how we define ourselves?

While each new national security power Washington has embraced was controversial when enacted, they are often discussed in isolation. But they don’t operate in isolation.

They form a mosaic of powers under which our country could be considered, at least in part, authoritarian. Americans often proclaim our nation as a symbol of freedom to the world while dismissing nations such as Cuba and China as categorically unfree.

Yet, objectively, we may be only half right. Those countries do lack basic individual rights such as due process, placing them outside any reasonable definition of “free,” but the United States now has much more in common with such regimes than anyone may like to admit.

These countries also have constitutions that purport to guarantee freedoms and rights. But their governments have broad discretion in denying those rights and few real avenues for challenges by citizens — precisely the problem with the new laws in this country.

The list of powers acquired by the U.S. government since 9/11 puts us in rather troubling company.

Assassination of U.S. citizens
President Obama has claimed, as President George W. Bush did before him, the right to order the killing of any citizen considered a terrorist or an abettor of terrorism.

Last year, he approved the killing of U.S. citizen Anwar al-Awlaqi and another citizen under this claimed inherent authority.

Last month, administration officials affirmed that power, stating that the president can order the assassination of any citizen whom he considers allied with terrorists. (Nations such as Nigeria, Iran and Syria have been routinely criticized for extrajudicial killings of enemies of the state.)

Indefinite detention
Under the law signed last month, terrorism suspects are to be held by the military; the president also has the authority to indefinitely detain citizens accused of terrorism.

While Sen. Carl Levin insisted the bill followed existing law “whatever the law is,” the Senate specifically rejected an amendment that would exempt citizens and the Administration has opposed efforts to challenge such authority in federal court.

The Administration continues to claim the right to strip citizens of legal protections based on its sole discretion. (China recently codified a more limited detention law for its citizens, while countries such as Cambodia have been singled out by the United States for “prolonged detention.”)

Arbitrary justice
The president now decides whether a person will receive a trial in the federal courts or in a military tribunal, a system that has been ridiculed around the world for lacking basic due process protections.

Bush claimed this authority in 2001, and Obama has continued the practice. (Egypt and China have been denounced for maintaining separate military justice systems for selected defendants, including civilians.)

Warrantless searches
The president may now order warrantless surveillance, including a new capability to force companies and organizations to turn over information on citizens’ finances, communications and associations.

Bush acquired this sweeping power under the Patriot Act in 2001, and in 2011, Obama extended the power, including searches of everything from business documents to library records.

The government can use “national security letters” to demand, without probable cause, that organizations turn over information on citizens — and order them not to reveal the disclosure to the affected party. (Saudi Arabia and Pakistan operate under laws that allow the government to engage in widespread discretionary surveillance.)

Secret evidence
The government now routinely uses secret evidence to detain individuals and employs secret evidence in federal and military courts.

It also forces the dismissal of cases against the United States by simply filing declarations that the cases would make the government reveal classified information that would harm national security — a claim made in a variety of privacy lawsuits and largely accepted by federal judges without question.

Even legal opinions, cited as the basis for the government’s actions under the Bush and Obama administrations, have been classified. This allows the government to claim secret legal arguments to support secret proceedings using secret evidence.

In addition, some cases never make it to court at all. The federal courts routinely deny constitutional challenges to policies and programs under a narrow definition of standing to bring a case.

War crimes
The world clamored for prosecutions of those responsible for waterboarding terrorism suspects during the Bush administration, but the Obama administration said in 2009 that it would not allow CIA employees to be investigated or prosecuted for such actions.

This gutted not just treaty obligations but the Nuremberg principles of international law. When courts in countries such as Spain moved to investigate Bush officials for war crimes, the Obama administration reportedly urged foreign officials not to allow such cases to proceed, despite the fact that the United States has long claimed the same authority with regard to alleged war criminals in other countries.

Various nations have resisted investigations of officials accused of war crimes and torture. Some, such as Serbia and Chile, eventually relented to comply with international law; countries that have denied independent investigations include Iran, Syria and China.

Secret court
The government has increased its use of the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, which has expanded its secret warrants to include individuals deemed to be aiding or abetting hostile foreign governments or organizations.

In 2011, Obama renewed these powers, including allowing secret searches of individuals who are not part of an identifiable terrorist group.

The administration has asserted the right to ignore congressional limits on such surveillance. (Pakistan places national security surveillance under the unchecked powers of the military or intelligence services.)

Immunity from judicial review
Like the Bush administration, the Obama administration has successfully pushed for immunity for companies that assist in warrantless surveillance of citizens, blocking the ability of citizens to challenge the violation of privacy. (Similarly, China has maintained sweeping immunity claims both inside and outside the country and routinely blocks lawsuits against private companies.)

Continual monitoring of citizens
The Obama administration has successfully defended its claim that it can use GPS devices to monitor every move of targeted citizens without securing any court order or review.

Saudi Arabia has installed massive public surveillance systems, while Cuba is notorious for active monitoring of selected citizens.

Extraordinary renditions
The government now has the ability to transfer both citizens and noncitizens to another country under a system known as extraordinary rendition, which has been denounced as using other countries, such as Syria, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Pakistan, to torture suspects.

The Obama administration says it is not continuing the abuses of this practice under Bush, but it insists on the unfettered right to order such transfers — including the possible transfer of U.S. citizens.

These new laws have come with an infusion of money into an expanded security system on the state and federal levels, including more public surveillance cameras, tens of thousands of security personnel and a massive expansion of a terrorist-chasing bureaucracy.

Some politicians shrug and say these increased powers are merely a response to the times we live in. Thus, Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-SC, could declare in an interview last spring without objection that “free speech is a great idea, but we’re in a war.” Of course, terrorism will never “surrender” and end this particular “war.”

Other politicians rationalize that, while such powers may exist, it really comes down to how they are used. This is a common response by liberals who cannot bring themselves to denounce Obama as they did Bush.

Sen. Carl Levin, D-MI, for instance, has insisted that Congress is not making any decision on indefinite detention: “That is a decision which we leave where it belongs — in the executive branch.”

And in a signing statement with the defense authorization bill, Obama said he does not intend to use the latest power to indefinitely imprison citizens. Yet, he still accepted the power as a sort of regretful autocrat.

An authoritarian nation is defined not just by the use of authoritarian powers, but by the ability to use them. If a president can take away your freedom or your life on his own authority, all rights become little more than a discretionary grant subject to executive will.

The framers lived under autocratic rule and understood this danger better than we do. James Madison famously warned that we needed a system that did not depend on the good intentions or motivations of our rulers: “If men were angels, no government would be necessary.”

Benjamin Franklin was more direct. In 1787, a Mrs. Powel confronted Franklin after the signing of the Constitution and asked, “Well, Doctor, what have we got — a republic or a monarchy?” His response was a bit chilling: “A republic, Madam, if you can keep it.”

Since 9/11, we have created the very government the framers feared: a government with sweeping and largely unchecked powers resting on the hope that they will be used wisely.

The indefinite-detention provision in the defense authorization bill seemed to many civil libertarians like a betrayal by Obama.

While the president had promised to veto the law over that provision, Levin, a sponsor of the bill, disclosed on the Senate floor that it was in fact the White House that approved the removal of any exception for citizens from indefinite detention.

Dishonesty from politicians is nothing new for Americans. The real question is whether we are lying to ourselves when we call this country the land of the free.

******
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro professor of public interest law at George Washington University.

2012-01-16T13:02:00.000-08:00

“Darkness cannot drive out darkness:
only light can do that.

Hate cannot drive out hate: only love can do that.”

Martin Luther King, Jr.
A Testament of Hope
Essential Writings and Speeches

2012-01-16T12:21:00.001-08:00

2012-01-16T11:55:00.000-08:00

Mitt, I’d like for you to meet Newt...
Newt -- Mitt...
Mitt -- Newt.....Newt -- Mitt
eeeooowwweeeeoooowwwweeee ! ! !

Oh, I get it...As long as you’re rich you can name your kid any stupid thing you want ... just ask Michael Jackson’s kid, Blanket* !

******
*I'm pleased to report that "Blanket" was given a more traditional name later so he didn't have to grow up having his lights punched out from time to time.

2012-01-13T12:45:00.000-08:00

*******************************************

Rick Perry...

The Little Dummer Boy

*******************************************

I used to call Rick Perry Jethro, (remember Jethro from the Beverly Hillbillies?) ‘til I realized I was insulting Jethro...after all, Jethro did know how to ‘cipher!

*******************************************

Every time Gingrich mentions his “positive”

campaign,an angel throws up blood.

*******************************************

Don't you miss Herman Cain?

*****Today’s Jumble*****

Who said...
We can talk about these things in quiet rooms.

Hint:
Can’t spell his name without money.

Mitt rOMNEY

Who traveled with their pet dog
ON THE ROOF OF THE CAR?

Yep, Zit Romney
(He may be rich but rich doesn’t come with brains.)

Mitt Romney...
He'll say anything to win...The multiple choice candidate.

Corporations are people, my friend
Him Again

Want More Mitt?

As head of the investment company Bain Capital,

Mitt laid off thousands of workers.

Romney's advice on the foreclosure crisis:
"Don't try and stop the foreclosure process."

Romney calls Obama's payroll tax cut

that would save middle class/lower income families

$1,500 a year "temporary little band aids."

As governor, Mitt made it more expensive

to use an ice skating rink, register a boat, take the

bar exam, and transport hazardous waste.

2012-01-12T14:36:00.000-08:00

*******************************************

Women will never be equal to men until they can walk
down the street with a bald head
and a beer gut, and still think they are sexy.

********************************************

Wall Street Brings Class War to America?

2012-01-12T09:07:00.000-08:00

By Les Leopold

Oh, do the super-rich hate the sound of "class struggle." Dare to utter the words and they'll reach for their red-baiting paint guns and spray you silly with invective. It's un-American. It's socialistic. It's an insult to democracy and freedom.

But try as they might, they can't paint over the reality, which the new Fortune 400 listings make so clear: Wall Street billionaires have more money than they'll ever be able to use--at a time when more than 29 million of us don't have that most basic necessity, a full-time job. A hidden class war got us to this point. It's not hidden anymore.

Once upon a time there was a tangible connection between the plutocrats* and the rest of us. Carnegie, Mellon and Rockefeller built sprawling enterprises that employed tens of thousands of workers (even if they did treat them brutally).

But today's billionaire financiers, about 100 of whom are on the Fortune 400 list, have a tough time explaining how their money-making schemes produce any jobs at all. Very few of us have a clue about how they even make their money.

But we are clued in to the way our society is splitting apart. What's good for the Wall Street tycoons is not good for America. The wealthy may loathe hearing about "class struggle," but we're in the middle of one -- and it's a doozy.

Back in the 1800s (and onward), "class struggle" meant the economic conflict between the interests of working people and those who owned "the means of production." But that construct proved too rigid to describe a complex modern economy.

Companies are often run by managers who aren't owners. Most middle managers and supervisors also are workers, not owners, though they may identify with upper management.

In glamor industries like Hollywood and sports, some workers are far richer and more powerful than the managers and owners. And many workers are "owners" through stock purchases made individually and through their pension funds.

"Class struggle" also doesn't capture the symbiotic relationship between workers, managers and owners. Yes, we fight over everything from plant shutdowns to job safety and health care benefits. But we also have common interests -- workers want to keep their jobs, and for that they are dependent upon "owners."

Instead of class struggle, we often see workers lobbying alongside owners for policies that might keep their industry afloat. This worker-boss connection is often much stronger than any sense of broad class solidarity among workers across the country.

Most of us define ourselves as middle class, not working class, and we don't see ourselves at war with the business owners.

Until now. The financial crisis is squaring up a new class struggle: The handful of financial elites versus the rest of us. Where's our common interest?

What's good for them (a $10 trillion bailout) costs us jobs and public services, and deepens the public debt. Financial elites have effectively hijacked our economy and there will be hell to pay to get it back.

Beginning in the mid-1970s the twin policies of financial deregulation and tax cuts for the super-rich laid the groundwork for the rise of financial industry billionaires.

We were told these policies would fuel an enormous investment boom that would cause all boats to rise. Not quite. Income certainly gushed to the top fraction of one percent.

But then we entered the financial industry Twilight Zone: The super-rich accumulated so much money that they literally ran out of investments in normal industries that produced real goods and services.

Wall Street, now a deregulated Wild West, rode to the rescue by creating all manner of new paper investment opportunities. Instead of buying a piece of a factory or company through stocks and bonds, you bought derivatives.

Or you gave your money to hedge funds where you could "earn" outsized returns with little risk -- just what the super-rich craved.

Unfortunately, the entire enterprise was built upon layer after layer of leverage.** The result was an unstable upside-down pyramid of "structured finance" balancing on a very narrow base of real tangible assets.

All of this worked just fine until it didn't. You know the rest of the story. When housing prices stopped rising, these paper assets -- the CDOs and all the rest -- went up in smoke, incinerating the rest of the economy in the process. (Please see The Looting of America for an easy-to-read account.)

On their long way up, financial industry billionaires grabbed our economy by the cojones -- and they're not letting go. Here are a few of the indicators:

    Financial sector profits dramatically increased in the past several decades, peaking at over 40 percent of all corporate profits just before the economic collapse. Now the industry's profits are chugging back up again.

    After the inevitable crash, the financial sector and its investors had all the political clout they needed to ensure their swift rescue by the government. Instead of paying a hefty price for wrecking the economy with their bad bets as dictated by free market principles, they got bailed out at taxpayer expense.

    The 2010 financial reform bill did not break up financial institutions that were too big to fail or too interconnected to fail. It also didn't rebuild the Glass-Steagall Act's wall between investment banks and depository banks. The six largest banks are now bigger than ever.

    Congress rejected our calls for a windfall profits tax or financial transaction tax to help pay for the financial sector's catastrophic damage to our economy. Instead Wall Street elites are again reaping enormous profits, leaving 29 million unemployed and underemployed people in the dust.

To pay for our rising public debt we're being told to tighten our belts so that they don't have to tighten theirs.

Economists assure us that the financial sector's role is to prudently move excess savings into investment. But that's not how Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan Chase, Morgan Stanley, the largest private equity funds and the largest hedge funds are raking in their billions.

Their real cash cow is their secretive daily practice of "proprietary trading" -- the equivalent of gambling in a rigged casino. This has nothing to do with investing in industries that might put our people to work.

So our paltry economic growth is generating financial industry booty, not jobs.

Our billionaires might want us to think of them as great statesmen working to help our nation prosper and grow. But in reality, they're busily siphoning off our nation's wealth -- and blocking all efforts to regulate or tax their destructive behavior.

Wall Street's class warfare doesn't just target workers.

While many top multinational corporate CEOs are in league with the big financiers, most of the medium and small business owners now struggling to find the capital to stay alive have few friends on Wall Street.

Workers, supervisors and middle managers alike now live in fear that they'll lose their jobs -- and it's all because of the financial shenanigans on Wall Street.

You don't have to be a Marxist to know that we bailed out the very people who wrecked our economy. You'll find precious few defenders of Wall Street anywhere in America.

This new class struggle will soon begin playing out on some new battlefields.

The weight of the U.S.'s massive debt (created by the financial crisis and our failure to tax the super-rich the way we used to) will be put on our backs.
The financial elites, along with their richly funded think tanks and compliant political hacks, will tell us to privatize Social Security, reduce its benefits and extend the retirement age.

We'll be told we must cut funding for schools and health care services. We'll have to live with a crumbling infrastructure and a deteriorating environment -- because, well, the money just isn't there.

But if we call for raising taxes on the super-rich to prevent these dire developments, they'll bring out their paint guns and scream "socialism!" -- and threaten us with more economic catastrophe.

Of course, they can fly their private jets over our collapsing infrastructure and send their kids to private schools. And they have no worries about jobs, health care or retirement, since they and their families have more money than they could spend in a hundred lifetimes. Talk about a class struggle!

The Wall Street billionaires utterly refuse to accept any blame for our economic woes. They simply can't believe that their billions came from fatal flaws in our system rather than from their own genius.

They'll fight to the end to convince us and themselves that they are indeed God's gift to our economy. (Wouldn't you if you had a billion dollars?)

It's time to make them pay their fair share for the damage they've done. That will help finance the massive jobs programs we need to put our people back to work. Of course, the super-wealthy can afford to pay. Only their pride will suffer.

In truth most of us would prefer to duck this fight. We just want to find a job, or keep the one we have, be with our families and cope with what life throws at us while enjoying as much of it as we can.

We don't want to go to war with the richest people in the world, even though we greatly outnumber them. But we can't avoid this battle--it's coming to our doorsteps.

The Dow may hit 12,000 but unemployment will haunt us for a decade to come. We can't afford the brutal cuts to retiree benefits, healthcare or education that they're pushing on us.

It will take a lot of time and effort to figure out how to fight back and win. But don't despair. As the old union song suggests, the toughest question always is "Which side are you on?" In the new class struggle, that decision has already been made for us.

*Pultocrat -- Someone who exercises power by virtue of wealth.
**Leverage -- the use of a small initial investment, credit, or borrowed funds to gain a very high return in relation to one's investment, to control a much larger investment, or to reduce one's own liability for any loss.

******
Les Leopold is the author of The Looting of America: How Wall Street's Game of Fantasy Finance destroyed our Jobs, Pensions and Prosperity, and What We Can Do About It, Chelsea Green Publishing, June 2009.

Biography of Svetlana Alliluyeva

2012-01-11T14:23:00.000-08:00

Svetlana Alliluyeva was the only daughter of Soviet dictator Josef Stalin. She defected to the West after his death.

Alliluyeva was born February 28, 1926 in Moscow. Her mother was his second wife. She was raised by a nurse and only occasionally saw her parents. Her mother died when Svetlana was only six. (There are various theories as to how the mother met her death).

Svetlana’s first love was a Jewish filmmaker Alexei Kapler. Her father disapproved of the romance and Kepler was sentenced to ten years in a labor camp in Siberia. A year later, when she was 17, she fell in love with Grigori Morozov, a fellow student at Moscow University. They married and had a son, Joseph, in 1945 but divorced two years later.

She married her second husband, Yuri Zhdanov, in 1949 the same year she graduated from Moscow University. They had a daughter, Ekaterina in 1950 but divorced soon afterwards.

In 1953 her father died and Svetlana adopted her mother's maiden name. She worked as a teacher and translator in Moscow. She first met Brajesh Singh, an Indian communist when he visited Moscow in 1963.

He returned to Moscow in 1965 to work as a translator. Although the two became close they were not allowed to marry. A year later he died and she was allowed to travel to India to take his ashes back so that his family could scatter them in the Ganges River.

On March 6, 1967 she went to the US Embassy in New Delhi and formally asked the American Ambassador for political asylum. She left India immediately and moved via Switzerland to the United States. Upon her arrival in April 1967 Alliluyeva gave a press conference denouncing her father's regime and the Soviet government.

She settled in the United States in April 1967 and published her memoirs, Twenty Letters to a Friend, (1967), and later Only One Year (1969). She later became a United States citizen and married William Wesley Peters, an American architect in 1970.

Shortly after giving birth to a daughter, Lana, the couple separated. She moved to Cambridge, United Kingdom in 1982 but two years later returned to the Soviet Union and settled in Tbilisi.

She left again in 1986 and returned to the United States. In the 1990s she moved back to England but unable to settle she returned finally to the United States. She lived in a retirement home in Wisconsin until her death on November 22, 2011 at 85.

Twinkie-Maker Hostess Files for Bankruptcy

2012-01-11T08:24:00.000-08:00

By David McLaughlin

Jan. 11 (Bloomberg) -- Hostess Brands Inc., the maker of Twinkies snack cakes and Wonder bread, fell back into bankruptcy less than three years after completing an earlier restructuring.

Fear not...their crap has enough preservatives to keep us in Twinkies til the year 2020.

The baker ended an earlier trip through bankruptcy court in February 2009. Lenders took control of Interstate Bakeries Corp., which was renamed Hostess Brands.

Hostess in a statement today blamed the latest bankruptcy on a weak economy and costs tied to pension- and medical-benefit obligations. The Irving, Texas-based baker intends to withdraw from pension plans and modify collective-bargaining agreements with unions, according to court documents.

Get it? It’s the generous pension and medical benefits obligations what did us in. And collective-bargaining agreements? Oy, don’t even mention.

"This company has tremendous potential if we can remove barriers to success," Chief Executive Officer Brian Driscoll said in the statement.

Hmm, wonder how much dough Driscoll sucks from the company.

Hostess listed assets of as much as $1 billion and liabilities of more than $1 billion in its bankruptcy petition.

Yep. That’ll do it. $1 billion in assets minus $1 billion in liabilities equals bankruptcy.

The Chapter 11 case was assigned to U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Robert Drain in White Plains, New York.

Judge Drain? Oh, that’s too easy.

Interstate Bakeries was created through the merger of Schulze Baking Co. and Western Bakeries Ltd. in 1937, and grew by acquiring other companies, according to court documents filed in the first bankruptcy case. It acquired its biggest rival, Continental Baking Co., in 1995 for $330 million, according to the company's website.

The company's products include Hostess Twinkies.

The company's products include Hostess CupCakes, Ding Dongs, Drake's Devil Dogs and Nature's Pride breads. It employs about 19,000 people, of which 83 percent are union members, according to court papers.

It’s those evil unions what did it.

The majority are members of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters or the Bakery, Confectionery, Tobacco Workers & Grain Millers International Union, the company said.

In September 2004, burdened with declining sales combined with high labor and ingredient costs, Interstate filed for bankruptcy in Kansas City, Missouri. During the case, it closed plants, cut delivery routes and eliminated jobs.

The company exited bankruptcy in February 2009 with a restructuring plan backed by New York-based Ripplewood and lenders including Silver Point Capital LP, according to court documents.

Ripplewood invested $130 million for stock and convertible notes. Silver Point and other lenders also received shares in the company, according to court papers.

Wow. Ripplewood has some very expensive wallpaper. Hope they enjoy. I don't mean to sound callous, it's just that we seem to be in a race to the bottom in this country.

Some Handy Definitions

2012-01-10T15:15:00.000-08:00

Venture Capital
Money provided by investors to startup firms and small businesses with perceived long-term growth potential. This is a very important source of funding for startups that do not have immediate access to funds.

Venture Capitalist
An investor who either provides capital to startup ventures or supports small companies that want to expand but don’t have access to public funding. Higher returns are expected for additional risk in floundering firms in the hope that they will eventually turn around.

Vulture Capital
Derogatory term for funding or investment that takes unfair advantage of the situation, such as by taking over the weakened firm.

Vulture Capitalist
Slang for a venture capitalist who deprives an inventor of control over his own innovations and most of the money he should have made from the invention. A vulture capitalist makes more money than a venture capitalist for additional risk taken.

2012-01-01T05:07:00.000-08:00

A man, whose level of drunkenness was bordering
on the absurd,

stood up to leave the bar and fell flat on his face.

"Maybe all I need is some fresh air," he thought,
and crawled outside.

He tried to stand up again, but fell face first
into the mud.

"Screw this," he thought. "I'll just crawl home."

The next morning, his wife found him on the
doorstep asleep.

"You went out drinking again last night, didn't
you?" she asked.

"Uh, yeah," he said sheepishly. "How did
you know?"

"You left your wheelchair at the bar again!"

******
HAPPY NEW YEAR!

Social Security Q&A

2011-12-31T11:30:00.000-08:00

Q   Why are Republicans so hot to privatize Social Security?

A   It has long been a personal piggy bank of both parties. The United States Chamber of Commerce states on their website, "The government does not save our Social Security taxes for future retirees. Congress borrows this extra money and uses it to make up for deficits elsewhere in the budget. Thus, the Social Security trust fund contains nothing but IOUs the government has written to itself."

(United States Chamber of Commerce website,
http://www.uschamber.com/issues/retirementpension/socialsecurity/trust-fund-myth)

(See http://www.nationalreferendum.org/sstrustfund.html)

Former President George W. Bush once famously stated that "All that's left in the Social Security Trust is a cabinet full of IOU's" (June 3, 2005, The New York Times).
(See http://www.nationalreferendum.org/sstrustfund.html).

Editor’s note: he was already planning to use that money to invade Iraq.

Q    Is Social Security harming America?

A   Of course not. Many older Americans would be living in poverty if it weren’t for Social Security, a mandatory savings account for Americans during their productive years.

Q   Is Social Security fully funded?

A   Yes, Social Security is fully funded ... on paper.
Problem is Social Security has been raided by both parties.

According to http://zfacts.com/p/336.html, the national debt is borrowed from many sources and always has been. Once borrowed, the money is spent—that's the point of it. But the U.S. government has always honored its debts and is still the safest investment.

Is the national debt so big we can't pay it back? Compared to the size of our economy, it's smaller than in World War II, and we paid it down after that. There is only one danger to Social Security, and that's Congress.

Congress could decide not to let Social Security use its trust fund. Here's how. It could reduce Social Security benefits so much that Social Security would never need the trust fund. But the Democrats have always supported Social Security, so that danger could only come from the Republicans.

Editor’s note: in other words, your government is using the mandatory savings you’re putting away for your retirement for their discretionary spending. And the blackheads (new Republicans: young, aggressive, sans gray hair in the pack) have no intention of paying the American people back.

Q   Is Social Security funded at all?

A   According to http://zfacts.com/p/336.html, the paper in Social Security is safe. They give the following examples and discussion:

What about the Federal Pension Trust Fund? It's just the same—all $800 billion of it. You mean there are no military pensions?!
What about the $280 billion in Medicare Trusts—are those fake?
And the highway trust and all other government trusts? $3.1 trillion all told.

And what's their problem with "paper"? A thousand dollar bill is paper, the check I write, my stock certificate, my government bond—all paper. Did they expect the trust would be made of diamonds?

What of the millions of Americans who own Treasury bonds, all paper? Seven trillion dollars of national debt has been spent on government programs, and there is "nothing left." Has the US of A defrauded the world of $7 trillion?

When you put money in the bank, you get paper, and they lend your money to someone who spends it. Your cash does not stay in the bank. Does Cheney really think the Social Security Administration (SSA) should have a storeroom of cash? They're just trying to frighten the people.

Editor’s note: this article was written when Bush and Cheney were still in office. But the blackheads’ scare tactics haven’t changed.

Time for Ron Paul to Fully Answer Racism Charges

2011-12-30T22:18:00.000-08:00

By Michael Tomasky

December 23, 2011 –– The 2012 presidential contender has disavowed racist statements in his newsletter, but he should lay the matter to rest by saying who wrote the comments and giving a speech detailing his actual racial views, says Michael Tomasky.

Last week, I mentioned the racism charges against Ron Paul, involving the newsletter he used to publish and some of the vile and witless statements therein. The matter has subsequently become a bigger deal, especially since he of the ill-fitting suit appeared on CNN and endured some questions from Gloria Borger, or perhaps I should say failed to endure them, since he snapped off his lapel mic and walked off the set.

Paul says he has answered the charges. He has not. If he really wanted to, there are two very simple things he could do, but he will not do them, for reasons that are themselves illuminating.

If you’re unfamiliar with the particulars, you should read James Kirchick’s original New Republic piece from 2008.

These are not your run-of-the-mill euphemisms. These are blatantly racist comments by, I would hope, nearly any measure.

Jews and gays get their moment in the sun, and there are code-word comments of the sort we’ve come to expect about matters like secession, the right of which “should be ingrained in a free society”; but all those are just warm-up acts for the race stuff.

The “Special Issue on Racial Terrorism,” produced after the Los Angeles riots, offers many gems, including this advice: “I’ve urged everyone in my family to know how to use a gun in self defense. For the animals are coming.”

I invoke this quote because the “I” in the above sentence is problematic. It would seem, in the pages of something called the Ron Paul Political Report, that that “I” would represent, well, Ron Paul.

But he denies authorship—and more. As he said to Borger: “I never read that stuff. I was probably aware of it 10 years after it was written and it’s been going on 20 years that people have pestered me about this...”

So here is the first thing Paul can do, which is to provide an answer to a simple question: If he didn’t write those sentences, who did?

Why not say? If he genuinely disagrees with the statements and truly disavows them, there could be no good reason not to name names.

He acknowledges that he’s been aware of the sentences for a decade. Well, did he look into the authorship question at the time, when he was made aware?

It seems to me that if I were a member of the House of Representatives (as Paul was at the time) and not a racist, and I discovered that racist screeds had been issued under my name, I’d want to know who wrote them.

I suppose one could argue that they were written by a friend, and Paul is honorably protecting that friend from scrutiny.

I might counter by stating that (again) if I were not a racist and discovered that racist screeds had been penned under my name by someone, it’s not very likely that that someone would still be my friend, on grounds of both his dubious integrity and our incompatibility of world views.

*********************************************
Among Republicans and conservatives,
there simply aren’t enough people who
care whether he’s a racist or not.

**********************************************

The 11 Words for 2011

2011-12-28T08:14:00.000-08:00

By Frank Luntz, Pollster and communications specialist

Words matter. The most powerful words have helped launch social movements and cultural revolutions. The most effective words have instigated great change in public policy. The right words at the right time can literally change history.

Most of you know me as a wordsmith. From time to time my memos and language guides have appeared on these pages -- sometimes with my blessings and sometimes against my will. I realize that my work is often controversial, and oftentimes you'd like to attack the messenger, but it's the message that matters.

For those who care about words, I'm going to make it easy for you. No need to dig through my trash or shuffle through my papers. I will voluntarily open up my computer files to give you the "11 for 11"... the 11 most powerful words and phrases for 2011. This comes straight from my new book, Win: The Principles That Take Your Business From Ordinary to Extraordinary. These are the phrases that you should or would be hearing if the political leaders were listening and communicating effectively. These are the words that matter most in business, politics, the media and culture:

"Imagine" is still the most powerful word in the English language because it is inspiring, motivating, and has a unique definition for each person. When you want to inspire, imagine is the language vehicle.

"No excuses." Of all the messages used by America's business and political elite, no phrase better conveys accountability, responsibility and transparency. This phrase generates immediate respect and appreciation.

"I get it." This explains not only a complete understanding of the situation but also a willingness to solve or resolve the situation. It's short, sweet and effective -- and too few leaders use it.

"If you remember only one thing..." is the surest way to guarantee that voters will remember the one point that matters most to you. This is essential in complicated situations like the upcoming debt ceiling vote.

"Uncompromising integrity." Of all the truthiness words, none is as powerful as "integrity," but in today's cynical environment, even that's not enough. People also need to feel that your integrity is absolute.

"The simple truth" comes straight from billionaire businessman Steve Wynn, and it sets the context for a straightforward discussion that might otherwise be confusing or contentious. It's the perfect phrase to begin and end the budget-deficit-debt debate.

"Believe in better" comes from BSkyB, the satellite television provider owned in part by Rupert Murdoch's Newscorp empire. Of all the corporate mission statements of the Fortune 100, "believe in better" is the second-most popular -- and it applies to politics as well. People don't want quantity. They want quality.

"Real-time." This is not a pitch for Bill Maher. Many Americans were furious that they couldn't get the details of the health-care legislation in a timely fashion. "Real-time" communicates receiving information at the speed of life.

"You decide." No, this is not paying homage to Fox News. The lesson of 2010 is that Americans want control of their lives back, and they don't want Washington or Wall Street making their decisions for them. So add the phrase "you're in control" and you've said exactly what Americans want to hear.

"You deserve." This comes from DNC Chairman Tim Kaine and it was first employed by him in his highly praised 2006 SOTU response. It tells voters precisely what they should expect from their politicians and their government.

"Let's get to work" was employed by Florida Governor Rick Scott in his successful campaign. No other end-of-speech rallying cry is more motivational to voters.

These are 11 phrases that will be shaping the public discourse over the coming year. You won't find a similar list from a liberal wordsmith -- there aren't any -- so you might as well use these. And if you want the other 89 words and phrases that really matter, you'll just have to buy the book.

******
Dr. Frank Luntz is the author of Win: The Principles That Take Your Business From Ordinary to Extraordinary. His two previous books have been New York Times Bestsellers.

6 Shocking Revelations About Wall Street's "Secret Government"

2011-12-27T14:37:00.000-08:00

By Les Leopold, AlterNet

Top officials willfully concealed the true extent of the 2008-'09 bailouts from Congress and the public.

We now have concrete evidence that Wall Street and Washington are running a secret government far removed from the democratic process. Through a freedom of information request by Bloomberg News, the public now has access to over 29,000 pages of Fed documents and 21,000 additional Fed transactions that were deliberately hidden, and for good reason.

These documents show how top government officials willfully concealed from Congress and the public the true extent of the 2008-'09 bailouts that enriched the few and enhanced the interests of giant Wall Streets firms. Here’s what we now know:

    The secret Wall Street bailouts totaled $7.77 trillion, 10 times more than the $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) passed by Congress in 2008.

    Knowledge of the secret bailout funds was not shared with Congress even while it was drafting and debating legislation to break up the big banks.

    The secret funding, provided at below-market rates, gave Wall Street banks an additional $13 billion in profits. (That’s enough money to hire more than 325,000 entry level teachers.)

    The secret loans financed bank mergers so that the largest banks could grow even larger. The money also allowed banks to step up their lobbying efforts.

    While Henry Paulson (Bush’s Secretary of the Treasury) was informing Congress and the public that only minor reforms were needed to protect Fannie and Freddie from collapse, he met secretly with leading Wall Street hedge fund managers -- among them his former colleagues at Goldman Sachs -- to alert them that he was about to nationalize the giant mortgage companies – a move that would eradicate nearly all the stock value of the companies. This information was enormously valuable because it allowed these hedge funds to short Fannie and Freddie and thereby make a fortune.

    While Timothy Geithner was head of the NY Federal Reserve, he argued against legislative efforts by Senator Ted Kaufman, D-Delaware, to limit the size of banks because the issue was “too complex for Congress and that people who know the markets should handle these decisions,” Kaufman recalls. Meanwhile, Geithner was fully aware of the enormous secret loans while Senator Kaufman was kept in the dark. Barney Frank, who was authoring key bank reform legislation was also not informed of the secret loans. No one in Congress was told.

So what does this all mean?

1. The big banks and hedge funds were in much more trouble than we were led to believe.

As many of us suspected, all the big banks were on their knees begging for help – secretly – while telling their investors, the public and Congress that all was well. They had gambled and lost. Under the rules of ideal capitalism, they should have suffered some “creative destruction,” and seen their shareholder value eliminated through bankruptcy, and their managers replaced. The entire banking system should have been reorganized from top to bottom as well. Instead, these colossal failures were secretly rewarded.

2. Wall Street’s secret government made sure the largest banks would grow even larger, aided by the secret funding.

While Congress was debating legislation to break up the large banks and reinstitute Glass Steagall (to separate risky investment banking from insured commercial banking,) the secret government was using public funds to grow even larger through mergers and acquisitions. Because Congress and the public were unaware of the secret funding and ill-health of all the banks, the legislation was easily defeated. As the chart below makes painfully clear, too-big-to-fail banks grew even bigger.

3. The bigger Wall Street becomes, the more government it can buy.

This part isn’t secret. As the top six banks grew larger, they spent more funds lobbying to make sure that they wouldn’t suffer any unprofitable impacts from banking reform legislation. So after the biggest banks received hundreds of billions in secret loans, they upped their lobbying funds to maintain their size and power. Read ‘em and weep:

4. Wall Street’s secret government protects its own.

At first, it’s not easy to understand how Treasury Secretary Paulson, the former head of Goldman Sachs, could risk attending a secret meeting with giant hedge fund managers, many of whom used to work at Goldman Sachs. How could the nation’s highest ranking financial official dare to tip off these hedge fund elites about the imminent government takeover of Fannie and Freddie before Congress and the public were informed? Well, one answer is that Paulson felt obliged to warn his old comrades of the impeding nationalization. Maybe, he wanted to get them out of harm’s way just in case they were heavily involved in those markets. Or maybe he also wanted to give them a very valuable tip to profit by. But the deeper explanation, I believe, is that Wall Street’s key government officials – Paulson, Summers, Geithner, Orszag (the former Obama OMB chief who now makes millions working for CitiGroup), etc. truly believe the following:

    Wall Street banks are the best in the world and are the cutting-edge of the American economy. They are our future.

    Wall Street bankers and hedge fund managers are enormously smarter and sharper than the rest of us. They deserve our admiration.

    Helping Wall Street to grow and prosper is precisely the same thing as helping all Americans and the entire economy. They deserve our support.

    Secret meetings to provide insider information are normal on Wall Street. There’s nothing wrong with warning your friends about upcoming policy decisions that might impact their profits.

    There’s also absolutely nothing wrong with providing trillions of dollars of secret loans to the best and the brightest and not telling Congress about it.

It’s all a closed loop of self-justification and self-deception: Wall Street is brilliant. What Wall Street does is for the good of the country. Helping Wall Street profit is good for the country. Hiding the truth from democratically elected leaders is also for the good of the country because Wall Street is brilliant and knows better.

And all this is deeply believed by Wall Street and its secret government, even though Wall Street, and Wall Street alone, took down the economy and killed 8 million jobs in a matter of months. Simply brilliant!

5. Wall Street is a clear and present danger to democracy.

Usually, I am not an alarmist. In fact, I often argue against facile conspiracy theories. I want to believe that our democracy still has promise. But, the Wall Street-induced crash and the government’s response to it has me very worried. The Bloomberg News revelations suggest that Wall Street’s secret government has enormous disdain for what remains of our democracy. The financial elites obviously believe that Congress cannot be trusted to do the right thing even when it is bought and paid for by the very banks it supposedly regulates. As for the rest of us? We’re just a financially illiterate mass to be manipulated through the mass media. Our minds too can be bought and sold through careful marketing.

This financial arrogance and corruption is enormously corrosive to our democratic values. Already, many Americans, and for good reason, no longer trust their government. Already, many Americans, and for good reason, no longer vote. Already, many Americans, and for good reason, believe that democracy as we know it is a sham. Wall Street couldn’t have written a better script to maintain its domination.

6. Occupy Wall Street is fundamentally correct, but we need more.

The occupiers dramatically attacked Wall Street elites and captured the country’s imagination with their 1 percent, 99 percent framework. And the idea is sticking and spreading. But that’s only the start. To reclaim our country from Wall Street’s secret government we will need to develop an enormous movement among the 99 percent. Although we hope it just happens spontaneously through Twitter and Facebook, we all know it will require hardcore organizing involving millions of us.

At the moment, no one knows what form it will take. But we do know this: great concentrations of power and wealth do not give up their power and wealth without an enormous fight. Wall Street’s secret government is more than ready to protect itself, even if it means subverting democracy. Our occupiers have shown great courage in helping us reclaim our democratic rights. Let’s hope it spreads…and soon.

******
Les Leopold is the executive director of the Labor Institute and Public Health Institute in New York, and author of The Looting of America: How Wall Street's Game of Fantasy Finance Destroyed Our Jobs, Pensions, and Prosperity—and What We Can Do About It (Chelsea Green, 2009).

Bradley Manning Hearing Concludes

2011-12-25T21:59:00.000-08:00

As Bradley Manning Hearing Concludes, Military Prosecutors Say WikiLeaks Disclosures Aided al-Qaeda.

What do you think?

Lawyers made their closing arguments Thursday in the military pretrial hearing for accused Army whistle blower Bradley Manning, which will determine whether he should face a court-martial for allegedly leaking classified video and diplomatic cables to WikiLeaks.

The defense suggested that the original classification authorities for this classified information that Bradley Manning is accused of releasing actually take the stand and be put under oath next time, because they keep saying that there is a risk to national security, and he would like to see them go under oath, and they would probably perjure themselves if they did, says Firedoglake blogger Kevin Gosztola, who was present at Manning’s hearing.

He notes that the prosecution "linked Bradley Manning to aiding al-Qaeda..." That essentially is criminalizing national security journalism... What they’re saying is anybody who puts this information on the internet, (e.g., if you do a report on a drone strike, or if you do a report on anything related to military operations), and al-Qaeda reads it you could be accused of aiding the enemy."

Editor’s Remarks: The accusation by Military prosecutors that the information disclosed by Bradley Manning and given to WikiLeaks “aided Al-Qaeda” sounds like a bold-faced lie. They are exaggerating and deliberately using buzz words to frighten the American people. How can Military prosecutors make such a dramatic statement when, in fact, any such information is so easily obtainable?
They had better be prepared to demonstrate a solid body of proof before making such inflammatory accusations.
There appear to be too many injustices prevailing simply because the Military got embarrassed, resulting in torture and exposure to extreme conditions of the accused without benefit of counsel.

Republican contributions for Walker’s recall

2011-12-22T21:19:00.000-08:00

More than half of Republican contributions for Walker’s recall fight are from outside Wisconsin.

December 21, 2011 -- Scott Walker is not only getting untold and unaccountable amounts of money from the Koch Brothers and Karl Rove right-wing factions.

He’s also getting oodles of cash from many out-of-state Republican contributors who seem very interested in making sure he stays the Grand Demogogue of Fitzwalkerstan.

When it comes to how Walker has been given the opportunity to have unlimited amounts of campaign contributions and is still going to get recalled, it shows the power of Wisconsin grassroots efforts are much stronger than the astroturf versions devised by Walker supporters.

Leading the pack is the scumbag who funded the disgusting and discredited “Swiftboat” campaign against John Kerry in 2004, Bob Perry.

Karl Rove has stated that Perry is “willing to write checks to support Republican candidates.” Perry has given at least $7 million to Karl Rove’s superPAC “American Crossroads.“ Foster Friess, second on the list, is part of the oh-so-exclusive Koch Brothers’ Million-Dollar Donor Club.

Wisconsin Democracy Campaign has the numbers and this list is sorted with contributors from the highest amount (nearly a quarter million dollars) to $10,000 from between July 1 and December 10, 2011:

Contributor     City/State         Occup./Employer   Amount
Perry, Bob J.    Houston, TX      Perry Homes       $240,000.00
Friess, Foster   Jackson, WY     Friess Assoc.     $100,000.00
Uihlein, E.A.     Lake Forest, IL Uline, Inc.            $100,000.00
Uihlein, R.E.      Lake Forest, IL Uline, Inc.            $100,000.00
Kuester, D. J.   Milwaukee, WI Marshall-Ilsley    $50,000.00
Schuette, G.    Sugar Grove, I   Wausau Homes    $50,000.00
Schuette, R.J. Wausau, WI       Wausau Homes   $50,000.00
Schuette, T.J. Wausau, WI       Wausau Homes $50,000.00
Hanley, W.L.      Palm Beac FL     Lexington Grp.    $40,000.00
Hertog, Roger NewYork, NY    Retired              $40,000.00
Nau, John L.    Houston, TX      Silver Eagle     $30,000.00
Shiely, John S. Elmrove, WI      Briggs/Strat.      $30,000.00
Bronstein, K.D. Chago, IL           Tradelink Llc      $15,000.00
Corrigan, F.W. Carefree, AZ     Retired              $15,000.00
Craft, J. W.    Tulsa, OK             Alliance Coal       $15,000.00
Crow, T.          Dallas, TX            Homemaker        $15,000.00
Ingram, J.R     Nashville, TN       Ingram Ind.        $15,000.00
Johnson,W.    Franklin, TN         Copart, Inc.        $15,000.00
Wilkey,.L.       Hartland, WI         Fisher Barton     $15,000.00
Einho, N.       Milwaukee, WI       Einhorn, Inc.    $12,500.00
Einrn, S.      Milwaukee, WI       Einhorn Assoc.    $12,500.00
onstein, K.D. Chicago, IL             Tradelink Llc     $10,000.00
Corrigan, F.W. Carefree, AZ      Retired                $10,000.00
Craft, J.W.     Tulsa, OK              Alliance Coal       $10,000.00
Crow, Trammell Dallas, TX          Homemaker        $10,000.00
Hanley, W.L.   Palm Beach, FL      Lex. Mgmt.          $10,000.00
Hertog, R.New York, NY             Retired               $10,000.00
Hubbard, S.S. Saint Paul, MN      Hubbard             $10,000.00
Ingram, J.R.    Nashville, TN        Ingram Inc.        $10,000.00
Johnson, M.O Rice Lake, WI       Rice Lake           $10,000.00
Johnson, W.     Franklin, TN         Copart, Inc.      $10,000.00
Kasten, G. F.    Milwaukee, WI     Retired            $10,000.00
Lynch, B.B .      Whitefish, WI      Retired            $10,000.00
McCorvey,A.     Houston, TX        Mccorvey Sht. $10,000.00
Nau, John L.     Houston, TX        Silver Eagle     $10,000.00
Perot, H.R.        Plano, TX            Perot Systems $10,000.00
Perry, Bob J.    Houston, TX       Perry Homes      $10,000.00
Reiman, R.J.     Milwaukee, WI   Retired              $10,000.00
Van Dyke, P.H. Milwaukee, WI   Homemaker       $10,000.00
Weber, D.J.      La Crosse, WI    Logistics Health $10,000.00

Source: Wisconsin Democracy Campaign

2011-12-22T15:40:00.000-08:00

**********************************************

Rinnai Natural Gas Tankless

Rinnai Natural Gas Whole-house Tankless Water Heaters are for domestic water, meaning for heating your home's drinking, washing and bathing water. Tankless water heaters, also known as on-demand or continuous flow water heaters, only heat the water when needed, which is beneficial and much more energy efficient than the traditional tank-style water heater which keeps all of the water in the tank hot at all times. Meanwhile, the hot water supply is endless so you'll never run out of hot water, and they take up much less space than a tank-style water heater.

**********************************************

Secular Guidelines to Moral Living: A Tribute to Christopher Hitchens

2011-12-21T22:47:00.000-08:00

By Dr. Jeff Schweitzer

As with the passing of any accomplished author and philosopher, the death of Christopher Hitchens brings to the forefront the ephemeral nature of life. Pausing to reflect honestly upon our own lives is perhaps the most fitting tribute we can offer to someone who was so thoroughly dedicated to the objective truth. These are my musings.

Those hoping for a deathbed conversion were of course sorely disappointed. But the hope that Hitchens would find God was always futile. What the faithful fail to understand is that impending death will not suddenly cause a rationalist to believe in Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, or an invisible man in the sky. There are plenty of atheists in the foxhole. Hitchens was just the most recent.

Observing the trajectory of an average life, a pessimistic realist could conclude that our existence is a tragedy interspersed with brief moments of happiness. An optimist would say that happiness is life’s norm, interrupted at times by tragedy.

But both could agree that no matter our disposition toward one or the other we should acknowledge each day the joy of being alive. Think how keenly that was felt in Hitchens’ last days. The other option, as he would tell you, is usually worse.

Given our short time here, we can better tilt the scale in favor of happiness when we find a healthy balance in extracting the most from life every day, but with the prudence of delaying rewards when necessary to plan for a productive and happy future.

Hitchens’ obvious excesses with alcohol and tobacco are an example of how imbalance in yielding to immediate indulgence and thoughts for the future can lead to unpleasant consequences. Of course he has plenty of company; but in spite of his and our real human frailties, we all have the power to live each day to the fullest in our particular circumstances, to a degree that is responsible.

Certainly, sacrifice and self-discipline are necessary to achieve lasting happiness in life, but a little indulgence each day honors the pleasure of being alive.

But not too much. At different life stages, the balance between these opposing forces of immediate and delayed gratification will tend to shift. With age, experience and accomplishment comes a natural tendency toward reaping the rewards from past sacrifice.

For example, a serious student will devote years of hard study for the benefits of a degree, while others during that time are enjoying more of life on a daily basis.

But that sacrifice once made yields a commensurate reward in future pleasures. Unfortunately, no clean formula exits to balance self-indulgence and self-sacrifice. The best approach is to incorporate a clear recognition of the dilemma into life’s daily decisions. Live for today, but plan for tomorrow.

So, in honor of Hitchens I propose here guidelines to how we can make those daily decisions, a secular distillation of moral behavior derived from those characteristics that define us as human. Each person will by definition develop a unique approach tailored to personal need. But natural variation should not be understood to mean that everybody has free reign.

Our mutual obligations create boundaries around individual moral codes. That is analogous to free speech being defended up to the point where speech creates injury to others, such as falsely yelling fire in a crowded theater. Free speech, yes, but within responsible confines.

Personal choice has limits. What follows is my list of how we might make good choices within accepted boundaries.

• Respect the environment
• Be honest
• Be reliable
• Be responsible
• Be faithful to your life partner
• Respect and be tolerant of others
• Do no harm to others
• Be happy for the success of others
• Cherish family and friends
• Enjoy safe and responsible sex
• Nourish good health
• Be true to yourself
• Be moderate in all things, including moderation
• Be consistent
• Disdain mediocrity
• Find balance in life
• Be curious
• Use time wisely
• Donate to charity
• Respect animal rights
• Leave the world a better place

I have elsewhere expanded on each of these points, but they are largely self-explanatory. These suggestions are not mandated from above by a higher power, but instead are derived from our biology. One prominent characteristic of humans is sociality.

Functioning as a group in many circumstances conveys significant advantages on members of the group. Associated with sociality is altruism, which is sacrificial behavior that in some way promotes the propagation of the genes of the altruistic individual, usually by aiding the survival of a close relative sharing some common genetic stock.

The ultimate altruistic behavior would be dying for the sake of another’s survival. An uncle getting in harms way to protect a nephew is an example. Social cooperation and altruism are likely significant factors in the success of our species, a fact that underlines the biological basis for a natural ethic as a defining and adaptive human characteristic.

As a species endowed with large complex brains, we can choose a path unique to humans by elevating ourselves above the common fate of other species. We can choose to be moral. Amazing clarity is achieved in realizing that life is not controlled by some unseen and mysterious god, but by an individual’s power to make decisions, and a personal choice to be moral.

There is tremendous joy in understanding that purpose and meaning in life are self-derived, and that these precious commodities are not some gift from above that can be taken away arbitrarily by a wrathful deity working in mysterious ways. We are the masters of our own fate. Nothing is more powerful, or more satisfying.

I don’t know to what degree Hitchens would agree with or follow any of the above. But I am sure he would love to debate the issues, and that he would do so with his usual fiery charm and the smug confidence that he could just not contain.

I know too that Hitchens conformed to at least one of these guidelines: he left the world a better place. He will be missed.

******

Dr. Jeff Schweitzer is Marine Biologist and former Clinton White House science adviser. This article was posted in the Huffington Post on October 14, 2008. Dr. Schweitzer is the author of five books, including A New Moral Code and his latest, Calorie Wars. Learn more about Jeff at his Website.

2011-12-20T19:57:00.000-08:00

***********************************************
A bank is a place that will lend you money, if you can
prove that you don't need it.
***********************************************

$7.7 Trillion to Wall Street to Keep the Banksters Happy!

2011-12-20T19:34:00.000-08:00

By: Thom Hartmann, Truthout

Do you know who Elizabeth Duke is? How about Donald Kohn or Kevin Warsh? No? Well, you should. While Congress was debating back in 2008 whether or not to bailout banksters with a $700 billion blank check, these guys and girls were just doing it.

They were funneling $7.7 trillion to Wall Street under the table, without one constituent phone call, without worrying about one election, without having to give one explanation.

They were able to do that because they're members of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors, a group of people who are not voted into office but have the power to completely dictate monetary policy in America.

They are not politicians, they're technocrats. They're bankers and financial experts. Technocrats aren't interested in democracy, it takes too long. Often the interests of the majority of voters don't quite line up with the interests of the minority of bankers foreign investors.

Or, to put it in today's terms, the interests of the 99 percent rarely line up with the interests of the one percent.

The technocrats at the Fed weren't interested in waiting for Congress, with all of its open debate and constituent services, to bail out the banks.

They just went ahead and did it themselves. According to documents obtained by Bloomberg News. In 2009 the Fed dished out $7.7 trillion in no strings attached super-low interest loans to Wall Street's biggest players.

That's $7.7 trillion!

That's more than half of the total value of EVERYTHING! Every single thing produced in America that same year. $7.7 trillion out the door with no one bothering to inform the electorate about it until now.

And since the rates were super low interest loans, banks made enormous profits off of them.

Six of the nation's biggest banks, like Morgan Stanley and Bank of America, pocketed a not-too-shabby $13 billion in undisclosed profits. Thanks to the deal with the technocrats at the Fed to a decision made by technocrats, and not politicians, the too-big-to-fail banks are even bigger.

Wall Street has raked in more profits in just the last 30 months than they did in the entire eight years leading up to the 2008 financial crisis.

The economic crisis that brought banksters to the ledge ended up being pretty lucrative for them in the long run.

The bigger picture is this: can our democracy survive future financial crises? As the world descends into financial turmoil on fears that the Euro zone may collapse, it's the technocrats who are taking power, replacing elected officials.

The clearest example of this is what happened in Greece a few weeks ago.

In order to preserve the euro and keep financial markets steady as well as ensure foreign investors get what's theirs, the technocrats at the International Monetary Fund and the European Central Bank demanded that Greece take a bailout.

Knowing that a bailout would mean more layoffs, higher taxes and less benefits for the Greek people, Greek Prime Minister George Papandreou wanted to hold a national referendum on whether or not to take the bailout.

Iceland was forced to make the same decision one year earlier. Papandreou wanted the people to determine their fate through democracy; but, it never happened.

Just floating the idea cost Papandreou his job. He was forced out of office and replaced by a technocrat, Lucas Papademos, who happened to be the former vice president of the European Central Bank.

When the Icelandic people were asked in a national referendum if they should take austerity cuts to bail out their banksters, they overwhelmingly said: No! Let the banks fail.!

But with a technocrat in charge, there will be no vote. A bailout will be shoved down the throat of the Greek people. Austerity will too painful and anything was done to keep the banksters happy.

New York Times op-ed columnist Ross Douthat laid out this new reality of technocrat control in a recent article he wrote, "For the inhabitants of Italy and Greece, who have just watched democratically elected governments toppled by pressure from financiers, European Union bureaucrats, and foreign heads of state.

The cold reality of 21st-century politics is that democracy may be nice in theory, but in a time of crisis it is the technocrats who really get to call the shots.

National sovereignty is a nice concept, but the survival of the European common currency comes first.

All signs indicate that we'll be confronted with this problem in America as the next financial crisis looms (caused by Europe, student debt or housing).

The American people will tell Congress “no way in hell will we sign off on another bailout of Wall Street!” It is then the technocrats at the Fed will takeover and our democracy will be irrelevant, just as it was in 2008 and 2009.

We the people need to take back control of the Fed, just as the people of Europe need to take back control of their central banks and global financial institutions.

Only when the Federal Reserve becomes an instrument of the people to calm the mood swings of the market, and not be a piggy bank for transnational banking corporations, can we really protect ourselves from a technocratic takeover?

The way to do it is straightforward. It was Alexander Hamilton's idea back in the George Washington administration to have the central bank owned by the US government and run by the Treasury Department.

In this way all the profits from banking go directly into the Treasury resulting in the American people paying less in taxes while the banksters on Wall Street can find a job at Wal-Mart.

The people of North Dakota did the same thing in 1919. They established the Bank of North Dakota and it kept the state in the black, and kept its farmers, manufacturers and students protected from the predations of New York banksters for nearly a century.

It's time for every state to charter their own state bank, just like North Dakota did, and for the Treasury Department to either buy the Fed from the for-profit banks that own it, or simply nationalize it.

Only when we get control of our money out of the hands of sociopathic banksters will our democracy begin to function for the people instead of for the banksters.

The Federal Reserve System

2011-12-19T20:39:00.000-08:00

The Federal Reserve System (also known as the Federal Reserve, and informally as the Fed) is the central banking system of the United States. It was created on December 23, 1913 with the enactment of the Federal Reserve Act, largely in response to a series of financial panics, particularly a severe panic in 1907.

Over time, the roles and responsibilities of the Federal Reserve System have expanded and its structure has evolved. Events such as the Great Depression were major factors leading to changes in the system.

Its duties today, according to official Federal Reserve documentation, are to conduct the nation's monetary policy, supervise and regulate banking institutions, maintain the stability of the financial system and provide financial services to depository institutions, the U.S. government, and foreign official institutions.

The task of the Federal Reserve System is to maintain employment, keep prices stable, and keep interest rates at a moderate level by regulating monetary policy.

Components of the Federal Reserve System also supervise banks, provide financial services, and conduct research on the United States economy and the economies in the surrounding region.

The Federal Reserve System's structure is composed of the presidentialy appointed Board of Governors (or Federal Reserve Board), the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC), twelve regional Federal Reserve Banks located in major cities throughout the nation, numerous privately owned U.S. member banks and various advisory councils.

The FOMC is the committee responsible for setting monetary policy and consists of all seven members of the Board of Governors and the twelve regional bank presidents, though only five bank presidents vote at any given time. The Federal Reserve System has both private and public components, and was designed to serve the interests of both the general public and private bankers.

The result is a structure that is considered unique among central banks. It is also unusual in that an entity outside of the central bank, namely the United States Department of the Treasury, creates the currency used.

According to the Board of Governors, the Federal Reserve is independent within government in that "its monetary policy decisions do not have to be approved by the President or anyone else in the executive or legislative branches of government."

Its authority is derived from statutes enacted by the U.S. Congress and the System is subject to congressional oversight. The members of the Board of Governors, including its chairman and vice-chairman, are chosen by the President and confirmed by the Senate.

The government also exercises some control over the Federal Reserve by appointing and setting the salaries of the system's highest-level employees. Thus the Federal Reserve has both private and public aspects.

The U.S. Government receives all of the system's annual profits, after a statutory dividend of 6% on member banks' capital investment is paid, and an account surplus is maintained. In 2010, the Federal Reserve made a profit of $82 billion and transferred $79 billion to the U.S. Treasury.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Income Gap Is Suddenly a Hot Issue. Here’s Why.

2011-12-19T12:58:00.000-08:00

By Sarah Stodola, The Fiscal Times

December 6, 2011--It may become the defining issue of the 2012 presidential campaign. The growing gap between the very rich and everybody else — the so-called 1 percent and the 99 percent — is the one thing the famously unfocused Occupy Wall Street movement can coalesce around.

The Congressional debate this week about extending the payroll tax cut has revolved around the issue. And it was the subject of an impassioned speech today by President Obama. "Long before the recession hit, hard work stopped paying off for many people," Obama said during an appearance in Osawatomie, Kan. "But this is not just another political debate. This is the defining issue of our time. This is a make-or-break moment for the middle class."

But does the gap really matter?
Is it necessarily a bad thing?

As President Obama noted, the income divide in America isn’t all that new -- it was an issue in Teddy Roosevelt's time, and it has been surging again since the 1970s. The top 1 percent of the population now possesses 40 percent of all wealth in the country -- up from 33 percent 25 years ago.

In 1965, according the Economic Policy Institute, CEOs earned 24 times the average American worker.

In 2010, the institute says, CEOs earned 234 times more than the average working stiff. Among the myriad causes of the income gap, experts say, are advances in globalization and technology, the decline of labor unions, a decrease in jobs for those without a college degree, and perhaps most important, government policy.

The gap between rich and poor in America is now greater than in Russia, Nigeria, Venezuela, and Iran, according to the CIA World Factbook. Between 1980 and 2005, the top 1 percent of earners in the U.S. took home more than 80 percent of income gains.

Between 1993 and 2008, real income for the top 1 percent of families grew an average of 3.94 percent per year, while real income for everyone else grew only 0.75 percent annually.

But that doesn’t mean everyone in the 99 percent is suffering. In fact, some experts believe that the size of the income gap has been exaggerated.

“Oftentimes these inequality numbers fail to take into account a couple of things,” says James Pethokoukis of the American Enterprise Institute (AEI). “One is household size … and two is differing levels of inflation.”

Pethokoukis says that households at the upper end of the income scale tend to be bigger, meaning that income has to be dispersed among more people than at the bottom, and that high-income households also contend with a higher level of inflation for the goods they consume. Both of these factors, he says, somewhat equalize the income gap.

But even if they don’t, and even if there is a significant income gap in America -- so what?

Income inequality can provide clear benefits, breeding competition and innovation critical to economic growth. “If there's no inequality, then people tend not to work,” says Jacob Hacker, a professor of political science at Yale and co-author of Winner-Take-All Politics: How Washington Made the Rich Richer -- And Turned Its Back on the Middle Class. But he adds that when income inequality reaches an extreme level, “there are rapidly diminishing returns.”

This can have huge economic and political consequences. In a society with extreme inequality, citizens “will have little incentive to support society,” says Glenn Firebaugh, a professor of sociology and demography at Pennsylvania State University. “It isn't good for a society to have too many people who feel alienated.”

In addition to breeding resentment, extreme income gaps can affect political power, education, crime rates, and health care.

Last year, 27 percent of those making less than $25,000 per year went without health insurance (although 14.6 percent of those were children), while among those making over $75,000, only 8 percent had no health coverage, according to a recent report from the U.S. Census Bureau.

That’s up from 10 years ago when the numbers were 23 percent (with 21.8 percent under the age of 18) and 7 percent, respectively. And a 2008 government report found that the growing disparities in life expectancy between rich and poor in this country mirror the expansion of the income gap.

In the early 1980s, the most affluent Americans could expect to live 2.8 years longer than the least affluent. By 2000 that number had grown to 4.5 years and continues to rise, according to an article in the International Journal of Epidemiology that was based on research from the Department of Health and Human Services.

And many experts believe that as the very rich pull away from everyone else, they are taking political power with them, undermining the democratic process. “The crucial aspect of democracy is that you're not supposed to be able to translate financial resources into political power,” says Hacker.

Says Gary Burtless, an economist at the Brookings Institution who specializes in income distribution: “in a democracy like ours, money helps, number one, helps determine who gets elected, and number two, influences the behavior of people once they are elected.

The wider inequality has become, the more I am concerned that the government [has] become captive to the views of the people who have the most money.”

Once the very richest wield inordinate power in government, they tend to preserve their own interests, creating a vicious cycle. “Wealth begets power, which begets more wealth,” economist and Nobel Prize winner Joseph Stiglitz wrote in a May 2011 article for Vanity Fair. Financial deregulation, tax cuts for the wealthy, the revolving door between government jobs and high-paying private-sector positions, and increased corporate financing of political campaigns all reflect this phenomenon.

“Inequality exacerbates educational disparities because we fund so much of education through local property taxes … But in areas with greater inequality, you also see more resistance to education funding,” says Hacker. “Really rich people have a lot less interest in public institutions. The public library or public school is less important to people who can buy themselves out of these shared institutions.”

While the rate of property crime -- the kind motivated by the prospect of financial gain -- has dropped over the past 15 years, the rate would have fallen far more without a rising income gap, says Antonio Merlo, an economist at the University of Pennsylvania who has done research on the economics of crime.

“There exists a … positive association between income inequality and property crime,” he says. “So as the income inequality in a society increases, property crime increases. Crime, like all other activities, is a place where people are going to compare marginal costs and marginal benefits.”

In a highly unequal society, Merlo points out, the benefit of committing a crime for financial gain often seems greater than the cost of breaking the law, especially when the legal alternatives are bleak.

Still, thinkers such as Pethokoukis of the AEI don’t believe that the current income gap and its ramifications demand radical new policies.

“Frankly, whether income inequality is better or worse,” Pethokoukis says, “I would still be prescribing the same policies, which are tax reform, spending reform, education.”

International Bulletin of Missionary Research

2011-12-18T21:34:00.000-08:00

Every January, the International Bulletin of Missionary Research publishes a “Statistical Table on Global Mission” — a detailed look at the world religious situation prepared by David Barrett. Precision in these matters is impossible, but over the years, Barrett (an Anglican who teaches “missiometrics” at Regent University) has proven himself a judicious, reliable guide. Browsing his numbers reveals more than a few interesting things.

Christian mission, for example, was essentially flat in the twentieth century. There were only 558 million Christians in the world in 1900 and there will be approximately 2 billion Christians by the middle of this year, a huge increase. But as a percentage of world population, Christianity has been treading water for a century: Christians were 34.5 percent of world population in 1900, and will be 33.1 percent in 2002.

Half of the world’s 2 billion Christians are Catholics. The next largest “megablock” of Christians is found in the denominationally-unaffiliated “Independent Churches,” which have some 400 million members — almost twice as many as the 217 million Orthodox believers in the world.

Barrett counts 350 million denominationally-affiliated Protestants and another 80 million in the Anglican “megablock.” The relative positions of these “megablocks” within world Christianity will likely remain constant for the next quarter-century.

Even as Christian population remained steady as a percentage of world population, other dimensions of Christian life changed dramatically in the twentieth century.

Christians worshiped in 400,000 congregations in 1900; they can be found in 3.5 million parishes worldwide today. There were 300,000 books on Christianity published in 1900; 5.1 million such books will be published this year.

The 3,500 Christian periodicals published in 1900 are a small fraction of the 35,000 Christian periodicals circulating today. Ten times as many Bibles will be distributed worldwide in 2002 as in 1900: 59 million versus 5.5 million.

Christian organizations used some 1,000 computers in 1970; they use 332 million computers today. Charitable giving to Christian causes rose from $8 billion to $300 billion over the last century. Perhaps most strikingly, the number of Christian denominations skyrocketed, from some 1,900 a century ago to 35,500 today — one measure of the immensity of the ecumenical task in the twenty-first century.

Christianity became much more an urban phenomenon in the twentieth century. In 1900, only 28 percent of the world’s Christians lived in cities. This year, 58 percent of the global Christian population will be urban dwellers.

The communications revolution also made a dramatic impact on Christian life: today, 2.5 billion people watch and listen to Christian broadcasts every month, a number Barrett expects will increase to 3.8 billion by 2025. Only 750 million were tuning-in thirty years ago, and of course no one was in 1900.

The total of what Barrett calls “distinct religions” has shot up from 1,000 in 1900 to 10,500 today, and will likely increase to 15,000 in a quarter-century. While this extravagant growth in new religions refutes the notion that the modern world is inevitably becoming secular, new religious movements are also a serious challenge to interreligious dialogue.

The existing difficulties of Christian-Buddhist, Christian-Hindu, and Christian-Muslim dialogue will be magnified in dialogues with such rapidly growing “new religions” as the Vietnam-based Cao Dai (which blends Buddhism, Confucianism, and Taoism with themes from the Bible and the Qu’ran, while styling its leader the “Pope” and its headquarters the “Holy See”), and the Ahmadi Muslims, who claim that Jesus escaped the cross and died in India at age 120.

Islam is the fastest growing major religion in the world today. From a population base of 200 million in 1900, Islam grew more than fivefold during the twentieth century. The change in Muslim/Catholic demographics over the past thirty years is striking.

In 1970 there were 554 million Muslims in the world, and 666 millions Catholics; by the Great Jubilee of 2000, Islam could count 1.2 billion adherents, and Catholicism almost 1.1 billion. 1.3 billion Catholics in 2025 will find themselves in a world with 1.8 billion Muslims.

Would those ratios look different in 2100, however, if China opens up and becomes the greatest field of Christian mission since the Americas? Something else to think about, amidst David Barrett’s remarkable numbers.

******
George Weigel, a Senior Fellow of the Ethics and Public Policy Center, is a Roman Catholic theologian and one of America's leading commentators on issues of religion and public life. Weigel is the author or editor of sixteen books, including The Cube and the Cathedral: Europe, America, and Politics Without God (2005), Letters to a Young Catholic: The Art of Mentoring (2004), The Courage to Be Catholic: Crisis, Reform, and the Future of the Church (2002), and The Truth of Catholicism: Ten Controversies Explored (2001).

Weigel's major study of the life, thought, and action of Pope John Paul II, Witness to Hope: The Biography of Pope John Paul II (Harper Collins, 1999) was published to international acclaim in 1999, and translated into French, Italian, Spanish, Polish, Portuguese, Slovak, Czech, Slovenian, Russian, and German. The 2001 documentary film based on the book won numerous prizes. George Weigel is a consultant on Vatican affairs for NBC News, and his weekly column, "The Catholic Difference," is syndicated to more than fifty newspapers around the United States.

Block the Vote

2011-12-17T09:18:00.000-08:00

By Paul Krugman

Earlier this week former employees of Sproul & Associates (operating under the name Voters Outreach of America), a firm hired by the Republican National Committee to register voters, told a Nevada TV station that their supervisors systematically tore up Democratic registrations.

The accusations are backed by physical evidence and appear credible. Officials have begun a criminal investigation into reports of similar actions by Sproul in Oregon.

Republicans claim, of course, that they did nothing wrong -- and that besides, Democrats do it, too. But there haven't been any comparably credible accusations against Democratic voter-registration organizations. And there is a pattern of Republican efforts to disenfranchise Democrats, by any means possible.

Some of these, like the actions reported in Nevada, involve dirty tricks. For example, in 2002 the Republican Party in New Hampshire hired an Idaho company to paralyze Democratic get-out-the-vote efforts by jamming the party's phone banks.

But many efforts involve the abuse of power. For example, Ohio's secretary of state, a Republican, tried to use an archaic rule about paper quality to invalidate thousands of new, heavily Democratic registrations.

That attempt failed. But in Wisconsin, a Republican county executive insists that this year, when everyone expects a record turnout, Milwaukee will receive fewer ballots than it got in 2000 or 2002 -- a recipe for chaos at polling places serving urban, mainly Democratic voters.

And Florida is the site of naked efforts to suppress Democratic votes, and the votes of blacks in particular.

Florida's secretary of state recently ruled that voter registrations would be deemed incomplete if those registering failed to check a box affirming their citizenship, even if they had signed an oath saying the same thing elsewhere on the form.

Many counties are, sensibly, ignoring this ruling, but it's apparent that some officials have both used this rule and other technicalities to reject applications as incomplete, and delayed notifying would-be voters of problems with their applications until it was too late.

Whose applications get rejected? A Washington Post examination of rejected applications in Duval County found three times as many were from Democrats, compared with Republicans. It also found a strong tilt toward rejection of blacks' registrations.

The case of Florida's felon list -- used by state officials, as in 2000, to try to wrongly disenfranchise thousands of blacks -- has been widely reported. Less widely reported has been overwhelming evidence that the errors were deliberate.

In an article coming next week in Harper's, Greg Palast, who originally reported the story of the 2000 felon list, reveals that few of those wrongly purged from the voting rolls in 2000 are back on the voter lists.

State officials have imposed Kafkaesque hurdles for voters trying to get back on the rolls. Depending on the county, those attempting to get their votes back have been required to seek clemency for crimes committed by others, or to go through quasi-judicial proceedings to prove that they are not felons with similar names.

Can you say Fascist America? I thought you could.

And officials appear to be doing their best to make voting difficult for those blacks who do manage to register.

Florida law requires local election officials to provide polling places where voters can cast early ballots. Duval County is providing only one such location, when other counties with similar voting populations are providing multiple sites.

And in Duval and other counties the early voting sites are miles away from precincts with black majorities.

The question of whether the votes of Floridians with the wrong color skin will be fully counted if they are cast. Mr. Palast notes that in the 2000 election, almost 180,000 Florida votes were rejected because they were either blank or contained overvotes*.

*There is no such word in Merriam-Webster dictionary; it is new for Fascist America.

Demographers from the U.S. Civil Rights Commission estimate that 54 percent of the spoiled ballots were cast by blacks. And there's strong evidence that this spoilage didn't reflect voters' incompetence; it was caused mainly by defective voting machines and may also reflect deliberate vote-tampering.

The important point to realize is that these abuses aren't aberrations. They're the inevitable result of a Republican Party culture in which dirty tricks that distort the vote are rewarded, not punished. It's a culture that will persist until voters -- whose will still does count, if expressed strongly enough -- hold that party accountable.

E-mail: krugman@nytimes.com

Texas Conservatives Win Curriculum Change

2011-12-14T09:41:00.000-08:00

By James C. McKinley, Jr.

March 12, 2010 Austin,TX — After three days of turbulent meetings, the Texas Board of Education approved a social studies curriculum that will put a conservative stamp on history and economics textbooks, stressing the superiority of American capitalism, questioning the Founding Fathers’ commitment to a purely secular government and presenting Republican political philosophies in a more positive light.

Mary Helen Berlanga accused fellow members of the Board of Education of “rewriting history.”

In Texas Curriculum Fight, Identity Politics Leans Right
(March 21, 2010)
How Christian Were the Founders?
(February 14, 2010)
The Lede Blog: Textbooks a Texas Dentist Could Love
(March 12, 2010)

The vote was 10 to 5 along party lines, with all the Republicans on the board voting for it.

The board, whose members are elected, has influence beyond Texas because the state is one of the largest buyers of textbooks. In the digital age, however, that influence has diminished as technological advances have made it possible for publishers to tailor books to individual states.

In recent years, board members have been locked in an ideological battle between a bloc of conservatives who question Darwin’s theory of evolution and believe the Founding Fathers were guided by Christian principles, and a handful of Democrats and moderate Republicans who have fought to preserve the teaching of Darwinism and the separation of church and state.

Since January, Republicans on the board have passed more than 100 amendments to the 120-page curriculum standards affecting history, sociology and economics courses from elementary to high school. The standards were proposed by a panel of teachers.

“We are adding balance,” said Dr. Don McLeroy, the leader of the conservative faction on the board, after the vote. “History has already been skewed. Academia is skewed too far to the left.”

Battles over what to put in science and history books have taken place for years in the 20 states where state boards must adopt textbooks, most notably in California and Texas. But rarely in recent history has a group of conservative board members left such a mark on a social studies curriculum.

Efforts by Hispanic board members to include more Latino figures as role models for the state’s large Hispanic population were consistently defeated, prompting one member, Mary Helen Berlanga, to storm out of a meeting late Thursday night, saying, “They can just pretend this is a white America and Hispanics don’t exist.”

“They are going overboard, they are not experts, they are not historians,” she said. “They are rewriting history, not only of Texas but of the United States and the world.”

The curriculum standards will now be published in a state register, opening them up for 30 days of public comment. A final vote will be taken in May, but given the Republican dominance of the board, it is unlikely that many changes will be made.

The standards, reviewed every decade, serve as a template for textbook publishers, who must come before the board next year with drafts of their books. The board’s makeup will have changed by then because Dr. McLeroy lost in a primary this month to a more moderate Republican, and two others — one Democrat and one conservative Republican — announced they were not seeking re-election.

There are seven members of the conservative bloc on the board, but they are often joined by one of the other three Republicans on crucial votes. There were no historians, sociologists or economists consulted at the meetings, though some members of the conservative bloc held themselves out as experts on certain topics.

The conservative members maintain that they are trying to correct what they see as a liberal bias among the teachers who proposed the curriculum. To that end, they made dozens of minor changes aimed at calling into question, among other things, concepts like the separation of church and state and the secular nature of the American Revolution.

“I reject the notion by the left of a constitutional separation of church and state,” said David Bradley, a conservative from Beaumont who works in real estate. “I have $1,000 for the charity of your choice if you can find it in the Constitution.”

They also included a plank to ensure that students learn about “the conservative resurgence of the 1980s and 1990s, including Phyllis Schlafly, the Contract With America, the Heritage Foundation, the Moral Majority and the National Rifle Association.”

Dr. McLeroy, a dentist by training, pushed through a change to the teaching of the civil rights movement to ensure that students study the violent philosophy of the Black Panthers in addition to the nonviolent approach of the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. He also made sure that textbooks would mention the votes in Congress on civil rights legislation, which Republicans supported.

“Republicans need a little credit for that,” he said. “I think it’s going to surprise some students.”

Mr. Bradley won approval for an amendment saying students should study “the unintended consequences” of the Great Society legislation, affirmative action and Title IX legislation. He also won approval for an amendment stressing that Germans and Italians as well as Japanese were interned in the United States during World War II, to counter the idea that the internment of Japanese was motivated by racism.

Other changes seem aimed at tamping down criticism of the right. Conservatives passed one amendment, for instance, requiring that the history of McCarthyism include “how the later release of the Venona papers confirmed suspicions of communist infiltration in U.S. government.” The Venona papers were transcripts of some 3,000 communications between the Soviet Union and its agents in the United States.

Mavis B. Knight, a Democrat from Dallas, introduced an amendment requiring that students study the reasons “the founding fathers protected religious freedom in America by barring the government from promoting or disfavoring any particular religion above all others.”

It was defeated on a party-line vote.

After the vote, Ms. Knight said, “The social conservatives have perverted accurate history to fulfill their own agenda.”

In economics, the revisions add Milton Friedman and Friedrich von Hayek, two champions of free-market economic theory, among the usual list of economists to be studied, like Adam Smith, Karl Marx and John Maynard Keynes. They also replaced the word “capitalism” throughout their texts with the “free-enterprise system.”

“Let’s face it, capitalism does have a negative connotation,” said one conservative member, Terri Leo. “You know, ‘capitalist pig!’ ”

In the field of sociology, another conservative member, Barbara Cargill, won passage of an amendment requiring the teaching of “the importance of personal responsibility for life choices” in a section on teenage suicide, dating violence, sexuality, drug use and eating disorders.

“The topic of sociology tends to blame society for everything,” Ms. Cargill said.

Even the course on world history did not escape the board’s scalpel.

Cynthia Dunbar, a lawyer from Richmond who is a strict constitutionalist and thinks the nation was founded on Christian beliefs, managed to cut Thomas Jefferson from a list of figures whose writings inspired revolutions in the late 18th century and 19th century, replacing him with St. Thomas Aquinas, John Calvin and William Blackstone. (Jefferson is not well liked among conservatives on the board because he coined the term “separation between church and state.”)

“

2011-12-12T20:27:00.000-08:00

***********************************************
Laugh at your problems, everybody else does.
***********************************************

The United States Constitution

2011-12-12T20:12:00.000-08:00

Article V.

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

Article VI.

All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

Article VII.

The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the Same.

The Word, "the," being interlined between the seventh and eighth Lines of the first Page, the Word "Thirty" being partly written on an Erazure in the fifteenth Line of the first Page, The Words "is tried" being interlined between the thirty second and thirty third Lines of the first Page and the Word "the" being interlined between the forty third and forty-fourth Lines of the second Page.

Done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independence of the United States of America the Twelfth In witness whereof We have hereunto subscribed our Names.

The United States Constitution

2011-12-11T21:13:00.000-08:00

Article III.
Section. 1.
The judicial Power of the United States shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.
Section. 2.
The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States;-- between a State and Citizens of another State,--between Citizens of different States,--between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.
In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.
The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.
Section. 3.
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

Article. IV.

Section. 1.
Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.
Section. 2.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
A Person charged in any State with Treason, Felony, or other Crime, who shall flee from Justice, and be found in another State, shall on Demand of the executive Authority of the State from which he fled, be delivered up, to be removed to the State having Jurisdiction of the Crime.
No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due.
Section. 3.
New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.
The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.
Section. 4.
The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened), against domestic Violence.

Childhood Memories

2011-12-11T20:51:00.000-08:00

My husband is more than 9 years my senior so we each have different and interesting childhood memories. For instance, when I was a kid all of us played in the “asphalt” playground.
    Kids from neighboring apartment buildings showed up in the fall (around 50 of us) to roller skate.
    Remember I have a brand new pair of roller skates...You have a brand new key? I’ve come to learn there is a more sinister meaning than the obvious...But, I’ll stick with the obvious.
    It was nothing less than nirvana to have skates (with all 8 wheels intact), a skate key, and the right shoes. The only interference came when one unlucky skater was called home for lunch. Drats!
    Isn’t it sad that kids today only know of organized play?
    We used to hire a bike for 50 cents an hour. We’d beg and whine for the 50 cents until one of us got it. Then the lucky kid would share the bike with all her friends and the number of friends grew and grew as the hour passed.
    Today a kid would undoubtedly say: OMG! You didn’t have your own bike? Or skates? How primitive!
    Yet, those are some of my favorite memories.

2011-12-10T22:59:00.000-08:00

From Dictatorship to Democracy –- By Gene Sharp
This writer is unfamiliar to me. I heard the title mentioned during discussion of an unrelated subject. Nevertheless, it intrigued me. As it turns out there are several books written by this author; all on the same subject.
******
Have any of you watched Current (Channel 358, Direct TV), Al Gore’s contribution to modern day politics in our country and in Mexico.

John Edwards...remember him?...tried to tell us there were two Americas. We didn’t get it.

******
It's the Inequality, Stupid
By Dave Gilson and Carolyn Perot
March/April 2011 Issue, Motley Crew

How Rich Are the Superrich?
A huge share of the nation's economic growth over the past 30 years has gone to the top one-hundredth of one percent, who now make an average of $27 million per household. The average income for the bottom 90 percent of us? $31,244.

Average Income by Family, distributed by income group.
The richest controls 2/3 of America's net worth
The middle class? diddlysquat

Occupy Our Homes
Targets Big Banks Over Shady Mortgage Practices

By Jim Royal, The Motley Fool

A spin-off group from Occupy Wall Street, called Occupy Our Homes, has formed to reverse and stop foreclosures. Lately, the group has been using some creative tactics to raise awareness about the banking practices that led to the housing bubble

Earlier this week, Occupy Our Homes protesters in cities across the country united in a day of action, which included re-occupying vacant properties and moving in people without homes -- in some cases, those homes' former owners. Protestors also shut down several auctions and ran off bidders, preventing dozens of homes from being sold that day.

In Atlanta, the members of the Occupy Our Homes movement helped one man convince the auctioneer to talk to his lawyer, and ultimately got his house taken off the auction block.

The protestors also had some success in getting banks to delay foreclosures and work with their clients on loan modifications. For example, Chase agreed to postpone the foreclosure sale of a California family's home and to discuss a loan modification. In Seattle, executives at Aurora Loans and Freddie Mac agreed to negotiate with a couple in a possible modification of their loan.

The movement has also succeeded in gaining media interest, with attention from TV hosts such as Rachel Maddow, Ed Schultz and Keith Olbermann.

So what are these dishonest banking practices the protestors want to hold banks like Bank of America (BAC), Wells Fargo (WFC), Citigroup (C) and JPMorgan Chase (JPM), accountable for? Here's what the protestors allege:

Encouraging risky loans: First, bankers used predatory lending practices to pressure some Americans to take on risky loans they may not be able to pay back. While some might claim that the borrowers are responsible for this decision, the bankers' positioning as "experts" allowed them to gain the trust of their clients about what they would be able to afford.

Allowing highly speculative investing: Bankers' and speculators' over-leveraged and risky investments surrounding the housing market played a huge part in the economic crash, which in turn caused many Americans to lose their jobs or take pay cuts. This, combined with the rapid fall in housing prices, created a situation in which homeowners could not recoup the money they'd put into their houses if they needed to move.

Taking taxpayer money for bailouts: Protestors are unhappy about the fact that while taxpayer money has been used to bail out the banks that engaged in irresponsible business practices, homeowners have not seen any benefits from the government's largesse.

Carrying out illegal evictions: Finally, protestors wish to draw attention to the fact that many banks are carrying out illegal foreclosures and evictions because they do not have the proper notes, mortgages, and other legal documents required to demonstrate valid ownership of the loans. This is a particularly interesting complaint, because it shows why protestors think they are perfectly within their rights in refusing to leave their foreclosed-upon homes.

It will be interesting to see how the action unfolds in upcoming weeks, and whether protests have a lasting impact on public policy and corporate behavior in the banking sector.

******
Motley Fool analyst Jim Royal, Ph.D., does not own shares of any company mentioned here. The Motley Fool owns shares of Citigroup, Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase, and Wells Fargo, and has created a covered strangle position on Wells Fargo.

Article II

2011-12-10T14:54:00.000-08:00

Section 1

1: The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows
2: Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.
3: The Electors shall meet in their respective States, and vote by Ballot for two Persons, of whom one at least shall not be an Inhabitant of the same State with themselves. And they shall make a List of all the Persons voted for, and of the Number of Votes for each; which List they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the Seat of the Government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate. The President of the Senate shall, in the Presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the Certificates, and the Votes shall then be counted. The Person having the greatest Number of Votes shall be the President, if such Number be a Majority of the whole Number of Electors appointed; and if there be more than one who have such Majority, and have an equal Number of Votes, then the House of Representatives shall immediately chuse by Ballot one of them for President; and if no Person have a Majority, then from the five highest on the List the said House shall in like Manner chuse the President. But in chusing the President, the Votes shall be taken by States, the Representation from each State having one Vote; A quorum for this Purpose shall consist of a Member or Members from two thirds of the States, and a Majority of all the States shall be necessary to a Choice. In every Case, after the Choice of the President, the Person having the greatest Number of Votes of the Electors shall be the Vice President. But if there should remain two or more who have equal Votes, the Senate shall chuse from them by Ballot the Vice President.⁸
4: The Congress may determine the Time of chusing the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States.
5: No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
6: In Case of the Removal of the President from Office, or of his Death, Resignation, or Inability to discharge the Powers and Duties of the said Office,⁹ the Same shall devolve on the VicePresident, and the Congress may by Law provide for the Case of Removal, Death, Resignation or Inability, both of the President and Vice President, declaring what Officer shall then act as President, and such Officer shall act accordingly, until the Disability be removed, or a President shall be elected.
7: The President shall, at stated Times, receive for his Services, a Compensation, which shall neither be encreased nor diminished during the Period for which he shall have been elected, and he shall not receive within that Period any other Emolument from the United States, or any of them.
8: Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:--“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

Section 2

1: The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.
2: He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.
3: The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.

Section 3

He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper; he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States.

Section 4

The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

2011-12-10T14:47:00.000-08:00

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Did you have to memorize the Preamble when you were in 6th grade?

Article I

Section 1

All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.

Section 2

1: The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature.
2: No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen.
3: Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.² The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct. The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at Least one Representative; and until such enumeration shall be made, the State of New Hampshire shall be entitled to choose three, Massachusetts eight, Rhode-Island and Providence Plantations one, Connecticut five, New-York six, New Jersey four, Pennsylvania eight, Delaware one, Maryland six, Virginia ten, North Carolina five, South Carolina five, and Georgia three.
4: When vacancies happen in the Representation from any State, the Executive Authority thereof shall issue Writs of Election to fill such Vacancies.
5: The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.

Section 3

1: The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, chosen by the Legislature thereof,³ for six Years; and each Senator shall have one Vote.
2: Immediately after they shall be assembled in Consequence of the first Election, they shall be divided as equally as may be into three Classes. The Seats of the Senators of the first Class shall be vacated at the Expiration of the second Year, of the second Class at the Expiration of the fourth Year, and of the third Class at the Expiration of the sixth Year, so that one third may be chosen every second Year; and if Vacancies happen by Resignation, or otherwise, during the Recess of the Legislature of any State, the Executive thereof may make temporary Appointments until the next Meeting of the Legislature, which shall then fill such Vacancies.⁴
3: No Person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty Years, and been nine Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen.
4: The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no Vote, unless they be equally divided.
5: The Senate shall chuse their other Officers, and also a President pro tempore, in the Absence of the Vice President, or when he shall exercise the Office of President of the United States.
6: The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.
7: Judgment in Cases of impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.

Section 4

1: The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.
2: The Congress shall assemble at least once in every Year, and such Meeting shall be on the first Monday in December,⁵ unless they shall by Law appoint a different Day.

Section 5

1: Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members, and a Majority of each shall constitute a Quorum to do Business; but a smaller Number may adjourn from day to day, and may be authorized to compel the Attendance of absent Members, in such Manner, and under such Penalties as each House may provide.
2: Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member.
3: Each House shall keep a Journal of its Proceedings, and from time to time publish the same, excepting such Parts as may in their Judgment require Secrecy; and the Yeas and Nays of the Members of either House on any question shall, at the Desire of one fifth of those Present, be entered on the Journal.
4: Neither House, during the Session of Congress, shall, without the Consent of the other, adjourn for more than three days, nor to any other Place than that in which the two Houses shall be sitting.

Section 6

1: The Senators and Representatives shall receive a Compensation for their Services, to be ascertained by Law, and paid out of the Treasury of the United States.⁶ They shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.
2: No Senator or Representative shall, during the Time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil Office under the Authority of the United States, which shall have been created, or the Emoluments whereof shall have been encreased during such time; and no Person holding any Office under the United States, shall be a Member of either House during his Continuance in Office.

Section 7

1: All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.
2: Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States; If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such Reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a Law. But in all such Cases the Votes of both Houses shall be determined by yeas and Nays, and the Names of the Persons voting for and against the Bill shall be entered on the Journal of each House respectively. If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law.
3: Every Order, Resolution, or Vote to which the Concurrence of the Senate and House of Representatives may be necessary (except on a question of Adjournment) shall be presented to the President of the United States; and before the Same shall take Effect, shall be approved by him, or being disapproved by him, shall be repassed by two thirds of the Senate and House of Representatives, according to the Rules and Limitations prescribed in the Case of a Bill.

Section 8

1: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
2: To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;
3: To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
4: To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;
5: To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
6: To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;
7: To establish Post Offices and post Roads;
8: To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
9: To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;
10: To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;
11: To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
12: To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
13: To provide and maintain a Navy;
14: To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
15: To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
16: To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
17: To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;--And
18: To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

Section 9

1: The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.
2: The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.
3: No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.
4: No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or
5: No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State.
6: No Preference shall be given by any Regulation of Commerce or Revenue to the Ports of one State over those of another: nor shall Vessels bound to, or from, one State, be obliged to enter, clear, or pay Duties in another.
7: No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time.
8: No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.

Section 10

1: No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.
2: No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Control of the Congress.
3: No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.

Finally, Higher Taxes for the 1% -- Is Occupy Behind Governors' Moves to Make the Wealthy Pay Their Share?

2011-12-09T21:50:00.000-08:00

By Sarah Jaffe, AlterNet

Thursday 8 December 2011 -- Is the narrative around taxes finally shifting? Thanks to heavy public pressure, Governors Cuomo and Brown propose taxing their states' ultrarich.

This week the New York State Senate and Assembly near-unanimously passed a measure that would increase the top tax rate on the state's wealthiest citizens — at Gov. Andrew Cuomo's request.

It was not even two months ago that Cuomo made his infamous statement that his defense of low taxes for the rich was just like the stand his father, former Gov. Mario Cuomo, took against the death penalty in New York State.

“The point is, we don’t elect — the governor isn’t a big poll-taking machine. And that’s what we do, we take a poll and do whatever the poll says, and you wouldn’t need me … so the fact that everyone wants it, that doesn’t mean all that much. I respect the people — their opinion matters — but I’m not going to go back and forth with the political winds.”

Well, the wind appears to have shifted behind Cuomo — but what changed?

Perhaps the momentum created by the Occupy Wall Street movement helped change Cuomo's mind.

He has denied it, but Nelini Stamp, a community organizer with the Working Families Party who's been with Occupy Wall Street since the beginning, notes that Cuomo had essentially "written off" any tax increase on the 1 percent. She tells AlterNet, “What they did in Albany, where they had the sign 'Welcome to Albany, home of Governor 1%,' that had an effect.”

Taxing the rich, it should be noted, has been popular in America for a while, polling consistently at well over majority support. But politicians of both parties are so dependent upon money for campaigns that they've been completely in the pockets of the wealthy for years — and thus any talk about taxing the rich has been written off as “class warfare.”

No more, it seems. It's not just New York that is seeing a move to tax the rich — California's Gov. Jerry Brown also has a proposal that will be a ballot initiative in next election that would raise taxes on his state's 1 percent as well, and progressive groups are pushing him to go even further.

“We know that the mood of this country and the mood of this state right now is to tax those who can pay more and who have most benefited from the system,” says Rick Jacobs, founder and chair of the Courage Campaign.

It seems that the shift in the public conversation over Occupy Wall Street is starting to actually change our politics. Since the beginning, OWS and the other Occupy movements have faced complaints that it has no strategy for affecting legislative change. But Stamp notes, “We are transforming the political narrative into small legislative wins — and that doesn't mean that we stop.”

Governor 1% and the Millionaire's Tax

As I reported in October, the massively popular millionaire's tax, a surtax on the very wealthy, was set to expire Dec. 31, resulting in an effective near-$5 billion tax break for the richest. The surcharge, instituted in 2009 after Wall Street's financial crisis, crashed the economy, created two new tax brackets, taxing families with incomes of $300,000 at a rate of 7.85 percent and those over $500,000 at 8.97 percent.

That surcharge is still being allowed to expire, but instead, those making over $1 million (or families making over $2 million) will see their tax rate go up to 8.82 percent on Jan. 1. The State Senate unanimously passed the deal, 55-0, on Wednesday night, and Thursday morning the Assembly voted 130-8 for it. The Associated Press described what else is in the package, which features a tax break for 4.4 million middle-class New Yorkers:

“The tax increase will raise $2 billion to pay for the middle-class tax break, a break in the New York City transit tax for small businesses, a public-private infrastructure repair fund, a tax break for manufacturers, and $50 million in aid to upstate communities trying to recover from historic flooding in the late summer. The funding is also expected to avoid another year of cuts to education and health care.”

Still, lots of observers are less than thrilled with Cuomo's deal. “Does it make the system more 'fair?' Yes. It does. That said, New York once had a very progressive tax code. That all got flattened in the last 30-40 years,” says Phillip Anderson, blogger at The Albany Project and veteran New York political activist. “This is a very small but not entirely insignificant step in the direction of fairness.”

Stamp notes, “The fact that he kind of did a 180 is a victory. But it is also a reform that is not going to really solve anything. We're going to have a deficit of four or five billion dollars; this is just going to be able to provide about $2 billion of that, and he's going to continue to cut schools.”

And Olivia Leirer, spokesperson for New York Communities for Change, says, “It's still a tax cut for millionaires. It doesn't cover the lost revenue for letting the millionaire's tax expire. It's going to lead to another nasty fight over the budget in the spring.”

The deal, in other words, lets Cuomo and Republican State Senate Majority Leader Dean Skelos claim to be looking out for the middle class and still point out to the very rich that it might have been worse. Occupy Albany was distributing flyers that called it “More of the Status-Cuomo” and said it was “$3 billion less revenue for the 99%.”

Yet Stamp points out that weeks ago, Cuomo had written off any suggestion that the millionaire's tax should be extended or that the rich should pay any more in taxes. “We can call this a quasi-victory,” she says. “The next steps are really making sure that we go big, making sure that we're protecting students, making sure we're protecting schools and hospitals.”

California Moves to Tax the Rich Too

Facing a projected $13 billion budget deficit, Gov. Brown has proposed a tax hike on those making $250,000 from 9.3 percent to 10.3 percent. Incomes between $300,000 and $500,000 would see the rate go to 10.8 percent. Incomes above $500,000 would pay 11.3 percent. Currently, Californians who make more than $1 million are taxed at 10.3 percent.

Brown's proposal would be a ballot initiative after he failed to gain approval from the state Legislature for $11 billion in taxes and fees. "I am going directly to the voters, because I don't want to get bogged down in partisan gridlock as happened this year," he said in a statement. California law requires two-thirds of the Legislature to agree on any increase in taxes, a near-impossible task when the state's Republican minority controls enough seats to simply dig in and refuse to pass anything. A ballot measure may be the only hope.

But Brown's plan also includes a statewide sales tax hike, to 7.75 pe

cent from 7.25 percent, and the Courage Campaign, a California progressive advocacy group, estimates that it would cost the average Californian $123. “The sales tax is regressive, everybody knows that,” Rick Jacobs of the Courage Campaign says. “It certainly is hard to get a grassroots movement around raising the sales tax.”

They're proposing instead their own ballot initiative, the Millionaires Tax to Restore Funding for Education and Essential Services Act of 2012, for a tax increase by three percentage points on those who make between $1 million and $2 million, and five points on those who make over $2 million. Three-fifths of the revenue raised from their plan would go to K-12 and higher education (including the cash-strapped California university systems, where students are protesting and occupying over tuition hikes). The rest would go to local governments for infrastructure and safety.

Jacobs says “without any question” the Occupy movement has provided pressure for a tax increase on the rich, and particularly for funding for higher education. The graduate students union and the University of California Student Association are just some of the groups supporting the millionaire's tax. “If you look at the unrest that we've seen on college campuses, the root of it is money. There's just not money anymore for what was the sterling public university system in the world,” Jacobs says.

It will require 500,000 signatures to get the millionaire's tax on the ballot for next November — Gov. Brown's measure, because it would amend the state constitution, would require over 800,000. Jacobs says they plan to continue talking to the governor and working with allies to try to get the best possible measure on the ballot. “I'm glad the governor did what he did, and there's a lot of room for improvement,” he says.

Moving Forward

Nelini Stamp, speaking to AlterNet from inside an occupied home in East New York, where a family was moved into a foreclosed empty house by Occupy Wall Street activists, says that the next move in the spring, around the New York state budget, is going to have to be big. “We need to be really putting pressure on those powers. We've challenged the power of the status quo — I hope we're going to move to challenging particular pillars of power.”

And Olivia Leirer points out, “It's a continuation of the same fight — it's heartening to know that we've made some progress, but every victory is a small step in the right direction.”

The refusal of the Occupy movement to be satisfied with small electoral victories and the new vigor and interest in the work of those Stamp calls the “traditional left” have left Democrats scrambling to catch up. Public opinion on tax issues, as I noted above, hasn't really changed, but the visible, growing movement is finally pushing politicians to act. And continued pressure on those politicians can help keep them moving toward real solutions.

Stamp says, “I don't think anybody is going to chill out and relax. We are transforming the political narrative into small legislative wins, but that doesn't mean that we stop. That means we continue. This is a first example of the shift in power.”

A Short Biography of John Lennon

2011-12-07T09:22:00.000-08:00

John Lennon was born in October 1940, during a German air raid in Oxford Street Maternity hospital, Liverpool. During his childhood Lennon saw little of his father, Freddie, who went AWOL while serving in the navy. For several years he was brought up by his mother’s sister Mimi.

In his early years Lennon was a mischievous student, who would be quick to take the “micky” out of teachers as well as students. While in his early teens he got his first guitar and would spend hours playing. His Aunt Mimi would remark regularly:

“The guitar's all very well, John, but you'll never make a living out of it."

In the late 1950s Lennon formed a rock group called the Quarry Men Skiffle Band. This was the precursor to the Beatles. In 1957, he met and formed a successful musical partnership with Paul McCartney. They complemented one another.

Lennon focused on the more satirical aspects and McCartney veered towards the more optimistic, cheerful qualities. Lennon was considered the leader of the Beatles, as the oldest and with the most musical talent. It was McCartney who persuaded Lennon to allow George Harrison to join the band as lead guitarist.

The Beatles first concert was at the Cavern Club in Liverpool on March 21, 1961. After being rejected by many music labels, they eventually signed an agreement with Parlophone in 1962.

During their great success in the 60s, Lennon would often be the figurehead for the group, although they maintained that the decisions of the group were democratic.

Through The Beatles years and his subsequent solo career, Lennon expressed his political activism and pacifism.

On Monday, December 8, 1980 John Lennon was shot by Mark David Chapman at the entrance of the building where he lived, The Dakota, in New York City. Lennon had just returned from Record Plant Studio with his wife, Yoko Ono.

John Lennon was pronounced dead on arrival at St. Luke's-Roosevelt Hospital Center, where it was stated that nobody could have survived for more than a few minutes after sustaining such deadly injuries. Shortly after local news stations reported Lennon's death, crowds gathered at Roosevelt Hospital and in front of The Dakota.

He was cremated on December 10, 1980, at the Ferncliff Cemetery in Hartsdale, New York. The ashes were given to Ono, who chose not to hold a funeral for him. The first report of John’s death was announced to by Howard Cosell, during ABC's Monday Night Football.

Imagine
By John Lennon

Imagine there's no heaven
It's easy if you try
No hell below us
Above us only sky
Imagine all the people living for today

Imagine there's no countries
It isn't hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion too

Imagine all the people living life in peace
You, you may say
I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one
I hope some day you'll join us
And the world will be as one

Imagine no possessions
I wonder if you can
No need for greed or hunger
A brotherhood of man
Imagine all the people sharing all the world

You, you may say
I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one
I hope some day you'll join us
And the world will live as one

Obama's Populism and the Ghost of Teddy Roosevelt

2011-12-06T12:47:00.000-08:00

Today Barack Obama channeled one of American history's truly transformative figures by visiting the tiny Kansas town where Teddy Roosevelt gave his "New Nationalism" speech over a century ago. It's refreshing to see him invoke Roosevelt, who was a powerful and fearless agent of change both inside and outside the White House.

But echoing the populist chords of the First Progressive Era isn't without its risks. The speech that Roosevelt gave in Osawatomie, Kansas in 1910 could serve as a beacon for the President and his fellow Democrats. But that speech also warned that there's a price to be paid for promises betrayed.

Roosevelt's Ghost
If Roosevelt's ghost had been hovering over the lectern today, it might have appreciated being remembered. But it might also have repeated the words Roosevelt spoke on the same platform in 1910:

"It is of little use for us to pay lip-loyalty to the mighty men of the past unless we sincerely endeavor to apply to the problems of the present precisely the qualities which i... enabled the men of that day to meet those crises."

President Roosevelt fought relentlessly against the powerful financial interests of his time, who dominated the nation in pretty much the same way they dominate ours today. J. Pierpont Morgan famously offered to "send my man around to meet your man and sort it all out," but President Roosevelt didn't want to cut deals with powerful banking interests. He wanted to make them less powerful, and he got it done.

Four years after leaving office, Roosevelt was running for President again. People back then suggested that his ideas were too extreme: A minimum wage. Women's right to vote. Direct election of Senators. An eight-hour workday. But they all came true.

Now that's change you can believe in. And here's what Teddy Roosevelt told his Kansas audience that day.

Corrupt bankers must be prosecuted
More than one thousand bank executives were prosecuted after the Savings and Loan scandal of the 1980's under Republican President Ronald Reagan. This week's 60 Minutes report presented overwhelming evidence of criminal behavior at the major banks.

The Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission provided a wealth of evidence suggested criminal acts, as did the Senate Subcommittee on Investigations. I analyzed information about leading executives at my former employer, AIG, that also seemed to suggest blatant illegal activity.

Yet, up to now, not one senior executive at a major financial institution has been prosecuted. There is no excuse for the Obama Administration's failure to prosecute anyone.

Teddy Roosevelt told the citizens of Osawatomie that "I believe that the officers, and, especially, the directors, of corporations should be held personally responsible when any corporation breaks the law."

Personally responsible, the man said.
Meanwhile the Obama Justice Department sits idly by as the SEC continues to let major corporations pay slap-on-the-wrist fines for executive criminality -- fines that are often paid by the same shareholders they deceived -- while "neither admitting nor denying wrongdoing."

The Wall Street Casino
"No man should receive a dollar unless that dollar has been fairly earned," said Roosevelt. "Every dollar received should represent a dollar's worth of service rendered-not gambling in stocks, but service rendered."

Today the financial sector is once again earning nearly 40 percent of the nation's corporate profits, and much of that income is earned by gambling in ways Roosevelt and his contemporaries couldn't have imagined.

As for "services rendered," there's not much of that going on. Lending remains at low levels, despite all the low-interest loans and other money-generating perks the banks have been given.

The Revolving Door
"One of the fundamental necessities in a representative government such as ours," said Roosevelt, "is to make certain that the men to whom the people delegate their power shall serve the people by whom they are elected, and not the special interests."

The Obama Administration, like the Bush and Clinton Administrations before it, has seen a revolving door between Wall Street and its economic officials. Larry Summers, Bill Daley, and others made millions on Wall Street before serving this White House.

Peter Orszag went directly from the President's service to a high-paying and vaguely designed position with Citigroup, a corrupt and inept mega-bank that wouldn't even existed had it not been for the ministrations of Clinton officials like Summers and former Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin.

Rubin went on to make more than 100 million dollars as an executive with the monolith he helped create, which then became the largest recipient of public largesse.

Roosevelt told his Kansas audience that "every national officer, elected or appointed, should be forbidden to perform any service or receive any compensation, directly or indirectly, from interstate corporations."

Corporate Personhood
"They're people, my friend!" That's what Mitt Romney told an audience member who asked him about the novel and warped idea of "corporate personhood" that's stripping real people of their ability to assert their rights against corporate interests.

"Corporate personhood"? Here's what TR had to say:
"We are face to face with new conceptions of the relations of property to human welfare, chiefly because certain advocates of the rights of property as against the rights of men have been pushing their claims too far."

Roosevelt also said this in Osawatomie:
"The man who wrongly holds that every human right is secondary to his profit must now give way to the advocate of human welfare ..."

Economic Inequality
Roosevelt told his Kansas audience that "The really big fortune, the swollen fortune, by the mere fact of its size, acquires qualities which differentiate it in kind as well as in degree ..."

The United States already suffers from more unequal distribution of wealth than Egypt. The rich continue to amass more and more wealth, while the middle class loses ground and the ranks of the impoverished swell. It will take a combination of smart regulation, corporate transparency, and more progressive taxation to reverse that trend.

Roosevelt continued: "I believe in a graduated income tax on big fortunes, and in another tax which is far more easily collected and far more effective-a graduated inheritance tax on big fortunes ... increasing rapidly in amount with the size of the estate."

Corporate Corruption of the Political Process
Roosevelt's words ring stronger than ever in this post-Citizens United world, where corporate contributions are unlimited. "If our political institutions were perfect," he said, "they would absolutely prevent the political domination of money in any part of our affairs."

Regarding disclosure of campaign contributions, he said that "it is particularly important that all moneys received or expended for campaign purposes should be publicly accounted for, not only after election, but before election as well."

A Final Warning
"A broken promise is bad enough in private life," Roosevelt told his Kansas audience. "It is worse in the field of politics."

As we said, it's encouraging to see the President channeling the old Rough Rider himself, and it wa good to see him argue for extending unemployment insurance in Kansas. He's also said the right things about corporate election finance and taxing the wealthy, although he's done it pretty mildly. If he want to "throw down the gauntlet" with this speech, as an aide suggested, than he and his team should remember that "hrowing down the gauntlet" is what people do when they're prepared to fight.

Populism isn't a rhetorical pose. It's a mode of action. And nobody's a better example of the politics of action than the old Rough Rider himself, Teddy Roosevelt. Let's hope the President continues to emulate the man they used to call "Old Rough and Ready." If Barack Obama's finally willing to get rough to serve the higher good, a lot of Americans will be ready.

But he's disappointed his followers before: by promising to defend Social Security, then repeatedly offering to cut its benefits; by campaigning against taxing costlier health plans, then actively pushing to include that tax in his bill; and with other reversals from campaign pledges. If the President hasn't committed himself to following his words with forceful and unambiguous action, he should remember what Theodore Roosevelt said on that winter day in 1910:

"No man is worth his salt in public life who makes on the stump a pledge which he does not keep after election."

Richard (RJ) Eskow

Consultant, writer and Senior Fellow,

Campaign for America's Future

What Was The Glass-Steagall Act?

2011-12-03T21:28:00.000-08:00

In 1933, in the wake of the 1929 stock market crash and during a nationwide commercial bank failure and the Great Depression, two members of Congress put their names on what is known today as the Glass-Steagall Act (GSA).

This act separated investment and commercial banking activities. At the time, "improper banking activity," or what was considered overzealous commercial bank involvement in stock market investment, was deemed the main culprit of the financial crash.

According to that reasoning, commercial banks took on too much risk with depositors' money.

Additional and sometimes non-related explanations for the Great Depression evolved over the years, and many questioned whether the GSA hindered the establishment of financial services firms that can equally compete against each other.

Reasons for the Act -- Commercial Speculation
Commercial banks were accused of being too speculative in the pre-Depression era, not only because they were investing their assets but also because they were buying new issues for resale to the public.

Thus, banks became greedy, taking on huge risks in the hope of even bigger rewards. Banking itself became sloppy and objectives became blurred. Unsound loans were issued to companies in which the bank had invested, and clients would be encouraged to invest in those same stocks.

Effects of the Act -- Creating Barriers
Senator Carter Glass, a former Treasury secretary and the founder of the U.S. Federal Reserve System, was the primary force behind the GSA. Henry Bascom Steagall was a House of Representatives member and chairman of the House Banking and Currency Committee.

Steagall agreed to support the act with Glass after an amendment was added permitting bank deposit insurance. (This was the first time it was allowed.)

As a collective reaction to one of the worst financial crises at the time, the GSA set up a regulatory firewall between commercial and investment bank activities, both of which were curbed and controlled.

Banks were given a year to decide on whether they would specialize in commercial or in investment banking.

Only 10% of commercial banks' total income could stem from securities; however, an exception allowed commercial banks to underwrite government-issued bonds.

Financial giants at the time such as JP Morgan and Company, which were seen as part of the problem, were directly targeted and forced to cut their services and, hence, a main source of their income.

By creating this barrier, the GSA was aiming to prevent the banks' use of deposits in the case of a failed underwriting job.

The GSA, however, was considered harsh by most in the financial community, and it was reported that even Glass himself moved to repeal the GSA shortly after it was passed, claiming it was an overreaction to the crisis.

Building More Walls
Despite the lax implementation of the GSA by the Federal Reserve Board, which is the regulator of U.S. banks, in 1956, Congress made another decision to regulate the banking sector.

In an effort to prevent financial conglomerates from amassing too much power, the new act focused on banks involved in the insurance sector.

Congress agreed that bearing the high risks undertaken in underwriting insurance is not good banking practice.

Thus, as an extension of the Glass-Steagall Act, the Bank Holding Company Act further separated financial activities by creating a wall between insurance and banking. Even though banks could, and can still sell insurance and insurance products, underwriting insurance was forbidden.

Were the Walls Necessary?
The New Rules of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act
The limitations of the GSA on the banking sector sparked a debate over how much restriction is healthy for the industry.

Many argued that allowing banks to diversify in moderation offers the banking industry the potential to reduce risk, so the restrictions of the GSA could have actually had an adverse effect, making the banking industry riskier rather than safer.

Furthermore, big banks of the post-Enron market are likely to be more transparent, lessening the possibility of assuming too much risk or masking unsound investment decisions.

As such, reputation has come to mean everything in today's market, and that could be enough to motivate banks to regulate themselves.

Consequently, to the delight of many in the banking industry (not everyone, however, was happy), in November of 1999 Congress repealed the GSA with the establishment of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, which eliminated the GSA restrictions against affiliations between commercial and investment banks.

Furthermore, the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act allows banking institutions to provide a broader range of services, including underwriting and other dealing activities.

Conclusion
Although the barrier between commercial and investment banking aimed to prevent a loss of deposits in the event of investment failures, the reasons for the repeal of the GSA and the establishment of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act show that even regulatory attempts for safety can have adverse effects.

investopedia.com

2011-12-03T20:47:00.000-08:00

***********************************************
BRING BACK THE GLASS STEAGALL ACT!
***********************************************

2011-12-03T19:38:00.000-08:00

**********************************************
ATTENTION FAT AMERICANS!
(And you know who you are.)
IT’S TIME TO DIET. JUST STOP EATING CRAP!
Quit eating fast food. The only thing fast about it is
adding FAT to your waistline!
3 MEALS A DAY. THAT IS ALL!
Fresh Vegetables and Fruit, please.
Aren’t you tired of being called a FAT AMERICAN?
**********************************************

For Cluster Bomb Survivors, War Far From Over

2011-12-02T23:30:00.000-08:00

By Irwin Loy

For Ta Doangchom, homemade prosthetic limbs in the Cooperative Orthotic and Prosthetic Enterprise (COPE) National Rehabilitation Center fills his life today.

He was not even born when U.S. military pilots dropped millions of tiny explosives onto Laos. But almost four decades after the war ended for this South-east Asian nation, it is people like him who still suffer.

Three years ago, Phongsavath stumbled onto a small, metallic sphere buried in the ground near his school.

He had heard stories about the planes that rumbled overhead decades before, dropping fire from the sky. But he had never before seen a bomb, or held one in his hands. "I didn’t know what it was. I didn’t think it would be dangerous. So I tried to open it," Phongsavath recalled.

That decision changed his life forever. Phongsavath remembers only seeing a flash of light before his world fell dark. When he awoke in a hospital, he was blind. The bomb had robbed him of his eyesight and ripped away both his hands.

The weapon was part of a decades-old cluster bomb that had been dropped on Laos during the U.S. military’s secretive operations in Indochina between 1964 and 1973.

The goal of the air strikes had been to destroy the crucial North Vietnamese Army supply line that snaked its way through Laos and Cambodia on its way to the south. By the time the war was over, those aerial campaigns entrenched Laos as the most heavily bombed country in history.

But today, it is people like Phongsavath who are paying the price for that conflict. Since the war ended, more than 20,000 people in this country have been killed or injured by leftover explosives.

Critics take particular aim at so-called cluster bombs -- large explosives dropped from the sky, which contain hundreds of smaller submunitions, or ‘bombies’, as they are referred to in Laos -- because they are especially deadly to civilians long after military hostilities have ended.

Estimates suggest more than 270 million individual bombies were scattered over Laos. With a failure rate estimated at around 30 percent, these deadly weapons litter the Lao countryside.

But advocates hope that 2010 represents a turning point in a long-running campaign to eradicate cluster bombs. In August, a treaty banning the use of cluster bombs came into effect. Starting Nov. 9 here in Vientiane, delegates from more than 100 countries are taking part in the first high- level meeting of signatory nations since then, aiming to hammer out a plan to implement the landmark accord.

"The horrifying thing is there may be up to 80 million of these bombs scattered around the countryside, in farmers’ fields, next to schools, beside roads," said Thomas Nash, coordinator for the Cluster Munition Coalition, a broad group of civil society organizations who have pushed for the wide-reaching ban. "So there’s a huge amount of work to be done to clear this country of the deadly legacy from a war that ended over 35 years ago."

Laos is seen, per capita, as the most heavily affected country by such munitions. But cluster bombs have riddled conflict-ridden countries around the globe, from Angola to Zambia and Lebanon to Libya.

The 108 nations that have signed on to the Convention on Cluster Munitions have committed to banning the use of the weapons and the eventual destruction of existing stockpiles. They have also made broad pledges to clear contaminated land and provide adequate aid to victims of cluster bombs.

But while heavily affected countries like Laos have ratified the treaty, major military players that still stockpile the weapons -- the United States, China and Russia, for example – have not.

Advocates like Nash, however, are hoping the convention will serve to stigmatize the weapons enough so that their use is considered untenable -- something he believes has already been accomplished with landmines.

The United States, for example, has not signed on to the Ottawa Treaty, which banned the use of landmines that came into effect more than a decade ago. But it is believed that the U.S. military has not deployed the weapons since the first Gulf War.

"Anti-personnel mines have been eradicated from most military arsenals and we believe the same will happen with cluster munitions," Nash said.

"You cannot win a political war if you kill civilians, and that’s what cluster bombs do. So I think the message to countries … that haven’t signed is that we believe we have established a standard by which all countries are judged, whether they sign the treaty or not," he added.

For many who are already scarred by cluster bombs, however, life remains a daily struggle.

Thirty-nine-year-old Ta Doangchom lost both his arms and the sight in his right eye when he triggered a bombie while foraging for food nine years ago. "I can’t support my family," he said. "All of my children had to leave school because we were so poor. I feel like a burden on my wife and on my family."

Like Ta, Phongsavath now advocates on behalf of other survivors, urging an end to the use of the weapons that devastated their lives. But he is also still learning to cope with what happened to him.

"I never saw the war with my own eyes," Phongsavath said. "But I now know that the bombs were dropped on my country. And they didn’t just kill soldiers. They killed men, women and children."

There we go again...spreading the joy. God help us.

2011-12-01T20:34:00.000-08:00

**********************************************
What if they sent social services in to OWS occupiers
instead of brown shirts?
**********************************************

Newt Gingrich Marriage Timeline

2011-11-29T23:02:00.000-08:00

1962: Newt married Jackie Battley on June 19, 1962.
1963: Newt's daughter Kathy was born.
1966: Newt's daughter Jackie Sue was born.
1980: Newt met Marianne Ginther in January 1980.
1980: Jackie and Newt separated in April 1980.
1981: Jackie Battley and Newt Gingrich's divorce was finalized in February 1981.
1981: Six months later Newt married Marianne Ginther on August 8, 1981.
1987: Marianne and Newt separated in June 1987.
1993: Newt and Callista Bisek began their affair in November 1993.
1993: Marianne and Newt reconciled in late 1993/early 1994.
1999: Newt and Marianne separated in May 1999 and filed for divorce in July.
1999: Marianne and Newt reached a settlement in their divorce case.
2000: Marianne and Newt's divorce was finalized in April 2000.
2000: Callista Bisek and Newt announced their engagement.
2000: Newt married Callista Bisek on August 18, 2000.

Maggie Haberman: "Newt Gingrich addressed his multiple nuptials and admitted affairs more head-on than he has to date, telling the Christian Broadcast Network that he sought God's 'forgiveness' for the things he did wrong and that he now has a 'great' marriage." So far.

Hey, Collista, watch your step and whatever you do, keep him on a short leash. He's such a ketch...and it rhymes with vetch.

******
I sure wouldn’t want to be Collista...She’d better keep her bags packed! For goodness sakes, Collista, don't argue with him; keep a gun handy at all times.

Finally: Hey Newtie! Keep God out of your messy life...He's not a marriage counselor nor a collector of wives. Jeez! Couldn't you just bonk 'em and be on your way? Look at the paperwork you could have avoided...the trees, the trees!

oh never mind...

Source: Maggie Haberman. "Newt Gingrich: 'I was doing things that were wrong.'" Politico.com. 3/08/2011.

Newt when asked how he could be unfaithful and give a speech on family values: "It doesn't matter what I do," he answered. "People need to hear what I have to say. There's no one else who can say what I can say. It doesn't matter what I live."

Oh, you fat, ugly pig! and those are your good points.

Source: John H. Richardson. "Newt Gingrich: The Indispensable Republican." Esquire.com. 8/10/2010.

AP: "In 1994, Gingrich responded to reports he'd had extramarital affairs while running a family-values campaign in 1978 by saying, "In the 1970s, things happened."
How profound.

**********************************************
Is this the epitome of a slug or am I being too kind?
**********************************************

2011-11-29T22:36:00.000-08:00

***********************************************

Evening news is where they begin with 'Good evening,'

and then proceed to tell you why it isn't.

***********************************************

Germany Cuts Off Its Nose

2011-11-29T22:07:00.000-08:00

By Joe Nocera
Op-Ed Columnist, Daily Beast

“Lords of Finance,” Liaquat Ahamed’s magisterial 2009 history of the events that led first to the Great Depression and then to the Second World War, is, necessarily, a book about policy mistakes. Central bankers and Treasury secretaries, presidents and prime ministers: all of them are locked into their own economic and political orthodoxies.

Each is certain that his is the only sensible course of action. Crippled by their blinders, they consistently make economic choices that appear to us, nearly a century later, to be insane but to them seemed completely sensible.

Earl Wilson,

The New York Times

Can you just imagine what they'll write about us a century from now?
******

2011-11-28T22:21:00.000-08:00

***********************************************
If we are supposed to learn from our mistakes, why do
some people have more than one child?
***********************************************

Democratic House Majority Accomplishments

2011-11-27T23:27:00.000-08:00

The following information was gathered by a sharp neighbor, reminding voters it takes all of us to keep up with these Republican obstructionists until the next election.

Health Insurance Reform -- to recognize health care as a right, not a privilege.
Put a stop to the worst abuses by insurance companies -- including discrimination against Americans with pre-existing medical conditions. Opposed by 100% of House Republicans...Collusion?
The Student Aid and Fiscal Responsibility Act -- making the largest investment in college aid in American history. Opposed by 100% of House Republicans.
The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act -- to restore the rights of women and other workers to challenge unfair pay and help close the wage gap where women earn 78 cents for every $1 that a man earns in America. Opposed by a majority of House Republicans.
Wall Street Reform -- to rein in reckless practices on Wall Street, end taxpayer-funded bailouts and "too big to fail" institutions.
Protect and empower consumers. Opposed by a majority of House Republicans.
Just one year of a failed Republican Majority Obstructing Job Creation!
Republicans failed to introduce a jobs plan and voted for budgets that would cost nearly 2.5 million American jobs and voted against at least 17 times, opposing Democratic efforts to create them.
Republicans oppose the American Jobs Act which former John McCain economic advisor, Mark Zandi, said would create 1.9 million jobs! Republicans more interested in protecting special interests.
Voted three times to end the Medicare guarantee for seniors and raise health care costs by $6,000!
Republicans repeatedly vote to protect tax loopholes for Big Oil and billionaires.

Republicans Support Extreme Agenda to Appease Tea Party.

House Republicans pushed our government to the brink on three occasions threatening a shutdown, putting their radical agenda ahead of the American people’s interests.
House Republicans voted to repeal health insurance reform.
Voted to defund NPR, PBS and Sesame Street.
Voted to classify pizza as a vegetable for school children.
Voted to defund Planned Parenthood.
Stopped Planned Parenthood from offering cancer screenings to women.
Voted to protect companies that do business with the Iranian regime.
Pushed plan to privatize Social Security.
Forced the Supercommittee to fail because they insisted on more tax breaks for billionaires and Big Oil at the expense of the Medicare guarantee and creating jobs.

Is America ready for a Revolution?

2011-11-26T21:02:00.000-08:00

***********************************************
Jesus loves you, but everyone else thinks you're an asshole.
***********************************************

A Magazine of Critical, Independent Thinking

2011-11-24T23:53:00.000-08:00

From its first appearance in 1983, On the Issues Magazine has been a publication of activism, analysis, and commentary. That’s only fitting since, from the era of Ronald Reagan to that of Barack Obama, there has been no respite from the need for raised voices and determined acts.

In 1989, publisher Merle Hoffman interviewed and Patricia Golan profiled U.S. political prisoner Susan Rosenberg in America’s Most Dangerous Woman? Rosenberg was serving a 58-year sentence for the possession of arms and explosives -- a sentence more than 10 times the national average for such offenses. (In 2001, after 16 years in prison and 12 years after the story ran in On The Issues Magazine, Rosenberg’s sentence was commuted by then-President Bill Clinton.)

Rosenberg told Hoffman about her political background and motivation: "I feel fortunate that I became part of a movement when I was in my early teens. There was a sense that you could really change something. I guess I could say that I fell in love with the idea that people could control their own destinies, free of serious class, racial, and sexual differences.

"I think the other political prisoners involved in my case came out of this period of intensive activity against the government. One of the most important things about us is an identification with the oppressed. I feel as if I never could stop learning from oppressed peoples."

Hoffman described her own step forward as an activist in the very first editorial of On The Issues Magazine, when, as the founder of Choices Women’s Medical Center, she heard about a Congressman’s ugly anti-abortion push in Washington D.C. She described her response to hearing about the passage by Congress of a provision politicized by Henry Hyde that denied Medicaid funding for abortions.

“By 1976, I had been involved with abortion for 5 years, involved with the bottom line of abortion...women! But now it was time to talk about it. In fact, it was time to fight for it. Those women from whom Henry Hyde would callously cut off abortion rights were my women, my patients...people I lived with every day. These women were what CHOICES was all about!"

Whatever the issue, women have been on the front lines of activism, and On The Issues Magazine has carried their stories.

One of those women was Gillian Murphy who told her story in How I set sail from Tahiti to stop the bomb in Summer 1996. “Bit by bit the action scenario is pulling together.

"Early in the morning of the day we expect the first test, we will launch our inflatables from the Rainbow Warrior, which will then attempt to sail by herself. A few people will go on the atoll and try to hide; the rest of us will float within the lagoon in our inflatables, trying to stay free as long as we can…The issue is clear. There should be no nuclear bombs tested. By being here, we have a good chance to stop them. The public outcry alone ought to be enough. If all this is not enough, what would be?"

Brenda and Wanda Henson rejected the fears of friends who said it was too dangerous and stood down the threats of shotgun-wielding enemies to establish a lesbian retreat in the heart of Mississippi in the early ‘90s, something they described in Spring 1997 in How the Spirit Moves, "The land feels enchanted by the loving energy brought here by the thousands of volunteers who have worked with us.

"The land feels clean, washed by the tears of those who lived through those first two years of fear on the land. The land feels blessed by all the prayers, rituals, and gatherings in the name of our protection on the land. And most importantly, the land now feels safe for those who are interested in coming to volunteer, visit, do an internship, do a class project, or whatever they can."

Karen Bell, with her husband Bill, became an activist against laws requiring parental consent or notification for teens seeking abortions after their 17-year-old daughter, Becky, died from the results of an illegal abortion in 1988.

They lived in Indiana, a state with parental consent laws, and Becky didn’t want to tell her parents...she didn’t want to “disappoint them." Karen and Bill told their story to Mary Lou Greenberg in Fall 1988 in Another American Tragedy, The Death of Becky Bell.

On the Issues has also featured now-historic interviews with well-known women advocates and activists:

The Greening of the World, an exclusive interview with Petra Kelly, founder of the West German Green Party and Anti Nuclear Activist by Merle Hoffman, Vol 9, 1988.
A Conversation with Earth First! Activist Judi Bari by Christine Keyser, Summer 1991.
Always in Your Face, Flo Kennedy, An Activist Forever by Beverly Lowy, Spring 1993.

Some of our activist authors have drawn inspiration as well as practical lessons from activists in the past.

Gloria Feldt, past president of Planned Parenthood Federation of America, wrote in Convictions to Action: Lessons from Margaret Sanger, in Winter 2010, "Leadership is the most important lesson I have learned from Margaret Sanger’s life and work: all worthwhile accomplishments start with a vision. Not a small, incremental vision, but a bold, audacious, flaming red, bigger-than-yourself vision."

Maame-Mensima Horne, in Black Abortion: Breaking the Silence, November 2009, describes how today’s African-American activists stand on a proud history. "Loretta Ross," she wrote, "explained in depth how black women were involved in reproductive activism from the late 1800s to current times.

"The truth is that black women have a long history dating back to pre-slavery of using birth control. During slavery, black women used their knowledge of herbal abortives as a means to resist the inhumane conditions. Black women organized to get birth control into the black communities; they organized against sterilization abuse and continue to organize against reproductive oppression."

Adrien Hilton, in Lessons from Redstockings: A Movement Goes for What It Wants, May 2009, discusses the struggle for abortion and concluded, “A movement of women pushing and fighting for this change from which I benefit is far more exciting and powerful than Supreme Court justices laying down the law. This history makes me want to get involved. It makes me understand better the power of the union of women to advance their rights and win full liberation."

No review, however brief, of articles about activists and activism would be complete without noting the tremendous power of art to move and motivate. Art. Rage. Us fighting breast cancer awareness through art is a moving portfolio of artistic creations by women with breast cancer that appeared in Winter 1999.

Finally, Arlene Goldbard writes of Three Habits of the Heart and Mind to spark cultural awakening in Spring 2010: "There can be no better preparation for the full exercise of deep and meaningful citizenship than entering into the realm of art. This way of learning has never been needed more. As we face economic crisis, political polarization, epidemic fear, and disappointment, we need the resilience that sustains communities in times of crisis.

"This is always rooted in culture, in the tales of persistence, and social imagination that inspire people to a sense of possibility even in the hardest times. Artists expand social imagination, helping us envision the transformations we hope to bring about, stimulating our thoughts and feelings toward the new attitudes and ideas that can drive recovery and nurture a sustainable society."

******
Editor: Make no mistake, abortion is being used as a club to control and subjugate women. It seems to me that abortions would be greatly reduced if there were a simple law mandating vasectomy for all single males until they are married, at which time the vasectomy could be reversed.

When Henry Hyde was managing Bill Clinton's impeachment hearings in the House of Representatives, it came to light that Hyde himself had had an adulterous affair that lasted several years, fathered an illegitimate child, and destroyed a marriage.

Hyde dismissed it as a "youthful indiscretion" (even though he was 41 at the time). An abortion is an impeachable offense if a Democrat does it, but adultery and illegitimate fatherhood is only an "indiscretion" when done by a Republican.

How many ways are there to say "hypocritical Republican pig"?

2011-11-24T00:00:00.000-08:00

***********************************************

If God is watching us, the least we can do is be entertaining.

***********************************************

Heather Ault: Visualizing 4000 Years of Choice

2011-11-20T21:42:00.000-08:00

By: Eleanor J. Bader

Sunday, November 20, 2011--Growing up, 39-year-old activist artist Heather Ault never imagined that people had been trying to control their fertility for more than 4000 years. The Grosse Pointe, Michigan native says that she simply assumed that contraception was a recent phenomenon.

Similarly, she'd rarely thought about social issues, whether women's rights or community empowerment. "I'd gone to a very focused technical art school as an undergraduate — the College for Creative Studies in Detroit — that did not offer feminist studies classes," she says. "I voted, but politics was really not part of my life until I graduated and moved to San Francisco in 1997. San Francisco is a place that pulls you into local politics and I found that I loved this type of engagement.

I'd originally moved west for a job in the dotcom industry but I found it unsatisfying." Looking for something more meaningful, Ault answered an ad in a local newspaper and soon became a canvasser for the Women's Choice Clinic in Oakland. She went door-to-door to raise money for a now-defunct independent feminist abortion provider for a year, and then worked as a fundraiser for NARAL Pro-Choice America.

A failed romance caused Ault to leave the Bay Area in 2000 and, after a few months of post-breakup backpacking, she moved to Humboldt County, five hours north of San Francisco. "Everyone in Humboldt is involved in politics in one way or other," she says. She soon became active in a group called Democracy Unlimited and also enrolled in an Intro to Women's Studies class at the university. "The teacher showed a film, a history of the US women's movement, that mentioned that abortion had been legal before it became illegal. That blew my mind," she laughs.

Despite having worked for both a clinic and NARAL, she says that she and her coworkers never spoke about reproductive history; instead, they focused on the fundraising tasks at hand, highlighting the horrors of back-alley abortion in the decades immediately before Roe. After seeing the film — Ault no longer recalls what it was called — her curiosity was piqued. She quickly went online and began researching the history of abortion and contraception and later trekked to the library for Linda Gordon's 2002 book, The Moral Property of Women, and hungrily read the 464-page tome. Then, prodded by Gordon's fact-finding, Ault started her own investigation.

"I'd assumed that prior to the Roe decision in 1973, there was just illegal abortion in the U.S., that women had never been at the center of any reproductive practice. Abortion in the U.S. had been a back-alley secret, full of subterfuge and unsavory practitioners.

“As I dug,” she continues, "I found a lot of information, along with illustrations, about birth control and abortifacient products going very far back in American and world history. I was shocked to see these practices, some advertised on the back covers of women's magazines throughout the 1800s, and others dating as far back as the ancient Egyptians."

Ault admits that her interest in reproduction increased after her own 2001 abortion, and says that "the idea of controlling pregnancy was, for some reason, something I really needed to understand. I wanted to know where the desire to control fertility came from, not so much from a theoretical or feminist perspective, but from a more primal place that is deeper than politics or policy.

I felt driven to understand where this choice originated when I realized how meaningful my own journey through an unwanted pregnancy had become."

As Ault's research unfolded, her desire to share her knowledge magnified. Finding the best outlet for her burgeoning data collection was easy. "I put 20 or 25 images on transparency paper and showed them to my women's studies class," she says. "As I talked, I linked what I said to the images I'd collected." She also asked the students to respond to two questions: When did they think contraception had been invented and who had invented it? The largely female class was of one mind: Contraception was a 20th century invention developed by men.

"This confirmed that no one knew the real history," Ault says. Over time, she brought her research to other women's studies classes and continued to collect images that she subsequently included in a Power Point presentation. "After a while it dawned on me that the project could be the basis of a Masters' thesis," she chuckles.

Ault moved to Illinois to attend the state university at Urbana-Champaign in 2007. Under the tutelage of Dr. Leslie Reagan — a protégé of Linda Gordon's — Ault continued to probe reproductive history. But since she was an art student, not an historian, she needed to figure out a way to develop a graphic installation rather than a lecture series or book to document the intense need to control fertility that has motivated 4000-plus years of reproductive history.

She pursued many different ideas — including the creation of a red tent in which message-laden pieces of female lingerie would be hung — but eventually took her cue from Josh MacPhee and the Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania-based Just Seeds Poster Collective. As Ault perused the Collective's publicly displayed artwork — most of it wheat-pasted onto urban walls — she began making large, vivid wall hangings of her own. People loved them.

Translating Words to Graphics

Her first display, at an Ann Arbor, Michigan gallery — four posters depicting the history of the condom and showcasing herbal abortifacients like silphium — sold almost as soon as they hit the walls. "I also got great feedback from the curator," Ault says, "and concluded that posters were the best medium for the project because they were so easy to reproduce."

Since that first foray, Ault has created 50 brightly colored posters, all of which seek to educate viewers about timeworn efforts to control reproduction. Called 4000 Years for Choice, the posters introduce a raft of little-known information.

For example, did you know that in 1500 BCE, the Egyptians used a contraceptive plug made from an acacia plant, honey, and lint? Or that ancient Roman physicians wrote about using wild cucumbers to end unwanted pregnancies? Or that, throughout the 1960s, Californian Patricia Maginnis stood on San Francisco street corners and handed out information on how to obtain safe, affordable, albeit illegal, abortions? Ault's paean to Maginnis — a bright red likeness on a peach background — calls her the "first abortion rights activist in history" and lauds her1961 creation of the Society for Humane Abortion.

Ault acknowledges that she is fixated on messaging — and carefully scrutinizes the words and images that are used to convey ideas. "During the Obama campaign, I saw the huge role that Shepard Fairey played. His posters included just one word: hope — and they made everyone feel hopeful," she says. This power was reinforced when, in January 2009 Ault attended both the Obama inauguration and the annual anti-abortion March for Life. "It was the first prolife event I'd ever been to and it raised a lot of questions for me about how we can empower and affirm our movement more than we do," she reports. "We use terms like fight, defend, and struggle and use the coat hanger as our symbol.

I think we can use something better than the metal hanger, which suggests death and desperation, not empowerment. Once I got back to Illinois, I redesigned my posters so there's one large word on each one — words like affirm, cherish, discover, love, unite — to note our history and invoke victory. I also use bright, lollypop colors so that the posters are cheerful and inviting."

Debra Sweet, executive director of World Can't Wait, a national, feminist, antiwar and anti-imperialist group, calls the posters inspiring. "Their presence doesn't preach," she says. "The images just show how much women have searched and acted, with what they had at hand, to control their reproductive lives."

Dr. Susan Wicklund, owner of the Mountain Country Women's Clinic in Livingston, Montana, has posted Ault's artwork throughout her clinic. "Patients stop and read them," she wrote in an email. "Putting choice in a historical perspective is enlightening and comforting."

Ault completed her Master of Fine Arts degree in 2010 and presently works as a graphic designer at the Office of Online and Continuing Education at the University of Illinois in Urbana-Champaign. In addition, she makes sure to allot time for prochoice support work and poster making.

In early August Ault helped defend Dr. LeRoy Carhart, who works at a Germantown, Maryland clinic that was targeted by protesters. She notes that when she first arrived in Germantown, she was appalled by the absence of visible prochoice visuals. Knowing the importance of signs and pictures, she immediately went out, bought materials, and got to work painting enormous banners: Trust Women, Good Women Have Abortions, and We HEART Dr. Carhart, among them. "The latter slogan became the icon of the event," she boasts.

"I feel like the most important thing we can do to defend clinics is to show up with big, bold, positive messages that say 'we're here to celebrate choice,'" Ault concludes. What's more, she has a strategy to undo some of the stigma that currently surrounds the abortion procedure and the clinics that provide them. "I'd like to see prochoice activists come to clinics for events, celebrations and parties, to create something positive between the health center and the community," she says. "The prochoice movement needs to do more than merely react to anti-choice activity."

Charting New Strategies

Ault is further eager to engage the movement in strategizing about better ways to get the prochoice message out. "Despite decades of historical research, compiled by feminist scholars, the history of abortion and contraception has remained largely unknown because it has not been translated into visual culture," she says.

"We live in a time where the narratives of our lives are formed largely by media. The anti-choice movement realized this early on and capitalized on the fetus as their symbol for life. The feminist movement has been less effective in crafting equally compelling visual symbols to articulate the values or freedom, autonomy, and rights."

"I believe art has the ability to encapsulate consciousness-raising ideas in formats that are widely accessible," she adds. Whether in print, on film or online, Ault has seen art change perceptions and reach people beyond the community of reproductive health activists.

"Many people have expressed profound gratitude after seeing my work," she wrote in an email. "At the U.S. Social Forum, I talked to hundreds of people, all of whom were deeply moved by my exhibit.

In clinics where my posters are hung for patients and staff to enjoy, I have been told that the atmosphere has been transformed into one with more positive energy and casual conversations about abortion. A visiting law professor at the University of Illinois who was a former lawyer for Planned Parenthood in Washington D.C. commented that in our one-hour conversation, her entire understanding of the social and political context for abortion had dramatically shifted."

Ault's enthusiasm and her fire are hard to resist. Nonetheless, the challenge remains: How can the prochoice movement create better visuals to champion abortion, contraception and sexuality? And how can we shine a brighter spotlight on the proud history of our fore-parents?

******
Eleanor J. Bader is a freelance writer, teacher and feminist activist from Brooklyn, New York. She writes for The Brooklyn Rail, ontheissuesmagazine.com, RHrealitycheck.org and other progressive blogs and publications.

Fundraisers for or hosted by Super Committee members

2011-11-18T14:13:00.000-08:00

Feb. 23rd, 2012 ( - )

Park City Ski Weekend @ Park City
For: Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R, TX-5) Rep. Pete Sessions (R, TX-32) Rep. Greg Walden (R, OR-2)

Dec. 8th, 2011 ( - )

Winter Majority Trust Dinner with Secretary Madeline Albright @ Washington, DC
For: Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee

Dec. 6th, 2011 (8:00AM - 9:00AM)

Breakfast @ The Livingston Group, LLC
For: Rep. Trent Franks (R, AZ-2)

Dec. 2nd, 2011 (8:00AM - 9:00AM)

Breakfast Event @ The Capitol Hill Club
For: Rep. Phil Roe (R, TN-1)

Dec. 1st, 2011 ( - )

Breakfast with Rep. Silvestre Reyes and Special Guest Rep. Xavier Becerra @ TBA, Washington DC
For: Rep. Silvestre Reyes (D, TX-16)

******

Oh, what to wear...what to wear...

If you'd like to see the entire list of world-wind party-time affairs...y'know, to see if you can fit any of the fund raiser parties into your busy, busy schedule, visit RandiRhodes.com and check out Party Time.

Fundraisers for or hosted by Super Committee members

2011-11-18T13:52:00.000-08:00

Committee Members: Sen. Patty Murray (D, WA), Sen. Max Baucus (D, MT), Sen. John Kerry (D, MA), Sen. Jon Kyl (R, AZ), Sen. Pat Toomey (R, PA), Sen. Rob Portman (R, OH), Rep. Jim Clyburn (D, SC-6), Rep. Xavier Becerra (D, CA-31), Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D, MD-8), Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R, TX-5), Rep. David Camp (R, MI-4), Rep. Fred Upton (R, MI-6)

Feb. 23rd, 2012 ( - )
View Invitation

    Park City Ski Weekend @ Park City
    For: Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R, TX-5) Rep. Pete Sessions (R, TX-32) Rep. Greg Walden (R, OR-2)

Dec. 8th, 2011 ( - )
View Invitation

    Winter Majority Trust Dinner with Secretary Madeline Albright @ Washington, DC
    For: Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee

Dec. 6th, 2011 (8:00AM - 9:00AM)
View Invitation

    Breakfast @ The Livingston Group, LLC
    For: Rep. Trent Franks (R, AZ-2)

Dec. 2nd, 2011 (8:00AM - 9:00AM)
View Invitation

    Breakfast Event @ The Capitol Hill Club
    For: Rep. Phil Roe (R, TN-1)

Dec. 1st, 2011 ( - )
View Invitation

    Breakfast with Rep. Silvestre Reyes and
    Special Guest Rep. Xavier Becerra @ TBA, Washington DC

    For: Rep. Silvestre Reyes (D, TX-16)

Just a taste of the happenings in Washington by our busy, busy politicians. Want more? visit RandiRhodes.com and check out "Party Time." You'll be exhausted just by reading about them.

2011-11-17T19:26:00.000-08:00

********************************************

***O*C*C*U*P*Y*!***

***O*C*C*U*P*Y*!***
***O*C*C*U*P*Y*!***

********************************************

Higher Ground 4 Humanity

2011-11-16T22:26:00.000-08:00

Greetings, everyone --

Time for a guest piece from The Scallion, Dot Calm's sometimes webmeister and always engineer-daughter.

Why now? I went to a seminar this weekend (11-11-11) and had my mind blown.

Ever heard of Higher Ground 4 Humanity?

OK, ever heard of Jewel?

Geek that I am, I confess that I've heard but never paid much attention to the name Jewel. I vaguely suspected that she's a famous singer. Other than that, I knew (and suspected) nothing about her. Found out this weekend that her mother is Lenedra Carroll, who presented a segment during the seminar I attended. The segment Ms. Carroll presented was about the public charity she founded with daughter Jewel and son Shane: it's called Higher Ground 4 Humanity (aka HGH).

Ed: Jewel is a lovely young Country Western artist. Her beautiful home in Nashville was featured last Christmas showing the fabulous, over-the-top decorations.

What HGH is doing is so very important to the present and future of humanity that I felt compelled to share it with you. For example, if you go to Ms. Carroll's website, you can read about The Clearwater Project:

Ms. Carroll cofounded the public charity, Higher Ground 4 Humanity, with her daughter, Jewel, and son, Shane Kilcher. The ClearWater Project, a program of Higher Ground 4 Humanity, works to bring about positive change for millions around the globe suffering from lack of clean drinking water by providing relief in the form of simple and affordable technologies for making contaminated water safe for drinking.

In addition, the project provides education and awareness programs, and other initiatives.

Founded in 1998, The ClearWater Project is now active in 18 countries around the world including Tibet, Honduras, Mexico, India, the United States and Africa.

In 2006, Ms. Carroll turned The ClearWater Project, recently renamed Project Clean Water, over to Shane and Jewel.

HGH also sends life-giving support to AIDS patients in Africa. For roughly $30 dollars a month, each one of us who can afford it can literally save a life. How important is that?!

For more information, check out http://www.lenedracarroll.com/higherground4humanity.html or Google higher ground lenedra carroll. You'll be glad you did.

And if you choose to support HGH, someone in Africa who needs your help will be glad you did, too.

Even if she weren’t my kid, isn’t she great?

Dorli Rainey becomes unlikely face of the Occupy movement.

2011-11-16T21:38:00.000-08:00

Photo: AP Photo/seattlepi.com, Joshua Trujillo

Seattle activist Dorli Rainey, 84, reacts after being hit with pepper spray during an Occupy Seattle protest.

A graphic photo of the former teacher after she was hit with the chemical irritant went viral, becoming one of the most striking images from the protests that have taken place in cities across the globe.

"It's a gruesome picture, I'm really not that bad looking," Rainey said in an interview Wednesday with The Associated Press.

The photograph shows Rainey, wearing a scarf and jacket, being helped by two people. One man is cradling her head in his arms as they walk away from the area.

No Unnecessary Delays on Keystone XL

2011-11-13T22:49:00.000-08:00

By Mark Green

Wednesday July 27, 2011--Why not just wait? That's the administration's response to House legislation that would require a decision on the Keystone XL pipeline by Nov. 1. The administration says its Dec. 31 deadline is soon enough. But, considering the project's vast economic and energy benefits, here's a better question: Why wait any longer than necessary?

Why wait on jobs - 20,000 U.S. jobs during the 1,700-mile pipeline's construction phase alone? Why unnecessarily delay, by even a week, a $13 billion project the Canadian Energy Research Institute (CERI) says will help fully utilize Canada's oil sands--projected to support 600,000 new U.S. jobs by 2035 and more than $775 billion (Canadian dollars) in GDP from 2010 to 2035?

At the same time, why wait on bringing more oil from our No. 1 foreign supplier? Why unnecessarily delay a project that will bring up to 830,000 barrels of oil per day to U.S. refineries? Why not take steps now that will secure America's energy future, one in which 92 percent of our liquid fuel needs would be supplied by the U.S. and Canada by 2030?

Opponents say a State Department decision on approving the project shouldn't be rushed, that there are questions about its safety and reliability. Nonsense. The Keystone XL has been studied and debated for going on three years - compared to the normal approval process of 18 months to two years. API Executive Vice President Marty Durbin spoke to reporters this week:

"There's been extensive review, extensive opportunities for state and local governments, environmentalists and landowners all along the pipeline to voice their concerns. ... It is time to move forward so that we can create jobs and further strengthen our relationship with America's number one trading partner and number one source of imported oil, Canada."

Why wait? There are compelling arguments against unnecessary delay. New jobs and secure energy await a decision that is taking too long already. Questions have been answered, concerns addressed. The pipeline will feature state-of-the-art technology, will deliver oil like the oil already flowing through existing pipelines and will be well-monitored.

Editor: What could possibly go wrong??

Finally, let's be candid: Canada's vast oil sands resource is going somewhere, Keystone XL or no Keystone XL. China is signaling interest. If the United States doesn't want this oil, it'll have no trouble finding a taker. We need the jobs and the energy.

Durbin remarks, "At a time of stubborn unemployment when Americans across the country are clamoring for work, even contemplating saying no to this project should be out of the question."

Naomi Klein on Environmental Victory

2011-11-13T22:19:00.000-08:00

Naomi Klein on Environmental Victory: Obama Delays Keystone XL Oil Pipeline Decision Until 2013.

Environmental activists are claiming victory after the Obama administration announced last Thursday it will postpone any decision on the proposed 1,700-mile Keystone XL tar sands oil pipeline until 2013.

The announcement was made just days after more than 10,000 people encircled the White House calling on President Obama to reject the project, the second major action against the project organized by Bill McKibben’s 350.org and Tar Sands Action.

In late August and early September, some 1,200 people were arrested in Washington, D.C., in a two-week campaign of civil disobedience. "We believe that this delay will kill the pipeline,” says the Canadian author and activist Naomi Klein.

“If it doesn’t, if this pipeline re-emerges after the election, people have signed pledges saying they will put their bodies on the line to stop it." Klein notes that, “I don’t think we would have won without Occupy Wall Street.

This is what it means to change the conversation.”

NORML -- Working to Reform Marijuana Laws

2011-11-11T23:02:00.000-08:00

By Gregory T. Carter, MD
Department of Rehabilitation Medicine
University of Washington School of Medicine

Marijuana is a colloquial term used to refer to the dried flowers of the female Cannabis Sativa and Cannabis Indica plants. Marijuana, or cannabis, as it is more appropriately called, has been part of humanity's medicine chest for almost as long as history has been recorded.

All forms of cannabis plants are quite complex, containing over 400 chemicals. Approximately 60 of these chemicals are classified as cannabinoids. Among the most psychoactive of the cannabinoids is delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), the active ingredient in the prescription medications dronabinol (Marinol) and naboline (Cesamet).

Other major cannabinoids include cannabidiol (CBD) and cannabinol (CBN), both of which are non-psychoactive but possess distinct pharmacological effects.

Cannabis TinctureCannabis was formally introduced to the United States Pharmacopoeia (USP) in 1854, though written references regarding the plant's therapeutic use date back as far as 2800 B.C. By 1900, cannabis was the third leading active ingredient, behind alcohol and opiates, in patent medicines for sale in America.

However, following the Mexican Revolution of 1910, Mexican immigrants flooded into the United States, introducing to American culture the recreational use of marijuana. Anti-drug campaigners warned against the encroaching, so-called "Marijuana Menace," and alleged that the drug's use was responsible for a wave of serious, violent criminal activity.

In 1937, after testimony from Harry Anslinger -- a strong opponent of marijuana and head of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics in the 1930s -- and against the advice of the American Medical Association, the Marijuana Tax Act was pushed through Congress, effectively outlawing all possession and use of the drug.

At the time of the law's passage, there were no fewer than 28 patented medicines containing cannabis available in American drug stores with a physician's prescription. Marijuana Tax ActThese cannabis-based medicines were produced by reputable drug companies like Squibb, Merck, and Eli Lily, and were used safely by tens of thousands of American citizens.

The enactment of the Marijuana Tax Act abruptly ended the production and use of medical cannabis in the United States, and by 1942 cannabis was officially removed from the Physician's Desk Reference.

Fortunately, over the past few decades there has been a significant rebirth of interest in the viable medical uses of cannabis. Much of the renewed interest in cannabis as a medicine lies not only in the drug's effectiveness, but also in its remarkably low toxicity. Lethal doses in humans have not been described.

This degree of safety is very rare among modern medicines, including most over-the-counter medications. As a result, the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the National Academy of Sciences Institute of Medicine, and even the US Food and Drug Administration have all issued statements calling for further investigation into the therapeutic use of cannabis and cannabinoids.

The discovery of an endogenous cannabinoid system, with specific receptors and ligands, has progressed our understanding of the therapeutic actions of cannabis from folklore to valid science.

It now appears that the cannabinoid system evolved with our species and is intricately involved in normal human physiology -- specifically in the control of movement, pain, reproduction, memory, and appetite, among other biological functions.

In addition, the prevalence of cannabinoid receptors in the brain and peripheral tissues suggests that the cannabinoid system represents a previously unrecognized ubiquitous network in the nervous system.

Cannabinoid receptor sites are now known to exist in the nervous systems of all animals more advanced than hydra and mollusks. This is a result of at least 500 million years of evolution. The human body's neurological, circulatory, endocrine, digestive, and musculoskeletal systems have now all been shown to possess cannabinoid receptor sites.

Indeed, even cartilage tissue has cannabinoid receptors, which makes cannabis a prime therapeutic agent to treat osteoarthritis. Cannabinoids have been shown to produce an anti-inflammatory effect by inhibiting the production and action of tumor necrosis factor (TNF) and other acute phase cytokines, which also makes them ideal compounds to treat the autoimmune forms of arthritis.

It is now suggested by some researchers that these widely spread cannabinoid receptor systems are the mechanisms by which the body maintains homeostasis (the regulation of cell function), allowing the body's tissues to communicate with one another in this intricate cellular dance we call "life."

With this knowledge of the widespread action of cannabinoids within all these bodily systems, it becomes much easier to conceptualize how the various forms of cannabinoids might have a potentially therapeutic effect on diseases ranging from osteoarthritis to amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS).

Another one of the exciting therapeutic areas that cannabis may impact is chronic pain. Cannabinoids produce analgesia by modulating rostral ventromedial medulla neuronal activity in a manner similar to, but pharmacologically distinct from, that of morphine.

This analgesic effect is also exerted by some endogenous cannabinoids (anandamide) and synthetic cannabinoids (methanandamide). Ideally, cannabinoids could be used alone or in conjunction with opioids to treat people with chronic pain, improve their quality of life and allow them to return to being a productive citizen.

Cannabis PlantsWhen discussing the therapeutic use of cannabis and cannabinoids, opponents inevitably respond that patients should not smoke their medicine. Patients no longer have to. Medical cannabis patients who desire the rapid onset of action associated with inhalation, but who are concerned about the potential harms of noxious smoke eliminate their intake of carcinogenic compounds by engaging in vaporization rather than smoking.

Cannabis vaporization limits respiratory toxins by heating cannabis to a temperature where cannabinoid vapors form (typically around 180-190 degrees Celsius), but below the point of combustion where noxious smoke and associated toxins (e.g., carcinogenic hydrocarbons) are produced (near 230 degrees Celsius).

This eliminates the inhalation of any particulate matter and removes the health hazards of smoking. In clinical trials, vaporization has been shown to safely and effectively deliver pharmacologically active, aerosolized cannabinoids deeply into the lungs, where the rich vascular bed will rapidly deliver them to tissues throughout the body.

The report summarizes the most recently published scientific research on the therapeutic use of cannabis and cannabinoids for more than a dozen diseases, including Alzheimer's, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, diabetes, hepatitis C, multiple sclerosis, rheumatoid arthritis, and Tourette's syndrome.

It is my hope that readers of this report will come away with a fair and balanced view of cannabis -- a view that is substantiated by scientific studies and not by anecdotal opinion or paranoia. Cannabis is neither a miracle compound nor the answer to everyone's ills. However, it does appear to have remarkable therapeutic benefits that are there for the taking if the governmental barriers for more intensive scientific study are removed.

The cannabis plant does not warrant the tremendous legal and societal commotion that has occurred over it. Over the past 30 years, the United States has spent billions in an effort to stem the use of illicit drugs, particularly marijuana, with limited success.

Many very ill people have had to fight long court battles to defend themselves for the use of a compound that has helped them. Rational minds need to take over the war on drugs, separating myth from fact, right from wrong, and responsible medical use from other less compelling behavior.

The medical marijuana user should not be considered a criminal in any state. Most major medical groups, including the Institute of Medicine, agree that cannabis is a compound with significant therapeutic potential whose "adverse effects ... are within the range of effects tolerated for other medications."

Over a decade ago, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) studied the medical properties of cannabis. After considerable study, DEA Administrative Law Judge Francis L. Young concluded: "The evidence clearly shows that marijuana is capable of relieving the distress of great numbers of very ill people, and doing so with safety under medical supervision. ... It would be unreasonable, arbitrary and capricious for the DEA to continue to stand between those sufferers and the benefits of this substance."

2011-11-11T21:32:00.000-08:00

***********************************************
The voices in my head may not be real, but they have
some good ideas!

***********************************************

2011-11-10T07:57:00.000-08:00

Rick Perry makes George Bush look like a Rocket Scientist.
******

2011-11-10T06:51:00.000-08:00

**********************************************
How is it one careless match can start a forest fire,
but it takes a whole box to start a campfire?
**********************************************

Mississippi Voters Reject Anti-Abortion Measure

2011-11-09T22:10:00.000-08:00

Tuesday Nov. 8, 2011--Voters, for the most part, rejected conservative-backed measures across the country Tuesday. Anti-labor law in Ohio, an anti-abortion measure in Mississippi (Yay, Mississippi! Way to go!), and a crackdown on voting rights in Maine.

Even in Arizona, voters were close to turning out of office the chief architect of that state’s controversial anti-immigration law. State Senator Russell Pearce, a Republican power broker and a former sheriff’s deputy known for his uncompromising style, came close to conceding the race Tuesday with a look of shock on his face. Don’t get too comfy, Pearce, either do the people’s bidding or you’ll be out on your Republican arse.

Just when the Pubs thought they rule the world, the Dems woke up and voted: Not so fast!

2011-11-09T09:00:00.000-08:00

Dot --

Now more than ever, the American people are showing just how fed up they are with the explosion of big corporate influence over our politics.

And now more than ever, the Supreme Court is ignoring its own precedents to unleash a torrent of corporate and special interest money in our elections.

We must put the American people back in charge of our democracy.

If the Supreme Court refuses to allow Congress and individual states to regulate the role of money in our elections, we must amend the Constitution to change that -- and together, we are beginning the amendment process this month.

Passing a constitutional amendment is no easy feat -- we've only passed 27 in our entire history, and powerful corporate interests are lining up against us as we speak -- but we can do this by hitting the ground running with a 21st century campaign to restore our democracy. And it all starts with you.

Sign our petition at ReverseCitizensUnited.com to amend the Constitution so Congress and the states can enact common-sense campaign finance reforms.

Historically, Congress and state legislatures have established contribution limits, disclosure requirements, and other rules to limit the influence of special interests in elections and ensure that government works for the American people, not powerful corporations.

Then, in last year's controversial Citizens United vs. FEC decision, Republican appointees on the Supreme Court overturned prior precedent and struck down Congress' sensible regulations on corporate spending in political campaigns.

A key solution to address the root cause of this problem is to amend the Constitution to make it absolutely clear to the Supreme Court and the special interests that Congress and state governments have the power to limit the flow of corporate money into campaigns.

Sign our petition now -- and then forward this email to your friends! Our constitutional amendment will stop the growing corrosive influence of big business on our elections and on our government, but it won't pass unless citizens like you demand it.

These historic times call for extraordinary measures to ensure our government remains of the people, by the people, and for the people -- not just powerful interests with the deepest pockets.

But we know these big corporate interests aren't going to give up without a fight, so we need you -- and tens of thousands of other Americans -- to join us.

Thank you for standing with us to return our elections to the hands of everyday citizens, rather than the special interests.
Sincerely,

Dick Durbin
U.S. Senator

Jeff Merkley
U.S. Senator

Chuck Schumer
U.S. Senator

Tom Udall
U.S. Senator

Sheldon Whitehouse
U.S. Senator

The Art of Renaming

2011-11-09T07:39:00.000-08:00

**********************************************
ATTENTION:

Democrats and Independents!

DO NOT allow Republicans to rename

your party the Democrat party. Democrat

Party is gradually making its way into the public

forum even by some Democrats!

It is the DEMOCRATIC party.

**********************************************

The “Occupied Wall Street Journal”

2011-11-05T22:30:00.000-07:00

The Occupy Wall Street protest group recently published the first edition of its newspaper, a four-page broadsheet called The Occupied Wall Street Journal. Didn’t manage to snag your own copy? No problem. Here’s a PDF file where you can take a look at it.

Update, 10/25/11: There’s now an official website where you can read The Occupied Wall Street Journal: occupiedmedia.org.

Update, 10/21/11: The Occupied Wall Street Journal issue 3 is now out.

Update, 10/9/11: The Occupied Wall Street Journal issue 2 is now out. You can still read issue 1 here on this page.

Update, 10/7/11: Previously I had posted a low-quality PDF made from photographing the paper. There’s now a cleaner, easier-to-read version available, so I updated this post to feature that document instead. You can see it below or download it from Scribd.

Another update: Just to be clear, I didn’t create this newspaper or have any involvement in the project.

Caveat: This is not a production-quality file. I made it by photographing a copy of the paper I picked up myself on October 1 (the day the paper came out). I wanted to share it with people, and was disappointed I couldn’t find it online. I realize some of the seams don’t line up, but everything in the paper should be legible enough to read.

My interest in this protest is simple. I live and work in Lower Manhattan, and I feel like it’s important to follow community events in my own neighborhood. Every day, I walk past the protest encampment at Zuccotti Park (a private park which locals and protestors generally call by its old name, Liberty Plaza). The demonstrators first appeared Saturday, September 17, and are still there as of this writing. Sometimes I take photos or videos of what I see and share them online. I am not part of the protest, but I think this is a legitimate group that deserves to be heard. I also keep wondering how it will end.

* * * *

The Occupied Wall Street Journal newspaper was funded by donations collected through Kickstarter. Since this is a writing blog, we have to ask if this paper is any good. My answer is yes. It looks professional enough to pass for a real community newspaper, which of course it is. I gave it a quick read and didn’t see any serious typos.

The quality of the content isn’t uniformly excellent, but some of the articles are well argued and enjoyable to read. The best written piece is under the front-page headline: “The Revolution Begins at Home.” It’s signed by Arun Gupta. There’s also an excellent introduction to the protest by Nathan Schneider called “Occupation for Dummies,” a version of which was originally published by The Nation. If you wonder what the protest is all about, these two stories will explain it to you in clear, persuasive language.

The passages in the newspaper that make the least sense to me are several comparisons to the Arab Spring protests. Some of those protests ended with the overthrow of governments. (If you need a primer on Arab Spring, the best source I’ve seen is this interactive timeline from The Guardian.) I don’t get a sense that Occupy Wall Street is about overthrowing the American government at all. And if it is, the General Assembly leadership needs to say so, so everybody’s clear what they’re signing up for when they unroll their sleeping bags.

* * * *

Also: The New York Times says the two main organizers of the Occupied Wall Street Journal newspaper are Arun Gupta and Jed Brandt, who also work on The Indypendent.

* * * *

Another update: Here’s a photo I shot of someone handing out copies of this newspaper on October 5 in Zuccotti Park/Liberty Plaza.

* * * *

Read more: The Occupied Wall Street Journal, Issue 2.

— By Daryl Lang. Filed under News & Journalism, Politics

Ideas From the 99 Percent for Ending Corporate Personhood

2011-11-05T22:15:00.000-07:00

By Katrina vanden Heuvel

IDEAS FROM THE 99 PERCENT. At the heart of the Occupy Wall Street movement is an understanding that our political system has failed to address the worst economic disaster since the Great Depression. Where our politicians and pundits have failed, Occupy Wall Street has succeeded in bringing issues like inequality, corporate ownership of politics and prolonged joblessness to the forefront of public debate. Yet, some still trivialize, criticize or attack the Occupy movement for lacking specific demands. They clearly miss the point of its message. And they aren’t paying attention.

To be sure, there’s no shortage of smart policy proposals to address the crises that beset us. As I’ve argued before, sane and humane policy solutions exist, such as those in the Congressional Progressive Caucus People’s Budget.

Our special forum in this week’s issue takes stock of some of those proposals. In “Ideas From the 99 Percent,” diverse voices, including William Grieder, Rinku Sen, Tamara Draut and Sarah Anderson offer concrete policy solutions—debt relief for struggling homeowners and students , fairer taxation policy and corporate governance rules, reducing interest rates on federal student loans, and instituting a financial transactions tax on Wall Street speculation. Be sure to read more about these and other ideas here.

WE THE PEOPLE. One very specific and concrete proposal that has caught on in Occupy encampments across the country: to introduce an amendment to the Constitution that would reverse the Supreme Court’s ruling in Citizens United and limit the pernicious influence of corporate money in our political system. This is the central goal of the We the People Campaign launched this week with colleagues Jim Hightower and Jay Harris.

The Supreme Court’s ruling in Citizens United opened the flood gates to corporate spending in elections. But it has inspired progressive groups to resist, organize and regain control of our democracy. For more, be sure to read the Huffington Post’s report on our efforts here. I also joined Jay Harris on Thom Hartmann’s The Big Picture this week to talk about the influence of corporations on current US politics. Ending corporate personhood—along with “clean money” reform featuring small donations and public funding—will help us liberate government from the grip of corporate power. Watch that here. And be sure to watch the campaign launch video below.

PAUL RYAN: CLASS WARRIOR FOR THE WEALTHY. As colleague Ari Berman notes this week, Congressman Paul Ryan revealed himself to be a first-rate demagogue and a class warrior for the wealthy when he declared during a speech at the Heritage Foundation that President Obama is “sowing social unrest and class resentment.”

In our cover story last week, Berman explained how Ryan—the architect of a draconian budget roadmap that would enact tax cuts for the wealthiest and at the same time increase the deficit—owes his rise to the so-called centrist deficit hawks in DC, who’ve helped validate his radical policy positions. I joined MSNBC’s The ED Show Thursday night at its new primetime slot at 8 pm to condemn Ryan’s inflammatory comments on Obama and his pandering to Washington’s “austerity class.”

AMERICA’S WILDEST SCHOOL BOARD RACE. “Big Money, Bad Media, Secret Agendas” sums up what DC correspondent John Nichols describes as America’s wildest school board race. On The Last Word with Lawrence O’Donnell earlier this week, Denver school board candidate Emily Sirota argued that special-interest groups are taking advantage of loopholes in Colorado election law to funnel massive amounts of campaign cash to her opponent, and stack the Denver school board with pro-voucher, pro-privatization candidates.

THE OCCUPIED WALL STREET JOURNAL. If you’ve been to Zuccotti Park, you would have seen a broadsheet in circulation among occupiers and onlookers. The Occupied Wall Street Journal is no pamphlet or scrappy samizdat. It’s the official, professionally produced four-page newspaper of the occupation. And it’s now available online. The paper captures the beauty and power of Occupy Wall Street. And this piece by Jennifer Sacks offers an on-the-ground look at the indispensable People’s Library—a one-stop shop of literature for and about the occupation.

NATION CONVERSATIONS. Every week, The Nation brings you exclusive audio of Nation forums, events, seminars and salons with Nation writers and editors with in-depth discussions on hot button issues of the day. Whether you’re on-the-go or just lounging around at home, Nation Conversations is available as a podcast through iTunes or as a stand-alone MP3. Become a subscriber here or through the iTunes app store.

As always, thanks for reading. I’m on Twitter—@KatrinaNation.

White House Protest Against Keystone XL Pipeline Planned for Sunday

2011-11-05T21:22:00.000-07:00

By: Renee Schoof, McClatchy Newspapers

Friday, Nov. 4, 2011--Washington--Thousands of people are expected to mass at the White House on Sunday to send an environmental message to President Barack Obama: Say no to a proposed pipeline that would import highly polluting oil from Canada.

It's likely to be the biggest environmental protest in Washington in a long time. Protests organizers, speaking at a press conference Friday, said the event is meant to show the president that they're passionate about cleaner energy and want Obama to take their side in the controversy over the pipeline and the source of the heavy crude oil, the tar sands of Alberta, Canada.

"We really, really believe in him," Maura Cowley, a leader of the Energy Action Coalition, a youth environmental movement, said of Obama. "But we're watching this very carefully because it's a symbol of President Obama's commitment to clean energy."

The environmentalists warn that they won't be able to turn out large numbers of voters for Obama in 2012 if he grants the pipeline permit.

"You win elections not because your hardcore supporters turn out, but because they get excited about what you're doing and they bring all their friends with them," said author Bill McKibben, who helped organize civil disobedience against the pipeline this summer. "In a sense, that's what's on offer here."

Obama should simply deny the permit, McKibben said, or at least order a fresh environmental review and delay a decision.

The proposed 1,661 mile-long pipeline from Alberta to the Texas Gulf Coast requires a presidential permit because it crosses the U.S.-Canada border.

TransCanada Corp., the company that wants to build the pipeline, has argued that its construction has economic and energy-security benefits. A study written for the company said that 20,000 construction and manufacturing jobs would be created for two years.

Opponents want the president to stop the pipeline because of the risks of spills and of impact on global warming from tapping Canada's vast oil sands. The thick crude from the oil sands produces more heat-trapping carbon-dioxide emissions than regular oil because of the extra energy required in extracting and processing it.

The extra emissions from burning the oil would be the equivalent of the pollutants from 5 million cars or seven coal-fired power plants, according to the Sierra Club.

In addition, the pipeline would cross many rivers, including the Yellowstone in Montana, and the Ogallala aquifer and the environmentally sensitive Sand Hills in Nebraska. The Nebraska legislature is in a special session focused on concerns about the pipeline's route through that state.

TransCanada expects a decision on the permit by the end of the year, company spokesman Terry Cunha said Friday.

"But if there were a delay, the impact would be quite large. We're looking at a million-dollar-a-day impact," he said. Those costs would include the costs of warehousing equipment and paying for materials that wouldn't be used.

TransCanada has contracts with companies that produce the oil in Alberta and from the Bakken oilfield in the Dakotas, Montana and Saskatchewan. The contracts call for shipping the oil to the Texas refineries beginning in 2013. "If there's a delay, it could have an impact on our contracts," Cunha said.

Another argument by supporters is that the Keystone XL pipeline would increase the supply of oil from Canada, potentially reducing imports from less friendly oil-producing countries.

An environmental impact statement about the pipeline concluded that there would be no major environmental impact or effect on climate change. The study argued that the oil sands would be developed whether or not the pipeline is built, because other ways would be found to get the oil to market.

Building or expanding other pipelines, however, could be years off, according to pipeline opponents.

Two proposed pipelines to Canada's west coast and one to Maine face strong opposition in Canada, said Michael Marx, the director of the Sierra Club's Beyond Oil campaign.

Today nearly all of Canada's exports from its oil sands go to the United States, mostly through an existing Keystone pipeline system to the Midwest.

Tell Republicans to Stop Subsidizing Big Oil

2011-11-05T12:55:00.000-07:00

Big Oil companies have once again reported billions in profits while Republican lawmakers continue to demand $21 billion in tax breaks. Meanwhile, Big Oil contributes millions to Republican Senate candidates.

They stand up for each others’ interests while the rest of us suffer at the pump. Tell Republicans: Stop sending our money to oil corporations in the form of huge tax breaks.

2011-11-04T12:13:00.000-07:00

***********************************************
How is it one careless match can start a forest fire,
but it takes a whole box to start a campfire?
**********************************************

Report: Long-term Unemployment Worsens For Vets

2011-11-04T12:05:00.000-07:00

Army Times A Gannett Company
By Rick Maze -- Staff writer

Thursday Nov. 3, 2011 –– For veterans of all ages, long-term unemployment has become a serious problem, according to a new Labor Department report.

For Iraq- and Afghanistan-era veterans, whose unemployment rate averaged 11.5 percent last year, 36 percent were unemployed for 27 weeks or longer, according to the Nov. 3 report.

Veterans of other eras were less likely to be unemployed, but those who lost their jobs faced a much longer search. For veterans 65 and older trying to re-enter the workforce after losing a job, 53 percent were unemployed for 27 weeks or longer. The median duration of unemployment for these older veterans was 31 weeks, the report said.

******

Jobs Bill By Veterans Day Looks Unlikely

Nov. 2, 2011 -- Long-term unemployment is also slightly worse for veterans than non-veterans, the report said, with veterans having a median duration of 24 weeks of unemployment, one more than for non-veterans.

Education may be part of the problem. Among men age 25 and older, veterans are less likely than non-veterans to have a college degree, according to the report.

Among veterans age 25 and older who separated from active duty since 1990, the unemployment rate for those with a four-year college degree or higher was 4.1 percent. For those with some college, the unemployment rate was 10 percent, and for those with no college, 11.5 percent, the report said.

In terms of wages, the report finds veterans do slightly better than non-veterans. The median annual income in 2010 for a male veteran is $35,725, compared with $30,822 for male non-veteran.

Age, however, is a factor. The median age range for male veterans is 55 to 64, generally years of high earnings, while the median age range for male non-veterans in the workforce is 35 to 44. Among women, whose median age range in the workforce is 45 to 54 for both veterans and non-veterans, veterans earn considerably more. The report said female veterans had a median annual income of $30,540 in 2010, compared with $20,634 for non-veterans.

2011-11-03T13:05:00.000-07:00

Sign being held by protesters in the Wisconsin
State Assembly House:

The only thing left to eat by the poor

will be the rich!

2011-11-03T12:54:00.000-07:00

************************************************
Fighting for peace is like ***king for virginity.
************************************************

A Sobering Opinion of America

2011-11-03T12:26:00.000-07:00

The following letter was composed today and sent to Jon Stewart of the Daily Show.

November 3, 2011

The Daily Show with Jon Stewart
604 West 52nd Street
New York, NY 10019

Dear Jon:

Forgive me for not being able to navigate your site to send a message. I had to resort to the old-fashioned way to communicate, by writing a letter.

Jon, I watched the show where Condolezza Rice was your guest. It is nothing less than stunning to see how delusional she remains.

I am reading Noam Chompsky’s “Hegemony or Survival: America's Quest for Global Dominance (The American Empire Project).” Chompsky describes how countries around the world fear America and views her as a threat to world peace. We have a reputation as an arrogant, world bully, to be feared because of the arsenal that is America. Not very flattering, is it?

Chompsky’s view of America offers a plausible explanation of why we’re picked on and why we are despised around the world.

May I suggest that you and Rice read Chompsky. It is extremely enlightening as to how America is viewed worldwide.

Sincerely,
Dot Calm

p.s. Love the show!

2011-10-26T21:31:00.000-07:00

Sources tell The New York Times that Rajat Gupta, former director of Goldman Sachs and Procter & Gamble, will surrender to federal authorities today, making him the most prominent target of a sweeping investigation of insider trading. The charges, set to be filed today, likely relate to the investigation into Raj Rajaratnam's hedge fund Galleon Group. The Securities and Exchange Commission has already filed an administrative proceeding against Gupta accusing him of passing confidential information about Goldman Sachs to Rajaratnam