RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Politics
11 of the Worst Policy Ideas of 2014 Print
Wednesday, 31 December 2014 07:47

Excerpt: "If we had to sum up 2014 in four words, they would be: "bold new policy ideas." We needed them, and we didn't get them."

Health workers in Guinea. (photo: European Commission DG ECHO)
Health workers in Guinea. (photo: European Commission DG ECHO)


11 of the Worst Policy Ideas of 2014

By Wonkblog Staff, The Washington Post

31 December 14

 

f we had to sum up 2014 in four words, they would be: "bold new policy ideas." We needed them, and we didn't get them. To be fair, though, some of them were actually new. And some of them were bold. But most of them barely qualified as ideas. Now, we don't like to be nattering nabobs of negativism here at Wonkblog, but we do want our policymakers to do better. Or at least try harder. So, in the spirit of learning from our mistakes, here are the times when our leaders failed to answer the call in the most spectacular way possible. We invite you to add your own nominees in the comments, and without further ado, present the abbreviated version of the year that was in terrible policy.

Ebola quarantines for health-care workers

The first-ever cases of Ebola in America — timed with the midterm elections — prompted some notable fear-based policy prescriptions, such as suggestions that the United States shut off travel to the affected West African nations. But the strict, mandatory quarantines of health-care workers returning from Ebola’s front lines stands out among the worst policy response to the deadliest outbreak in the history of the virus.

On its face, the policy doesn’t sound too unreasonable: that health-care workers stay out of the public for 21 days upon returning from these countries. But the policy adopted by the governors of New York and New Jersey completely ignored how Ebola is spread, and it drew scorn from the medical community, who warned that the quarantines would threaten the ability to fight the virus at its source. “If we add barriers making it harder for volunteers to return to their community, we are hurting ourselves,” the New England Journal of Medicine wrote in a scathing editorial. Gov. Chris Christie’s office, in a New York Times story this past weekend, claimed the quarantine policy as a bipartisan accomplishment, and he earlier refuted that the quarantines would hurt the Ebola response.

Pilot's licenses for drones

The Federal Aviation Administration is considering a rule that would require certification that can cost as much as $10,000 to operate a three-pound, battery-operated drone. The rule, as Drew Harwell wrote last month, would potentially add "a big new burden onto the first generation of small businesses using drones to cheaply shoot video, map land or monitor crops." And it could place on a wedding photographer or farmer rules reminiscent of those used to govern massive, manned aircraft. As Harwell writes:

The rules, drone experts said, could potentially crush a high-tech, wide-ranging industry still in its infancy. In a survey of drone-related business owners, Colin Snow, the founder of Drone Analyst, said the market for small drones "would basically die" if regulators demanded rules like pilot licensing.

Banning fluoride in your water

The science is clear: Fluoride in water is a very good thing, because it prevents the decay of your teeth. The CDC heralds public water fluoridation campaigns as “one of the 10 great public health achievements of the 20th century.” Nonetheless, 2014 was another year in which anti-fluoridation campaigners scored some victories. The Fluoride Action Network lists a number of U.S. localities that rejected public water fluoridation this year, including the village of Wellington, Florida, in Palm Beach County, home to some 60,000 people. Earlier this year, Wellington’s city council voted to end fluoridation 14 years after the practice initially started. Dentists who stood up to defend fluoridation were, sadly, unable to stanch the flow of disinformation. “You can find all kinds of things on the Internet,” one of them observed, according to the Palm Beach Post.

Scapegoating Colorado for your state's drug problems

Coming up with the Worst Drug Policy Idea of 2014 was tougher than we expected, in part because there were so many smart policy changes this year. From marijuana legalization to the reduction of sentencing requirements in California, the drug policy landscape was largely characterized by victories of common sense.

Still, a handful of politicians didn't get the memo and continue to wage the Drug War like it's 1984. Chief among them is Rep. Andy Harris (R-Md.), who is leading a crusade against D.C.'s marijuana liberalization.

But the award for worst policy goes to the attorneys general of Nebraska and Oklahoma, who are so fed up with the hassle of arresting and jailing people for possessing small amounts of weed that they've sued their neighbor Colorado in the hopes of overturning its recreational marijuana market. Never mind that the quickest, easiest and cheapest way to save money on low-level pot offenses would be to simply, you know, stop throwing people in jail for low-level pot offenses.

Drug-testing welfare recipients

This isn't a brand-new idea in 2014, but it's gaining steam, particularly among Republican governors. In Wisconsin, Gov. Scott Walker has argued that he wants to prepare welfare recipients for a labor market that will require them to be drug-free. In Florida, Gov. Rick Scott has argued that drug tests will save the state money by denying benefits to people who can't pass them. Other proponents argue that testing will help ensure that poor children have drug-free parents, that taxpayers aren't left aiding unworthy drug users, and that tax dollars aren't spent — through cash assistance — on drugs themselves.

The problem? Drug testing is expensive (so is litigating over it). It stigmatizes welfare recipients (who are no more likely to use drugs than people who don't need welfare). It threatens to block benefits from needy families (including people who refuse drug testing on principle). The number of people caught failing drug tests has been miniscule. And the whole idea has questionable legal merit. A few weeks ago, a federal appeals court struck down Florida's 2011 law, which required drug testing of all welfare applicants even if officials had no reason to suspect drug use.

"Pension smoothing" to fund highways

The Highway Trust Fund, which helps states pay for vital infrastructure, has been running out of money for years (here's a quick explainer on why). This summer, Congress needed to find about $10 billion dollars to temporarily prop up the fund (in the absence of a long-term solution, that is). So what did Congress do to generate that money? Raise the gas tax? Create a better road user fee? In a rare act of bipartisanship, Congress found more than half that money instead through "pension smoothing," which is widely derided by everyone outside of Congress as a mere budget gimmick.

In effect, Congress allowed corporations to underfund their future pensions to create the semblance of more tax revenue today. A succinct NPR explainer of the trick:

It allows employers that offer traditional pensions to set aside less money for future retirees. That makes the companies appear more profitable in the short run so they — or their employees — pay more money to the government in taxes.

Blocking cities from selling their own Internet

Call it a public option for the Internet. Fed up with limited choices, high prices and shoddy service, many cities want to turn their back on large Internet providers by building their own municipal broadband service. Standing in their way are state legislatures, lobbyists for the telecom industry and even federal lawmakers who believe states should have control over what projects their cities invest in. Nearly two-dozen states have laws on the books that either ban municipal broadband outright or make it tremendously difficult for cities to gain permission to lay down public fiber optic cables. Kansas tried passing such a law this January with a bill written by the cable lobby. A few months later, Republicans pushed through a budget amendment that would explicitly prohibit federal regulators from siding with cities on the issue.

But some local jurisdictions are beginning to fight for their right to choose — and they’re winning. This year, seven Colorado communities collected enough votes to get past the state’s law designed to thwart muni broadband. And two towns, Chattanooga, Tenn. and Wilson, N.C., have asked the Federal Communications Commission to intervene against those state restrictions. The FCC is still weighing whether to do so, but the agency’s chairman, Tom Wheeler, seems inclined to do so.

Cutting the IRS budget

The spending bill Congress passed earlier this month slashes the budget for the IRS by $346 million. That means we've effectively cut money for the very people responsible for collecting money for public programs and services. This is bad policy, and bad math. As Max Ehrenfreund explained at the time:

This is deeply counterproductive.

When the IRS doesn't have enough money to conduct audits of tax returns, it's easier for cheaters to get away without paying their fair share. Extra money spent on enforcement is well worth it from the perspective of the country's bottom line. By one estimate, every dollar cut from the IRS budget increases the deficit by roughly $7. It's free money. Congress is throwing it away, choosing instead to increase the budget deficit and national debt at the expense of people who are playing by the rules.

Two-week tax extenders

Congress passed a $42 billion tax bill just before closing out this session that extended — for two weeks only — a mishmash of special tax breaks for owners of race horses and second homes in foreign countries, and business credits that do little to stimulate investment. Congress has never been able to agree on how to reform this set of breaks, known affectionately as "tax extenders." Instead, lawmakers keep reauthorizing them every year, hoping they'll find a compromise at some point in the future. As a result, tax extenders have become a kind of holiday tradition on the Hill.

This year's bill retroactively extended tax breaks that technically expired at the end of the 2013, then authorized them only through New Year's Eve. And so the next Congress will likely go through this same exercise again next year. Meanwhile, as Sen Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) complained this time around, "The well-heeled and the well-connected are the ones that get the tax extenders." Instead of revisiting the extenders yearly, Congress could make them a permanent, regular portion of the tax code and find a way to pay for them. But confronting how much they really cost would be embarrassing for everyone involved.

Civil asset forfeiture

Police departments around the country have been using millions of dollars in assets seized from people who were never charged with a crime to fund purchases of everything from coffee machines to surveillance equipment to military-grade weapons. The money amounts to "a slush fund," as one former Department of Justice official told The Washington Post this year. The practice isn't new — in fact, critics have been decrying it for years. But the policy, known as civil asset forfeiture, has drawn renewed criticism this year amid heightened scrutiny of police tactics and equipment.

Police can seize property on little more than suspicion, and the suspects are often never charged -- only 81 percent of the money is seized from people who are indicted, according to The Post's analysis. In St. Louis County, where Ferguson is located, police seized property from 98 people last year. Only 23 of them were charged with a crime. In 2012, the department seized property from 88 people, filing charges against only seven. The federal civil asset forfeiture law, which allows local police to keep up to 80 percent of the assets they seize, was originally created to combat drug organizations. Instead, the Post found, "it has been used as a routine source of funding for law enforcement at every level."

Forcing the Fed to follow the Taylor rule

For six years, conservatives have warned that the Federal Reserve's unconventional policies will spark 1970s-style inflation. And for six years, they've been wrong. Oh so wrong. Headline inflation has averaged just 1.4 percent over that time, the lowest since the 1960s.

But conservatives haven't let reality get in the way of their concerns—buy overpriced gold!—about inflation. Instead of ending the Fed, though, they settled for just trying to control it. Specifically, they tried to force the Fed to pick a mathematical rule for setting interest rates, the idea being that this would rule out the Bernanke-era Fed's foray into bond-buying and other, at least in the staid world of monetary policy, exotic policies. Not only that, but Congress would have gotten to audit the Fed's decision-making, basically becoming the 13th member of the Federal Open Markets Committee. And if you think that's a good idea, well, remember that some Republicans have fallen for the conspiracy theories about the government hiding all the inflation in Area 51 (or is it a FEMA camp?).

Monetary policy is boring, but important. Let's leave it in the hands of the people who actually know things about the economy.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
Fight for Our Progressive Vision Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=15102"><span class="small">Bernie Sanders, Reader Supported News</span></a>   
Tuesday, 30 December 2014 14:14

Sanders writes: "It is a disgrace to everything this country is supposed to stand for when the top one-tenth of 1 percent owns almost as much wealth as the bottom 90 percent, and when one family (the Waltons) owns more wealth than the bottom 40 percent."

Senator Bernie Sanders is a longtime critic of the extreme income inequality in the U.S. (photo: Andrew P. Scott/USA TODAY)
Senator Bernie Sanders is a longtime critic of the extreme income inequality in the U.S. (photo: Andrew P. Scott/USA TODAY)


Fight for Our Progressive Vision

By Bernie Sanders, Reader Supported News

30 December 14

 

s I look ahead to this coming year, a number of thoughts come to mind.

First and foremost, against an enormous amount of corporate media noise and distraction, it is imperative that we not lose sight of what is most important and the vision that we stand for. We have got to stay focused on those issues that impact the lives of tens of millions of Americans who struggle every day to keep their heads above water economically, and who worry deeply about the kind of future their kids will have.

Yes. We make no apologies in stating that the great moral, economic and political issue of our time is the growing level of income and wealth inequality in our nation. It is a disgrace to everything this country is supposed to stand for when the top one-tenth of 1 percent owns almost as much wealth as the bottom 90 percent, and when one family (the Waltons) owns more wealth than the bottom 40 percent. No. The economy is not sustainable when the middle class continues to disappear and when 95 percent of all new income generated since the Wall Street crash goes to the top 1 percent. In order to create a vibrant economy, working families need disposable income. That is often not the case today.

Yes. We will continue the fight to have the United States join the rest of the industrialized world in understanding that health care is a human right of all people, not a privilege. We will end the current dysfunctional system in which 40 million Americans remain uninsured, and tens of millions more are underinsured. No. Private insurance companies and drug companies should not be making huge profits which result in the United States spending almost twice as much per capita on health care as any other nation with outcomes that are often not as good.

Yes. We believe that democracy means one person, one vote. It does not mean that the Koch Brothers and other billionaires should be able to buy elections through their ability to spend unlimited sums of money in campaigns. No. We will not accept Citizens United as the law of the land. We will overturn it through a constitutional amendment and move toward public funding of elections.

Yes. We will fight for a budget that ends corporate tax loopholes and demands that the wealthy and special interests begin paying their fair share of taxes. It is absurd that we are losing more than $100 billion a year in tax revenue as corporations and the wealthy stash their profits in the Cayman Islands and other tax havens It is a disgrace that hedge fund managers pay a lower effective tax rate than teachers or truck drivers. No. At a time when the middle class is disappearing and when millions of families have seen significant declines in their incomes, we will not support more austerity against the elderly, the children and working families. We will not accept cuts to Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, nutrition or affordable housing.

Yes. We believe that we must rebuild our crumbling infrastructure (roads, bridges, water systems, wastewater plants, rail, airports, older schools, etc.). At a time when real unemployment is 11.4 percent and youth unemployment is almost 18 percent, a $1 trillion investment in infrastructure would create 13 million decent paying jobs. No. We do not believe that we must maintain a bloated military budget which spends almost as much as the rest of the world combined and may lead us to perpetual warfare in the Middle East.

Yes. We believe that quality education should be available to all Americans regardless of their income. We believe that we should be hiring more teachers and pre-school educators, not firing them. No. We do not believe that it makes any sense that hundreds of thousands of bright young people are unable to afford a higher education while millions leave college and graduate school with heavy debts that will burden them for decades. In a highly competitive global economy, we must not fall further and further behind other countries in the education we provide our people.

Yes. We believe that the scientific community is right. Climate change is real, is caused by human activity and is already creating devastating problems in the United States and throughout the world. We believe that the United States can and must lead the world in transforming our energy system away from fossil fuels and into energy efficiency and sustainable energy. No. We do not believe that it makes sense to build the Keystone pipeline or other projects which make us more dependent on oil and other fossil fuels.

Let me conclude by relaying to you a simple but important political truth. The Republican right-wing agenda -- tax breaks for the rich and large corporations, unfettered free trade, cuts to Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, nutrition and virtually every other program that sustains working families and low-income people -- is an agenda supported by Fox TV. It is an agenda supported by The Wall Street Journal. It is an agenda supported by Rush Limbaugh and the 95 percent of radio talk show hosts who just happen to be right-wing. It is an agenda supported by the Chamber of Commerce and the Business Roundtable and much of corporate America.

It is not an agenda supported by the American people.

By and large, poll after poll shows that the American people support a progressive agenda that addresses income and wealth inequality, that creates the millions of jobs we desperately need, that raises the minimum wage, that ends pay discrimination against women, and that makes sure all Americans can get the quality education they need.

In the year 2015 our job is to gain control over the national debate, stay focused on the issues of real importance to the American people, stand up for our principles, educate and organize. If we do that, I have absolute confidence that we can turn this country around and become the kind of vital, prosperous and fair-minded democracy that so many want.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
I Am a 20th Century Escaped Slave Print
Tuesday, 30 December 2014 13:40

Shakur writes: "My name is Assata Shakur, and I am a 20th century escaped slave. Because of government persecution, I was left with no other choice than to flee from the political repression, racism and violence that dominate the US government's policy towards people of color."

Photo of Assata Shakur alongside one of her nephews, legendary rapper Tupac Shakur. (photo: New Jersey State Police/AP; Ron Gelalla/WireImage)
Photo of Assata Shakur alongside one of her nephews, legendary rapper Tupac Shakur. (photo: New Jersey State Police/AP; Ron Gelalla/WireImage)


I Am a 20th Century Escaped Slave

By Assata Shakur, CounterPunch

30 December 14

 

y name is Assata Shakur, and I am a 20th century escaped slave. Because of government persecution, I was left with no other choice than to flee from the political repression, racism and violence that dominate the US government’s policy towards people of color. I am an ex-political prisoner, and I have been living in exile in Cuba since 1984.

I have been a political activist most of my life, and although the U.S. government has done everything in its power to criminalize me, I am not a criminal, nor have I ever been one. In the 1960s, I participated in various struggles: the black liberation movement, the student rights movement, and the movement to end the war in Vietnam. I joined the Black Panther Party. By 1969 the Black Panther Party had become the number one organization targeted by the FBI’s COINTELPRO program. Because the Black Panther Party demanded the total liberation of black people, J. Edgar Hoover called it “greatest threat to the internal security of the country” and vowed to destroy it and its leaders and activists.

In 1978, my case was one of many cases bought before the United Nations Organization in a petition filed by the National Conference of Black Lawyers, the National Alliance Against Racist and Political Repression, and the United Church of Christ Commission for Racial Justice, exposing the existence of political prisoners in the United States, their political persecution, and the cruel and inhuman treatment they receive in US prisons. According to the report:

“The FBI and the New York Police Department in particular, charged and accused Assata Shakur of participating in attacks on law enforcement personnel and widely circulated such charges and accusations among police agencies and units. The FBI and the NYPD further charged her as being a leader of the Black Liberation Army which the government and its respective agencies described as an organization engaged in the shooting of police officers.

This description of the Black Liberation Army and the accusation of Assata Shakur’s relationship to it was widely circulated by government agents among police agencies and units. As a result of these activities by the government, Ms. Shakur became a hunted person; posters in police precincts and banks described her as being involved in serious criminal activities; she was highlighted on the FBI’s most wanted list; and to police at all levels she became a ‘shoot-to-kill’ target.”

I was falsely accused in six different “criminal cases” and in all six of these cases I was eventually acquitted or the charges were dismissed. The fact that I was acquitted or that the charges were dismissed, did not mean that I received justice in the courts, that was certainly not the case. It only meant that the “evidence” presented against me was so flimsy and false that my innocence became evident. This political persecution was part and parcel of the government’s policy of eliminating political opponents by charging them with crimes and arresting them with no regard to the factual basis of such charges.

On May 2, 1973 I, along with Zayd Malik Shakur and Sundiata Acoli were stopped on the New Jersey Turnpike, supposedly for a “faulty tail light.” Sundiata Acoli got out of the car to determine why we were stopped. Zayd and I remained in the car. State trooper Harper then came to the car, opened the door and began to question us. Because we were black, and riding in a car with Vermont license plates, he claimed he became “suspicious.” He then drew his gun, pointed it at us, and told us to put our hands up in the air, in front of us, where he could see them. I complied and in a split second, there was a sound that came from outside the car, there was a sudden movement, and I was shot once with my arms held up in the air, and then once again from the back.

Zayd Malik Shakur was later killed, trooper Werner Foerster was killed, and even though trooper Harper admitted that he shot and killed Zayd Malik Shakur, under the New Jersey felony murder law, I was charged with killing both Zayd Malik Shakur, who was my closest friend and comrade, and charged in the death of trooper Foerster. Never in my life have I felt such grief. Zayd had vowed to protect me, and to help me to get to a safe place, and it was clear that he had lost his life, trying to protect both me and Sundiata. Although he was also unarmed, and the gun that killed trooper Foerster was found under Zayd’s leg, Sundiata Acoli, who was captured later, was also charged with both deaths. Neither Sundiata Acoli nor I ever received a fair trial We were both convicted in the news media way before our trials. No news media was ever permitted to interview us, although the New Jersey police and the FBI fed stories to the press on a daily basis. In 1977, I was convicted by an all- white jury and sentenced to life plus 33 years in prison.

In 1979, fearing that I would be murdered in prison, and knowing that I would never receive any justice, I was liberated from prison, aided by committed comrades who understood the depths of the injustices in my case, and who were also extremely fearful for my life.

The U.S. Senate’s 1976 Church Commission report on intelligence operations inside the USA, revealed that “The FBI has attempted covertly to influence the public’s perception of persons and organizations by disseminating derogatory information to the press, either anonymously or through “friendly” news contacts.” This same policy is evidently still very much in effect today.

On December 24, 1997, The New Jersey State called a press conference to announce that New Jersey State Police had written a letter to Pope John Paul II asking him to intervene on their behalf and to aid in having me extradited back to New Jersey prisons. The New Jersey State Police refused to make their letter public. Knowing that they had probably totally distorted the facts, and attempted to get the Pope to do the devils work in the name of religion, I decided to write the Pope to inform him about the reality of’ “justice” for black people in the State of New Jersey and in the United States. (See attached Letter to the Pope).

In January of 1998, during the pope’s visit to Cuba, I agreed to do an interview with NBC journalist Ralph Penza around my letter to the Pope, about my experiences in New Jersey court system, and about the changes I saw in the United States and it’s treatment of Black people in the last 25 years. I agreed to do this interview because I saw this secret letter to the Pope as a vicious, vulgar, publicity maneuver on the part of the New Jersey State Police, and as a cynical attempt to manipulate Pope John Paul II. I have lived in Cuba for many years, and was completely out of touch with the sensationalist, dishonest, nature of the establishment media today. It is worse today than it was 30 years ago.

After years of being victimized by the “establishment” media it was naive of me to hope that I might finally get the opportunity to tell “my side of the story.” Instead of an interview with me, what took place was a “staged media event” in three parts, full of distortions, inaccuracies and outright lies. NBC purposely misrepresented the facts. Not only did NBC spend thousands of dollars promoting this “exclusive interview series” on NBC, they also spent a great deal of money advertising this “exclusive interview” on black radio stations and also placed notices in local newspapers.

Like most poor and oppressed people in the United States, I do not have a voice. Black people, poor people in the U.S. have no real freedom of speech, no real freedom of expression and very little freedom of the press. The black press and the progressive media has historically played an essential role in the struggle for social justice. We need to continue and to expand that tradition. We need to create media outlets that help to educate our people and our children, and not annihilate their minds. I am only one woman.

I own no TV stations, or Radio Stations or Newspapers. But I feel that people need to be educated as to what is going on, and to understand the connection between the news media and the instruments of repression in Amerika. All I have is my voice, my spirit and the will to tell the truth. But I sincerely ask, those of you in the Black media, those of you in the progressive media, those of you who believe in true freedom, to publish this statement and to let people know what is happening. We have no voice, so you must be the voice of the voiceless.

Free all Political Prisoners, I send you Love and Revolutionary Greetings From Cuba, One of the Largest, Most Resistant and Most Courageous Palenques (Maroon Camps) That has ever existed on the Face of this Planet.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
FOCUS | The Interview: Seth Rogen's Assassination Fantasy Is Sick Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=26125"><span class="small">Bill Simpich, Reader Supported News</span></a>   
Tuesday, 30 December 2014 11:58

Simpich writes: "Can you imagine a foreign movie dedicated to assassinating Barack Obama? Not just that, but proceeding to display it in loving detail – along with the president defecating in his pants minutes before the final attack?"

Screenshot of Kim Jong-Un's assassination, a scene in the film that is played in slow-motion. (photo: Columbia Pictures)
Screenshot of Kim Jong-Un's assassination, a scene in the film that is played in slow-motion. (photo: Columbia Pictures)


ALSO SEE: New Research Blames Insiders, Not North Korea, for Sony Hack

ALSO SEE: FBI Fixated on North Korea for Sony Hack Despite New Evidence

The Interview: Seth Rogen's Assassination Fantasy Is Sick

By Bill Simpich, Reader Supported News

30 December 14

 

an you imagine a foreign movie dedicated to assassinating Barack Obama? Not just that, but proceeding to display it in loving detail – along with the president defecating in his pants minutes before the final attack?

It might be considered an act of war.

I’m a First Amendment maven – sure, Sony has the right to make this movie.

But it’s not funny.

It’s sick.

I’ve always liked Seth Rogen, the star and producer.

I appreciate humor that blows away boundaries.

But Rogen should hang his head in shame.

This is sick in all the wrong ways. (We live in an era where “sick” is a compliment.)

One of the North Korean woman leaders is named Suk. Guess what “the boys” would like her to do.

Hookers are bandied about for Kim Jong-un and James Franco to share ... during the middle of the movie when it’s time to “humanize” the North Korean leader before he gets blown to bits.

While pretending to invoke the cheery spirit of Abbott and Costello in the midst of battle, Rogen’s movie displays an American culture that has fallen beneath the decadent standards of ancient Rome.

The United States government has a long history of killing and trying to kill foreign leaders.

This movie laughs about this kind of killing at every turn, secure that jokes about farts, goat-fucking, and cleavage shots of CIA officers will assure the audience that this is “all good fun.”

To name just a few of these murders of foreign leaders ...

President Eisenhower directly called for the assassination of Congolese independence leader Patrice Lumumba in 1960. Months later, Lumumba ran to try to escape his fate, and was killed by Belgian soldiers once he was outside his security perimeter.

Eisenhower also called for the assassination of Rafael Trujillo, in the Dominican Republic. CIA director Allen Dulles authorized passing machine guns to Trujillo’s enemies. Trujillo was shot dead by the end of May 1961.

In 1963, after deciding to overthrow the South Vietnamese leader Ngo Dinh Diem, the CIA cabled the State Department “we do not set ourselves irrevocably against the assassination plot.” Diem and his brother were killed, and Vietnam descended into utter chaos.

The Church Committee found concrete evidence of at least eight plots to assassinate Fidel Castro between 1960 and 1965. There were also attempts to kill Raul Castro and Che Guevara. Che was killed after being taken prisoner in Bolivia in 1967, and an American officer wore Che’s Rolex afterwards as a trophy.

In 1970, after the socialist leader Salvador Allende was elected as Chile, President Nixon ordered his advisers to conduct a coup d’état. The principal obstacle within the Chilean military was General Rene Schneider, “who insisted the constitutional process be followed.” On October 22, the CIA passed machine guns to a rebel group. That same day, Schnieder was mortally wounded in a failed kidnap attempt.

The coup failed for the moment, but Allende was ultimately overthrown in a US-led coup in 1973. Allende died during the takeover.

The use of American drones to assassinate political figures has been a constant for the last several years, including American citizen Anwar al-Awlaki in September 2011, and his 16-year-old son a month later.

Make no mistake about it, the release of this movie is a political act of hatred.

Business Insider reports that plans are underway to ship the movie to North Korea to stir unrest against the Supreme Leader. The rising demand is reportedly at $50 a pop.

Did you know that there are credible estimates that a quarter of North Korea’s population of ten million died in the Korean War?

You don’t have to be a fan of North Korea to realize that after the USA killed millions of their people in air strikes and forced them to live in caves, it’s understandable that their society would suffer from a chronic case of PTSD. The US dropped more bombs on Korea than on the entire Pacific theater during World War II.

The release of the movie was supposed to be killed because a North Korean cyberattack on Sony’s computers had made the movie commercially unviable.

That story got headlines around the world.

Almost all signs point in another direction.” This is from the principal security researcher of Cloudfare, the world’s leading mobile security company. He thinks the likely culprit is an employee facing a pink slip, and the FBI sees this as an opportunity to pass tough new cyber laws.

By shipping this movie to the internet and small indie theaters, CNN solemnly intones that small independent cinema owners are summoning “unabashed patriotism, rank silliness, vaudeville shtick and Yippie absurdity.” The Daily Beast tells us that viewers are “part of a moment ... that will probably go down in film history."

Film history? Like The Birth of a Nation?

In case you didn’t know, that was D.W. Griffith’s celebration of the Ku Klux Klan’s dedication to protect female morality. The Interview is hate speech wrapped neatly into an American flag. Seth Rogen is the D.W. Griffith of the 21st Century.

At least Griffith had the sense to repent.

Seth Rogen says that if you watch his movie, “you’re a goddamn fucking American hero.”

Boycott Rogen’s movie.

Watching it won’t make you ashamed to be an American.

Watching it will make you ashamed of being a human being.

Tell him to stop smoking so much pot.

And start figuring out that he’s hanging out with fascists.

~ Bill Simpich

Bill Simpich is a civil rights attorney and an antiwar activist in the San Francisco Bay Area.
e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
FOCUS | Like the Low Gas Prices? They Could Be Even Lower in 2015 Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=7118"><span class="small">Carl Gibson, Reader Supported News</span></a>   
Tuesday, 30 December 2014 09:35

Gibson writes: "Oil prices are currently down by 40 percent from where they were in June, and the economies of oil-exporting countries like Russia and Venezuela are tanking. Coincidence? A simple case of more supply than demand? Cunning moves in a global chess game between a desperate empire and its rivals? Maybe."

Will gas prices drop further in 2015? (photo: Getty Images)
Will gas prices drop further in 2015? (photo: Getty Images)


Like the Low Gas Prices? They Could Be Even Lower in 2015

By Carl Gibson, Reader Supported News

30 December 14

 

il prices are currently down by 40 percent from where they were in June, and the economies of oil-exporting countries like Russia and Venezuela are tanking. Coincidence? A simple case of more supply than demand? Cunning moves in a global chess game between a desperate empire and its rivals? Maybe. But even if current geopolitical situations are temporarily causing oil prices to drop, the U.S. government may be about to implement new regulations that would stick it to oil speculators while helping ordinary Americans keep more money in their pocket, and wants to hear from you on whether or not reining in Wall Street is a good idea. If you’re not sure, think back to six summers ago, when oil prices were at an all-time high.

In the summer of 2008, I drove my grandpa’s pickup truck to my unpaid internship at an NBC affiliate in Lexington, Kentucky, five days a week. It was an hour-long round trip in a vehicle that got less than 20 miles per gallon, and gas was around $4.25 a gallon then, and even higher in urban areas like Chicago and the Bay Area. The fuel needle came close to E every few days, and it cost right around $70 every time I filled up. Almost all the money I made working on my grandpa’s farm during those long, hot summer days went right back into the tank. So why was gas so expensive back then?

In 2011, a report from the Commodities and Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) found that a large reason for the high gas prices that summer was that oil speculators were dominating 80 percent of the market; they controlled just 30 percent of the market in the late 1990s, when gas was a little over a buck a gallon. ExxonMobil CEO Rex Tillerson and Goldman Sachs both admitted that speculation on Wall Street caused oil prices to rise by as much as 40 percent. During the record-high oil spike of 2008, Saudi Arabia told the Bush administration that roughly $40 of every barrel of oil was the result of speculators driving up the price. It’s also worth noting that unlike airlines and trucking companies, who buy oil in futures, speculators don’t actually contribute to the economy, as they don’t use a drop of the oil they bet on – they’re just out to make a shitload of money in a short amount of time. Their jobs don’t need to exist.

So what exactly does a speculator do? One textbook example can be found in Cushing, Oklahoma, during the first quarter of 2008. Five big energy traders, three of them from outside the United States, bought up actual crude oil for sale in Cushing, which is a major junction point for oil delivery, then turned right around and “shorted” it in sales to other investors between January and April of that year. This made the price of oil fluctuate rapidly in the process, and those speculators pocketed the profit. The market was mobbed by speculators like those in the Cushing scheme, all of whom wanted to make a quick buck by manipulating oil prices. By the time summer came around, oil was at $147 a barrel.

In July of 2010, two summers after the one where speculators mugged Americans at the pump, the Dodd-Frank Act, which was intended to rein in the financial industry, was signed into law. One of the provisions of Dodd-Frank intended to cap speculators’ share of the market at 10 percent, which Wall Street fought tooth and nail. In December of 2011, the International Swaps and Derivatives Association (ISDA) and the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association (SIFMA) sued the CFTC for trying to write regulations that would comply with the Dodd-Frank law’s mandate for tighter rules on speculators. To put that in plain English, a bunch of casino gamblers who make money off of other people’s misery sued the government for trying to do its job. And the first time, they won.

In September of 2012, a federal judge sided with Wall Street and ruled that the CFTC’s proposed rules on speculation had not been proven necessary under the law. The ISDA and SIFMA, who represent some of the big banks responsible for the global financial crash of 2008 like Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, and JPMorgan Chase, celebrated the ruling and hoped it would establish precedent to stop any future attempts at reining in their destructive greed. However, U.S. District Judge Robert Wilkins wrote in his ruling that the decision didn’t invalidate any future attempts to more closely interpret the law and write new rules. As recent history shows, the CFTC didn’t back down from the fight. It appealed the decision, and vowed to try again.

In November of 2013, the CFTC voted 3 to 1 to pass a new set of rules that would limit speculation on 28 core markets, including crude oil, fuel oil, gasoline, and natural gas. So far, the CFTC has received 13,000 public comments on the proposed rules. And in December of 2014, regulators re-opened the public comment period for the new speculation limits. Comments can be submitted on the CFTC’s website, and all will be considered until the January 22, 2015, deadline. If public comments are overwhelmingly supportive, it’s likely the CFTC’s rules will become official in the spring, making the prices for everyday needs like groceries and gasoline drop as a result.

Obviously, everyone is happy that filling up the tank doesn’t cost as much. We can celebrate that new, sustainable forms of energy are becoming more prevalent, and that our economy has become less dependent on fossil fuels. But keeping speculators in check is exactly what our government is intended to do. If the CFTC’s new limits on speculators go through, it’ll be a big victory for working people, and that should be celebrated more than anything.


Carl Gibson, 26, is co-founder of US Uncut, a nationwide creative direct-action movement that mobilized tens of thousands of activists against corporate tax avoidance and budget cuts in the months leading up to the Occupy Wall Street movement. Carl and other US Uncut activists are featured in the documentary "We're Not Broke," which premiered at the 2012 Sundance Film Festival. He currently lives in Madison, Wisconsin. You can contact him at This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it , and follow him on twitter at @uncutCG.

Reader Supported News is the Publication of Origin for this work. Permission to republish is freely granted with credit and a link back to Reader Supported News.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
<< Start < Prev 2601 2602 2603 2604 2605 2606 2607 2608 2609 2610 Next > End >>

Page 2604 of 3432

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.

RSNRSN