Kenneth deGraffenreid, one of the nation's top former counterintelligence officials, told The Upshot last week that the Pentagon's failure to run down at the very least every name with a clearance was "absurd," and that foreign intelligence services are actively seeking people who have both access to America's secrets and terrible secrets of their own that make them vulnerable to blackmail.
1More
shared by thinkahol * on 19 Sep 10
- No Cached
Pentagon to investigate hundreds of suspected child pornography fans in its ranks | The... - 0 views
news.yahoo.com/...-pornography-fans-in-its-ranks
Pentagon to investigate hundreds of suspected child pornography fans in its ranks | The Upshot Yahoo! News -
![](/images/link.gif)
7More
Keane Bhatt, "Noam Chomsky on Hopes and Prospects for Activism: 'We Can Achieve a Lot'" - 1 views
-
I think he would take it for granted that elites are basically Marxist -- they believe in class analysis, they believe in class struggle, and in a really business-run society like the United States, the business elites are deeply committed to class struggle and are engaged in it all the time. And they understand. They're instinctive Marxists; they don't have to read it.
-
In fact, Malaysia also came out of the Asian crisis. It was imposing capital controls. Now the economists were all saying it's a disaster. But they did quite well. Same with Argentina, the former poster child for the IMF, leading to a serious crisis. It then disregarded all the warnings and doctrines and the economy did very well, contrary to predictions.
-
using the multidimensional poverty index, there were 645 million poor, or 55 percent of India's population -- more than in the poorest 26 African countries combined.
- ...3 more annotations...
-
there is sometimes dramatic conflict between the developmentalists, like left president Correa, and the indigenous communities affected by mining and dams. Also, Evo Morales, despite being hugely popular, recently had to deal with a very big general strike in Potosí. What do you make of these dynamics? What are the hopes and prospects in Latin America regarding raising living standards, the paths of industrialization, environmental considerations, the role of social movements, and avoiding state coercion?
-
I don't know of any simple general answer to your question of how this will all turn out. The problems are often not simple. A great deal is at stake, not just for the people of the countries. Resource extraction impacts a global environment that is increasingly at severe risk.
-
You said, "It's quite striking that we and other western countries can't reach, can't even approach, can't even dream about the level of democracy they had in Haiti. That's pretty shocking. Here's one of the poorest countries in the world. The population that organized to win that election is among the most repressed and impoverished in the world; they managed to organize enough to enter the electoral arena without any resources and elect their own candidate." Praising Bolivia at the same time, you asked, "Is it believable that we can't do the same? . . . We can take lessons from them. Anything they've done we can do a thousand times more easily."
2More
Steve Young: Most Race-Baiting Column EVER! O'Reilly Uses Nearly Entire Column To Conju... - 0 views
-
In one of the most incendiary columns ever written, "Race And The Presidential Election," Bill O'Reilly sets the race-bait bar to record-breaking...depths. Short of saying that Barack Obama wants to sleep with your pearly-white daughter, O'Reilly uses just about every button meant to alarm his white fans to the fact that Barack Obama is BLACK and that just his running for, let alone becoming, president, could set off race-laced fireworks.
-
"Obama's second dilemma is convincing skeptical white voters that he and his wife are sympathetic to their concerns. Let's be honest--few white Americans would tolerate a Reverend Wright for five minutes, much less 20 years."
6More
Poll results for first presidential debate: Obama wins | Midwest Voices - 0 views
-
CBS Insta Poll shows Barack Obama won 39% to John McCain's 25% with 36% saying the debate was a draw. Insider Advantage reports those polled Obama won 42% to McCain's 41% with Undecided 17% CNN reports voter opinions that Obama "did better" 51%, McCain "did better" 38% The CNN poll showed men were evenly split, but women gave Obama higher marks 59% to 41% for McCain.
-
How to show that someone is cranky - Barak did it by agreeing and giving credit - McCain reinforced it by being dismissive and talking down to Barak. How to did Barak show McCain's out of touchness - by showing that that McCain's claim that Barck was stubborn by giving McCain credit when it was approprate - Being graceful does that
-
-
The MSNBC on-line (non-scientific) poll showed Obama winning the debate 52% to 33%. (But this is what one would expect from such a poll at MSNBC because of the nature of its viewers.)
-
women voters especially would be turned off by McCain's sarcastic tone because women do tend to be the conciliators in our society and saw Obama display those conciliatory qualities very well in the debate. Obama looked at McCain, and McCain wouldn't return the eye contact but rather glared or displayed a tight and angry expression.
- ...2 more annotations...
-
Senator McNasty. I believe older voters will also be reassured that, though McCain has been around longer, Obama has a good grasp of foreign affairs and can learn quickly. He impressed as a statesmen, in marked contrast to McCain's warrior demeanor.
-
McCain's condescenion felt annoying; to the listener who might agree or disagree with Obama, Obama nevertheless was making good points, not naive ones.
1More
'Critical' period ahead as Iraq gears up for upcoming polls, says UN envoy - 0 views
-
Iraq is entering a critical period as it prepares for upcoming provincial polls, which provide an opportunity to shape a new political landscape in the fledgling democracy, a top United Nations envoy said today, while cautioning that the potential for election-related violence and instability remains.
3More
Obama's Business Backers Look Ahead - BusinessWeek.com- msnbc.com - 0 views
-
In addition to Logan, they include Valerie Jarrett, CEO of real estate management firm The Habitat Co. and now co-head of Obama's transition team; Jim Reynolds, CEO of investment bank Loop Capital Markets; John Rogers, CEO of mutual fund icon Ariel Investments; Quintin Primo III, CEO of commercial real estate development company Capri Capital Partners; and Frank Clark, CEO of electrical utility Commonwealth Edison.
-
Later, during his second year in the U.S. Senate, Obama called Clark, among others, to discuss whether it made sense for him to mount a bid for the Presidency. Clark, 62, is one of Chicago's elder statesmen and chief of ComEd, a subsidiary of energy giant Exelon (EXC) and the largest electric utility in Illinois, serving nearly 4 million customers in Chicago and Northern Illinois. He didn't mince words: "Your window of opportunity is now," Clark recalls saying. "Go do it."
-
"Our generation has been limited in terms of how far we can dream," Logan said on Tuesday night just minutes before Obama took the stage. The son of two teachers who worked on Chicago's South Side, Logan majored in accounting and economics at Florida A&M University, a predominantly black college, and later earned an MBA in finance from the University of Chicago. "We've too often been under the impression that we can only serve our own. We've had constraints applied to what we can achieve."
4More
In Fine Print, a Proliferation of Large Donors - 0 views
-
The joint fund-raising committees have been utilized far more heavily this presidential election than in the past. Mr. Obama’s campaign has leaned on wealthy benefactors to contribute up to $33,100 at a time to complement his army of small donors over the Internet as he bypassed public financing for the general election. More than 600 donors contributed $25,000 or more to him in September alone, roughly three times the number who did the same for Senator John McCain.
-
Compared with Mr. Obama, Mr. McCain drew a slightly larger percentage of his big-donor money from the financial industry, about a fifth of his total. The next biggest amount in large checks for Mr. McCain came from real estate and then donors who identified themselves as retired. With his emphasis on offshore drilling, Mr. McCain has also enjoyed heavy support from generous benefactors in the oil and gas industry, a group Mr. Obama drew relatively little from.
-
Donations to these joint fund-raising committees have surged this election cycle, taking in nearly $300 million this year through September — with Mr. McCain collecting slightly more than Mr. Obama — compared with $69 million in 2004. Campaign finance watchdogs call it a worrisome trend, saying the heavy emphasis on such arrangements brings candidates one step further into the embrace of major donors.
- ...1 more annotation...
-
McCain finance officials introduced their main joint fund-raising committee, McCain Victory 2008, in the spring. Mr. McCain was still able to accept primary money, so money was divided between his primary campaign coffers, the Republican National Committee, several state parties and his compliance fund, for a maximum check of $70,100.
1More
Donklephant » Blog Archive » CBS Snap Debate Poll: Obama 39%, McCain 27% - 0 views
-
Here are the numbers from a poll of 500 uncommitted voters… How did the debate impact vote preferences? 15% say they are now committed to Obama 14% to McCain 70% are still uncommitted Would make the right decisions about the economy? McCain: 41% before the debate, 49% after Obama: 54% before the debate, 68% after Understands your needs? McCain: 35% before the debate, 46% after Obama: 60% before the debate, 80% after Prepared for the job of president? McCain: 80% before the debate, 84% after Obama: 42% before the debate, 57% after Did candidates answer the questions they were asked? 57% yes, 42% no — for both candidates Obama continues to dominate the “economic” and “understands my needs” categories.
5More
Rob McKay: Small Is the New Big in Progressive Politics - Politics on The Huffington Post - 0 views
-
The grab for this group of voters has generally been coordinated by a seasoned team of professional campaign staff operating in war rooms and spending millions in mobilizing voters. But new efforts among progressive voters, musicians, and grassroots groups are saying the way to be "big" in '08 is to "go small." And how resources are spent in this election and after, could determine whether the Democratic Party is about short-term voter excitement or permanent citizen engagement.
-
This new group of efforts focuses on local leadership, small circles, and cultural organizing. They are taking their strategies from the anti-slavery movement, groups like craigslist, and most surprisingly, a new Christian movement. "
-
Potts and other organizers note that while overall church attendance has steadily declined since the 1990s, a new form of church has taken off--the house church. Unlike traditional churches, the house church movement doesn't meet in a specific house of worship, but instead, as the name suggests, in people's homes.
- ...2 more annotations...
-
They note the key to the success of these churches is threefold: 1. Shared values rather than on autocratic rule. 2. Peer circles, rather than as a large, rigid, top-down hierarchy. 3. Leading through inspiration rather than by formal authority, allowing, but not forcing, others to follow them.
-
As Potts, who is organizing with musicians during 08, puts it "The conservatives have churches every Sunday, progressives have concerts every night." From an organizing perspective, concerts are for progressives what churches have been for conservatives.
2More
Leahy says Clinton should withdraw - Yahoo! News - 0 views
-
Sen. Patrick Leahy is suggesting that Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton abandon her White House run.
3More
shared by alex thorn on 29 Mar 08
- Cached
Treasury's Plan Would Give Fed Wide New Power - New York Times - 0 views
www.nytimes.com/...29regulate.html
bank bilderberg central bank elite fed federal reserve rockefeller
![](/images/link.gif)
-
Democratic lawmakers are all but certain to say the proposal does not go far enough in restricting the kinds of practices that caused the financial crisis.
3More
Writers praise Barack Obama's inaugural address - long on plot - stood on shoulders - 0 views
-
Long on plot (and it will thicken), it did what literature does best: the backward glance, the standing on shoulders, the salute to ancestors and other sources of wisdom.
-
He is our first (in the best sense of the word) aristocratic president," author and journalist Malcolm Gladwell told The Times. "Bush was a buddy. Clinton was the kindly uncle. Obama is a prince."
-
Some, like memoirist Patricia Hampl, praised Obama's plain speaking. "I was glad," she said, "that he denied himself rhetorical flourishes and gave a speech as refined and restrained in its power so that political language itself was restored to its greatest value -- saying what the speaker means."
4More
Obama Favoring Mid-2010 Pullout in Iraq, Aides Say - NYTimes.com - 0 views
-
Obama plans to leave behind a “residual force” of tens of thousands of troops to continue training Iraqi security forces
-
It was not clear on Tuesday exactly how many of the 140,000 troops would remain in Iraq after August 2010 or whether any of the 14 combat brigades now there would stay under a new mission.
2More
Colin Powell Rejects Dick Cheney's Claims, Says U.S. Is Not Less Safe Under Obama (VIDEO) - 0 views
-
Powell pointed out that Obama has kept in place most of the programs enacted by the Bush administration. "The Transportation Security Administration created by George Bush is still in action working in our airports," Powell told host Bob Schieffer. "They take care of me every day that I go to an airport." The Office of the Director of National Intelligence was also created under President Bush, "and it is still under President Obama, working hard," Powell continued. "Our counterterrorism authorities and forces are hard at work. Our law enforcement officials are hard at work. We have gone after the enemy in Afghanistan with 50,000 more troops, more predators are striking al-Qaida and Taliban leaders in Pakistan. We have continued the policies that President Bush put in place with respect to Iraq. And so I don't know where the claim comes that we are less safe."
-
Dick Cheney's charges that the country is less safe because of the way Barack Obama has handled national security matters don't hold water, former Secretary of State Colin Powell said Sunday. "To suggest that somehow we have become much less safer because of the actions of the administration, I don't think that's borne out by the facts," Powell said on CBS's "Face the Nation."
3More
shared by Skeptical Debunker on 22 Feb 10
- Cached
Steve King To Conservatives: 'Implode' IRS Offices | TPM LiveWire - 0 views
tpmlivewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/...atives-implode-irs-offices.php
Steve King suggestion IRS implosion
![](/images/link.gif)
-
King's comments weren't recorded, but a staffer for Media Matters, who heard the comments, provided TPMmuckraker with an account. The staffer, who requested anonymity because she's not a communications specialist, said that King, an extreme right-winger with a reputation for eyebrow-raising rhetoric, appeared as a surprise guest speaker on an immigration panel at the conservative conference. During his closing remarks, King veered into a complaint about high taxes, and said he could "empathize" with the man who flew a plane into an IRS building last week. During the question and answer session, the Media Matters staffer asked King to clarify his comment, reminding him of his sworn duty to protect the American people from all sworn enemies, foreign and domestic. In response, said the staffer, King gave a long and convoluted answer about having been personally audited by the IRS, and ended by saying he intended to hold a fundraiser to help people "implode" their local IRS office.
3More
Use of DNA evidence is not an open and shut case, professor says - 0 views
-
In his new book, "The Double Helix and the Law of Evidence" (Harvard University Press), Kaye focuses on the intersection of science and law, and emphasizes that DNA evidence is merely information. "There's a popular perception that with DNA, you get results," Kaye said. "You're either guilty or innocent, and the DNA speaks the truth. That goes too far. DNA is a tool. Perhaps in many cases it's open and shut, in other cases it's not. There's ambiguity."
-
One of the book's key themes is that using science in court is hard to do right. "It requires lawyers and judges to understand a lot about the science," Kaye noted. "They don't have to be scientists or technicians, but they do have to know enough to understand what's going on and whether the statements that experts are making are well-founded. The lawyers need to be able to translate that information into a form that a judge or a jury can understand." Kaye also believes that lawyers need to better understand statistics and probability, an area that has traditionally been neglected in law school curricula. His book attempts to close this gap in understanding with several sections on genetic science and probability. The book also contends that scientists, too, have contributed to the false sense of certainty, when they are so often led by either side of one particular case to take an extreme position. Scientists need to approach their role as experts less as partisans and more as defenders of truth. Aiming to be a definitive history of the use of DNA evidence, "The Double Helix and the Law of Evidence" chronicles precedent-setting criminal trials, battles among factions of the scientific community and a multitude of issues with the use of probability and statistics related to DNA. From the Simpson trial to the search for the last Russian Tsar, Kaye tells the story of how DNA science has impacted society. He delves into the history of the application of DNA science and probability within the legal system and depicts its advances and setbacks.
3More
Les Leopold: Why are We Afraid to Create the Jobs We Need? - 0 views
-
1. The private sector will create enough jobs, if the government gets out of the way. Possibly, but when? Right now more than 2.7 percent of our entire population has been unemployed for more than 26 weeks -- an all time-record since the government began compiling that data in 1948. No one is predicting that the private sector is about to go on a hiring spree. In fact, many analysts think it'll take more than a decade for the labor market to fully recover. You can't tell the unemployed to wait ten years. Counting on a private sector market miracle is an exercise in faith-based economics. There simply is no evidence that the private sector can create on its own the colossal number of jobs we need. If we wanted to go down to a real unemployment rate of 5% ("full employment"), we'd have to create about 22.4 million jobs. (See Leo Hindery's excellent accounting.) We'd need over 100,000 new jobs every month just to keep up with population growth. It's not fair to the unemployed to pray for private sector jobs that might never come through. 2. We can't afford it. Funding public sector jobs will explode the deficit and the country will go broke: This argument always makes intuitive sense because most of us think of the federal budget as a giant version of our household budget - we've got to balance the books, right? I'd suggest we leave that analogy behind. Governments just don't work the same way as families do. We have to look at the hard realities of unemployment, taxes and deficits. For instance, every unemployed worker is someone who is not paying taxes. If we're not collecting taxes from the unemployed, then we've got to collect more taxes from everyone who is working. Either that, or we have to cut back on services. If we go with option one and raise taxes on middle and low income earners, they'll have less money to spend on goods and services. When demand goes down, businesses contract--meaning layoffs in the private sector. But if we go with option two and cut government services, we'll have to lay off public sector workers. Now we won't be collecting their taxes, and the downward cycle continues. Plus, we don't get the services. Or, we could spend the money to create the jobs and just let the deficit rise a bit more. The very thought makes politicians and the public weak in the knees. But in fact this would start a virtuous cycle that would eventually reduce the deficit: Our newly reemployed people start paying taxes again. And with their increased income, they start buying more goods and services. This new demand leads to more hiring in the private sector. These freshly hired private sector workers start paying taxes too. The federal budget swells with new revenue, and the deficit drops. But let's say you just can't stomach letting the deficit rise right now. You think the government is really out of money--or maybe you hate deficits in principle. There's an easy solution to your problem. Place a windfall profits tax on Wall Street bonuses. Impose a steep tax on people collecting $3 million or more. (Another way to do it is to tax the financial transactions involved in speculative investments by Wall Street and the super-rich.) After all, those fat bonuses are unearned: The entire financial sector is still being bankrolled by the taxpayers, who just doled out $10 trillion (not billion) in loans and guarantees. Besides, taxing the super-rich doesn't put a dent in demand for goods and services the way taxing other people does. The rich can only buy so much. The rest goes into investment, much of it speculative. So a tax on the super rich reduces demand for the very casino type investments that got us into this mess.
-
3. Private sector jobs are better that public sector jobs. Why is that? There is a widely shared perception that having a public job is like being on the dole, while having a private sector job is righteous. Maybe people sense that in the private sector you are competing to sell your goods and services in the rough and tumble of the marketplace--and so you must be producing items that buyers want and need. Government jobs are shielded from market forces. But think about some of our greatest public employment efforts. Was there anything wrong with the government workers at NASA who landed us on the moon? Or with the public sector workers in the Manhattan project charged with winning World War II? Are teachers at public universities somehow less worthy than those in private universities? Let's be honest: a good job is one that contributes to the well-being of society and that provides a fair wage and benefits. During an employment crisis, those jobs might best come directly from federal employment or indirectly through federal contracts and grants to state governments. This myth also includes the notion that the private sector is more efficient than the public sector. Sometimes it is, but mostly it isn't. Take health care, which accounts for nearly 17 percent of our entire economy. Medicare is a relative model of efficiency, with much lower administrative costs than private health insurers. The average private insurance company worker is far less productive and efficient than an equivalent federal employee working for Medicare. (See study by Himmelstein, Woolhandler and Wolfe) 4. Big government suffocates our freedom. The smaller the central government, the better -- period, the end. This is the hardest argument to refute because it is about ideology not facts. Simply put, many Americans believe that the federal government is bad by definition. Some don't like any government at all. Others think power should reside mostly with state governments. This idea goes all the way back to the anti-federalists led by Thomas Jefferson, who feared that yeomen farmers would be ruled (and feasted upon) by far-away economic elites who controlled the nation's money and wealth. In modern times this has turned into a fear of a totalitarian state with the power to tell us what to do and even deny us our most basic liberties. A government that creates millions of jobs could be seen as a government that's taking over the economy (like taking over GM). It just gets bigger and more intrusive. And more corrupt and pork-ridden. (There's no denying we've got some federal corruption, but again the private sector is hardly immune to the problem. In fact, it lobbies for the pork each and every day.) It's probably impossible to convince anyone who hates big government to change their minds. But we need to consider what state governments can and cannot do to create jobs. Basically, their hands are tied precisely because they are not permitted by our federal constitution to run up debt. So when tax revenues plunge (as they still are doing) states have to cut back services and/or increase taxes. In effect, the states act as anti-stimulus programs. They are laying off workers and will continue to do so until either the private sector or the federal government creates many more jobs. Unlike the feds, states are in no position to regulate Wall Street. They're not big enough, not strong enough and can easily be played off against each other. While many fear big government, I fear high unemployment even more. That's because the Petri dish for real totalitarianism is high unemployment -- not the relatively benign big government we've experienced in America. When people don't have jobs and see no prospect for finding them, they get desperate -- maybe desperate enough to follow leaders who whip up hatred and trample on people's rights in their quest for power. Violent oppression of minority groups often flows from high unemployment. So does war. No thanks. I'll take a government that puts people to work even if it has to hire 10 million more workers itself. We don't have to sacrifice freedom to put people to work. We just have to muster the will to hire them.
-
Unemployment is the scourge of our nation. It causes death and disease. It eats away at family life. It erodes our sense of confidence and well being. And it's a profound insult to the richest country on Earth. Yet it takes a minor miracle for the Senate just to extend our paltry unemployment benefits and COBRA health insurance premium subsidies for a month. Workers are waiting for real jobs, but our government no longer has the will to create them. How can we allow millions to go without work while Wall Street bankers--the ones who caused people to lose their jobs in the first place-- "earn" record bonuses? Why are we putting up with this? It's not rocket science to create decent and useful jobs, (although it does go beyond the current cranial capacity of the U.S. Senate). It's obvious that we desperately need to repair our infrastructure, increase our energy efficiency, generate more renewable energy, and invest in educating our young. We need millions of new workers to do all this work--right now. Our government has all the money and power (and yes, borrowing capacity) it needs to hire these workers directly or fund contractors and state governments to hire them. Either way, workers would get the jobs, and we would get safer bridges and roads, a greener environment, better schools, and a brighter future all around. So what are we waiting for?
3More
shared by Omnipotent Poobah on 17 Dec 09
- Cached
Don't Blame Obama, America Did It To Itself - 0 views
omnipotentpoobah.com/...obama-america-did-it-to-itself
Barack Obama politics George W Bush Howard Dean John McCain Attila the Hun
![](/images/link.gif)
-
Obama is neither liberal nor conservative, he's a middle of the roader. It sure would've been nice if voters had noticed that before they elected him.
-
I'd sure like to see Obama "kick some ass", instead of allowing the Repubs to do the same thing they've been doing for the past eight or nine years. Mainly bully and intimidate, and use scare tactics to get what they and big business want.
-
Frank: The democrats have a 60 vote majority and Obama doesn't need them at all for anything. He pretty much has let them know "We Won!" He also has pretty much let them know he doesn't need them. This is a Liberal controlled White House, Senate and House. Stop the blame game. Let's put the focus exactly where everyone who is truthful, here, understands: On the Democratic controlled Administration and Congress. They have all the marbles and they don't need the Republicans' vote. The problem Obama has is that he realizes that there is going to be a bloodbath. Please, don't say otherwise - even his own people are starting to prepare the party. Why do you suppose four Democrats announced that they are retiring - they aren't even running over the next 10 1/2 months. More will reitre before election day. He has the same problem that Clinton had - he could possibly lose the House and he would then be somewhat in the same position of Clinton - who was forced to the middle because he would not be able to get anything else approved. I may be wrong, history will decide, but I think the American people no longer trust either party. Are you happy with the Democrats? We now have senators selling their vote for $300,000,000 in one instance and Sen. Nelson just got a permanent exemption for Medicaid cost that States have to pay - Forever! All 49 other states must pick up this states cost - all for one vote! Do you believe this is what the Democrats, Republicans or Independents expect or want from their government. I don't. Getting back to my point, the people of America don't trust either party, now, and want them closely divided so they don't do too much harm. Independents have swung away from Obama in a very big way. He ran more as a centrist and now people fill lied to. Seven days before he took office he said he was fundamentally going to change America. No one had heard this before - not "Fundamentally". They expected a far more bipartisan