Group items matching

in title, tags, annotations or url

Pressure of deadlines is not an excuse, but it does increase the burden of proof for intent. In addition, in a complex story like this, balance arises from the totality of coverage, and an individual report can only be approximately neutral. Should we not expect an experienced reporter like Bowen to provide some original interpretation of motives?

Other countries are worse. So? The rest of us would be jailed for assault if we hit someone with a stick in response to extreme provocation.

By Ralph Nader & Carl J. Mayer New York Times, April 9, 1988 Our constitutional rights were intended for real persons, not artificial creations. The Framers knew about corporations but chose not to mention these contrived entities in the Constitution. For them, the document shielded living beings from arbitrary government and endowed them with the right to speak, assemble, and petition. Today, however, corporations enjoy virtually the same umbrella of constitutional protections as individuals do. They have become in effect artificial persons with infinitely greater power than humans. This constitutional equivalence must end. Consider a few noxious developments during the last 10 years. A group of large Boston companies invoked the First Amendment in order to spend lavishly and thus successfully defeat a referendum that would have permitted the legislature to enact a progressive income tax that had no direct effect on the property and business of these companies. An Idaho electrical and plumbing corporation cited the Fourth Amendment and deterred a health and safety investigation. A textile supply company used Fifth Amendment protections and barred retrial in a criminal anti-trust case in Texas. The idea that the Constitution should apply to corporations as it applies to humans had its dubious origins in 1886. The Supreme Court said it did "not wish to hear argument" on whether corporations were "persons" protected by the 14th Amendment, a civil rights amendment designed to safeguard newly emancipated blacks from unfair government treatment. It simply decreed that corporations were persons. Now that is judicial activism. A string of later dissents, by Justices Hugo Black and William O. Douglas, demonstrated that neither the history nor the language of the 14th Amendment was meant to protect corporations. But it was too late. The genie was out of the bottle and the corporate evolution into personhood was under way. It was not until the 1970's that corporations

A well thought through article on why the BBC should let racist far-right BNP leader Griffin speak on Question Time. Not sure where I stand on this yet though.

The "Puerto Rico Democracy Act of 2009" (HR 2499) is not the product of consensus and should be opposed. Let your voice be heard!

Interesting how the warhead seems to be going off on the campus of Columbia College. I guess the bad guys are going to bring us to out knees by cutting off the supply of fashion illustrators and fiction writers? Those fiends! We would have never seen it coming. If you're read my stuff, you know exactly what I think of the Bush administration and how happy I was to see it leave Washington. I like a good neocon bash maybe even more than the next man. But, while this take on Bolton's remarks has been a popular one, I don't feel it's a reasonable one. As the article itself quotes Mr.Bolton "The fact is on foreign policy I don't think President Obama thinks it's a priority," said Bolton. "He said during the campaign he thought Iran was a tiny threat. Tiny, tiny depending on how many nuclear weapons they are ultimately able to deliver on target. Its, uh, its tiny compared to the Soviet Union, but is the loss of one American city" - here Bolton changes his tone subtly to prepare for the joke - "pick one at random - Chicago - is that a tiny threat?" Yes, there's a joke in that remark, but it's not the one that Jonathan Stein of Mother Jones wants it to be. The point of the joke is that if even one city gets hit, that's somebody's home and to that somebody, the difference between a vast nuclear arsenal and a small one isn't going to matter much. By naming the president's hometown in the hypothetical, he invites the president to put himself in the shoes of that person left facing a detonation close at hand. We don't have to guess how Obama would feel about such a prospect; it's the same way anybody would feel about it. To suggest, as the author does, that the audience validated a hope for mass murder by laughing at the joke is a disingenuous attempt to produce a hysterical response for the political gain of an already victorious faction. It's a cheap shot, and the author should have known better. This makes the Bush Administration and neoconservatism look bett

This link is not an endorsement; the author is writing propaganda. What you should keep in mind as you read this post is precisely what the author would have you forget - that the victim "confessed" to the acts that supposedly justified his torture, as he was being tortured, on behalf of the US government. That part, so far, doesn't really seem to be in dispute. Only the rightness of torturing confessions out of prisoners - and then playing make believe, and pretending that those are real confessions - seems to be, leaving us to ask "didn't the Middle Ages end a few centuries ago". Don't we all basically know what history shouldn't have had to teach our ancestors - that if you inflict enough pain on somebody, he'll say just about anything to make the pain stop? To attach the word "fascism" to a political ideology that supports this sort of thing is in no way excessive, and that's why I'm linking to this article. Watch the way in which the author, with not a single fact in support of his position, blusters his way past reality, treating a torture extracted confession as a source of unimpeachable truth, and gets you to not notice that he has done so. Learn how this creep works his magic, and when the next creep comes along, you'll be less likely to fall under his spell. Oh, and yes - this is the second penis related story to come out of Africa to be seen on this microblog in a row. Nothing deliberate in this; you're just getting the stories as I find them. Wondering if this one is going to be the start of a trend. Remembering Anthropology 100 back in undergrad, and some of its more graphic descriptions of body modification rituals on the continent, I suppose that's a possibility. One I'd really rather not explore more than absolutely necessary, but when somebody ends up being held prisoner and tortured for seven years because he visited a parody site, I think we need to get past our squeamishness and say something about that.

Paul Krugman says something about Obama's statement that there would be no widespread investigation of Bush administration abuses that should be common sense, but sadly isn't, and so badly needs to be said. Found on Furl.

This is not a joke. Electrical stimulation of the animal's brain, in some of these cases, done experimentally for the purposes of mind control. Hmm. In medical research, what often follows animal testing? Thinking that I don't like this idea or the cruelty that has gone into testing it, one bit. One should think of the implications of one's work. WARNING: If you wander elsewhere on the blog this post is on, you will see offensive material used lavishly.

A Libertarian rebuttal to the post two links down on my profile, written a little more intelligently than most, from somebody who I find myself liking a little - but still showing some of the glib blindness that drove me away from that movement. Eg. responding to the report of the selling of tainted meat by saying that one could prevent the problem by cooking the meat until it's medium (ie. greyish red, instead of grey outright, and only mostly tasteless). "See", she seems to be saying, "even without governmental regulation, you have a choice", not quite getting that it isn't a reasonable choice. Selling meat that doesn't have to be cooked to death to be safe is absolutely possible; my grocery does it with regularity and I cook it rare with regularity, without problems following. So is it reasonable that people in places where the merchants or those they buy from are not as ethical should have to maybe choose between enjoying their meals, or surviving them, just so that somebody else be slimy without undue interference? With how ever much charm, the author of this piece answers that question with a resounding "yes", and shows why Libertarianism is, as I've said, not about the promotion of personal freedom so much as it is about the promotion of personal irresponsibility.

One of my editors issued this challenge: "You may not use the words 'liberal' and 'conservative' in your writing for one week." I looked down at the sentence I'd just written: "She dropped her conservative bathing suit cover and, much to the delight of the male patrons (and a few of the females), she began to smooth warm baby oil liberally on her taunt, tan, seemingly-endless legs." Should I delete the line? No, he liked that kind of writing! No surprise there...

Barack Obama's receiving the Nobel Peace Prize should surprise and astonish exactly nobody. The prize committee has long since abandoned any pretense of being anything other than a leftist political body determined to undermine any and all actions by the United States or other democratic bodies who deign to defend themselves against murderous aggressors. This is the same committee that awarded the very same prize to the gangster Yasser Arafat, and frankly admitted that bestowing the award on Jimmy Carter was "a kick in the leg" to George W. Bush.

For the second time, a General has publicly questioned the policies of his Commander-in-Chief. This time, the Marine Corps Commandant is displeased with Obama's desire to abandon Don't Ask, Don't Tell. Whether you agree with DADT or not, generals should not take their criticisms public.

Michael Moore's comments today delivered and relayed at the "We Are One" rally at the State Capitol in Honolulu: Greetings! I want to thank you for turning out today to make your voices heard -- and they ARE heard, even across ocean and land. Today, hundreds of thousands of Americans are joining with you to honor Dr. King by standing up for working people all over America. It was what he was doing in Memphis when he was killed 43 years ago today, supporting sanitation workers on strike.   Today everywhere is Memphis, and it's not just sanitation workers being attacked. It's teachers and firefighters and social workers -- yes, all those greedy public workers who caused the Great Recession we are in! It was the greedy teachers who caused the crash on Wall Street! It was the greedy firefighters who sent millions of jobs overseas! It was the greedy social workers who insisted that GE pay no taxes and that CEOs should make 500 times what the average employee makes! No, my friends, it wasn't! It was the top 1% of the country who did this. THEY brought on the mortgage crisis. THEY made off with billions of dollars from our economy. THEY have systematically destroyed the middle class. And THEY have bought and sold the very people elected to represent us! America is not broke! It's just that the wealthy have absconded with the money! They've removed it from circulation and left us begging for school supplies and fire trucks and libraries. Even the Wall Street Journal admits that the uber-rich are currently just sitting on almost $2 trillion of cash. They're not creating jobs with it. They're not re-circulating it. They're just hanging on to it hoping to make more money off it by continuing their casino games in the stock market, the derivatives market, the credit default swaps market and any other crazy scheme they can invent. This has to stop. But it won't stop unless we make it stop. 400 wealthy Americansnow have more wealth than 150 million Americans COMBINED!  But what

The House budget proposal shows a huge gap between the two parties' priorities, and the difference should be made clear to voters.

"We will fight it through all available means […] To quote what they say every day on Libya, all options are on the table." That's what the chief lobbyist for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce told the New York Times after hearing the White House may issue an executive order requiring corporations that do business with the government to disclose their political spending. The Chamber's pledge to fight tooth and nail to keep the American people in the dark about conflicts of interest in government is appalling, but not surprising. If corporations and their executives are spending on politicians in an effort to "win" government contracts, the American people should know.  Urge President Obama to stand up to the U.S. Chamber and fight for disclosure. Sign the petition today!

As a US Muslim I abhor the frat boy reaction. We should be celebrating the Arab spring, not this

Social Security didn't create the deficit, but America's seniors are being presented with a fake Social Security crisis to try to trick them into accepting reduced benefits. Social Security will be able to pay 100% of its benefits through 2037 without any changes whatsoever. So, why the panic today? If seniors accept cuts to Social Security benefits today, a surplus cash flow will build in the Social Security trust fund. According to the Congressional Research Service, "Social Security's cash surpluses are borrowed by the U.S. Treasury and can be used for tax cuts, spending or repaying debt." Social Security benefit cuts are increasing taxes paid to Social Security or extending retirement age will give more money for tax cuts spending or repaying the debt. Except for one thing: Social Security money belongs to those who have paid into the fund, it's not the government's money to use it; it shouldn't be the government's money to play with. Senior citizens should not have to accept a reduced standard of living to finance tax cuts for the rich. We must take a stand for senior citizens and protect Social Security and protect future generations from this raid on Social Security's funds.

These days, it appears as though the main goal of government policy is to give as much money as possible to corporations and the wealthy. This is an area where there has been considerable success, with the profit share of GDP at near record highs and the richest 1 percent holding a larger portion of the nation's wealth than at any point since the late '20s. The proposals for an employer-side payroll tax cut should be seen in this light.

One expects the debt-ceiling mess to involve a lot of ostentatious chest-pounding on both sides, for despite the fact that this is a deadly serious issue - the fact that we're even considering incurring an intentional catastrophe via a default is incredible, a testament to the bottomless stupidity inherent in our political climate - this whole debate is primarily an exercise in political posturing. That Republicans are holding up what should be a routine, if unpleasant, decision to raise the debt ceiling in order to portray themselves as the uncompromising defenders of the budget-balancing faith (a howling idiocy in itself, given what went on during the Bush years) is obvious to most rational observers. It's the obvious play for the lame-duck party entering an election year, and they're playing it, with the requisite hysteria. But what is becoming equally obvious, to both sides, is that the Obama White House is using this same artificial calamity to pitch its own increasingly rightward tilt to voters in advance of the 2012 elections.