BLACKBURN REPORT

For Whitney Houston, happiness was just out of reach

2012-02-12T12:55:00.001-07:00

For Whitney Houston, happiness was just out of reach

By Thomas Conner on February 12, 2012 12:43 PM |

Barbra Streisand tweeted it best early Sunday morning: "She had everything, beauty, a magnificent voice. How sad her gifts could not bring her the same happiness they brought us."
Streisand's succinct eulogy for singer Whitney Houston -- who was found dead Saturday afternoon in her suite at a Beverly Hills, Calif., hotel -- rings true to the bell curve that was Houston's career.
Happiness is something not easy to ascribe to Houston. That's certainly easy to say about her personal life; younger people likely are aware of her as a tabloid train wreck far more than as a record-breaking, wildly popular diva. The majority of her headlines in the last decade have been non-musical: drug abuse and a marijuana bust, erratic behavior and that last-minute cancelation at the Oscars, her roller-coaster marriage and all its dirty laundry literally aired on the reality TV show "Being Bobby Brown."
But even when she was at the top of her game -- and the charts, and the world -- Houston never seemed completely happy.

Her biggest hits (chosen by her, not written by her) were not cheery songs. "Saving All My Love for You" details a hopeless longing for a married man. Dolly Parton's "I Will Always Love You" -- that's not sung to a loved one newly acquired, as a promise, it's delivered over the shoulder after leaving the object of desire. Likewise, "Didn't We Almost Have It All" is pure melancholy reverie. "How Will I Know" wonders about love but doesn't possess it, as does the musically upbeat "I Wanna Dance With Somebody (Who Loves Me)," in which Houston sings, "Sooner or later the fever ends / and I wind up feeling down."
In the hands of a skilled interpreter like Houston, though, those songs soared. As one of the first black artists to enjoy worldwide success in Michael Jackson's wake, Houston's early career was unparalleled. Her self-titled debut in 1985 sold 13 million copies. Around her second album, 1987's "Whitney," she broke records by logging seven consecutive singles at No. 1. Later, her version of "I Will Always Love You" was, at the time, the biggest-selling single in pop history. Talk about great interpretation -- even her Super Bowl performance of "The Star-Spangled Banner" became a Top 20 single.
Think about it: The operatic word "diva" wasn't in widespread use (or at least branded by VH1's annual "Divas" concert) to describe pop singers until Houston's ascendance.

But despite all that happiness she brought to others via her transcendent performances, the fever ended sooner than expected. Always a singles artist more than a crafter of albums, Houston backed off in the '90s and mostly released songs via soundtracks to the movies she starred in. Her personal troubles began overtaking her professional accomplishments. By the 21st century, she was divorced, in rehab, spinning consistent fodder for late-night comics ("Crack is wack!" "Hell to the no!") and, even worse, starting to realize that her hard living had damaged the very instrument that earned her the nickname The Voice.
"I Look to You," her 2009 album and first since a disappointing set seven years earlier, was positioned commercially as a comeback. Her name was back in a few headlines, but not always in a happy way. The songs were strong, but her singing was not. I remember watching her hyped appearance that fall on "Good Morning America," a heart-breaking performance in which her once powerful voice cracked and struggled within a much narrower range. She spent as much time apologizing as singing. Imagine how she must have felt.
Ahead of Sunday's Grammys -- at which Chicago's Jennifer Hudson is now scheduled to sing a brief tribute to the late six-time Grammy winner -- Houston seemed poised for another comeback attempt. She'd increased her public appearances (her last was Thursday night at a pre-Grammy party, where she sang an impromptu "Yes, Jesus Loves Me" alongside singer Kelly Price) and had just finished work on a new film, a remake of "Sparkle," due in theaters Aug. 10.
Whatever happiness she couldn't find for herself, she at least provided for others. (I will not deny having sung "Saving All My Love for You" at the top of my sad lil' lungs, fortunately in the car with the windows up on lonely roads. As a teen, I once played it over the phone to someone who then finally agreed to go out with me.)
Fortunately, in music, that can keep going long after she's gone.

Conservatism Thrives on Low Intelligence and Poor Information

2012-02-12T09:07:00.001-07:00

Conservatism Thrives on Low Intelligence and Poor Information

There is plenty of research showing that low general intelligence in childhood predicts greater prejudice towards people of different ethnicity or sexuality in adulthood.

February 12, 2012 |

Self-deprecating, too liberal for their own good, today's progressives stand back and watch, hands over their mouths, as the social vivisectionists of the right slice up a living society to see if its component parts can survive in isolation. Tied up in knots of reticence and self-doubt, they will not shout stop. Doing so requires an act of interruption, of presumption, for which they no longer possess a vocabulary.
Perhaps it is in the same spirit of liberal constipation that, with the exception of Charlie Brooker, we have been too polite to mention the Canadian study published last month in the journal Psychological Science, which revealed that people with conservative beliefs are likely to be of low intelligence. Paradoxically it was the Daily Mail that brought it to the attention of British readers last week. It feels crude, illiberal to point out that the other side is, on average, more stupid than our own. But this, the study suggests, is not unfounded generalisation but empirical fact.
It is by no means the first such paper. There is plenty of research showing that low general intelligence in childhood predicts greater prejudice towards people of different ethnicity or sexuality in adulthood. Open-mindedness, flexibility, trust in other people: all these require certain cognitive abilities. Understanding and accepting others – particularly "different" others – requires an enhanced capacity for abstract thinking.
But, drawing on a sample size of several thousand, correcting for both education and socioeconomic status, the new study looks embarrassingly robust. Importantly, it shows that prejudice tends not to arise directly from low intelligence but from the conservative ideologies to which people of low intelligence are drawn. Conservative ideology is the "critical pathway" from low intelligence to racism. Those with low cognitive abilities are attracted to "rightwing ideologies that promote coherence and order" and "emphasise the maintenance of the status quo". Even for someone not yet renowned for liberal reticence, this feels hard to write.
This is not to suggest that all conservatives are stupid. There are some very clever people in government, advising politicians, running thinktanks and writing for newspapers, who have acquired power and influence by promoting rightwing ideologies.
But what we now see among their parties – however intelligent their guiding spirits may be – is the abandonment of any pretence of high-minded conservatism. On both sides of the Atlantic, conservative strategists have discovered that there is no pool so shallow that several million people won't drown in it. Whether they are promoting the idea that Barack Obama was not born in the US, that man-made climate change is an eco-fascist-communist-anarchist conspiracy, or that the deficit results from the greed of the poor, they now appeal to the basest, stupidest impulses, and find that it does them no harm in the polls.
Don't take my word for it. Listen to what two former Republican ideologues, David Frum and Mike Lofgren, have been saying. Frum warns that "conservatives have built a whole alternative knowledge system, with its own facts, its own history, its own laws of economics". The result is a "shift to ever more extreme, ever more fantasy-based ideology" which has "ominous real-world consequences for American society".
Lofgren complains that "the crackpot outliers of two decades ago have become the vital centre today". The Republican party, with its "prevailing anti-intellectualism and hostility to science" is appealing to what he calls the "low-information voter", or the "misinformation voter". While most office holders probably don't believe the "reactionary and paranoid claptrap" they peddle, "they cynically feed the worst instincts of their fearful and angry low-information political base".
The madness hasn't gone as far in the UK, but the effects of the Conservative appeal to stupidity are making themselves felt. This week the Guardian reported that recipients of disability benefits, scapegoated by the government as scroungers, blamed for the deficit, now find themselves subject to a new level of hostility and threats from other people.
These are the perfect conditions for a billionaires' feeding frenzy. Any party elected by misinformed, suggestible voters becomes a vehicle for undisclosed interests. A tax break for the 1% is dressed up as freedom for the 99%. The regulation that prevents big banks and corporations exploiting us becomes an assault on the working man and woman. Those of us who discuss man-made climate change are cast as elitists by people who happily embrace the claims of Lord Monckton, Lord Lawson or thinktanks funded by ExxonMobil or the Koch brothers: now the authentic voices of the working class.
But when I survey this wreckage I wonder who the real idiots are. Confronted with mass discontent, the once-progressive major parties, as Thomas Frank laments in his latest book Pity the Billionaire, triangulate and accommodate, hesitate and prevaricate, muzzled by what he calls "terminal niceness". They fail to produce a coherent analysis of what has gone wrong and why, or to make an uncluttered case for social justice, redistribution and regulation. The conceptual stupidities of conservatism are matched by the strategic stupidities of liberalism.
Yes, conservatism thrives on low intelligence and poor information. But the liberals in politics on both sides of the Atlantic continue to back off, yielding to the supremacy of the stupid. It's turkeys all the way down.

George Monbiot is the author Heat: How to Stop the Planet from Burning. Read more of his writings at Monbiot.com.

3diggsdigg

Good News: Court Rules Gay Marriage-Denying Proposition 8 (Proposition "H8") Unconstitutional

2012-02-07T20:44:00.000-07:00

Great news out of California. An appeals court has ruled that Proposition 8, the California voter-approved measure that banned same-sex marriage, is unconstitutional. Shy of four years ago, the fact that California had voted in favor of this odious measure was the cloud that marred the excitement of President Obama's victory.

This isn't the end of the legal battle, but it's an exciting and just ruling.

From the LA Times:

A federal appeals court Tuesday struck down California's ban on same-sex marriage, clearing the way for the U.S. Supreme Court to rule on gay marriage as early as next year.
The 2-1 decision by a panel of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals found that Proposition 8, the 2008 ballot measure that limited marriage to one man and one woman, violated the U.S. Constitution. The architects of Prop. 8 have vowed to appeal.
The ruling was narrow and likely to be limited to California.
“Proposition 8 served no purpose, and had no effect, other than to lessen the status and human dignity of gays and lesbians in California,” the court said.

Activists are rejoicing that this ruling upheld the previous decision by Judge Vaughn R. Walker, now-retired U.S. District Judge, and the statements are rolling in:

The 9th Circuit did what it must: it ruled that Judge Walker is competent, not somehow diminished for being gay and it ruled that the Constitution of the United States indeed provides equal protection and due process to all Americans, not just some Americans," said Rick Jacobs, chair and founder of the Courage Campaign, a progressive, grassroots online organization with more than 750,000 members around the country. "Having live-blogged every piece of this trial, especially in Judge Walker's courtroom two years ago, it became patently clear that the fringe opponents of equality would never prevail. We owe a huge debt of gratitude to the dynamic duo of attorneys Ted Olson and David Boies and their colleagues at the American Foundation for Equal Rights (AFER) who took to heart that real people are hurt by Prop 8 and its evil cousins across the nation. The time for waiting has ended."

By Sarah Seltzer | Sourced from AlterNet

Miley Cyrus Speaks Up For Marriage Equality

2012-02-07T19:47:00.002-07:00

A while back, Miley Cyrus got a tattoo meant to show her support for marriage equality, a gesture that brought her plenty of criticism and even hateful comments from her fans. In an essay for Glamour magazine, she explains the decision to speak up for equality. Miley has never made a secret of having plenty of gay friends who, she hopes, will be one day able to get married legally all across the country. Neither has she made a secret of her religious upbringing and her faith in God. The two don't automatically exclude each other, she says now. Upset that many people reached out to her only to have her know that Christianity says gay love is a sin, Miley is finally speaking up: gay love is still love, so it can't possibly be a sin. “I believe every American should be allowed the same rights and civil liberties. Without legalized same-gender marriage, most of the time you cannot share the same health benefits, you are not considered next of kin and you are not granted the same securities as a heterosexual couple,” she reasons. “How is this different than having someone sit in the back of the bus because of their skin color?” Miley asks. She goes on to plead for more tolerance and understanding, saying that even people with deeply rooted conservative beliefs are known to show both. “We all should be tolerant of one another and embrace our differences. My dad [country singer Billy Ray Cyrus], who is a real man’s man, lives on the farm and is as Southern and straight as they come. He loves my gay friends and even supports same-sex marriage. If my father can do it, anyone can,” the former Disney star says. “This is America, the nation of dreams. We’re so proud of that. And yet certain people are excluded. It’s just not right,” Miley adds. The tattoo that started this debate is the equal sign on Miley's ring finger.

Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg Talks Constitution, Women And Liberty On Egyptian TV

2012-02-07T12:20:00.002-07:00

Appearing on Egyptian television before concluding a four-day trip in Egypt, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg extolled the virtues of the U.S. Constitution but urged Egyptians to look to other countries' newer constitutions for guidance as they craft their own in the coming months.

The U.S. Embassy in Cairo's website noted in a Feb. 2 release that Ginsburg concluded her trip to Egypt "following four days of discussions and programs in both Cairo and Alexandria with judges and legal experts as well as law faculty and students." She had intended to "'listen and learn' with her Egyptian counterparts as they begin Egypt's constitutional transition to democracy," according to the embassy.
Yet while Ginsburg's interview, posted on YouTube on Wednesday, lauded the Founding Fathers' "grand general ideas that become more effective over the course of ... more than two sometimes-turbulent centuries," she also said she "would not look to the United States Constitution if I were drafting a constitution in the year 2012," given its original exclusion of women, slaves and Native Americans.
Since World War II several other models have emerged that offer more specific and contemporary guarantees of rights and liberties, she said, pointing to South Africa's constitution, which she called a "really great piece of work" for its embrace of basic human rights and guarantee of an independent judiciary. She also noted Canada's charter of rights and freedoms and the European Convention of Human Rights.
"Why not take advantage of what there is elsewhere in the world? I'm a very strong believer in listening and learning from others," she said.
Among those currently sitting on the U.S. Supreme Court no other justice has publicly advised another country on the creation of a constitution. In 1960, eight years before he became a justice, Thurgood Marshall traveled to Kenya to draft its bill of rights, which he modeled after the European Convention on Human Rights. Unlike the U.S. Constitution, the Kenyan document guarantees rights to education, health, welfare and a right to work.
Nevertheless, Ginsburg spent most of the 18-minute interview spelling out all the ways the Egyptians could take inspiration from the United States' Constitution, from the First Amendment's guarantee of free speech and a free press to the Fourteenth Amendment's equal protection clause that she, as a lawyer in the 1970s, convinced the court to expand to protect women's rights.
"We were just tremendously fortunate in the United States that the men who met in Philadelphia were very wise," Ginsburg said. "Now it is true that they were lacking one thing," she continued with a chuckle. "And that is that there were no women as part of the Constitutional Convention."
"It's a very inspiring time -- that you have overthrown a dictator and that you are striving to achieve a genuine democracy," Ginsburg told Al Hayat TV. "I think people in the United States are hoping that this transition will work and that it will genuinely be a government of, by and for the people."
Jan. 25 marked the one-year anniversary since the start of the Tahrir Square protests that toppled President Hosni Mubarak's nearly three-decade regime.
When asked by her interviewer how best to draft a constitution and protect it from contemporary political pressures (perhaps alluding to Islamic parties' dominance in the new parliament's lower house), Justice Ginsburg answered, "A constitution, as important as it is, will mean nothing unless the people are yearning for liberty and freedom."
"If the people don’t care, then the best constitution in the world won’t make any difference," she said.
"The spirit of liberty," she continued, "has to be in the population."

This Story Appeared Earlier on The Huffington Post

Susan Powell Husband Josh Powell Murders Kids Commits Suicide During Supervised Visitation

2012-02-06T11:58:00.000-07:00

Josh Powell, husband of missing and presumed deceased Utah woman Susan Powell, deliberately set off an explosion Sunday afternoon killing himself and the couples two young sons Charles and Braden Powell.
Apparently, according to sources familiar with the case, the children were beginning to vocalize what happened to their mother, saying, according to some reports, "Mommy was in the trunk."

A case worker arrived with the children for the court ordered supervised visitation was blocked entry by Powell, and shortly thereafter the home exploded.
Powell's father is awaiting trial for various sex charges including child porn and voyuerism, and Josh was just denied custody of the children in favor Susan’s parents, The Cox’s.

The Blackburn Report wishes to extend our sincerest condolences to The Cox family and members of the Powell Family .
Sadly, it seemed, from the beginning of the case that Josh murdered his wife, and got away with it.
But they say, "The Postman allways rings twice."

It is just so tragic that the children were murdered when Powell felt the "jig was up".

Bill Maher: "Atheism Is a Religion Like Abstinence Is a Sex Position"

2012-02-06T11:31:00.002-07:00

Bill Maher: "Atheism Is a Religion Like Abstinence Is a Sex Position"

During last night's New Rules segment, Bill Maher noted that "Until someone claims to see Christopher Hitchens' face in a tree stump, idiots must stop claiming that atheism is a religion." He goes on:

Not only is atheism not a religion, it's not even my hobby. And that's the great thing about being an atheist -- it requires so little of your time....
There is a growing trend in this country that needs to be called out, and that is to label any evidence-based belief a "religion." Many conservatives now say that a belief in man-made climate change is a "religion," and Darwinism is a "religion," and of course atheism -- the total lack of religion -- is somehow a "religion" too, according to the always reliable Encyclopedia Moronica.

To believers he says, "You don't get to put your unreason up on the same shelf as my reason." Then he un-baptizes Mitt Romney's dead father-in-law, because hey -- if religious people get to do wacky things like that, why not atheist Bill Maher?

Romney: "I'm Not Concerned With the Very Poor" (While Fellow .001%ers Pony Up for His Super PAC)

2012-02-01T12:52:00.002-07:00

Oh, dear. Robot Romney's wires have malfunctioned again, jut when he should have been soaking up his win in Florida last night.

Check out this unfortunate soundbite from a CNN interview this morning, in which the .006%er said he wasn't concerned about the very poor:

The Washington Post reports on the exchange:

“I’m not concerned about the very poor. We have a safety net there,” Romney told CNN. “If it needs repair, I’ll fix it. I’m not concerned about the very rich, they’re doing just fine. I’m concerned about the very heart of the America, the 90 percent, 95 percent of Americans who right now are struggling.”
Host Soledad O’Brien pointed out that the very poor are probably struggling too.
“The challenge right now — we will hear from the Democrat party the plight of the poor,” Romney responded, after repeating that he would fix any holes in the safety net. “And there’s no question it’s not good being poor and we have a safety net to help those that are very poor . . . My focus is on middle income Americans ... we have a very ample safety net and we can talk about whether it needs to be strengthened or whether there are holes in it. but we have food stamps, we have Medicaid, we have housing vouchers, we have programs to help the poor.”

As one of the richest Americans with a now-revealed low tax rate and numerous offshore accounts, Romney can't come off this callous about the safety net--particularly when so many Americans are one misfortune away from joining that group.

He's just setting himself up for a giant swat-down in the general election here--particularly given today's FEC filings and what they reveal about his donors. From the New York Times:

The filings to the Federal Election Commission, the first detailed look at a crucial source of support for Mr. Romney, showed his ability to win substantial backing from a small number of his party’s most influential and wealthy patrons, each contributing to the super PAC far more than the $2,500 check each could legally write to his campaign.
...
Millions of dollars came from financial industry executives, including Mr. Romney’s former colleagues at Bain Capital, who contributed a total of $750,000; senior executives at Goldman Sachs, who contributed $385,000; and some of the most prominent and politically active Republicans in the hedge fund world, three of whom gave $1 million each: Robert Mercer of Renaissance Technologies; Paul Singer of Elliott Management, and Julian Robertson of Tiger Management.

By Sarah Seltzer | Sourced from AlterNet

The Path to Victory in November for Barack Obama and the Democrats

2012-01-31T14:42:00.004-07:00

The Path to Victory in November for Barack Obama and the Democrats

by Michael Tomasky Jan 31, 2012 4:45 AM EST

The GOP has won repeatedly by defending tax cuts for the rich. But as Michael Tomasky argues, Democrats could prevail in 2012 by showing that middle-class fairness produces growth.

I have praised Barack Obama on previous occasions for finally (after nearly three years) figuring out he needs to position himself as the defender of the middle class and the Republicans as the defenders of the wealthy. It’s been a big improvement. But he’s still mostly missing something, and it’s a very important something—something Democrats miss a lot. Obama, in the standard Democratic fashion, is largely making an argument about society. Republicans, in contrast, offer a theory about economic growth. Now, the Republicans’ theory is a ridiculous lie. But even so, it is much more arresting and persuasive as an argument because it is tied to crucial end results. Obama and the Democrats will have far less trouble selling their message if they figure out how to construct their case more the way Republicans do.

Mandel Ngan, AFP / Getty Images

If I asked you to summarize in a sentence the main theme of Obama’s recent big speeches, the Osawatomie address and the State of the Union, you would probably say something like: he’s for building up the middle class and making the rich pay more because things are out of whack and unfair. And if I asked you to summarize the GOP’s trickle-down economics, you would say: the idea is that cutting taxes and regulations on those at the top will eventually help everyone.

I think I’m being fair here. And if I am correct, notice the difference between the two hypothetical descriptions. The summary of the Obama message makes an argument about the country (things are unfair), and it proposes steps (building up the middle class, making the rich pay more) that will presumably make things fairer. But the summary of the Republican message takes it one critical step further. It says: if we do these things, the economy will grow and prosper. Obama is making an argument about society: unfairness is wrong and must be corrected. Republicans are offering a theory of action toward the specific end of growth.

What Obama needs to do more forcefully is make the next step of the argument by answering the questions: Why must fairness be restored? What will it lead to? To liberals, it’s enough that it will lead to a fairer society. Therefore, it doesn’t even occur to many liberals that the “What will it lead to?” question even needs to be answered. A fairer society is enough. But for many Americans, it’s not enough. A fairer society is fine, they think, if we can afford it. But what these Americans want is a society where there are lots of good jobs. A prosperous society. So what Obama and his speechwriters should be hoping people summarizing his speeches would say is something like: he’s for building up the middle class and making the rich pay more because things are out of whack and unfair, and because doing so will create a more prosperous society. That’s the missing piece.

In my formulation, then, a happier and larger middle class isn’t just an end unto itself. It’s a means to an end—an end made up of more jobs and greater prosperity. It’s an answer to trickle-down economics: the Republicans say that if taxes are cut for the top 1 percent, prosperity will result; we Democrats say that if we take various steps to help the middle class, some involving taxes and others involving investment, that will lead us to prosperity. Democrats should not be afraid to have that argument. They should relish it.

There are people out there making it. My friends Nick Hanauer and Eric Liu have just published their second book together, The Gardens of Democracy, in which they make the case for what they call “middle-out economics,” which “does not rely on the droppings of the super-rich.” (Of which, by the way, Hanauer is very much one—he was a ground-floor investor in Amazon and runs a venture-capital firm; Liu was a White House domestic-policy adviser under Bill Clinton.) Instead, it “starts with the broad middle to generate wealth and pushes wealth outward so that it can circulate throughout the economy.”

At a terrifically interesting lunch at the Brookings Institution last Friday, Hanauer, who wrote a column for Bloomberg View in November that generated a massive response, said pointedly: “I am not a job creator. The middle class are the job creators. Believe me, capitalists like me, we hire only and exactly as many people as consumers ask us to hire. Their demand creates the jobs.”

Obama sometimes connects the middle class to jobs and prosperity. But he doesn’t do it as often and as explicitly as he ought to.

I recommend their book, which makes several provocative arguments that challenge conventional economic and political wisdom. And I commend also in this vein an article we published nearly a year ago in Democracy, the journal I edit, by David Madland of the Center for American Progress. Madland explains clearly how middle-class growth can be positioned as the exact opposite of trickle-down growth, and he cites a pile of social-science research showing that a prosperous middle class is not just an end in itself but that it also leads to better social outcomes, like greater trust and better governance.

Obama doesn’t always fail to connect the middle class to jobs and prosperity. In the Osawatomie speech he said: “When middle-class families can no longer afford to buy the goods and services that businesses are selling, when people are slipping out of the middle class, it drags down the entire economy from top to bottom. America was built on the idea of broad-based prosperity, of strong consumers all across the country.” But he doesn’t make this argument as often and as explicitly as he ought to. Whether the idea of fairness can attract a voting majority is, alas, an iffy proposition. But the idea of a more prosperous society that also happens to be fairer should finally consign supply-side economics into the grave in which it has so long and so richly deserved to be entombed.

Like The Daily Beast on Facebook and follow us on Twitter for updates all day long.

The 10 Most Racist Moments of the GOP Primary (So Far)

2012-01-26T12:35:00.000-07:00

AlterNet / By Chauncey DeVega

74 COMMENTS

The 10 Most Racist Moments of the GOP Primary (So Far)

The Republican Party is digging deep into the old bucket of white racism, using the politics of fear, hostility and anxiety to win over white voters.

January 25, 2012 |

One cannot forget that the contemporary Republican Party was born with the Southern Strategy, winning over the former Jim Crow South to its side of the political aisle, and as a backlash against the civil rights movement. This is a formula for a politics of white grievance mongering and white victimology; a dreamworld where white conservatives are oppressed, their rights infringed upon by a tyrannical federal government and elite liberal media that are beholden to the interests of the “undeserving poor,” racial minorities, gays, and immigrants.

In keeping with this script in order to win over Red State America, the 2012 Republican presidential candidates have certainly not disappointed. Both overt racism and dog whistles are delectable temptations that the Republican presidential nominees cannot resist. With the election of the country’s first African-American president, and a United States that is less white and more diverse, the GOP is in peril. In uncertain times, you go with what you know. For the Republican Party, this means “dirty boxing,” digging deep into the old bucket of white racism, and using the politics of fear, hostility and anxiety to win over white voters by demagoguing Obama.
Racism is an assault on the common good. Racism also does the work of dividing and conquering people with common interests. While the 2012 Republican candidates are stirring the pot of white racial anxiety, this is a means to a larger end—the destruction of the country’s social safety net, in support of vicious economic austerity policies, and protecting the kleptocrats and financiers at the expense of the working and middle classes.
Here are the top 10 racist moments by the Republican presidential candidates so far.
1. Newt Gingrich puts Juan Williams "in his place" for daring to ask an unpleasant question during the South Carolina debate. This was the most pernicious example of old-school white racism at work in the 2012 Republican primary campaign. Newt Gingrich, a son of the South who grew up in the shadow of legendary Jim Crow racist Lester Maddox, is an expert on the language and practice of white racism (in both its subtle and obvious forms). He has ridden high with Republican audiences by suggesting that black people are lazy, and their children should be given mops and brooms in order to learn the value of hard work. With condescending pride, Gingrich has also stated that he would lecture the NAACP--one of America’s most storied civil rights organizations--that they ought to demand jobs and not food stamps from Barack Obama.
On Martin Luther King Jr.'s birthday, under the Confederate flag, in the state of South Carolina, Gingrich defended his racist contempt for African Americans by putting Juan Williams, “that boy,” in his place. During the debate, Juan Williams had gotten uppity and was insufficiently deferential to Newt.
This dynamic was not lost on the almost exclusively white audience in attendance (nor on the white woman who congratulated Gingrich the following day for his “brave” deed). They howled with glee at the sight of a black man, one who dared to sass, being reminded of his rightful place at Newt’s knee. In another time, not too long ago, Juan Williams would have been driven out of town for such an offense, if he was lucky -- the lynching tree awaited many black folks who did not submit to white authority.
The symbolism of Newt Gingrich’s hostility to black folks, on King’s birthday, and the personal contempt he demonstrated for Juan Williams, was a classic moment in contemporary Republican politics. This was the “scene of instruction,” when a black man was a proxy for a whole community, a stand-in for the country’s first black president, as Newt Gingrich showed just what he thinks about Barack Obama, specifically and about people of color, in general. In that moment, white conservatism’s contempt was palatable, undeniable and unapologetic.

2. Herman Cain, in one of the most grotesque performances in post-civil rights-era politics to date, deftly plays his designated role as an African-American advocate for some of the Tea Party and New Right’s most racist policy positions. Most notably, in numerous interviews Cain alluded to the Democratic Party as keeping African Americans on a “plantation,” and that black conservatives were “runaway slaves” who were uniquely positioned to “free” the minds of their brothers and sisters. The implication of his ahistorical and bizarre allusion to the Democratic Party and chattel slavery was clear: black Americans are stupid, childlike and incapable of making their own political decisions, as Cain publicly observed that “only thirty percent of black people are thinking for themselves.”

Doubling down, as a black conservative mascot for the fantasies of the Tea Party faithful, Herman Cain also suggested that anyone who accuses them of “racism” (ignoring all available evidence in support of this claim) were in fact anti-white, and the real racists.

Herman Cain’s disdain was not limited to the black public. He also argued that undocumented immigrants should be electrocuted at the U.S. border by security fences, and that Muslim Americans are inherently treasonous and should be excluded from government. Perhaps most troubling, Herman Cain advocated for extreme forms of racial profiling in which Muslims would have to carry special identification cards.

Racism and anti-black sentiment know no boundaries. Herman Cain demonstrates that some of its most deft practioners are (ironically) people of color.

3. Ron Paul argues that the landmark federal legislation that dismantled Jim Crow segregation in the 1960s was a moral evil and a violation of white people’s liberty. Ron Paul’s claim that the rights of black Americans are secondary to the “freedom” of whites to discriminate, is an almost perfect mirror for the logic of apartheid. Ron Paul’s white supremacist ethic is more than a dismissal of one of the crowning legislative achievements of the 20th century: it is the endorsement of a principle that conveniently allows white people to hate and discriminate in the public sphere at will--and without consequence--against people of color. This “freedom” is the living and bleeding heart of white racism.

4. Rick Santorum tells conservative voters that black people are parasites who live off hard-working white people. Santorum’s claim that “I don’t want to make black people's lives better by giving them somebody else's money” is problematic in a number of ways. First, Santorum channels the white supremacist classic Birth of a Nation and its imagery of childlike free blacks who are a burden on white society. In addition, Santorum’s assumption that black people are a dependent class is skewed at its root. Why? Santorum presupposes that African Americans are uniquely pathological and lack self-sufficiency, ignores the black middle-class, and directly race-baits a white conservative audience by telling them that “the blacks” are coming for their money, jobs and resources. There is no mention of Red State America’s disproportionate dependence on public tax dollars, or how the (white) middle-class and the rich are subsidized by the federal government.

5. In keeping with the class warfare narrative, and as a way of proving their conservative bona fides, Republican candidates have crafted a strategy in which they repeatedly refer to the unemployed as lazy, unproductive citizens who would “be rich if they just went out and got a job.” In fact, as suggested by Mitt Romney, any discussion of the wealth and income gap in the United States (and the destruction of the middle class), should be done in a “quiet room,” as such truth-telling stokes mean-spirited resentment against the rich. Conservatives have an almost Orwellian gift for manipulating language. The financier class is reframed as “job creators.” Programs that workers pay for such as Social Security are equated with “welfare.” Americans who are victims of robber baron capitalism and structural unemployment are painted as dregs who want nothing more than to “live off of the system.” Despite all evidence to the contrary, unions are painted as bastions for the weak, the greedy, and those who hate capitalism.

Race is central here: Conservatives seeded this ground with their assault on the black poor. The invention of the welfare queen by Ronald Reagan became code for lazy, fat, black women who game the system at the expense of hard-working whites. The Right uses the same framing in order to attack immigrants as people who want to destroy the country and steal the scarce resources of “productive” white Americans.

Efforts to shrink “big government” are closely related to the Right’s observation that the federal government employs “too many” blacks. The Republican Party refined its Ayn Rand-inspired shock doctrine and disaster capitalism through decades of practice on black and brown Americans. The racist tactics that were once used to justify the evisceration of programs aimed at helping the urban poor are now being applied to white folks on Main Street USA during the Great Recession.

6. Mitt Romney wants to "keep America America." The dropping of one letter from the Ku Klux Klan’s slogan, “Keep America American,” does not remove the intent behind Romney’s repeated use of such a virulently bigoted phrase. While Mitt Romney can claim ignorance of the slogan’s origins, he is intentionally channeling its energy. In the Age of Obama, the Republican Party is drunk on the tonic of nativism. From remarks about “the real America,” to supporting the mass deportation of Latinos and Hispanics, a hostility to any designated Other is central to the 21st-century know-nothing politics of the Tea Party-driven GOP. Romney’s slogan, “Keep America America” begs the obvious question: just who is American? Who gets to decide? And should there be moats and electric fences to keep the undesirables out of the country?

7. Rick Perry’s nostalgic memories of his family’s ranch, "Niggerhead." You cannot choose your parents (or decide what your ancestors will christen the family retreat before your birth). You can, however, choose to rename the family ranch something other than the ugliest word in the English language.

The world that spawned and nurtured Rick Perry’s Niggerhead was none too kind to black people. Jim and Jane Crow were the rule of the land; it was enforced through violence, threats and intimidation. Moreover, Rick Perry grew up in a “sundown town.” These were communities from which blacks were banished by violence, and where white authorities made sure that African Americans would never again be allowed in the area. The whiteness of memory and nostalgia is blinding. While he has finally dropped out of the race, the Niggerhead episode is emblematic of Rick Perry’s obsession with states’ rights, and a broader fondness for the Confederacy and secession. These are traits he shares in abundance with the remaining Republican presidential candidates.

8. Former candidate Michele Bachmann suggests that the black family was stronger during slavery than in freedom. Her claim is not just a simple misunderstanding of history and the importance of family in the Black Experience. No, she is signaling to a tired, white supremacist, slavery-apologist narrative which opines that African Americans were/are not yet ready for freedom, and could only “flourish” under the benign guidance of the Southern Slaveocracy.

In a moment when states such as Arizona and Texas are outlawing ethnic studies programs, and when the Tea Party and its allies are leading an assault on educational programs that are not sufficiently “pro-American,” Bachmann’s claims are part of a broader effort to literally whitewash U.S. history.

When married to her belief in a willful lie that the framers of the United States Constitution were abolitionists who fought tirelessly to eliminate slavery (in reality, both Jefferson and Washington were slaveowners), and a defense of slaveholding Christian whites who “loved their slaves,” Bachmann’s ignorance of the facts transcends mere stupidity and slips over to enabling white supremacy.

9. The Republican Party’s 2012 presidential candidates' near-silence about how the Great Recession has destroyed the African American and Latino middle-class. This speaks volumes about just how selectively inclusive the Republican Party—which markets itself as the defender of the “American Dream” and of an “opportunity society”—really is. During the Ronald Reagan-Politico debate, the Republican candidates were asked what they would do to address the gross and disparate impact of the Great Recession on black and brown communities. While whites are suffering with an official unemployment rate of almost 10 percent, African Americans have struggled with a rate that is almost two to three times as high. In addition, the black and brown middle-class has seen its income, assets and wealth gutted by the Great Recession, where in 2011, whites have almost 20 times the average net worth of African Americans. As always, when White America gets a cold, Black America gets the flu…or worse.

In that awkward moment, only Rick Perry chimed in and proceeded to recycle the same tired rhetoric about “growing the economy” as a vague cure for all ills. One must ask: how would the Republican candidates have responded if the white middle-class had been devastated in the same manner, and to the same degree, as the black and brown middle-class? I would suggest that for the former, it would be treated as a crisis of epic proportions; for the latter, it is a mere curiosity and inconvenient fact.

Politics is about a sense of imagined community. The Ronald Reagan-Politico debate made clear that while the African American and Latino middle-class is being destroyed, the Republican Party has little concern or interest in remedying such a tragic event. It would seem that the Republican Party’s “big tent” has no room for “those people.”

10. The echo chamber that is Fox News, right-wing talk radio, the conservative blogosphere, and Republican elected officials daily stoke the politics of white racial resentment, bigotry and fear. Ultimately, the Republican candidates would not use racism as a weapon if it were not rewarded by their voters, and encouraged by the party’s leadership. An army travels on its stomach; it needs foot soldiers and shock troops to advance its aims. From the ugly, race-based conspiracy fantasies of Birtherism to the astroturf politics of the Tea Party to a news network whose guests routinely disparage Barack Obama with such labels as “ghetto crackhead” to the bloviating racist utterances by opinion leaders such as Rush Limbaugh, to the common bigotry on display at right-wing Web sites that use monkey, ape, gorilla, pimp, and watermelon imagery to depict the United States’ first black president and his family, it is clear that racism “works” for the Republican Party. To ignore the attraction of rank-and-file white conservatives to such ugliness is to overlook the driving force behind the Republican nominees’ behavior.

Do Not Let Corporations Destroy the Free Internet

2012-01-18T13:29:00.003-07:00

If enacted, either of these bills ( PIPA and SOPA ) will create an environment of tremendous fear and uncertainty for technological innovation. Corporate supporters of Senate 968 (PIPA) and HR 3261 (SOPA) demand the ability to take down any web site (including craigslist, Wikipedia, or Google) that hurts their profits -- without prior judicial oversight or due process -- in the name of combating "online piracy."

PIPA and SOPA authors and supporters insist they'd only go after foreign piracy sites, but Internet Engineers understand this is an attempt to impose "Big Brother" controls on our Internet, complete with DNS hijacking and censoring search results. Incredibly, many Congress Members favor this idea.
<RANT>Try to imagine jack-booted thugs throttling free speech, poisoning the Internet (greatest of American inventions, the very pillar of modern democracy), and devastating one of the our most successful industries. Totalitarian, anti-American, massively-job-killing nonsense.</RANT>
Tell Congress you OPPOSE Senate 968 "Protect IP Act" (PIPA) and H.R. 3261 "Stop Online Piracy Act" (SOPA):

Phone your Member of Congress via nifty Progressive Change app
Contact Senators who are refusing to meet with constituents about PIPA.
Reverse Robocall pro-PIPA & pro-SOPA MOC + Lobbyists (More at Ars Technica)
EFF Action Center - Strike Against Censorship - Congressional Emailer
ECA Congressional Emailer - Don't Censor Our Internet!
OpenCongress Congressional Emailer - Oppose SOPA
Generic Congressional Emailer (You'll need your Zip+4)
Petition Congress - Protect Innovation, Dump SOPA (Progressive Change )
Outside the US? Sign Petition Opposing US Censorship of Global Sites (EFF)

Supporters of PIPA and SOPA: RIAA, MPAA, News Corp, TimeWarner, Walmart, Nike, Tiffany, Chanel, Rolex, Sony, Juicy Couture, Ralph Lauren, VISA, Mastercard, Comcast, ABC, Dow Chemical, Monster Cable, Teamsters, Rupert Murdoch, Lamar Smith (R-TX), John Conyers (D-MI)
Opponents of PIPA and SOPA: Google, Yahoo, Wikipedia, craigslist, Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, eBay, AOL, Mozilla, Reddit, Tumblr, Etsy, Zynga, EFF, ACLU, Human Rights Watch, Darrell Issa (R-CA), Ron Wyden (D-OR), Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), Ron Paul (R-TX)
Where does your Member of Congress stand on PIPA and SOPA? (Project SOPA Opera)
PIPA and SOPA Are Too Dangerous To Revise, They Must Be Killed Entirely
Congress needs to hear from you, or these dangerous bills will pass - they have tremendous lobbying dollars behind them, from corporations experts say are attempting to prop up outdated, anti-consumer business models at the expense of the very fabric of the Internet -- recklessly unleashing a tsunami of take-down notices and litigation, and a Pandora's jar of "chilling effects" and other unintended (or perhaps intended?) consequences.
Don't believe it? Monster Cable has labeled craigslist a "rogue site," earmarked for blacklisting and full-takedown under PIPA -- resale of stereo cables by CL users reduces Monster 's new cable sales. (reddit).
There is still time to be heard. Congress is starting to backpedal on this job-killing, anti-American nonsense, and the Obama administration has weighed in against these bills as drafted, but SOPA/PIPA cannot be fixed or revised -- they must be killed altogether.
Sen Darrell Issa (R-CA) and Rep Ron Wyden (D-OR) are championing an alternative to SOPA/PIPA called Online Protection and Enforcement of Digital Trade Act (OPEN) that addresses foreign sites dedicated to piracy, without disrupting basic Internet protocols, or threatening mainstream US sites like craigslist.
Tim O'Reilly, a publisher who is himself subject to piracy, asks whether piracy is even a problem, and whether there is even a legitimate need for any of these bills.

Learn more about SOPA, Protect IP (PIPA), and Internet Blacklisting:

Growing Chorus of Opposition to PIPA and SOPA
Open Letter against SOPA from 83 Prominent Internet Engineers
Why SOPA and Protect IP (PIPA) are Bad, Bad Ideas (Techdirt)
Piracy not a problem, PIPA and SOPA are unnecessary (Tim O'Reilly on GigaOM)
PIPA and SOPA News (Google News)
PIPA Wikipedia entry ::::: SOPA Wikipedia entry
SOPA FAQ (CNET)

Occupy protesters rally against Congress at Capitol

2012-01-17T14:09:00.001-07:00

(Reuters) - Demonstrators from the Occupy movement rallied outside the U.S. Capitol on Tuesday to protest against the influence of money on Congress.
In a sign of renewed vigor for the Occupy movement, which staged protests in many U.S. cities last fall, several hundred protesters gathered on the Capitol's West Front Lawn to greet members of Congress returning from a holiday break with a day of rallies and protests they said would include attempts to occupy lawmakers' offices.
Occupy protesters from around the country who gathered on the rain-soaked lawn carried signs saying, "Face it liberals, the Dems sold us out," "Congress for sale" and "Congress is not for sale."
"It's important to let people know we're not going to take it anymore. People are really mad about the way things are going and we want Congress to understand that," said protester James Cullen, a 30-year-old unemployed social worker from Greenbelt, Maryland.
The morning demonstration was peaceful. Police said one protester had been arrested for assaulting a police officer.
The protest against Congress comes as a record 84 percent of Americans say they disapprove of the way Washington lawmakers are doing their job, according to a Washington Post/ABC News poll published on Monday.
Democrats and Republicans fought all last year over the best way to control the U.S. debt and budget deficit as the parties tried to position themselves for the 2012 elections.
"Corporations and government have been so inextricably linked that it's not a true democracy anymore, and people have to realize that," said David, 16, a high school student from New Haven, Connecticut, who gave only his first name.
The leaderless Occupy movement burst onto the national scene in September at Wall Street in New York with its focus on income inequality and the perceived greed of the rich and powerful.
The movement succeeded in changing the national political conversation but it has weakened with winter weather and perhaps protest fatigue. Police have cleared Occupy encampments in New York, Los Angeles and other big cities.
The Washington Occupy movement has been among the most durable, in part because the National Park Service has allowed protesters to keep their encampments in two public squares near the White House.
District of Columbia officials are starting to show signs of impatience. Mayor Vincent Gray urged the National Park Service last week to remove protesters from one of the sites, McPherson Square, citing a rat infestation and other health concerns.
(Reporting By Ian Simpson. Editing by Peter Bohan.)

Attorney general: Mississippi may order nationwide manhunt

2012-01-12T14:17:00.002-07:00

Attorney general: Mississippi may order nationwide manhunt

By the CNN Wire Staff

updated 1:56 PM EST, Thu January 12, 2012

Mississippi governor pardons killers

STORY HIGHLIGHTS

NEW: The attorney general vows to catch the pardoned inmates
Haley Barbour approved full pardons for nearly 200 people, including 14 convicted murderers
A judge temporarily blocked the release of prisoners
The attorney general believes Barbour put people at risk

Jackson, Mississippi (CNN) -- Mississippi's attorney general said Thursday that the state may have to issue a nationwide manhunt after four pardoned murderers left jail and "hit the road running."
"We'll catch 'em. It's just a matter of time," Attorney General Jim Hood told CNN.
The four were among nearly 200 convicted criminals to whom Gov. Haley Barbour granted clemency or a pardon in a final act before leaving office this week.
The governor's actions have set off a legal firestorm in Mississippi.
A judge issued a temporary injunction Wednesday forbidding the release of any more prisoners. And the process of releasing 21 other inmates has been halted, said Hood, who believes the former governor put people at risk and sought the court order.
The pardons include the four convicted murderers and a convicted armed robber who were released Sunday. The five now must contact prison officials on a daily basis as their fate is adjudicated, but their whereabouts are unknown, Hood said.
A court hearing on the matter will be held January 23.
Hood said the state cannot issue an arrest warrant for the five who were released because they have not committed a crime.
"We have not found any law that will support that," Hood told CNN. "They have a legal document saying they are free to go.
"There are some tough legal issues we are trying to address," he said. "This is such a unique problem that no law has ever had to address yet. We're having to make new law here."
Hood said he did not know Barbour's reasons for the pardons and clemencies, but said he owed the public an explanation.
He gave the governor a tongue-lashing, comparing him to the unethical, greedy commissioner in the 1980s television series "The Dukes of Hazzard."
"He's tried to rule the state like Boss Hogg and he didn't think the law applied to him," Hood told CNN Wednesday.
Hood said Barbour violated the state's constitution because the pardon requests for many inmates were not published 30 days before they were granted, as required.
Mississippi is one of the few states that requires advance notice.
"This isn't a partisan issue," according to Hood, who is a Democrat. "Either you followed the constitution or you didn't."
Barbour is a conservative Republican.
What's behind the pardon battle?
Hinds County Circuit Court Judge Tomie Green issued the injunction Wednesday, saying it appeared some pardons, including those for four murderers, did not meet the 30-day requirement. Any inmates released in the future must meet the standard, Green ruled.
On his way out the door, the governor approved full pardons for nearly 200 people, including 14 convicted murderers, according to documents the Mississippi secretary of state's office released Tuesday.
The four murderers who received full pardons last week -- David Gatlin, Joseph Ozment, Charles Hooker and Anthony McCray -- were cited in Green's order.
They were all serving life sentences and worked as inmate trusties at the governor's mansion, said Suzanne Singletary, spokeswoman for the Mississippi Department of Corrections. Trusties are inmates who can receive additional rights through good behavior.
Hood told CNN that it's possible that those who didn't meet the 30-day requirement may have to return to prison and complete their sentences.
Barbour said Wednesday that some people misunderstand the clemency process and believe that most of the individuals were still jailed.
"Approximately 90 percent of these individuals were no longer in custody, and a majority of them had been out for years," he said in a statement.

"The pardons were intended to allow them to find gainful employment or acquire professional licenses as well as hunt and vote. My decision about clemency was based upon the recommendation of the Parole Board in more than 90 percent of the cases," Barbour wrote. "The 26 people released from custody due to clemency is just slightly more than one-tenth of 1 percent of those incarcerated."
Hood said he is questioning the release of many of the 175 individuals who received full pardons.
The pardons are "a slap in the face to everyone in law enforcement and Governor Barbour should be ashamed," Hood said.
Barbour's full pardon of Gatlin has intensified fears that the man will try "to finish what he started," one of his surviving victims said.
"I feel like my safety is in jeopardy," Randy Walker, who was shot and wounded by Gatlin, said Wednesday. "I wonder if he's going to finish what he's started."
Gatlin walked into a trailer in 1993 where his estranged wife, Tammy Ellis, lived and shot her in the head as she held their 6-week-old baby in her arms. She died of her wounds.
Walker, the woman's friend, survived a gunshot wound to the head.
Gatlin was convicted of murder, aggravated assault and burglary of a residence.
In an interview with CNN's Soledad O'Brien, Walker and Tiffany Ellis Brewer -- Tammy's sister -- expressed concerns about the release and fears that Gatlin may intend to target them.
"I'm married and have a family again," Walker said. "I feel the safety for them is an issue. Anybody that might be with me at the time that he decides to do something would be in jeopardy."
Gatlin's pardon also raised concerns from John Kitchens, the prosecutor who saw him sent to prison.
"Haley Barbour is insane for granting a pardon to this criminal," said Kitchens, who is now in private practice.
Brewer said Barbour -- who left office this week -- hasn't directly responded to questions about the pardon.
"He will not comment on anything. We have no answers as to why he has done this. I would like to think he did not have all of the facts of the case, if he did have all the facts," she said.
Barbour's successor, Phil Bryant, was inaugurated Tuesday.
Barbour, who served eight years in the governor's office, had previously granted full pardons to three other convicted killers in 2008. Another three were awarded conditional or indefinite releases during his time in office -- meaning the governor, in total, granted reprieves to 20 convicted murderers, the documents showed.
Since the conservative governor took office in 2004, 222 people were granted clemency for a wide variety of crimes. Those who have been granted full pardons include shoplifters, rapists, burglars and embezzlers.
There were also a number who were found guilty of either manslaughter or homicide, who were given unconditional pardons.
Barbour is a long-time GOP operative, serving as the chairman of the Republican National Committee from 1993 to 1997, working as an aide in the Reagan administration and taking part in the 1988 presidential campaign of George H.W. Bush. He also is considered one of Washington's most-powerful lobbyists.

CNN's Ed Lavandera, Rich Phillips, Vivian Kuo and Joe Sutton contributed to this report.

Share this on:

Facebook Twitter Digg delicious reddit MySpace StumbleUpon LinkedIn

Bloomberg Love Affair With Lady Gaga Upstages State of the City Speech

2012-01-12T14:03:00.001-07:00

Bloomberg Love Affair With Lady Gaga Upstages State of the City Speech

January 12, 2012 2:11pm | By Tom Liddy, DNAinfo News Editor

comment

click to see all pictures (7 photos)

PLAY VIDEO

(Mayor's Office)

MANHATTAN — The love affair continues.
In a parody video played before the State of the City address, Mayor Michael Bloomberg bopped awkwardly after asking a livery cab driver to flip on some Lady Gaga, with whom he shared a very public smooch on New Year's Eve in Times Square.
In the clip, which was played before the mayor's address at Morris High School in the Bronx, Bloomberg hails a livery cab to take him to the speech.
Along the way, he asks the driver to turn on the radio and play some Lady Gaga.
When the driver flips on Bloomberg radio, the mayor says: "No not that, what about something with Lady Gaga?"
Hizzoner can then be seen busting some moves in the back of the cab as the music plays.
During the ride, he passes some cyclists who are riding in the street and yells at them to stay in the bike lane, one of his major projects during his three terms in office.
He also passes former Mayor Ed Koch, who asks his trademark question, "How am I doing?"

By Tom Liddy, DNAinfo.com

Republicon Governor Pardon's Murderers

2012-01-11T12:45:00.001-07:00

By Douglas Stanglin, USA TODAY

Updated 1h 23m ago

An uproar over some of the 200 pardons -- including murder cases -- granted by outgoing Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour has prompted some lawmakers to propose bills to curb pardons by future governors, The Clarion-Ledger reports.

Relatives of crime victims had voiced outrage Monday after it was revealed that the Republican governor, on his last days in office, had pardoned four convicted murderers. Those men had worked at the governor's mansion as part of a prison trusty program.

A list released by the Mississippi Secretary of State's Office on Tuesday showed some of the convicted killers were pardoned, while others were given medical or conditional releases. Barbour had released five other convicted killers in 2008, the Associated Press reports.

"My reaction was like everybody else's: It's like, what? It's shocking, just by the sheer number," said House Minority Leader Bobby Moak, a Democrat. "It takes people aback."
Barbour has declined to comment on the pardons.
Among those pardoned were Earnest Scott Favre, older brother of retired NFL quarterback Brett Favre, convicted of driving drunk and causing his friend's death.
Two bills sponsored by Rep. David Baria, a Democrat, would require a public hearing before a felony offender can be pardoned and will preclude those convicted of capital murder from serving as trusties at the governor's mansion.
It is a custom in Mississippi for governors to pardon those trusties who serve at the historic residence.
"There is no doubt that, with everything swirling around right now, hopefully, the Legislature has a better opportunity to pass this legislation," Moak said.

Republicon Taliban

2012-01-06T11:35:00.001-07:00

Rick Perry, now there's a good conservative for you.

He just loves the fetus, I mean, he loves the fetus.

He'd do anything for a fetus.

He'd send armed agents into your bedroom to see when you and your wife were making love, then have them watch you for 9 months to make sure nothing happened to that fetus.

But he hates the child.

Like most conservatives, he believes life begins at conception and ends at birth.

He executed 240 men in three years, and someone asked, “Knowing that 10% of the people you executed are probably innocent, does it bother you that you may have put innocent people to death?”

“Not at all.” He responded to thunderous Republicon applause.

He's a typical Republicon.

Just not as good a speaker as some of he others,

He's not sophisticated.

It's been said that conservatives are like the Taliban.

Conservatives and the Taliban both hate change.

The Taliban yearns fondly for the good old days of the 8^th century, when you could hack your wife's head off with nary a peep from the do-gooders.

Republicons yearn for the good old days of the fifties, when blacks, women and gays “knew their place.”

They both believe in using force to have others obey their version of morality.

The Taliban throws acid in girls faces to prevent them from going to school, Republicons toss children into violent, crime ridden prisons for using drugs that they, the conservatives disapprove of.

When asked about women's equality Perry quipped. “I ain't never met a woman who could whoop me in a fight.”

I guess he hasn't met Katie Holmes.

She would “treat him ugly.”

Then there's Mittens Romney.

He's like Fatah to Perry's Hamas.

He signed into law once of the most progressive health bills around, and has spent the rest of his time denying it.

Perry comes right out and says ”People who don't have health care and get sick should just die.”

Then there is Santorum, on health care; “poor people who don't have health care need to cut down on luxury items, like cell phones and cars.”

Does that remind anyone of Gingrich' suggestion that poor black kids should scrub the urinals of their more fortunate classmates, to learn how to make money other than being a pimp or drug dealer?

Well, Bachmann and her gay husband are gone.

That should give “Doctor” Bachmann a lot more time to “discipline” the gay barbarians.

To the pizza guy I say, “Blame yourself.”

Ron Paul is done, it's not that he's a racist, it's that he was too vocal about it, and hence, unelectable.

Also, he'd put a lot of Republicon owned defense contractors out of business.

Now if Rick Perry was talking sense, he would just be an inarticulate guy making sense.

Instead, he's an inarticulate guy that wants to turn America into a vast, fascist, corporate state.

That's the Republicon dream.

Believe it.

Most of my readers are too young to remember Barry Goldwater.

He was a conservative that loved America.

That used to be a part of being a conservative.

Bill Buckley was a conservative, as well, but he likewise loved America.

Now, I didn't agree with most of Buckley's views, I thought he was just wrong, but not malicious, like todays gaggle of “conservatives”.

As Barry Goldwater's daughter said recently, “If my Dad saw these people who call themselves conservatives today, he wouldn't be able to stop puking..”

LAST MINUTE EFFORT TO DRAFT JESUS AS GOP PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE FAILS

2012-01-04T12:01:00.000-07:00

LAST MINUTE EFFORT TO DRAFT JESUS AS GOP PRESIDIENTIAL CANDIDATE FAILS

by R J Shulman

WASHINGTON – (PTSD News Service) – Desperate to field a viable presidential candidate, in an otherwise field of dismal or freakish wannabes, several Republican Party leaders planned to reach out to Jesus to get him to carry the GOP presidential banner for 2012. However, before Jesus could even be asked, he was rejected by a poll of the Republican party rank and file for being too liberal.

“Our polls showed that Jesus could do very well against Obama in the general election, especially as we could frame the choice as being between Christ and the Anti-Christ,” said Jib Cutter, a GOP research analyst, “but the problem is that Jesus gave out free healthcare by healing the sick, acted like a socialist by wanting everyone to help the poor, and was a dark-skinned fellow of the Jewish persuasion, all things that will be soundly rejected by the religious right.”

“We needed the Anti-Romney and Anti-Obama all rolled into one candidate and thought Jesus could fill those shoes,” said Wayne Church, a GOP spokesperson, “but the guy doesn’t wear shoes, but instead walks around in hippie sandals.” Rex Barker, another GOP strategist said it was just as well that Jesus proved not to be Christian enough, “There really wasn’t enough time for Jesus to be fully vetted. Heck we don’t even know what the ‘H’ stands for that’s his middle name.”

Others thought Jesus would be weak on the war on terror. “When Jesus should be shock and awing the enemy, he might turn the other cheek,” said Connie Langdale, of the Maryland Republican Party. “While he doesn’t have the kind of marriage and divorce baggage of someone like Gingrich,” said Bub Sacklane, a Wichita, Kansas Republican, “he has been known to hang out with prostitutes. Plus I would have felt a bit more comfortable if Jesus had turned the water to beer instead of wine, because wine is just too darn French and gay.”

Why Do Conservatives Hate America?

2012-01-03T14:32:00.000-07:00

Posted on Oct 12, 2009

White House / Pete Souza

Conservatives may not like Obama, but they ought to salute his achievement. It is, after all, an honor for the country as well as the man.

By Eugene Robinson

Somebody explain this to me: The president of the United States wins the Nobel Peace Prize, and Rush Limbaugh joins with the Taliban in bitterly denouncing the award? Glenn Beck has a conniption fit and demands that the president not accept what may be the world’s most prestigious honor? The Republican National Committee issues a statement sarcastically mocking our nation’s leader—elected, you will recall, by a healthy majority—as unworthy of such recognition?

Why, oh why, do conservatives hate America so?

OK, I know, it’s just some conservatives who’ve been exhibiting what they, in a different context, surely would describe as “Hanoi Jane” behavior. Others who haven’t taken leave of their political senses—and are familiar with the concept of manners—responded to President Barack Obama’s unexpected award with equanimity and even grace. Sen. John McCain, for example, offered his good-natured congratulations.

Some of Obama’s most strident critics, however, just can’t give it a rest. They use words like farce and travesty, as if there were always universal agreement on the worthiness of the Nobel peace laureate. Does anyone remember the controversy over Henry Kissinger or Yasser Arafat or F.W. de Klerk?

The problem for the addlebrained Obama-rejectionists is that the president, as far as they are concerned, couldn’t possibly do anything right, and thus is unworthy of any conceivable recognition. If Obama ended all hunger in the world, they’d accuse him of promoting obesity. If he solved global warming, they’d complain it was getting chilly. If he got Mahmoud Abbas and Benjamin Netanyahu to join him around the campfire in a chorus of “Kumbaya,” the rejectionists would claim that his singing was out of tune.

Let the rejectionists fulminate and sputter until they wear themselves out. Politically, they’re only bashing themselves. As Republican leaders—except RNC Chairman Michael Steele—are beginning to realize, “I’m With the Taliban Against America” is not likely to be a winning slogan.

More interesting, but no less goofy, is the recommendation—by otherwise sane commentators—that Obama should decline the award. This is ridiculous.

If the award just represented the political views of a handful of left-leaning, self-satisfied Norwegian Eurocrats, as some critics have charged, then it wouldn’t matter whether Obama won it or not. But of course it means much more. The Nobel Peace Prize, irrespective of the idiosyncratic process that selects its winner, is universally recognized as a stamp of the world’s approval. For an American president to reject such a token of approval would be absurdly counterproductive.

Obama has shifted U.S. foreign policy away from George W. Bush’s cowboy ethos toward a multilateral approach. He envisions, and has begun to implement, a different kind of U.S. leadership that I believe is more likely to succeed in an interconnected, multipolar world. That this shift is being noticed and recognized is to Obama’s credit—and to our country’s.

The peace prize comes as Obama is in the midst reviewing war strategy in Afghanistan. Some advocates for sending additional troops are complaining—and some advocates of a pullout are hoping—that the award may somehow limit the president’s options. But the prize is nothing more than an acknowledgment of what Obama has been saying and doing thus far. He hardly needs to be reminded of his philosophy of international relations—or that he once called Afghanistan a “war of necessity.” Threading that needle is not made any easier or harder by the Nobel committee’s decision.

What I really don’t understand is the view that somehow there’s a tremendous downside for Obama in the award. It raises expectations, these commentators say—as if expectations of any American president, and especially this one, were not already sky-high. Obama has taken on the rescue of the U.S. financial system and the long-term restructuring of the economy. He has launched historic initiatives to revolutionize health care, energy policy and the way we educate our children. He said flatly during the campaign that he wants to be remembered as a transformational president.

The only reasonable response is McCain’s: Congratulations. Nothing, not even the Nobel Peace Prize, can set the bar any higher for President Obama than he’s already set it for himself.

Eugene Robinson’s e-mail address is eugenerobinson(at)washpost.com.
© 2009, Washington Post Writers Group

Blacks Expelled More Than Whites From School

2011-12-29T13:15:00.001-07:00

Black D.C. Students Suspended, Expelled Much More Than Their White Peers

To anyone who believe we live in a "post-racial" society, I present this:

In Washington area, African American students suspended and expelled two to five times as often as whites
Across the Washington area, black students are suspended and expelled two to five times as often as white students, creating disparities in discipline that experts say reflect a growing national problem.
An analysis by The Washington Post shows the phenomenon both in the suburbs and in the city, from the far reaches of Southern Maryland to the subdivisions of Fairfax, Prince George’s and Montgomery counties.
Last year, for example, one in seven black students in St. Mary’s County were suspended from school, compared with one in 20 white students. In Alexandria, black students were nearly six times as likely to be suspended as their white peers.

As that article's lede suggests, the problem isn't relegated to the D.C. area. Indeed, similar concerns around the country recently prompted the Education and Justice Departments to launch an effort to examine the "school-to-prison pipeline."

As for the question of "why," the Post notes that "A disproportionate number of black students live below the poverty line or with a single parent, factors that affect disciplinary patterns. But experts say those factors do not fully explain racial differences in suspensions. Other contributing factors could include unintended bias, unequal access to highly effective teachers and differences in school leadership styles."

Read more about the Post's investigation here.

By Lauren Kelley | Sourced from AlterNet

Chag Sameach from The President and First Lady

2011-12-23T14:35:00.001-07:00

President Obama says happy Hanukkah to Jews around the world

President Obama and First Lady Michelle Obama have a message for Jews around the world: chag sameach.
That’s Hebrew for wishing someone a festive holiday, akin to a "happy holidays" greeting. The Obamas issued the following statement today in honor of Hanukkah, or the Festival of Lights, which begins tonight at sundown:

Michelle and I send our warmest wishes to all those celebrating Hanukkah around the world.
This Hanukkah season we remember the powerful story of a band of believers who rose up and freed their people, only to discover that the oil left in their desecrated temple –- which should have been enough for only one night –- ended up lasting for eight.
It’s a timeless story of right over might and faith over doubt –- one that has given hope to Jewish people everywhere for over 2,000 years. And tonight, as families and friends come together to light the menorah, it is a story that reminds us to count our blessings, to honor the sacrifices of our ancestors, and to believe that through faith and determination, we can work together to build a brighter, better world for generations to come.
From our family to the Jewish Community around the world, chag sameach.

Chag sameach and happy Hanukkah to all!

How Can the World's Richest Country Let Children Go Hungry?

2011-12-23T13:41:00.002-07:00

How Can the World's Richest Country Let Children Go Hungry? 6 Tricks Corporate Elites Use to Hoard All the Wealth

America is filthy rich, but the money is hidden away by the 1 percent while poverty rises all around.

December 21, 2011 |

Photo Credit: Jun Acullador

“Squeezed by rising living costs, a record number of Americans, nearly 1 in 2, have fallen into poverty or are scraping by on earnings that classify them as low income."

“Study: 1 in 5 American children lives in poverty."

“In 2010, 17.2 million households, 14.5 percent of households (approximately one in seven), were food insecure, the highest number ever recorded in the United
States.”
What’s going on here? Aren't we the richest country on earth?
Day in and day out we are told that if the government doesn’t tighten its belt, we’re all headed for debtor’s prison. Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid are under attack. State budgets are in disarray. Teachers and firemen are getting canned. Public services are slashed. This is the new America and we'd better get used to it, the pundits proclaim. You would think we were a poor country.
But we’re not. We’re filthy rich, but the money is hidden away by the 1 percent while poverty rises all around. Here’s why.
1. Productivity continues to rise but the 99 percent doesn’t share in the benefits.
The key to the material wealth of any nation is productivity – how much we produce per worker hour. Productivity is a crude measure of our overall level of knowledge, technique, organization, skill and cooperative work practices that produce the sum total of our goods and services. Lo and behold, there’s nothing at all wrong with productivity in America. It continues to rise and rise just like it did during our post-WWII boom years. What’s changed is that the average American wage has stalled since the mid-1970s -- which is precisely the time that we started to deregulate Wall Street and cut taxes on the rich.
During the 1950s and '60s boom years, almost all Americans shared in the fruits of productivity leading to rising real wages (after inflation). But now the productivity lines and wage lines have pulled apart. The gap between the two lines represents trillions of dollars that once went to the average American but are now going almost entirely to the super-rich.
2. Large corporations pay next to nothing in state and local taxes.
As a result of the Wall Street-created crash, state and local governments are struggling to make up for lost revenues and rising costs to care for the jobless and the destitute. In a fair society we would be asking Wall Street to pay for the damage it created. Instead, Wall Street has used its enormous lobbying muscle to make sure politicians are asking states to cut back public services of all kinds.
Meanwhile, large corporations use every trick in the book to avoid paying state and local taxes. A recent joint report by the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy and Citizens for Tax Justice reveals that 265 large corporations avoided $42.7 billion in taxes from 2008 to 2010. That’s enough money to hire more than one million teachers! Instead, we are firing teachers in the name of fiscal austerity.
3. Money that should go toward the common good pours into the pockets of the 1 percent.
In 1970 the federal marginal tax rate on millionaires was 70 percent. That means for the next dollar the super-rich earned, 70 cents went to the federal government to pay for building what was then the most productive infrastructure in the world. Now the official top rate has fallen to 35 percent. But it’s much worse than that. Most of the super-rich take full advantage of the senseless 15 percent capital gains rate which pours hundreds of billions into the pockets of the super-rich. As a result, the real overall tax rate for the super-rich has plummeted to less than what the average secretary pays.
4. The biggest corporations are sitting on a mountain of cash.
While politicians lament the debt crisis, America’s largest corporations are refusing to invest more than $1 trillion in cash because of the lack of consumer demand (resulting from high levels of unemployment caused by the Wall Street crash). That money is doing little for our economy. It’s not putting our people to work. It’s not helping to close state and local budget gaps. It’s not helping to improve our depleted infrastructure.
5. Hedge funds have over $1.917 trillion in misused investment capital.
Wall Street investment firms are loaded with investment capital looking for ways to make outsized profits while paying as little in taxes as possible. This is the money that floods Wall Street casinos and that led directly to the housing bubble and crash. The money is still there just itching to ride up and down the next bubble. Approximately 80 percent of all stock market transactions come from the manipulations of these funds. And much of the money jumps in and out of the markets in nanoseconds using high-speed automatic trading techniques that extract hidden taxes from the rest of us. Most of this speculative capital serves no broader economic or social purpose except to enrich the super-rich.
4. Many of the 1 percent cheat on their taxes.
When you have enormous sums of money, you can hire high-powered accountants and lawyers to help you avoid taxes. But these maneuvers aren’t just taking advantage of tax loopholes. It’s about cheating. Many of the super-rich hide their money in offshore tax havens. They place it in secret bank accounts without declaring it. They just pretend it doesn’t exist. How much money are we talking about? The tax revenues lost in the U.S. are estimated to be $337 billion a year according to a November report by the Tax Justice Network. This is more than enough to put America back to work rebuilding our crumbling infrastructure.
So there hides our nation’s wealth. We are as productive as ever, but 99 percent aren’t getting their fair share. Instead the 1 percent are channeling our collective wealth away from our daily needs through investment hoarding, tax loopholes and outright tax cheating. Rather than using it to create badly needed jobs, they pocket it. And then our financial elites have the nerve to ask the rest of us to tighten our belts because the public trough is running low due to a financial crash they created! It’s an outrageous fabrication designed to shift the debate away from the obvious: Wall Street and its minions took down our economy, got bailed out and now refuse to pay anything to repair it. Instead they want us to pay for the damage they created.
This is the material basis for Occupy Wall Street and we should salute the occupiers for changing the national dialogue back to where it belongs. But we will have to go much further if we hope to create employment, alleviate rising poverty and bring a modicum of justice to our society. We will have to do nothing short of democratizing Wall Street from top to bottom so that our financial elites can no longer manipulate the economy and politics to serve their ends.
We are still the richest nation on earth, but our wealth has been captured and hidden from view. We can’t expect Occupy Wall Street to rectify this ungodly mess on its own. It’s time for the rest of us to join the fight to recapture our nation’s wealth while resurrecting our society’s fundamental decency.
No one should ever be poor in a country so rich.

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).

Christopher Hitchens, atheist to the very end

2011-12-21T13:14:00.001-07:00

Christopher Hitchens, atheist to the very end

Christopher Hitchens, a slashing polemicist in the tradition of Thomas Paine and George Orwell who trained his sights on targets as various as Henry Kissinger, the British monarchy and Mother Teresa, wrote a best-seller attacking religious belief, and dismayed his former comrades on the left by enthusiastically supporting the U.S.-led war in Iraq, died Thursday at the M.D. Anderson Cancer Center in Houston. He was 62.
The cause was pneumonia, a complication of esophageal cancer, said the magazine Vanity Fair, which announced the death. In recent days Hitchens had stopped treatment and entered hospice care at the Houston hospital. He learned he had cancer while on a publicity tour in 2010 for his memoir, Hitch 22, and began writing and, on television, speaking about his illness frequently.
“In whatever kind of a ‘race’ life may be, I have very abruptly become a finalist,” Hitchens wrote in Vanity Fair, for which he was a contributing editor.
He took pains to emphasize that he had not revised his position on atheism, articulated in his best-selling 2007 book, God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything, although he did express amused appreciation at the hope, among some concerned Christians, that he might undergo a late-life conversion.
He also professed to have no regrets for a lifetime of heavy smoking and drinking. “Writing is what’s important to me, and anything that helps me do that — or enhances and prolongs and deepens and sometimes intensifies argument and conversation — is worth it to me,” he told Charlie Rose in a television interview in 2010, adding that it was “impossible for me to imagine having my life without going to those parties, without having those late nights, without that second bottle.”
Armed with a quick wit and a keen appetite for combat, Hitchens was in constant demand as a speaker on television, radio and the debating platform, where he held forth in a sonorous, plummily accented voice that seemed at odds with his dishevelled appearance. He was a master of the extended peroration, peppered with literary allusions, and of the bright, off-the-cuff remark.
In 2007, when the interviewer Sean Hannity tried to make the case for an all-seeing God, Hitchens dismissed the idea with contempt. “It would be like living in North Korea,” he said.
Hitchens, a British Trotskyite who had lost faith in the Socialist movement, spent much of his life wandering the globe and reporting on the world’s trouble spots for The Nation magazine, the British newsmagazine The New Statesman and other publications.
His work took him to Northern Ireland, Greece, Cyprus, Portugal, Spain and Argentina in the 1970s, generally to shine a light on the evil practices of entrenched dictators or the imperial machinations of the great powers.
After moving to the United States in 1981, he added American politics to his beat, writing a bimonthly Minority Report for The Nation. He wrote a monthly review-essay for The Atlantic and, as a carte-blanche columnist at Vanity Fair, filed essays on topics as various as getting a Brazilian bikini wax and the experience of being waterboarded, a volunteer assignment that he called “very much more frightening though less painful than the bikini wax.” He was also a columnist for the online magazine Slate.
His support for the Iraq War sprang from a growing conviction that radical elements in the Islamic world posed a mortal danger to Western principles of political liberty and freedom of conscience. The first stirrings of that view came in 1989 with Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini’s death wish against the novelist Salman Rushdie for his supposedly blasphemous words in The Satanic Verses. To Hitchens, the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, confirmed the threat.
In a political shift that shocked many of his friends and readers, he cut his ties to The Nation and became an outspoken advocate of the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003 and a ferocious critic of what he called “Islamofascism.” Although he denied coining the word, he popularized it.
He remained unapologetic about the war. In 2006 he told the British newspaper The Guardian: “There are a lot of people who will not be happy, it seems to me, until I am compelled to write a letter to these comrades in Iraq and say: ‘Look, guys, it’s been real, but I’m going to have to drop you now. The political cost to me is just too high.' Do I see myself doing this? No, I do not!”
Christopher Eric Hitchens was born on April 13, 1949, in Portsmouth, England. His father was a career officer in the Royal Navy and later earned a modest living as a bookkeeper.
Though it strained the family budget, Christopher was sent to private schools in Tavistock and Cambridge, at the insistence of his mother. “If there is going to be an upper class in this country, then Christopher is going to be in it,” he overheard his mother saying to his father, clinching a spirited argument.
He was politically attuned even as a 7-year-old. “I was precocious enough to watch the news and read the papers, and I can remember October 1956, the simultaneous crisis in Hungary and Suez, very well,” he told the magazine The Progressive in 1997. “And getting a sense that the world was dangerous, a sense that the game was up, that the Empire was over.”
Even before arriving at Balliol College, Oxford, Hitchens had been drawn into left-wing politics, primarily out of opposition to the Vietnam War. After heckling a Maoist speaker at a political meeting, he was invited to join the International Socialists, a Trotskyite party. Thus began a dual career as political agitator and upper-crust sybarite. He arranged a packed schedule of anti-war demonstrations by day and Champagne-flooded parties with Oxford’s elite at night. Spare time was devoted to the study of philosophy, politics and economics.
After graduating from Oxford in 1970, he spent a year travelling across the United States. He then tried his luck as a journalist in London, where he contributed reviews, columns and editorials to The New Statesman, The Daily Express and The Evening Standard.
“I would do my day jobs at various mainstream papers and magazines and TV stations, where my title was Christopher Hitchens, he wrote in Hitch-22, “and then sneak down to the East End, where I was variously features editor of Socialist Worker and book review editor of the theoretical monthly International Socialism.”
He became a staff writer and editor for The New Statesman in the late 1970s and fell in with a literary clique that included Martin Amis, Julian Barnes, James Fenton, Clive James and Ian McEwan. The group liked to play a game in which members came up with the sentence least likely to be uttered by one of their number. Hitchens’ was “I don’t care how rich you are, I’m not coming to your party.”
After collaborating on a 1976 biography of James Callaghan, the Labour leader, he published his first book, Cyprus, in 1984 to commemorate Turkey’s invasion of Cyprus a decade earlier. A longer version was published in 1989 as Hostage to History: Cyprus From the Ottomans to Kissinger.
His interest in the region led to another book, Imperial Spoils: The Curious Case of the Elgin Marbles (1987), in which he argued that Britain should return the Elgin marbles to Greece.
In 1981 he married a Greek Cypriot, Eleni Meleagrou. The marriage ended in divorce. He is survived by their two children, Alexander and Sophia; his wife, Carol Blue, and their daughter, Antonia; and his brother, Peter.
Hitchens’ reporting on Greece came through unusual circumstances. He was summoned to Athens in 1973 because his mother, after leaving his father, had committed suicide there with her new partner. After his father’s death in 1987, he learned that his mother was Jewish, a fact she had concealed from her husband and her children.
After moving to the United States, where he eventually became a citizen, Hitchens became a fixture on television, in print and at the lectern. Many of his essays for The Nation and other magazines were collected in Prepared for the Worst (1988).
He also threw himself into the defence of his friend Rushdie. “It was, if I can phrase it like this, a matter of everything I hated versus everything I loved,” he wrote in his memoir. “In the hate column: dictatorship, religion, stupidity, demagogy, censorship, bullying and intimidation. In the love column: literature, irony, humour, the individual and the defence of free expression.”
To help rally public support, Hitchens arranged for Rushdie to be received at the White House by president Bill Clinton, one of Hitchens’ least favourite politicians and the subject of his book No One Left to Lie To: The Triangulations of William Jefferson Clinton (1999).
He regarded the response of left-wing intellectuals to Rushdie’s predicament as feeble, and he soon began to question many of his cherished political assumptions. He had already broken with the International Socialists when, in 1982, he astonished some of his brethren by supporting Britain’s invasion of the Falkland Islands.
The drift was reflected in books devoted to heroes like George Orwell (Why Orwell Matters,” 2002), Thomas Paine (Thomas Paine’s ‘Rights of Man’: A Biography, 2006) and Thomas Jefferson (Thomas Jefferson: Author of America, 2005).
His love for argument found other outlets. In 2001 he excoriated Kissinger, the secretary of state in the Nixon administration, as a war criminal in the book The Trial of Henry Kissinger. He helped write a 2002 documentary film by the same title based on the book.
Hitchens became a campaigner against religious belief, most notably in his tedious writings against Mother Teresa, The Missionary Position: Mother Teresa in Theory and Practice (1995), and God Is Not Great. He regarded Mother Teresa as a proselytizer for a retrograde version of Roman Catholicism rather than as a saintly charity worker.
“I don’t quite see Christopher as a ‘man of action,”’ the writer Ian Buruma told The New Yorker in 2006, “but he’s always looking for the defining moment — as it were, our Spanish Civil War, where you put yourself on the right side, and stand up to the enemy.”
One stand distressed many of his friends. In 1999, Sidney Blumenthal, an aide to Clinton and a friend of Hitchens’, testified before a grand jury that he was not the source of damaging comments made to reporters about Monica Lewinsky, whose liaisons with the president was under investigation by the House of Representatives.
Contacted by House investigators, Hitchens supplied information in an affidavit that, in effect, accused Blumenthal of perjury and put him in danger of being indicted.
At a lunch in 1998, Hitchens wrote, Blumenthal had characterized Lewinsky as “a stalker” and said the president was the victim of a predatory and unstable woman. Overnight, Hitchens — now called “Hitch the Snitch” by Blumenthal partisans — became persona non grata in living rooms all over Washington.
In a review of Hitch-22 in The New York Review of Books, Buruma criticized Hitchens for making politics personal.
To Hitchens, he wrote, “politics is essentially a matter of character.”
“Politicians do bad things,” Buruma continued, “because they are bad men. The idea that good men can do terrible things (even for good reasons), and bad men good things, does not enter into this particular moral universe.” Hitchens’ latest collection of writings, Arguably: Essays, published this year, has been a best-seller and ranked among the top 10 books of 2011 by The New York Times Book Review.
Hitchens discussed the possibility of a deathbed conversion, insisting that the odds were slim that he would admit the existence of God.
“The entity making such a remark might be a raving, terrified person whose cancer has spread to the brain,” he told The Times in August 2010. “I can’t guarantee that such an entity wouldn’t make such a ridiculous remark, but no one recognizable as myself would ever make such a remark.”
Readers of Hitch-22 already knew his feelings about the end. “I personally want to ‘do’ death in the active and not the passive,” he wrote, “and to be there to look it in the eye and be doing something when it comes for me.”
New York Times News Service

Simon Schama on How His Friend Christopher Hitchens Said Goodbye

2011-12-20T13:25:00.003-07:00

Simon Schama on How His Friend Christopher Hitchens Said Goodbye

Dec 19, 2011 12:00 AM EST

Christopher Hitchens confronted death with the same furious bravura that he deployed against purveyors of unreasoned pieties. Plus, more on Hitchens: his greatest writings, best zingers, and photos through the years.

The year America was born—1776—was also the year when the great Scottish philosopher David Hume died. More than once during the ordeal of my friend Christopher Hitchens—as he said, less a “battle” with esophageal cancer than an act of “resistance” to the malignancy to which he succumbed on Dec. 15—I have thought of the letter that Adam Smith wrote about his friend Hume and the heroic strength and uncompromising grip on the truth that he showed throughout the illness that killed him. In the letter, Smith recounted how, after a visit with the philosopher, a well-intentioned doctor said he would pass on the news to a mutual friend that Hume—an unrepentant atheist and unflinching rationalist—seemed to be in remarkably good spirits. To which Hume replied, “As I believe you would not choose to tell anything but the truth, tell him that I am dying as fast as my enemies, if I have any, could desire, and as easily and cheerfully as my best friends could desire.”

There were times during Hitch’s illness when cheerfulness must have been entirely beyond reach. But if the radiation burnt him and left him raw, it never turned his wit to ash or melted away the sharpness of his analytical temper. Astoundingly, he went on writing, never self-pityingly, constantly clarifying, brushing away the rubbish of ignorant cant and false consolations with a swish of his bristling broom of reason. It was typical that his last essay for Vanity Fair was less a chronicle of his pain than an attack on Nietzsche’s assertion that “whatever does not kill you makes you stronger.” There was much in what he had endured lately, he insisted, that proved Nietzsche’s aphorism demonstrably false.

Photos: Hitchens Through the Years

Kathy de Witt, Lebrecht Music & Arts / Corbis

There was no falling-off—no retreat or attenuation. His writing ended only when he did. In that sense, if he could not in the end defeat the sickness, he certainly routed its power to crush mind and spirit. His composure was that of unconfused self-reflection. The well-meaning strangers who ventured that when faced with the end he might reconsider his atheism he treated as a lower species of insurance salesmen, pitiable in their delusions, insulting in their presumption. Facing things head on packed his writing with tough integrity. It will be said that Hitch lived for the word. It could as easily be said that English in all its muscular, jubilantly performative splendor lives on for such as him to make hay, make enemies, and make waves with.

And it’s because Hitch’s polemics—and his many thoughtful, often very funny essays—liked to kick against the pricks that he will leave an immense, possibly unfillable space where his prose rocked and rolled in face of the demure, the hypocritical, and the ignorantly self-important. The vacancy will be especially felt on the American side of the ocean, where, as one of Hitch’s heroes (George Orwell) put it, “in our time political speech and writing is largely the defense of the indefensible” contaminated by “flyblown metaphors.” Anyone, Hitchens thought, who spoke with stale laziness of “kicking the can down the road” should themselves receive the end of the boot.

Hitch might not have had quite the same impact on the world of political writing and argument had he stayed in England. The son of a naval officer, he went through the usual motions of the upper-middle class—boarding school; an indifferent degree in history at Oxford; notoriety as a hard drinker and womanizer; a brass-knuckle pugilist of the left. He might have stayed a patrician socialist with a boozy bite to his irony in a notoriously acidulous literary Britain that has seen many of that type come and go. But he felt, as he recently said in a shatteringly honest and moving interview with BBC anchor Jeremy Paxman, the “planetary pull of America” had become irresistible. Submitting to its magnetic force was one of the best things he ever did, both for himself and for the fate of strong, honest, public writing in his adopted country.

Hitchens was never going to be a conventional journalist. But he didn’t just want to raise hell; he wanted to smell its stink firsthand. Hence the journeys into the swamps of despotism and atrocity that produced some of his most trenchant writing. But the instinct for mischief-making—all the more unforgettable because it was set in the features of a debauched cherub—was, in the end, turned to great and serious good. And the reason for this was that Hitch was an even more insatiable reader than he was a prolific and prodigious writer. To talk to him was to get tutorials with attitude—especially on the genealogy of Anglophone radicalism, all the way from parliamentary democrats like the 17th-century Levellers to their fading posterity in the present day. If he was spiky, it was sharpness with pedigree—that of the straight-talking, strenuously reasoning, mordant ironists of the English tradition: Jonathan Swift, Tom Paine, William Hazlitt, and Orwell. But he was also an almost romantic admirer of their American counterparts: Mark Twain and H. L. Mencken. He wanted that America, of the unsparing but wickedly droll unmasker of the sanctimonious, to live on and be rescued from the suffocation of money and spin.

Photos: Hitchens's Greatest Feuds

It was Twain’s bravura in the face of the pompous and the banal that Hitch sought to perpetuate into the age of the conservative radio ranter, the formless drivel of the ego-indulgent blog, the timorous decorum of liberal high-mindedness. To those who would lay off what he called “Islamofascism” in the name of cultural sensitivity he had only the contemptuous curl of his smoking lip. Hitch cared furiously for the bloody-minded decency of the free word, and he embodied it to a degree most of us fellow toilers in the trade can only admire even as we mourn his loss. He was, in short, one of the English language’s great debaters. And at a time when what masquerades as political debate is in fact the feeble utterance of unreasoned pieties—and when so much is at stake in what might be truly debated, not only in the United States but around the world—we need his like more desperately than ever. Just for a moment perhaps you would want, after all, to be able to believe in the immortality of the unbelievers, their admission into a Valhalla of the righteously naughty. For then, at least, we might be sure that Hitch would be greeted by Paine stretching out one hand to pull him in, with the other proffering a double scotch.

2011-12-16T14:06:00.001-07:00

Accountability! SEC Charges Former Executives at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac with Fraud Related to Subprime Mortgages

The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) just announced securities fraud charges against six former executives of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The SEC alleges that Fannie and Freddie intentionally misled investors into believing that the company was less involved with riskier, or subprime, mortgages than was actually true.

According to Court House News:

Charged in separate complaints were Fannie Mae's for CEO Daniel Mudd, its former Chief Risk Officer Enrico Dallavecchia, and former Executive Vice President of Single Family Mortgages Thomas Lund.

Charged in the Freddie Mac complaint were former Chairman of the Board and CEO Richard Syron, former Executive Vice President and Chief Business Officer Patricia Cook and former Executive Vice President for Single Family Guarantee business Donald Bisenius.
The SEC seeks financial penalties, disgorgement of ill-gotten gains and injunctions against all six.

According to court documents, "This action arises out of a series of materially false and misleading public disclosures by the Federal National Mortgage Association ("Fannie Mae" or the "Company")." Between December of 2006 and August of 2008, the case alleges, those charged "made or substantially assisted others in making materially false and misleading statements regarding Fannie Ma e ' s exposure to subprime and Alt-A loans."

It cites the following example:

For example, in a February 2007 public filing, Fannie Mae described subprime loans as loans "made to borrowers with weaker credit histories" and reported that 0.2%, or approximately $4.8 billion, of its Single Family credit book of business as of December 31, 2006, consisted of subprime mortgage loans or structured Fannie Mae Mortgage Backed Securities ("MBS") backed by subprime mortgage loans.

According to the SEC statement,

"In the complaint against the former Freddie Mac executives, the SEC alleged that they and Freddie Mac led investors to believe that the firm used a broad definition of subprime loans and was disclosing all of its Single-Family subprime loan exposure. Syron and Cook reinforced the misleading perception when they each publicly proclaimed that the Single Family business had 'basically no subprime exposure.' Unbeknown to investors, as of December 31, 2006, Freddie Mac's Single Family business was exposed to approximately $141 billion of loans internally referred to as 'subprime' or 'subprime like,' accounting for 10 percent of the portfolio, and grew to approximately $244 billion, or 14 percent of the portfolio, as of June 30, 2008."

Finally, we are holding the greedy thieves who wrecked the economy accountable for the disasters they created. I wonder what Occupy Wall St. might have to do with that?

By Kristen Gwynne | Sourced from AlterNet

Time For Rational Thought

2011-12-15T11:50:00.000-07:00

What do GW Bush, Ayatollah Khameni the Nazis and Christians have in common?

They all believe God wants them to kill the other religion's followers.

Bush said God told him to kill Arabs in Iraq, that it was Gog and Magog.

The Ayatollah says God wants him to kill Jews, it's in the Koran.

To the Nazis, Hitler was God, and his followers, mostly devout Christians, did the actual pushing of the Jews into the ovens.

Whenever people believe in an ideology that is completely groundless, when they have faith in an ideology based on fantasy, that has no factual basis, they need someone or some thing to tell them what to do.

Since there is no God, the person telling them what God wants them to do is going to be a man, like Jimmy Swaggert or Ted Haggart or Reverend Jim Jones or Ayatollah Khomeini or Hitler, and that man has an incredible power to manipulate, since people fervently believe in him.

Muslims and Christians have been murdering each other for centuries,

because they think that's what God wants them to do.

Muslims murder other Muslims for the same reason, Sunni Muslims think God wants them to murder Shiite Muslims and Shiites think God wants them to murder Sunnis.

Their one degree of unity is their shared belief that God wants both of them to murder Jews.

Christians have historically had this view as well, as evinced by the crusades and Nazism.

Currently, Christians love Jews, apparently someone told them that Jesus was a Jew.

But that could change, some charismatic preacher could tell Christians that Jews did indeed kill Jesus, and since there is no God to tell them anything different, the Christians could happily resume their Jew killing proclivity.

Another problem with these two religions, that is, Christianity and Islam, is that they both predict the world will end in a big ball of fire, that God predicted it, and that nuclear war is not necessarily a bad thing.

Christians say things like”I will be raptured and taken up to the glory of God.”

Muslims say, “It is in our book. We have to kill the Jews for the prophet to return.”

This is insanity.

Sane people need to speak up.

When enough people believe in a God whose plan includes destroying our planet, when both sides have nuclear weapons and actually could destroy the planet, betting that your God is the right one is a fool's bet.

There are millions of rational thinkers in the U.S. And Europe and elsewhere, they need to speak up, otherwise the predictions of those who believe in fantastical deities may make their beliefs in total destruction a self fulfilling prophecy.

Why Republicans will lose big time in 2012

2011-12-13T13:56:00.004-07:00

Current statistics show 2.6 million Americans are now living in poverty, the highest in 70 years and began in 2008. Middle income salaries have remained stagnant for the past 12 years. The only jobs bill component Republicans have agreed on was giving employers who hire vets a tax cut.

Gov. Mitch Daniels (R-IN has told Republicans to gt off social issues and concentrate on the economy and jobs. While I disagree with many of Daniels policies, I have to give him credit for keeping the state operating in the black.

We now know that the Iraq was had no basis in fact. There were no WMDS. The chemicals Saddam used on his own people were degraded. Our grandson was in the first convoys entering Iraq. Their orders were to keep rolling, not to stop.

We all heard the warnings of mushroom clouds. When the inspectors weren’t finding any evidence, they were kicked out before their job was finished. Curiosity got the best of me and I went to the IAEA website and found a wealth of information. They had uncovered stores of yellow cake, listed how much, country of origin and how it was disposed of. It was all degraded—useless. No evidence of a nuclear bomb!

What’s been the cost of the 10-year-old Iraq War? Were over 4,000 Americans cilled worth it? The Bush administration kept the financial cost off the books through using supplementals.

Republicans are now insisting that every proposal of the Obama administration be paid for, yet ever single Republican congressional leader rubber stamped every single Bush proposal—two unfunded wars, unfunded tax cuts and an unfunded prescription drug plan. That’s what I call gross hypocrisy!

Since the Obama administration took office, 1.2 million jobs have been added. When they took office, over 200,000 jobs were being lost monthly. Although jobs aren’t coming fast enough, that’s 1.2 million more now paying taxes.

While Republicans keep searching for an alternative to Romney, they have one in their midst. A former governor, experienced in diplomacy, particularly in China. John Huntsman has served under Bush I, Bush II and Obama. He put country service above party politics. But, of course, he’s a Morman.

Look at the rest of the field. Never mind Herman Cain’s sexual harassment charges, his woeful ignorance of foreign affairs is bone chilling! He didn’t know China has had nuclear weapon over 40years, couldn’t answer questions about Libya but claims he’d rely on advisors. Who’s the decision maker?

Michelle Bachman obviously flunked history. Her latest from the debate was that China should be a role model for the US to follow in that they have no social programs. But then they also have no freedom. Is that the role model for the US? What about human rights? What about their pollution of the environment?

Ron Paul is this years Ross Perot. He of the comment that the uninsured should be left to die in the street.

Newt Gingrich, a serial adulterer, a man who told his wife he was divorcing her while she was in the hospital recovering from cancer. He couldn’t wait to marry an intern whom he later divorced to marry yet another intern.. A deadbeat dad who refused to pay child support for his children but he could run up a half million dollars of debt supplying his third wife with jewels. Small wonder his children have turned their backs on him. Then there’s also the small matter of the house finding him guilty of ethics violations and fined him $300,000. He’s also a lobbyist and the ultimate Washington insider.

There’s Mitt Romney. His most asinine comment came during the last debate that if Obama was re-elected, Iran would have the nuclear bomb but if he was elected, they wouldn’t! He also has to explain his numerous flip flops. As governor, he excelled in arbitrage and shipping US jobs overseas.

It was astounding the number of Republican candidates who are ready to go to war against Iran! That, too, is bone-chilling! They haven’t learned that wars are easier to start but harder to end. Americans are sick of war—the financial drain and the lives lost. Hartmas was the only one brave enough to say we need to get out of Iraq and Afghanistan NOW. That’s an opinion shared by the majority of the American public, both Republicans and Democraats. But since when do we the people have a voice? We’re only the ones who provide the bullet sponges..

Sadly, both Lindsey Graham and DeMint sat in the font row grinning like the proverbial Cheshire cats. Thrilled by the red meat being tossed around..

Rick Santorum showed the most sensible logic regarding foreign aid. While Perry and others would eliminate it, Pakistan, Israel and India have nuclear weapons. Wouldn’t it make more sense to keep them as allies? Foreign aid consumes one percent of the budget.

The Republican party is FUBAR!

As for our family, we’ll stick with President Obama. Why not look up the long list of things he’s achieved? Bet you won’t. That would mean facing reality!

Thanks to Political Jack for this great article.

http://www.politicaljack.com/forums/showthread.php?7091-Why-Republicans-will-lose-big-time-in-2012

American Patriots

2011-12-12T20:16:00.002-07:00

Although the militarized terror squads of major cities have beaten, maced and shot them with rubber bullets, the Occupy Movement continues to grow exponentially.

Peaceful Americans, exercising their First Amendment rights, are being brutally attacked by jack booted thugs.

It reminds us of the civil rights movement, when the far right opposed black people's cries of suffering and their demands for equality.

They were beaten and maced and brutalized, like the criminal class is now doing to the occupy movement.

Like the civil rights movement, however, the violence only exposes the evil of the 1%.

Here's a dispatch from the true patriots in our country: (MFB)

Following last week's raid on Justin Herman Plaza, San Francisco police evicted Occupy SF from their last camp, in front of the Federal Reserve, at 4am this morning. 55 people were arrested. Occupy Pittsburgh is also facing an eviction deadline today, continuing an escalating trend of harassment and eviction of nonviolent protesters across the country and the world.

To the 1%'s pundits who claim Occupy is over: We are still here. Even as the agents of the 1% evict our communities and eviscerate our rights, we are evolving. What we have set in motion cannot be stopped with tear gas, bulldozers, rubber bullets, or metal barricades.

Occupations across the country have found creative ways to persist, resist, and rebuild. We aren't giving up our public spaces. Last we checked, tents still stand in DC, Chicago, Boise, Oklahoma City, Buffalo, Miami, Chapel Hill, Cleveland, Providence, Baltimore, Orlando, Nashville, Pittsburgh, Pensacola, Lexington, Newark, Gainesville, Peoria, Eugene, Rochester, Orlando, Tacoma, Reno, Charlotte, Raleigh, New Haven, Houston, Austin, Tampa, Louisville, and elsewhere. In Anchorage, they even have igloos. On their two month anniversary, Occupy Minnesota will gather at The People’s Plaza to reclaim their space and continue the fight for equality and justice.

Occupiers in cities like Atlanta, Oakland, Fort Worth, Jackson, and Phoenix have cleverly responded to evictions by staying in the parks during the day and moving to the sidewalk at night. In Los Angeles, Toronto, San Diego, Portland, Tulsa, San Jose, Dayton, Tucson, Cincinnati, Kansas City, Sacramento, Hartford, Charlottesville, Denver, Dallas, Norfolk, Richmond, Philadelphia, New Orleans, and New York, evicted Occupations continue to hold General Assemblies and maintain busy calendars with daily meetings, events, workshops, teach-ins, marches, direct actions, and demonstrations at their local city hall, bank branch, corporate office, and courts.

We are also disrupting business-as-usual from Wall Street to K Street. We have brought the festivity of Broadway into the streets. We mic check corrupt politicians and 1%ers everywhere they go. We have moved homeless families into empty foreclosed homes. We have spread our message by occupying the highway. In DC, Oakland, Santa Cruz, London, and Seattle we have liberated buildings from the banks and greedy corporations and begun to turn them into vibrant community centers.

While maintaining our nonpartisan focus on economic inequality and connecting a diversity of issues that impact the 99%, Occupations have begun to refine and hone our messaging around the big banks, foreclosures, evictions, and housing. Foreclosure auctions have been disrupted in Los Angeles, Atlanta, Bremerton, Reno, and New Orleans. Occupiers foreclosed on bank offices in Philadelphia, Los Angeles, San Francisco, San Jose, Buffalo and elsewhere. Today, a few weeks after Occupiers took over the Washington State Capital, Occupy Providence is marching on their State house to "ask this house for homes!" After the recent Day of Action to Occupy Our Homes, many cities continue to support families, especially in communities of color, as they fight back against unfair evictions. In Atlanta, Cleveland, Oakland, Chicago, Rochester, New York, and Oakland, Occupiers are helping homeless families find shelter and resist eviction.

In solidarity with all oppressed communities, we are actively supporting the many social movements that comprise the global revolution. We have marched on U.S.-companies that supply teargas to the Egyptian government to support our comrades in Tahir Square; with immigrants rights activists against deportation, detention and wage-theft in Birmingham and New York; with seniors to advocate for social services; with students against tuition-hikes, with workers and unions for jobs, better working conditions, and fair wages; and with farmers fighting for food justice. Occupations in solidarity with OWS have arisen in Manila, Auckland, London, Amsterdam, South Africa and beyond. We've marched to draw attention to the connections between the corrupt banking system and issues like the prison industrial complex and climate change.

This is merely a sketch of the ongoing work of the Occupy Wall Street movement. It would be nearly impossible to compile a comprehensive list of the brave actions that are happening all across the United States and the world. And we're just getting started. Tomorrow, December 12th, in response to the coordinated effort to crush Occupy Wall Street, Occupiers in every major West Coast port city – San Diego, Los Angeles, Portland, Seattle, and Vancouver – are joining Occupy Oakland in a coordinated effort of our own: West Coast Port Shutdown. Solidarity actions are being organized around the world, including in Japan, Houston, Albuquerque, Denver, Greensboro, Austin, Honolulu, Salt Lake City, and New York.

Then they came for me

2011-12-10T19:01:00.001-07:00

The 'War on Terror” is kind of crazy, isn't it?

I mean, how can you declare war on a noun?

Homeland security, the multi-billion dollar government jobs program hasn't caught a single terrorist.

You have a much better chance of being murdered by your wife than a terrorist, so why hasn't the government declared war on your wife?

The answer is rather simple, and if one observes the war on the first amendment being waged by local police departments across the country, it's obvious.

Its about control of the population.

The first amendment guarantees Americans the right to peacefully assembly to redress their grievances.

It doesn't say, you may assemble unless you are violating a zoning ordinance.

It doesn't say you can assemble to protest, but not in a park, and you can't use a tent, or protest more than 24 hours.

The occupy protests were peaceful, yet the government's response was cruel and brutal.

Its all about control.

The drug war has been successful in one respect; it is an excellent method to control the poor.

The fourth amendment protection against search and seizure was tossed out with the trash to prosecute the drug war, which has been a de facto war against the poor.

It has been effective in that, currently, 25% percent of all blacks are labeled as criminals for using drugs not approved by the government.

Rush Limbaugh is a notorious drug addict.

Why hasn't the government declared a war on lying, drug addicted talk show morons?

Because they have lawyers.

Not public defenders, real lawyers.

There is an old saying, its a truism, a cliché, but I will repeat it one more time, just for those of the middle class who believe that the destruction of our country's freedom and the criminalization of our poor, and the militarization of our police departments has no effect on them.

“They came for the Communists first.

I'm not a Communist so I didn't help.

Then they came for the poor, and I'm not one of them so I didn't help.

Then they came for the “freethinkers”, I'm definitely not one of them, so I didn't help.

Then they came for me...and there was no one left to help.”

Ladies and Gentlemen, Bozo the Clown!

2011-12-07T19:44:00.001-07:00

By Michael Blackburn, Sr.

What can you say about a group of candidates when Michele Bachmann seems like the least insane of the bunch?

Herman Cain, the Pizza Guy, to the regret of most pundits and humorists, is gone.

A couple of weeks ago he was overheard saying, “They are all just lyin' bitches.”

In his “goodbye” speech, his last hurrah, he said, “All of these unproven, untrue allegations, these false charges, are lies.”

That of course, was a lie, and he's not only done as a presidential candidate, he probably is done with his erstwhile vocation of giving inspirational speeches to women's groups.

Rick Perry, this guy is so dumb even stupid people think he's an idiot.

Ron Paul has a certain appeal, to crazy people, but his idea of no government at all (except to protect the rich) has no appeal to voters.

John Hunt has shown his real intellectual deficit by even attempting to run in this field of whackos and assorted nuts.

Michele Bachmann was doing pretty well, particularly with her anti-gay slurs, until everyone realized her husband is gay!

Mitt Romney, like Newt, is a flip flopper, but the Republicans don't think he is a “real Christian”, and they are only interested in a candidate who is a “real Christian” like serial adulterer Gingrich, the family values guy.

Gingrich, as you may recall, was forced from his position as Speaker of the house, BY HIS OWN PARTY.

He is the front runner now.

His platform?

Overturn child labor laws, “because they are stupid” and put 9 year olds to work cleaning the urinals of their more fortunate classmates, because, as he says, “poor kids in the ghetto (read black kids) don't know about the work ethic.

Let them do janitorial work in the schools.

The only thing they know about money is getting it illegally.”

I guess he doesn't know that most poor people, even most poor black people, DO work, they just don't make a decent wage.

Gingrich is the front runner in the Republicon flock.

Good choice.

Frankly, his candidacy, if he makes the cut, (and how could he miss, unless Bozo the clown enters the Republicon race?) should be hilarious.

Why Do Republicons Hate Democracy?

2011-12-06T17:47:00.001-07:00

The Republicons are the Big “Gummint” party.

They want a huge, massive, government bureaucracy to watch every pregnancy, to make sure that a woman can't decide her own health issues.

They want the government to dictate to her.

They have the “Patriot Act” and “Homeland Security” multi-billion dollar government bureaucracies

to “protect” us from Arabs and Afghans, and Americans who for whatever reason Big Brother doesn't like.

They have thousands of employees.

Government employees, paid for by taxpayers.

Your chances, as an American, in this country, of being killed by a terrorist, are almost zero.

You are much more likely to be killed by a friend, or even your wife.

They support and promote the so-called “Drug War”, another billion dollar super-bureaucracy which has been a colossal failure, in terms of curtailing drug use, but has churned out billions of dollars for DEA, ATF and other fascist, boot -heeled groups of official thugs.

Also government employees.

None of the “Homeland Security government employees or the “Drug War" employees have lost their jobs.

You won't hear the Republicons criticizing these government jobs.

The Republicons LOVE Big business, it is their thing.

When they rail against big “gummint” what they means is they don't want ANY government regulation of business.

They want government to bail them out when their profits are threatened, they want really big “gummint” then, but if you, a common citizen, lose your job, through no fault of your own, they don't want you to receive unemployment compensation.

They don't want government to feed poor children in school, they do want government to subsidize massive agribusiness..

These are really evil people who suck up your taxes to spend on their desires, while millions of Americans live on the street.

The Democrats are in the tank, to a large extent as well, but at least their heart is in the right place.

A Republicon president killed thousands of innocent Arab women and children to protect oil interests.

The same president killed thousands of Afghan women and children..

We are still in those countries, even with a Democratic president.

Bush was the first American president to authorize torture, but the president has said basically, “That's in the past, we are not going to look into that.”

All polls show that most Americans are liberal.

Americans believe in democracy, freedom of thought, and equality,

Most Americans believe in a woman's right to choose.

Most Americans believe all Americans are entitled to health care.

Most Americans believe in equal rights for gays.

Most Americans believe education should be free, like it is in other industrial countries.

In short, Americans are liberals, except for a minority of uniformed or misinformed people.

For the sake of our country, we need to vote.

At this point you have the choice of two corporately sponsored candidates, but at least the Democrat's heart is in the right place.

Vote.

Stop police brutality against peaceful protesters!

2011-12-01T12:42:00.001-07:00

Since Saturday night, millions of Americans have watched blast after blast of pepper spray directed at seated, passively resisting protesters at the University of California, Davis. The chemical was fired into their faces and on their bodies at point-blank range.
Two campus police officers are captured on video spraying the poisonous chemical.
The attack on the protesters was completely unjustified even according to the questionable standards of law enforcement, which allow the chemical's use in cases of a clear threat to the life and safety of police carrying out legitimate duties.
Criminologists across the country have joined in expressions of outrage, noting that police pepper spray can be even more dangerous than a Taser.
A victim of pepper spray first feels sharp burning and pain and then coughs as breathing becomes more difficult. Soon the victim's lungs begin to bleed, as was the case with several of the victims at the University of California last weekend.
This is not an isolated incident.
Police in New York used pepper spray on the first day of the Occupy Wall Street protests. When New York's billionaire mayor eventually evicted protesters from Zuccotti Park, it was supposedly out of concern for public safety.
In Portland, Ore., protesters were hit with pepper spray last week. Photographers captured the horrific image of a young woman having the spray pumped directly into her mouth, nose and eyes.
The same dangerous chemicals were also sprayed on Occupy protesters in Seattle.
We believe that it is time for the federal government to move in and stop what has become a pattern of attacks on the fundamental rights not only of Occupy Wall Street protesters across the country, but on the rights of all Americans to engage in peaceful protest.
This has historical precedent. When workers occupied an auto plant in Flint, Mich., in the 1930s, U.S. troops were sent in to protect the occupiers from the police who were attacking them.
During the upsurge of the civil rights movement in the 1960's, our government again sent troops in to protect the public against police who used tear gas, water canons and attack dogs against civil rights demonstrators in the South.
As more and more members of the 99 percent majority exercise their rights to public assembly and free speech, we should, in a democracy, expect nothing less.
We are clearly in an era now where protests are becoming a daily, business-as-usual event. This demands a reassessment of how police forces, nationally, need to change the way they behave when "protecting" the "public." Even the definition of the "public" itself has changed as, more and more, the public and the protesters become one and the same.
One of the big issues for Occupy Davis students is the ceaseless round of tuition hikes resulting from the state's cuts to education. Previous generations of working-class youth attended that institution for free. Today, the tuition stands at almost $14,000 a year and it is climbing.
On Monday, New York City students at CUNY protesting tuition increases were also victims of police brutality at the Baruch campus.
Students all across America, asking for nothing more than what was granted to generations who came before them, should not have to face the threat of police attacks on their peaceful protests.
There are demands to fire the police chief, the officers involved and the University's Chancellor at Davis. While we support all of those demands, they are only first steps.
It's time for our elected leaders to speak out and take action against police brutality. The Justice Department today needs to step in with strict guidelines that protect all the people. And it should investigate the police departments involved for violating protester's civil rights.
Photo: One of the many pepper spray memes that popped up and went viral, this one depicting spraying at the signing of the Declaration of Independence.
Print

Email to a Friend

by: PW Editorial Board

November 23 2011

tags: Civil liberties, civil rights, OWS, students, history

The Rise of the Pro-Ignorance Right Wing Puts us All In Danger

2011-11-22T16:46:00.001-07:00

By Stephen Pizzo

The nation's simpletons have leapt from the shadows, where they wisely hide, except for distinct and notable moments in human history; the Dark Ages, the Inquisition, late 19th-century Germany and the same country during the 1930s. During such times, when the conditions are just right, like they are now, dumb and dumber leap from the shadows and take center stage, claim their right to lead, and... well the results are history.

I only mention all this because it's true. Tea Party simpletons wrap themselves in prideful ignorance, and treat matters of life and death, like global warming, with dismissive derision. They scoff at the science that explains their very existence as a species. They say there are doubts about all that "science" stuff, but no doubt about the Spirit in the sky to whom they pledge mindless allegiance.

Instead of all that complicated, annoying and often inconvenient "book learnin' stuff, they offer "common sense solutions." Which would be fine, if their solutions were not so uncommonly and provably disastrous.

Here's the problem dealing with these simpletons; We can all argue about how things might turn out if we do this or that now, because this situation or that situation has not played itself out fully. It's much more difficult to argue with what actually happened when our ancestors did this or that back then. Those situations played out, for better or for worse.

Of course simpletons don't care much for all that. They are profoundly nearsighted. Besides, a knowledge of history requires a modicum of curiosity, and simpletons are also a profoundly un-curious lot. If mankind only produced simpletons we'd all still be sitting around in caves reinventing wheels and rediscovering fire.

Which is precisely what separates the enlightened from the simpleton. The simpleton seeks .... well.. simplicity. But hitching one's wagon to the simplest solutions at times of exploding complexity is like trying to navigate a maze with ones eyes closed. No, not a maze.. that's too benign a metaphor for these perilous times. It's more like navigating a mine field with eyes closed -- wearing logging boots while singing God Bless America.

Nevertheless, here they are, simpletons proudly and loudly marching through our 21st-century mine fields, clutching their 2000-year-old guidebook they claim was inspired by a "Prince of Peace," -- but who also cheer like a lynch mob at the mere mention of executions, and cheer at the idea of letting the uninsured die on hospital doorsteps.

Like the cycle that raises cicadas from the dark earth every 13-years, simpletons have risen -- again. History warns what follows. Yet no one seems to be able to figure out how to cram the simpleton genie back in the bottle. It's the Sorcerer's Apprentice come to life for GOP strategists who uncorked the simpleton bottle and now have no idea how to stop them. So, instead, they are running along beside them trying to keep up.

Stephen Pizzo is the author of numerous books, including Inside Job: The Looting of America's Savings and Loans, which was nominated for a Pulitzer.

Fox News Viewers Are Less Informed Than People Who Don't Watch Any News

2011-11-22T11:47:00.001-07:00

When Murdoch approached Nixon in 1972 with his idea of a propaganda source masquerading as a geniune news outlet, Nixon reportedly said, "No one will watch it. People aren't that dumb."
Wrong again, Dick.
Close to 2 million people regularly get their misinformation from a source that is not considered news at all by people who read books and other print media.
2 million out of three hundred million Americans is a small number, but it just goes to show, there IS a sucker born every minute.
This is why odd people such as Cain, Romney and the other idiots that run the "GOP" can get away with their ridiculous statements and outright lies.
Their base is the most uniformed segment of society.
MFB
Fox News viewers are less informed than people who don't watch any news, according to a new poll from Fairleigh Dickinson University.
The poll surveyed New Jersey residents about the uprisings in Egypt and the Middle East, and where they get their news sources. The study, which controlled for demographic factors like education and partisanship, found that "people who watch Fox News are 18-points less likely to know that Egyptians overthrew their government" and "6-points less likely to know that Syrians have not yet overthrown their government" compared to those who watch no news.
Overall, 53% of all respondents knew that Egyptians successfully overthrew Hosni Mubarak and 48% knew that Syrians have yet to overthrow their government.
Dan Cassino, a political science professor at Fairleigh Dickinson, explained in a statement, "Because of the controls for partisanship, we know these results are not just driven by Republicans or other groups being more likely to watch Fox News. Rather, the results show us that there is something about watching Fox News that leads people to do worse on these questions than those who don’t watch any news at all."
This isn't the first study that has found that Fox News viewers more misinformed in comparison to others. Last year, a study from the University of Maryland found that Fox News viewers were more likely to believe false information about politics.

Super Committee Fails: How Republican Tax Intransigence Killed It: A Timeline

2011-11-21T16:37:00.001-07:00

The Republicans on the "super committee" have refused to even consider modifying the economy crushing Bush tax cuts for the top 1% of wealthy individuals.

This would anger their corporate sponsors and, they fear, result in less campaign money to feed their "war chests".

It is disgaceful for the GOP to put their jobs ahead of the survival of the entire U.S. economy.

At long last, have they NO shame? mfb

Sarah Ayres, Think Progress

By now we have all heard the latest in the months-long debate over reducing the nation’s deficit — barring a last-minute miracle, the congressional super committee tasked with finding at least $1.5 trillion in deficit reduction will fail to come to an agreement. Cue handwringing by pundits lamenting the inability of both Democrats and Republicans to compromise.

The notion that both sides share in the blame is an easy line for commentators to repeat, but it isn’t true. Time and time again, the only thing preventing an agreement on long-term deficit reduction has been the Republicans’ absolute refusal to consider any tax increases on high-income households as part of the solution. Michael Linden and I created a timeline of major events in the past six months of deficit talks:

February 14, 2011: President Barack Obama submits budget for 2012 with about $2 trillion in deficit reduction, half of which come from spending cuts.
April 15, 2011: House passes Rep. Paul Ryan’s (R-WI) budget, which includes $5.8 trillion in spending cuts along with tax cuts for the richest Americans.
May 5, 2011: Vice President Joe Biden begins debt talks.
May 11, 2011: Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) says he will not raise debt limit without spending cuts that match how much the limit is raised.
June 23, 2011: Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA) walks away from debt ceiling talks with Biden after refusing to consider any tax increases. The administration had offered $2.4 trillion in spending cuts for $400 billion in taxes, an 83:17 split.
July 7, 2011: Obama and Boehner begin debt-ceiling negotiations.
July 9, 2011: Boehner walks away from Obama’s “grand bargain”: $4 trillion in debt reduction comprised of $1 trillion in revenue and $3 trillion in spending cuts, including entitlement reforms.
July 19, 2011: The Gang of Six proposes a $4 trillion deficit reduction plan, including $2 trillion in revenue.
July 22, 2011: Again, Boehner walks away from negotiations after Obama offers $1.2 trillion in revenues and $1.6 trillion in spending cuts, including entitlements.
July 31, 2011: Debt ceiling agreement is reached, cutting $1 trillion in spending immediately and establishing the super committee to reduce deficits by at least an additional $1.2 trillion.
October 26, 2011: Democrats first super committee offer is $3 trillion in deficit reduction comprised of about $1.3 trillion in revenues and $1.7 trillion in spending cuts, including cuts to Medicare and Medicaid. Republicans immediately reject it. Republicans’ first super committee offer is $2.2 trillion in deficit reduction, which includes no new tax revenues.
November 8, 2011: Republicans’ second super committee offer is $1.5 trillion in deficit reduction. It does include $300 billion in new tax revenue, but in exchange for extending the Bush tax cuts and lowering the top tax rate. The plan would ultimately cut taxes for the wealthy and raise them for everyone else.
November 10, 2011: Democrats’ second offer is $2.3 trillion in deficit reduction, consisting of $1.3 trillion in spending cuts and $1 trillion in revenue. The revenue would be split between $350 billion in concrete measures and $650 billion in future tax reform. Republicans reject it.
November 11, 2011: Democrats agree to Republicans’ top lines including just $400 billion in revenues and $875 billion in spending cuts, but refuse to accept the GOP’s tax cut for the rich. Republicans reject it and make their final offer: $640 billion in spending cuts and $3 billion in revenues.

What this timeline shows is just how much Democrats have been willing to bend, only to have Republicans reject very generous offers. Back in June, Democrats reportedly offered a mere $400 billion in tax increases as part of a $2.4 trillion deficit reduction package — a 83:17 ratio of spending cuts to tax increases. Republicans said no.

And they haven’t budged an inch since then, stubbornly insisting that any deficit reduction package consist entirely of spending cuts. Even after Democrats on the super committee agreed to the Republican top line of $400 billion in revenues, Republicans refused to make a deal.

Looking at all the offers rejected by Republicans, it comes as no surprise that the super committee will not reach a deal. By rejecting any mix of spending cuts and tax increases, Republicans ensured that there would be no agreement a deficit reduction package.

Latest From Occupy Wall Street

2011-11-16T15:01:00.001-07:00

Just days after the brutal raid on the Occupy movement's home base in Liberty Plaza, a huge day of action is planned to take the movement to another level.

November 16, 2011 |

Photo Credit: Sarah Jaffe

..New York's 99 percent aren't letting a massive middle-of-the-night police raid get them down.

November 17, the two-month anniversary of the Liberty Plaza occupation in Manhattan's financial district, has been the center of plans for massive actions for weeks now, and the crackdown by billionaire mayor Michael Bloomberg's forces early Tuesday morning has only given new determination to the organizers and activists.
“Everyone as of last night was totally exhausted and drained,” Olivia Leirer of New York Communities for Change told me, “But ready to put their energy into the 17^th and to make sure the energy on the 17^th is not about the police crackdown, but about the message of the movement.”
That message will be heard across New York's five boroughs, from morning til evening, on Thursday. “Storytelling and getting people's voices heard is the major theme that's running throughout everything that's happening tomorrow. There will be plenty of opportunities from sunup to sundown for people to come and tell their stories,” Leirer said.
According to the OccupyWallSt.org website (which is not run by the Liberty Plaza occupiers but an affinity group), starting at 7:00 AM, protesters will gather in Liberty Plaza and gather to “exchange stories rather than stocks.” Details are few, but rumors are flying that some dramatic unauthorized street theater is planned.
Students from universities across the city plan to walk out of class on Thursday as well. All week, students have held events as part of a coordinated Week of Action, including a lecture by acclaimed author and activist Arundhati Roy in Washington Square Park, a rally at Columbia Law School in support of locked-out Sotheby's art handlers, teach-ins, and much more.
“The real threat to health, safety, and democracy in our communities dwells in the boardrooms of Wall Street firms and universities that are destroying our economy, dismantling our education, and corrupting our political system - not among non-violent demonstrators spending cold nights in tents in Liberty Square,” said Aaron Winslow, a student at Columbia University, in a statement.
The student strike, like all of the November 17 actions, was planned ahead of time in solidarity with the activists in Liberty Plaza, but will no doubt now have new meaning for those involved. Walkouts will be occurring all day on different campuses, but, according to organizer Zoltán Glück, will converge on Union Square at 3 PM and then will march down to Foley Square to meet the rest of the protesters.
“The novelty of this,” Glück told me, “is the new level of coordination and collective action and solidarity between all the schools. There's always been organizing on different campuses, but now they're working together. Occupy Wall Street has provided the form and the forum for a dialogue to be opened up. This is building, and at this moment when it feels like we've lost a lot of territory.”
Around the city, meanwhile, subway stops will see action as well, as 16 central subway hubs will see activists telling their stories, handing out flyers, and bringing the message of the Occupy Wall Street movement to the outer boroughs, to people who don't normally come across the protest in Liberty Plaza. According to the OccupyWallSt.org site, these actions will begin at 3 PM.
The centerpiece of the day will be a massive, permitted rally at Foley Square, the site of October 5th's big union solidarity march and of a temporary meeting ground early Tuesday morning as protesters thrown out of Liberty Plaza searched for someplace to regroup.
“It's not going to be a traditional rally or march at all, it's going to be creative and exciting, we're really thrilled about the energy that's been put into it,” Leirer told me.
She said that rather than a rally where speakers address a crowd of listeners, instead there will be soapboxes set up throughout the space, for everyone in the 99% to come and speak their piece, tell their story to the crowd. “It's the physical embodiment of the 'We are the 99%' concept,” she said.
Finally, at the end of the day, the website declares that there will be a march to the bridges. Though it doesn't specify which bridge, the site does say:

“Let's make it as musical a march as possible - bring your songs, your voice, your spirit! Our "Musical" on the bridge will culminate in a festival of light as we mark the two-month anniversary of the #occupy movement, and our commitment to shining light into our broken economic and political system.”

Leirer pointed out that the day was planned well in advance of Bloomberg's raid on the park, and that hopefully the day will remind everyone what the real message of the movement is. She doesn't think the crackdown will stop the movement—just the opposite.
“I think that the Occupy movement is so much bigger than the park, and what's happened across the country and the solidarity that we've seen from groups like ours, labor unions, we've seen this new invigoration to the work that we've been doing forever.”

Sarah Jaffe is an associate editor at AlterNet, a rabblerouser and frequent Twitterer. You can follow her at @seasonothebitch.

JOE PATERNO AND OCCUPY OAKLAND: SOMETHING VERY WRONG

2011-11-12T16:19:00.001-07:00

I have nothing to add to this from Edge of Sports. It is from yesterday and refers to the night before.

Penn State and Berkeley: A Tale of Two Protests

By Dave Zirin

Print this article

Last night, two proud universities saw student demonstrations that spiraled into violence. On the campus of Penn State University in State College Pennsylvania, several hundred students rioted in anger after the firing of legendary 84-year-old head football coach Joe Paterno. At the University of California at Berkeley, 1,000 students, part of the Occupy USA movement, attempted to maintain their protest encampment in the face of police orders to clear them out.

At Penn State, students overturned a media truck, hit an ESPN reporter in the head with a rock and made every effort at arson, attempting to set aflame the very heart of their campus. They raised their fists in defense of a man fired for allegedly covering up the actions of a revered assistant who doubled as a serial child rapist. The almost entirely male student mob was given the space by police to seethe and destroy without restraint.

At Berkeley, the police had a much different response. Defenseless students were struck repeatedly with batons, as efforts were made to disperse their occupation by Sproul Hall, the site of the famed Mario Savio–led free speech battles of the 1960s.

Two coasts and two riots: a frat riot and a cop riot. Each riot, an indelible mark of shame on their respective institutions.

The difference is that at Berkeley, the Occupiers—a diverse assemblage of students, linking arms—pushed back and displayed true courage in the face of state violence. They would not be moved. These students are a credit to their school and represent the absolute best of a young generation who are refusing to accept the world as it is.

At Penn State, we saw the worst of this generation: the flotsam and the fools; the dregs and the Droogs; young men of entitlement who rage for the machine.

No matter how many police officers raised their sticks, the students of Berkeley stood their ground, empowered by a deeper set of commitments to economic and social justice.

No matter how many children come forward to testify how Joe Paterno’s dear friend Jerry Sandusky brutally sodomized them on their very campus, the students at Penn State stood their ground. They stood committed to a man whose statue adorns their campus, whose salary exceeds $1.5 million and whose name for years was whispered to them like he was a benevolent Russian czar and they were the burgeoning Black Hundreds.

Theirs was a tragic statement that proud Penn State has become little more than a company town that’s been in the lucrative business of nursing Joe Paterno’s legend for far too long.

I spoke this morning to a student who was at Sproul Hall and another resident who was a bystander at State College. The word that peppered both of their accounts was “fear:” fear that those with the space and means to be violent—the police at Berkeley and the rioters at Penn State—would take it to, as Anne, a Berkeley student said to me, “a frightening point of no return.”

I would argue that this “point of no return” has now actually been reached, spurred by Wednesday night’s study in contrasts.

November 9 was a generational wake-up call to every student on every campus in this country. Which side are you on? Do you defend the ugliest manifestations of unchecked power or do you fight for a better world with an altogether different set of values? Do you stand with the Thugs of Penn State or do you stand with Occupiers of Berkeley? It’s fear vs. hope, and the stakes are a hell of a lot higher than a BCS bowl.

Is Cain Able?

2011-11-10T17:03:00.001-07:00

Herman Cain campaign manager Mark Block was not telling the truth when he claimed on Fox News that one of the women accusing Cain of sexual harassment is the mother of a reporter at the news outlet that broke the story, the Cain campaign acknowledged Wednesday.

After noting Tuesday night that "Karen Kraushaar had come out as one of the women" who accused Cain, Block told Sean Hannity that "we've come to find out that her son works at Politico," the news site that first broke the harassment allegations.

Asked by Hannity if Block had "confirmed that," Block (pictured at left) responded, "we confirmed that he does indeed work at Politico, and that's his mother, yes."

Block's comment was inaccurate on multiple levels. First off, the reporter to whom he was referring, Josh Kraushaar, is a former Politico reporter; he has worked at National Journal since 2010. Second - and most importantly - he isn't Karen Kraushaar's son. And third, Block doesn't appear to have tried very hard to verify his claim despite his statement that he had "confirmed" it.

On the National Journal website, Josh Kraushaar wrote Wednesday that he had responded to multiple inquiries Tuesday explaining that he is not related to Karen Kraushaar, and also put the information out in a Tweet. No one from the Cain campaign, he said, contacted him before Block went on the air.

"Despite that, Block proceeded to go on Sean Hannity's Fox News show to proclaim that I was Karen Kraushaar's son and to suggest I was one of the people who leaked the story," wrote Josh Kraushaar.

Earlier today, the Cain campaign came clean, saying in an email to a number of media outlets that "Based upon information available at the time of Mr. Block's Tuesday night interview on Fox News, the campaign was led to believe that Mr. Josh Kraushaar, currently with the National Journal and a former employee of Politico, was the son of Karen Kraushaar. Mr. Josh Kraushaar is in fact, not related to Ms. Karen Kraushaar."

According to a Tweet from National Journal Communications Director Taylor West, Fox told National Journal that it plans to correct Block's claim on the air Wednesday evening.

Block, who seen last month smoking in a Cain web ad that went viral, claimed last week that Rick Perry's campaign had leaked the story to Politico - before subsequently walking that claim back.

Block is also at the center of questions as to whether a corporation he co-founded called Prosperity USA illegally paid expenses for Cain's presidential campaign in its early going.

Influential conservative blogger Ed Morrissey of Hot Air wrote Wednesday morning that Block needs to step down.

"If he's not gone by tomorrow, no one will take this campaign seriously again -- nor should they," wrote Morrissey .

This story first appeared on CBSNEWS.COM
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57321869-503544/cain-camp-admits-false-claim-about-reporter/

Jackson Doctor Conrad Murray Guilty of Manslaughter

2011-11-07T14:24:00.000-07:00

At 2:15 pm MDT Dr. Murray was found guilty of involuntary manslaughter in the death of Pop singer Michael Jackson.

This was a good verdict, based on the evidence.
Although the Doctor will probably not serve any time in prison,
he will lose his license.

Life will become progressively more difficult for Conrad Murray who apparently has fathered several children with different mothers.

He will soon learn that the most difficult legal situation to be in in America is to owe child support.

He may serve significant time for failure to pay, the courts have no sympathy for a man's inability to pay child support.
None.

There was screaming outside of the courtroom in celebration of the verdict.

Twinkle, Twinkle, Killer Cain

2011-11-04T16:54:00.000-06:00

I was wrong.
I thought Cain would be finished when people learned the guy was a serial harasser.
He has raised over a million dollars since the story broke.
Polls show that 70 percent of Republicans feel that even if the stories are true, it would not affect his campaign.

Mitt Romney said, “The people need a president who is faithful and moral. I was at a lady Gaga concert recently, she found out I was there, waltzed over and pranced around me for a minute or two.
I didn’t even look up her meat dress,”
A few moments later he said, "Well, I looked up her meat dress, but I didn't enjoy it."

Gingrich pointed out that he had never been convicted of sexual harassment, he said he thought the charges were very serious, much more serious than his own serial adultery.

Michele Bachmann announced, “My husband is one hundred and ten percent male, even though most people assume he’s gay. He’s man enough for me.”

Rick Santorum smiled sadly, “What can I say? I am being beaten in every poll by a black guy who can’t keep it in his pants, a pot smoker, a nut who is married to a fag, a cult member and a retard from Texas.”

Perry, in his typically down home way said, “He’s black. What do you expect? Put them around a bunch of sex starved white housewives, they cain’t control their selves. If Obamer warn’t half white
he’d be doin’ the same thing.”

Reporters tried to get Cain to comment on the charges, “Nein, nein, nein,” Was his response.

Heroic Woman Punches, Kicks Man Who Groped Her on the Subway

2011-11-04T01:52:00.001-06:00

Heroic Woman Punches, Kicks Man Who Groped Her on the Subway

A 22-year-old college student who was groped on a subway platform recently decided not to take the fondling sitting down. So instead she kicked, punched, and screamed at her assaulter -- and took pictures of him, to boot.

Shyane DeJesus told the Post that a man grabbed her on the 6 train platform of New York's Union Square station. He “grabbed my right shoulder and pushed my head down and lifted my skirt up and groped me,” she said.

“He went on the train and sat down as if nothing happened. I was hysterical. I yelled that he just groped me. I literally started punching him in the head,” she said.
No one came to her aid.
DeJesus got in a few more knocks on her attacker, and, as the train pulled in to the next station, took her phone out of her bag.
“I held the door and positioned the phone in his face. I was shaking, I’m surprised I got it,” she said.
“He smirked when I looked at him. He never said a word, not a word. All I got was that smirk.”
DeJesus then got off the train and ran to her job, where she called police.

Dershowitz Defends Israeli Prisoner Exchange

2011-11-04T00:57:00.003-06:00

Dershowitz Defends Israeli Prisoner Exchange

By GINA K. HACKETT, CONTRIBUTING WRITER

Published: Friday, October 28, 2011

Harvard Law School Professor Alan M. Dershowitz defended on Thursday Israel’s decision to secure the return of captured soldier Gilad Shalit in exchange for the release of around 1,000 Palestinian prisoners as part and parcel of Israeli democracy, something that he said Western observers do not take sufficient care to understand.

Dershowitz made the remarks at a talk alongside Rabbi Jonathan H. Sacks, the chief religious leader of British Jews, and said that Israel’s decision to agree to a swap represents a vital democracy insofar as the movement to secure Shalit’s freedom was a popular one that was led by his family and carried out in the court of public opinion.

“No matter what we may think in the halls of academia ... ultimately, the decision has to be made by Israelis,” Dershowitz said.

Many observers have criticized Israel’s choice to release a large number of prisoners in exchange for Shalit’s return, a decision that many say will lead to further kidnappings of Israeli soldiers to be used as bargaining chips. Dershowitz pushed back against American criticism of Israeli policy by saying that American critics of Israel do not adequately take into consideration Israel’s status as a democracy, which he said entitles it to a greater degree of independence than some of its critics grant.

In the wake of the exchange, Dershowitz and Sacks both said it was important for Israel to retain its Jewish identity even in the hailstorm of conflict, adding that the long-standing tension between Israelis and Palestinians should, in principle, be able to lead to a sense of understanding between the two peoples.

“If there is anyone on earth who should be able to understand Jewish struggles, it’s Palestinians,” Sacks said. “And if there is anyone on earth who should be able to understand Palestinian struggles, it’s Jews.”

Dershowitz said that while the conflict is headed in the wrong direction politically, it is moving in the right direction intellectually.

“It can’t be based on ‘it’s our home’ or ‘it’s your home,’” Dershowitz said. “It’s the home of both people and both people have to live in peace with each other.”

Both Sacks and Dershowitz, two highly vocal advocates for a Jewish state, recognized the difficulty of the conflict. For all their expertise on the matter, neither Sacks nor Dershowitz had a clear view of whether the effort to achieve peace is progressing in the right direction.

Both men said that there was an inevitability to the tie between the Jewish people’s history and today’s Israel. Because Jews are unique in their perpetual homelessness, Israel remains a product of Jews’ history of trauma and expulsion, Sacks said.

“Jews discovered that there was not one inch on the face of the planet that they could call home,” Sacks said.

“It’s hard to see how, in a world in which there are 56 Islamic states and at least 82 Christian states, there isn’t room for one Jewish state,” Sacks added. “Whatever criterion you use, Jews have a right to this very small space.”

God Said to Abraham "Kill Me A Son"

2011-11-02T15:30:00.001-06:00

I think I can state with some certainty that my friendson the right are thrilled with the prospect of Herman Cain’s denouement.

Last night the lovely, but possibly insane Ann Coultersaid, “Our blacks are better than their blacks.”

Democrat party spokesmen announced, “We don’t own anyblacks. Ann Coulter is speaking for the Republicans.”

The women that Cain allegedly harassed (three at latest count)are asking to berelieved from the confidentiality clause, so they can counter Cain’s claims thatthe charges were false.

At any rate, after Cain’s early denials, “I know nothingabout these allegations,”

Then “I remember there were allegations, but I knownothing about the particulars”

Then later “I don’t know if there was a settlement” then “Therewas a settlement, but it was called an agreement, that’s different.”

And so on, ad nauseam, it appears that his campaign iseffectively over, although he is still raking in the gifts, which is probablythe reason for his campaign to begin with.

For Democrats this is not good news, we like blacks, weliked Cain, he was entertaining, and he would have been easy to beat.

For Republicans, who probably put out the story in thefirst place, this is wonderful.

Republicans don’t care for blacks or other minorities,and the thought of having a black President NO MATTER WHO WON, kept neocons upat night, drenched with cold sweat.

Now the race is Romney’s to lose.

Can he do it?

a thousand people turned out for high holiday services organized for the Occupy Wall Street protesters.

2011-11-02T14:24:00.000-06:00

The “few Jew-baiters,” wrote Michelle Goldberg, “are marginal, particularly compared to the large numbers of Jewish activists taking part.” She wrote that ECI’s accusation was “dishonest and deceptive.” It’s worse: If it weren’t such a serious subject — Marc Tracy calls the accusation “highly irresponsible” — labeling the whole movement as “anti-Semitic” would be laughable. Dan Sieradski of Occupy Judaism, which is seeking to rally Jewish supporters to the 99 Percent movement, dismissed the “couple of jerks and idiots” and noted that a thousand people turned out for high holiday services organized for the Occupy Wall Street protesters.

By Ali Gharib on Oct19, 2011 at 9:00 am

Protesterwith 'hashtag' symbol

The attackunleashed mostly by the neoconservative right on the 99 Percent Movement foralleged pervasive anti-Semitism reached absurd new heights over the weekend andearly this week. An ad launched last week by the Bill Kristol-led Emergency Committee for Israel(ECI) — whose hedge fund bankroller happensto really hate financial regulation reform— made the rounds of themainstream media, getting picked up by Politico‘s Ben Smithand the Washington Post‘sneoconservative blogger Jennifer Rubin.

The ad,which was largely ripped off from a pseudonymous Israeli neoconblog (whoseauthor proclaims to be a “friend” of ECI’sexecutive-director-in-title-only Noah Pollak),portrayed anti-Semitic sentiments in videos of two people — one of them an admitted petty thief andapparent camera-hungry provocateur — and aphotograph of a sign-holder. And other websites posted a woman expressinganti-Semitic sentiments on a Reason video apparentlyat L.A.’s protest. That’s four people out of hundreds of thousands worldwide that have participated in 99 Percent protests.The “few Jew-baiters,” wrote Michelle Goldberg,“are marginal, particularly compared to the large numbers of Jewish activiststaking part.” She wrote that ECI’s accusation was “dishonest and deceptive.”It’s worse: If it weren’t such a serious subject — Marc Tracy calls theaccusation “highly irresponsible”— labeling the whole movement as “anti-Semitic” would be laughable. DanSieradski of Occupy Judaism, which is seeking to rally Jewish supporters to the99 Percent movement, dismissed the “couple of jerks and idiots” and noted thata thousand people turned out for high holiday services organized for the Occupy Wall Street protesters.

Despitethe seriousness of the charge — and the consequences of deploying itfrivolously — it’s difficult not to snicker at the continuing far-right attackson the 99 Percent Movement as anti-Semitic. Commentary launched a factually-challenged attack on New York’s Occupy Wall Street protestmovement. And Andrew Breitbart’s Big Government site said that staunch Israel supporter Rep. Steve israel (D-NY) supported an “anti-Israel/anti-Semitic”cause.

But themost ridiculous attack, by far, came from the far-right Pajamas Media website.A writer going by the name “Zombie” — whose put up some of the mostraucously funny attacks on the 99 Percent Movement (“Commies and Kooks,”etc.) — had a doozy of a post on Monday.

Organizersat Denver’s 99 Percent Movement rally had taped a hashtag symbol — the pound signwhich isnow used in Twitter to tag a word — on their shirts. The mark was supposed tomake the organizers easy to identify in a crowd, but Zombie saw a much morenefarious force at play: National Socialism!

"Zombie" wrote:

Don’tthese people see an echo of the swastika in their new power symbol? Don’t they realize that the early Nazi Partywas (among other things, obviously) also overtly anti-capitalist?… Don’t they know that the early Nazis triedto garner sympathy with street rallies and marches?

Wheninformed in the comment section of the post that the symbol was merely aTwitter symbol — and not a “bizarre neo-swastika” — Zombie continued to insistthe 99 Movement has Nazi tendencies:

As acommenter notes, the symbol may have derived originally from the Twitter“hashtag,” but that in no waydiminishes its creepiness. It may“just” be a rotated hashtag, but that doesn’t lessen its significance as apower symbol.The swastika, after all, was “just” a Buddhist good luck markingbefore the Nazis adopted it andstarted using it to indicate something else.

JeffreyGoldberg, the mainstream media’s self-appointed final arbiter of who is andisn’t a Nazi and what is and isn’t anti-Semitic, has proclaimed that “Occupy Wall Street Is notanti-Semitic.” The mainstream media should take heed of his judgmentand let the meme die, leaving it to the far-right symbologists and conspiracytheorists.

Tags:

· 99 Percent Movement

· Nazis

· Noah Pollak

· Politico

· The Washington Post

Stick a Fork In the GOP, They're Done

2011-11-01T18:00:00.002-06:00

Today on a panel of talking heads, including the Ron Reaganthat thinking people like (his son), the pundits could not guess why the Republicans have sucha weak field.

It’s actually fairly simple.

The Republicans have no workable solutions for theproblems our country is having.

Their entire platform is; more tax breaks for the rich,cuts in social programs for the poor and working people, and outlawing birthcontrol.

Here is their problem; 70 percent of Americans supporttax increases for the rich, not reductions.

People don’t want Social Security or Medicare gutted, andmost Americans support birth control.

So, when Perry is not appearing to be insane, and Cainisn’t lying for 12 straight hours, all they have left is a platform that no onebut the few scattered tea baggers support.

Who will inherit the GOP mantle after Bachmann’s andPerry’s and Cain’s fall?

You got it, "the luckiest Mother**cker in the GOP, MittRomney."

Happy Halloween !!

2011-10-31T19:24:00.001-06:00

The Raven
By Edgar Allan Poe

Once upon a midnight dreary, while I pondered weak and weary,
Over many a quaint and curious volume of forgotten lore,
While I nodded, nearly napping, suddenly there came a tapping,
As of some one gently rapping, rapping at my chamber door.
`'Tis some visitor,' I muttered, `tapping at my chamber door -
Only this, and nothing more.'

Ah, distinctly I remember it was in the bleak December,
And each separate dying ember wrought its ghost upon the floor.
Eagerly I wished the morrow; - vainly I had sought to borrow
From my books surcease of sorrow - sorrow for the lost Lenore -
For the rare and radiant maiden whom the angels named Lenore -
Nameless here for evermore.

And the silken sad uncertain rustling of each purple curtain
Thrilled me - filled me with fantastic terrors never felt before;
So that now, to still the beating of my heart, I stood repeating
`'Tis some visitor entreating entrance at my chamber door -
Some late visitor entreating entrance at my chamber door; -
This it is, and nothing more,'

Presently my soul grew stronger; hesitating then no longer,
`Sir,' said I, `or Madam, truly your forgiveness I implore;
But the fact is I was napping, and so gently you came rapping,
And so faintly you came tapping, tapping at my chamber door,
That I scarce was sure I heard you' - here I opened wide the door; -
Darkness there, and nothing more.

Deep into that darkness peering, long I stood there wondering, fearing,
Doubting, dreaming dreams no mortal ever dared to dream before;
But the silence was unbroken, and the darkness gave no token,
And the only word there spoken was the whispered word, `Lenore!'
This I whispered, and an echo murmured back the word, `Lenore!'
Merely this and nothing more.

Back into the chamber turning, all my soul within me burning,
Soon again I heard a tapping somewhat louder than before.
`Surely,' said I, `surely that is something at my window lattice;
Let me see then, what thereat is, and this mystery explore -
Let my heart be still a moment and this mystery explore; -
'Tis the wind and nothing more!'

Open here I flung the shutter, when, with many a flirt and flutter,
In there stepped a stately raven of the saintly days of yore.
Not the least obeisance made he; not a minute stopped or stayed he;
But, with mien of lord or lady, perched above my chamber door -
Perched upon a bust of Pallas just above my chamber door -
Perched, and sat, and nothing more.

Then this ebony bird beguiling my sad fancy into smiling,
By the grave and stern decorum of the countenance it wore,
`Though thy crest be shorn and shaven, thou,' I said, `art sure no craven.
Ghastly grim and ancient raven wandering from the nightly shore -
Tell me what thy lordly name is on the Night's Plutonian shore!'
Quoth the raven, `Nevermore.'

Much I marvelled this ungainly fowl to hear discourse so plainly,
Though its answer little meaning - little relevancy bore;
For we cannot help agreeing that no living human being
Ever yet was blessed with seeing bird above his chamber door -
Bird or beast above the sculptured bust above his chamber door,
With such name as `Nevermore.'

But the raven, sitting lonely on the placid bust, spoke only,
That one word, as if his soul in that one word he did outpour.
Nothing further then he uttered - not a feather then he fluttered -
Till I scarcely more than muttered `Other friends have flown before -
On the morrow he will leave me, as my hopes have flown before.'
Then the bird said, `Nevermore.'

Startled at the stillness broken by reply so aptly spoken,
`Doubtless,' said I, `what it utters is its only stock and store,
Caught from some unhappy master whom unmerciful disaster
Followed fast and followed faster till his songs one burden bore -
Till the dirges of his hope that melancholy burden bore
Of "Never-nevermore."'

But the raven still beguiling all my sad soul into smiling,
Straight I wheeled a cushioned seat in front of bird and bust and door;
Then, upon the velvet sinking, I betook myself to linking
Fancy unto fancy, thinking what this ominous bird of yore -
What this grim, ungainly, ghastly, gaunt, and ominous bird of yore
Meant in croaking `Nevermore.'

This I sat engaged in guessing, but no syllable expressing
To the fowl whose fiery eyes now burned into my bosom's core;
This and more I sat divining, with my head at ease reclining
On the cushion's velvet lining that the lamp-light gloated o'er,
But whose velvet violet lining with the lamp-light gloating o'er,
She shall press, ah, nevermore!

Then, methought, the air grew denser, perfumed from an unseen censer
Swung by Seraphim whose foot-falls tinkled on the tufted floor.
`Wretch,' I cried, `thy God hath lent thee - by these angels he has sent thee
Respite - respite and nepenthe from thy memories of Lenore!
Quaff, oh quaff this kind nepenthe, and forget this lost Lenore!'
Quoth the raven, `Nevermore.'

`Prophet!' said I, `thing of evil! - prophet still, if bird or devil! -
Whether tempter sent, or whether tempest tossed thee here ashore,
Desolate yet all undaunted, on this desert land enchanted -
On this home by horror haunted - tell me truly, I implore -
Is there - is there balm in Gilead? - tell me - tell me, I implore!'
Quoth the raven, `Nevermore.'

`Prophet!' said I, `thing of evil! - prophet still, if bird or devil!
By that Heaven that bends above us - by that God we both adore -
Tell this soul with sorrow laden if, within the distant Aidenn,
It shall clasp a sainted maiden whom the angels named Lenore -
Clasp a rare and radiant maiden, whom the angels named Lenore?'
Quoth the raven, `Nevermore.'

`Be that word our sign of parting, bird or fiend!' I shrieked upstarting -
`Get thee back into the tempest and the Night's Plutonian shore!
Leave no black plume as a token of that lie thy soul hath spoken!
Leave my loneliness unbroken! - quit the bust above my door!
Take thy beak from out my heart, and take thy form from off my door!'
Quoth the raven, `Nevermore.'

And the raven, never flitting, still is sitting, still is sitting
On the pallid bust of Pallas just above my chamber door;
And his eyes have all the seeming of a demon's that is dreaming,
And the lamp-light o'er him streaming throws his shadow on the floor;
And my soul from out that shadow that lies floating on the floor
Shall be lifted - nevermore!

Is Occupy Wall Street Antisemitic?

2011-10-28T20:12:00.000-06:00

Although it does appear, at times, particularly in Oakland, to be left or anarchic, there is room for all sane viewpoints in the #Occupy Wall Street movement.
There is not room for antisemitism, and those types of people are not influential in this movement.
I have seen the reports of antisemitism, and my view, supported by most reporters, is that the episodes of antisemitism were rare, and not associated with #Occupy Wall Street.

That being said, there are otherwise decent people who are wrong about Israel.
Their opinion is based on emotions and incorrect facts.
And misinterpretation of facts.
I am afraid many of the people that I am aware of that oppose Israel's policies period, no matter what they are, without exception, are not antisemitic, in fact, the nastiest opponent of Israel that I have dialogued with was Jewish.
Secular, radical left, but Jewish, and rabidly anti Israel.
But she wasn't antisemitic.
It's a mistake to automatically label those who disagree with our view of the situation in Israel as antisemitic, even though they may do as much harm, maybe more, than actual antisemites.

I shared a passover Seder with a friend a few years back.
Just a sweet, lovable young woman, who, as you would expect, from someone who seemed very traditional in her Jewishness, was happy with her Jewish identity, went to Synagogue frequently, her mother was a founding member of Haganah....
She was teaching me Hebrew.
At one point we began talking about Israel, and to my shock, she was anti Israel in her views.
But certainly not antisemitic.
She loved her people.
She was confused about the policy issues.

Over time, over weeks, we discussed Israel.
I brought her over to our side

My point is that people who are chanting in favor of Hamas, though certainly mistaken, are not necessarily antisemitic

Even so, if anti Israel actions or dialogue were a significant part of Occupy Wall Street, I would be done with it.

It is not.
I view their "tweets" off and on throughout the evening, and I haven't seen anything antisemitic OR anti Israel.

I'm not saying incidents haven't occurred, I am saying it is extremely insignificant and does not coincide with the goals of the movement.

_________.

“Suicide Of A Superpower,”

2011-10-25T20:57:00.000-06:00

What can you say about PatBuchanan?

Stick him down in thebasement with your crazy Aunt?

Pray no one brings him up?

You want to like him; whenhe’s not ranting he is downright avuncular.

His Irish pride isendearing, after all, the Irish are like the Jews, a small group of people thathave spread all over the world and made incredible and valuable contributionsto civilization and the liquor industry.

I thought the followingarticle, a review of Pat’s new book “SuicideOf A Superpower,” wasentertaining:

.JILLIANRAYFIELD OCTOBER 24, 2011, 5:20 AM 42111 568

Pundit and MSNBC contributor Pat Buchanan’s new book,“Suicide Of A Superpower,” is a veritable treasure trove of eye-poppingassertions about the decline of America at the hand of increased diversity andmulticulturalism.

TPM went through and picked out some highlights, so that youreally don’t have to.

From the Preface:

When the faith dies, the culture dies, thecivilization dies, the people die. That is the progression. And as the faiththat gave birth to the West is dying in the West, peoples of European descentfrom the steppes of Russia to the coast of California have begun to die out, asthe Third World treks north to claim the estate. The last decade providedcorroborating if not conclusive proof that we are in the Indian summer of ourcivilization.

From the chapter, “The Death Of Christian America”:

Obama’s White House thus enlisted in the long andsuccessful campaign to expel Christianity from the public square, diminish itspresence in our public life, and reduce its role to that of just anotherreligion.

From the chapter, “The End Of White America”:

The white population will begin to shrink and,should present birth rates persist, slowly disappear. Hispanics alreadycomprise 42 percent of New Mexico’s population, 37 percent of California’s, 38percent of Texas’s, and over half the population of Arizona under the age oftwenty. ……. Mexico is moving north. Ethnically, linguistically, and culturally,the verdict of 1848 is being overturned. Will this Mexican nation within anation advance the goals of the Constitution—to “insure domestic tranquility”and “make us a more perfect union”? Or has our passivity in the face of thisinvasion imperiled our union?

On the group UNITY: Journalists of Color, Inc. pushing formore diversity in journalism:

Half a century after Martin Luther Kingenvisioned a day when his children would be judged ‘not by the color of theirskin, but the content of their character,’ journalists of color are demandingthe hiring and promotion of journalists based on the color of their skin. JimCrow is back. Only the color of the beneficiaries and the color of the victimshave been reversed.

Also from the chapter, “The End Of White America”:

Those who believe the rise to power of an Obamarainbow coalition of peoples of color means the whites who helped to engineerit will steer it are deluding themselves. The whites may discover what it islike to ride in the back of the bus.

From the chapter, “Equality or Freedom?”:

Not until the 1960s did courts begin to use theFourteenth Amendment to impose a concept of equality that the authors of theDeclaration of Independence, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, The Federalist Papers, and the Gettysburg Address never believed in. Before the1960s, equality meant every citizen enjoyed the same constitutional rights andthe equal protection of existing laws. Nothing in the Constitution or federallaw mandated social, racial, or gender equality.

From the chapter “The Diversity Cult”:

Americans who seek stricter immigration controlhave been charged with many social sins: racism, xenophobia, nativism. Yet nonehas sought to expel any fellow American based on color or creed. We have onlysought to preserve the country we grew up in. Do not people everywhere do that,without being reviled? What motivates people who insist that America’s doors beheld open wide until the European majority has disappeared?

What is their grudge against the old America that eats attheir heart?

On crime:

If [conservative political commentator Heather]Mac Donald’s statistics are accurate, 49 of every 50 muggings and murders inNew York are the work of minorities. That might explain why black folks havetrouble getting a cab. Every New York cabby must know the odds, should he pickup a man of color at night.

From the chapter “‘The White Party’”:

What the above points to is a strategy from whichRepublicans will recoil, a strategy to increase the GOP share of the whiteChristian vote and increase the turnout of that vote by specific appeals tosocial, cultural, and moral issues, and for equal justice for the emergingwhite minority. If the GOP is not the party of New Haven firefighter FrankRicci and Cambridge cop James Crowley, it has no future. And although HowardDean disparages the Republicans as the “white party,” why should Republicans beashamed to represent the progeny of the men who founded, built, and defendedAmerica since her birth as a nation?

From the chapter “The Last Chance”:

Our intellectual, cultural, and political elitesare today engaged in one of the most audacious and ambitious experiments inhistory. They are trying to transform a Western Christian republic into anegalitarian democracy made up of all the tribes, races, creeds, and cultures ofplanet Earth. They have dethroned our God, purged our cradle faith from publiclife, and repudiated the Judeo-Christian moral code by which previousgenerations sought to live.

From the same chapter:

For the Left to concede that white anger is alegitimate response to racial injustices done to white people would be toconcede that the Left is guilty of the very sin of which it accuses the right.

On the segregation era:

Perhaps some of us misremember the past. But theracial, religious, cultural, social, political, and economic divides today seemgreater than they seemed even in the segregation cities some of us grew up in.

Back then, black and white lived apart, went to differentschools and churches, played on different playgrounds, and went to differentrestaurants, bars, theaters, and soda fountains. But we shared a country and aculture. We were one nation. We were Americans.

MSNBC, Pat Buchanan, Racism

The Shocking, Graphic Data That Shows Exactly What Motivates the Occupy Movement

2011-10-25T13:53:00.001-06:00

The Shocking, Graphic Data That Shows Exactly What Motivates the Occupy Movement

The corporate media may obsess about what Occupy Wall Street is all about, but these images should make it clear.

October 23, 2011 |

What are the Occupy Wall Street protesters angry about? The same things we’re all angry about. The only difference is the protestors turned their anger into public action. Occupy Wall Street lit the embers and the sparks are flying. Whether it turns into a genuine populist prairie fire depends on all of us.

Now is not the time for wonky policy solutions, as the media meatheads are calling for. Rather, it’s time to air our grievances as loudly as possible, which is precisely what Wall Street and its minions fear the most. Here’s a brief list of why we should be angry and the charts to back it up.

1. The American Dream is imploding...

(click for larger version)

The productivity/wage chart says it all. From 1947 until the mid-1970s real wages and productivity (economic output per worker hour) danced together. Both climbed year after year as did our real standard of living. If you’re old enough, you will remember seeing your parents doing just a bit better each year, year after year. Then, our nation embarked on a grand economic experiment. Taxes were cut especially on the super-rich. Finance was deregulated and unions were crushed. Lo and behold, the two lines broke apart. Productivity continued to climb, but wages stalled and declined. So where did all that productivity money go? To the rich and to the super-rich, especially to those in finance.

2. Our wealth is gushing to the top 1 percent...

(click for larger version)

Actually the top tenth of one percent. Because of financial deregulation and tax cuts for the rich, the income gap is soaring. Here’s one of my favorite indicators that we compiled for The Looting of America. In 1970 the top 100 CEOs earned $45 for every $1 earned by the average worker. By 2006, the ratio climbed to an obscene 1,723 to one. (Not a misprint!)

3. Family income is declining while the top earners flourish...

(click for larger version)

As women entered the workforce, family income made up for some of the wage stagnation. But now even family incomes are in trouble. Meanwhile, the incomes of the richest families continue to rise.

4. The super-rich are paying lower and lower tax rates...

(click for larger version)

To add financial insult to injury, the richest of the rich pay less and less each year as a percentage of their monstrous incomes. The top 400 taxpayers during the 1950s faced a 90 percent federal tax rate. By 1995 their effective tax rate – what they really paid after all deductions as a percent of all their income – fell to 30 percent. Now it’s barely 16 percent.

5. Too much money in the hands of the few combined with financial deregulation crashed our economy...

(click for larger version)

When the rich become astronomically rich, they gamble with their excess money. And when Wall Street is deregulated, it creates financial casinos for the wealthy. When those casinos inevitably crash, we pay to cover the losses. The 2008 financial crash caused eight million American workers to lose their jobs in a matter of months due to no fault of their own. The last time we had so much money in the hands of so few was 1929!

6. We’re turning into a billionaire bailout society...

(click for larger version)

We bailed out the big Wall Street banks and protected the billionaires from ruin. Now we are being asked to make good on the debts they caused, while the super-rich get even richer, some making more than $2 million an HOUR! It would take over 47 years for the average family to make as much as the top 10 hedge fund managers make in one hour.

7. The super-rich still control politics...

(click for larger version)

Both political parties are occupied by Wall Street. For nearly an entire generation they have competed with each other to gain campaign contributions in exchange for tax breaks and regulatory loopholes for the richest of the rich. Today’s so-called financial reforms are porous, while the money continues to flow to both parties.

8. Unemployment is a catastrophe...

(click for larger version)

The reckless gambling on Wall Street tore a hole in the economy sending millions to the unemployment lines. Wall Street caused the enormous spike in unemployment and no one else – not the government, not home buyers, not China.

9. Our prospects for the future are growing dim...

(click for larger version)

It’s bad enough that unemployment is sky-high. But it’s even worse when you can’t find a job for months, even years. Right now the number of unemployed for 26 weeks or more is at record levels. Many of the long-term unemployed will never work again.

10. The big banks are getting even bigger...

(click for larger version)

Too big to fail is alive and well. Our nation’s biggest banks are growing larger and larger with no end in sight. Despite what politicians say, the taxpayer will bail out the big banks again. And the big banks know it.

Stand up and be counted!

Americans are a patient people. Mass movements do not form very often. Most of us hoped that after the crash, the big banks would be broken up, the casinos would be shut down and the gamblers would be punished. At the very least, we expected that the elite financiers would pay for the damage they created – the jobs destroyed, the neighborhoods wrecked, the services cut. It didn’t happen. Finally something clicked. A small number of kids stood up and got noticed. And now it’s growing. We see an outlet for our frustration, our justifiable anger, our disappointment in leaders who sold out.

We don’t know where it’s all going. But this is the time to stand up and be counted – literally. The currency of a populist revolt is numbers in the street. Let’s show our anger where it will be seen. And let us take heart from the words of Franklin Roosevelt who during his first inaugural address in 1933, led the first occupation of Wall Street:

Practices of the unscrupulous money changers stand indicted in the court of public opinion, rejected by the hearts and minds of men.
True, they have tried, but their efforts have been cast in the pattern of an outworn tradition. Faced by failure of credit, they have proposed only the lending of more money.
Stripped of the lure of profit by which to induce our people to follow their false leadership, they have resorted to exhortations, pleading tearfully for restored conditions. They know only the rules of a generation of self-seekers.
They have no vision, and when there is no vision the people perish.
The money changers have fled their high seats in the temple of our civilization. We may now restore that temple to the ancient truths.
The measure of the restoration lies in the extent to which we apply social values more noble than mere monetary profit.
Happiness lies not in the mere possession of money, it lies in the joy of achievement, in the thrill of creative effort.
The joy and moral stimulation of work no longer must be forgotten in the mad chase of evanescent profits. These dark days will be worth all they cost us if they teach us that our true destiny is not to be ministered unto but to minister to ourselves and to our fellow-men.
Recognition of the falsity of material wealth as the standard of success goes hand in hand with the abandonment of the false belief that public office and high political position are to be values only by the standards of pride of place and personal profit, and there must be an end to a conduct in banking and in business which too often has given to a sacred trust the likeness of callous and selfish wrongdoing.

14digg

649Share

327 COMMENTS

Exploiting Anti-Semitism To Destroy Occupy Wall Street

2011-10-21T05:52:00.000-06:00

Exploiting Anti-Semitism To Destroy Occupy Wall Street

October 14, 2011 1:36 pm ET — MJ Rosenberg

An ugly old tradition is back: exploiting anti-Semitism to break the backs of popular movements that threaten the power of the wealthiest 1 percent of our population. It is being used to undermine the Occupy Wall Street movement, which has conservatives in a state of near panic.

I don't know the first time the tactic was used, although it dates back almost to the beginning of the Jewish diaspora.

Perhaps its most famous use was by the viciously anti-Semitic Czar Nicholas, whose supporters concocted the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" at the start of the 20th century to prevent Russians from joining socialist movements and other reform efforts that were fighting to get the czar to cede some power to an elected parliament.

The Protocols were a forged document purporting to show that a cabal of Jews met regularly to solidify their supposed control of the entire world. According to the Protocols, Jews were behind socialist and liberal movements but also ran the banks and Wall Street. (A modern version of this ridiculous themewas a staple on Glenn Beck's television program that ran on Fox News until being canceled this summer.)

The Protocols have had a long life, used by the czar, the Nazis, and even today by extremist and fringe Muslim groups opposed to the existence of Israel.

But they were primarily used not so much against the Jews as against reform and revolution. Linking a progressive movement to the Jews would destroy progressive movements and preserve the power of those in control.

Perhaps not surprisingly, a bizarre variant of this phenomenon is now being deployed against Occupy Wall Street.

Because utilizing anti-Semitism directly would not succeed in this country today, the reactionary defenders of the economic status quo are using the flip side of the coin: the fear of being labeled anti-Semitic. They are accusing Occupy Wall Street of anti-Semitism, relying on the old myth that Wall Street is Jewish and hence that opposition to Wall Street's agenda is just opposition to Jews.

Not surprisingly, the first right-wing commentator to use this formulation in the Obama era was Rush Limbaugh. In 2010, Limbaugh told his radio audience that Jews might be having "buyer's remorse" about having voted for President Barack Obama because "[h]e's assaulting bankers. He's assaulting money people. And a lot of those people on Wall Street are Jewish."

The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) condemned those remarks, labeling them a "new low" for Limbaugh. ADL National Director Abe Foxman explained that Limbaugh's references to "Jews and money" were "offensive and inappropriate."

Foxman continued: "While the age-old stereotype about Jews and money has a long and sordid history, it also remains one of the main pillars of anti-Semitism and is widely accepted by many Americans."

And now the "age-old stereotype" is back, flipped on its head by right-wingers who seek to discredit Occupy Wall Street by accusing it of anti-Semitism, an accusation based on the idea, as Foxman said, "widely accepted by many Americans," that Wall Street is Jewish.

One of the first conservatives after Limbaugh to use this tactic was the usually quite proper Ivy League conservative, New York Times columnist David Brooks. In an October 10 column dismissing the Wall Street protests as "trivial sideshows," Brooks wrote:

Take the Occupy Wall Street movement. This uprising was sparked by the magazine Adbusters, previously best known for the 2004 essay, "Why Won't Anyone Say They Are Jewish?" — an investigative report that identified some of the most influential Jews in America and their nefarious grip on policy.

Interesting. Brooks essentially is charging that a magazine few have heard of "sparked" the movement and, even worse, smearing the movement as anti-Semitic by bringing up an article that magazine published seven years ago about the Jewish "grip" on policy. Quite a reach.

And then yesterday the Emergency Committee For Israel, a far-right Republican group run by Bill Kristol, issued a video flat-out accusing Occupy Wall Street of anti-Semitism, with side swipes at leading Democrats (what a coincidence!) like President Obama and Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, who have sympathized with the movement and are therefore, by implication, probably anti-Semitic themselves.

The Emergency Committee's evidence is presented in the video, which shows three anti-Semites and two anti-Semitic signs among the protesters. That's it, out of a crowd of thousands. (Far be it from me to guess at the number of anti-Semites who might be at a Tea Party event, but they don't define that movement either. Mass movements attract all kinds of people, some invariably unsavory.)

Watch:

In any case, the Emergency Committee for Israel is not concerned about anti-Semitism or Israel. It is, rather, dedicated to defeating Democrats and promoting its billionaire donors' economic interests. During the 2010 congressional campaigns, it produced videos almost as deceitful as the Wall Street video that lied about Democratic candidates. It used Israel and Jews as devices to direct money and votes toward the Republicans. (See this profile.)

In attacking Occupy Wall Street, the Emergency Committee's goal is simply to smear Democrats. If, in the process, it reinforces the stereotype that Jews and Wall Street are interchangeable, so what? How different is that from its usual practice of suggesting strongly that American Jews should vote only based on Israel's supposed interests, not America's? To put it not-so-mildly, the Emergency Committee for Israel does not care about fueling anti-Semitism in America.

Because that last video of a couple of anti-Semites may have left a bad taste in your mouth, here's another one. It was shot at the Wall Street demonstration on Yom Kippur Eve and it features not a few anti-Semites but thousands of Jews celebrating the holiest day of the Jewish year, a day dedicated to the same ideals as Occupy Wall Street: repentance for putting our desires before the needs of the poor, the homeless, and the exploited.

Watch:

In this video, Occupy Wall Street is repenting for greed. Wall Street itself is silent.

BLACKBURN REPORT

For Whitney Houston, happiness was just out of reach

For Whitney Houston, happiness was just out of reach

Conservatism Thrives on Low Intelligence and Poor Information

Conservatism Thrives on Low Intelligence and Poor Information

Good News: Court Rules Gay Marriage-Denying Proposition 8 (Proposition "H8") Unconstitutional

Miley Cyrus Speaks Up For Marriage Equality

Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg Talks Constitution, Women And Liberty On Egyptian TV

Susan Powell Husband Josh Powell Murders Kids Commits Suicide During Supervised Visitation

Bill Maher: "Atheism Is a Religion Like Abstinence Is a Sex Position"

Bill Maher: "Atheism Is a Religion Like Abstinence Is a Sex Position"

Romney: "I'm Not Concerned With the Very Poor" (While Fellow .001%ers Pony Up for His Super PAC)

The Path to Victory in November for Barack Obama and the Democrats

The 10 Most Racist Moments of the GOP Primary (So Far)

The 10 Most Racist Moments of the GOP Primary (So Far)

Do Not Let Corporations Destroy the Free Internet

Occupy protesters rally against Congress at Capitol

Attorney general: Mississippi may order nationwide manhunt

Attorney general: Mississippi may order nationwide manhunt

Share this on:

Bloomberg Love Affair With Lady Gaga Upstages State of the City Speech

Bloomberg Love Affair With Lady Gaga Upstages State of the City Speech

Republicon Governor Pardon's Murderers

By Douglas Stanglin, USA TODAY #post-date-updated {border-top: solid 1px #E5E5E5;}

Republicon Taliban

LAST MINUTE EFFORT TO DRAFT JESUS AS GOP PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE FAILS

Why Do Conservatives Hate America?

Posted on Oct 12, 2009

Blacks Expelled More Than Whites From School

Black D.C. Students Suspended, Expelled Much More Than Their White Peers

Chag Sameach from The President and First Lady

President Obama says happy Hanukkah to Jews around the world

How Can the World's Richest Country Let Children Go Hungry?

How Can the World's Richest Country Let Children Go Hungry? 6 Tricks Corporate Elites Use to Hoard All the Wealth

Christopher Hitchens, atheist to the very end

Christopher Hitchens, atheist to the very end

Simon Schama on How His Friend Christopher Hitchens Said Goodbye

Simon Schama on How His Friend Christopher Hitchens Said Goodbye

Christopher Hitchens confronted death with the same furious bravura that he deployed against purveyors of unreasoned pieties. Plus, more on Hitchens: his greatest writings, best zingers, and photos through the years.

Photos: Hitchens Through the Years

Photos: Hitchens's Greatest Feuds

Accountability! SEC Charges Former Executives at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac with Fraud Related to Subprime Mortgages

Time For Rational Thought

Why Republicans will lose big time in 2012

American Patriots

Although the militarized terror squads of major cities have beaten, maced and shot them with rubber bullets, the Occupy Movement continues to grow exponentially.

Then they came for me

Ladies and Gentlemen, Bozo the Clown!

Why Do Republicons Hate Democracy?

Stop police brutality against peaceful protesters!

The Rise of the Pro-Ignorance Right Wing Puts us All In Danger

Fox News Viewers Are Less Informed Than People Who Don't Watch Any News

Super Committee Fails: How Republican Tax Intransigence Killed It: A Timeline

Latest From Occupy Wall Street

JOE PATERNO AND OCCUPY OAKLAND: SOMETHING VERY WRONG

Penn State and Berkeley: A Tale of Two Protests

Is Cain Able?

Jackson Doctor Conrad Murray Guilty of Manslaughter

Twinkle, Twinkle, Killer Cain

Heroic Woman Punches, Kicks Man Who Groped Her on the Subway

Heroic Woman Punches, Kicks Man Who Groped Her on the Subway

Dershowitz Defends Israeli Prisoner Exchange

God Said to Abraham "Kill Me A Son"

a thousand people turned out for high holiday services organized for the Occupy Wall Street protesters.

Stick a Fork In the GOP, They're Done

Happy Halloween !!

Is Occupy Wall Street Antisemitic?

“Suicide Of A Superpower,”

The Shocking, Graphic Data That Shows Exactly What Motivates the Occupy Movement

The Shocking, Graphic Data That Shows Exactly What Motivates the Occupy Movement

Exploiting Anti-Semitism To Destroy Occupy Wall Street

Exploiting Anti-Semitism To Destroy Occupy Wall Street

By Douglas Stanglin, USA TODAY