Jeffrey D. Sachs
Jeffrey D. Sachs is Professor of Economics and Director of the Earth Institute at Columbia University. He is also Special Adviser to United Nations Secretary-General on the Millennium Development Goals.
See more at link.
Monday, October 10, 2011
Sunday, October 9, 2011
Secret Sins of Kochs And... We Need More Drum Circles
The Koch brothers have given more than $100 million to conservative politicians and right-wing front groups. But even after they were exposed for working with Iran-- in fact, funneling millions of dollars in Iranian cash to right-wing politicians in America-- nothing has moved any of the Republicans-- nor Koch-friendly Blue Dogs like John Barrow (GA), Dan Boren (OK), Mike Ross (AR) and Collin Peterson (MN)-- to return the money. Among the Kochs' biggest recipients of Iranian-tainted cash are House Members Eric Cantor (R-VA), Michele Bachmann (R-MN), Paul Ryan (R-WI), Fred Upton (R-MI), Steve King (R-IA), Charlie Dent (R-PA), Frank Guinta (R-NH), Paul Broun (R-GA), Darrell Issa (R-CA) and Senators Scott Brown (R-MA), Ron Johnson (R-WI), David Diapers Vitter (R-LA), Mark Kirk (R-IL), Kelly Ayotte (R-NH), Roy Blunt (R-MO), John Thune (R-SD), Jim DeMint (R-SC), Rand Paul (R-KY), Pat Toomey (R-PA) and Susan Collins (R-ME). But none of them have agreed to return a nickel. In his classic OccupyWallStreet column Thursday, Confronting the Malefactors, Krugman was surely including each and every one of them. more at link...
Keith Olbermann Reads The Statement Released By The Wall Street Protesters - 2011-10-05
http://www.examiner.com/human-rights-in-national/keith-olbermann-reads-the-statement-released-by-the-wall-street-protesters-2011-10-05-video
Saturday, September 17, 2011
Hideous, loathsome troll Liz Cheney argues with O'Reilly over that greeted as liberators thing
The conversation then turned to Iraq. O'Reilly played the infamous footage of Cheney saying the U.S. would be "greeted as liberators." Liz Cheney said that this had, in fact, happened.
"Here's why you're wrong," O'Reilly said. "We weren't greeted as liberators. We were greeted in a way that was tentative."
"That's not true," Cheney said. "Yes it is," he replied. He asked her if she knew how many people were present when Saddam Hussein's statue was pulled down.
***
"I don't expect you and your father to agree with me, OK?" O'Reilly concluded. "But the blood and treasure that the United States spent in Iraq has now come back to our country in a very negative way."
See Video at link above~
"Here's why you're wrong," O'Reilly said. "We weren't greeted as liberators. We were greeted in a way that was tentative."
"That's not true," Cheney said. "Yes it is," he replied. He asked her if she knew how many people were present when Saddam Hussein's statue was pulled down.
***
"I don't expect you and your father to agree with me, OK?" O'Reilly concluded. "But the blood and treasure that the United States spent in Iraq has now come back to our country in a very negative way."
See Video at link above~
Defending jobs
Sep 12th 2011, 13:37 by The Economist online
Who are the world's biggest employers?
ONE of the biggest headaches for policymakers in many rich countries has been how to create jobs during a period of fiscal austerity and anaemic growth. The private sector has been slow to generate jobs, and government-spending cuts usually end up cutting jobs. And governments employ a lot of people: in our chart of the ten biggest global employers, below, seven are government-run. America's defence department had 3.2m people on its payroll last year, equivalent to 1% of the country's population. China, the world's most populous nation and a big military spender, employs 2.3m people in its armed forces. And the number of people working for the National Health Service in England is equivalent to over 2.5% of the country's population. The three private companies are Walmart, McDonald's and Taiwan's Hon Hai Precision Industry Company, a subsidiary of which is Foxconn, a secretive electronics manufacturer. Go to link above for more...
Who are the world's biggest employers?
ONE of the biggest headaches for policymakers in many rich countries has been how to create jobs during a period of fiscal austerity and anaemic growth. The private sector has been slow to generate jobs, and government-spending cuts usually end up cutting jobs. And governments employ a lot of people: in our chart of the ten biggest global employers, below, seven are government-run. America's defence department had 3.2m people on its payroll last year, equivalent to 1% of the country's population. China, the world's most populous nation and a big military spender, employs 2.3m people in its armed forces. And the number of people working for the National Health Service in England is equivalent to over 2.5% of the country's population. The three private companies are Walmart, McDonald's and Taiwan's Hon Hai Precision Industry Company, a subsidiary of which is Foxconn, a secretive electronics manufacturer. Go to link above for more...
he Muslim World Brings Forth a Counter-Jihad
Posted on Sep 15, 2011
By Lee Smith
“Rock the Casbah: Rage and Rebellion Across the Islamic World”
A book by Robin Wright
With the Arab Spring still unfolding, former Washington Post reporter Robin Wright’s latest book puts the popular uprisings that have swept the Arabic-speaking Middle East from North Africa and the Levant to the Persian Gulf littoral in the context of a larger movement: counter-jihad. Muslims around the world, she writes, are “increasingly rejecting extremism. The many forms of militancy—from the venomous Sunni creed of al-Qaida to the punitive Shiite theocracy in Iran—have proven costly, unproductive and ultimately unappealing.”
Rock the Casbah: Rage and Rebellion Across the Islamic World
By Robin Wright
Simon & Schuster, 320 pages
"In other words, Osama bin Laden’s efforts produced a result contrary to his intentions. After 9/11 dragged the United States into the Middle East in force, Muslims turned not toward extremism but moderation. According to Wright’s survey of the Muslim world, bin Laden’s message was dead long before the Navy SEALs brought him down in May. “Rock the Casbah,” then, is an introduction to the Muslim world 10 years after 9/11, and the author’s purpose is partly to illuminate and partly to instruct.
From Wright’s perspective,Americans’ view of Muslims and Islam hasn’t caught up to the reality. In spite of developments in the Middle East and elsewhere in the Muslim world, she argues, the past decade here in the United States was “shaped largely by fear of everything from a global clash of civilizations to a new neighborhood mosque.” more at link... above.
By Lee Smith
“Rock the Casbah: Rage and Rebellion Across the Islamic World”
A book by Robin Wright
With the Arab Spring still unfolding, former Washington Post reporter Robin Wright’s latest book puts the popular uprisings that have swept the Arabic-speaking Middle East from North Africa and the Levant to the Persian Gulf littoral in the context of a larger movement: counter-jihad. Muslims around the world, she writes, are “increasingly rejecting extremism. The many forms of militancy—from the venomous Sunni creed of al-Qaida to the punitive Shiite theocracy in Iran—have proven costly, unproductive and ultimately unappealing.”
Rock the Casbah: Rage and Rebellion Across the Islamic World
By Robin Wright
Simon & Schuster, 320 pages
"In other words, Osama bin Laden’s efforts produced a result contrary to his intentions. After 9/11 dragged the United States into the Middle East in force, Muslims turned not toward extremism but moderation. According to Wright’s survey of the Muslim world, bin Laden’s message was dead long before the Navy SEALs brought him down in May. “Rock the Casbah,” then, is an introduction to the Muslim world 10 years after 9/11, and the author’s purpose is partly to illuminate and partly to instruct.
From Wright’s perspective,Americans’ view of Muslims and Islam hasn’t caught up to the reality. In spite of developments in the Middle East and elsewhere in the Muslim world, she argues, the past decade here in the United States was “shaped largely by fear of everything from a global clash of civilizations to a new neighborhood mosque.” more at link... above.
Friday, September 16, 2011
Fairness Doctrine
"The Fairness Doctrine was a policy of the United States Federal Communications Commission (FCC), introduced in 1949, that required the holders of broadcast licenses to both present controversial issues of public importance and to do so in a manner that was, in the Commission's view, honest, equitable and balanced. The FCC decided to eliminate the Doctrine in 1987, and in August 2011 the FCC formally removed the language that implemented the Doctrine.[1]
The Fairness Doctrine had two basic elements: It required broadcasters to devote some of their airtime to discussing controversial matters of public interest, and to air contrasting views regarding those matters. Stations were given wide latitude as to how to provide contrasting views: It could be done through news segments, public affairs shows, or editorials. The doctrine did not require equal time for opposing views but required that contrasting viewpoints be presented.[2]
The main agenda for the doctrine was to ensure that viewers were exposed to a diversity of viewpoints. In 1969 the United States Supreme Court upheld the FCC's general right to enforce the Fairness Doctrine where channels were limited. But the courts did not rule that the FCC was obliged to do so.[3]. The courts reasoned that the scarcity of the broadcast spectrum, which limited the opportunity for access to the airwaves, created a need for the Doctrine. However, the proliferation of cable television, multiple channels within cable, public-access channels, and the Internet have eroded this argument, since there are plenty of places for ordinary individuals to make public comments on controversial issues at low or no cost.
The Fairness Doctrine should not be confused with the Equal Time rule. The Fairness Doctrine deals with discussion of controversial issues, while the Equal Time rule deals only with political candidates." more at link....
The Fairness Doctrine had two basic elements: It required broadcasters to devote some of their airtime to discussing controversial matters of public interest, and to air contrasting views regarding those matters. Stations were given wide latitude as to how to provide contrasting views: It could be done through news segments, public affairs shows, or editorials. The doctrine did not require equal time for opposing views but required that contrasting viewpoints be presented.[2]
The main agenda for the doctrine was to ensure that viewers were exposed to a diversity of viewpoints. In 1969 the United States Supreme Court upheld the FCC's general right to enforce the Fairness Doctrine where channels were limited. But the courts did not rule that the FCC was obliged to do so.[3]. The courts reasoned that the scarcity of the broadcast spectrum, which limited the opportunity for access to the airwaves, created a need for the Doctrine. However, the proliferation of cable television, multiple channels within cable, public-access channels, and the Internet have eroded this argument, since there are plenty of places for ordinary individuals to make public comments on controversial issues at low or no cost.
The Fairness Doctrine should not be confused with the Equal Time rule. The Fairness Doctrine deals with discussion of controversial issues, while the Equal Time rule deals only with political candidates." more at link....
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)