Best quality video Youtube had, sorry.
“What I noticed is that that office takes your personality and exaggerates it — you become a caricature of who you are. And he has a personality trait that costs him politically, and it’s the personality trait of a writer. He really is at bottom a writer, and the trait is — he’s in a moment and not in a moment at the same time. He can be in a room but detach himself at the same time. It’s almost as if he’s writing about it at the same time he’s participating in it. It’s a curious inside-outside thing, and the charge that he’s aloof grows right out of this trait.
By FELICITY BARRINGER
Ever since comprehensive legislation to reduce greenhouse gases died in Congress two years ago, my colleague John Broder noted here recently, climate change has been the issue that national politicians seem to avoid at all costs. Supporting renewable energy? Fine. Advocating energy independence? Great. Calling for action on global warming? Not so much.
A new study from Yale’s Center on Climate Change Communication, based on polling done in March — before the summer heat wave and the news that July was the hottest month ever recorded in the United States — shows that 55 percent of registered voters say that the candidates’ views on global warming will factor into their decisions in the polling booth. Read more …
Shorter answer: Duh
I wish I could feel as passionately about our presidentiables as this eloquent individual feels about Barack Obama.
This quiz clearly does not define me, but I thought it was interesting. I scored as a left (6.09) social libertarian (3.58), non-interventionist (-3.75), and cultural liberal (-5.79).
The Real 99%
This image is misinformed and it completely misses the point of the Occupy movements. First, America’s high GDP is not a reflection of the societal ills within the country. Sure, the degree of poverty is different between southern United States and the Horn of Africa; nonetheless, people are not getting the kind of protection they should expect from their governments. For more on that topic see Richard Wilkinson’s TED Talk.
Occupy isn’t about Americans wanting a free hand-out; they want change in the global economic order which is structured to benefit the 1% (CEOs of multinational corporations - not even their employees) at the expense of the 99%. This is why the Occupy movements have stretched beyond Wall Street and Zuccotti Park. People are protesting throughout the globe because it is a global movement.
Cuba’s crazy non-communist-sounding idea: Property sales
- then For decades, Cuban gave its citizens socialist housing, which was tough to move out of because that required government approval; many families and even divorced couples stayed together under the same roof as a result.
- now Cuba’s changing its policies in reaction to economic concerns, it’s now allowing people to buy and sell property — which sounds kinda like capitalism. The government, however, says they’re working hard to protect socialism. source
Socialism could be so rad, but you can’t help but get left behind in our global economic order.
The award sets a historic precedent by going to three women for the first time. In the history of the prize, only 12 out of the 97 individuals who have received the prize were women.
Really pleased with this prize. It went to three women who not only work for women’s rights,…
[FOR] the anti-institutionalists, realizing one simple point is crucial: as long as Republicans are in power, no amount of protest will move them. Over a million people could camp out on the National Mall for months at a time, and nothing would change. Speaker Boehner and his caucus of Tea Party nutcases simply will not be moved except by one action and one alone: booting them out of office. The chances of their addressing the grievances of the majority of the American People are less than nil, regardless of the public pressure placed upon them.
And yet, for the institutionalists, it’s also critical to recognize just how damaging the last 30 years of Democratic acquiescence to conservative ideology has been for not only the Democratic brand, but for the nation’s belief in the power of electoral politics to create change.
It is quite literally impossible to say with a straight face that working to elect more or even better Democrats will actually create the change necessary to address the grievances being expressed in Zuccotti Park. It’s laughable. That ship has been sailing away for decades, and disappeared completely over the horizon with the disappointment of January 2009 through November 2010 and beyond. It is painfully obvious that electoral politics alone are utterly inadequate to deal with the nation’s problems.
The reality is that putting Democrats in power is a necessary but insufficient condition to creating real change in this country.
Republicans are ideologically opposed to creating the necessary changes, and are more afraid of being primaried by an even more crazy conservative, than of even the biggest protest movements from the left. Democrats, meanwhile, are ideologically compatible with most of the changes, but are variously stymied by the system, blinkered by a desire for “compromise,” fearful of conservative anger, or corrupted by the influence of big money.
In order for change to take place, good Democrats do need to be in power. But only an angry and motivated populace angry with both Parties and strongly intent on holding Democrats accountable will scare and motivate Democrats enough to do what they were elected to do.
Effective tax rates paid by adjusted gross incomes, via the New York Times.
If you’re poor, making more money means you’ll pay more taxes. If you’re rich, making more money means you’ll pay less.
Yes. I like how Warren Buffett spoke out about how he pays less taxes than his employees, because they have to pay income taxes and the government doesn’t tax him for his capital gain (which is basically, how the guy gets like 99.9% (made up statistic) of his money). There is a discrepancy in the system and it would make so much sense if they fixed it. Alas, Republicans (particularly the Troll Party, I mean Tea Party) have their heads so far up their asses that they can’t see what’s logical and instead choose to oppose anything the Democrats might suggest.
BAH! TAXES! THAT’S SOCIALIST, EVIL, RUSSIAN PROPAGANDA. I KNOW WHAT I’M TALKING ABOUT. I CAN SEE THEM SCHEMING FROM MY $5 MILLION ALASKAN CABIN.
Martin Luther King Jr.
A lot of people on the internet are using this quotation to comment on the way Americans have celebrated Bin Laden’s death. I get the point that it is rather morbid to celebrate anyone’s death. I know killing Bin Laden will not end terrorism; and it may, in fact, exacerbate threats to security. But let’s be real here. If the United States decided not to kill the man, they would have just keep him in Abu Ghraib or Guantanamo and tortured the shit out of him (which is a complete human rights mess in itself). Anyone who thinks that ‘love’ and forgiveness was the way to deal with Bin Laden is delusional. Anyone who thinks we should have spared him his life and granted him the right to a trial hasn’t been paying attention to the news the last nine years. The problem with quotations is we universalize them without understanding the context in which they were stated. Who really knows what MLK Jr. would have thought about the Geronimo E-KIA operation. Homeboy would have probably still been celebrating the fact that Obama’s commander-in-chief. We don’t all have to rejoice at the fact that Al Qaeda’s figurehead was killed. Different people react differently. But I think it’s perfectly fine to feel a sense of relief and justice - and to celebrate it. I don’t think it’s fair to fault Americans for rejoicing. Most of the explanations I’ve found just want to be politically correct about the whole ordeal. Fuck political correctness. The guy killed 3,000 people in 9/11 alone. Who knows how many Muslim civilians died under his orders. Most days, I don’t actually believe in the saying ‘an eye for an eye’; but Bin Laden is a definite exception.
I’m glad the motherfucker is dead.
“We put our fingers in the eyes of those who doubt that Libya is ruled by anyone other than its people,” Gaddhafi stated during a speech in Tripoli today. He also claimed that he operated on a system of direct democracy and called for the UN to investigate this uprising, claiming a conspiracy to get Libyan oil. He also said that Libya isn’t Darfur or Iraq and doesn’t need foreign aid that would result in colonialism. Read more at Reuters and the Guardian.
Photo: REUTERS/Libyan TV via Reuters TV
I dislike the dude and I can’t really add anything that’s already been said (the world hates you). I just needed a proper segue to post this link: Gaddafi Fashion. Ruthless dictator with a ruthless sense of style.