Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Better Believe It
Better Believe It's Journal
Better Believe It's Journal
January 31, 2012
By: Jon Walker
January 26, 2012
In addition to the individual mandate being extremely unpopular, opinions about the entire Affordable Care Act have remained negative and been trending downward. The Kaiser Family Foundation poll found 44 percent view the law unfavorably while just 37 percent now view it favorably.
This is why during the State of the Union President Obama gave only the briefest passing mention to his signature health care law, and he didn’t even mention it by name. The State of the Union was a political speech. It is now clear that Obama so terribly mismanaged the politics of health care reform that the law is a serious net negative for the Obama campaign.
There is no way Obama could have spent more time talking about the biggest legislative action of his presidency and still have received the incredibly broad approval he did get from people who watched the speech. Don’t expect the issue of health care to be brought up by choice by Democrats in the upcoming campaign.
http://fdlaction.firedoglake.com/2012/01/26/why-obamas-not-talking-about-health-care/
Why Obama’s Not Talking About His Health Care Law In This Election
Why Obama’s Not Talking About Health CareBy: Jon Walker
January 26, 2012
In addition to the individual mandate being extremely unpopular, opinions about the entire Affordable Care Act have remained negative and been trending downward. The Kaiser Family Foundation poll found 44 percent view the law unfavorably while just 37 percent now view it favorably.
This is why during the State of the Union President Obama gave only the briefest passing mention to his signature health care law, and he didn’t even mention it by name. The State of the Union was a political speech. It is now clear that Obama so terribly mismanaged the politics of health care reform that the law is a serious net negative for the Obama campaign.
There is no way Obama could have spent more time talking about the biggest legislative action of his presidency and still have received the incredibly broad approval he did get from people who watched the speech. Don’t expect the issue of health care to be brought up by choice by Democrats in the upcoming campaign.
http://fdlaction.firedoglake.com/2012/01/26/why-obamas-not-talking-about-health-care/
January 30, 2012
US elections: no matter who you vote for, money always wins
Dollars play a decisive role in US politics. And more so since the supreme court allowed unlimited campaign contributions
By Gary Younge
January 29, 2012
This is not a partisan point. Almost two-thirds of Americans believe the government should limit individual contributions – with a majority among Republicans, Democrats and independents. The influence of money at this level corrupts an entire political culture and in no small part explains the depth of cynicism, alienation and mistrust Americans now have for their politicians.
The issue here is not class envy, hating rich people because they are rich, but class interests – cementing the advantages of the privileged over the rest. The problem is not personal, it's systemic. In the current climate, it means a group of wealthy people in business will decide which wealthy people in Congress they would like to tell poor people what they can't have because times are hard. And unless the ruling is overturned there is precious little that can be done about it.
Last week in a Massachusetts Senate race, both the Republican incumbent and his likely Democratic challenger signed a pact agreeing not to use third-party money. The trouble is that the agreement is completely unenforceable. Already at least one pro-Republican group has refused to commit to it.
Downplaying money's central role at this point merely buys into the illusion of participatory democracy, where ideas, character and strategy are paramount, while others are actually buying the candidates and access to power. The result is a charade. Fig leaf, G-string – name the scanty underwear of your choice. The emperor is butt naked. Whoever you vote for, the money gets in.
Read the full article at:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2012/jan/29/us-politics-vote-money-wins
"US elections: no matter who you vote for, money always wins"
US elections: no matter who you vote for, money always wins
Dollars play a decisive role in US politics. And more so since the supreme court allowed unlimited campaign contributions
By Gary Younge
January 29, 2012
This is not a partisan point. Almost two-thirds of Americans believe the government should limit individual contributions – with a majority among Republicans, Democrats and independents. The influence of money at this level corrupts an entire political culture and in no small part explains the depth of cynicism, alienation and mistrust Americans now have for their politicians.
The issue here is not class envy, hating rich people because they are rich, but class interests – cementing the advantages of the privileged over the rest. The problem is not personal, it's systemic. In the current climate, it means a group of wealthy people in business will decide which wealthy people in Congress they would like to tell poor people what they can't have because times are hard. And unless the ruling is overturned there is precious little that can be done about it.
Last week in a Massachusetts Senate race, both the Republican incumbent and his likely Democratic challenger signed a pact agreeing not to use third-party money. The trouble is that the agreement is completely unenforceable. Already at least one pro-Republican group has refused to commit to it.
Downplaying money's central role at this point merely buys into the illusion of participatory democracy, where ideas, character and strategy are paramount, while others are actually buying the candidates and access to power. The result is a charade. Fig leaf, G-string – name the scanty underwear of your choice. The emperor is butt naked. Whoever you vote for, the money gets in.
Read the full article at:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2012/jan/29/us-politics-vote-money-wins
January 30, 2012
We can now see the true cost of globalisation
The worldwide public realises there is something deeply wrong with today's world economic system
Sunday Observer Editorial
January 28, 2012
.... average workers in most of the major rich economies, including the UK, have seen the real value of their wages shrivel away, as they have found themselves in competition not just with their neighbors, but with workers many thousands of miles away.
So as the plight of workers in faraway places reveals the true cost of cut-price consumer gadgets, it's also clear that workers everywhere have been losing out. It would be wrong to think that the answer is to retreat inwards, and return – even if we could – to a closed-border economy. But it must no longer be a taboo to question whether raw globalization brings the benefits that were promised.
We should welcome the fact that China's workers themselves are becoming increasingly restive about their plight. Higher wages and better conditions for them might push up the price of an iPod in London or New York, but they would also help the Chinese economy towards Beijing's aim of a rising middle class and stronger consumer demand at home, instead of economic growth that depends too heavily on cheap exports.
Strong, sustainable Chinese growth, and rising labor standards, would be good for the west too: they should help to narrow Beijing's yawning trade surplus by opening up vast new markets. Apple's critics would once have been written off as naive idealists; but as we sift through the wreckage of the Great Recession, perhaps it's finally time to heed Marx's words, and stand up for workers everywhere.
Read the full article at:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/jan/29/observer-editorial-global-capitalism-bad
"The worldwide public realises there is something deeply wrong with today's world economic system"
We can now see the true cost of globalisation
The worldwide public realises there is something deeply wrong with today's world economic system
Sunday Observer Editorial
January 28, 2012
.... average workers in most of the major rich economies, including the UK, have seen the real value of their wages shrivel away, as they have found themselves in competition not just with their neighbors, but with workers many thousands of miles away.
So as the plight of workers in faraway places reveals the true cost of cut-price consumer gadgets, it's also clear that workers everywhere have been losing out. It would be wrong to think that the answer is to retreat inwards, and return – even if we could – to a closed-border economy. But it must no longer be a taboo to question whether raw globalization brings the benefits that were promised.
We should welcome the fact that China's workers themselves are becoming increasingly restive about their plight. Higher wages and better conditions for them might push up the price of an iPod in London or New York, but they would also help the Chinese economy towards Beijing's aim of a rising middle class and stronger consumer demand at home, instead of economic growth that depends too heavily on cheap exports.
Strong, sustainable Chinese growth, and rising labor standards, would be good for the west too: they should help to narrow Beijing's yawning trade surplus by opening up vast new markets. Apple's critics would once have been written off as naive idealists; but as we sift through the wreckage of the Great Recession, perhaps it's finally time to heed Marx's words, and stand up for workers everywhere.
Read the full article at:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/jan/29/observer-editorial-global-capitalism-bad
January 28, 2012
Liberals’ Inequality Narrative Ignores Role of Free Trade, Unionbusting
by Roger Bybee
January 27, 2012
.... even many of America’s most liberal mainstream politicians and pundits have narrowed the debate over inequality, perhaps out of a desire to shield President Obama from any pressure coming from his left. The issue of tax inequities has soared in importance, exposing the privileged status enjoyed by CEOs and hedge fund and private equity executives like Mitt Romney. But other crucial dimensions of inequality painfully experienced by ordinary Americans have been crowded out.
Even the supposedly liberal pundits—E.J. Dionne, Howard Fineman, Jonathan Alter, Ezra Klein and Richard Wolffe, among others—are remarkably confined in their discussions of inequality. They almost never refer to the 35-year campaign of union-busting by Corporate America, in which 90 percent of union organizing drives are greeted with high-pressure resistance from management, according to Christopher Martin's 2003 book on media coverage of labor, Framed!.
The crucial fact that 31,358 workers get fired in a typical year while trying to unionize their workplace, according to author Philip Dine, is almost uniformly omitted from liberal pundits' explanations of U.S. inequality. Only in their coverage of public-employee battles in Wisconsin did MSNBC hosts like Rachel Maddow and Ed Schultz discuss union-busting and its role in pushing down wages and eliminating workers’ voice on the job.
The other central weapon in the class war against workers—the threat or actual relocation of production to brutal low-wage conditions found in Mexico and China—has been almost entirely absent from the comments of MSNBC hosts and guests.
Read the full article at:
http://www.inthesetimes.com/working/entry/12626/liberals_inequality_narrative_leaves_big_holes/
Liberals’ Inequality Narrative Ignores Role of Free Trade Agreements, Unionbusting
Liberals’ Inequality Narrative Ignores Role of Free Trade, Unionbusting
by Roger Bybee
January 27, 2012
.... even many of America’s most liberal mainstream politicians and pundits have narrowed the debate over inequality, perhaps out of a desire to shield President Obama from any pressure coming from his left. The issue of tax inequities has soared in importance, exposing the privileged status enjoyed by CEOs and hedge fund and private equity executives like Mitt Romney. But other crucial dimensions of inequality painfully experienced by ordinary Americans have been crowded out.
Even the supposedly liberal pundits—E.J. Dionne, Howard Fineman, Jonathan Alter, Ezra Klein and Richard Wolffe, among others—are remarkably confined in their discussions of inequality. They almost never refer to the 35-year campaign of union-busting by Corporate America, in which 90 percent of union organizing drives are greeted with high-pressure resistance from management, according to Christopher Martin's 2003 book on media coverage of labor, Framed!.
The crucial fact that 31,358 workers get fired in a typical year while trying to unionize their workplace, according to author Philip Dine, is almost uniformly omitted from liberal pundits' explanations of U.S. inequality. Only in their coverage of public-employee battles in Wisconsin did MSNBC hosts like Rachel Maddow and Ed Schultz discuss union-busting and its role in pushing down wages and eliminating workers’ voice on the job.
The other central weapon in the class war against workers—the threat or actual relocation of production to brutal low-wage conditions found in Mexico and China—has been almost entirely absent from the comments of MSNBC hosts and guests.
Read the full article at:
http://www.inthesetimes.com/working/entry/12626/liberals_inequality_narrative_leaves_big_holes/
January 28, 2012
No Real Decrease in Pentagon Budget
By the Common Dreams staff
January 27, 2012
The Pentagon released its latest budget request outline on Thursday in what was proposed as a paring down of defense spending; however, as many are now examining, the proposal aims to make cuts in certain areas, but it would actually increase baseline spending over a 10-year period. The proposal would expand the budget for technology and major weapons systems as well as for an increase in presence in Asia.
http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2012/01/27-8
----------------------------------------------------------------------
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
January 27, 2012
Panetta’s Pentagon: “Austerity”?
By CARL CONETTA and CHARLES KNIGHT
Conetta and Knight are co-directors of the Project on Defense Alternatives, which just released a chart titled “Panetta Releases DoD ‘Austerity’ Budget; Pentagon Retains Most of post-1998 Increase” showing the Pentagon base budget, particularly highlighting that Panetta’s proposal would keep the budget almost level, while sequestration, under the Budget Control Act, would mean a cut in the real budget, but still keep it above Cold War levels.
The group states: “The future-years Pentagon base budget plan released by Secretary Panetta foresees rolling spending back to the level of 2008, corrected for inflation. Spending on the non-war part of the budget during the next five years (2013-2017) will be about 4 percent lower than during the past five (2008-2012) in real terms. The real (that is, ‘inflation corrected’) change from 2012 will be a reduction of 3.2 percent.
“The chart below corrects for inflation by rendering all sums in 2012 dollars. It shows that base-budget spending had jumped 55 percent after inflation between 1998 and 2010. The new budget plan sets 2013 spending at $525 billion, which is 46 percent above the 1998 level.
“The new budget plan — represented by the green trend line — stands in stark contrast to the reductions mandated by the Budget Control Act under the provisions for sequestration (represented by the red trend line). Sequestration would roll Pentagon base-budget spending back to the level of 2004, which would still be 31 percent above the 1998 level (corrected for inflation). The new budget plan and sequestration do have one thing in common: both would keep Pentagon spending above the inflation-adjusted average for the Cold War years (represented by the horizontal dash line).”
###
A nationwide consortium, the Institute for Public Accuracy (IPA) represents an unprecedented effort to bring other voices to the mass-media table often dominated by a few major think tanks. IPA works to broaden public discourse in mainstream media, while building communication with alternative media outlets and grassroots activists.
http://www.accuracy.org/release/panettas-pentagon-austerity/
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Panetta: Military Spending Is Going Up
By David Swanson
26 January 2012
On Thursday, Leon Panetta held a press conference announcing what he called "cuts" to military spending. The first question following his remarks pointed out that the "cuts" are to dream budgets, while the actual spending will be increased over Panetta's 10-year plan. Is there any year, the reporter asked, out of the 10 years in question, other than the first one, 2013, in which spending will actually decrease at all? Panetta replied that he was proposing really truly to cut the projected dream budgets that he had hoped for. In other words, he did not answer the question.
Now, there are additional minor cuts "on the table" as the saying goes, cuts that Panetta has described as disastrous, cuts that would take U.S. military spending back to about 2007 levels, cuts nowhere close to what a majority of the country favors. (How we survived 2007 and all the years preceding it has never been explained.) Earlier this week, Republican members of the House Armed Services Committee sent President Obama a video denouncing these cuts. They are, of course, the cuts mandated by the legislation that created the Super Committee, which failed, resulting in supposedly automatic cuts.
Read the full article at:
http://davidswanson.org/node/3552
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Defense budget plan doesn't cut as deeply as Pentagon says
By Nancy A. Youssef | McClatchy Newspapers
January 26, 2012
Pentagon officials unveiled the outlines Thursday of what they called a pared-down defense budget, but their request increases baseline spending beyond the projected end of the Afghan war, even as they plan to reduce ground forces.
At the same time, the department proposed increasing spending on technology and major weapons systems, after a strategic announcement earlier this month in which defense officials said they must be ready for all kinds of warfare and proposed greater use of unmanned aircraft and a more agile ground force.
Arguing that the United States needs to be prepared for myriad potential threats despite ending the war in Iraq — and with congressional opposition to military spending cuts likely to be as stiff as ever despite the uncertain federal fiscal picture — the Pentagon's request calls for an increase in its base budget by $36 billion over the next five years. And its planned reduction in ground forces by 2017 would still leave a larger military than before the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The Pentagon's proposal over five years is an 8 percent decrease in the spending levels the Obama administration proposed last year, a total cut of $259 billion over five years. But the figures also represent an average of 2 percent growth each year over five years, employing a definition of the term "reduction" that may be popular in Washington but is unconventional anywhere else.
Read the full article at:
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2012/01/26/137056/defense-budget-plan-doesnt-cut.html
What Military Austerity? No Real Decrease in Pentagon Budget
What Military Austerity? A Shift in Spending, Not ReductionNo Real Decrease in Pentagon Budget
By the Common Dreams staff
January 27, 2012
The Pentagon released its latest budget request outline on Thursday in what was proposed as a paring down of defense spending; however, as many are now examining, the proposal aims to make cuts in certain areas, but it would actually increase baseline spending over a 10-year period. The proposal would expand the budget for technology and major weapons systems as well as for an increase in presence in Asia.
http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2012/01/27-8
----------------------------------------------------------------------
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
January 27, 2012
Panetta’s Pentagon: “Austerity”?
By CARL CONETTA and CHARLES KNIGHT
Conetta and Knight are co-directors of the Project on Defense Alternatives, which just released a chart titled “Panetta Releases DoD ‘Austerity’ Budget; Pentagon Retains Most of post-1998 Increase” showing the Pentagon base budget, particularly highlighting that Panetta’s proposal would keep the budget almost level, while sequestration, under the Budget Control Act, would mean a cut in the real budget, but still keep it above Cold War levels.
The group states: “The future-years Pentagon base budget plan released by Secretary Panetta foresees rolling spending back to the level of 2008, corrected for inflation. Spending on the non-war part of the budget during the next five years (2013-2017) will be about 4 percent lower than during the past five (2008-2012) in real terms. The real (that is, ‘inflation corrected’) change from 2012 will be a reduction of 3.2 percent.
“The chart below corrects for inflation by rendering all sums in 2012 dollars. It shows that base-budget spending had jumped 55 percent after inflation between 1998 and 2010. The new budget plan sets 2013 spending at $525 billion, which is 46 percent above the 1998 level.
“The new budget plan — represented by the green trend line — stands in stark contrast to the reductions mandated by the Budget Control Act under the provisions for sequestration (represented by the red trend line). Sequestration would roll Pentagon base-budget spending back to the level of 2004, which would still be 31 percent above the 1998 level (corrected for inflation). The new budget plan and sequestration do have one thing in common: both would keep Pentagon spending above the inflation-adjusted average for the Cold War years (represented by the horizontal dash line).”
###
A nationwide consortium, the Institute for Public Accuracy (IPA) represents an unprecedented effort to bring other voices to the mass-media table often dominated by a few major think tanks. IPA works to broaden public discourse in mainstream media, while building communication with alternative media outlets and grassroots activists.
http://www.accuracy.org/release/panettas-pentagon-austerity/
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Panetta: Military Spending Is Going Up
By David Swanson
26 January 2012
On Thursday, Leon Panetta held a press conference announcing what he called "cuts" to military spending. The first question following his remarks pointed out that the "cuts" are to dream budgets, while the actual spending will be increased over Panetta's 10-year plan. Is there any year, the reporter asked, out of the 10 years in question, other than the first one, 2013, in which spending will actually decrease at all? Panetta replied that he was proposing really truly to cut the projected dream budgets that he had hoped for. In other words, he did not answer the question.
Now, there are additional minor cuts "on the table" as the saying goes, cuts that Panetta has described as disastrous, cuts that would take U.S. military spending back to about 2007 levels, cuts nowhere close to what a majority of the country favors. (How we survived 2007 and all the years preceding it has never been explained.) Earlier this week, Republican members of the House Armed Services Committee sent President Obama a video denouncing these cuts. They are, of course, the cuts mandated by the legislation that created the Super Committee, which failed, resulting in supposedly automatic cuts.
Read the full article at:
http://davidswanson.org/node/3552
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Defense budget plan doesn't cut as deeply as Pentagon says
By Nancy A. Youssef | McClatchy Newspapers
January 26, 2012
Pentagon officials unveiled the outlines Thursday of what they called a pared-down defense budget, but their request increases baseline spending beyond the projected end of the Afghan war, even as they plan to reduce ground forces.
At the same time, the department proposed increasing spending on technology and major weapons systems, after a strategic announcement earlier this month in which defense officials said they must be ready for all kinds of warfare and proposed greater use of unmanned aircraft and a more agile ground force.
Arguing that the United States needs to be prepared for myriad potential threats despite ending the war in Iraq — and with congressional opposition to military spending cuts likely to be as stiff as ever despite the uncertain federal fiscal picture — the Pentagon's request calls for an increase in its base budget by $36 billion over the next five years. And its planned reduction in ground forces by 2017 would still leave a larger military than before the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The Pentagon's proposal over five years is an 8 percent decrease in the spending levels the Obama administration proposed last year, a total cut of $259 billion over five years. But the figures also represent an average of 2 percent growth each year over five years, employing a definition of the term "reduction" that may be popular in Washington but is unconventional anywhere else.
Read the full article at:
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2012/01/26/137056/defense-budget-plan-doesnt-cut.html
January 27, 2012
Myths about marijuana convince people that alcohol is safer, but science shows pot is the healthier choice.
by Kristen Gwynne
January 27, 2012
Alcohol kills approximately 70,000 people per year. Prescription pills, which have helped overdose become the leading cause of accidental death in America, result in more than 20,000 deaths per year. Marijuana has never killed anybody.
Although scientific research is available to show that pot is relatively harmless, and in fact medically beneficial, myths and propaganda about the plant’s alleged harm lead to marijuana laws so severe they often have the unintended consequence of driving people to drink alcohol, a much more dangerous substance than pot.
Many people do not understand just how harsh some marijuana legislation is. In America, pot possession so minor it is not even a misdemeanor can cause caring parents to lose custody of their children, because welfare offices may charge them with neglect, regardless of how good a parent they are. The legal ramifications of pot use may make parents who want to smoke marijuana more likely to drink alcohol, which is much more likely to create abusive or otherwise harmful behavior.
What's more, pot convictions can take away scholarships, food stamps, welfare, and public housing. Depriving a pot smoker of access to public assistance and housing while undermining his or her educational opportunities, may seem shocking. But politicians are escalating the punitive effort, with many states eager to implement mandatory drug testing for public assistance. Laws like these may well make alcohol a better choice than marijuana, as it does not have the same legal repercussions. Still, its health consequences are much more harmful than pot. Alcoholism not only causes liver and other types of cancers, as well as brain damage, it also increases the risk of death from car crashes and other accidents. And alcohol use is linked to acts of violence like rape, homicide and suicide.
Read the full article at:
http://www.alternet.org/story/153870/do_harsh_pot_laws_create_a_dangerous_drinking_culture_5_reasons_to_get_stoned_instead_of_drunk/?page=entire
5 Reasons to Get Stoned Instead of Drunk: Do Harsh Pot Laws Create a Dangerous Drinking Culture?
Do Harsh Pot Laws Create a Dangerous Drinking Culture? 5 Reasons to Get Stoned Instead of DrunkMyths about marijuana convince people that alcohol is safer, but science shows pot is the healthier choice.
by Kristen Gwynne
January 27, 2012
Alcohol kills approximately 70,000 people per year. Prescription pills, which have helped overdose become the leading cause of accidental death in America, result in more than 20,000 deaths per year. Marijuana has never killed anybody.
Although scientific research is available to show that pot is relatively harmless, and in fact medically beneficial, myths and propaganda about the plant’s alleged harm lead to marijuana laws so severe they often have the unintended consequence of driving people to drink alcohol, a much more dangerous substance than pot.
Many people do not understand just how harsh some marijuana legislation is. In America, pot possession so minor it is not even a misdemeanor can cause caring parents to lose custody of their children, because welfare offices may charge them with neglect, regardless of how good a parent they are. The legal ramifications of pot use may make parents who want to smoke marijuana more likely to drink alcohol, which is much more likely to create abusive or otherwise harmful behavior.
What's more, pot convictions can take away scholarships, food stamps, welfare, and public housing. Depriving a pot smoker of access to public assistance and housing while undermining his or her educational opportunities, may seem shocking. But politicians are escalating the punitive effort, with many states eager to implement mandatory drug testing for public assistance. Laws like these may well make alcohol a better choice than marijuana, as it does not have the same legal repercussions. Still, its health consequences are much more harmful than pot. Alcoholism not only causes liver and other types of cancers, as well as brain damage, it also increases the risk of death from car crashes and other accidents. And alcohol use is linked to acts of violence like rape, homicide and suicide.
Read the full article at:
http://www.alternet.org/story/153870/do_harsh_pot_laws_create_a_dangerous_drinking_culture_5_reasons_to_get_stoned_instead_of_drunk/?page=entire
January 27, 2012
Reversing its position and heading down a slippery slope
By the Common Dreams staff
January 27, 2012
Social media website Twitter announced Thursday that it will begin blocking certain messages (tweets) on a country-to-country basis. Twitter has been known as a vehicle for free speech as well as a source for social and political organizing -- notably during the protests in 2011 from the Egyptian uprising to Occupy Wall Street. Governments will now request Twitter to take down certain 'illegal' tweets, which will be blocked from its citizens but may still be visible by users outside of the censored country. Many have now raised concerns that this will open the door for repressive governmental censorship, in some ways defeating the benefits of Twitter all together.
This is a sudden reverse in policy for Twitter who has previously boasted its capacity for free speech.
Users across the world are beginning the protest and a Twitter boycott has been planned for tomorrow.
Twitterers have a message: Tomorrow, turn off the tweets.
Read the full article for more information and links on the planned boycott at:
http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2012/01/27-4
Twitter announces it will begin blocking messages opposed by governments! Boycott of Twitter planned
Twitter Enables Censorship, Boycotts BeginReversing its position and heading down a slippery slope
By the Common Dreams staff
January 27, 2012
Social media website Twitter announced Thursday that it will begin blocking certain messages (tweets) on a country-to-country basis. Twitter has been known as a vehicle for free speech as well as a source for social and political organizing -- notably during the protests in 2011 from the Egyptian uprising to Occupy Wall Street. Governments will now request Twitter to take down certain 'illegal' tweets, which will be blocked from its citizens but may still be visible by users outside of the censored country. Many have now raised concerns that this will open the door for repressive governmental censorship, in some ways defeating the benefits of Twitter all together.
This is a sudden reverse in policy for Twitter who has previously boasted its capacity for free speech.
Users across the world are beginning the protest and a Twitter boycott has been planned for tomorrow.
Twitterers have a message: Tomorrow, turn off the tweets.
Read the full article for more information and links on the planned boycott at:
http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2012/01/27-4
January 27, 2012
By Joshua Holland
January 26, 2012
Mendacious talking point, the first: “double-taxation.” We don't tax “funds” in this country, we tax transactions. If a company turns a profit on its transactions, it pays taxes on that profit. When it pays money out to investors as dividends, or when investors sell stock at a profit, those transactions are also taxed. No transaction is taxed twice.
Mendacious talking point, the second: that 35 percent tax rate. As I've written before, that's the top corporate tax rate on the books, but because businesses take advantage of all manner of loopholes, the effective rate – what they actually pay -- is actually far lower. It's a classic conservative talking-point that we have the highest corporate tax rate in the world, but the reality is that we collect less in corporate taxes than most developed countries. Studies of some of the biggest companies have shown their effective tax rates to be, on average, less than half of what's on the books.
And the sleight-of-hand: Bain Capital is a Limited Liability Company. This is what's known as a “pass-through” structure, meaning that the company pays zero in corporate income taxes – the partners' shares are taxed as income or losses on their personal returns, and, in this case, most of the gains are investment income taxed at 15 percent.
http://www.alternet.org/newsandviews/article/767184/mitt_romney_offers_three_distortions_about_his_taxes_all_rolled_up_into_one_big_lie/#paragraph5
Mitt Romney Offers Three Distortions About His Taxes All Rolled Up Into One Big Lie
Mitt Romney Offers Three Distortions About His Taxes All Rolled Up Into One Big LieBy Joshua Holland
January 26, 2012
Romney: One of the reasons why we have a lower tax rate on capital gains is because capital gains are also being taxed at the corporate level. So as businesses earn profits, that’s taxed at 35 percent, then as they distribute those profits as dividends, that’s taxed at 15 percent more. So, all total, the tax rate is really closer to 45 or 50 percent.
Mendacious talking point, the first: “double-taxation.” We don't tax “funds” in this country, we tax transactions. If a company turns a profit on its transactions, it pays taxes on that profit. When it pays money out to investors as dividends, or when investors sell stock at a profit, those transactions are also taxed. No transaction is taxed twice.
Mendacious talking point, the second: that 35 percent tax rate. As I've written before, that's the top corporate tax rate on the books, but because businesses take advantage of all manner of loopholes, the effective rate – what they actually pay -- is actually far lower. It's a classic conservative talking-point that we have the highest corporate tax rate in the world, but the reality is that we collect less in corporate taxes than most developed countries. Studies of some of the biggest companies have shown their effective tax rates to be, on average, less than half of what's on the books.
And the sleight-of-hand: Bain Capital is a Limited Liability Company. This is what's known as a “pass-through” structure, meaning that the company pays zero in corporate income taxes – the partners' shares are taxed as income or losses on their personal returns, and, in this case, most of the gains are investment income taxed at 15 percent.
http://www.alternet.org/newsandviews/article/767184/mitt_romney_offers_three_distortions_about_his_taxes_all_rolled_up_into_one_big_lie/#paragraph5
January 27, 2012
By Sarah Seltzer
January 25, 2012
So this new series of videos, "Shit People Say" has totally taken over the internet.
Its manifold iterations range from ridiculously funny, deeply socially astute to plain stupid, but in the case of this new video (coming to us via Jezebel and Madeleine Davies) "Shit Republicans Say to Black People," it's 100% true and totally horrifying.
It reveals so much of the racist tenor that has taken over the prominent part of the party.
&feature=player_embedded
http://www.alternet.org/newsandviews/?id=766481&t=today%27s_police_state%3A_nypd_screened_racist_film%2C_mass_incarceration_on_the_rise%2C_press_freedom_down
Shit Republicans Say About Black People
Oh My Goodness: Video, "Sh*t Republicans Say to Black People," Uses Actual FootageBy Sarah Seltzer
January 25, 2012
So this new series of videos, "Shit People Say" has totally taken over the internet.
Its manifold iterations range from ridiculously funny, deeply socially astute to plain stupid, but in the case of this new video (coming to us via Jezebel and Madeleine Davies) "Shit Republicans Say to Black People," it's 100% true and totally horrifying.
It reveals so much of the racist tenor that has taken over the prominent part of the party.
&feature=player_embedded
http://www.alternet.org/newsandviews/?id=766481&t=today%27s_police_state%3A_nypd_screened_racist_film%2C_mass_incarceration_on_the_rise%2C_press_freedom_down
Profile Information
Member since: Sun Mar 16, 2008, 11:41 PMNumber of posts: 18,630
