Sunday, May 19, 2013
User: Pass: | Forgot Pass? | Create FREE Account

…do you think it's good or bad pork?

Bill Moyers: The Most Underreported News Story of 2012 Is…

Posted by Bill Moyers On December - 26 - 2012 ADD COMMENTS

It's easy enough to compile a "best" and "worst" list, but what about bringing attention to important issues that went largely unreported in 2012?

That's the challenge we posed to editorial leaders from Alternet, Truthout, The Root, Common Dreams, and TomDispatch when we asked them to share what they consider the most underreported issue of 2012. Some of the answers will still surprise you.

See excerpts below, and visit the latest "Group Think" at BillMoyers.com for complete responses, and to share your own suggestions.

"The great underreported story of 2012 is the accelerated spread of poverty and concentration of wealth in the United States."
-- Don Hazen, Executive Editor of Alternet
"As the unconventional oil and gas drilling rapidly industrializes rural areas across the nation, the lessons of Bayou Corne will be crucial to draw upon. The full story of America's current oil and gas rush cannot be told without the voices of the people living in areas impacted by the industry."
-- Maya Schenwar, Executive Director of Truthout
"If you asked me 25 years ago how people would react when we found a way to prevent HIV infection, I would have predicted dancing in the streets and widespread news coverage."
-- Sheryl Huggins Salomon, Managing Editor of The Root
"As long as meaningful action on climate change will hurt the short-term profits of the fossil fuel industries, the media conglomerates and Wall Street, we can't expect the media blackout to end..."
-- Craig Brown, Founder and Director of Common Dreams
"The real reporting crisis involves the inability of the mainstream to connect the dots, almost any dots, or display any kind of historical memory."
-- Tom Engelhardt, Editor of The Nation Institute's TomDispatch

If the New York Times runs an Opinionator column called "Give Pot a Chance," chances are things are changing in America... though not necessarily the way people assume. The column's argument calls on President Obama to legalize marijuana and have, as its kicker states, some "backbone." While that's one take on the matter, the political math is that a white libertarian-leaning Republican president (someone like former Republican New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson ) would be more likely to legalize marijuana than a black centrist-progressive who gets called a socialist (and more furious/ludicrous claims) on a daily basis. The political math there just doesn't add up for a president who's juggling Mideast tensions, a slow jobs recovery and a panic-inducingly-named "fiscal cliff."

But that's the politics. Let's break down the common-sense issues a bit. Marijuana has health risks both mental and physical, but studies show it's much less addictive and kills far fewer people than alcohol or tobacco, which are both legal.

If today's marijuana laws were a psychedelic musical, the citizens of Colorado and Washington State who voted for lawful recrational use would be singing "Legalize It," with a sharp transition into the "No you can't! Yes I can!" chorus from "Anything You Can Do (I Can Do Better)." Singing the negatory role would be a bunch of G-men in sharp suits: the Federal government. The legalizations, by ballot initiatives, produced some ab-fab political rhetoric. For example, Colorado Governor John Hickenlooper released this statement: "The voters have spoken and we have to respect their will. This is a complicated process, but we intend to follow through. That said, federal law still says marijuana is an illegal drug, so don't break out the Cheetos or goldfish too quickly."

Where is marijuana law in America headed? Legalization and decriminalization of marijuana are two different things. Under the first model, legalization, marijuana would revert to being a legal and taxable good, as it was until the 1930s. The government could and certainly would regulate everything from worker safety to product labeling. (Organic, conventional... or GMO? Monsanto might want a share if the market got acceptable enough.) Depending on state regulations, you might have to buy marijuana at a state dispensary (the way New Hampshire handles liquor); or it might be behind the counter at a Duane Reade; or maybe the guys who run delis would be able to stock packets of joints with the cigarettes, and ask for IDs. The possibilities include the variety and complexity of state and local regulations around existing products including alcohol, tobacco and the morning after pill. Medical marijuana dispensaries are a form of legalization replete with taxation. For example, in 2011, the state of Colorado got $5 million in tax revenue from dispensaries, double that of the year before.

One of the many groups opposing legalization are current pot growers, medicinal and otherwise, who would probably lose out in the long run to agribusiness, the same way small-time tobacco farmers did. At the very least, the profit margins would shrink radically. Part of the market price of marijuana today includes all of the complex maneuvers it takes to sell the vast majority of it illegally, ranging from payoff money for law enforcement to arms purchases and casualties from turf battles.

Decriminalization is a different model, one practiced in many ways in various municipalities. In Harvard Square, you can see kids (usually not the students) smoking weed in public. That's because possession of small amounts is decriminalized -- with caveats -- in Massachusetts. Since 2008, state law dictates that anyone over 18 found with an ounce of marijuana or less will receive a $100 fine... if anyone even attempts to fine them, which appears not to be that common judging from the street scene in Cambridge. Now, I'm not saying Harvard students don't smoke pot. When I was teaching there in early 2012, I heard a student brag on his cell phone: "I have four joints and two six packs of Corona." It's just that the students smoke in the dorms, and the buskers smoke in the Square.

The state of Massachusetts and the City of Cambridge make no money off of the sale of marijuana. It's not taxed or regulated for safety. No one checks if it's been sprayed with harmful pesticides, or checks your ID to see how old you are when you buy it. What decriminalization does do is get rid of a bottom tier of criminal possession arrests and prosecutions. Dealers can still be prosecuted, and of course police have to parse the line of what constitutes the legal possession amount, let alone who to stop and frisk on suspicion of dealing. But logistically it rids the court system of a bunch of low-level defendants and potentially shifts the criminal justice system's emphasis toward violent and serious property crimes. The law is too new to have a comprehensive study on cost-savings, but an analysis by Harvard lecturer Jeffrey Miron estimates the law saves Massachusetts $30 million per year in criminal justice costs.

Central American countries which bear the costs of law enforcement and civilan casualties from drug cartels are beginning to ask why they should keep marijuana illegal if the U.S. doesn't. That's just one of the big questions looming ahead in this fight. Oh, and there's that question of state's rights -- so often quoted in the context of issues like abortion and gun laws; now coming to a dispensary near you.

PHOTO: Michelle Obama Talks To Kids On Christmas Eve

Posted by Alana Horowitz On December - 24 - 2012 ADD COMMENTS

Michelle Obama took calls from children across the country on Christmas Eve.

Part of the annual NORAD Tracks Santa program, the First Lady answered the phone calls from kids asking about Santa's locations.

"He's on his way to you guys pretty soon, but he doesn't get there until you're fast asleep," she told siblings Griffin and Sophia. "So you guys have to go to bed on time tonight and close your eyes and go fast asleep. And when you wake up in the morning he'll be there -- or he will have come."

She also chatted with kids about their Christmas celebrations and gift wishes.

The Obamas are spending Christmas in Kailua, Hawaii.

Here's a photo of the First Lady on the phone, courtesy of the White House Flickr account.

michelle obama christmas eve

NRA’s LaPierre Continues Gun Push w/Lies

Posted by Mike Lupica, NY Daily News On December - 24 - 2012 ADD COMMENTS
Mike Lupica, NY Daily News
So now Wayne LaPierre of the National Rifle Association, who attacks the mental health system in this country even as he sounds like he needs to be in it, goes on “Meet the Press” and continues to double down on his notion that the only way to keep our schools safe is to put armed guards at the front door and the side door and in every home room in America and maybe on every school bus, too.The other day there was a terrific Daily News front page calling LaPierre, the NRA’s executive director, the “craziest man on Earth,” and he was clearly...

Fix the Debt, a front group for corporations, billionaires, and defense contractors, wants people to call their Representatives and demand that they avoid the "fiscal cliff."

The group's latest email is so badly written that it cries out for laughter, but its potential consequences call out for tears.

The writing borders on the unintelligble, as when it urges people to contact their Member of Congress and say this:

"I'm calling to urge the Represntative (sic) to pass an agreement to tackle our nation's debt crisis that is supported by members of both parties that both raises revenue and cuts government spending in order to pave the way for a strong economic future."

Now try saying it three times fast.

It's easy to make fun of something this inept, and the overpaid cynics at Fix the Debt - and fellow shell organizations like the Committee For a Responsible Federal Budget - certainly have it coming. But this time they've crossed a line. They're claiming to speak in the very interests of the people who would be most hurt by their actions.

Shame on them.

The email provides a script to be used when calling your Representative. They suggest you begin by saying that the deficit "matters to me because ______________".

It then offers three "helpful" examples of how that sentence might be completed, by a concerned parent, a small business owner, and a veteran - three of the many populations whose financial security would be gravely wounded by Fix the Debt's political agenda.

That doesn't mean everybody would be hurt by it, of course. Here are some scripts that the group's real beneficiaries might want to use:

-- I'm rich as hell - I mean, I'm not naming figures, but we're talking stinkin' rich - and I want to cut Social Security and Medicare while lowering my own corporate and personal taxes. 

-- I'm a corporate CEO who's been shipping jobs overseas, and we've had record profits while paying record-low amounts to the IRS. But that's not enough. I want to do even less for my country. 

-- I'm a defense contractor and, while I thank you for the break you've already given me this week, I really need to make sure I don't sacrifice even a tiny bit in the name of deficit reduction. 

-- I invest in the for-profit health industry and business is booming. I want you to do everything you can to undermine Medicare and Medicaid so I can pump up my profits even more. 

-- I'm a Wall Street executive and I'm expecting to get more 401(k) investment funds once you gut Social Security. I also receive a deeply perverse satisfaction from not helping to fix the economy I destroyed, and I'm counting on you not to harsh my mellow.

Now here are Fix the Debt's own sample phone scripts. We've added some additional dialog, and given each one a name:

Competitive Spirit

Fix the Debt phone-in script: I am a small business owner and my success and the jobs of my employees depend on a strong economy.  (Note: Bad grammar is theirs.)

Additional dialog: So please pass a bill that favors billionaires and giant corporations, while gutting the Small Business Administration and other programs that help folks like me.

I especially like that "chained CPI," which forces middle-class people into higher tax brackets and deprives them of even more money they might otherwise have spent on consumer goods.  That will lower demand, making it even more unlikely that my competitors and I will be able to grow, prosper, and hire more workers.

I really hate my competitors.

A Better Life

Fix the Debt phone-in script: I am a parent and don't want to kick the can down the road for my kids' generation to deal with crippling national debt or a double dip recession. (Note: Bad grammar is theirs.)

Additional dialog: So please implement the "chained CPI," which will gut their future Social Security benefits while raising their taxes throughout their working lives. I also want a plan that arbitrarily reduces Medicare benefits over time so there's nothing left by the time they get old.

My college-aged kids are graduating to record-level unemployment, too, but please don't spend any money to help with that.

Please cut education funding, too, from elementary school all the way up to Pell grants. Education's the key to advancement, and right now my kids dream of a better life than the one we had.

I really resent that.

Some Gave All

Fix the Debt phone-in script: am a veteran, and I know that our nation's fiscal strength is a matter of national security.

Additional dialog: So please help defense contractors like the ones who did all that defective wiring and killed my friends over in Iraq.

Please be sure to implement the "chained CPI" while you're at it, too, since more than nine million of my fellow vets are on Social Security.  Way I see it, they haven't sacrificed enough for their country.

Four thousand children who lost a parent in Iraq get Social Security benefits too. I know I told my buddy over there I'd look after his kids if something happened, but what the hell: maybe you folks and all your friends in Washington are right..

Maybe those kids haven't sacrificed enough either.

 

PHOTOS: Obamas Head To Hawaii For Christmas

Posted by The Huffington Post On December - 22 - 2012 ADD COMMENTS

Alright, America, you can officially get in holiday mode: President Obama and his family jetted off to Hawaii last night, thus ringing in the national Christmas vacation season.

After saying goodbye to reporters on Friday with a "see you next week," the president joined Michelle Obama and daughters Sasha and Malia to embark on their annual trip to Hawaii. Each year, the family heads to Honolulu, Obama's hometown, to celebrate the Christmas holiday -- not a bad way to spend the usually-wintry season, if you ask us.

Members of the Air Force were there to see the Obamas off and salute the family as they boarded their flight. The first couple looked pretty dapper as they waved goodbye and entered Air Force One, Michelle going simple in a purple scarf and the president whipping out his brown leather jacket (not his trusty bomber jacket, unfortunately).

After a long flight, the Obamas arrived at Joint Base Pearl Harbor-Hickam in Honolulu early this morning, mostly sporting a change of clothes. FLOTUS looked unfairly put-together after a redeye, opting for her signature look of a printed, sleeveless dress with an eye-catching print. Sasha and Malia wore a floral top and a striped button-down, respectively, while Obama stuck to his simple slacks and button-down.

According to White House officials, the Obamas won't be making any public appearances during their stay in Hawaii, so their pre and post-plane stints may be our only glimpse at the first family's holiday gear. But that's OK -- like we said, their trip is our unofficial signal that it's time to sit back, relax and enjoy the holidays. Hey, if Michelle can forget about "Let's Move" for a few days and serve mac and cheese, we can lay off the fashion-watching.

Check out pictures of the Obamas jetting off on Air Force One and arriving in Hawaii the next morning below.

PHOTOS:

barack obama christmas

barack obama christmas

barack obama christmas

See some more sweet Obama moments!

Want more? Be sure to check out HuffPost Style on Twitter, Facebook, Tumblr, Pinterest and Instagram at @HuffPostStyle.
--
Do you have a style story idea or tip? Email us at stylesubmissions@huffingtonpost.com. (PR pitches sent to this address will be ignored.)

Patrick J. Hamilton: Voting On My Marriage? Let’s Vote On Your Guns

Posted by Patrick J. Hamilton On December - 21 - 2012 ADD COMMENTS

Until the other day, I saw none of their faces. I avoided all links and news stories where the tiny victims of the Newtown massacre were shown and identified. I was not able to see them while the horror of the numbers sank in and details surfaced. I could not do it. I needed a few days of cowardice, of avoidance, a few days to steel myself before giving literal face to the staggering statistics, where the number of dead seemed impossible when paired with ages and grade levels. Too many, too young, too soon.

But in front of me, suddenly, on the treadmill, of all places, there they were. Eye level. Tiny faces, almost life-sized on the TV monitor, smiling, beautiful, gone. It was The Katie Couric Show, covering the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting.

As I ran in place, their pictures faded in and out, perfect and imperfectly perfect little faces, some still with their baby teeth. There are no words.

Katie was interviewing some of the family members. They all showed remarkable poise, exceptional grace in the face of such loss. I'm sure, just days after, there is still shock to block the horror and buffer the pain, to fill the void that will most certainly grow, not diminish, in the time ahead.

They told of morning routines, of holding tiny hands on the way to the school bus. One boy, his parents slowly and proudly recounted, stopping to blink back tears and clear a breaking voice, had already shown an ability to connect with the disabled. They also told of his never wanting to see anyone eat their lunch by themselves. They spoke clearly, elegantly, about the little losses leaving such terrible voids, in a home, at a breakfast table, in the world. Unspeakable, unfathomable loss.

This is our loss, too.

What future is now gone, with those squeezes of a trigger, as clip after clip was emptied? What stories will never be lived or told, the cover slammed shut so violently, with pages and pages yet to be written? What cure, what idea, what art, what revelation won't happen because of that deadly gunfire?

Duty and Debt

So in their absence, we have some new duties.

We have a duty to fill those voids, to work harder to make breakthroughs. To facilitate research, to fund arts, to lend a hand or a dollar. It's now our duty to replace the lights extinguished in those classrooms and halls with our own light. With charitable acts and by living lives that honor those who have no such luxury now. With choices that favor kindness, beauty. Choices that stave off anger and hunger, choices that steal the voice from hate.

We have a duty to make the world as kind as a child deserves.

We have a duty to be civil, to adopt all the things we learn, then forget, in the early years of grade school. Play. Share. Love. Create. Laugh. Yes, even now, even laugh.

We have the duty to evaluate what "the right to bear arms" should mean, in the over two centuries since our forefathers penned those words with a quill pen, on the edge of a wilderness and to block their fledgling nation from a tyrannical country they fought to be free of, when a barrel-loaded musket was the weapon of choice and no video game was giving our kids bonus points for killing.

We have a duty to demand of our president-reelect and elected officials that something change. Public tears, flags at half-mast and formal proclamations of condolence are no longer good enough. They never should have been without something next. A plan. A solution. A dialogue. A stand against the bullies that are the NRA.

These are our duties to the lost of Sandy Hook. This is our national debt to repay.

A Show of Hands on the Right to Bear Arms

If those beholden to the NRA want guns without restriction, I say put it to a vote. If my right as a gay man to marry is decided by my neighbors, if states allow their populace to attempt to amend state constitutions to block marriage equality, and if LGBT employment protections are decided state by state without federal-level protection, let's see a show of hands for how we feel as a nation on the right to bear arms. Fair is fair, right?

If our president-reelect won't speak up on the federal level about marriage bans and employment discrimination, let's make the issue of gun ownership a state-level vote, too. But no, they'll argue, you'll just cross a border and the laws will change. You mean like how a New York marriage license isn't honored after a PATH ride to New Jersey? Funny how that argument works.

If conservatives protect gun ownership under the fragile and deceptive umbrella of not wanting to give Big Government too big a hand, let's pass local legislation, then. I'm pretty sure Connecticut, right now, would vote for some kind of change, even among the blue- and white-collar, orange-vested deer hunters. If leaders are so sure there should not be change, they should not fear a vote. That's how it goes, right? And besides, in communities across the U.S.A. already, people are handing their guns over, without any buy-back incentive. That seems to be an indicator of how some of that voting might go.

Make the NRA pay by the vote, the way politicians have come to do. Make them buy airtime and try to make the case for why, as a civilized nation, we should be armed to the teeth. Make them dip deeper into their coffers to defend their stance and existence. Let them work for the public, at the public level, to plead their case, and not do it over martini lunches inside the Beltway, in secrecy and behind closed doors, with a greasy, tainted handshake.

Make your neighbors put up yard signs, saying they support guns in the home and, potentially, in an elementary school where their own children attend and those guns could all-too-easily find their way into hallway and classroom. And make them drive the stake of those yard signs into their lawns before the last of the Newtown dead are buried.

Let's take the debate off Facebook and put it in our faces. Let's make it so that people will have to use their own energies and funds and resources to tell me why their right to keep a gun, and do it with gigantic loopholes and an alarming lack of supervision and mandatory training, is more important than the right of a third-grader to not have to hide in a closet to save his or her life, after a morning of glueing macaroni to construction paper, half an Advent calendar away from a Christmas when many of those shot in the head and chest still believed in Santa Claus.

I laugh when even my LGBT friends (yes, some of the rainbow community are packing heat and fighting on Facebook to keep the privilege, to my own astonishment) cite the Second Amendment in defense of gun ownership, even in the immediate wake of this obscene tragedy. Aren't these the same who decry the Bible as an archaic, misinterpreted document when the issue of gay rights comes up, and when outdated language is used as a weapon against them? How, then, do they defend an amendment that has the word "militia" in it? Is that not as archaic? If you ask the Bible to be put in a modern context before using it to deny gay rights, you need to cast some modern light on the Second Amendment, too.

The Ultimate Goal

The ultimate goal of a gun, it seems to me, is death -- even in protection. Even at firing ranges, the targets are shaped like deer or humans. And I'm tired of hunters having a bigger say in the debate than an elementary school teacher charged with raising our youth. The Newtown shooter left his mother's hunting rifles at home and instead took her handguns and the semiautomatics. By the way, who's hunting bucks and does with a Saturday Night Special?

In the wake of the tragedy, as they have done after the Colorado movie theater shooting and the Oak Creek temple shooting, the NRA shuttered their Facebook page and silenced their Twitter feed. (Apparently, they have a formula for how long they stay silent, based on the number of casualties. A formula.) Sometimes what people don't do or say speaks louder than what they do. We owe it to the children of Newtown, lost or saved, that this time, our collective actions will say something about what happens next.

The statistics for what happens when a gun is present in the home speak for themselves, and oddly, there are no statistics that I've seen that counter the increased odds of death, suicide or tragedy among those who tuck a gun in a bedside table "for protection." You'd think that if this were a fair fight, there'd be a counter to at least some of those facts, not just the absurd argument that "guns don't kill people," or that "cars kill people, too -- you wanna outlaw cars?" or the flash of a bumper sticker that reads, "You'll have to pry my gun from my cold, dead hand." Be careful what you wish for, I always say.

I was admonished on Facebook for "politicizing" the Newtown shooting by making the discussion immediately about gun control. "Too soon," they said. "Now is time for mourning, not blame." Didn't we say that after Columbine? After Gabby Giffords was shot? After the D.C. zoo shooting? After Aurora? After Oak Creek? We have a remarkably short memory when it comes to gun violence. Outrage fades quickly as the mundane creeps back in. I wonder how quickly the memories of their children will fade for those parents who'd already bought presents for a child who will not be alive on Christmas morning to unwrap them.

I am capable of two emotions at once. I can mourn with all my heart and, in doing so, still and simultaneously express anger over something that could have been avoided if we'd just, as a nation, had a collective and calm discussion after any one of those past events. But no. After the mourning, once caskets are lowered into damp earth, we take our sunglasses off and put our blinders back on, going about our life of denial, letting the gun lobby decide what is best for us. If we avoid the discussion this time, then we all have blood on our hands the next time. We, as a nation, will pull the next trigger.

And politicizing? How pathetic that politics and guns are the bedfellows they are. Why is that not more a source of shame?

The time for compromise is past. I used to go out of my way to say, "We're not talking about banning, just better controls in a category already legislated, already to some degree controlled." But now I think the lack of response from the NRA has made them lose their vote. Their abstention, their lack of even condolence, means that they lose their voice in the matter. When you fall silent in the moment of tragedy, you abdicate your right to steer the conversation once the tiny dead are buried.

We Owe Them a Solution

On The Katie Couric Show, the surviving 10-year-old sister of one of the murdered boys proposed a ban on semiautomatic weapons and handguns. As far as hunting, she said, let people hunt. But do it with guns borrowed at the site, then returned when a carcass is strapped triumphantly to the car hood. Her solution is naïvely brilliant. But more than whether it will or won't work, it was proposed. By a 10-year-old. Among those clinging so desperately to their guns, I've heard no such proposals, rational, far-fetched, cynical or naïve. Just silence, after the gunshots.

I lost a friend, a man struggling with his identity and demons of his own, when he walked into a Kmart, bought a hunting rifle and a box of ammo, drove to the edge of the Everglades directly from the Kmart parking lot and blew his brains out. One or 26, it is too easy.

Oddly, these thoughts and the Sandy Hook tragedy happened after a week of jury duty, where every day I had to arrive an hour early to empty my pockets, remove my belt and walk through a metal detector. Even if the NRA proposed that metal detectors be set up at every grade school, university, church theater and public space, I'd have some respect. But I suspect that they realize that the outcry would be too great, screams and protests going up soundly about our "civil liberties." I suspect that they also fear that any statement would admit complicity in the deaths of the young of Newtown.

The losses are just too great, and now too frequent, not to effect change. Anyone who suggests that the system is fine as is, and that these acts are mere anomalies at the hands of madmen, are wrong. Dead wrong.

We track Sudafed buyers and legislate Big Gulps. It is easier to buy ammo online than it is to buy merlot from Wine.com. It is faster to get a license for a gun than it is to get a license to cut hair. We have derailed. Something is gravely wrong. We owe the lost of Newtown, teacher and student, son and daughter, a fix, a solution, an answer.

We owe it to that boy who never wanted anyone to sit alone at lunchtime.

This piece originally appeared on The Bilerico Project.

Maya Rupert: In Defense of Black Republicans

Posted by Maya Rupert On December - 21 - 2012 ADD COMMENTS

The announcement that South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley will appoint Tim Scott, a black Republican, to complete the remainder of Jim DeMint's term as a Senator, has generated a disturbing reaction.

Despite the fact that Scott will become the only sitting black Senator (since we elected the other one president), there has been a significant amount of commentary on whether Scott's conservative views undermine his blackness and render him a "sell out" or an "Oreo." To be clear, these accusations should not be confused with the perfectly legitimate question of whether appointing a black man that most black people disagree with will help the Republican Party shed its racially uninclusive image. Instead, these attacks question Scott's authenticity as a black man.

This isn't new. High profile black Republicans have often been confronted with such attacks. From Condoleezza Rice to Clarence Thomas, black conservatives often find themselves being race-checked for splitting with the majority of the black community on their political leanings.

It may be a common narrative, but it's incredibly unfair. Moreover, it's dangerous. And not just for black conservatives, but for the liberals who are typically making the claims as well.

Essentially, this argument boils down to an insistence that after having faced racism and systemic racial bias in this country, black people are only allowed to have a certain type of reaction to the oppression we have faced. It implies that it is possible to be black the "wrong way." Attacking black Republicans then, becomes one more way to rob an already marginalized group of entitlement to interpret their own experience.

It is especially distressing that sometimes those leading these attacks are people outside the black community. This is not solely a condemnation of white outrage at the existence of someone like Scott, though I confess I'm uncomfortable with the racial dynamics of white liberals feeling such ownership over the loyalty and allegiance of black voters that the appointment of a black conservative sparks accusations of not being "black enough" from people who are not black at all.

But my frustration is broader than that. In fact, it is broader than frustration over the reaction to black Republicans. It is frustration that those from marginalized communities face unfair attacks any time they veer to the right of the political spectrum.

As I've written elsewhere, those attacks themselves are sometimes the problem, as the term "Uncle Tom" and references to "house versus field slaves" roll off the tongue far too quickly and thoughtlessly whenever this issue comes up, and such racially charged language exacerbates what is already an inappropriate criticism.

But beyond that, the suggestion that people of color, LGBT people, or low-income people cannot vote for Republicans without being condescendingly told they are voting against their own interest is denying them agency because they are a member of an underrepresented group.

When being a part of a marginalized community disentitles people from complexity of thought, it perpetuates the same system of oppression and privilege that made those communities marginalized to begin with. We cannot simultaneously decry the existence of privilege and then exercise it to tell those who have been oppressed how they are allowed to advocate on their own behalf. If we want a meaningful social justice movement aiming at change for those who have been disenfranchised, we have to let go of the idea that we can assume a monolithic voting bloc. Fighting for increased political power for those who have been underrepresented means increased political diversity, and we have to make room for the fact that sometimes progress will bring more black Republicans.

Ralph Nader: The Commercialization of Family

Posted by Ralph Nader On December - 21 - 2012 ADD COMMENTS

Family is the foundation of our American society. In many ways, the family unit is one of the last bastions of decency holding out against encroaching corporate commoditization -- the corporations can sell food, medicine, clothing, entertainment, even child and elder care, but they can't provide the love, selflessness and generosity that close family members can provide one another. But if there was a way to commercialize all those generational, biological bonds, you can be sure that profit-hungry companies and clever marketers would discover it. In the holiday season, thoughts about family abound. But the advertisements that dominate all forms of commercial media aren't about the benefits of family life, about how parents shape the character and personality of their children, about how turning off the screens and engaging in conversation is the cornerstone of human development. Advertisements aimed at children are meant to tantalize and sell the latest toys, gadgets and video games -- many of which serve as electronic babysitters that feature violence and undermine parental authority.

Every holiday season, the commercial media relentlessly hype the big products of the season with "Holiday Shopping Guides" and "Hot Lists." These lists feature toys and gadgets that are, inevitably, in "extremely limited quantities," forcing parents to battle it out at early morning store openings to get the latest and greatest items. These "hot item lists" are released by the retailers themselves, such as Toys-R-Us, Walmart and Target. It's not clear why many of these items are "hot," aside from the fact that the chain stores that sell them say so. At one time, the big Christmas item was "Cabbage Patch Kids," and then it was "Tickle Me Elmo," then "Furby," and then the "Nintendo Wii". In 2012, Furby is back -- a furry, owl-like electronic doll that talks. It was popular back in 1998 and sold millions in the late 90's. Hasbro, the manufacturers of Furby, assumed that they could replicate the same big holiday rush sales with the same toy and the same marketing hype. According to Yahoo! Shine's Holiday Gift Guide for parents, "Desperate parents are turning to Amazon.com, where some versions of the $54 toy are selling for $80 or more, and to eBay, where less-popular colors are selling for about $75. The hottest colors come with the highest prices: $1,000 to $2,500 for a single Furby." One of the new features of the 2012 Furby is that is can interact with iPods and iPads -- another electronic gadget that advertisers tell children they need to be hip.

The Furby hype is, of course, a retail trick, designed to fuel children's desires for a new product. This translates into children nagging parents to acquire a new toy.

Spreading "joy with toys" is a major part of what the holidays in America have become -- selling directly to children, without respect to limits, boundaries or even common decency. The result is young children are spending more time absorbing corporate marketing, resulting in shorter attention spans, reduced vocabularies, and less understanding of their local communities.

The only defense against the onslaught of commercializing childhood is for parents to become more aware of the "corporate week" -- that is, their children spending more than 40 hours a week interacting with corporate products. These activities often involve idly sitting and absorbing entertainment with little to no historical or educational value. Children are spending less time reading, writing, studying, and having conversations with friends and family. The "corporate week" does not inspire critical thinking at a level beyond quick, Pavlovian responses. The potential impact on the developing psyche of young children of heavy exposure to the violence and crass humor found in entertainment is disturbing.

While completely shielding a child from the excesses of rampant commercialization isn't easy in our corporate society, there are still ways to protect the essential blessings of childhood. For starters, parents can demand that marketer's respect their children's privacy and set limits as to where and how marketers can direct advertise to young children. (Some action has recently been made in this area. Beginning July 1, 2013, the FTC will enact new privacy laws to protect children under 13 from having their information collected online. Read the details here.) And then it's up to the parents to turn off the TV, the computer, the cell phones and the iPads, put away the Furbys and the video games, and spend quality time with their children. This means eating family meals together and organizing family outings and activities with real educational and civic values. Consider, for instance, how many children are aware of the public workings of their town? Where does their drinking water come from? How does the local justice system operate? What is made there? For children, the local community is a vast and untapped resource of new information, new understandings, and new perspectives. Many local papers have a listing of community activities suitable for the whole family, such as nature walks, 5K races, book clubs, poetry readings, arts and crafts programs, film festivals, and more. (For D.C. residents, every Friday the Washington Post offers a huge listing of weekend cultural events taking place in the city.) By taking advantage of this nearby resource, making learning fun, and being more alert to the horde of corporate marketers that drive to infiltrate the walled boundaries of our family units, parents can provide better guidance and more enriching experiences for their children.

(For more on this issue, see the chapter "Protect the Family Unit" of my new book, The Seventeen Solutions: Bold Ideas for Our American Future. Available and autographed from Politics and Prose, an independent book store in Washington, D.C.)

Seth Shostak: Target: Earth

Posted by Seth Shostak On December - 21 - 2012 ADD COMMENTS

Watch the TEDTalk that inspired this post.

Buying insurance is seldom gratifying. But here's a case in which plunking down cash for a policy is just ... good policy.

The threat is familiar: rocks from the sky, known as asteroids -- the subject of a 2011 TEDx talk by astronomer Phil Plait. These leftovers from the birth of the Sun and planets race around at thirty thousand miles per hour, and can wreak formidable damage if they collide with Earth. The threat is also multiple, since at least 40,000 asteroids bigger than a football field silently careen through our neck of the solar system. The larger of these -- comparable in size to downtown San Francisco -- could devastate our world's flora and fauna, and deep-six humans in the same way that the dinosaurs were snuffed 65 million years ago. The Earth is a metal duck in a very busy shooting gallery.

In 1908, there was a persuasive demonstration of the power of high-speed, low-mass asteroids in rural Siberia. The Tunguska impactor iced millions of pine trees and about a zillion mosquitoes - Seth Shostak

But here's the good news: Thanks to the work of a series of telescopic observations collectively known as Spaceguard, we've learned that none of the really big objects in this swarm of cosmic projectiles is likely to hit us soon. Approximately 90 percent of these solar system bullies have been pinpointed, and their whereabouts for the next century carefully computed. Planet Earth is not in their crosshairs.

So the odds are good that neither you, nor your children or grandchildren will be victimized by a reprise of the KT extinction -- the lethal event that took out the thunder lizards and half of all the other colorful Jurassic megafauna.

Consequently, you can go back to worrying about climate change, home-brew pandemics, or just good old-fashioned nuclear holocaust. Assuming you worry about such things at all.

Alas, the picture's not quite so rosy. You still have reason to fret about death from the skies, as Plait lovingly calls it. Not from the big rocks, but from the small. Consider that the overwhelming majority of those 40,000 near-Earth asteroids are small enough to fit on the parking lot at the mall. And while these rocky runts won't cause Armageddon, they could still flatten such popular hominid hangouts as Manhattan or downtown Des Moines.

In 1908, there was a persuasive demonstration of the power of high-speed, low-mass asteroids in rural Siberia. The Tunguska impactor iced millions of pine trees and about a zillion mosquitoes -- and was no larger than an office building. Despite its modest caliber, this rock exploded with the energy of 300 Hiroshima-type bombs (although, thankfully, with none of the radioactivity). Imagine how ruinous such an unguided missile would be if it smacked into a major metropolis. And because of the great abundance of these second-tier rocks, you can expect a Tunguska-like collision every few centuries, on average. That's enormously more frequent than impacts by the larger asteroids, which occur at intervals of 1-100 million years.

Of course, it may occur to you that only a tiny fraction of these smaller projectiles will actually hit a city. Often, they'll simply create a new tourist attraction in farmland or desert. Two out of three will cannonball into the ocean. Sure, that's unnerving for fish, but it could also be bad news for humans, because the resulting tsunamis might threaten the large number of people who live near the coast.

Small is not beautiful. So what to do? We could confront the threat directly by developing technology to dodge these bullets. And indeed, there are some clever schemes for nudging any incoming cosmic ordnance out of the way, including the gravitational tractor described by Plait in his talk.

But before we can develop -- let alone deploy -- effective countermeasures for these bantam brickbats, we need to know the territory. We need to know which rocks are coming our way.

A decade ago, NASA investigated the costs to locate and define the orbits of asteroids between 140 meters and one kilometer in size. The space agency presented their study, and the U.S. Congress signed on -- instructing NASA to track down 90 percent of these objects over the course of the next two decades. As you read this, telescopes are scanning the skies.

The price tag for this catalog will likely turn out to be $200-400 million, or roughly $500 per rock. That's really cheap, and is less than the payout for the most recent Powerball jackpot. Put another away, this work costs the same as buying a single, high-grade military helicopter once a year.

Since the property damage from an impact -- not to mention the loss of life -- could far exceed the expense of this catalog, this project should be considered a no-brainer, even in times when government budgets are tight. It's insurance with a very affordable premium.

Disasters happen. We still have no way to eliminate earthquakes, wildfires, hurricanes, floods or droughts. We cope as best we can by fortifying ourselves against danger with building codes and levees, and by setting aside money to clean up afterwards. FEMA's annual budget is running about $14 billion, and we generally accept that burden as the cost of doing business in a hazard-packed world.

But for much less than one percent of the annual outlay for FEMA, we can continue to systematically reconnoiter the rocks that might visit death and destruction upon our urban areas in the foreseeable future. And the first step in defeating an enemy is to know the enemy.

Buying insurance is no one's idea of fun. And it's especially easy to berate something as funky-sounding as writing checks to defend our neighborhoods against apartment-size rocks from space. But this is one insurance pitch that makes perfect sense. Ask the dinos.

Seth Shostak is Senior Astronomer at the SETI Institute, and host of its weekly science radio program, "Big Picture Science."

Ideas are not set in stone. When exposed to thoughtful people, they morph and adapt into their most potent form. TEDWeekends will highlight some of today's most intriguing ideas and allow them to develop in real time through your voice! Tweet #TEDWeekends to share your perspective or email tedweekends@huffingtonpost.com to learn about future weekend's ideas to contribute as a writer.

United States should stop all UN funding

Posted by Adam On December - 19 - 2012 ADD COMMENTS

The United Nations is pushing for a novel way to get billions of extra dollars from Western nations by imposing a retroactive penalty for still-unspecified losses and damages that can be laid at the doorstep of rich countries for their longstanding production of greenhouse gases. Read more:

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2012/12/19/new-un-climate-ploy-institutionalize-payments-for-still-unspecified-loss-and/?test=latestnews#ixzz2FVonmzTs

You know what the dumbest thing I've read since the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting is? It's the same thing everyone else is calling the dumbest thing they've read, because it is so obvious in its overwhelming dumbness: Megan McArdle's "Hey Kids, Go Tackle The Man Who Is Spraying Bullets Everywhere" piece for The Daily Beast:

My guess is that we're going to get a law anyway, and my hope is that it will consist of small measures that might have some tiny actual effect, like restrictions on magazine capacity. I'd also like us to encourage people to gang rush shooters, rather than following their instincts to hide; if we drilled it into young people that the correct thing to do is for everyone to instantly run at the guy with the gun, these sorts of mass shootings would be less deadly, because even a guy with a very powerful weapon can be brought down by 8-12 unarmed bodies piling on him at once. Would it work? Would people do it? I have no idea; all I can say is that both these things would be more effective than banning rifles with pistol grips.

Just for the record, I would like to encourage people not to gang-rush shooters, and to instead run and hide, and any parent who would "drill it into young people" to do otherwise should be thrown in a pit.

By the way. the answers to the questions "would it work?" and "would this be more effective than banning rifles with pistol grips?" are "No" and "No." As Gary Wills points out, our current policy involves "throwing [children] into the fire-hose of bullets from our protected private killing machines." McArdle's proposal is actually the status quo ante.

Gads. This paragraph comes at the end of an epic wreck of a piece that just goes on and on forever. And its length is needless, given the fact that McArdle sort of gives up all hope entirely near the top of the piece when she says, "Since we can't understand it, we can't change it." In this case, "it" refers to both the Newtown shooting and a "mountain of wickedness" that is "pure evil."

From there, it's just an endless litany of despair designed to thoroughly discourage the reader from believing that anything can be done about gun violence and mass killings. "There is probably a policy" that would help, but "we are not going to implement that policy," McArdle has decided, on everyone's behalf. Most of the solutions she's hearing, she says, suffer from being too "generic." She writes: "As soon as Newtown happened, people reached into a mental basket already full of 'ways to stop school shootings' and pulled out a few of their favorite items." And you see, those ideas are just so hopelessly boring!

But what are the alternatives? There are some bolder proposals possible, but if they won't permanently end all gun violence and evil everywhere forever then why bother? There are also a lot of solutions that McArdle does not personally support, so those are non-starters, as well. Thus, there's nothing to be done about it, and no conversation to be had, other than to continue to inure ourselves to our current policy of tossing children, willy-nilly, into the path of harm.

Apparently, people she knows on Facebook got more than a little bit fed up with the way all of this languorous, bourgeois moping masquerading as thoughtful post-modern ennui came off as more than a little self-indulgent:

When I pointed out some of these things on Facebook this weekend, the responses were generally angry, or incredulous. "Megan, you're not presenting an argument, you're just poking holes in others' arguments," said one friend. "Anyone can do that. Bottom line, how do you suggest improving things?"

The answer, I'm afraid, is that I don't. I know this is a very frustrating answer. It got me a fair amount of angry pushback on Facebook, particularly since my friends know that I am in favor of much less stringent gun control than they are. It's not surprising that they feel that I'm hiding the football--poking holes in the stuff that won't work while ignoring the stuff that will, in an attempt to deceive people into giving up on a gun control that I would oppose for entirely separate reasons.

It is, I guess, much easier to defend the position of uniform helplessness and paint the hope of other people as dull or useless or pointless, than it is to actually manifest the courage to actually defend those policy preferences you prefer (that recent tragic events have rendered temporarily gauche for all those nice holiday party chats you'll be having in the weeks to come). In other words, the Newtown shootings have really proven to be a terrible and tragic inconvenience for McArdle, and she'd prefer everyone stop all this talk of change that makes her uncomfortable.

It's a funny thing! When I first read this piece I truly thought it was odd that McArdle would suggest we train kids to sacrifice themselves and run into the teeth of carnage as a policy solution to gun violence, since it seemed way out of step for anyone who places value on the idea of "rational self-interest." But upon reflection, I see that this post truly is stirring in its support of rational self-interest. The author's, anyway.

[Would you like to follow me on Twitter? Because why not?]

Anxiety Rises as Americans Face ObamaCare

Posted by Byron York, DC Examiner On December - 18 - 2012 ADD COMMENTS
Byron York, DC Examiner
This March will mark three years since Obamacare became law, and it still has not had any serious effect on most Americans' lives. That's the way President Obama and the law's Democratic authors planned it; they conveniently pushed the dislocations and unhappy consequences of national health care well past their re-election campaigns.But Obamacare will be here soon, with an Oct. 1, 2013, start of enrollment in insurance exchanges and a Jan. 1, 2014, deadline for full implementation. The political results could be deeply painful for Democrats.

Law and Order in the Fallen World

Posted by Ben Domenech, The Transom On December - 17 - 2012 ADD COMMENTS
Ben Domenech, The Transom
It is a natural tendency on the part of most human beings, when confronted with great evil, to want to do something about it. We want to stop the horror of death and violence and disease. It speaks to what is good within us that we desire this"”it speaks to a recognition on our part, innate and abiding, that there is something terribly broken in this world"”a great mistake which has been made along the way, a gear missed in the works, a gaping hole where something should be. The feeling is all the stronger when we face the destruction of innocent...

‘I Am Adam Lanza’s Mother’

Posted by Liza Long, Huffington Post On December - 16 - 2012 ADD COMMENTS
Liza Long, Huffington Post
Written by Liza Long, republished from The Blue ReviewFriday's horrific national tragedy -- the murder of 20 children and six adults at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut -- has ignited a new discussion on violence in America. In kitchens and coffee shops across the country, we tearfully debate the many faces of violence in America: gun culture, media violence, lack of mental health services, overt and covert wars abroad, religion, politics and the way we raise our children. Liza Long, a writer based in Boise, says it's easy to talk about guns. But it's time...

4 Awful Reactions to the Sandy Hook Massacre

Posted by Nick Gillespie, Reason On December - 16 - 2012 ADD COMMENTS
Nick Gillespie, Reason
Horrific events such as the mass shooting at Newtown, Connecticut's Sandy Hook Elementary School are terrible enough in showcasing the evil that men do.But they also regularly bring out the worst in observers, commentators, and pundits who will never let a lack of knowledge or expertise stand in the way of making grand pronouncements.Here's a short tour of four of the least-helpful reactions to an attack that slaughtered more than two dozen Americans - most of them kids 10 years and younger. They come courtesy of a former presidential candidate (Mike Huckabee), an international...

CT Governor Calls For Tougher Gun Control

Posted by Dave Jamieson On December - 16 - 2012 ADD COMMENTS

WASHINGTON -- Speaking about the mass killing of 26 children and adults at an elementary school in Newtown, Conn., on Friday, Connecticut Gov. Dannel Malloy (D) called for tighter gun control laws on Sunday, suggesting the federal ban on assault weapons ban should not have been allowed to expire.

"I think when we talk about the assault weapons ban that was in place in the U.S., to have allowed that to have gone away ...," Malloy told Candy Crowley on CNN's "State of the Union." "These are assault weapons. You don't hunt deer with these things."

"One can only hope we'll find a way to limit these weapons that really only have one purpose," he added.

The federal assault weapons ban, which restricted features such as magazine capacity on guns, was signed into law by President Bill Clinton in 1994 and lasted ten years. Legislators, most notably Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-N.Y.), have tried several times to renew the ban without success, meeting heavy opposition from the gun lobby.

Speaking on Fox News Sunday, Sen. Joseph Lieberman (I-Conn.) sounded a note similar to Malloy's. "We ought to restore the assault weapons ban -- not to take anybody's guns away that they have now, but to stop the manufacturing of these weapons," Lieberman said.

The Obama administration has said it would like to see the ban implemented once again. Asked about the president's stance in the wake of the Connecticut massacre, White House spokesman Jay Carney said "it does remain a commitment of his."

The weapons used by 20-year-old Adam Lanza in the Connecticut shooting reportedly included a semiautomatic .223-caliber rifle made by Bushmaster and two handguns.

Malloy said Saturday that "there will be time soon" for a national discussion on gun control.

Rabbi Michael Lerner: Banning Guns Is Necessary But Not Sufficient

Posted by Rabbi Michael Lerner On December - 15 - 2012 ADD COMMENTS

Some thoughts and a prayer after the latest mass killings, this time of elementary school students:

Banning all guns is necessary but NOT sufficient in light of the increasing violence in our society. We need a fundamental transformation as well as banning guns. Otherwise, we will now revert to the normal debate between liberals wanting more gun control and conservatives saying that it's not guns that kill, but people. Both are right. So here is what we need to do:

1. A constitutional amendment to ban all guns, and to create special holding units for hunting rifles to be held in control of locally elected officials in every neighborhood who keep the rifles under lock and key except when given to hunters during a hunting season and to be returned immediately thereafter, with all necessary criminal controls and penatlies for those who do not return them in a timely manner and those who continue to hold on to their guns privately. No private ownership of guns of any sort. Police must similarly be disarmed, and allowed only to use billy clubs and mace, except in emergencies in which a judge signs a warrant for the temporary use of lethal force against someone who is using lethal force. Lesser measures (background checks, banning only extreme assault weapons, etc.) are wimply and will have only slight impact.

2. We must create a track of education in every school and every grade level that teaches non-violence both as a philosophy of life and as a practical way to live one's life, plus: non-violent communication, that teaches children and teenagers and college students about a) how to value and care for everyone else on the planet including their parents, teachers, neighbors, friends, and future lovers or partners, b) how to deal with depression, anger, feelings of alienation, powerlessness, stress, and isolation, c) how to give support to those who are not functioning or are psychologically or spiritually impaired and how to find the correct help for people who need professional help, d) how to recognize and appreciate all the beauty and miraculous wonder of life itself, of the universe, and of human beings, e) how to appreciate and protect the planet from all those forces that are inadvertantly destroying it, f) how to end poverty and share the resources of this planet with everyone equally in a planet-sustaining way and g) how to develop one's own capacities as a spiritual, ethical, aesthetically and emotionally developed, mature and loving human being.

These are what we must be seeking. The liberals are right about step number one, but they don't go as far as I propose. The conservatives are right that human beings and not just guns are the problem, but then they never develop or support an educaitonal system that will teach people the skills we all need. Liberals fear introducing values into public education for fear that they'd be the wrong values. It's time to stop that, and fight for a values oriented education, based on the values of love, caring, kindness, generosity, and protection of the earth. Till that happens, conservatives will always have a good case for devaluing public education, and for saying that only religion teaches values (and liberals will prove their case by not creating an educational system that teaches any value other than "making it" or, in polite Obama talk, an "education that prepares our children to compete effectively in the global marketplace," which de facto means, learning how to advance oneself at the expense of everyone else so that "you can be number one and make America number one"). Well, guess what helps make you or others number one: violence and power over others. And that message gets reinforced over and over and over again by television shows about crime and the police, about wars and violence, but also by the society valuing and rewarding soldiers who go off to kill innocent people in foreign wars to protect imperial interests. So, it takes a whole society to create pathological killers out of human beings who are not born that way, and it will take a societal effort -- plus individual efforts to get the pathological messages out of our consciousness and replace them with loving and caring messages and worldviews. But we can do it, and that is precisely what our Network of Spiritual Progressives is all about (read our Spiritual Covenant with America ). Without this kind of change of consciousness, step one (banniing guns) will be ineffective and possibly dangerous.

Meanwhile, for immediate relief, but not in replacement for collective action around points one and two above, you might find some support in the prayer below which I urge you to read to yourself and family, to your friends and community. And blessings to you and all whom you love, and Happy Chanukah and Merry Christmas and Happy Holiday Season to all!

Rabbi Michael Lerner RabbiLerner.Tikkun@gmail.com Rabbi Michael Lerner is editor of Tikkun www.tikkun.org, chair of the (interfaith and atheist-welcoming) Network of Spiritual Progressiveswww.spiritualprogressives.org, and rabbi of Beyt Tikkun Synagogue in Berkeley, Ca. He is the author most recently of The Left Hand of God: Taking Back Our Country from the Religious Right and of Embracing Israel/Palestine: A strategy for Middle East Peace. He welcomes your responses at RabbiLerner.tikkun@gmail.com


God, let me cry on your shoulder
A prayer after today's school shooting in Newtown, Connecticut.
By Rabbi Rachel Barenblat

God, let me cry on Your shoulder.

Rock me like a colicky baby.
Promise me You won't forget

each of Your perfect reflections
killed today. Promise me
You won't let me forget, either.

I'm hollow, stricken like a bell.
Make of my emptiness a channel
for Your boundless compassion.

Soothe the children who witnessed
things no child should see,
the teachers who tried to protect them

but couldn't, the parents
who are torn apart with grief,
who will never kiss their beloveds again.

Strengthen the hands and hearts
of Your servants tasked with caring
for those wounded in body and spirit.

Help us to find meaning
in the tiny lights we kindle tonight.
Help us to trust

that our reserves of hope
and healing are enough
to carry us through.

We are Your hands: put us to work.
Ignite in us the unquenchable yearning
to reshape our world

so that violence against children
never happens again, anywhere.
We are Your grieving heart.
Rabbi Rachel Barenblat

The current fiscal cliff debate is a welcome opportunity to talk about how tax incentives for giving can be better structured to fuel economic mobility. The president's approach to avoiding the fiscal cliff, which includes increased taxes for the wealthiest along with capping deductions only for those making over $250,000 a year, is more balanced than the alternative.

It seems pretty straightforward that if the majority of the country believes that those at the very top of our economy should pay more, then taxing top earners is a more sensible way forward than only cutting deductions. The math adds up and ending deductions would adversely affect charitable donations.

The Chronicle of Philanthropy reports that while it is expected that capping charitable deductions at 28 percent instead of the current 35 percent will impact giving, the amounts are not very significant. Remember, working and middle class people actually make more charitable donations as a percentage of their income than the wealthy do. And it's not just what percent of income people gift, but what they donate to that varies by class as well. The very wealthy are more likely to earmark their contributions for their alma maters than social giving.

This debate gives us an opportunity to look at the policies that are implicit in our tax codes and think more deeply about how these incentives can be better used than they currently are to spur investment in human and social capital.

Most people assume that charitable donations mostly go to organizations that are fighting poverty. It turns out that only 12 percent of donations go to social service organizations, and most of these groups overwhelmingly work to reduce the harsh impact of poverty. Largely, social service organizations are making poverty more livable, not ending it. We need options for our contributing to systems and approaches that build economic mobility and middle class stability.

There is a different set of tools that have not received enough attention or resources that do help people build pathways out and up. People who are working to create paths to middle class stability need capital, investments, to make their plans a reality. In the last ten years of work by the Family Independence Initiative we have consistently seen families transform their lives because we create environment where they can access capital and resources that match their efforts forward and where they are encouraged to work together and develop their social capital. These tools that deliver financial and social capital are a very strong return on investment.

As we talk about tax deductions for the wealthy and their charitable donations, I want to bring our attention to the kind of donation that goes farther, that delivers more bang for the buck: Investing directly in the capacities and resourcefulness of low-income people. These are a kind of opportunity investments that people can use to fuel mobility.

Charitable donations can become investments in mobility when capital flows to scaffold people's efforts to move their lives forward. Matched savings accounts, micro and zero interest loans, and scholarships are but a few of the investment methods that grease the wheels of economic and social mobility. We need to expand the pool of these kinds of opportunity resources and incent their growth. And we can begin by acknowledging that investments that provide the capital that people need to facilitate their initiative, family businesses, education plans, job transitions, and make it over all the bumps in the road on their way to middle class stability are of tremendous value.

When we make it past this fiscal cliff, it's time to put our attention on scaling the mountain of real economic recovery. The only way to regenerate a strong middle class is to finance the initiative and strengths of hard working low-income families. We have a great opportunity to incentivize everyone to invest in the success of these families. Ultimately, their success is good for all of us.

President Obama appointed Maurice Lim Miller to the White House Council for Community Solutions in 2010.

Republicans Float Fiscal Cliff Fallback Plans

Posted by Mollie Reilly On December - 14 - 2012 ADD COMMENTS

With negotiations on how to address the fiscal cliff apparently stalled, congressional Republicans are reportedly floating a fallback plan in both chambers of Congress to avert financial crisis if a deal is not reached. That plan would include ceding to President Obama on letting tax cuts expire for the top two percent of earners, but would also take a more hostile approach to other Democratic proposals.

Just over two weeks remain until the January 1 deadline, when simultaneous tax hikes and drastic spending cuts are set to kick in. While Obama and House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) have met in person twice this week to discuss the looming crisis, the ongoing negotiations appear to have yielded very little in the way of progress. On Wednesday, Boehner warned House Republicans to not make plans for the upcoming holiday, signaling that there may not be a deal by the end of the year.

According to the New York Times and the Washington Post, Republican leaders are gearing up for that possibility and proposing an alternate strategy to pursue if a deal does not go through. The Times reports:

If no deal is reached, Republicans are increasingly talking about a more hostile outcome in which the House passes legislation that extends tax cuts for the middle class, sets relatively low tax rates on dividends, capital gains and inherited estates, and cancels the across-the-board defense cuts, but leaves in place across-the-board domestic cuts. Then House Republicans would engage in what Mr. Boehner, in a private meeting last week, called “trench warfare,” a running battle with the president on spending, first as the government approaches its statutory borrowing limit early next year, then in late March, when a stopgap government spending bill runs out. But such legislation might not be able to pass the Senate, leaving the country no closer to a resolution.

This strategy would result in significantly less new tax revenue than even Boehner's initial offer of $800 billion. Republicans could then declare victory on taxes while also appearing to compromise on extending middle class tax cuts, thus putting them in a position to pressure Democrats on spending cuts.

According to the Washington Post, one proponent of this strategy is Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), who earlier this week pressed Obama to get specific on how to cut federal spending.

"[Obama] seems to think if all he talks about is taxes -- and that’s all reporters write about -- somehow the rest of us will magically forget that government spending is completely out of control and that he himself has been insisting on balance," McConnell said Tuesday.

According to the Post, Boehner and other House Republicans have rejected the strategy reportedly floated by McConnell and other Republican leaders.

Michigan's recent battle makes this a good time to explain the union movement's important role in our economy's overall health. We're about to explain why today's war on unions is bad for all of us, no matter what we do for a living, and we'll do it in four steps.

But first a word about language: "Right to work" is a misnomer for laws which let employees enjoy the benefits of union membership - at least for a little while, until they're stripped away - without joining or contributing.

So we'll call them "right to shirk" laws instead. And we'll call the people who back these laws Shirkers.

And while we're at it, let's stop calling the states that have adopted this legislation "right to work." They don't give people any new rights. They take rights away, by making it illegal for employees to organize and negotiate together. They even take away employers' rights - to sign a certain kind of contract.

So let's give the other states a name instead: In a nod to the Jim Crow origin of these laws, let's call the ones which don't have these laws "free states."

Free Ride

Right to Shirk laws allow freeloaders to profit from the efforts of others - without contributing to the effort, and in a way that harms the common good. The billionaires and corporations behind these laws wouldn't deliberately do anything like that, would they? Why, that would be like letting people make billions from the works of government - things like roads, the Internet and publicly-educated customers - without paying their fair share of taxes.

Oh, wait.

Right to Shirk laws are job-killers. Here are four steps to understanding why:

1. Think nationally, not just locally.

Advocates say these laws create jobs. They don't. Their "evidence" is based on studies which show modest job growth in Right to Shirk states when compared to free states.  But all that proves is that places that are politically hostile to organized labor also offer other types of corporate favoritism.

It also suggests that Right to Shirk states can steal jobs from free states -- as long as the jobs last, anyway.

The Shirker movement was started in the late 1940s by a handful of Southern politicians who were in the palm of big textile mills. They were able to draw textile jobs away from free Northern cities like my hometown of Utica, NY - until those jobs left this country altogether.  That's not "creating" jobs -- that's killing good jobs and replacing them with ones that don't pay enough.

The concept of "solidarity" has been tarred with McCarthyite smears. But "solidarity" is just another way of saying "We're all in this together."  The Right to Shirk crowd wants to stop that kind of thinking so it can pit state against state and employee against employee, shredding our social fabric for personal gain.

It's no accident that the Shirker movement was started by the reactionary white politicians of the Jim Crow South. Back then they were still pining for the days when they could offer some folks the "right to work" ... for nothing.

2. We're fighting over a shrinking pie instead of making the pie bigger.

Things are bad. We need millions of jobs - and the jobs we do have don't pay enough.

The graphic which Business Insider likes to call "the scariest chart ever" shows how far we are from creating the number of jobs needed to make this country's economy grow and thrive again.  Job growth like that we've seen recently is always welcome, but it's not nearly enough to get us out of this ditch. How do we get moving again?

To answer that question we need to know what's worked in the past.

3. The real "job creators" are people with jobs - good jobs.

How did this nation finally escape the after-effects of the Great Depression and begin its greatest decades of economic growth? Government spending  - on roads, bridges, schools, and other vitally needed services - played a key part.

Unions were a crucial part of this process, too. By fighting for higher wages and better benefits, unions ensure that working people have the means to purchase consumer items, housing, and other goods and services.  Companies have to hire more people to keep up with demand - and the good jobs keep coming.

That's why the Republican Party platform of 1956 boasted that "unions have grown in strength and responsibility, and have increased their membership by 2 millions" during Dwight D. Eisenhower's first term. Back then Republicans understood that a growing middle class was good for the entire economy.  That party platform also said that "America does not prosper unless all Americans prosper." Their rule: No shirkers.

But then in those days our economy wasn't dominated by Wall Street megabanks - institutions that don't build or sell anything. And politicians weren't completely in bankers' pockets back then, because the public wouldn't have tolerated it.

We shouldn't tolerate it now.

4. When you kill unions, that reduces consumer income - which kills jobs.

The Shirker assault on unions has taken its toll. Only 25 states remain free to unionize, and union membership has fallen dramatically:

 


Their logic would suggest that the plunge in union membership we've seen since 1960 must have led to a rise in good jobs.  Did it? Let's take a look at manufacturing:


That's my freehand drawing (and therefore not exact) of the trend line in union membership, superimposed by the number of manufacturing jobs in the United States.  Manufacturing jobs kept on increasing for more than twenty years, even as union membership increased. These jobs experienced periods of decline and stagnation as union membership fell, even before the devastating impact of NAFTA.

Consumer demand is vital to growth. That demand is tied to consumers' income, and to their belief that life in the future will be as good or better than it is today.  Those are the two things we need to reinforce, and unions are crucial to that effort.

We need to get our economy growing again. Until then most Americans, unionized or not, will continue to struggle with stagnating wages and an ongoing economic drag that can feel a lot like a recession.  As Paul Krugman likes to say (he said it in our radio interview), This isn't rocket science. We know how to do this.

Destroying unions is just another way for the Shirkers to make sure that we never do.

The Court Should Keep Out of Gay Rights

Posted by Jonathan Rauch, New Republic On December - 13 - 2012 ADD COMMENTS
Jonathan Rauch, New Republic
Dear Supreme Court Justices,Last week, you agreed to hear two landmark cases about gay marriage. In the broader of the two cases, which comes out of California, you could establish same-sex marriage nationwide as a matter of constitutional right. This is a ruling that most gay Americans would celebrate as a historic victory for civil rights. But I want to suggest that you make history, and advance the cause of gay equality, in a different way: by butting out.I bow to no one in my support for marriage equality. I have been fighting for it since 1996, when the cause seemed crazy and only the...

Due to the political courageousness of President Obama (there is simply no other way to put it), the folks inside the Beltway are finally having a serious discussion about taxing the rich. Obama is not only strongly fighting for higher tax rates on the higher-income earners, but he was the one who put the subject front and center in the election season -- when he could easily have punted it to a non-election year.

But the "tax the rich" policies so far being discussed (at least the ones that leak out to the public) are laughably timid and tame, when you really examine the big picture. So far, what is making Republicans howl is President Obama's plan to end the Bush tax cuts on the top two marginal income tax rates, which would raise them from 33 percent to 36 percent, and from 35 to 39.6 percent. Seen one way, that's impressive, since tax rates haven't gone up in such a fashion since President Clinton's first year in office. But seen another, it's not all that radical at all.

Consider the fact that nothing Obama is doing is going to "fix" the problem of Warren Buffett paying a lower tax rate than his secretary -- a problem Obama has repeatedly said he'd like to tackle. On "entitlements reform," only a few lonely voices crying in the wilderness are suggesting ending the most regressive federal tax around, by scrapping the cap on income for Social Security payroll taxes. Also seemingly forgotten in this debate is the proposal for a "millionaires' tax" or a "transactions tax." The real measure of whether Democrats and Republicans are both selling smoke and mirrors is whether they permanently fix the Alternative Minimum Tax -- again, a subject which has barely been mentioned.

If we're really going to get serious about taxing the rich, why not... well... tax the rich? Chances for changing the tax code for upper-income folks don't come around all that often (it's been 20 years since the last one, remember), so why not push not only for higher rates, but to fix some of the most glaring ways our tax code favors those with monstrous incomes. Let's take a look at a few of these ideas, one by one.

 

Scrap the Cap

This one is pathetically easy to understand, and pathetically easy to fix. Many Americans aren't even aware of how the lower 90 percent of paycheck-earning Americans pay higher taxes than the upper ranks.

Social Security taxes are supposed to be a "flat tax" -- everyone pays the same rate. It's so simple that Social Security taxes ("FICA," on your paystub) don't even appear on a normal person's income tax form. It's a straight 6.2 percent of your income that gets taken out, every single paycheck. Except for the wealthiest, of course -- they pay less.

Because only (currently) the first $110,100 you make in income is taxed. Every dollar you earn up to this limit is taxed at a flat 6.2 percent rate. Every dollar you make over this limit is taxed at a zero percent rate. Meaning most Americans don't make it over the cap, and thus pay a full 6.2 percent on their entire income.

[Technical notes: Right now we are in the midst of a temporary "payroll tax holiday" and only 4.2 percent is being taken out of your paycheck -- but this is going to end at some point, and the tax will go back up to the baseline of 6.2 percent. Also, your employer matches this percentage, but self-employed people pay the full 12.4 percent. Neither of these facts are reflected in the charts below, which have been simplified for clarity.]

Here is a chart showing what percentage in Social Security taxes people with modest incomes actually pay, from $10,000 to $150,000 income:

Social Security Tax By Income

Everyone pays the same 6.2 percent up until that $110,100 limit. From this point on, the percentage drops because once the cap is hit, you're done paying the tax for the year. Someone making $150,000 a year pays only 4.6 percent, as a result. Now let's look at a higher income range -- one which begins to show the massive tax break higher income folks get:

Social Security Tax By Income

This shows income up to a million dollars a year. The tax rate steeply falls until about $250,000 a year (who pay 2.7 percent), and then falls off more slowly as incomes rise. When you hit $750,000, you are paying less than one percent a year in Social Security taxes. By the time it hits a million bucks a year, it's down to 0.7 percent. Which brings us to the real top earners:

Social Security Tax By Income

At $5 million a year in income, the tax falls to one-tenth of 1 percent. A firefighter pays 6.2 percent, but if you clear $5 million you pay 0.1 percent. At $75 million a year in income, the figure falls below one one-hundredth of 1 percent -- only 0.009 percent.

Want to "save" Social Security? Scrap the cap. Make everyone pay the same flat percentage rate. Flat taxes are bad enough, but regressive taxes -- defined as "those who have more pay less" -- should be an outrage. Scrap the cap. Social Security could be saved for decades by this one simple step. Make every one of those charts a flat line.

 

Solve the Buffett Problem

Warren Buffett, as everyone should know by now, pays a lower income tax rate than his secretary, despite the fact that Buffett makes one whale of a lot more income than his secretary does. This, despite the supposed-progressive nature of the income tax system. The reason is the biggest loophole of them all. This mother of all loopholes? Treating income rich people make differently than income normal people make. You see, the way Mitt Romney makes most of his money is taxed at a much lower rate than the way a nurse or teacher makes money. Which is why Romney is able to pay less than 14 percent income tax on an income of $20 million. Astonishingly, if the Paul Ryan budget had been made law, Romney would have paid less than one percent on the same $20 million income. I speak, of course, of "capital gains" (and "dividends" as well, but I'm just going to lump them all together for the sake of conversation).

Of all the thousands of ways an individual can make money (or "create an income"), only one is taxed at less than half the rate of the others. It happens to be "making money on Wall Street and the stock market." What a surprise! The method the already-wealthy use to increase their wealth is treated separately by the tax code. It is taxed less than half of what you earn in a paycheck. This is the "Buffett problem."

The solution to this problem is easy, too. Tax all income the same. Equality of taxation! It doesn't matter how you make that dollar, the government should tax it exactly the same -- anything else is simply not fair. In fact, this should be made progressive, too -- which will instantly neutralize all the howling from the anti-taxers about how this will hurt the middle class.

Make all income made through capital gains up to $250,000 each and every year tax-free. No capital gains taxes whatsoever on any money made up to the $250,000 limit -- you can just write off all profits up to that point on your yearly tax form. Then every dollar made above that limit is treated as income. Period. And taxed at the same rate as every other type of income.

This removes the argument that there are small investors who would be harmed. Very few Americans' retirement plans make $250,000 in income each and every year. In fact, it would be a massive tax break for small investors, which would have a positive impact.

But for the Buffetts and the Romneys of the world, they'd be paying the same (or greater) tax rate as their secretaries. And they, too, get to write off a whopping quarter-million of it each and every year, as an incentive. Problem solved.

 

Tax Wall Street Speculators

Institute a transactions tax of 0.25 percent on all Wall Street transactions over a certain limit per year. Make all the stock trades you want up to, perhaps, $250,000 per year tax-free. But then on trades over this amount, charge a fraction of one percent as a "speculation tax." This idea isn't original (actually, none of these ideas is original), I should mention. Raise money for the Treasury by putting a very gentle brake on the stock market, to the tune of 25 cents on every $100 traded. Wall Street bears a large portion of responsibility for our fiscal problems, so it's time to make them contribute toward fixing them.

 

Cap deductions

Right now this is the favorite solution of the Republicans (of course, they want this solution and none of the others, to be clear). Cap what rich people can deduct on their income taxes. The figure I've heard tossed around, however, is way too low. Capping deductions at $50,000 would snare a lot of folks making under $250,000 per year, I would be willing to bet. So raise the limit enormously, but make it a hard cap.

Let upper-income folks have a full quarter-million in deductions each year. They can write off up to $250,000, no matter how they're deducting it and no matter how much their total income (this would be separate from the $250,000 capital gains break described above, I should mention). But that's it. This change could be accomplished by changing a few words on the last box on Schedule A to read "if this amount is over $250,000, then just enter $250,000." That's all it would take. No more writing millions of dollars off each year, sorry. Again, by setting the limit extremely high, this would not ensnare anyone in the middle class at all.

 

Add Two Tax Brackets

This one's pretty easy, too. One of the things Republicans (stretching back to Ronald Reagan) have been successful at over the years is not just lowering tax rates, but reducing the number of tax brackets that exist. Most of this reduction has happened at the upper end of the scale (which should come as no surprise).

This one is easy to fix, and key Democrats such as Sen. Charles Schumer have been pushing the idea for a while now. Create a millionaires' tax bracket. In fact, I'd go further and create a bracket at $1 million in income, and another one at $10 million in income. This removes the squabbling about the "middle class" versus "the truly wealthy" as anyone pulling down a cool million a year simply cannot be classified as "middle class" by anyone (at least not with a straight face). We had multiple tax brackets for a reason in the past -- to tax the stratosphere of the income levels. Let's get back to this way of targeting the upper ranks once again.

 

The AMT Big Lie

I've offered up all of these ideas today to show how timid the proposals currently being discussed truly are. I would bet that none of the problems above will even be addressed in the fiscal cliff negotiations, and I don't expect them to be addressed at any time in the next year, either.

There's a quick and easy way to show how the politicians in Washington -- from both sides of the aisle, mind you -- are simply playing games when they talk about any "long-term solutions" to the tax code. They are, indeed, not going to institute a fix on any sort of permanent basis, mostly because then they'd have to tell a certain uncomfortable truth about the budget projections. Which they're just not going to do -- from either side of the political divide.

Here's the test: will the Alternative Minimum Tax be fixed for more than one year in any "deal" which emerges? The answer to that will be: "No. No, there will not be a permanent fix to the AMT."

Which is how you will know that both sides are simply lying about what the budget will look like in the next ten years. Flat-out lying. Both sides.

The Alternative Minimum Tax was created to solve exactly the same problem they're trying to solve now -- making the wealthy pay their fair share. It was created to rein in abuse of deductions and loopholes. It was created to make sure the wealthiest paid at least a minimum of taxes (it's right there, in the label). It is, in short, the perfect solution to the problems they're now trying to hash out.

Instead of upping rates, instead of fixing loopholes or deductions, the politicians could instead just fix the AMT and return it to its original purpose of snaring ultra-wealthy folks who are trying to lower their tax liability on each year's tax form.

The problem with the AMT is that the limit was set so long ago that it is laughably low today (Nixon signed the original AMT into law). But the politicians in Washington play a game with it, each and every year, like clockwork. The game is called "let's pretend it's going to exist for nine years out of ten, because it makes the budget projections look so much better." When figuring a ten-year budget, the next year will show an "AMT fix" where the AMT limit is raised to where it should be, to only apply to the very wealthy. But the nine years after that will show the AMT levels at the old rate, because such smoke and mirrors means nine years of "tax revenue" which is simply never going to appear gets added into the mix. With nine years of such falsehood, to put this another way, it makes it much easier to project smaller budget deficits.

Each year, Congress "fixes" the AMT, right before the end of December. Each year, they only fix it for a single year. Nobody wants to be the one who points out the lack of clothing on the Emperor, because then the other side will accuse them of wanting to "explode the deficit."

So while there is indeed a vehicle for taxing the rich in a way which lays down clear rules and clear targets -- a way which has existed since 1970 -- it will not be used in the fiscal cliff deal. A permanent fix will not even be discussed, I would wager.

If President Obama really wanted to clearly and permanently change the tax structure for the wealthiest Americans, he would be out there pushing for all of his ideas to be wrapped into the one package of a permanent AMT fix. Instead, this will be treated as an afterthought in the whole debate -- it'll barely rate a footnote in the stories which appear about any impending deal. Perhaps in the fifteenth paragraph of an in-depth newspaper story will be the line "...and they've also agreed to the standard one-year fix for the AMT."

If you want to tax the rich -- if you really want to address the problems in our tax code that outrageously favor the wealthiest among us -- there are multiple ways to do so. I understand why Obama has drawn a political line in the sand over raising rates on the top 2 percent of earners. But it has focused the debate only on this one part of an overall solution. There are plenty of other ways to make the tax code more fair, more balanced, and more evenhanded for the middle class.

My guess is none of them will happen soon. Perhaps Obama will claim victory and get rates raised to 39.6 percent, or perhaps John Boehner will talk him down to 37 percent. But because the media and all the politicians have focused on this one battle royale, my guess is that virtually no attention will be paid to any of the other fine ideas out there to tax the rich. Which is a shame. Because these opportunities seem to come along only once in a generation.

 

Chris Weigant blogs at:
ChrisWeigant.com

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
Become a fan of Chris on The Huffington Post

 

Expectations of a relaxing Sunday in front of the television watching football gave way to frustration and disappointment. In the process, I gained insights on the challenges facing G-20 officials when it comes to managing the global economy. Let me explain.

After holding out for years, I succumbed this season to the NFL package on DirecTV. The promise was overwhelming: watch any game; watch more than one simultaneously; and follow summary channels that take you to the best part of all games.

In other words, I could do much, much more that my original objective -- that of watching my beloved Jets every week.

Well, that was the theory. In practice, it has been a volatile experience: one that has mixed enormous football satisfaction with intense and costly disappointment. And the latter have left me feeling powerless and inadequate.

Today was a perfect illustration.

After an early morning of work, I settled in front of the Jets game with sky-high expectations. These came crashing down when the TV suddenly refused to respond to the remote control.

I tried everything. I reset the remote by removing the battery. I pressed (albeit randomly) all kinds of buttons on the hardware. I asked my wife to help me. All to no avail.

The result: no football and the likelihood of yet another costly service call on Monday, or as soon as the "techs" can fit us in.

To make things worse, I don't know who to blame.

Is it DirecTV's fault or that of the "universal remote?" Is it a Wi-Fi problem or due to the overly complex "entertainment system" we inherited from the prior occupants of our home?

I simply don't know. Moreover, I recognize that it could well be the operator's fault -- i.e., my shortcoming. Indeed, my family has often heard me yearn for the old days when all I needed to do was pull the on/off button on the TV, rotate the channel selector and tweak the rabbit-ear antenna.

I suspect that many G-20 officials may experience similar feelings when it comes to their management of the global economy.

Globalization offers so much upside. And officials have seen its powerful dynamics in play during prolonged periods of high growth, productivity gains, job creation and poverty alleviation.

Yet, every once in a while, the globe's inter-connectiveness goes from being a significant benefit to fueling disruption and frustration. The 2008 global financial crisis is a recent illustration; and its enormous damage is still with us today.

I suspect that, like me today, most G-20 officials feel powerless facing this barbelled distribution of outcomes.

Luckily, I have the ability to call an expert to come fix my TV. The G-20 does not have this luxury. Yet their cost-benefit analysis ends up like mine: Continue to aspire to a smooth harvesting of globalization's promising upside; and have to deal with occasional, large and costly letdowns.

    Copyright (c) GoodPorkBadPork 2009-2013, Some Rights Reserved, Best viewed at 1024x768 or higher