salvorhardin
salvorhardin's JournalBloomberg says college costs aren't really increasing
From: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-11-27/misconceptions-101-why-college-costs-aren-t-soaring.html
If real inflation-adjusted net tuitions and fees aren't increasing, or increasing only modestly, and the same is true for room and board, then why is student debt load so high?
The Monster of Monticello
The battle of the Jeffersons -- no, not George and Weezie -- continues on the oped pages of the NY Times.
Neither Mr. Meacham, who mostly ignores Jeffersons slave ownership, nor Mr. Wiencek, who sees him as a sort of fallen angel who comes to slavery only after discovering how profitable it could be, seem willing to confront the ugly truth: the third president was a creepy, brutal hypocrite.
Contrary to Mr. Wienceks depiction, Jefferson was always deeply committed to slavery, and even more deeply hostile to the welfare of blacks, slave or free. His proslavery views were shaped not only by money and status but also by his deeply racist views, which he tried to justify through pseudoscience.
There is, it is true, a compelling paradox about Jefferson: when he wrote the Declaration of Independence, announcing the self-evident truth that all men are created equal, he owned some 175 slaves. Too often, scholars and readers use those facts as a crutch, to write off Jeffersons inconvenient views as products of the time and the complexities of the human condition.
Linkage: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/01/opinion/the-real-thomas-jefferson.html
Save Your Kisses For Me
Another fantastic mixed-media essay from Adam Curtis. It's really long (~7,500 words), and involved, so I'll just share a couple of excerpts, but the story Curtis is telling is essentially that of utopianism gone wrong all over. Full essay on Adam Curtis' blog at the BBC: http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/adamcurtis/2012/11/save_your_kisses_for_me.html
Last week there was yet another cycle of horrific violence in the Gaza strip. ... Liberals in the west look on baffled and horrified. What they thought was a glorious revolution in the Arab world is morphing into something they don't understand. ... All this is comprehensible though - but only if you look at it in a wider context. A context that western liberals really don't like to think about because it makes them very depressed.
The novel is a utopian vision of a future perfect society set up in Palestine with the city of Haifa at it's heart - Herzl calls it "The City of the Future." Herzl's Zionism was part of a socialist vision of utopia that went back to writers like Fourier and Saint Simon, and he described a society where the land was under common ownership and people lived in co-operatives and communes. There was also a model welfare system, no social classes and exploitation - yet individuals could pursue their own ends and profit by them.
It was a glorious vision, but it was also firmly rooted in the European tradition of empire. In the novel the characters listen to a phonograph roll that describes the achievements of The New Society for the Colonisation of Palestine. It describes how the benevolent technocracy that runs this new society has brought the benefits of European progress to a backward and sparsely populated land.
That's not quite how Sheikh Qassam and his Black Hand Gang saw the Jewish settlers.
And the Israeli authorities not only allowed them to do this - but encouraged it. They did this because they saw the conservative ideas of the Islamists as a potent force that could undermine and damage the secular Palestinian revolutionary movement.
There is a really good book about the rise of Hamas by Beverley Milton-Edwards and Stephen Farrell. In it they got a number of very senior Israelis to admit the tacit support they gave to Yassin and the Mujamma. One director military intelligence says:
"At the beginning some elements within the Israeli government - not the government, some elements within the government - were thinking that by strengthening Mujamma they could put some more pressure on Fatah in the Gaza Strip, back in the mid eighties.
I think it was a mistake, yes."
When Congress Busted Milton Friedman (and Libertarianism Was Created By Big Business Lobbyists)
The purpose of the FEE and libertarianism, as it was originally created was to supplement big business lobbying with a pseudo-intellectual, pseudo-economics rationale to back up its policy and legislative attacks on labor and government regulations.
This background is important in the Milton Friedman story because Friedman is a founder of libertarianism, and because the corrupt lobbying deal he was busted playing a part in was arranged through the Foundation for Economic Education.
False, whitewashed history is as much a part of the Milton Friedman mythology as it is the libertarian movements own airbrushed history about its origins; the 1950 Buchanan Committee hearings expose both as creations of big business lobby groups whose purpose is to deceive and defraud the public and legislators in order to advance the cause of corporate America.
Full essay: http://www.nsfwcorp.com/dispatch/milton-friedman
Thomas Frank: Why Occupy failed and how it's more like the Tea Party than anyone wants to admit
Excellent review from Thomas Frank, author of What's The Matter With Kansas and other books. It's a long one, and closely reasoned, so I'll just post a paragraph and let everyone read the rest.
http://www.thebaffler.com/past/to_the_precinct_station
This could have been subtitled "How narcissism has destroyed the American left."
Getting psephological
OK, I'm ready to make my prediction on the election for President, and mind you, I've been right every single election since 1976...
Come January, there will be a neoliberal sitting in the White House.
Revisionist memory: White evangelicals have always been at war with abortion
Ah, so it was Nixon (big surprise) who first attempted to use abortion as politics, except he was trying to woo Catholics away from Democrats. That didn't work, but Paul Weyrich and Richard Viguerie took note, and then used it on evangelicals in Iowa in 1978. Prior to then, evangelicals didn't care about abortion much either way and the biggest anti-abortion proponent was Edward Kennedy (Catholic). Falwell then ran with it when he founded the Moral Majority in 1979, and the rest is history. Now nobody remembers a time when evangelicals weren't anti-choice, or when prominent Republicans were pro-choice.
Excellent post from Fred Clark. Some of the comments there are good too.
The speed and totality of evangelicals sea-change on abortion is remarkable. But whats really astonishing is that such a huge theological, political and cultural change occurred within evangelical Protestantism and no one talks about it. No one acknowledges that this huge change was, in fact, a huge change.
...
And here is Randall Balmer with A Pastors Son Notes When Politics Came to the Pulpit:
Iowa, in fact, served as the proving ground for abortion as a political issue. Until 1978, evangelicals in Iowa were overwhelmingly indifferent about abortion as a political matter. Even after the Roe v. Wade decision of 1973, most evangelicals considered abortion a Catholic issue. The Iowa race for U.S. Senate in 1978 pitted Dick Clark, the incumbent Democrat, against a Republican challenger, Roger Jepsen. All of the polling and the pundits viewed the election an easy win for Clark, who had walked across the state six years earlier in his successful effort to unseat Republican Jack Miller. In the final weekend of the 1978 campaign, however, pro-lifers (predominantly Catholic) leafleted church parking lots all over the state. Two days later, in an election with a very low turnout, Jepsen narrowly defeated Clark, thereby persuading Paul Weyrich and other architects of the Religious Right that abortion would work for them as a political issue.
Full post: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/slacktivist/2012/10/29/revisionist-memory-white-evangelicals-have-always-been-at-war-with-abortion
What are you favorite political and economic myths?
I'm trying to collect a list of common myths that drive our political and economic discussions. A myth is a proposition that is commonly believed to be true, but either has no basis in fact, or is a gross oversimplification of a complex topic. If you have a myth you'd like to share, please use the form at the link, and feel free to share far and wide.
Examples: "Our schools are failing," or "Social security is going broke."
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/viewform?formkey=dC11RmthdGRLYTk0eXhYQlVpVDNaTnc6MQ
Bloomberg digs up more on Romney’s tax avoidance
Effectively, the Romneys put up a trust that pays them 8 percent of its assets a year until they die, at which point the Mormon church gets whats left in the account. Congress restricted this tactic, the so-called charitable remainder trust, a year later after being abused by rich tax avoiders, but Romneys was grandfathered in.
When Romneys lawyers and accountants created it, the church was supposed to end up with just 8 percent of its assets, while Romney got 92 percent. But the investments havent been doing well, so Romneys withdrawals, at 8 percent a year, have been steadily reducing the money in the trust, and Bloomberg quotes an expert saying the church will eventually get probably close to nothing.
Full post: http://www.cjr.org/the_audit/bloomberg_digs_up_more_on_romn.php?page=all
Paying Taxes to Your Boss: Another Step Toward 21st Century Feudalism
I had no idea this shit was going on. I suppose we can be thankful they haven't given companies the right to pay in company script redeemable only at the company store -- yet. Boliding mine.
The Pennsylvania bill is just the most recent example of state income taxes being turned into employer subsidies. Its already the law of the land in one form or another in 19 states, and according to Good Jobs First, its taking $684 million a year out of the public coffers. The theory is that this will boost job creation. But the authors of the Good Jobs First report note, payments often go to firms that simply move existing jobs from one state to another, or to ones that threaten to move unless they get paid to stay put. In other words, its more like extortion than stimulus. With state governments facing a projected $4 trillion budget shortfall and continuing to cut social services and public sector jobs, they can hardly afford to be wasting money on companies that already have plenty and have no intention of putting it to good use. And the more governments turn over their privileges to businesses, the more the distinction between the two becomes blurred.
But if corporations have state governments over a barrel, they have their employees stuffed inside the barrel and ready to plunge down the waterfall. As Ive noted before, some conservatives view all taxation as theft, but theres surely no better term for what happens when employers promise their workers a certain wage or salary and then pocket some of the money for themselves. When you pay taxes to the government, you get something in return, whether its a school for your kids or a road to drive on or a firefighter to rescue you from a burning building. When you pay taxes to your boss, you well, you give your boss your money. Your only reward is that you get to continue to work the land, so to speak. The lords didnt consult with the peasants on which tapestries they should buy with the money they collected from them.
Did I forget to mention that these employers arent even required to tell their workers that this is how their income taxes are being used? Journalist David Cay Johnston, who covers this issue in his new book, The Fine Print: How Big Companies Use Plain English to Rob You Blind, writes that this bait-and-switch is stealthy by design. Of course it is; if these workers were important enough to know where their money is going, it wouldnt be legal to steal it.
Full post: http://www.nextnewdeal.net/paying-taxes-your-boss-another-step-toward-21st-century-feudalism
Profile Information
Gender: Do not displayMember since: Mon Mar 22, 2004, 01:26 PM
Number of posts: 9,995