EVEN THE PLAYING FIELD: One of the reasons why the U.S has such a hard time weaning itself off fossil fuels is because coal, oil & gas often appear cheaper than solar and wind. But that’s because the fossil fuel industry gets a whopping SIX TIMES more government subsidies than clean energy! @ Earth Justice
It has come to my attention that the Brazilian Candidate for President, Marina Silva, may be against gay marriage. That would put me in direct conflict with her. As you know I have fought for marriage equality in my country and see it as a reflection of the quality of a candidate. I did not know this was her stand on this issue when I made the video supporting her. I only saw her debate where she said she supported gay marriage and have come to find out after the fact that her party has pulled her support of this issue. I can not, in good conscience, support a candidate who takes a hard right approach to issues such as Gay Marriage and Reproductive rights even if that candidate is willing to do the right thing on environmental issues.
I am not an expert on Brazilian politics but I can say that Women’s Rights, Gay Rights and Environmental Rights are all part in parcel to a kind of world view that I ascribe to. To have a world view that does not include all three of those positions makes it impossible for me to endorse a particular candidate.
I have to apologize for not doing a better job of vetting this decision. I apologize if I have let anyone down or made them feel somehow I had done an about face on those issues that I clearly have made an effort to confront and fight.
At this time it would be good to know definitively where Candidate Silva stands on these issues and in no uncertain terms. It is a little bit murky and unclear presently. Until that time, based on what I have been able to glean from the few posts here, and what is available on the internet, I am withdrawing my endorsement. I would ask that her campaign would not use my video endorsement until they either state their support for gay marriage and the reproductive rights of women or make it clear where they stand on these important issues. Short of that my support is null and void.
I apologize to the Silva campaign for not having a better handle on their policies and creating this inconvenience. I was disappointed to see her support for gay marriage be dropped by her party the day after she gave it in a speech. I ask that you honor my wishes in good faith.
Corporate whistleblowers can collect as much as $30 million for disclosing secrets about their employers cheating on taxes and violating securities law.
National security whistleblowers, on the other hand, struggle to find jobs and make ends meet. Full story »
How corrupt is the Republican Governor’s Association?
We demand more leisure time and national legislation that finally amends the Fair Labor Standards Act by mandating a work week of 32 hours or less with no loss in pay and, henceforth, lowering further the work week with no loss in pay as productivity increases. This 20% reduction in the work week would mean immediate job openings for millions of unemployed and underemployed. These ideas were regularly raised during the Great Depression and during the rise of the CIO union federation.
We demand a living wage and national legislation establishing a minimum wage of $15 an hour for all workers with annual cost of living adjustments protecting against wages sliding backwards. A San Francisco proposition scheduled for the November ballot states this exactly
We demand an end to business secrets and swindles and national legislation requiring expert public examination of account books of corporations who demand concessions from employees or tax breaks from the government. The same for banks who receive government bailouts while bankrupting debtors and homeowners. This is an unfinished campaign of openness abruptly cut short after the Occupy Wall Street protests subsided.
We demand full employment and national legislation requiring permanent public works programs with community input and expert infrastructure analysis performed regularly. This would include planning vast environmental conversion projects. Versions of this idea are supported by liberals and progressives but it still largely sits on the sidelines, especially the permanency angle.
We demand quarterly Cost of Living Wage Adjustments and national legislation stating that wages would not suffer due to manipulative monetary policies. Once very popular, this idea lost steam in the 1980s during the concessionary attacks on labor.
Yea, well. Are you registered to vote? Are you intending to vote if registered? If you can’t answer yes to both these questions, I cannot see where you feel that your demands mean anything.
If you don’t vote, nothing will change (for the better). If you don’t vote, things will change (for the worse). All the great progress we made under FDR didn’t fall out of the sky. It started with people voting for Democrats and then it moved forward from there.
The House was only scheduled for twelve days of work in September and October, but the original plan proved too challenging, so the Republican leadership stopped working after eight days. The American people are paying House Republicans to work at job that they aren’t showing up for. The House GOP is taking millions of dollars from taxpayers in salaries and benefits for doing nothing. The Republicans aren’t passing legislation. They aren’t dealing with the nation’s problems. Heck, Boehner and company can’t even show up for work.
If the Republican House were paid by the hour maybe, they would spend more time doing their jobs, but this is a Congress that has shown no interest in doing anything productive.
Boehner and the House Republicans are stealing your hard earned money, and if Republicans can’t be bothered to show up for work, voters need to fire them this November."
Bill puts the ISIS threat in context to what might really kill us.
"Would we be this terrified if ISIS didn’t make videos or wear black and have a scary name. ISIS. It sounds like they should be fighting the X-men. ISIS. Simultaneously cool sounding and stands for pure evil. Like Monsanto.
Monsanto who we recently learned puts an ingredient in RoundUp, their ubiquitous crop spray, called Polyethoxylated tallow amine that is far more toxic than anyone realized. Folks, ISIS isn’t going to kill you. Things like Polyethoxylated tallow amine, that’s what’s going to kill you. But try selling that idea to the United States of Pantshitters.”
This question was met with a level of paranoia that’s at once depressing and exhilarating, as it provides a look into the minds of some of these gun advocates.
Here are just a couple.
The first guy explained to me that buying a gun is a sensible and cost effective way to deter crime, which a spoiled bourgeois like me obviously doesn’t understood:
It’s almost as if some of these people can’t afford to maintain a large dog or to install electronic alarm systems. It’s almost as if some of these people aren’t privileged enough to live in high income areas where these countermeasures are common. It’s almost as if some of these people would rather spend 200 bucks on a shotgun so that they can continue to afford to feed themselves and make payments rather than investing bundles of cash into alarms and dogs.
Drawing a weapon on someone who is attempting to harm you is deterrence. Most defensive uses of firearms do not result in anyone being shot. The logical response to someone pointing a gun at you as you try to rob them is to run away.
If you notice, he suggests that alarms and dogs are only to be found in fancy gated communities like mine. I suspect that he’s desperately wrong, at least about dog ownership. But, then, I don’t often drive my Ferrari out of the suburbs so I can’t know for sure.
He also suggests that drawing a weapon is deterrence. And that’s fine … as long as we’re changing the definition of deterrence. You see, deterrence involves preventing someone from doing something (in this case, home invasion). But if they’re already in your home and you’re drawing a gun, you haven’t deterred them. You’ve just significantly raised the stakes.
The second guy went about a thousand steps farther:
Wait even if you do have those things how about we cut the power to your home? No alarm? Dog? Poison it days before you plan To break in or simply lead it out and dispose of them quietly. Look your first line of defense is gone now I’m in your home armed. Checkmate.
You see, in this guy’s mind, the criminal wants so badly to break into your home that he’s planning his home invasion days in advance. He’s poisoned your dog; he’s cut the power to your house so your alarm doesn’t work; and now nothing stands in the way of his nefarious schemes. This burglar is a criminal mastermind and no one but an armed homeowner will ever be safe from him. And criminals are all like him. So forget about dogs and alarms; they’re pretty much worse than useless.
Get your guns and a pile of ammo, board up all the doors and windows, and stay awake for the rest of your life.
Oh man. I had a hearty laugh at both of these. “But home invasions!” is a piss-poor defense of American’s gun violence epidemic. Despite what police procedurals would have you believe, there are not scores of violent burglars sitting in a van with a blueprint of your home and your neighborhood’s electrical grid. Most crimes like that are crimes of opportunity: They notice a window left open, or see the lights haven’t been turned on for a few days, or think you make an easy target. A large, visible alarm and/or a barking dog is a much more obvious way to say “It’s a bad idea to rob me!” than having a gun in your nightstand.
Yahoo put out a list of nine ways to deter burglars. Dogs and alarms (along with visible surveillance cameras and motion-activated lights) are on there. So is having neighbors make it look like you’re there when you’re out of town. Notably, the list — compiled by the U.S. Department of Justice’s Office of Community Oriented Policing Services — does not have “own a gun” on there. Alarms and dogs make criminals think twice before robbing you. Having a gun in your house makes it significantly more likely that you or a family member will die from being shot with it.
If a criminal comes to your house, cuts the power, and poisons your dog, they proooooooobably have a plan for if you have a gun. Look, I don’t want to scare anyone, but if someone is going to that length to get into your house they’re going to get into your house.
Yes, there are occasionally news stories about someone shooting and killing a home invader. But there are many, many more about kids or irresponsible adults accidentally shooting someone.
If you want a gun because you hunt or shoot or because you think America is destined for ~tyranny~, at least those are semi-valid reasons to have one. Owning it to protect your home is just a bad and dangerous plan.
The New York Times is a supremely racist, anti-Black, sexist, misogynistic—truly, thoroughly anti-woman, transphobic and violently transmisogynistic, farcically classist, anti-poor dung heap of a publication, somehow continuing to coast on an undeserved reputation sustained only by its own marketing department’s decades of cozening myopic, over-moneyed (neo)liberals.
Hence the reason I’ve stopped reading it. Ugh.
Domestic workers are essential to the global economy. They care for children, the elderly and people who need extra help around the house so that family members can leave the house and go to work. Unfortunately, as Ai-jen Poo, director of the National Domestic Workers Alliance, points out, many domestic workers, while caring for our families, do not earn enough to provide for their own.
Domestic workers in the United States and across the world are organizing for living wages, better working conditions and a bill of workers’ rights, which has passed in four states.
Poo recently has been named a MacArthur ‘Genius’ Grant recipient. Read her NBC News interview hereand check out the video in the post.
I’m a nanny so you bet this issue is important to me.
After voting to fund military action against Islamic State, Congress just couldn’t take anymore. The US House announced Thursday an early end to an already shortened fall session so lawmakers could do what they value most: campaign for reelection.
This week, the House and Senate both approved President Barack Obama’s request to arm so-called "moderate" rebel groups in Syria as part of a plan to step up the US military campaign against Islamic State militants. That was about all Congress could muster.
I’ve known about the “neoreactionaries” a lot longer, before they were given that name—back when they were just teenagers on the Internet, like me, furious that there were people less intelligent than us who dared tell us what to do.
I never bought into the ideology fully, but I understand its appeal. The vast majority of nerds don’t take it as far as neoreactionaries and decide every single thing about the pre-modern world—hereditary aristocracy, racism, sexism, the whole shebang—needs to come back.
Mostly what you get is people who vaguely identify as “libertarians” who dislike “political correctness” and being forced to pay taxes. And the vast majority of annoying Slashdot libertarians who campaigned for Ron Paul and against Obamacare have no idea who Moldbug is, and the ones who are aware of him tend to be decent enough to get turned off once the defenses of white supremacism begin.
But every social trend has its extremist leading edge. Most libertarians I know are not racists, but libertarian icon Ron Paul certainly had more than his fair share of pandering to racists when building his political base, and the pot-smoking free-love libertarians of Silicon Valley are often unaware how reactionary their political bedfellows are…
…the convergence of MRAs angry at feminism and [“human biodiversity”] advocates angry at immigration and diversity and libertarians angry at the undeserving poor leeching off of their wealth, the dark heart of the seedy underbelly of the Internet, now has a face and a name. They gleefully call themselves the Dark Enlightenment and give themselves names cribbed from Lovecraftian monsters and revel in adopting as doctrine everything the modern world calls evil…
Nerds tend to talk a big game about standing up for the underdog but, I’m sorry to say, don’t seem to really want a leveling of society, a removal of hierarchies. They bristle against hierarchies of physical strength, of inherited capital, and of “popularity”—but only because those get in the way of a hierarchy of book smarts and technical skill, which is the right and proper hierarchy. The creepy nerd fantasy that remains alive and well in today’s Age of the Nerd Triumphant is not of making peace with the popular kids but taking their throne…
Tunney was never against the one percent—she just thought that the one percent were the wrong people. The problem was they were tie-wearing investment banker fratboys and didn’t deserve to be on top. Just like in her view government fat cats and Hollywood celebrities and snooty academics don’t deserve to be on top. But tech geeks, with their superhuman ability to manipulate ones and zeroes, do.
This is why, as one of those young millennial whippersnappers who nonetheless identifies with the Old Left more than my own generation, I distrust the message we keep getting about the democratizing power of the Internet and New Media, about how progressive the Millennial Generation is.
I distrust my fellow young nerds. I distrust techies when they bear gifts.
What a phenomenal article. This is the trend of thought I identify in “Reddit progressivism”: the desire for an intellectual meritocracy.