Liberal & Irreverent Opinion of LeMonton

Fareed Zakaria actually has no idea what is a Liberal

2011-08-13T13:37:00.000-07:00

Fareed Zakaria actually has no idea what is a Liberal. Obama wants to paint himself as the adult in the room, while the GOP are babies. However, responsible adults don't get the children get away with it. When children act spoiled, real adults take that as an opportunity to educate the children and putting them in their place. If the adult condones the childish attitude of the kids and let them get away with it, that is not being an adult. It is just another child playing adult. Obama cannot find it inside him because he is afraid of confrontation with the children. The result is the bunch of spoiled kids running the house instead if the adult running the house. Sounds familiar? That's leadership a la Barack Obama.

http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn.com/2011/08/11/defending-the-pragmatic-president/

Could Romney's Attack on Obama's Jobs Re

2011-06-16T14:46:00.001-07:00

http://m.motherjones.com/politics/2011/06/could-romneys-attack-obamas-jobs-record-backfire

Could Romney's Attack on Obama's Jobs Record Backfire?

Why the candidate's new ad criticizing the president on unemployment may end up highlighting his own corporate-raider past.

By David Corn on Tue. June 14, 2011 3:00 AM PDT

Mandi Wright/Zuma

Certain political ads are hard to fact-check—but that doesn't make them accurate.

Before the Republican presidential debate in New Hampshire on Monday night, Mitt Romney's campaign released a spiffy campaign video/ad that had all the politico wags going gaga. It was a slap at Obama—but it also provided Romney's fellow GOP presidential wannabes with ammo to use against him.

The less-than-two-minute-long spotnotes that "millions have lost their jobs under President Obama" and jabs at the president for recently stating, after the release of a lousy jobs report, that "there's always going to be bumps on the road to recovery." The video then shows about 15 people—of all shapes, sizes, and colors—lying, face-up, on a desert highway in what appears to be the middle of nowhere. One by one they rise, stare into the camera and hold up a Romney campaign placard with a shorthand description of their particular plight handwritten on it. "Mark" notes, "I want a job when I graduate." "Shirley" reports, "Over 50, starting over." "Kevin" proclaims, "The company I worked for just went bankrupt." And each of them solemnly intone, "I'm an American, not a bump in the road."

When the non-bumps finish, the music swells, the camera pans toward the heavens, and these words appear: "Believe in America. November 6, 2012."

The message: Obama doesn't care about you; Romney does. And at the debate on Monday night, Romney proclaimed that Obama has "failed the American people on jobs creation."

This is all in keeping with the general notion sweeping GOP circles that the best way to beat the president next year is to not be the president. That is, any GOP nominee who can pose credibly as the non-Obama—without having to defend a boatload of negatives about him- or herself—will have a decent shot. Which may well be true.

Yet there might be some restraints on how far any candidate can depart from his or her own background to assail the president. This Romney video implies that he gives a damn about the "bumps in the road"—meaning typical American workers. His record as a former head of Bain Capital, a private equity firm that bought and sold firms, though, is at odds with this characterization. Here's how the conservative New York Post recently characterized his tenure at Bain:

The former private equity firm chief's fortune—which has funded his political ambitions from the Massachusetts statehouse to his unsuccessful run for the White House in 2008—was made on the backs of companies that ultimately collapsed, putting thousands of ordinary Americans out on the street. That truth if it becomes widely known could become costly to Romney, who, while making the media rounds recently, told CNN's Piers Morgan that "People in America want to know who can get 15 million people back to work," implying he was that person.

Romney's private equity firm, Bain Capital, bought companies and often increased short-term earnings so those businesses could then borrow enormous amounts of money. That borrowed money was used to pay Bain dividends. Then those businesses needed to maintain that high level of earnings to pay their debts.

In 2007, the Los Angeles Timesreported:

From 1984 until 1999, Romney led Bain Capital, a Boston-based private equity group that earned jaw-dropping profits through leveraged buyouts, debt hedge funds, offshore tax havens and other financial strategies. In some cases, Romney's team closed U.S. factories, causing hundreds of layoffs, or pocketed huge fees shortly before companies collapsed.

During the 2008 campaign, CNNnoted,

Critics note that Romney's tenure as CEO of the leveraged buyout firm Bain Capital resulted in the loss of thousands of jobs through layoffs and bankruptcies. Romney, the wealthiest candidate in the 2008 presidential race, ran Bain Capital from 1984 to 1999, during which time he earned the bulk of his fortune.

Bain Capital specialized in buying companies in distress and revamping them, often by cutting jobs and closing plants. Some of Bain's purchases became more efficient and successful businesses, while others, loaded with debt from Bain's fees, were forced into bankruptcy, costing more jobs.

That same year, the Boston Globereported on a Bain deal involving a firm named Ampad, noting that Bain Capital

slashed jobs at the office supply manufacturer stands in marked contrast to his recent pledges to beleaguered auto workers in Michigan and textile workers in South Carolina to "fight to save every job."

Throughout his 15-year career at Bain Capital, which bought, sold, and merged dozens of companies, Romney had other chances to fight to save jobs, but didn't. His ultimate responsibility was to make money for Bain's investors, former partners said.

Much as he did when running for Massachusetts governor, Romney is now touting his business credentials as he campaigns for president, asserting that he helped create thousands of jobs as CEO of Bain. But a review of Bain's investments during Romney's tenure indicates that job growth was not a particular priority.

When Romney was in the public sector, as governor of Massachusetts, his record on jobs creation was not much better. After he claimed during a GOP primary debate in 2008 that while he was governor, "we kept adding jobs every single month," Factcheck.org noted "that's just not true." Moreover, the political fact-vetting site reported:

Romney's job record provides little to boast about. By the end of his four years in office, Massachusetts had squeezed out a net gain in payroll jobs of just 1 percent, compared with job growth of 5.3 percent for the nation as a whole.

Romney's latest ad, an impressionistic powerhouse, cannot be vetted in similar fashion, for it asserts no facts about Romney or his past actions while in the executive suite at Bain or in the state house in Boston. Team Romney is delighted with the spot, believing that this sort of attack will force the Obama crowd to respond by contending that the economy isn't that bad or that things could be worse—assertions that turn off already skeptical and anxious independent voters.

But the video does depict Romney as something that is out of sync with his history: a champion of jobs creation. And this is a claim that can be used by his GOP rivals (when they tire of bashing Romney for enacting a health care insurance mandate in the Bay State). Their oppo research folks can read the above-mentioned stories and formulate the easy criticism: when he had the chance, Romney did not evince concern for the "bumps." A prominent challenge for Romney, the supposed frontrunner, has been authenticity, as he has flip-flopped on critical issues (gay rights, gun rights, abortion) to better position himself to win a GOP contest. Yet as he tries to exploit the issue of jobs, he risks drawing attention to his own past as a corporate bulldozer who rode over bumps in the road on the way to profits. In fact, there's an ad just waiting to be made: real people who lost their jobs, on a desert highway, noting that Romney and Bain stranded them.

See this Amp at http://amplify.com/u/a15e5v

Muslims despised today by GOP; tomorrow,

2011-06-16T08:48:00.001-07:00

From Politico

Roger Simon: Muslims despised today; tomorrow, you

Simon says Republican candidates who despise Muslims today may despise you tomorrow.

read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0611/57075.html

See this Amp at http://amplify.com/u/a15d7o

FactCheck GOP NH Debate: Incorrect, Misl

2011-06-15T06:49:00.001-07:00

From FactCheck.org:

In the first New Hampshire debate among 2012 presidential hopefuls, we

found a number of incorrect, misleading or shaky factual claims:

Pawlenty was wrong when he boasted that he was "one of the few

governors" to respond to a Bush request to send guardsmen to the

southern border. In fact, all 50 states participated in that border

operation.

Romney claimed that "we didn't raise taxes in Massachusetts" to pay

for his health care law. In fact, his successor imposed a $1-a-pack

tax increase on cigarettes to pay for the new law.

Santorum claimed a Medicare advisory board created by the new federal

health care law will result in a rationing of care for seniors. The

law specifically says the board “shall not include any recommendation

to ration health care.”

Santorum was wrong when he said the Obama administration is "against

any kind of exploration offshore or in Alaska." The administration has

approved 296 new permits for new offshore oil wells since taking

office, and it is considering granting the first permits in Alaska

since 2004.

Bachmann claimed the Congressional Budget Office "has said that

Obamacare will kill 800,000 jobs." That's a distortion. CBO said some

Americans would work less or leave their jobs if they can get health

insurance outside the workplace.

Pawlenty said that "[if] Brazil can have 5 percent growth, then the

United States of America can have 5 percent growth," showing his

economic plan is not unreasonable. But the fact is, World Bank figures

show Brazil has failed to achieve 5 percent growth for 23 of the past

30 years.

Gingrich again tried to rewrite history by claiming that his words

"right-wing social engineering" were "totally taken out of context."

In fact, he called Paul Ryan's plan "too big a jump" and "radical"

change as well.

See this Amp at http://amplify.com/u/a157o7

FactCheck GOP NH Debate: Incorrect, Misl

2011-06-15T06:46:00.001-07:00

See this Amp at http://amplify.com/u/a157na

BOEHNER'S SPECIAL EXPENSE ACCOUNT

2011-06-13T10:45:00.001-07:00

From Politico

-- Roll Call investigative ace Paul Singer finds that John Boehner more than doubled his own monthly expense account when he moved from minority leader to House speaker this year. 'Boehner now receives a monthly $2,083.33 direct payment for expenses,' Paul writes. 'While Congress has set aside $235,000 a year to cover the expenses of House and Senate leaders, Boehner now appears to be the only Member of the House accepting this money in direct payments each month.' That's $25,000 per year in personal expenses -- or more than 24 percent of American households earn in a year, according to the Census Bureau.

See this Amp at http://amplify.com/u/a150po

HOW THE GOP LEARNED TO HATE TAXES

2011-06-10T14:40:00.001-07:00

From Politico

- WP's Lori Montgomery: "The Republican Party once had a home for the thinking of Tom Coburn, Mike Crapo and Saxby Chambliss. But that party is long gone. The three U.S. senators banded together a few months ago in support of higher tax revenue as a means of balancing the federal budget. ... Such reasoning was common in the GOP circa 1963, when Republicans denounced tax cuts proposed by President John F. Kennedy as a road to red ink and rampant inflation. But today's GOP adheres to a 'no new taxes' orthodoxy that has proved far more powerful than the desire to balance the budget. ...

As House Speaker John A. Boehner has said: Raising taxes is 'unacceptable and a non-starter.' This orthodoxy is now woven so deeply into the party's identity that all but 13 of 288 GOP lawmakers in Congress have signed a formal pledge not to raise taxes. The strategist who invented the pledge, Grover G. Norquist, compares it to a brand, like Coca-Cola"http://wapo.st/mvycjx

See this Amp at http://amplify.com/u/a14vke

Howard Dean: Republicans took a majority

2011-05-31T07:29:00.001-07:00

"Republicans took a majority last year saying they were going to create jobs, but instead they've launched the most radical right-wing assault on the middle class that I have ever seen. They're trying to kill Medicare, Social Security, workers' rights -- not to mention women's rights, the environment, student loans, and voters' rights."

See this Amp at http://amplify.com/u/a1453u

"Getting Wise to Breitbart's Lies"

2011-05-22T17:12:00.001-07:00

From Truthout

"Getting Wise to Breitbart's Lies": Missouri Professors Survive Right-Wing Smear Campaign by Andrew Breitbart (Video)
Amy Goodman, Democracy Now!: "Two Missouri labor professors have been vindicated after a right-wing smear campaign almost cost them their jobs. Last month, the website BigGovernment.com - run by right-wing blogger Andrew Breitbart - posted footage of a labor relations class taught by University of Missouri professors Judy Ancel and Don Giljum. In the video, the professors appeared to make a number of statements backing the use of violence in the struggle for labor rights. But it turned out the video was edited in a way to distort their words - similar to recent video campaigns against ACORN, Planned Parenthood, NPR and former FDA official, Shirley Sherrod."
Watch the Video

See this Amp at http://amplify.com/u/a13p22

Wolf Paul Ryan in a Sheep Suit

2011-05-18T10:04:00.001-07:00

Disgusting that Paul Ryan criticizes class warfare by adopting populist class welfare arguments himself (read some Ryan's remarks after my rant).

Rant:

You have to vomit at Paul Ryan's hypocrisy. Conservatives and their Republican puppets, their purpose is to redistribute wealth upwards. Take from the poor to give it the rich. Kill Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, take away workers rights, kill workers pensions, etc., with only one purpose: free taxpayers money to finance more tax cuts for the rich and corporations. As simple as that. Yes, there is class warfare brewing and with reason. Decades of Republican and corporate Democrat rule have resulted in greater and greater wealth disparity. People have the right to be angry. People have the right to show that anger. People have the right to fight against the forces that are redistributing wealth upwards and killing the middle class. Yes. People have the right to class warfare.

Some Paul Ryan's remarks at the Chicago Economic Club:

"Class warfare may be clever politics, but it is terrible economics. Redistributing wealth never creates more of it. Sowing social unrest and class envy makes America weaker, not stronger. Playing one group against another only distracts us from the true sources of inequity in this country - corporate welfare that enriches the powerful, and empty promises that betray the powerless."

BTW, Republicans voted to keep corporate welfare to big oil. The basis for Republican winning elections is precisely making empty promises to all those Americans that can't spend the time to separate and compare republican words from republican actions. Beware of Republican MO. Stick a knife in the people's belly and when the people cry in pain, their answer is don't worry, the knife is just there to make you better.

See this Amp at http://amplify.com/u/a13cdt

For-profit colleges business: education

2011-05-17T14:16:00.001-07:00

the title of this article below (after I finish my rant) should be "For profit colleges fight for their "right" to keep milking taxpayers and students". As someone ( I dont remember where I read it) wrote, education and privatization dont mix, as the purpose of a for profit business is to maximize profits by charging the highest price while keeping production cost as low as possible. In education this translates to charging the highest possible tuition while providing the least possible amount of education. And this is exactly what we see not only in for profit colleges but also in many for-profit K-12. Studies are showing that performance of for-profit schools is not better when compared to the performance of non-profit or public schools funded and staffed at comparable levels (apples to apples comparison). What Republicans and conservatives have been doing for decades is systematically defunding public schools, so performance drops and justify their scheme of privatization, shifting taxpayers dollars to the private companies that are also the funders of their political campaigns. Ok, the article below.

From AmeticaBlog News

For-profit colleges fight back against gov’t attempt to make them deliver education

Every now and then, I see an "issue ad" for an issue I've never heard of. Those "union boss card check" ads that turned up almost a year (it seems) before the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA) became news are a prime example. But there are others.

Lately I've noticed a two-pronged assault against "government" limiting "education choices" — in which the actor-advocate pretends to be a lower-middle class person (and is well cast to look it) who is working in the health care field and wouldn't have had a chance in the world to earn a living, she says sincerely, without the education she received. From some unspecified somewhere.

"Somewhere" in these ads is a for-profit college.

Turns out there's a brewing controversy in the for-profit college world. Surprise — many, perhaps most, for-profit colleges exist to vacuum as much money as they can, often from the government, and deliver the least education possible.

How do we know they don't deliver? Grad rates. From the HuffPost (my emphasis throughout):

For-profit colleges graduated an average of 22 percent of their students in 2008, according to a new report from Education Trust.

That average palls [sic] in comparison to bachelor's-seeking graduation rates at public and private non-profit colleges and universities for the same year, which averaged 55 percent and 65 percent, respectively.

The report, titled "Supbrime Opportunity" (PDF) [properly spelled, of course] also reveals that for-profit colleges increased their enrollment by 236 percent from 1998 to 2009.

The median debt of for-profit college graduates -- $31,190 -- far outpaces that of private non-profit college graduates, which stands at $17,040, and is more than triple the median debt for those from public colleges, which is $7,960.

So, low grad rates, high debt-to-student ratios, high debt-to-default ratios, andgovernment subsidies. Mission accomplished, as we business types like to say.

The graduation rate for the "University" of Phoenix is 5%, to give a well-advertised example. (But hey, they have this great pretend football stadium, thanks to corporate naming rights.)

To its credit, the Obama Dept. of Education is pushing back. Pat Garofalo, who knowsabout this stuff (h/t Dictynna):

Late last month, an organization called the Coalition for Educational Success (CES) announced its intention to formulate a new code of conduct to govern for-profit higher education institutions. CES said that, in conjunction with former Govs. Ed Rendell (D-Penn.) and Thomas Kean (R-N.J.), it plans to develop standards that “will improve and ensure transparency, disclosure, training, [and] provide strong new protections for students” attending “career colleges.”

Sounds great. But what is CES and why is it proposing a higher education code of conduct right now? To understand that, one has to dive into a hotly-contested federal policy battle: the attempt by the U.S. Department of Education to implement new rules governing the for-profit college industry, which the coalition represents.

Since late last year, for-profit colleges—schools like the University of Phoenix and Devry University—have been ferociously lobbying against a new Education Department regulation (known as “gainful employment”) that would cut higher education programs off from federal dollars if too many of their students can’t find good jobs and default on their students loans. ... “While a majority of career colleges play a vital role in training our workforce to be globally competitive, some bad actors are saddling students with debt they cannot afford in exchange for degrees and certificates they cannot use,” U.S. Education Secretary Arne Duncan said last September.

Note the multi-pronged attack — Dem. Rendell and Repub. Kean lending their sellable names to an industry "self-regulation" maneuver (you can see those ads too, from time to time). Plus a strong push-back against the Dept. of Education. Plus attack ads criticizing government intrusion into education "choice."

You can bet there will be action in Congress as well; after all, why have money if you can't buy stuff with it?

If you remember just one thing, remember this (Garofalo again):

Many for-profit colleges make up to 90 percent of their revenuefrom the government through various avenues of aid used by their students, including federal student loans, as I reported earlier this year. They have profit margins as high as 30 percent and their CEOs make millions annually—almost all of which comes courtesy of American taxpayers.

All you need to know? They're thieves.

For the latest, read the article; it's excellent and rich in detail. This isn't over, and while it's under the radar, it shouldn't be — there's billions at stake, and lives.

See this Amp at http://amplify.com/u/a138c8

1890′s America: A Peek at the Past You’r

2011-05-16T06:41:00.001-07:00

From News Junkie Post

1890′s America: A Peek at the Past You’re Repeating

Posted: 14 May 2011 11:33 AM PDT

It has been said that a definition of insanity is to do the same thing over and expect a different result. While in one sense this may be considered persistence – to try, and try again – to do so against all evidence to the contrary must certainly be considered some sort of madness. Yet, despite the egregious crimes committed against the American people by Big Banks, Big Finance, Big Oil, Big Pharma and the corporate and financial elite as a whole, the American people seem determined to place even more trust in them by allowing the dissolution of organized labor out of a misplaced faith that their best interests will be taken care of by those who have just finished raping their economy.

While deregulation, corporate welfare, and an abundance of corporate and financial friendly policies have allowed a drastic disparity in wealth over the past thirty years, the onslaught against the American working class has been going on for much, much longer.

The advancements and protections that were championed on behalf of the workers of America over the past century were necessary, life saving measures. Back when people still understood that the purpose of the economy was to serve society, and not the other way around, as it is today, and before they had been completely deceived into fighting on behalf of the corporations that would enslave them and turn them into expendable commodities, a real movement had developed across America.

That movement succeeded through sacrifice of life and limb, and despite government repression and the use of the military against them. They endured incarceration and the destruction of their homes. Yet, decade by decade, their sacrifice won the eight hour day, minimum wage, sick days, the end of child labor, the right to organize, and every other labor law and standard that is now being taken for granted.

Current proposals to end the minimum wage, kill organized labor, and institute ‘right to work’ legislation will effectively abolish all of those gains that the generations that preceded us worked so hard to achieve. Once again, corporations will be in the position to treat the entire country as a ‘company town’, a plantation, where the workforce is completely disenfranchised and the corporations and financial institutions own the workers, lock, stock, and barrel.

Corporation must increase profits. This is their responsibility. They have no other purpose. The well-being and prosperity of the workers is counter to their purpose. They need to drive the cost of production, and therefore wages, employee health care, sick leave, over-time pay, safety precautions, and on and on, down. As little resources as possible will be spent on workers who will be demanded to produce as much as possible. You, and your labor, must be devalued as much as possible in order for them to achieve their goal of increased profit.

To expect that giving tax breaks to corporations will result in an increase in gainful employment is either naive of purposefully disingenuous. To expect that the removal of workers protections will be replaced by the benevolent, responsible management that provides opportunity for worker prosperity, is not only delusional, or a misguided faith in the unknown, it is directly contradictory to the proof available over the past one hundred plus years as well as what the corporations and financial institutions are saying right to your face.

Before you say ‘uncle’, and before you switch sides to become a corporate toady, read the words of those that started the fight that won the protections about to be lost.

1890 – Mary Ellen Lease, at a convention in Topeka, Kansas:

Wall Street owns the country. It is no longer a government of the people, by the people, and for the people, but a government of Wall Street, by Wall Street, and for Wall Street… Our laws are the output of a system which clothes rascals in robes and honesty in rags…

There are thirty men [a few hundred now] in the United States whose aggregate wealth is one and one-half billion dollars [the top 1% now hoard more wealth than the bottom 95% combined]. There are a half million looking for work [many more now] … We want money, land and transportation. We want the abolition of the National Banks…. We want the accursed foreclosure system wiped out… We will stand by our homes and stay by our firesides by force if necessary, and we will not pay our debts to the loan-shark companies until the Government pays its debts to us.

The people are at bay, let the bloodhounds of money who have dogged us thus far beware.

1892 – From the preamble of a convention platform, as read by Ignatius Donnelly in St. Louis, Missouri:

We meet in the midst of a nation brought to the verge of moral, political, and material ruin. Corruption dominates the ballot box, the legislature, the Congress, and touches even the ermine of the bench. The people are demoralized… The newspapers [media] are subsidized or muzzled; public opinion silenced; business prostrate, our homes covered with mortgages, labor impoverished, and the land concentrating in the hands of the capitalists.

The urban workmen are denied the right of organization for self-protection; imported pauperized labor [now outsourcing] beats down their wages; a hireling army standing army… established to shoot them down… The fruits of the toil of millions are boldly stolen to build up colossal fortunes…. From the same prolific womb of government injustice we breed two classes — paupers and millionaires [billionaires]…

Pick up an history book or two about the labor movement in America. Reacquaint yourself with the battle that was waged on your behalf. Before you capitulate, and willingly give up all for which they sacrificed, remember who the economy is supposed to serve. It’s not Wall Street, the Federal Reserve, Bank of America, Wal-Mart, Monsanto, Koch Industries, or Exxon Mobil, et al. They are using your national resources, both natural and human, in order to produce the profits they hoard. You should have more to show for it than a life spent laboring for an ever-increasing debt to them.

Excerpts from ‘A People’s History of the United States’ – by Howard Zinn

See this Amp at http://amplify.com/u/a132ls

Some Final Thoughts on the Death of Osam

2011-05-13T19:56:00.001-07:00

"The Nazis killed tens of MILLIONS. They got a trial. Why? Because we're not like them. We're Americans. We roll different." – Michael Moore in an interview last week

Thursday, May 12th, 2011

Friends,

Last week, President Obama fulfilled a campaign promise and killed Osama bin Laden. Well hedidn't actually do the killing himself. It was carried out by a very brave and excellent team of Navy SEALs. Not only does Mr. Obama have the overwhelming support of the country, I think there are millions who gladly wish it could have been their finger on the gun that took out bin Laden.

When I heard the news a week ago Sunday, I immediately felt great. I felt relief. I thought of those who lost a loved one on 9/11. And I was glad we finally had a President who got something done. This is what I had to say on Twitter and elsewhere on the internet in that first hour or two:

I want to point out that Barack Obama took two years to do what Bush couldn't do in overseven. That's the difference between STUPID in charge and SMART in charge. STUPID pursues two reckless wars, lets OBL escape from Tora Bora, keeps looking for him in caves and invades the wrong country. He bankrupts us to the tune of $1.2 trillion for the Iraq War (it will eventually actually be over $3 trillion), and worse, he cost us the lives of almost 5,000 of our troops, not to mention hundreds of thousands of civilian deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan – and, after all that, he STILL couldn't bring the perp to justice. In fact, in 2005, Bush closed down the CIA station that was devoted to looking for bin Laden! What does SMART do? He sends in a small elite strike force, no troops are killed, and the perpetrator is stopped for good.

I was thrilled that the Osama bin Laden era was over. There was now an end to the madness.

Being near Ground Zero that night, I decided to head over there and join with others who saw this event as a chance to have some closure. On 9/11, Bill Weems, a good and decent man I knew and worked with (we had just recently completed a shoot together in Boston), was on the plane that was flown into the Twin Towers. I dedicated 'Fahrenheit 9/11,' in part, to him.

But before leaving to go to the former World Trade Center site, I turned on the TV, and what I saw down at Ground Zero was not quiet relief and gratification that the culprit had been caught. Rather, I witnessed a frat boy-style party going on, complete with the shaking and spraying of champagne bottles over the crowd. I can completely understand people wanting to celebrate – like I said, I, too, was happy – but something didn't feel right. It's one thing to be happy that a criminal has been captured and dealt with. It's another thing to throw a kegger celebrating his death at the site where the remains of his victims are still occasionally found. Is that who we are? Is that what Jesus would do? Is that what Jefferson would do? I was reminded of the tale told to me as a kid, of God's angels singing with glee as the Red Sea came crashing back down on the Egyptians chasing the Israelites, drowning all of them. God rebuked them, saying, "The work of My hands is drowning in that sea – and you want to friggin' sing?" (or something like that).

I remember my parents telling me how, on the day it was announced that Hitler was dead, there was no rejoicing in the streets, just private relief and satisfaction. The real celebration came six days later at the announcement that the war in Europe was over. THAT'S what the people wanted to hear – not just the demise of one evil madman, but the end to all the killing.

When the atom bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, people didn't pour into the streets to whoop it up. Yes, people were happy that it might help end the war, but there was not a public display of "Yippee! A hundred thousand Japs have been fried!" If they had done that, well, who could have blamed them after so many tens of thousands of their sons and fathers had been lost in the war (including my uncle, a paratrooper, killed by a sniper near Manila). But the sailor kissing the girl in Times Square was on August 14th, 1945, when the Japanese surrendered and the war was officially over. That's when America went crazy with joy – not over a killing, but over an announcement of peace.

We are a different people now, aren't we? Well, sorta. There was no bloodlust euphoria on the day Timothy McVeigh was executed. We were silent. The families of the Oklahoma City dead were silent, relieved. What is the difference between McVeigh and bin Laden, other than the number they slaughtered? I wonder. I think we know the answer.

Though bin Laden is dead, we are told that Orwell's Permanent War – the "War on Terror" – must continue! Not allowed to have our V-J day and run into Times Square with exhilaration! No, there could be terrorists there. So all we're left with is to cheer the death of one evil man, and that is supposed to make us feel powerful and good. There can be no celebration for the end of the Afghanistan War because the war isn't ending. The war must continue! Even though our own CIA tells us there are no more than a few dozen al Qaeda left in Afghanistan. We still have 100,000 troops there fighting a few dozen crazies? We say we're fighting the Taliban, too, but the Taliban are Afghan citizens, not an invading force, and, for better or worse, they seem to enjoy the support of many of the common people throughout Afghanistan. (If you don't believe that, ask any soldier who has served there and seen it. Every day is like 'Apocalypse Now.' Poppies, anyone?)

Meanwhile, we – me, included – get lost in the weeds of how this one madman was killed. The official story from the Pentagon changed four times in the first four days! It went from OBL firing on the troops with one hand and using his wife as a human shield with the other, to, by the fourth day, not single person in the main house, including bin Laden, being armed when killed. Instantly, this created a lot of suspicion about what really happened, which itself was a distraction.

Here's my take: I know a number of Navy SEALs. In fact (and this is something I don't like to talk about publicly, for all the obvious reasons), I hire only ex-SEALs and ex-Special Forces guys to handle my own security (I'll let you pause a moment to appreciate that irony). These SEALs are trained to follow orders. I don't know what their orders were that night in Abbottabad, but it certainly looks like a job (and this is backed up in a piece in the Atlantic) where they were told to not bring bin Laden back alive. The SEALs are pros at what they do and they instantly took out every adult male (every potential threat) within a few minutes – but they also took care to not harm a single one of the nine children who were present. Pretty amazing. This wasn't some Rambo-style operation where they just went in guns blazing, spraying bullets. They acted swiftly and with expert precision. I'm telling you, these guys are so smart and so lethal, they could take you out with a piece of dental floss. (And in fact, one of my ex-SEAL guys showed me how to do that one night. Whoa.)

In a perfect world (yes, I would like to reside there someday, or at least next door to it, in Slightly Imperfect World), I would like the evildoers to be forced to stand trial in front of that world. I know a lot of people see no need for a trial for these bad guys (just hang 'em from the nearest tree!), and think trials are for sissies. "They're guilty, off with their heads!" Well, you see, that is the exact description of the Taliban/al Qaeda/Nazi justice system. I don't like their system. I like ours. And I don't want to be like them. In fact, the reason I like a good trial is that I like to show these bastards this is how it's done in a free country that believes in civilized justice. It's good for the rest of the world to see that, too. Sets a good example.

The other thing a trial does is, it establishes a very public and permanent historic record of the crimes against humanity. This is why we put the Nazis on trial in Nuremberg. We didn't do it for them. We did it for ourselves and for our grandchildren so that they would never forget these horrors and how they were committed. And we did it for the German people so they could see the evidence of what their elected leaders had done. Very helpful. Very necessary. Very powerful.

And for those who wanted blood back then – well, the majority of the Nazis all hanged in the end. So, it doesn't mean the bad guys get away – they still swing from the highest tree.

My own spiritual beliefs do not allow for capital punishment, and I was raised in the state (Michigan) that in the 1840s was the first government in the English-speaking world to outlaw it. So, I'm just not inclined that way. I don't believe in "an eye for an eye." I know the old book said that, but I like its sequel better (a rare case in which the sequel – like Godfather II, Star Trek II, Terminator II – is better than the original). If you don't believe the way I believe (it's also the official position of the Catholic Church, for whatever that's worth these days), then that's your right, and I understand.

Perhaps there was no way to bring him back alive – I sure as hell wouldn't want to be in that dark house trying to make that snap decision. But if the execution was ordered in advance, then I say we should be told that now, and we can like it or not like it.

For nine years I wrote and I said that Osama bin Laden was not hiding in a cave. I'm not a cave expert, I was just using my common sense. He was a multimillionaire crime boss (using religion as his cover), and those guys just don't live in caves. He had people killed under the guise of religion, and not many in the media bothered to explain that every time Osama referenced Islam, he wasn't really quoting Islam. Just because Osama said he was a "Muslim" didn't make it so. Yet he was called a Muslim by everyone. If a crazy person started running around mass-killing people, and he did so while wearing a Wal-Mart blazer and praising Wal-Mart, we wouldn't automatically call him a Wal-Mart leader or say that Wal-Mart was the philosophy behind his killings, would we?

Yet, we began to fear Muslims and round them up. We profiled people from Muslim nations at airports. We didn't profile multi-millionaires (in fact, they now have their own fast-track line to easily get through security, an oddity considering every murderer on 9/11 flew in first class). We didn't run headlines that said "Multi-Millionaire Behind the Mass Murder of 3,000" (although every word in that headline is true). You can say his wealth had nothing to do with 9/11, but the truth is, there is no way he could have kept Al Qaeda in business without having the millions he had.

Some believe that this was a "war" we were in with al Qaeda – and you don't do trials during war. It's thinking like this that makes me fear that, while bin Laden may be dead, he may have "won" the bigger battle. Let's be clear: There is no "war with al Qaeda." Wars are between nations. Al Qaeda was an organization of fanatics who committed crimes. That we elevated them to nation status – they loved it! It was great for their recruiting drive.

We did exactly what bin Laden said he wanted us to do: Give up our freedoms (like the freedom to be assumed innocent until proven guilty), engage our military in Muslim countries so that we will be hated by Muslims, and wipe ourselves out financially in doing so. Done, done and done, Osama. You had our number. You somehow knew we would eagerly give up our constitutional rights and become more like the authoritarian state you dreamed of. You knew we would exhaust our military and willingly go into more debt in eight years than we had accumulated in the previous 200 years combined.

Maybe you knew us so well because you were once one of our mercenaries, funded and armed by us via our friends in Pakistan to fight the other Evil Empire in the last battle of the Cold War. Only, when the killing stopped, the trained killer, our "Frankenstein," couldn't. The monster, you, would soon turn on us.

If we really want to send bin Laden not just to his death, but also to his defeat, may I suggest that we reverse all of that right now. End the wars, bring the troops home, make the rich pay for this mess, and restore our privacy and due process rights that used to distinguish us from any other country. Right now, our democracy looks like Singapore and our economy has gone desperately Greek.

I know it will be hard to turn the clock back to before 9/11 when all we had to worry about were candidates stealing elections. A multi-billion dollar industry has grown up around "homeland security" and the terror wars. These war profiteers will not want to give up their booty so easily. They will want to keep us in fear so they can keep raking it in. We will have to stop them. But first we must stop believing them.

Hideki Tojo killed my uncle and millions of Chinese, Koreans, Filipinos and a hundred thousand other Americans. He was the head of Japan, the Emperor's henchman, the man who was the architect of Pearl Harbor. When the American soldiers went to arrest him, he tried to commit suicide by shooting himself in the chest. The soldiers immediately worked on stopping his bleeding and rushed him to an army hospital where he was saved by our army doctors. He then had his day in court. It was a powerful exercise for the world to see. And on December 23, 1948, after he was found guilty, we hanged him. A killer of millions was forced to stand trial. A killer of 4,000 (counting the African embassies and USS Cole bombings) got double-tapped in his pajamas. Assuming it was possible to take him alive, I think his victims, the future, and the restoration of the American Way deserved better. That's all I'm saying.

Good riddance Osama.

Come back to your ways, my good ol' USA.

Yours,
Michael Moore
MMFlint@aol.com
MichaelMoore.com

See this Amp at http://amplify.com/u/a12mz9

RedState: "Why I Will Not Support Jon Hu

2011-05-10T14:55:00.001-07:00

I always enjoy the conservative cannibalism. RedState doesn't like Jon Huntsman at all. Its conspiracy theories against Huntsman even sound convincing. It goes like this. If Huntsman accepted the important assignment from the president as ambassador to one of our greatest adversaries, China, while planning all the time to run against (aka betray) that president, can America really trust the loyalty of Jon Huntsman? For GOPers to decide. Below the link.

http://www.redstate.com/erick/2011/05/09/why-i-will-not-support-jon-huntsman/

“I cannot tolerate a man serving as our ambassador to our chief strategic adversary in the world plotting, while in that capacity, to run against the President of the United States.”

See this Amp at http://amplify.com/u/a12a0x

Republicans Got Nothing On Healthcare

2011-05-09T20:39:00.001-07:00

The New Republic

Report
05/09/11

Face It: Republicans Will Never Come Up With a Health Care Plan

Jonathan Chait

One of the things Republicans seem to have forgotten, in the wake of the introduction and swift passage of their Dickensian budget crafted by Paul Ryan, is their unshakeable commitment to health care reform. Remember that? Throughout the health care debate, they were determined to rally around their own reform plan. And now the House has passed a long-term budget that yanks health insurance away from more than 40 million Americans and neglects to put anything in its place. Maybe it’s just an oversight, like the time in freshman year when I turned in a history paper with no bibliography. But it’s kind of starting to look like the Republicans don’t actually plan to do anything for the uninsured.

The history of the elusive Republican quest for a health care plan dates back at least to 1993. President Clinton had proposed comprehensive reform; the public believed the system to be in crisis. Congressional Republicans came up with a combination of subsidies, market regulation, and an individual mandate that presaged the law eventually signed by President Obama last year.

See this Amp at http://amplify.com/u/a11zom

Bad intel from torture, Bush admin stop

2011-05-09T11:12:00.001-07:00

From Firedoglake

Posted: 08 May 2011 05:50 AM PDT

I noted this already, but it so exceeds even the abysmal standards of the Sunday show bookers, I’m going to repeat it.

To celebrate Mothers Day, the Sunday shows have brought you the Mushroom Cloud Brigade–Condi Rice, Rummy, and Dick Cheney–the three people who, on September 8, 2002 used the Sunday shows to trumpet the intelligence they had laundered through Judy Miller to lie us into war against Iraq.

RICE: You will get different estimates about precisely how close he is. We do know that he is actively pursuing a nuclear weapon. We do know that there have been shipments going into Iran, for instance — into Iraq, for instance, of aluminum tubes that really are only suited to — high-quality aluminum tools that are only really suited for nuclear weapons programs, centrifuge programs.

We know that he has the infrastructure, nuclear scientists to make a nuclear weapon. And we know that when the inspectors assessed this after the Gulf War, he was far, far closer to a crude nuclear device than anybody thought, maybe six months from a crude nuclear device.

The problem here is that there will always be some uncertainty about how quickly he can acquire nuclear weapons. But we don’t what the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud.

Of course, the Mushroom Cloud Brigade won’t be lying about Iraq today. They’ll be lying about torture. And they’ll be helped by a slew of other torture apologists: Michael Hayden, Michael Chertoff, Rudy “9/11″ Giuliani, and Liz “BabyDick” Cheney. Update: My apologies for forgetting Univision, which also hosted a torture apologist (Alberto Gonzales), today.

As they spew their torture apology, remember this. The guy who ran their torture program, Jose Rodriguez, has said the best piece of intelligence we got from torture with respect to Osama bin Laden led him to conclude that OBL was no longer the tactical leader of al Qaeda.

Al-Libbi told interrogators that the courier would carry messages from bin Laden to the outside world only every two months or so. “I realized that bin Laden was not really running his organization. You can’t run an organization and have a courier who makes the rounds every two months,” Rodriguez says. “So I became convinced then that this was a person who was just a figurehead and was not calling the shots, the tactical shots, of the organization. So that was significant.”

That led the CIA to shut downits search for OBL precisely because they believed OBL no longer headed a hierarchical organization.

Only, at least according to abackground briefing at the Pentagon yesterday (which could itself be more propaganda), that conclusion was wrong. The biggest lesson our intelligence agencies have gotten from analyzing the stash of materials at OBL’s compound is that OBL was not a figurehead, he remained not just the strategic, but also the tactical head of al Qaeda.

The following is a key point: the materials reviewed over the past several days clearly show that bin Laden remained an active leader in al Qaeda, providing strategic, operational and tactical instructions to the group. Though separated from many al Qaeda members who are located in more remote areas of the region, he was far from a figurehead. He was an active player making the recent operation even more essential for our nation’s security.

According to torture apologist Jose Rodriguez, the most important information we got on OBL using torture was that he was a figurehead. According to those analyzing the materials from OBL’s compound, OBL “was far from a figurehead.”

Rodriguez’ torture-induced conclusion was completely wrong.

That’s what the torture apologists have to show for themselves: they gave up the hunt for OBL because they got bad information from torture.

So whereas on September 8, 2002, the Mushroom Cloud Brigade used the Sunday shows to sell a war that would distract us from fighting al Qaeda and getting OBL, today they’ll use the Sunday shows to claim torture helped find OBL. Yet another lie from the Mushroom Cloud Brigade on the Sunday shows.

Happy Mothers Day, moms! May the breakfast in bed your kids made for you help you avoid seeing the Mushroom Cloud Brigade and torture apologists on TV.

See this Amp at http://amplify.com/u/a11y3q

For Anyone Blaming Obama for High Gas Pr

2011-05-09T09:58:00.001-07:00

From Firedoglake

Forward This Graph to Anyone You Know Blaming Obama for High Gas Prices

Posted: 08 May 2011 11:50 AM PDT

Republicans must think Americans are really stupid.

Sarah Palin blasted President Obama on Tuesday for what she called his “anti-drilling mentality” andsaid the president was waging a “war on domestic oil and gas exploration and production” that was resulting in high gas prices for Americans.

And:

Republican presidential hopeful Mitt Romney pumped his own tank of gas on Friday and blamed President Barack Obama for a surge in prices that are straining American pocketbooks.

And:

Rep. James Lankford, a Republican from Oklahoma who delivered the GOP’s weekly radio address, said “gasoline is at the top of the list” of concerns from people in his district. He said “prices at the pump have nearly doubled since President Obama took office, making everyday life like driving to work, buying groceries, picking up kids at school and visiting family more expensive.”

And as you can see, by “more expensive” Lankford means “still cheaper than it was under Bush/Cheney.”

Gas prices rose dramatically while George W. Bush was in the White House and the GOP controlled all three branches of government (after they complained that gas prices were too high under Clinton/Gore and promised to lower them), dropped significantly during the Bush/Cheney recession, and are now, because of the recovery, returning to the previous trend.

It would be helpful if some reporter would ask these Republicans spouting this nonsense what they were saying while gas prices went through the roof under President Arbusto and Vice President Halliburton. But there’s also something absurd about Republicans demanding that the government do something about gas prices.

Wouldn’t that be interfering with the free market?

(Graph courtesy of zfacts.com.)

See this Amp at http://amplify.com/u/a11xxq

FactCheck.org: Paul Ryan spreads false,

2011-05-07T13:30:00.001-07:00

Factcheck.org

Ryan's Budget Spin

The GOP budget chairman throws some curves while supposedly 'setting the record straight.'

May 6, 2011

Summary

Rep. Paul Ryan spreads some false and misleading information in a series of "Setting The Record Straight" web posts, in which he criticizes the president's proposed budget and promotes his own. Among the claims:

* Ryan says his plan would not increase the debt. In fact, under his plan the public debt would increase from $10 trillion in 2011 to $16 trillion in 2021, by his own figures. That's a slower increase than under President Barack Obama's budget, but the debt would still rise substantially.
* He says his plan would "bring deficits below $1 trillion immediately, ending the era of trillion-dollar deficits." True -- but just barely. The 2012 deficit in his plan would be $995 billion, just shy of $1 trillion. It would drop to about $700 billion by 2013 -- but that's what the president's budget projects, too.
* A GOP document defending Ryan's plan wrongly claims that the budget "does not cut Medicaid" and that it "spends more on Medicaid each year than it does the previous year." That's false. Ryan's own projections call for slashing Medicaid below this year's spending level for years to come.
* That GOP document says Democrats in Congress and Obama increased the deficit 259 percent since 2008, when it was $458 billion. That ignores the fact that President George Bush was in office in 2008. Obama inherited a $1.2 trillion deficit largely caused by declining revenues and Bush's response to the economic crisis.
* Ryan says Obama's proposed budget "commits seniors to bureaucratically rationed health care." In fact, the new health care law states that the advisory board to which Ryan refers "shall not include any recommendation to ration health care." Furthermore, the board members are to be primarily doctors, economists and other outside experts, not Washington bureaucrats.
* He says the "principles of tax reform" in his plan are "identical" to those in the bipartisan fiscal commission. That's misleading. Both would close loopholes and reduce tax rates, but the commission would raise $785 billion in new tax revenue from 2012 to 2020 for debt reduction. Ryan's plan is revenue neutral.
* He says Obama's budget "imposes $1.5 trillion in tax increases on job creators and American families." But, as we written before, about half of that total would come from increases scheduled under current law.
* He says that closing the Medicare prescription drug coverage gap would "increase prescription-drug prices for everyone." But the Congressional Budget Office says out-of-pocket costs would be unaffected or lower for many.
* He claims the health care law doesn't improve Medicare's finances. Not true. It does, but experts worry some cost controls won't be fully implemented. Furthermore, Ryan's budget keeps in place some of those same cost controls.

This is not to say that everything Ryan claims on his website is inaccurate. But it's our job to "set the record straight" when he doesn't. Read our Analysis section for more.

Note: This is a summary only. The full article with analysis, images and citations may be viewed on our Web site:

See this Amp at http://amplify.com/u/a11u26

Find True Centrism in the People's Budge

2011-05-06T18:06:00.001-07:00

From The Nation

Find True Centrism in the People's Budget
KATRINA VANDEN HEUVEL \| The Congressional Progressive Caucus has provided a viable, courageous alternative to the Ryan Budget, and it needs your support.

See this Amp at http://amplify.com/u/a11pd3

Does @Politico believe the killing of OB

2011-05-06T14:34:00.001-07:00

Politico using the word "assassination" to describe the killing of OBL could be a slip of the pen, or could be a subtle way to open a new front of controversy . We'll see.

RELATED? INTEL DEAL WOULD GIVE CIA MORE COUNTERTERRORISM AGENTS -- House Intelligence Committee Chairman Mike Rogers (R-Mich.) and the panel's top Democrat, Rep. Dutch Ruppersberger, announced late Thursday that they have struck a deal on reauthorizing the programs of the nation's intelligence agencies. Most of the bill is classified, but one detail was made public: The bill would increase the number of counterterrorism jobs at the CIA. There's probably no better timing for the CIA, which did the groundwork for the bin Laden assassination. House leaders plan to put the measure on the floor, which will give lawmakers the opportunity to talk about the bin Laden killing and celebrate the success of the American intelligence apparatus. The Senate adopted a resolution recognizing the mission but the House did not. The intelligence authorization bill can serve that purpose. http://politi.co/kOns1U

See this Amp at http://amplify.com/u/a11osf

Immigrant Mom, Shackled During Labor, Wi

2011-05-05T06:46:00.001-07:00

Immigrant Mom Juana Villegas, Shackled During Labor, Wins Lawsuit
Thoai Lu, ColorLines: "A federal judge in Tennessee has ruled in favor of immigrant mother Juana Villegas, who was shackled during labor and after giving birth while being held in the custody of the Davidson County Sheriff's Office, the Tennessean recently reported. U.S. District Court Judge William Haynes Jr. will set a hearing for damages against Metro government and the sheriff's office in Villegas' case."
Read the Article

See this Amp at http://amplify.com/u/a11kyb

GOP on the Brink of Weakening Flight Saf

2011-05-05T01:18:00.001-07:00

from The Nation

GOP on the Brink of Weakening Flight Safety Rules
GEORGE ZORNICK \| Backed by aviation industry money, the GOP is trying to weaken common-sense flight safety rules. The final showdown on their callous push to protect industry profits is coming soon.

See this Amp at http://amplify.com/u/a11k58

The GOP's Stealth Plan to Redefine Rape

2011-05-04T22:36:00.001-07:00

From Mother Jones

The GOP's Stealth Plan to Redefine Rape

They're doing it again: After jettisoning controversial legislative language narrowing the definition of rape for the purposes of abortion law, House Republicans are attempting a backdoor maneuver to ensure that solely victims of "forcible rape" are eligible for federal funding if they seek abortions: [READ MORE]

See this Amp at http://amplify.com/u/a11k3e

KOCH VS. TRUMP

2011-05-04T20:23:00.001-07:00

From Politico

CABLE BAIT - KOCH VS. TRUMP - Conservative billionaire David Koch is very publicly raining on Donald Trump's 2012 parade, telling the New York Post that Trump's "a wonderful guy, but I don't think he should run for office." The Post: "Noting Trump's love of press, Koch said the 'Celebrity Apprentice' host is 'getting more publicity than he ever dreamed about right now.' But, he added, 'at some point I think he's going to drop out of the race when he realizes that he's really not qualified to be President.' As for picking a candidate to back, Koch says: 'Only next year will I take a position.'" http://nydn.us/lNcHGr

See this Amp at http://amplify.com/u/a11iyr

You’re Invited to the R-Oil Wedding

2011-05-04T10:59:00.001-07:00

You’re Invited to the R-Oil Wedding

There was more than one union being recognized besides Prince William and Kate: The R-Oil wedding between House Republicans and Big Oil.

The relationship between the House Republican leadership and Big Oil has gone on for many years -- with the GOP protecting taxpayer giveaways, speculation and price gouging -- so this wedding seems like the next step. In their relationship for rich or richer, we wish the happy couple all the best.

View the invitation and sign the guestbook on their nuptials here >>

See this Amp at http://amplify.com/u/a11dqk

Al Gore: Climate Skeptics Argue Birther-

2011-05-02T22:50:00.001-07:00

From RSN

Al Gore: Climate Skeptics Argue Birther-Style
Alex Guillen, Politico
Alex Guillen writes: "Former Vice President Al Gore on Sunday night compared climate skeptics with birthers, saying money has allowed the line between fact and fiction to blur. 'There is now a tendency in our country to struggle over what is a fact and what is not,' Gore said at the opening of a conference on Jewish social justice in Washington."
READ MORE

See this Amp at http://amplify.com/u/a113nz

Supporters of George W. Bush are irked t

2011-05-02T22:40:00.001-07:00

WHICH GLORY? GWB let OBL escape to Pakistan

Kasie Hunt has published a new story:

The next front: Claiming credit

Supporters of George W. Bush are irked that the White House isn’t doing more to share the glory.

See this Amp at http://amplify.com/u/a113nf

With Osama Now Gone, Spend on Building R

2011-05-02T22:38:00.001-07:00

Cliff Schecter

With Osama Now Gone, Spend on Building Roads in America Instead of Afghanistan

Posted: 02 May 2011 11:33 AM PDT

Now that Osama bin Laden is dead and we find out that he has been living comfortably in Pakistan for a very long time, I really wish this tax payer money we are wasting building almost useless highways in Afghanistan would instead get spent building things in America, ans so create American jobs. From the New York Times:

The money paid to Mr. Arafat bought neither security nor the highway that American officials have long envisioned as a vital route to tie remote border areas to the Afghan government. Instead, it added to the staggering cost of the road, known as the Gardez-Khost Highway, one of the most expensive and troubled transportation projects in Afghanistan. The 64-mile highway, which has yet to be completed, has cost about $121 million so far, with the final price tag expected to reach $176 million — or about $2.8 million a mile — according to American officials. Security alone has cost $43.5 million so far, U.S.A.I.D. officials said.

The vast expenses and unsavory alliances surrounding the highway have become a parable of the corruption and mismanagement that turns so many well-intended development efforts in Afghanistan into sinkholes for the money of American taxpayers, even nine years into the war.

The fact that bin Laden found safe haven for years in a nice compound in a major city in Pakistan has proven how stupid the “we must prevent Afghanistan from again becoming a safe haven” argument is for continuing the war.

Along with bin Laden, one of the last pathetic excuses for why we are continuing to spend billions fighting to prop up the extremely corrupt Hamid Karzi administration, died with him.

Ideally, now will be the time Americans start honestly asking if they want billions of their tax dollars spent creating jobs in Afghanistan or creating Americas jobs and infrastructure.

See this Amp at http://amplify.com/u/a113lp

Joe Scarborough Makes Shit Up About Obam

2011-05-02T22:35:00.001-07:00

The Progressive Electorate - Front Page

Joe Scarborough Makes Shit Up About Obama and the Democratic Base

Posted: 02 May 2011 09:49 AM PDT

I can't tell if this is malicious or just pure ignorance. Morning Joe Scarborough tries to claim that President Obama went against his base and did something he never thought he'd have to as...

See this Amp at http://amplify.com/u/a113m8

The Ultimate List Of What The GOP Fights

2011-05-02T22:29:00.001-07:00

from News Junkie Post

The Ultimate List Of What The GOP Fights For

Posted: 01 May 2011 07:43 PM PDT

By Wayne Bomgaars

The Republican Party has been working overtime since their midterm electoral takeover of the US House and many state legislatures, and governorships. What they’ve been fighting for however is pretty shocking to most Americans, resulting in recall elections in key districts around the country. Below is a mega list of what the GOP has been up to along with multiple citations.

Fighting their #1 goal to make sure President Obama does not get a second term

Citation 1 – Citation 2 – Citation 3 – Citation 4 – Citation 5

Fighting non-existent death panels

Citation 1 – Citation 2 – Citation 3 – Citation 4

Fighting non-existent threat of Sharia law in the US

Citation 1 – Citation 2 – Citation 3 – Citation 4 – Citation 5

Fighting to let woman die if an abortion would save her life

Citation 1 – Citation 2 – Citation 3 – Citation 4

Fighting in SD & NE to make murder of abortion doctor be justifiable homicide

Citation 1 – Citation 2 – Citation 3 – Citation 4

Fighting to reduce and/or get rid of Social Security

Citation 1 – Citation 2 – Citation 3 – Citation 4

Fighting to destroy Medicare

Citation 1 Citation 2 – Citation 3 – Citation 4 – Citation 5

Fighting to get rid of NPR

Citation 1 – Citation 2 – Citation 3 – Citation 4

Fighting to destroy the non-existent Acorn

Citation 1 – Citation 2 – Citation 3 – Citation 4

Fighting to prove our president is a non-citizen

Citation 1 – Citation 2 – Citation 3 – Many, many more

Fighting to prove our president is a Muslim

Citation 1 – Citation 2 – Citation 3 – Citation 4

Fighting to repeal the healthcare bill

Citation 1 – Citation 2 – Citation 3 – Citation 4

Fighting to redefine rape

Citation 1 – Citation 2 – Citation 3 – Citation 4

Fighting to support Mubarak

Citation 1 – Citation 2 – Citation 3 – Citation 4

Fighting to give tax breaks to the rich

Citation 1 – Citation 2 – Citation 3 – Citation 4 – Citation 5

Fighting in South Dakota to require people to have guns

Citation 1 – Citation 2 – Citation 3 – Citation 4

Fighting to discredit the first lady

Citation 1 – Citation 2 – Citation 3 – Citation 4

Fighting against improving infrastructure

Citation 1 – Citation 2 – Citation 3 – Citation 4

Fighting against programs for the poor

Citation 1 – Citation 2 – Citation 3 – Citation 4 – Citation 5

Fighting against saving the auto industry

Citation 1 – Citation 2 – Citation 3 – Citation 4

Fighting to allow pollution

Citation 1 – Citation 2 – Citation 3 – Citation 4

Fighting for Big Oil & Big Oil fights for them

Citation 1 – Citation 2 – Citation 3 – Citation 4

Fighting against funding science

Citation 1 – Citation 2 – Citation 3 – Citation 4

Fighting to ignore global warming

Citation 1 – Citation 2 – Citation 3 – Citation 4 – Citation 5

Fighting against gay marriage

Citation 1 – Citation 2 – Citation 3 – Citation 4

Fighting against gays in the military

Citation 1 – Citation 2 – Citation 3 – Citation 4

Fighting against allowing gays to adopt

Citation 1 – Citation 2 – Citation 3 – Citation 4

Fighting against gay hate crime legislation

Citation 1 – Citation 2 – Citation 3 – Citation 4

Fighting to block any legislation proposed by democrats, regardless of content

Citation 1 – Citation 2 – Citation 3 – Citation 4

Fighting to stop extended benefits for the unemployed

Citation 1 – Citation 2 – Citation 3 – Citation 4 – Citation 5 – Citation 6

Fighting Net Neutrality

Citation 1 – Citation 2 – Citation 3 – Citation 4

Fighting to kill Big Bird

Citation 1 – Citation 2 – Citation 3 – Citation 4

Fighting to allow racial profiling

Citation 1 – Citation 2 – Citation 3 – Citation 4

Fighting to keep $40 billion in oil company subsidies

Citation 1 – Citation 2 – Citation 3 – Citation 4

Fighting to prevent judges and cabinet members being confirmed for no other reason than because President Obama nominated them

Citation 1 – Citation 2 – Citation 3 – Citation 4

Fighting to allow guns in church in Arkansas and Louisiana

Citation 1 – Citation 2 – Citation 3 – Citation 4

Fighting against women’s right to choose

Citation 1 – Citation 2 – Citation 3 – Citation 4

Fighting to reduce funding for education

Citation 1 – Citation 2 – Citation 3 – Citation 4

Fighting to get rid of the Department of Education

Citation 1 – Citation 2 – Citation 3 – Citation 4

Fighting to make the Patriot Act permanent

Citation 1 – Citation 2 – Citation 3 – Citation 4

Fighting against high speed rail

Citation 1 – Citation 2 – Citation 3 – Citation 4 – Citation 5

Fighting against Veteran’s benefits

Citation 1 – Citation 2 – Citation 3 – Citation 4 – Citation 5

Fighting against healthcare for 9/11 responders

Citation 1 – Citation 2 – Citation 3 – Citation 4

Fighting to deny life-saving transplants resulting in deaths(Arizona)

Citation 1 – Citation 2 – Citation 3 – Citation 4

If jobs are lost, “…so be it”

Citation 1 – Citation 2 – Citation 3 – Citation 4

Fighting to kill Head Start

Citation 1 – Citation 2 – Citation 3 – Citation 4

Fighting in Wisconsin to use National Guard against protesters

Citation 1 – Citation 2 – Citation 3 – Citation 4

Fighting to defund healthcare reform

Citation 1 – Citation 2 – Citation 3 – Citation 4

Fighting to break unions

Citation 1 – Citation 2 – Citation 3 – Citation 4

Fighting in Texas to pass a bill to allow students to have concealed weapons on campus

Citation 1 – Citation 2 – Citation 3 – Citation 4

Fighting in Iowa to refuse services to people in a marriage that violates their religious beliefs (On the other hand, gays)

Citation 1 – Citation 2 – Citation 3 – Citation 4

Fighting in Georgia to require gold or silver to pay state debts

Citation 1 – Citation 2 – Citation 3 – Citation 4

Fighting in Montana to declare global warming a natural occurrence which is beneficial to welfare and business climate

Citation 1 – Citation 2 – Citation 3 – Citation 4

Fought to allow torture

Citation 1 – Citation 2 – Citation 3 – Citation 4

Fighting to end foreclosure aid programs

Citation 1 – Citation 2 – Citation 3 – Citation 4

Fighting to repeal laws giving equal pay for women

Citation 1 – Citation 2 – Citation 3 – Citation 4

Fighting to eliminate or limit the Securities Exchange Commission

Citation 1 – Citation 2 – Citation 3 – Citation 4

Fighting to kill last year’s Wall Street reform law by cutting off funds to agencies in charge of enforcing it

Citation 1 – Citation 2 – Citation 3 – Citation 4

Fighting to save incandescent light bulbs

Citation 1 – Citation 2 – Citation 3 – Citation 4

Fighting to save styrofoam

Citation 1 – Citation 2 – Citation 3 – Citation 4 – Citation 5

Fighting to cut $600 million from IRS tax enforcement (Mike Huckabee wants to abolish the IRS entirely)

Citation 1 – Citation 2 – Citation 3 – Citation 4 – Citation 5

Fighting in Wisconsin to ban crank calls

Citation 1 – Citation 2 – Citation 3 – Citation 4

Fighting to restrict certain people from voting

Citation 1 – Citation 2 – Citation 3 – Citation 4

Fighting in Michigan to be able to impose Financial Marshal Law

Citation 1 – Citation 2 – Citation 3 – Citation 4

Fighting to defund poison control centers

Citation 1 – Citation 2 – Citation 3 – Citation 4

Fighting to take voting away from college students

Citation 1 – Citation 2 – Citation 3 – Citation 4

Fighting to Weaken Financial Reform

Citation 1 – Citation 2 – Citation 3 – Citation 4

Fighting in Maine to undo child labor laws

Citation 1 – Citation 2 – Citation 3 – Citation 4

Fighting for huge tax cuts for corporations

Citation 1 – Citation 2 – Citation 3 – Citation 4

Fighting to reduce funding to life saving tsunami warning systems

Citation 1 – Citation 2 – Citation 3 – Citation 4

Fighting to repeal the 14th Amendment

Citation 1 – Citation 2 – Citation 3 – Citation 4

Fighting to repeal the 17th Amendment

Citation 1 – Citation 2 – Citation 3 – Citation 4

Fighting (GOP rep. Paul Broun) to repeal both the 16th & 17th amendment

Citation 1 – Citation 2 – Citation 3 – Citation 4

Fighting to create and pass a bill that says the House doesn’t need the senate or the president to pass a budget. Basically about as unconstitutional as you can get.

Citation 1 – Citation 2 – Citation 3 – Citation 4

Editor’s note – this is the second contribution to News Junkie Post by Wayne Bomgaars. The first was a collaborative projectwith others documenting the thousands of accomplishments of President Barack Obama and the Democrats from January 2009-November 2010. Wayne is a power house on Reddit under the code name backpackwayne, where he originally compiled this compendium.

See this Amp at http://amplify.com/u/a113j3

RightWing campaign to minimize importanc

2011-05-02T11:45:00.001-07:00

from Firedoglake

…And So It Begins

Posted: 01 May 2011 10:13 PM PDT

Suspicion, fear, and douchebaggery. It’s their default setting…

See this Amp at http://amplify.com/u/a10zw2

Birtherism is Racism. Period.

2011-04-28T05:57:00.001-07:00

from Firedoglake

Early Morning Swim: Say It With Me Now, Everyone — Birtherism is Racism. Period. (VID)

Posted: 28 Apr 2011 05:00 AM PDT

After you watch this moving video by Baratunde Thurston, read this by former Bushie David Frum.

How did this poisonous and not very subtly racist allegation get such a grip on our conservative movement and our Republican party?

I know there will be Republican writers and conservative publicists who will now deny that birtherism ever did get a grip. Sorry, that’s just wrong. Not only did Trump surge ahead in Republican polls by flaming racial fires – not only did conservative media outlets from Fox to Drudge to the Breitbart sites indulge the birthers – but so also did every Republican candidate who said, “I take the president at his word.” Birthers did not doubt thepresident’s “word.” They were doubting the official records of the state of Hawaii. It’s like answering a 9/11 conspiracist by saying, “I take the 9/11 families at their word that they lost their loved ones.”

Yet even now, the racialist aspect of the anti-Obama movement has not subsided.

Frum’s a little late to the party. Has he heard of the Southern Strategy or Lee Atwater?

But anyway, I blame Obama for not releasing the long-form first, thereby intentionally confusing these well-meaning folks.

See this Amp at http://amplify.com/u/b10pyd

Main Street Rage

2011-04-27T20:57:00.001-07:00

The Progress Report from www.thinkprogress.org

At town hall events across the country, Americans are confronting members of Congress who voted for the House Republicans' radical budget, which effectively ends Medicare, slashes Medicaid, hacks away at domestic spending, and extends tax breaks for the wealthy. The entire House GOP caucus except for four lawmakers voted for Rep. Paul Ryan's (R-WI) budget earlier this month, claiming a mandate from the November elections to drastically reduce domestic s pending. But Republicans went beyond any semblance of responsible budget tightening to a radical deconstruction of core pillars of the health, safety, and security of the country. Recent polls show Americans are firmly opposed to Ryan's budget proposal, with over 70 percent of Republicans opposing cuts to Medicare, while over 80 percent of Americans overall disapprove of cuts to the social safety net program. And Americans are clearly demonstrating their displeasure with their GOP lawmakers, who are in their home districts for this month on recess from Congress. Last week, as lawmakers began holding town hall sessions in their districts, a number of Washington commentators wondered, "If the Ryan budget is so unpopular, where are the town-hall meltdowns?" This week,&nb sp;in the Washington commentariat got their answer as town hall anger went from a few isolated incidents to a daily deluge of passion and temper from Americans frustrated with their out-of-touch representatives. The town halls, like the opposition to the GOP budget more generally, were slow to begin in part because Ryan was so quick to act. While President Obama and congressional Democrats allowed for over a year of debate, study, and discussion on their health care reform law, House Republicans unveiled and voted on their plan to radically transform Medicare in a matter of weeks, giving opponents almost no time to mobilize against it or educate Americans about its effects. Moreover, those opposed to Ryan's plan don't have the constant cheerleading of right-wing talk radio and Fox News, which directly helped organize and promote the 2009 town halls. Nonetheless, as part of what the Progress Report has dubbed a Main Street Movement of average Americans upset that conservatives want to cut social services and public investment for everyday people while lavishing tax breaks on the wealthy and corporations, Americans are standing up to their lawmakers on their own.

MEDICARE: Many of the town hall protests this month have targeted freshmen Republicans from swing districts who were voted into office in last November's GOP wave. While voters may have wanted to send a message to Washington by electing a Republican, they have been dismayed by how radically right-wing their new congressmen have turned out to be. One of the first documented town hall protests last week was at a stop of freshman Rep. Patrick Meehan (R-PA). During the campaign, Meehan assured his future constituents that he wouldn't vote for Ryan's "agenda," but once in office, he did just that. "Meehan was asked about entitlement reform and Medicare at nearly every town hall he went to" last week, with constituents' anger visible. By the weekend, freshmen Reps. Robert Dold (R-IL), Charlie Bass&nb sp;(R-NH),  Sean Duffy (R-WI), and Lou Barletta (R-PA) had all faced constituent anger of their own over the GOP's Medicare privatization plan. At a town hall in Hillsborough, NH, the first six questions  Bass faced from constituents were about his vote to privatize Medicare. One attendee pointed out that what the Republicans are doing is pursuing a "divide and conquer"strategy by eliminating Medicare for future generations while keeping it for current seniors. At a town hall in Shell Late, WI, Duffy got into a heated exchange with constituents when he insisted that Ryan's plan does not effectively replace Medicare with a voucher system, but attendees repeatedly corrected him. Later, Duffy got huffy; frustrated by his constituents' questions about his presentation, he told attendees, "When you have your town hall you can stand up and give your presentation." Yesterday, cons tituent anger reached a boiling point at a town hall in Orlando for freshman Rep. Daniel Webster (R-FL) when   "bedlam" erupted as constituents angrily peppered him with questions about his vote for privatizing Medicare. Webster tried to avoid answering many of the questions, and eventually, conservative hecklers fired back at those trying to hold Webster accountable. Police officers flanked Webster and had to tell the crowd to quite down.

TAXES: The other main theme constituents have been pressing their lawmakers on this month is tax fairness. Ryan's budget would   preserve the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest two percent of Americans while cutting corporate tax rates -- a proposal even Ryan's own constituents are not happy about. During a town hall meeting in Milton, WI, last week, a constituent who described himself as a "lifelong conservative" asked Ryan about the effects of growing income inequality in our nation. The constituent noted that huge income disparities contributed to the Great Depression and the Great Recession, and thus wanted to know why the congressman was "fighting to not let the tax breaks for the wealthy expire." Ryan responded by saying, "we do tax the top,"  eliciting a a chorus of boos and grumbling from attendees. Yesterday, Ryan faced chants of "Ryan stop lying!" at a town hall in Kenosha, WI, which drew a capacity crowd inside and over a 100 protesters outside. "Do not renew the Bush tax credit for the wealthy," one man demanded. Meanwhile, at a town hall in Salem, NY, Rep. Chris Gibson (R-NY) faced similar outbursts. In answering a question, Gibson said that Americans pay higher taxes because "here are people in the country that are not paying taxes because they're illegal [immigrants]." At this point, a town hall attendee cried out, " You mean like GE?! " forcing the congressman to say that he agreed that the company needs to pay its fair share. Audience members at Dold's town hall said they "don’t believe chopping 10 percentage points off the highest corporate tax rate will create jobs." At Duffy's town hall, one attendee said she agrees with Ryan's concerns about the deficit and "that’s why we have to raise taxes on the rich, and raise taxes on the corporations who have never been richer than they have now. And you guys just cut their taxes again." "Oh yeah!" another constituent responded.

'EVERY RIGHT TO SPEAK': During the 2009 town halls, which mostly targeted Democrats, Republican lawmakers repeatedly  praised tea party activists for their disruptions at town halls, saying it was important to let them have their voices heard. But now that they're on the receiving end of constituents' anger, it's unclear how much Republicans will embrace this democratic process. Ryan abruptly left a town hall yesterday ahead of schedule, citing "security concerns" from hecklers. But Ryan went through with a tow n hall  in 2009 despite credible threats against union members at the event. At a town hall in 2009, when a heckler disrupted Ryan and promoted boos from other audience members, Ryan told the crowd, " She has every right to talk , every right to speak." In an interview with Fox News at the time, Ryan said Obama's policies had driven people to the town halls, which he praised as a grass roots outpouring of "people up in arms" about bad policies. "[T]his is amazing," Ryan told a largely supportive town hall in Aug. 2009. Meanwhile, conservatives are trying to drown out progressives at today's town halls, with American Action Network -- a relatively new conservative front group founded by a group of Wall Street bankers -- loading up conservative activists& nbsp; with softball questions and talking points to bolster Republican lawmakers on the Ryan plan.

See this Amp at http://amplify.com/u/b10o95

BP profits Q1-2011: $7.1B. Up 16%

2011-04-27T12:30:00.001-07:00

Those poor big oil companies. They all need corporate welfare in order to survive. Because TENS OF BILLION$ in just PROFITS isn't enough, so they need tax breaks too that we must pay by cutting healthcare to children, women, seniors, help to students, pensions to retirees and firing workers.

See this Amp at http://amplify.com/u/b10kkh

Balance And Compromise

2011-04-27T12:22:00.001-07:00

From Firedoglake

Balance And Compromise

Posted: 26 Apr 2011 06:01 PM PDT

Yesterday I was reading an excellent Rick Perlstein essayabout how lying became such an effective tool for the right over the last 40 years. Essentially, his thesis is that the media have abandoned their quest for truth and replaced it with a quest for “balance,” with a little help from profit-minded executives, and a little more from Republicans who successfully rebranded truth as uncivil negativity.

The end result is that most of the media are now unwilling to take a stand for truth or reality. At best, they present both sides even when only one has merit. At worst, they present only the side with no merit at all.

Personally, I think Perlstein lets the media off too easy: All the monetary concerns and ref-working pale in comparison to the political interests of corporate and right-wing ownership. The media use “profitability” as an excuse to gut investigative reporting, and the figleaf of “balance” to obscure naked untruths.

All this reminds me a lot of Barack Obama and the Democratic establishment. They too depend on corporations for their present and future job security, and need to deliver for them without being too obvious about it. So what do they do? They “compromise.”

Even after back-to-back landslides delivered them the White House and huge majorities in both houses of Congress, they refused to take a stand for sound policy or Democratic principles. Instead, they sought common ground with the Republicans no matter how wrong and cruel they might be, inching ever rightward until they achieved a suitably pro-corporate outcome. And now that they have a Republican House and an almost-Republican Senate, that inching is even easier.

The media and the Democrats are playing the same game: Regardless of what truth or good policy may be, compulsively seek out a midpoint (or rather, rightpoint) between that and far-right lunacy and then pretend that the resulting mess somehow serves the public interest.

If Paul Ryan released a new “debt-cutting” plan that let all of America’s poor people starve and eliminated taxes on rich people and corporations, Obama would denounce it at first, but eventually announce a grand bipartisan “compromise”: Let only half the poor starve, and reduce the corporate and upper-income tax brackets to 15% instead of zero. And the media would praise him for his great courage and seriousness.

See this Amp at http://amplify.com/u/b10khz

Hedge Funds Abandon Obama

2011-04-26T18:17:00.001-07:00

Barack Obama who came promising progressive change and the whole nation supported him with big a victory, later betrayed us all because, well, he had to pay back all that support. Now After all those special interest got what they wanted from Obama (while the people who put him in office got nothing), they turned to the old ways and are supporting GOP back. What should we think about Obama? He is either a moron who thought hedge funds would be his allies or an opportunist who promised things to ordinary citizens just to get in power but his allegiance was really with the special interests (a tempting theory given all good progressive ideas he has let die). In any way the reality is that ordinary citizens aren't represented by corporate Democrats or Republicans. The only hope for all of us is to elect many more progressives at all levels of government. That is why I say again that progressive should not donate to democratic party organizations (your money will be used to help blue dogs). Donate to Progressive organizations and to Progressive candidates directly.

from Politico

TOP TALKER: HEDGE FUNDS SHORT OBAMA - WSJ's Brody Mullins, Susan Pulliam and Steve Eder on pg. A1: "Hedge-fund managers made a big bet on Barack Obama and other Democrats in 2008. Now, with the 2012 contest gearing up, some prominent fund managers have turned their backs on the party and are actively supporting Republicans. Daniel Loeb, founder of Third Point LLC, was one of the biggest Obama fund-raisers in 2008, rounding up $200,000 for him ... But since Mr. Obama's inauguration, Mr. Loeb has given $468,000 to Republican candidates and the GOP, and just $8,000 to Democrats. ... Mr. Loeb is part of a shift in political allegiance within the world of hedge funds that also includes such big names as Steven Cohen's SAC Capital Advisors and Kenneth Griffin's Citadel Investment Group." http://on.wsj.com/fbtaNp

See this Amp at http://amplify.com/u/b10clm

The new corporate business model: higher

2011-04-26T16:53:00.001-07:00

From BlogForArizona.com

Update) The new corporate business model: higher profits, fewer jobs

Posted: 25 Apr 2011 11:42 AM PDT

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

In a story I did not get to last week while the Tea-Publican Arizona legislature was laying waste to our state, the Wall Street Journal reported Big U.S. Firms Shift Hiring Abroad (subscription) summarized at the Huffington Post, U.S Multinationals Increasingly Hiring Abroad, Firing At Home:

In the last decade, American multinational corporations, which together employ one-fifth of all U.S. workers, decreased domestic employment by 2.9 million workers while adding 2.4 million jobs overseas, the Commerce Department reported on Monday.

In 2009, a devastating year for the global economy, U.S. multinational companies' worldwide employment shrunk by 4.1 percent to 31.3 million workers. But the cuts were much sharper at home than abroad. Domestic employment by the same companies shrunk by 5.3 percent, leaving 21.1 million with jobs, while their overseas counterparts lost 1.5 percent of their workforce, with 10.3 million still employed.

"Emerging markets [are] growing at two-and-a-half times the speed of industrialized countries, which has made it imperative for companies to look abroad for opportunities," said Lynn Reaser, chief economist at Point Loma Nazarene University in San Diego.

For large American multinationals, the geopraphical calculus is simple: Follow the money.

"[The report] is not surprising at all. It is harder and harder for companies in the U.S. to find the right skilled labor at the right price point," said Dave Niles, president of SSA &Co, a global operations consulting firm.

Because for multinational corporations it's always about exploiting "cheap labor." They, of course, deny this:

General Electric Chief Executive Jeffrey Immelt [the company that paid no U.S. income taxes] also told the WSJ moving abroad was less about cheap labor than about deploying resources in countries with growing demand for their products. In 2000, GE conducted 30 percent of its business in other countries; today, that figure reaches 60 percent.

This is true, but how exactly does this help Americans who are unemployed?

The Commerce Department's report cuts to the heart of a crucial question about the state of the American economy, economists say. Can growth abroad for U.S. corporations be good for both companies and consumers?

Some argue the trend toward hiring workers abroad benefits both groups. Firms enjoy lowered manufacturing costs and an increased access to foreign markets, while consumers can purchase cheaper goods.

"It's good for companies and its also in someways the unfortunate reality of our economy. Is it good for consumers? Yeah. Because you're getting higher quality product at a lower price," Niles said.

Wait for it, here comes the "Obvious Man" moment of "Doh!":

But other economists point out an apparent Catch 22. Even if some goods become more affordable, consumers' spending power is undercut when jobs disappear from the American economy.

"The long point of all of this is that those jobs that were generating solid wages are very few and far between in the United States now. You look around and ask yourself, where is the middle class? Where are they working and how much are they making?" asked Ken Perkins, president of the RetailMetrics LLC research firm. "The middle class is really what led to the boom of the retail industry ... Where is the American consumer going to get money to spend more?"

And here is the cold hard reality of the new corporate business model: higher profits, fewer jobs:

"One of the things that's generating the huge rebound in profits in the United States -- a rebound that is so astonishing that profits exceed what we saw at the peak of the last economic expansion -- is that the profits of these companies are more and more divorced from their actual operations here in the United States," said Gary Burtless, a economist at the Brookings Institute. "So now we can this situation where companies' profits are going gangbusters even though the U.S. economy has 8.8 percent unemployment."

* * *

"Most of the [new] employment that we will be seeing will be multinationals hiring in developing economies. That's where we'll see the most dynamic activity; that's where economic momentum will remain very strong."

Which begs the question, "why are we giving tax breaks to multinational corporations?" Lower corporate taxes won't create more jobs - Fortune Finance:

One of [Paul Ryan's] key proposals is to lower the income tax rate paid by corporations, from 35% to 25%, by eliminating several tax loopholes and deductions. Simplifying the tax code would certainly remove a lot of uncertainties from today's highly complex tax system. Executives have often complained that one of the reasons they've been holding off on new investments and more hiring is the unpredictable tax environment. But how will lowering the tax burden for companies that are already flushed with record levels of cash really going to make the average American better off?

Compared with other advanced economies, companies doing business in the U.S. already pay low taxes. It's true that at 35% the corporate tax rate is technicallyhigher than most major economies. But because of loopholes and other deductions, most companies pay significantly less – so the effective rate (or the percentage of corporate profits that is paid in federal corporate taxes) is about 13% to 15%, which is relatively low even by international standards. [And less than the rate you pay.]

* * *

[W]hat will lowering the corporate tax do?

For one, it likely won't create much more investment or create many more jobs, says Robert Lynch, economics professor at Washington College, who has done extensive research into taxation and economic development. In a 2004 study, Lynch found that firms don't necessarily relocate or expand to an area more just because it has lower taxes. What's more, while a lower tax rate reduces costs for companies and creates some positive effects on local economies, it doesn't necessarily create substantial jobs.

* * *

What worries the economist is that any cuts to corporate taxes would take funding away from other public services such as education, new roads and infrastructure projects that companies and the overall economy might gain more from. [The short-sighted approach the Tea-Publican Arizona legislature just adopted,]

"Companies aren't suffering from a lack of investment funds," Lynch says, pointing to record cash levels held by America's biggest companies. "What they're suffering from is lack of profitable investment opportunities."

Even as many non-financial companies sit on an estimated $2 trillion at a time when interest rates have remained at nearly 0%, executives still aren't hiring much. Indeed, much of that capital is sitting overseas and there's a coordinated push among some of America's biggest companies to bring those funds home at lower costs. Cisco (CSCO), Apple (AAPL), Duke Energy (DUK) and Pfizer (PFE) are leading an effort for a one-year tax holiday on foreign earnings that would allow companies to repatriate money at a much lower tax rate of about 5%.

Wait for it, here comes the next "Obvious Man" moment of "Doh!":

But while the idea of bringing more capital into the domestic economy sounds like a good thing, it won't likely mean much for the average American. In 2004, Congress approved a one-year tax holiday as part of a jobs package, resulting in companies bringing back $362 billion. But, as Fortune's Tory Newmyer pointed out in February, studies have shown that most of the funds went to shareholders. Even while Congress passed several rules to make sure the funds would get invested back into the companies, not very much went to research, investment or hiring.

* * *

If history tells us anything, [increased wages are] unlikely. The effective corporate tax rate has been steadily declining for decades. Corporations paid more than 49% of their profits in federal taxes in the 1950s, 38% in the 1960s, 33% in the 1970s and 25% in the 1980s. All the while, U.S. wages have been stagnant for years even as productivity has risen. Between 1989 and 2010, U.S. productivity grew by 62.5% -- far outpacing wages, which grew by only 12% during the same period, according to a March 2011 study by the Economic Policy Institute.

So what will a lower corporate tax rate do?

It will make the über-rich even richer and usher in the new order of corporatocracy and serfdom for the rest of us. If we don't reverse the tide now, it may be too late.

See this Amp at http://amplify.com/u/b10c5q

The People's Budget deserves same recogn

2011-04-26T12:02:00.001-07:00

from Blog For Arizona

Steve Benen (and others) on The People's Budget

Posted: 25 Apr 2011 12:38 PM PDT

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

For those of you planning to attend the PDA meeting Monday night in Tucson, Steve Benen at The Washington Monthly addressed The People's Budget last week:

This week, the budget proposal from the Congressional Progressive Caucus is suddenly getting some attention, and I'm glad. Does it stand any chance of becoming law? Of course not. But does Paul Ryan's plan have a shot at passing? Despite gaining House approval, it does not.

Matt Miller got the ball rolling a few days ago, noting in passing that the Congressional Progressive Caucus' budget plan "wins the fiscal responsibility derby"against its competing proposals because "it reaches balance by 2021 largely through assorted tax hikes and defense cuts."

This one sentence seemed to have let much of the political world that the CPC plan exists. The Economist noted today:

Have you ever heard of the Congressional Progressive Caucus budget plan? Neither had I. The caucus's co-chairs, Raul Grijalva of Arizona and Keith Ellison of Minnesota, released it on April 6th. The budget savings come from defence cuts, including immediately withdrawing from Afghanistan and Iraq, which saves $1.6 trillion over the CBO baseline from 2012-2021. The tax hikes include restoring the estate tax, ending the Bush tax cuts, and adding new tax brackets for the extremely rich, running from 45% on income over a million a year to 49% on income over a billion a year.

Mr Ryan's plan adds (by its own claims) $6 trillion to the national debt over the next decade, but promises to balance the budget by sometime in the 2030s by cutting programmes for the poor and the elderly. The Progressive Caucus's plan would (by its own claims) balance the budget by 2021 by cutting defence spending and raising taxes, mainly on rich people. Mr Ryan has been fulsomely praised for his courage. The Progressive Caucus has not.

I'm not really sure what "courage" is supposed to mean here, but this seems precisely backwards.

Bingo. Trying to restore tax rates to levels that were pretty normal in the America John Boehner grew up in takes some courage, because it challenges the powerful and the elite to sacrifice. Republicans are doing the opposite -- as President Obama put it the other day, "Nothing is easier than solving a problem on the backs of people who are poor, or people who are powerless and don't have lobbyists or don't have clout."

Paul Krugman also had an item on this today, noting some of the policy specifics.

The CPC plan essentially balances the budget through higher taxes and defense cuts, plus some tougher bargaining by Medicare (and a public option to reduce the costs of the Affordable Care Act). The proposed tax hikes would fall mainly on higher incomes, although not just on the top 2%: super-brackets for very high incomes, elimination of deductions, taxation of capital income as ordinary income, and — the part that would be most controversial — raising the cap on payroll taxes.

None of this is economically outlandish. Marginal tax rates on high incomes would rise substantially -- enough to make even liberal economists slightly uncomfortable -- but the historical evidence suggests that the incentive effects wouldn't be too severe. Overall taxes as a share of GDP aren't given, but they would clearly remain well below European levels.

Also note, the CPC numbers add up -- which is more than we can say for the House Republican plan -- actually dealing with the problem conservatives claim to care about.

In case this isn't obvious, it's important to have competing ideas in the larger conversation.

* * *

There are a variety of credible alternatives, and Obama's vision may represent the center, but there's a sensible, sound liberal approach that deserves to be in the mix.

See this Amp at http://amplify.com/u/b10a7h

"Rev" Franklin Graham, birther (and Chri

2011-04-25T11:16:00.001-07:00

From AmericaBlog News

"Rev" Franklin Graham, birther (and Christian holier-than thou)

I never thought much of Franklin Graham, Billy Graham's son. But President Obama just had to woo the guy, and look what it's gotten him. Franklin Graham is now a birther. But that's not all, he's questioning Obama's Christianity, on Easter no less. Like most Republican political operatives who falsely wrap themselves in the sheep's clothing of faith, Graham is no better than Fallwell or Robertson. Luckily his father doesn't have to see how far his son has fallen.

Oh, and Mr. Graham, Happy Easter, you idiot.

See this Amp at http://amplify.com/u/b105ut

Tax billionaires & millionaires

2011-04-25T09:49:00.001-07:00

Republicans continue to hold Americans hostage in ongoing negotiations over raising the debt ceiling and the 2012 budget.

Meanwhile there's an epidemic of home foreclosures. Unemployment is rampant. The cost of food, gas and health care is going up. Families across the country are falling into poverty, while many more are struggling just to get by.

And now the same Republicans who only months ago went to the mat to extend the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy are saying we cannot afford our social safety net because "we're broke."

There is something deeply wrong with our priorities as a country if we're cutting back on services for children and the elderly, the sick and the destitute, and anything that helps the middle class stay afloat while simultaneously cutting taxes for the likes of Paris Hilton and the Koch brothers.

We cannot allow the budget to be balanced on the backs of the very people who've taken it on the chin during this economic crisis.

Progressives need to offer an alternative to the morally bankrupt and economically baseless dogma of "tax cuts for the rich, massive spending cuts for everyone else." And the alternative cannot be simply to propose slightly less brutal spending cuts. We need to put tax increases back on the table.

While some members of the Democratic leadership have fallen into this trap of accepting the rightwing framing of the debate, progressive champions Rep. Jan Schakowsky and Sen. Bernie Sanders are leading the fight for a real solution to our budget crisis.

They have each introduced a bill to raise the income tax rates on people who make more than one million dollars a year. And they need our help to start changing the narrative around the budget.

Increasing taxes on millionaires and billionaires won't be a silver bullet, but it would bring in tens of billions of dollars that would allow us to avoid some of the most brutal budget cuts we're now facing. And it would be a step toward making our tax system more fair.

The disparity between the rich and the poor is growing in a way that is deeply unhealthy to our society. The richest 1% of Americans are making 24% of the country's income, which is the highest share it has been since the 1930s. The 1930s were also the last time the richest 1% have so consistently paid such a low income tax rate.And as Michael Moore has pointed out, the top 400 Americans own more wealth than the bottom 50% of Americans put together.

This wide gulf between the haves and the have-nots not only affects our economy, it distorts our democracy. We have to take action before it's too late.

Now, more than ever, we need you to speak out.

Matt Lockshin, Campaign Manager
CREDO Action from Working Assets

P.S. There is also a "big picture" reason to support these bills. Democrats are the party of FDR. With the introduction of the bills to tax millionaires and billionaires, we can push the Democratic leadership to start acting like it.

The government should be expanding services to the needy and investing more in infrastructure and education, not cutting back.

Our country isn't broke. And if we don't stand up to the Republican's intellectually dishonest claim that it is, our moral compass may become broken.

We cannot shred the social safety net when it's most needed. It's long past time to require the super wealthy to pay their fair share.

See this Amp at http://amplify.com/u/b105mr

The Issue is Jobs, Not Deficit Reduction

2011-04-25T09:48:00.001-07:00

The Issue is Jobs, Not Deficit Reduction
JOHN NICHOLS \| A Democratic congressman tells the president to stop reading from GOP talking points and start borrowing a page from FDR

See this Amp at http://amplify.com/u/b105ml

Trump to Meghan McCain: "I like you" (gr

2011-04-21T14:38:00.001-07:00

Is Trump looking for his next wife?

See this Amp at http://amplify.com/u/bzyl7

UN Wire: EU seeks mandate for ground tro

2011-04-19T10:29:00.001-07:00

It was inevitable. I could see it from a million miles away. Since the start the Libyan rebels did not have enough support from inside the government, the military nor even could muster enough "active support" within the population. The rebels lack training, weapons and logistic support. Now that air bombings proved to be not enough it comes the next step in the escalation, ground troops...under the argument of securing relief delivery routes. The same way the UN humanitarian mandate became an excuse to intervene in Libya, a new mandate to send ground troops to secure routes for humanitarian relief will be the excuse to send troops to finish what the air bombing cannot. If Europe wants to do that, it is OK with me as long as Obama does not yield to the GOP and defense lobbyists to send American troops to invade yet another Muslim country. Let's see what will be the final outcome.

See this Amp at http://amplify.com/u/bzm40

News from the Oregon Progressive Party

2011-04-18T20:50:00.001-07:00

Attempt to Abolish Independent Party of Oregon Backfires

On Wednesday (April 13th), the House Rules Committee in the Oregon Legislature conducted a hearing on HB 2442, the bill to abolish the Independent Party of Oregon (IPO) by making it illegal to use the word "independent" in the name of a political party in Oregon. The bill declares an "emergency," stating that it is "necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health and safety."

As noted in detail below, no one even showed up to testify for the bill, while several testified against it.

The attempt to kill the Independent Party of Oregon (IPO), probably launched from within the Democratic Party leadership in the House of Representatives, has backfired.

We responded to the attack with truth and clarity, including over 600 signatures on a petition against the bill, along with 250+ comments provided by IPO members. Thanks also to the recipients of the Progressive Party's similar petition, which earned 38 signers and 14 comments in response to our email alert.

Editorials condemned the attack as:

"dumb, partisan and unconstitutional" (The Oregonian)

spawned by the "Joe Stalin Graduate School of Political Maneuvering" (Albany Democrat-Herald),

"heavy-handed" (Medford Mail-Tribune).

The Oregonian's editorial earned a top, full-width headline. Today's Sunday Oregonian featured further criticism of the bill on the front page of the metro section.

More About the Hearing

The Chair of the Committee, Dave Hunt (D), asked whether anyone wished to testify in favor of the bill. Silence. Some members of the Committee asked why the bill had been scheduled for hearing, if no one was willing to testify for it. The bill itself states it was "Presession filed (at the request of House Interim Committee on Rules)." Committee Co-Chair Andy Olson (R) asked Rep. Vicki Berger (R) whether the bill had in fact been discussed in the House Interim Committee on Rules. Rep. Berger replied that the Interim Committee did not have discussions along this line. (A majority on the Interim Committee were Democrats.)

Testifying against the bill were Marvin Sannes (who won the 2010 IPO nomination for State Representative for the 21st District), IPO founder Linda Williams, IPO secretary Sal Peralta, and IPO member Dan Meek. Written testimony against the bill was submitted by Norma Paulus and Phil Keisling, each a former Secretary of State of Oregon, who wrote:

"We are aware of no legal precedent in any jurisdiction in the United States that would allow a legislature to ban the use of a word in the name of a political party, and are highly skeptical that the Oregon Constitution, with its broad protections for free speech, would permit such an intrusion on the association and speech rights of a duly constituted political party. . . . This bill is cynical, political mischief of the worst, most juvenile kind -- worthy of being thrown on the legislative scrap heap, so this body can get down to the important business at hand."

Also submitting written testimony were former State Representative Tony Van Vliet and attorney Stephen Goldberg.

Oregon Progressive Party
320 SW Stark Street #202
Portland, OR 97204
503-548-2797
info@progparty.org

PLEASE FORWARD WIDELY!!!
If your group wants to co-sponsor this event please contact civilrights@progparty.org

RALLY OUTSIDE CITY HALL DAY OF JTTF VOTE!!!

DATE: Thursday February 24th
RALLY: 12:30pm
SPEAKERS: 1:00pm
CITY COUNCIL VOTE: 2pm(public testimony will be taken)
LOCATION: Outside City Hall Council Chambers 1221 SW 4th Ave, Portland, OR 97204

On February 24th the Portland City Council will be voting on whether or not the City of Portland should re-enter the FBI's Joint Terrorism Task Force (JTTF). We strongly oppose the JTTF because we value our civil rights. We need Portland Police officers to be held accountable to Oregon State Law. We don't want roving wiretaps, secret access and domestic spying on non-violent activists & community groups.

We said NO in 2005 and we say NO now.

CO-SPONSORS: Oregon Progressive Party, Oregon Jericho, Iraq Veterans Against the War, Veterans for Peace, NW Student Coalition, Portland Central American Solidarity Committee, the Portland Coalition Opposing Political Repression, Students United for Palestinian Equal Rights, International Socialist Organization and you...

For more information visit:
StopFBI.net, Oregon Progressive Party <www.ProgParty.org>
Oregon ACLU <http://aclu-or.org/content/fbis-joint-terrorism-task-force-0>

contact: civilrights@progparty.orgor pdxcopr@gmail.com

CONTACT CITY COUNCIL and TELL THEM
WHY WE DON'T WANT the JTTF in PORTLAND

They are elected officials and if they vote for the JTTF then we won't vote for them!

Sam Adams
Mayor,
Commissioner of Finance and Administration

(503) 823-4120
    E-mail:Samadams@portlandoregon.gov

Amanda Fritz
Commissioner of Public Utilities, Position Number 1
(503) 823-3008
    E-mail:amanda@portlandoregon.gov

Nick Fish
Commissioner of Public Works, Position Number 2
(503) 823-3589
    E-mail:Nick@portlandoregon.gov

Dan Saltzman
Commissioner of Public Affairs, Position Number 3
(503) 823-4151
E-mail:dan@portlandoregon.gov

Randy Leonard
Commissioner of Public Safety, Position Number 4
(503) 823-4682
    E-mail:randy@portlandoregon.gov

LaVonne Griffin-Valade
City Auditor
(503) 823-4078
    E-mail:lavonne.griffin-valade@portlandoregon.gov

See this Amp at http://amplify.com/u/bzhfq

News from Vermont Progressive Party

2011-04-18T20:47:00.001-07:00


PROGRESSIVE NEWS - April 18, 2011
In this Issue: Legislative Update: Popular Vote for President Would Help Vermont Legislative Update: Complete Streets From the Blog: Protecting Collective Bargaining Save the Date! Next Progressive State Committee	We do not accept corporate donations, and so we need support from individuals like you. Please make a one-time contribution or become a regular monthly donor.
Legislative Update: Popular Vote for President Would Help Vermont This week the House sent Gov. Shumlin the so-called "National Popular Vote" bill. This bill has Vermont join other states across the country in allocating electoral votes a different way. Once enough states pass this bill we will have a popular vote for president. Every vote will be equal and the candidate with the most votes will be guaranteed to win. The Founders gave states complete control over how their electoral votes work. Today Maine & Nebraska award votes based on the "Congressional District" system - win the most votes in a Congressional district and you get one elector, two more go to the winner of the statewide total. The remaining 48 states (including VT) use the "winner-take-all rule" where the candidate with the most votes gets all of a state's electoral votes. The winner-take-all rule means that most states are ignored. Vermont is a reliably blue state, so Obama doesn't campaign here because he can't lose, and McCain ignores us because he doesn't care if he loses by 1% or 30%, either way he loses the whole prize. 35 states are in this ignored/safe/fly-over category because we are predictably red or blue. We aren't polled, candidates don't visit us (except to raise money), and they don't advertise or organize in our states. Consider, during the Fall of 2008 presidential candidates visited New Hampshire twelve times and never once crossed the river to say hi to Vermonters. That's because New Hampshire was one of fifteen battleground states. In the Fall of 2008, 2/3 of all the money the campaigns spent went to six states and 98% of the money went to fifteen states. This hurts Vermont and most of the country. A single candidate for VT State Senate likely spent more in Vermont than Obama/McCain combined. Under a popular vote we aren't going to be the center of campaign attention. But we won't be locked out either. We will no longer have vans taking volunteers from Burlington to West Lebanon because people can canvass their neighbors right here at home. If every vote is equal then the contest becomes about margins everywhere. McCain may still lose Vermont but losing by 12% will be much better for him than an 18% defeat. Under a popular vote Vermonters will have the chance of our opinions being important to candidates. Right now, if a candidate wants to know where voters stand on renewable energy, Vermont is excluded from the poll (as are voters in 34 other states). Under a popular vote our phones will ring. Our mailboxes will get attention. And most importantly, our opinions will be heard and we will know we were a part of making history by passing the National Popular Vote bill. The bill requires states that possess a majority of the electoral college to sign up before the change takes effect, that is states holding 270 electoral votes. With Vermont coming on board the total signed up is 77 electors or 29% of the way to the goal. We are joining HI, WA, IL, NJ, MA, MD and DC. The effort is relatively new but already has support from over 2,000 of the 7,000 legislators across the country. We could well see this change in the next election or two. And when we do, Vermont will actually matter in a presidential election and presidential elections will adhere to the one person, one vote principle. How refreshing. Legislative Update: Complete Streets While the Senate examines the Transportation Bill H. 443, the House Transportation Committee has been hearing testimony on several other bills. Testimony on H. 198, the "Complete Streets" bill finished up on Wednesday. This bill asks that the state and local municipalities consider the needs of all users of the transportation system - bicyclists, public transit users, motorists, and pedestrians of all ages and abilities - in the planning and development of new transportation projects. Applying principles of Complete Streets could mean such simple solutions as providing for shorter crossing distances for pedestrians, signal count-downs, traffic calming, better bicycle lanes, and other measures to accommodate a variety of transportation options. The Vermont Attorney General, the Commissioner of Health, the Commissioner of the Department of Economic, Housing, and Community Development, and the President of the Vermont Public Health Association offered supportive testimony on the health benefits of this type of transportation planning. Several public works officials and a town planner weighed in with their concerns and basic support and the committee voted the bill out unanimously with one member absent. When the bill came to the floor on Friday April 15th it passed second reading on a voice vote. And the bill comes up for third reading on Tuesday, April 19th. While this bill provides instances in which the state or municipality does not need to incorporate the needs of all users of the transportation system - (namely when use is prohibited by law, or the expense is not warranted due to probable use or need, or the incorporation of complete streets principles would be beyond the scope of a project) it does point in the direction of a multi-modal, comprehensive, and non-autocentric way of thinking about transportation. Applying complete streets principles in transportation planning can improve safety, promote health and fitness, contribute to vibrant and livable town and village centers, and address issues of congestion, pollution, and greenhouse gas emissions. Some form of Complete Streets legislation has been planned or adopted in 244 jurisdictions across the country, including 20 states. The idea has gained momentum as communities recognize the benefits of 21st century transportation thinking. From the Blog: Protecting Collective Bargaining "Labor unions must mobilize together in their communities and demand "No Concessions; no more cuts to pay, pensions or health benefits" for all public workers because the fight to protect collective bargaining can only be won if public workers believe that collective bargaining will save their wages and benefits." Save the Date! The next Progressive State Committee meeting will be on Sunday May 15th in St. Albans. Martha Allen, NEA President, will speak about organized labor as the frontier of political change in Vermont. With the expected adjournment of the Legislature in the next few weeks, Progressive caucus members will also be on hand to discuss how working Vermonters fared under the golden dome this legislative session.
Vermont Progressive Party 802-229-0800 ~ www.progressiveparty.org PO Box 281 Montpelier, VT 05601

See this Amp at http://amplify.com/u/bzhey

Get Up, Stand Up: Uniting Populists, Ene

2011-04-17T10:38:00.001-07:00

Taken from Firedoglake

Get Up, Stand Up: Uniting Populists, Energizing the Defeated, and Battling the Corporate Elite

Bruce Levine concludes that the problem isn’t that we are a “center-right” country or an apathetic people. The issue is that we are a people who have been systematically beaten down by the corporatocracy. As a clinical psychologist, he sees the people as a whole as suffering from abuse syndrome — a people actively demoralized.

http://www.chelseagreen.com/bookstore/item/get_up_stand_up/

See this Amp at http://amplify.com/u/bzbj7

Are Liberals Just Suckers?

2011-04-16T23:59:00.001-07:00

http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/277-75/5642-are-liberals-just-suckers

Sally Kohn, The Washington Post
Intro: "The list of liberal laments about President Obama keeps getting longer: He extended the Bush-era tax cuts for the wealthy. Health-care reform didn't include a public option. In the frantic final hours of the budget negotiations, instead of calling the GOP's bluff, he agreed to historic cuts in progressive programs. And Wednesday, in response to conservatives' focus on the deficit, Obama said that we have to 'put everything on the table.' What is the problem here?"
READ MORE

See this Amp at http://amplify.com/u/bzaky

Wage Gap Fails to "Magically Disappear",

2011-04-16T11:32:00.001-07:00

Taken from WomenStake.org

Wage Gap Fails to "Magically Disappear", Carrots Still Don't Taste Like Chocolate (4/12/2011)

When I was a little girl, I once asked my mother why she ate salads everyday instead of peanut butter and jelly sandwiches with ice cream — which, I was sure, is what I would eat everyday if I were an independent adult.

Her response was my introduction into the world of dieting. It was, however, a little misleading. "Don’t worry about it," she said, after using the word "calories." "By the time you’re old enough to diet, scientists will have invented carrots that taste like chocolate. They'll have figured all that out by then."

At that point I think the conversation petered out (any nascent food-related anxieties assuaged), but looking back on it, I have some lingering questions.

Really Mom? Who is this anonymous "they"? And what specific actions are they going to take to ensure that Generation Y has no obligation to watch what they eat?

I didn't ask my mom about the wage gap that day, but I'm curious what she would have said. Back when she taught me about calories, I'm thinking 1991, women earned less than 70 cents to every dollar earned by men. Today, women who work full-time, year-round, earn only 77 cents to every dollar earned by their male peers. So in twenty years, we've managed to gain seven cents an hour. And yet, still, people seem to think the wage gap is simply going to magically disappear with time, along with other effects of sexism and discrimination, all on its own. Just like carrots that actually taste like carrots.

But we know better. Just last week, another study was released demonstrating the pernicious endurance of the wage gap. According to a researcher at the University of Washington, female professors earn an average of 6.9 percent less than their male peers, after accounting for career length, relative productivity and type of institution employed at. According to Inside Higher Ed, these findings are particularly relevant in the academy, where colleges often claim that the continuing gap is explained by the fact that so many current professors rose through the ranks during earlier periods of sexism, or that female professors chose to work in lower-paying fields. Apparently not.

Today is Equal Pay Day, and it represents an opportunity to examine the financial inequities that continue to burden women and their families. ThePaycheck Fairness Act, re-introduced in both Houses today, directly addresses the wage gap by toughening remedies available for sex-based pay discrimination, allowing women to receive compensatory and punitive damages for violations, and prohibiting unfair retaliation against employees who discuss pay and pay disparities on the job, among other things.

I honestly don't know where scientists currently stand on their progress towards vegetables that taste like dessert, but I do know where society stands on equal pay. We may not be there yet, but we've identified tools and actions that will advance the cause and increase equality between sexes. Let's not wait another twenty years to see if this one clears up on its own.

See this Amp at http://amplify.com/u/bz9ii

Pyramid of Capitalist System

2011-04-16T09:27:00.001-07:00

Taken from BlogForArizona.com

http://www.blogforarizona.com/.a/6a00d8341bf80c53ef01538de1ab30970b-popup

See this Amp at http://amplify.com/u/bz98l

Ensnared by Our Illusions

2011-04-16T09:25:00.001-07:00

Taken from BlogForArizona.com

Ensnared by Our Illusions

Posted: 15 Apr 2011 12:58 PM PDT

By Karl Reiner

According to Census Bureau data, the proportion of Americans living in urban areas rose from 93.2% in 2000 to 93.7% in 2010. The bigger cities grew faster than small ones, most of the growth occurring in the suburbs. The data contradicts one of our cherished illusions. We are not a nation of rugged individuals living in self-sufficient small communities. Because urban societies have needs different than rural ones, we should now understand that governments running urban societies have more complex responsibilities.

Thus far in the economic recovery, U.S. corporate profits have climbed, wages lag, and unemployment remains high. In an outlandish reaction to the situation, there has been a flurry of activity at the state level aimed at curbing the collective bargaining rights of unions. The recession was caused by a giddy combination of lax regulation and the excesses of financial sector corporations. It is difficult to understand how a curb on collective bargaining will do anything to hasten the recovery.

Sweden, Denmark, Norway, Canada, Germany and Switzerland all have a larger percentage of their workforces unionized than does the U.S. None of these countries are rated as economic basket cases. The level of unionization has not detracted from their ability to maintain functioning economies. Nor has it destroyed the ability to produce. Germany is a major economic force in Europe, ranking among the top five world exporters.

A large part of the American population has elected to ignore the basic requirements of good governance. An efficient state, the application of the rule of law to all parts of society and the ability to hold leaders accountable are vital for long-term success. This historic truism has been conveniently ignored by those espousing the ill-conceived illusion that unions are the cause of all economic ills. The assertion that government is irrelevant to economic progress also flies in the face of historic reality.

The concepts for the operation of successful societies were developed by trial and error over a long period of time. One important change came with the idea that kings were subject to the law. This once extremist notion became the foundation for the modern law-governed institutions we have in today’s secular states.

The concept that companies are legal entities with rights is vital to the success of capitalism. But it does not mean that corporations need to have all same rights as individuals. The corporate role in fostering the conditions that led to the current recession clearly indicates that a degree of government control is necessary. If the role of government is continually diminished, do corporations really want to assume the responsibility of pursuing social rather than business ends? In an energetic society, the enlarged role would be seen by business interests for what it is, a distraction from business.

The gloomy predictions of Karl Marx still hang over the world’s economies. As the industrial revolution progressed, he warned that the situation of workers would grow worse as capital accumulated and concentrated. There have always been indications that corporations will squash competition, stomp the little people, abuse their rights and avoid their responsibilities if allowed to operate unchecked. Marx’s dire warnings were negated in the western nations after a long and bitter process of accommodating competing interests. Workers were eventually recognized as having rights and became consumers. Governments assumed responsibility for regulation and providing safety nets, helping to maintain social cohesion.

The recent economic fiasco has not resulted in calls to abolish corporations, although it appears that many would like to see the government’s role shrink and unions disappear. In the U.S., productivity rose 83% between 1973 and 2007, but median real wages rose only 5%. The result has been a troubling growing inequality in incomes. For a long time, the Federal Reserve held down interest rates, boosting housing and propping up asset prices. It turned out to be a subsidy to the financial sector. As the housing bubble developed, salaries in the financial sector outpaced the wages paid for other skilled jobs.

We live in a world where the elites can easily move from country to country, to wherever their skills are in demand. It may be that the squeeze on wages and living standards is part of the nasty price we have to pay to climb out of recession. A strong state, the rule of law and accountability remain necessary for economic growth and political stability. Those who think otherwise are fostering deadly illusions. They will put the nation on a path to turmoil. It will eventually lead to a bitter relearning of the lessons of economic history.

See this Amp at http://amplify.com/u/bz98f

[Lack of] Election integrity in Wisconsi

2011-04-16T09:19:00.001-07:00

Taken from BlogForArizona.com

[Lack of] Election integrity in Wisconsin

Posted: 15 Apr 2011 05:35 PM PDT

by David Safier

If you've been following the Wisconsin Supreme Court elections, you probably know a whopping 14,000 votes were "discovered" by Kathy Nickolaus in Waukesha County, giving Governor Walker's buddy David Prosser a 7,000 vote lead. Nickolaus just kind of forgot to enter them in the only place the county's votes are stored, the circa 1995 personal computer in her office (no, I am not making this up).

While people are trying to figure out what's going on in the count, Nickolaus' past election problems are beginning to surface. BradBlog has a long post on the topic, and you can find more on Daily Kos. As a sign this story is spreading beyond liberal Democrats and the election integrity crowd, the story is also covered in the Wisconsin State Journal.

In a 2006 attorney general election, the number of votes Nickolaus reported was almost 20,000 more than the total votes cast. It's not easy to explain that one away. It's also hard to explain how the county turnout in the 2004 Presidential election could have been 97.63%. Fifty percent, maybe. Seventy percent would be a reasonable stretch. But 97.63%?

I don't know what level of diligence the Wisconsin government will exercise to figure this out. I have no idea how securely the state's ballots are stored to preserve the integrity of a possible hand count. But I know something is rotten, maybe in the state of Wisconsin, surely in the county of Waukesha.

See this Amp at http://amplify.com/u/bz980

Robert Reich | President Obama's Real Bu

2011-04-16T09:10:00.001-07:00

Taken from RSN
Robert Reich, Robert Reich's Blog
Robert Reich writes: "The underlying problem isn't the budget deficit. It's that so much income and wealth are going to the top that most Americans don't have the purchasing power to sustain a strong recovery."
READ MORE

See this Amp at http://amplify.com/u/bz977

Paul Krugman | Obama Calls Ryan's Bluff

2011-04-16T09:09:00.001-07:00

From RSN

Paul Krugman, The New York Times
Paul Krugman: "On Wednesday, as I said, the president called Mr. Ryan's bluff: after offering a spirited (and reassuring) defense of social insurance, he declared, 'There's nothing serious about a plan that claims to reduce the deficit by spending a trillion dollars on tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires. And I don't think there's anything courageous about asking for sacrifice from those who can least afford it and don't have any clout on Capitol Hill.'"
READ MORE

See this Amp at http://amplify.com/u/bz974

This Tax Day, Make THEM Pay ...a letter

2011-04-16T00:18:00.001-07:00

Friday, April 15th, 2011

Friends,

Do you wonder (like I do) what the tax accountants and executives are doing over at GE this weekend? Frantically rushing to fill out their IRS returns like the rest of us?

Hardly. They're taking the weekend off to throw themselves a big party and have a hearty laugh at all of us. It must really crack them up to see us like suckers scurrying around to make sure we report everything to Uncle Sam -- and even send him a check, if necessary.

The joke's on us, folks. GE and tons of other corporations will have a tax bill for 2010 of ZERO. GE had $14.2 billion in profits in 2010. Yet they will contribute NOTHING to the federal government while every last dime is soaked from us.

In the latest budget deal, our politicians could have tackled the deficit by stopping the flow of these ill-gotten billions to corporations. Instead they cut billions from "wasteful" programs that do "wasteful" things, like create new jobs, drive economic growth, and help the needy and our nation's children. It's Democracy in reverse and it sickens me.

GE spends $20 million a year to lobby Congress to throw themselves this party. But do you know what speaks louder than $20 million? 20 million votes! 20 million people, and more, standing together and taking to the streets. That starts now, with you.

This coming Monday, April 18th is Tax Day -- and that's the day when "we the people" will demand our country back from these corporations in events all across the country. You can find the nearest event to you here.

MoveOn members -- along with union, community, and environmental allies -- will gather outside the headquarters and local offices of the biggest corporate tax dodgers to deliver tax bills from the American people. And we'll demand that our leaders make these corporate deadbeats pay.

We're doing this because we don't buy into the Big Lie: that greedy teachers caused the crash on Wall Street! That the selfish firefighters sent millions of jobs overseas! That pregnant woman, infants, and children are sending us into deficit!

No, it was the big corporations that did this. It was the CEOs and the top 1% of the country. THEY brought on the mortgage crisis. THEY made off with trillions of dollars from our economy. THEY are systematically destroying the middle class. And THEY have bought and sold the very people elected to represent us!

On Monday, we will have something to say to Exxon, Chevron, and the big banks that crashed our economy and got billions in bailouts, like Citigroup and Bank of America, who pay little or no federal income tax. In fact, the IRS will likely give them a tax REBATE. If that doesn't boggle your mind then nothing will.

The Tax Day events are about sending this message: We are coming after you, we are stopping you and we are going to return the money, jobs, and homes you stole from the people. This is your tipping point, Corporate America. And I, for one, am glad it's going to happen this Monday.

If you've never been to an event like this before, this is the time. And don't go alone, because none of us can win this fight by ourselves. Plus, it's more fun and exciting to go along with friends and family to be part of real democracy in action -- not the store-bought kind Big Business gets on Capitol Hill.

I really hope you can make it. This is our chance, my friends. Take the time on Monday to make your voice heard. I can guarantee you I will. Please join me.

Yours,
Michael Moore
MMFlint@aol.com
MichaelMoore.com

See this Amp at http://amplify.com/u/bz8dv

Obama & The Siren Song of Empty Promises

2011-04-13T20:53:00.001-07:00

From Truthout.org

Rachel Maddow described President Obama's speech on Wednesday as a "defining moment" for his administration, and she was absolutely correct. It was an excellent speech in the main, filled with the kind of lofty rhetoric we have become accustomed to since Mr. Obama first burst onto the political scene in 2004. In it, he proposed taxing the rich, cutting the defense budget and decreasing the cost of health care. He defended Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. For many in the progressive community, it was a reminder of the man who fired the imaginations of so many during his presidential campaign.

Therein lies the problem: it was all just words. Again. There have been many such "defining moments" during this administration, most of which involved retreat, surrender and failure after festooning the walls with words. We heard great talk about including the public option in the health care bill - until Mr. Obama retreated, leaving many to wonder if he ever meant to include it at all. We heard great talk about closing Guantanamo, until he retreated. We heard great talk about repealing the Bush tax cuts for rich people, until that fell by the wayside as well. The very fact that we are still talking about those damnable tax breaks is evidence enough of how far those words go, and that is not very far at all, so far.

And then there were the other words in Wednesday's speech: the ones that tipped a wink to the Bowles-Simpson proposal to eviscerate the social contract which has sustained this nation for generations. There were the words, "Any serious plan to tackle our deficit will require us to put everything on the table." If that is true, Mr. President, then a plan to provide Medicare for all must also be on the table … but no, that's not "reasonable" or "responsible." The debate over the future of this country has been skewed so far to the right that centrism appears radical, even as the worst elements in our nation win the day time and again.

Words are no longer enough, even pretty ones. Action is required.

See this Amp at http://amplify.com/u/bz0wm

Unfortunately An Open Question. Who is B

2011-04-12T18:30:00.001-07:00

From Truthout.org

The most important speech of the next two years may be the one we hear from the presidenttomorrow at 1:30 p.m. Eastern Time, on his plan for the budget of the United States. This is the first speech of his reelection campaign, but more than that, this is the speech that defines the playing field for probably the most important debate of his presidency.

Is Barack Obama the community organizer who cares first about the lives of the other 98 percent of America that doesn’t roll around in money all day? Or is he the politician who sees that the 2012 election will be bought and paid for by the richest corporations and their board members, CEOs and the Chamber of Commerce? We know who the Republicans and the corporatists in the Democratic party will support. Who is Barack Obama going to side with?

See this Amp at http://amplify.com/u/byw2w

Born Again Birther Party

2011-04-12T11:21:00.001-07:00

From ThinkProgress

In July 2008, a researcher "looking to dig up dirt on Obama" instead came across a birth announcement from 1961 in the Honolulu Advertiser documenting the birth of then-presidential candidate Barack Obama in the state. The document, together with Obama's certificate of live birth which showed his birth date, birth city, name, and parenta l information, definitively proved that Obama was born in the United States and is eligible to run for president. Yet, the conspiracy has lived on within the right-wing bowels of the Republican Party for the past couple of years. Most recently, real estate mogul and possible presidential hopeful Donald Trump has taken to the airwaves to challenge the legitimacy of Obama's presidency. And while Trump claims that he'd rather be talking about how China and OPEC "are going to destroy us," he has instead distracted the public with his fabricated controversy and used it to drum up right-wing support for his rumored presidential bid. Trump's birtherism may have propelled him at the forefront of the Republican presidential primary, but it could also cause the credibility of the entire GOP 2012 field to take a steep fall.

RIGHT-WING BUY IN: Since the end of March, Trump has gone from being "really concerned" that "Obama was not born in this country" to insisting that his grandparents essentially lied about his birthplace to collect welfare and other citizenship "assets." Trump's colleagues haven't backed away from his increasingly controversial comments. Instead, they have either tacitly or expressly supported his birther media blitz. Sarah Palin, who once said the "birther" issue is a "distraction" from the important issues, said  on Sunday, "I appreciate that the Donald wants to spend his resources on something that so interests him and so many Americans, you know more power to him." Pizza mogul Herman Cain was one of the first public figures who came to Trump's defense,  stating, "I respect people that believe he should prove his citizenship. He should prove he was born in the United States of America." Republican National Committee chair Reince Priebus has signaled that the RNC is willing and ready to embrace a Trump candidacy. Meanwhile, the GOP congressional leadership has its own history of tiptoeing around the issue. In the past, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA) has refused to call quest ions about President Obama's citizenship illegitimate and declined to label such rhetoric "crazy," saying "I don’t think it's nice to call anyone crazy, ok?" House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) hasn't challenged his colleagues' birther beliefs because,  according to him, "it's not up to me to tell them what to think."

BIRTHER BILLS: The birther conspiracy has also been rearing its ugly head at the state-level. At least 13 states have had bills introduced that would require future presidential candidates to document their eligibility with birth certificates or other forms of proof that they were born in the United States. Committee actions have blocked such proposals in New Hampshire, Montana, Iowa, Maine, and Tennessee. Yet, in Arizona, the so-called "birther bill" is very much alive. Back in December, Arizona state Senate President Russell Pearce (R) was already bragging about the fact that Obama would have to "show his papers" to enter his state. Last week, the Arizona Senate gave preliminary approval   to a bill which would require any presidential candidate to prove to state election officials that he or she was born in the U.S. by presenting a long-form birth certificate, a baptismal or circumcision certificate, a hospital birth record, a postpartum medical record, or an early census record. Trump was involved. Arizona state Rep. Carl Seel (R)  scored a meeting with Trump and indicated that "Mr. Trump is very supportive of my bill to just simply require anyone running for president, or, in the case of Arizona, anyone running for any office, to show that they're lawfully qualified to run." Last Thursday, the Oklahoma House of Representatives also approved similar legislation. "A lot of people are classifying this as a birther bill which I don't think it is," said state Sen. Ralph Shortey (R). "The concern has stemmed from the questions that have arisen from President Obama." The evidence that Obama has provided so far would not meet the eligibility requirements of Shorte y's bill and would  block him from appearing on the Oklahoma ballot. As David Corn of Mother Jones points out, these proposals are all "part of a well-orchestrated campaign to deny Obama reelection." Despite their limited legislative success, the birther conspiracy theory isn't passing legal muster in the courts. In Hawaii, an appeals court upheld the dismissal of a California man's lawsuit which sought to inspect and review President Oba ma's birth certificate.

DOUBLE-EDGED SWORD: Several conservatives have traditionally been wary of promoting birtherism just to pander to the right. In 2009, conservative talk show host Michael Medved called the movement's leaders "crazy, nutburger, demagogue, money-hungry, exploitative, irresponsible, filthy conservative imposters" who are "the worst enemy of the conservative movement." "It makes us look weird. It makes us look crazy. It makes us look demented. It makes us look sick, troubled, and not suitable for civilized company,"  declared Medved. Former Minnesota Governor and presidential hopeful Tim Pawlenty (R) has dismissed birtherism entirely, stating, "I, for one, do not believe that we should be raising that issue. ... I think President Obama was born in the United States." Karl Rove tried to distance the rest of the GOP from the issue, saying, "The right wing base of the Republican party, I'm part of that right wing base, is not in love with the issue of birthers. I mean, there is an element inside the Republican party, and outside the Republican party, that's fallen in love with this but the majority of Republicans and the vast majority of Americans accept that he is a U.S. citizen capable of being president." Rove is only partly right. While only 11 percent of the general public believes Obama was definitely not born in the United States,  more than half of all GOP primary voters are convinced he is not a U.S.-born citizen. White House senior adviser David Plouffe dismissed Trump's birther beliefs on Sunday, stating "I saw Donald Trump kind of rising in the polls. Given his behavior, and the spectacle of the last couple of weeks, I hope he keeps on rising. ... There's zero chance that Donald Trump would ever be hired by the American people to do this job." "If I were them, I'd be really careful riding that birther horse too much,"  weighed  in former President Bill Clinton. "Everyone knows it's ludicrous." Others say it's just  downright racist.

See this Amp at http://amplify.com/u/byvka

Liberal & Irreverent Opinion of LeMonton

Fareed Zakaria actually has no idea what is a Liberal

Could Romney's Attack on Obama's Jobs Re

Could Romney's Attack on Obama's Jobs Record Backfire?

Muslims despised today by GOP; tomorrow,

FactCheck GOP NH Debate: Incorrect, Misl

FactCheck GOP NH Debate: Incorrect, Misl

BOEHNER'S SPECIAL EXPENSE ACCOUNT

HOW THE GOP LEARNED TO HATE TAXES

Howard Dean: Republicans took a majority

"Getting Wise to Breitbart's Lies"

Wolf Paul Ryan in a Sheep Suit

For-profit colleges business: education

For-profit colleges fight back against gov’t attempt to make them deliver education

1890′s America: A Peek at the Past You’r

Some Final Thoughts on the Death of Osam

RedState: "Why I Will Not Support Jon Hu

Republicans Got Nothing On Healthcare

Bad intel from torture, Bush admin stop

For Anyone Blaming Obama for High Gas Pr

FactCheck.org: Paul Ryan spreads false,

Ryan's Budget Spin

The GOP budget chairman throws some curves while supposedly 'setting the record straight.' May 6, 2011

Summary

Find True Centrism in the People's Budge

Does @Politico believe the killing of OB

Immigrant Mom, Shackled During Labor, Wi

GOP on the Brink of Weakening Flight Saf

The GOP's Stealth Plan to Redefine Rape

KOCH VS. TRUMP

You’re Invited to the R-Oil Wedding

Al Gore: Climate Skeptics Argue Birther-

Supporters of George W. Bush are irked t

With Osama Now Gone, Spend on Building R

Cliff Schecter

Joe Scarborough Makes Shit Up About Obam

The Progressive Electorate - Front Page

The Ultimate List Of What The GOP Fights

RightWing campaign to minimize importanc

Birtherism is Racism. Period.

Main Street Rage

BP profits Q1-2011: $7.1B. Up 16%

Balance And Compromise

Hedge Funds Abandon Obama

The new corporate business model: higher

The People's Budget deserves same recogn

"Rev" Franklin Graham, birther (and Chri

From AmericaBlog News

"Rev" Franklin Graham, birther (and Christian holier-than thou)

Tax billionaires & millionaires

The Issue is Jobs, Not Deficit Reduction

Trump to Meghan McCain: "I like you" (gr

UN Wire: EU seeks mandate for ground tro

News from the Oregon Progressive Party

News from Vermont Progressive Party

Get Up, Stand Up: Uniting Populists, Ene

Are Liberals Just Suckers?

Wage Gap Fails to "Magically Disappear",

Pyramid of Capitalist System

Ensnared by Our Illusions

[Lack of] Election integrity in Wisconsi

Robert Reich | President Obama's Real Bu

Paul Krugman | Obama Calls Ryan's Bluff

This Tax Day, Make THEM Pay ...a letter

Obama & The Siren Song of Empty Promises

Unfortunately An Open Question. Who is B

Born Again Birther Party

From ThinkProgress

The GOP budget chairman throws some curves while supposedly 'setting the record straight.'

May 6, 2011