We missed the press release from Trump, Palin, and Hoekstra demanding Romney come clean with his long-form birth certificate. Maybe they sent it to the wrong address? I’d just hate to think that this four-year-long muckraking quest for more documentation of the President’s place of birth was all just a cynical race-baiting ploy or something. — Mitt Romney released his birth certificate yesterday, in advance of his summit with Donald Trump. We sort of felt like that warranted a rant. (via motherjones)

(via truth-has-a-liberal-bias)

dreams-from-my-father:

strangelanguage:

10 Surprising Statistics About Strippers
1.One-in-three strippers really *are* putting themselves through college.
A study found that 33 percent are, in fact, telling you the truth: It’s college by day, stripping by night.
2.89 percent were raised in a religious home and 91 percent are still close with their parents.
3.About one in eight get health benefits.
And somehow, four percent get vision coverage too.
Read More

I have no shame in admitting that if I had the qualities and skills needed to be a stripper, I would have been one.

dreams-from-my-father:

strangelanguage:

10 Surprising Statistics About Strippers

1.One-in-three strippers really *are* putting themselves through college.

A study found that 33 percent are, in fact, telling you the truth: It’s college by day, stripping by night.

2.89 percent were raised in a religious home and 91 percent are still close with their parents.

3.About one in eight get health benefits.

And somehow, four percent get vision coverage too.

Read More

I have no shame in admitting that if I had the qualities and skills needed to be a stripper, I would have been one.

(via reagan-was-a-horrible-president)

mothernaturenetwork:

How traffic surveillance is invading your privacyWhile they may be a crime deterrent, traffic cameras can range from $67,000 to $80,000 per intersection, a hefty price for the taxpayer.

Funniest part of this article:


But experts say that one of the biggest problems with parking sensors,  as with all of these devices, is the absolute right or wrong of it all.
 
“People get upset when there is 100 percent enforcement,” Stanley said.  “That is something we will have to grapple with as a society.”

HOLY CRAP YOU GUYS THIS IS SO UNFAIR YOU CAN’T BREAK ANY TRAFFIC LAWS AT ALL ANYMORE!!

mothernaturenetwork:

How traffic surveillance is invading your privacy
While they may be a crime deterrent, traffic cameras can range from $67,000 to $80,000 per intersection, a hefty price for the taxpayer.

Funniest part of this article:

But experts say that one of the biggest problems with parking sensors, as with all of these devices, is the absolute right or wrong of it all.
 
“People get upset when there is 100 percent enforcement,” Stanley said. “That is something we will have to grapple with as a society.”
HOLY CRAP YOU GUYS THIS IS SO UNFAIR YOU CAN’T BREAK ANY TRAFFIC LAWS AT ALL ANYMORE!!

(via youthiswasted)

gonzodave:

PBS | Are we becoming a police state? Five things that have civil liberties advocates nervous 


By Sal Gentile  December 7, 2011



Is our Constitution under siege?
Many civil liberties advocates fear it might be. They’re worried  about a provision tucked into the 2012 National Defense Authorization  Act, approved by the Senate last week, that would allow the military to detain without a trial any American citizen accused of being a terrorist, or of supporting terrorists who plot attacks against the United States. The ACLU called the proposal “an extreme position that will forever change our country.”
The indefinite detention provision is just one of many trends in  policing and law enforcement that have civil liberties advocates  alarmed. New external threats, as well as technological advancements,  are posing new challenges to our Constitutional rights, advocates say.  Policymakers are debating those issues in Congress and in the courts  right now, and the decisions they make could have fundamental  consequences for what it means to be an American.
Here are five issues that are especially worrisome to civil liberties watchdogs:
 
1. Indefinite military detentions of U.S. citizens
The provision, part of the bill that authorizes Pentagon spending for  2012, was drafted by Sen. Carl Levin of Michigan and Sen. John McCain  of Arizona, and has bipartisan support in the Senate. The thinking,  according to supporters, is that “America is part of the battlefield” in  the so-called war on terror, as Sen. Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire put  it, so Americans should be fair game when it comes to finding and  arresting terrorists.
The bill, however, takes the power to arrest and detain terrorists  away from law enforcement officials, like the police or FBI, and gives  it to the military, which, under the law, would have the power to imprison an American who “substantially supports” Al Qaeda, the Taliban or “associated  forces” indefinitely, “without trial until the end of the hostilities.”  And those hostilities aren’t likely to “end” any time soon, since the  law that authorizes the use of military force against terrorists has no  expiration date.
2. Targeting U.S. citizens for killing
Last week, lawyers for the Obama administration defended for the first time the administration’s decision to target radical Yemeni cleric Anwar al-Awlaki, an American citizen, for killing. Awlawki, who was born in New Mexico, was killed in an American missile strike in September; the ACLU has criticized the targeted killing program as  blatantly violating the Fifth Amendment, which guarantees that no  American citizen shall “be deprived of life, liberty, or property,  without due process of law.”
At a national security conference last week, the lawyers for the  Obama administration, CIA counsel Stephen Preston and Pentagon  counsel Jeh Johnson, said American citizens are legitimate targets for  killing when they take up arms against the U.S., according to the  Associated Press. Jameel Jaffer, a deputy legal director for the ACLU, said in an interview in September that the targeted killing program sets up a precedent in which “U.S.  citizens far from any battlefield can be executed by their own  government.”
3. Arresting witnesses for recording police actions
The raids at Occupy Wall Street encampments across the country have  earned media attention primarily for their glaring instances of police  brutality. But they’ve also tested the boundaries of police authority  when it comes to limiting media access to police operations. As many as 30 journalists have been arrested covering Occupy protests, including many who clearly identified themselves as credentialed members of the media. Officials in New York and L.A.,  for example, have also tried to tightly restrict media access to the  Occupy encampments, setting up barricades far away from the actual raids  and allowing only hand-picked journalists to go behind police lines.
Civil liberties advocates have decried these tactics as attempts to  stifle media coverage of the raids. But the media blackouts are  representative of a broader trend in law enforcement in recent years in  which the police have been arresting citizens simply for recording official police actions in public places. Twelve states, for example, have adopted  “eavesdropping” laws that prohibit people from videotaping police  actions without the officers’ consent. And in California, police  officials have openly stated that they will arrest people taking photographs without “apparent esthetic value” if those people seem suspicious. Several courts have ruled these policies unconstitutional.
4. Using GPS to track your every move
The Supreme Court is scheduled to rule soon on a case that could have  far-reaching consequences for privacy in the 21st Century. The justices  were asked to decide whether the police could use GPS devices to track people suspected of crimes without first obtaining a warrant. Police across the country use GPS  devices to track the movements of thousands of criminal suspects every  year, but critics say the practice violates the Fourth Amendment  prohibition against “unreasonable searches and seizures.”
In oral arguments in November, several justices expressed concern  that, as technology improves, the power to track a U.S. citizens’ every  move would only become more dangerous. “If you win this case, then there  is nothing to prevent the police or the government from monitoring 24  hours a day the public movement of every citizen of the United States,”  Justice Stephen Breyer told the lawyer for the Justice Department, which  is defending warrantless GPS tracking. That, Breyer added, “sounds like  ’1984.’”
5. Surveillance drones spying on American soil
The use of drones to spy on states like Pakistan and Iran has become  so popular in national security circles that many domestic law  enforcement agencies are now considering using these spy planes to conduct covert surveillance on American soil. Drones are already used to patrol the U.S.-Mexico border,  but now many police officials across the country are advocating for the  use of drones in other types of police actions, like hunting fugitives,  finding missing children and monitoring protest movements.
These drones, advocates note, can not only monitor large urban expanses,  they can also use artificial intelligence “seek out and record certain  types of suspicious behavior,” whatever that may be. The Orlando police,  for example, initially requested two spy drones to help police the Republican National Convention next year, before  changing their minds for budgetary reasons. Some police officials have  even openly discussed arming the spy planes with “non-lethal weapons” like Tasers or bean bag guns.
These drones, and other tactics imported from battlefield to American  soil, are an example of how the “war on terror” has threatened core  protections guaranteed to American citizens by the Constitution, civil  liberties advocates say. The erosion of these protections has been  supported by both Democrats and Republicans alike. And, as the ACLU put  it, the debate over these tactics “goes to the very heart of who we are  as Americans.”

gonzodave:

PBS | Are we becoming a police state? Five things that have civil liberties advocates nervous

(via reagan-was-a-horrible-president)

Thoughts and links

Bill O’Reilly weaponizes umbrella. Just shitheads being shitheads.

Blagojevich gets 14 years, what about these guys? Yes, there are many, many people who should be prosecuted, too, for worse crimes. But that does not give Blago a pass. If he got 14 years in prison “for doing what most politicians do”, then I assert that most politicians deserve 14 years imprisoned. Corruption, large or small, is not acceptable. Prosecute what you can, when you can, and always watch the next target.

MIAA speaks on Jerry Sandusky’s behalf. These guys’ job is to preside over coaches and teams, and they think that being raped by a pedophile is an important life lesson, and need to put that behind them and quit worrying about it.

missgingerlee:

hollow-gram:

I think riot kid is a pretty cool guy, eh throws crap at cops and doesn’t afraid of anything. [sic]

A LOT of people want to know the back story on this and so I will provide it to the best of my knowledge here:

The picture originally comes from photographer Evandro Monteiro, and was taken during a police action in Sao Paulo, Brazil. And while we look at an image like this and recognize what it inspires in us all, we still kind of assume the kid was just joking around. The boy probably didn’t know what he was doing at the time; he was just making funny faces at the cops until his panicked mother could sprint in and sweep him away. But then there’s the next image of the riot kid from Monteiro’s portfolio that implies otherwise.

So not only was he actually standing out in that street, alone, hurling rocks at the police (which is way more impetus than they need in Sao Paulo to beat some ghetto kid to death,) but he was so overcome with rage afterward that he stripped to the waist, slammed his jacket to the dirt, puffed out his chest and dared them to make a move. This was not a joke, or a childish prank. This was life or death.

Literally.

The photographer has this child tagged as a ‘street boy.’ That’s not a generic descriptor. In Sao Paulo ‘street child’ refers to a specific type of young homeless in the city. There are thousands, if not millions of them in Brazil, and they’re largely considered pests. Roughly 20% of police homicides in Sao Paulo are minors. In fact, the street children are so reviled that in some places, local shopkeepers and low-level politicians actually put out bounties on their heads to the tune of about $50 per kid. As a result, masked death squads rove the streets of Brazil at night, eliminating children.

And while that knowledge is incredibly awful, and gut-churning, and heart-dropping, and just makes you want to burn this whole miserable species to the ground and hope that nature knows enough to start from scratch this time, it also drastically magnifies the importance of this images.

This is not the same as a white, English-speaking child playing at revolutionary because he’s got the implied protection of society. This boy is not joking, and he is not safe. If he’s really a ‘street child,’ then those cops he’s challenging are the men that might make half a week’s pay for murdering him, and would face little to no reprisal for it. And if he really is a ‘street child,’ then he is utterly alone up there: It’s unlikely any of the other people in those photos have a vested interest in whether he lives or dies.

And he simply does.

Not.

Care.

Because there is nothing on this earth - not overwhelming odds, nor brutal police states, nor fear, nor violence, nor the kind of horrible, devouring apathy that makes things like death squads for children possible - that will ever, from now until the heat death of this whole screwed universe, force this kid to sit down and put his fucking shirt back on.

Please instead consider spending time visiting and possibly donating to a fund for street children, like Action for Brazil’s Children.

This kid makes me cry. For oh so many reasons, he makes me cry. 

(via reagan-was-a-horrible-president)

Links and information.

Stuff that’s new on the blogs I read.

Starve the Corporate Beast

I love that this one includes a right-wing jackass quoted with “He’s anti-gun and he’s obviously a socialist cramming health care down American’s throats,” Williams said. “That is exactly how those people in that ad (A gun company advertisement that warns of impending gun control compares President Obama to Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin) rose to power.”

What is “Occupy Our Homes”?
Basically, a strike against banks. I love this idea. Keep your money, don’t pay the mortgage, don’t pay your student loan, don’t pay your credit card, cut the financial offenders off at the source. Then, when they feel the pain, we can negotiate with them from a position of strength. All it takes is coordination and cooperation.

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is ready to go to work, as soon as Congressional Republicans stop playing stupid fucking games and let people do their jobs.

Reblog

Fighting Fire With Fire

I was watching a re-run of Stephen Colbert last night, the one where he consults with Republican strategist Frank Luntz regarding the message that Colbert Super-Pac wants to sell to the American people: Corporations are people, too.

Luntz is a master of the summing up complex concepts into soundbites.

Let me rephrase that: he’s the master of summing up noxious concepts into palatable soundbites and vice versa (for example, he came up with “death taxes” for estate taxes.)

His phrasing evokes emotional responses. He’s very good at that.

We have to get better. And here’s where this ties in to the current situation in this country.

Occupy Wall Street terrifies the people in charge. After all, there are tens of thousands of people nationwide who are camping, day in and day out, to protest the inherent inequality of income and the inherent unfairness of the US tax code.

I’ve been straining to recall when a Teabagger rally on similar topics lasted for more than a few hours, and that was in clement weather in the spring and summer. These kids have made it through a freak snowstorm and are still hanging in there.

How could the powers that be not be afraid?

Think about that imagery: the right, via their useful idiots and tools, has tried to cast OWS as a bunch of spoiled white lefty brats who’s mommies and daddies cut them out of the will because they were dope-addled and sexually promiscuous (itself, a pretty powerful trope: the scary hippy.)

That imagery, which had some legs at first because of the way the news reported the story (up until the pepper-spray incident,) as a bunch of disgruntled interns and low-level clerical workers with English degrees getting fired and thrown out of their apartments, sort of falls apart after the first week of camp-outs, much less the subsequent brute force by the police, the cooling temperatures, the world-wide solidarity, and the general genial mien taken by the protestors.

The right couldn’t just mash this into the dirt and cover it over, is what I’m saying.

The imagery the OWS folks have out there is now too powerful, and although the colder weather will likely lessen in its impact, it can always be picked up again in the spring. It’s an emotional, gut protest, and people have responded to it.

This is the kind of imagery and argument we need to raise elsewhere. Right now, the craftsmen of the right, like Luntz, have co-opted the dialogue. We need to get it back. But how?

We need to look to marry language to logic, but also to emotions. We need arguments that are so simple and so powerful that they defy rebuttal.

Let’s take the abortion argument for a moment. The single biggest protest in America is the annual March For Life. March for Life attracts upwards of a quarter-million people consistently.

Abortion is an emotional matter for them. We can cite statistics until we’re blue in the face, like how the US birth rate has not declined one bit despite all these “millions of dead babies” (their term,) or we can talk about the improvement in the quality of living the babies which are eventually born not to teenage mothers but to women with jobs and careers and long-term partners will have. Not one second of these arguments will sway a single mind on the right.

And those are perfectly logical arguments. But why not tie those to the alternative: women who spend twenty years in servitude (slavery even) because they’ve made a mistake.

Why not provide imagery, in the form of a counter-protest: get five thousand women to march in torn dirty muslin smocks, chained at the neck and feet with dolls dangling from the other end of those chains?

After all, if the scare tactic of showing photos of an aborted fetus is within bounds for the religious right, then equally alarming and disturbing imagery ought to be utilized in response.

We need to make an emotional case to the American people about the progressive agenda. We don’t have much time and there is much to be done. The nation is heading down a bleak path, even if we can all pull together and we must all pull together or things will get dire, indeed.

By actor212 from the Agonist.

Also, this is a wonderful example of why mainstream party-line conservatives are not ever allowed to accuse anyone of racism in any way.

And here is the next thing that will sink our economy, and it’s exactly the same as the last one.

If you were wondering what the government was doing to punish criminal banks and protect the people, I found your answer.

Not everything happens at the federal level. City planners can be shitheads too.

Great quote here, little background. Pretty much every Republican candidate right now is going full-bore pro-choice, no exceptions no exemptions. Specifically, most of them have stated that abortion is wrong and should be illegal even in cases of rape or incest or health issues. So…

Speaking as a Democrat running against a no-exceptions Republican, Westen suggests how to properly frame this issue:

“My opponent puts the rights of rapists above the rights of their victims, guaranteeing every rapist the right to choose the mother of his child. What he’s proposing is a rapists’ bill of rights.”

This is the logical entailment of the Republicans’ “culture of life.” Perhaps the most fundamental right of a woman is to choose whose children she will bear. Yet in the Republican morality tale, if a woman is raped, she must have her rapist’s baby. She can give up the child — who is her own flesh and blood, mingled with the DNA of her rapist — or she can wake up every morning and see the eyes of her rapist in her child. Those are her two choices. Tell that to the father of a teenage girl in rural Virginia and see how he responds. It is a deeply repugnant, and deeply immoral, position. But its repugnance is only apparent when you make the associative links.

Here is another example:

“My opponent believes that if a sixteen-year-old girl is molested by her father, she should be forced by the government to have his child, and if she doesn’t want to, she should be forced by the government to go to the man who raped her and ask for his consent.”

To these two examples from Westen, I would add a third of my own:

“My opponent would institute a death sentence for women who have serious medical problems with their pregnancies — problems that medical science has known how to solve for decades. Instead of allowing a doctor to save a woman’s life, my opponent would put not only the government between that woman and her doctor, he would also put a policeman and a jailer in the way as well. Women will die if my opponent has his way — women whose lives could quite easily be saved. That’s the bottom line, and I find it completely unacceptable.”

Also, someone is paying NY homeless to go to Zuccotti Park and “mess things up”. And the Foxers are trying to make this an ACORN issue. Somehow.

We're gonna need it.

BTW, airport scanners use X-rays. Where’s the lead aprons? Experts estimate that between 6 and 100 people get cancer per year from airport security. Where’s their awareness month?

The new radicals

So, I recently read three articles that got me to thinking. The first one, which I wish I could link, was written by a classical feminist radical from the last era, who expressed disgust with the modern generation of so-called ‘fun feminists’. The other two, which I don’t link because they were really not very good, were from a classical racial-equality radical from the last era, and an anti-corporatist, both of whom were also bemoaning the state of their movements in the hands of the young. But, I don’t think that feminism is doomed, nor do I think that race relations are backsliding, or that the corporate overlords have nearly as firm a grip on the youth as they would like. In fact, when I look over the stituation, it looks like we’re in pretty good hands.

Read More

From the USA Today article “E3 2011: Inside the Kinect-only adventure ‘Fable: The Journey’

While in Germany promoting Fable III, game designer Peter Molyneux asked an audience to raise their hands if they wanted to experience his role-playing franchise with Kinect motion controls.

“Only 1 in 10 people stuck up their hands, because I think they imagined running on the spot, standing up and everything,” Molyneux says.

This inspired him to create Fable: The Journey, an extension of the Albion universe featuring only Kinect controls.

What the actual fuck? The first three paragraphs of this article lay out an entire story, an epic saga of Peter Molyneux messing with his fans like he is trying to be the next George Lucas. (No offense to George Lucas and his apparently ludicrously lucrative strategy of exploiting one’s own fans by perverting everything that they love. I would never mean to insult the notoriously litigious Lucas by implying that one should not aspire to his example. Call the ninjas off, George.)

Peter stands up in front of a crowd, and says, “do you guys want this?”

And the crowd says “dude, no, keep that out.”

And Peter then invests millions of dollars into giving these people nothing but that. Not despite that, but because of it. Because he thinks that the reason they don’t want it is just because they don’t understand how cool it is in Peter’s head.

And he expects people to pay sixty dollars for what they already told him they don’t want. And they’ll do it, they’ll bitch about it, and it will sour the franchise even further. Seriously, the Fable series did not need another kick in the teeth after Fable 3.

Read More