Saturday, July 16, 2016

Sanders Activists Already Agitating In Philadelphia

By Jake Blumgart

(Photo: Sipa via AP)
In February, Black Lives Matters protesters showed their support for Bernie Sanders in Philadelphia.

Independence Blue Cross CEO Daniel J. Hilferty lives in the Sylvan byways of Ardmore. It’s one of those neighborhoods on Philadelphia’s Main Line that epitomizes a certain vision of what the American suburb looks like. Big houses, green lawns, gently winding lanes with few sidewalks, because no one is driving very fast anyway.

And it’s quiet, the kind of place where birdsong sounds cacophonous.

That’s probably why five police cars arrived ten minutes after a mob started chanting slogans in front of the insurance mogul’s house on Wednesday night.

The group is demanding that the Democratic National Convention Host Committee reveal its financial records and the names of its donors. 
 
This is the latest manifestation of Reclaim Philadelphia, an activist group comprised in part of former Bernie Sanders campaign staffers and volunteers. The group is demanding that the Democratic National Convention Host Committee reveal its financial records and the names of its donors. 

 Organizers also want those at the head of host committee—Hilferty, Comcast nabob David Cohen, and former Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell—to resign.

Hilferty’s house was activists’ last stop on Thursday. Earlier in the evening, the protesters had also caravanned between the homes of Cohen and Rendell to protest on their literal doorsteps.

At Hilferty’s stately stone manor, the delegation of 30 to 40 protesters taped its demands to Hilferty’s front door, and chanted through a cycle of protest cries, starting with “Independence Blue Cross, you profit off our loss” and ending with a rousing round of “Hey hey, ho ho, the host committee has got to go.”

In a Census tract occupied by residents with a median income of $110,887, the ruckus created a relative chaos that shattered the otherwise-quiet early summer evening. Dogs were barking, the neighbors on their front lawns muttering, and one of the activists launched into a passionate speech denouncing Hilferty’s checkered ties with special interests.

“The common theme across everyone we visited today is that special interest and money in politics transcends any given candidate, any given political issue, and any given election,” says Sameer Khetan, one of the organizers with Reclaim Philadelphia and a former volunteer on the Sanders campaign. “Now thankfully in this current national election, we’ve seen the veil drop on the influence of dark money in politics. But with these guys and their refusal to reveal their donor list, they’ve brazenly mocked the gains we’ve made.”

Khetan rattled off the names of politicians who received contributions from Hilferty in the 2016 election cycle, which sounded like a who’s-who of so-called establishment Republicans: Chris Christie ($2,700), John Kasich ($2,000), and Jeb Bush ($2,700). He also gave Hillary Clinton $2,700.

The loudest chorus of boos came when Khetan revealed that Hilferty gave $10,000 to a PAC backing arch-conservative Pennsylvania Senator Pat Toomey.

It was about that time that the cops and arrived and the protesters, already drifting toward their cars, decisively scattered. The officers were left to pick through the bushes, and contemplate the “Resign Hilferty” signs left behind.

Reclaim Philadelphia is one of a profusion of left-wing groups across the country that have popped up in the wake of the Bernie Sanders campaign. These loosely knit activist organizations seem to be largely independent of their erstwhile presidential hopeful, and are preparing plans of their own, regardless of his next moves.

After Sanders endorsed his Democratic primary rival, Hillary Clinton, he blasted an email to supporters promising “the creation of successor organizations to carry on the struggle.” (In The Washington Post, his campaign manager said as many as three new organizations could be in the offing.) But groups like Reclaim Philadelphia aren’t waiting around for their former candidate to act.
 
“There’s too much money in politics,” said Xelba Gutierrez, one of the media representatives for the organization and a former Sanders volunteer, as she headed off on Wednesday toward the first house on Reclaim Philadelphia’s list. “It’s like we don’t have a voice, like we don’t have power, like not even voting gets the job done. That’s the whole point of what we are doing, to work on the issues.”

Asked how she feels about Sanders endorsing Clinton, she just smiles and shrugs. The people who were never going to vote for her won’t, she says, and those who are willing to will pull the lever. “He said from the beginning that he would endorse the winner,” says Gutierrez. “We are glad that he pushed the Democratic platform to be more progressive.”

For the past several weeks, Reclaim Philadelphia has focused on the quarterly fundraising reports the host committee files with the Philadelphia Authority for Industrial Development (the public institution that extended the convention $15 million on credit). Although Pennsylvania’s Office of Open Records demanded the reports be released last month, the host committee hasn’t complied. and is fighting the issue in the courts. That’s why Reclaim Philadelphia is engaging in its own pressure campaign.

“We decline to comment on the group's activities,” wrote Anna Adams-Sarthou, media representative of the host committee, in an email. “Regarding the finance component: We are fully in compliance with the law, and to state otherwise is to not understand the facts. As we said repeatedly, we will disclose our donors 60 days after the Convention, in accordance with the FEC.”

Last week, Reclaim Philadelphia delivered letters to the Center City Philadelphia offices of Hilferty, Comcast’s David Cohen, and ex-Governor Rendell, who is also Philadelphia’s former mayor. They were rebuffed, so this week they went to the three men’s houses. Next week will see a further escalation of tactics, organizers say, although they would not share the details.

Reclaim Philadelphia is far from the only organization with ties to the former Sanders campaign that has big plans for the weeks and months ahead. The group Democracy Spring has promised to mass activists for civil disobedience during the Democratic National Convention July 25–28, although they have released sparse details about when and where.

“The Democratic Party must live up to its name and do whatever it takes to make this the last corrupt, billionaire-dominated, voter suppression-maimed election of our lives,” wrote Kai Newkirk,

Democracy Spring’s mission director, in a press release. Newkirk has previously been arrested for speaking out against the Supreme Court’s Citizens United ruling during its oral arguments. “Hillary took a big step in laying out a strong democracy reform agenda on Tuesday, but we need to hear a pledge from her and Congressional leaders that they will pass it as a first priority if elected.”

The group wants electoral reforms, including the abolition of superdelegates. To press their campaign, they claim to have more than 100 people signed up to perform acts of nonviolent civil disobedience during the convention, including a few celebrities, like actress Rosario Dawson.

“We were inspired by Bernie Sanders, but the political revolution wasn’t about him,” says Desiree Kane, the media representative of Democracy Spring. “This is our democracy too, and we’re here to participate.”

There are other groups inspired by Sanders, whose organizers are more reluctant to try to force change on a resistant Democratic Party. A local organization called the Philly Socialists, which does not directly involve itself in electoral politics, is helping to put together a “Socialist Convergence” during the week of the DNC to game its next steps. Although all the groups involved predate the Sanders campaign, some of the largest endorsed him, including the Democratic Socialists of America and Socialist Alternative. All of them hope to use the momentum and excitement generated by his effort for their own campaigns, on down-ballot races, or for the Green Party.

But at the Reclaim Philadelphia actions on Wednesday evening, the rhetoric wasn’t often directed against the Democratic Party, per se. Many people spoke of their excitement about the party’s new platform, which is being called the most left-wing since George McGovern’s nomination in 1972.

Reclaim Philadelphia’s demands for the resignation of the host committee’s top leadership isn’t just about the records, organizers say, but about their suspect status as Democrats.

Cohen supported and raised money for the extremely unpopular former Republican governor of Pennsylvania, Tom Corbett, who slashed education budgets and crippled school districts across the state (Philadelphia’s suffering was especially acute). Rendell is very much the kind of Third Way, pro-business Democrat that Sanders supporters have reviled, and he recently allied himself with Alan Simpson and Erskine Bowles in a campaign to “Fix The Debt” by cutting Social Security and Medicare.

On the doorsteps of Cohen and Hilferty, Reclaim Philadelphia declared Wednesday that men like these aren’t the future of the Democratic Party. The effort seems unlikely to topple these three men.

But the party’s rich and powerful players, while they will always have influence, may now be forced to share the stage with a profusion of Sanders-inspired activists who are trying to push the Democratic Party to the left.

“[David Cohen] demonstrates through his values that he does not represent the Democratic Party,” declared Emily Strausbaugh on Wednesday, standing on the Comcast executive’s front steps with a bullhorn. “David Cohen is not an appropriate person to have at the top of our party.”

Friday, July 15, 2016

Trump And Family 'Material Witnesses' To Huge Tax Avoidance Scheme By Mobbed-Up Partner. Huh!

 
You might want to sit down for this one, kids: Would you believe that Donald Trump, his daughter Ivanka, and his son Donald Junior have all been named in a lawsuit involving a massive tax avoidance scam related to four Trump-branded real estate deals? Astonishing, we know — we’ll give you a nano-second to catch your breath.


The story comes to us once again from the Daily Beast’s David Cay Johnston, who has made dogging Trump on taxes his personal beat. Now, it’s worth noting, as Johnston does right up front, that Trump is not personally accused of wrongdoing in the suit. Not yet, at least! Here’s the dealio:
He is described as a “material witness” in the evasion of taxes on as much as $250 million in income. According to the court papers, that includes $100 million in profits and $65 million in real-estate transfer taxes from a Manhattan high rise project bearing his familiar name.
However, his status may change, according to the lawyers who filed the lawsuit, Richard Lerner and Frederick M. Oberlander, citing Trump’s testimony about Felix Sater, a convicted stock swindler at the center of the alleged scheme.
This Felix Sater guy is quite the “colorful character,” as we’ll see in a moment. But how about the Trumps? What’s their involvement in this? Mostly, getting buttloads of money while others do the work (dirty or not), as is their lot in life:
Trump received tens of millions of dollars in fees and partnership interests in one of the four projects, the Trump Soho New York, a luxury high rise in lower Manhattan. His son Donald Junior and his daughter Ivanka also were paid in fees and partnership interests, the lawyers said, and are also material witnesses in the case.
As usual, there’s a nice record of Trump and his family hanging out with Sater, the convicted stock swindler guy: Trump and Sater traveled all over the place together, and “were photographed and interviewed in Denver and Loveland, Colorado, Phoenix, Fort Lauderdale, and New York.” The younger Trumplings also met with Sater at least once, in Moscow, according to an attorney for the Trump Organization. By now, you should know what’s coming: Trump, who enjoys telling the media he has the greatest memory of any human alive, insists he barely even knows this Sater guy:
Trump has testified about Sater in a Florida lawsuit accusing the two of them of fraud in a failed high-rise project. Trump testified that he had a glancing knowledge of Sater and would not recognize him if he were sitting in the room.
He meets lots of people. And if some of them are accused of fraud, or if he’s insulted them publicly for being disabled, then maybe he doesn’t remember them so good anymore. It’s kind of weird that Trump has no idea who Sater was and wouldn’t recognize him, though, seeing as how Sater ran an investment firm, “Bayrock,” which had its offices in Trump Tower, and worked a bunch of development deals for Trump-branded office buildings. Still, Trump Tower’s a big building, and you can’t expect Donald to know all his tenants. It’s not like he’s running a boarding house. Oh, except maybe this would suggest Sater knew Trump a little better than the doorman:
Sater then moved into the Trump Organization offices. He carried a business card, issued by the Trump Organization, identifying him as a “senior adviser” to Trump.
Can’t imagine why anyone would think Trump knew the guy.

Now, we’ll let you guys go read Johnston’s piece for all the fun financial details of the tax fraud lawsuit, because lawyer-and-money stuff makes our eyes go all funny; what it comes down to is that partners in the four Trump-branded developments allegedly didn’t properly report their profits on the deals, and that the defendants (who, again, don’t include “material witnesses” Trump and kids — yet) are alleged to owe at least “$7 million in New York state income taxes, a sum that would be tripled” if the lawsuit is successful. And then, if the feds decide to get involved, there’d be another $35 million in unpaid federal taxes.

Johnston also details a convoluted string of other legal actions involving Sater, all of which thumped against each other like dominoes to lead to the unsealing of the current tax evasion lawsuit. This is where Safer’s associations start getting really interesting. Back in 1998, Sater pleaded guilty to running a stock swindle, in which
the $40 million fleeced from investors went to him, the Genovese and Gambino crime families and others.
In 1998 Sater pleaded guilty in federal court, but the plea was kept secret. Sater was sentenced in secret in 2009 to probation and a $25,000 fine with no jail time and no requirement to make restitution.
Huh! Mobbed up partners — this Sater sounds like a fine person to do business with. And a personal charmer, too, Johnston notes:
That was an extraordinarily light sentence, especially given Sater’s violent past. In 1991 he admitted to shoving the broken stem of a margarita glass into a man’s face and was sentenced to two years.
Well, yeah, but he’d paid his debt to society, and nobody got a margarita glass in the face in the stock fraud case.

Besides, even though Sater is a really colorful guy (who might also have been an undercover operative for the CIA, maybe), Donald Trump hardly even knows him, and in fact was not part of that 1998 scheme. He just knows guys who know guys, is all. We certainly are not suggesting there’s any dirty money paying for all the gold plating on Trump properties, because we’d never hint at gilt by association.

On the other hand, notes Johnston, it’s awfully suspicious curious, maybe, that Donald Trump has refused to release any of his income tax returns, which every single presidential nominee has done since Richard Nixon in 1972. Trump says it’s because his taxes from 2012 to now are being audited, but there’s nothing preventing him from releasing them anyway:
Mark Everson, a former commissioner of Internal Revenue has said there is no reason to hold the returns back, even assuming they are being audited.
He has offered no explanation for not releasing his returns for 2011 and earlier, years on which he has said the audits are closed.
As Johnston points out, documents from the New Jersey Casino Control Commission show Trump paid no income taxes at all in 1978, 1979, 1992, and 1994, and as Johnston previously reported, Trump somehow managed not to pay income taxes in 1984, “by far his most lucrative year in his career to that point.” Sort of makes you wonder what we’d find out if we got a look at Trump’s taxes.

Probably nothing interesting in those tax returns at all. Trump’s merely humble, and wouldn’t want anyone to think he was bragging about being a an incredibly wealthy, generous, and scrupulously honest businessman who’s also a Law And Order kind of guy.

 [Daily Beast]

Donald Trump selects Mike Pence as VP

http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/14/politics/donald-trump-vice-presidential-choice/index.html

Wednesday, July 13, 2016

Philadelphia Airport Workers Just Voted to Strike During Democratic Convention

By

All the political luminaries, delegates, and journalists attending the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia may be flying directly into a chaotic mess if employers don’t negotiate with airport workers.

According to the Philadelphia Inquirer, SEIU 32BJ, the union fighting to represent workers at the Philadelphia International Airport, is demanding the city grant airport employees the right to unionize. They also made requests for clarity on the airport’s paid sick day policy, an end to irregular scheduling, and a fairer disciplinary system.

“The purpose of the DNC is to lift workers out of poverty,” 32BJ area Vice President Gabe Morgan said.

“Fifteen dollars an hour is a plank in the DNC,” he continued. “It was huge subject of debate during the Democratic Primary, and really what these workers are fighting for is the same thing the DNC is fighting for in the upcoming national election.”

The vote to strike passed overwhelmingly by a 461-5 vote, and will apply to roughly 1,000 airport workers who are hired by various subcontractors that the airlines use to conduct daily operations. The striking employees will include baggage handlers, wheelchair attendants, airplane cleaners, and others. Should the strike go forward, the lack of available staffing may result in extended flight delays for travelers arriving to and departing from Philadelphia.

Morgan told the Inquirer the strike is unique to airport workers, as other unionized employees already have fair contracts and would not be striking during the convention, which takes place from July 25-28. He added that the union’s past organizing has resulted in multiple victories for workers at Philadelphia International, including a $12/hour minimum wage.

No date has yet been announced for the strike. As of this writing, there has been no indication from the companies subcontracting with the airport that they’re willing to meet workers’ demands. The Philadelphia convention host committee has also not commented on the strike.

Update 7/23/16 at 6:40 A.M.

 Strike at PHL averted during DNC

Tuesday, July 12, 2016

Someone finished Doom's insane permadeath mode without any upgrades

By Zero Master

Doom on Ultra-Nightmare difficulty without any upgrades!

The graphic settings are different for this run compared to my previous ultra-nightmare run. I changed to ultra settings and 105 FOV (120 FOV is max, my other video was 90). I also reduced the bitrate\quality of the recording a bit to reduce the size\upload time. I also removed glory kill highlight, compass and changed crosshair.

No upgrades are:
- No weapon upgrades
- No armor upgrades
- No runes
- No argent cells (first cell is forced)

And no use of glitches\sequence skips, as that would make it trivial.

- No weapon upgrades does a lot less damage.
- The armor upgrades are very useful for preventing massive damage from barrels and self-rockets, and also missing faster weapon switch as well as more effective powerups\grenades. A single barrel or a face rocket can end your run very quickly.
- No runes will not allow me to grab runes like for example saving throw which gives me a second chance, rich get richer which gives me infinite ammo, or equipment powerup which allows me to get armor from the siphon grenades.
- No argent cells gives me a lot less health, armor and ammo. I can't afford to lose my health from the mega health powerups later on, as I can't go over 100\50 from pickups. The lack of ammo makes it very important to be aware of where the ammo pickups are and not to waste the chainsaw ammo.

This UNM run is over an hour faster than my previous one, the main reasons are because I play a lot better, I know where to go and without upgrades I don't have to spend any time doing rune challenges, grabbing secrets etc.

Why did I decide to do it without upgrades? Apparently a lot of people have beaten it now on ultra-nightmare, so I figured I'd take it a step further. But the main reason is because it's a very fun way to play the game! I play a lot more aggressive this time and I don't end up just using gauss cannon with rich get richer rune to clear everything late game.

Misc:

Previously I've died at the cyberdemon to a very strange attack combo that I don't think should be possible, (you can watch that here: https://youtu.be/2Ph7FYhwics

 I also died at the hell guardians, I didn't practice the fight properly and without upgrades it was more difficult than last time. Also included in the video above is a death at titan's realm.

I had a crash at the start of the 4th level, never happened there before. I didn't have any other crashes besides that and fortunately it happened at the start of the level.

I don't know why my helmet was white at the hell guardians, never seen that before, as it should be either red or yellow.

Monday, July 11, 2016

The Truth Revealed

Sharing Your Netflix Password Is Now A Federal Crime

Court upholds conviction of ex-employee who shared database access.

On July 5th , the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued an opinion which found, in part, that sharing passwords is a crime prosecutable under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA). The decision, according to a dissenting opinion on the case, makes millions of people who share passwords for services like Netflix and HBOGo into “unwitting federal criminals.”

Sunday, July 10, 2016

Robbers Are Using Pokémon Go To Target Victims

By Daniel Politi




Bernie Sanders Set To Become Total Hillary Endorsing Sell Out By Next Tuesday

By Evan Hurst


MOMMY AND DADDY LOVE EACH OTHER AGAIN!!
MOMMY AND DADDY LOVE EACH OTHER AGAIN!!
Well, well, well, the time has come. Sources named Bernie Sanders said in an interview Thursday that “We have got to do everything that we can to defeat Donald Trump and elect Hillary Clinton.”

And by EVERYTHING, he means EVERYTHING. That involves voting and making phone calls, and then voting in the place of a dead person (kidding!) and then ‘splaining to your on-the-fence neighbor who can’t stand Trump but somehow thinks Hillary’s emails mean she is a criminal, how that is not true. And why should we do that? Tell us, Bernie:
“I don’t honestly know how we would survive four years of a Donald Trump … “
SO NOTED. So is an official endorsement about to happen? It would appear that way! The Huffington Post reports that Hillz and Bernie will do a rally together in New Hampshire on Tuesday!

Bernie will say, “I didn’t give a damn about your emails when we were running against each other, and I don’t give a damn about them now!” And Hillz will say, “You had some really great ideas, like the free college thing, and I am trying to work some of those things into my plans, so all the Democrats can get back to blowjobs, candy canes and defeating Donald Trump!” And Bernie will reply, “I like candy canes! They are cunning in their use of stripes!”

OK, where were we? Oh yeah, endorsement. So that’s probably happening Tuesday, unless Bernie decides to pull a GOTCHA! like he did in June, when he said he was voting for Hillary, but then like one hour later he was like “Yeah PROBABLY, no promises,” just like Donald Trump was like “Yeah PROBABLY” about whether he’ll serve as president if he’s elected.
So what tipped Bernie over into Hillary’s green pastures? The “free college for most” thing? Maybe so! Or maybe it’s that the Democratic Party platform is likely to include some very nice Bernie-esque things like support for a $15 minimum wage. Or maybe Bernie is just an overall mensch and smart guy who means it when he says a Trump presidency would be a dumpster fire of epic proportions.

As for Bernie’s supporters, they’re coming around, and his endorsement will help that along quite nicely. Oh, a few dead-enders are going apeshit over the FBI’s decision not to murder Hillary Clinton in her crib over “emails,” but they’re not the majority.

So hooray, put it on your calendars, for Tuesday is the day mommy and daddy are getting married again, WITH VOTES.

[Bloomberg / Huffington Post]

Friday, July 8, 2016

People Need To See The Truth About Police Violence!

Thom Hartmann talks about the shooting of Philando Castile and the fact that many media outlets didn't show the full video of the aftermath.

BUSTED: Republican Trey Gowdy Caught Using Private Email Server



Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC) and Republicans across the country have been obsessing over former Secretary of State and presumptive Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server during her time at the State Department.

But what Republicans really should be asking is:

What about Gowdy’s private email server?

On July 5, Clinton was cleared by a team of FBI investigators led by FBI Director James Comey. Dismayed by the fact that their email-centric political witch hunt failed to indict Clinton just weeks after the Benghazi “scandal” also cleared her, they decided to investigate the investigators and take on Comey. Gowdy led a portion of Comey’s interrogation.

Which makes it all the more hypocritical to learn that Benghazi Committee Chairman Trey Gowdy (R-SC) has been exposed for having his own personal email server at treygowdy.com. AlterNet remarks that “while it’s not unusual to maintain such a thing particularly for campaign work, it’s not clear that Gowdy utilizes this email solely for political campaign work and not congressional tasks.”

Requests for comment by both Alternet and Correct The Record‘s David Brock were both ignored by the Gowdy camp, which is highly indicative that he does use his personal email for Congressional work- if he had nothing to hide, why wouldn’t he just say so? Especially with the integrity of his failed committee under such harsh scrutiny by the rest of the nation, demanding answers for the colossal misuse of public funds and time. Gowdy had better be ready to put his own actions under the microscope.

Here is the full text of David Brock’s inquiry:
Dear Chairman Gowdy:
I noted with interest your public demand that Secretary Clinton turn over her personal email server, presumably so that the committee can access some 30,000 Clinton emails deemed to be strictly private and beyond the reach of the government.
This Orwellian demand has no basis in law or precedent. Every government employee decides for themselves what email is work-related and what is strictly private. There is no reason to hold Secretary Clinton to a different standard— except partisan politics.
But since you insist that Clinton’s private email be accessed, I’m writing today to ask you and your staff to abide by the same standard you seek to hold the Secretary to by releasing your own work-related and private email and that of your staff to the public.
While I realize that Congress regularly exempts itself from laws that apply to the executive branch, I believe this action is necessary to ensure public confidence in the fairness and  impartiality of your investigation.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
David Brock
Correct The Record

The next time someone says ‘all lives matter,’ show them these 5 paragraphs



I found this link from a posting on Facebook, it's very much worth reading. (I wish I could write as eloquently as this).

http://fusion.net/story/170591/the-next-time-someone-says-all-lives-matter-show-them-these-5-paragraphs/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=socialshare&utm_content=theme_top_desktop

This week, high-profile police killings of two black men—Alton Sterling of Baton Rouge, Louisiana, and Philando Castile, who was killed in Falcon Heights, Minnesota—have renewed heated debates about police violence, and brought the Black Lives Matter movement back into the spotlight.

Every time this happens, cries of “Black Lives Matter” tend to be met with the response “All Lives Matter.” Even presidential candidates have made this mistake—last year, Hillary Clinton said “All Lives Matter,” though she has since corrected herself. And lots of white people have expressed confusion about why it’s controversial to broaden the #BlackLivesMatter movement to include people of all races.

The real issue is that, while strictly true, “All Lives Matter” is a tone-deaf slogan that distracts from the real problems black people in America face.

The best explanation we’ve seen so far comes from Reddit, of all places. Last year, in an “Explain Like I’m 5” thread, user GeekAesthete explained, clearly and succinctly, why changing #BlackLivesMatter to #AllLivesMatter is an act of erasure that makes lots of people cringe.

GeekAesthete explains:

Imagine that you’re sitting down to dinner with your family, and while everyone else gets a serving of the meal, you don’t get any. So you say “I should get my fair share.” And as a direct response to this, your dad corrects you, saying, “everyone should get their fair share.” Now, that’s a wonderful sentiment — indeed, everyone should, and that was kinda your point in the first place: that you should be a part of everyone, and you should get your fair share also. However, dad’s smart-ass comment just dismissed you and didn’t solve the problem that you still haven’t gotten any!

The problem is that the statement “I should get my fair share” had an implicit “too” at the end: “I should get my fair share, too, just like everyone else.” But your dad’s response treated your statement as though you meant “only I should get my fair share”, which clearly was not your intention. As a result, his statement that “everyone should get their fair share,” while true, only served to ignore the problem you were trying to point out.

That’s the situation of the “black lives matter” movement. Culture, laws, the arts, religion, and everyone else repeatedly suggest that all lives should matter. Clearly, that message already abounds in our society.

The problem is that, in practice, the world doesn’t work that way. You see the film Nightcrawler? You know the part where Renee Russo tells Jake Gyllenhal that she doesn’t want footage of a black or latino person dying, she wants news stories about affluent white people being killed? That’s not made up out of whole cloth — there is a news bias toward stories that the majority of the audience (who are white) can identify with. So when a young black man gets killed (prior to the recent police shootings), it’s generally not considered “news”, while a middle-aged white woman being killed is treated as news. And to a large degree, that is accurate — young black men are killed in significantly disproportionate numbers, which is why we don’t treat it as anything new. But the result is that, societally, we don’t pay as much attention to certain people’s deaths as we do to others. So, currently, we don’t treat all lives as though they matter equally.

Just like asking dad for your fair share, the phrase “black lives matter” also has an implicit “too” at the end: it’s saying that black lives should also matter. But responding to this by saying “all lives matter” is willfully going back to ignoring the problem. It’s a way of dismissing the statement by falsely suggesting that it means “only black lives matter,” when that is obviously not the case. And so saying “all lives matter” as a direct response to “black lives matter” is essentially saying that we should just go back to ignoring the problem.

Yep, there you go. Bookmark it, print it out, give it to your friends.

Monday, July 4, 2016

Nate Silver: 79 percent chance Clinton wins

 By Nolan D. McCaskill

Hillary Clinton has a nearly 80 percent chance of winning the White House in November, FiveThirtyEight polling guru Nate Silver predicted Wednesday.

FiveThirtyEight projected Clinton has a 79 percent chance of winning the general election against Donald Trump, who has just a 20 percent chance of succeeding President Barack Obama in the Oval Office.

“Here’s how to think about it: We’re kind of at halftime of the election right now, and she’s taking a seven-point, maybe a 10-point lead into halftime,” Silver told ABC’s George Stephanopoulos on “Good Morning America.” “There’s a lot of football left to be played, but she’s ahead in almost every poll, every swing state, every national poll.”

Indeed, a Ballotpedia survey of seven swing states released Wednesday shows the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee sweeping Trump in Iowa, Michigan, Florida, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Ohio and Virginia by margins ranging from 4 to 17 percentage points.

Silver, who correctly forecast 49 out of 50 states in 2008 and every state in 2012, noted that both camps “have a lot of room to grow,” but no candidate has blown a lead as large as Clinton’s advantage over Trump in nearly 30 years, when former Massachusetts Gov. Michael Dukakis lost to George H.W. Bush despite maintaining a large lead coming out of the spring and summer.



“It’s been a crazy year, politically,” Silver said, adding that more states, particularly red states, are in play in 2016 than in previous elections. “For example, Arizona looks like a toss-up. Maybe Georgia. Maybe Missouri, North Carolina again.”

“Likewise,” Silver continued, “if Trump gains ground on Clinton then maybe a state like Maine — used to be a swing state, not so recently” — could be in play, too.

Silver also defended his August forecast that gave the billionaire businessman a 2 percent chance to win the GOP nomination.

“That wasn’t based on looking at polls. Trump was always ahead in the polls, and one big lesson of his campaign is don’t try and out-think the polls and try and out-think the American public,” Silver said. “And Trump has never really been ahead of Clinton in the general election campaign. He did a great job of appealing to the 40 percent of the GOP he had to win the election, the primary — a lot different than winning 51 percent of 100 percent.”

Sunday, July 3, 2016

Trump has himself to blame for GOP strife

Lawrence O’Donnell has a thorough explanation of the woes plaguing Donald Trump’s campaign as Trump complains he’s running against two parties while a new scandal develops with the ‘Trump Institute.’ Stuart Stevens and Eugene Robinson join the discussion.

Saturday, July 2, 2016

The system really is rigged: Why “winner-take-all” voting is killing our democracy

The Electoral College makes it virtually impossible for a third party to challenge the system



The system really is rigged: Why “winner-take-all” voting is killing our democracy 
Gary Johnson, Jill Stein   (Credit: Reuters/Lucas Jackson/Jonathan Ernst)
 
Ever since Hillary Clinton became the “presumptive nominee” for the Democratic Party, Bernie Sanders supporters have been faced with a seemingly impossible dilemma: Vote for someone you hate (Clinton) or vote for someone despicable (Trump). You either cast your vote toward someone you see as a shill for corporate interests or you vote for a bigoted monster. There is a real sense that there simply is no other choice.

If you lean left and you haven’t moved from feeling the Bern to being with “her,” then you have likely been suffering from what I call “vote shaming.” Vote shaming takes place when a Clinton supporter tells you that it will be your fault if Trump wins. Vote shaming, like fat shaming and its ilk, depends on assuming that there is only one way to be—get on board or get bullied. Even Sanders himself seems to have succumbed to vote shaming, having announced he will vote for Clinton in order to help defeat Trump.

But vote shaming seems to have caused unanticipated blowback. As mind boggling as it may be to consider, many Sanders supporters are actually suggesting they will  choose Trump over Clinton. A June 14 Bloomberg Politics national poll of likely voters in November’s election found that just over half of those who favored Sanders — 55 percent — plan to vote for Clinton.

According to Bloomberg, 22 percent of Sanders supporters say they’ll vote for Trump. They quote Laura Armes, a 43-year-old homemaker from Beeville, Texas, who participated in the poll and plans to vote Trump: “I’m a registered Democrat, but I cannot bring myself to vote for another establishment politician like Hillary. I don’t agree with a lot of what Trump says. But he won’t owe anybody. What you see is what you get.”

Stop and ponder how crazy that is for a moment. Frustration with establishment politics is so high that folks will vote for a misogynistic, racist, egomaniacal buffoon over a party insider. Anger over a sense that the primary season was rigged, that Clinton lacks integrity, and that the voting process was unjust has driven supporters of a progressive candidate toward one who has been repeatedly described as fascist. For some Sanders supporters, #NeverHillary can only mean Trump.

That false logic is a clear sign of how our democracy is rigged and our system is flawed: Voters frustrated with the system are planning to cast their votes within the same system.

Armes, like many other Sanders supporters, never considered a third option. It never occurred to her to vote for Green Party candidate Dr. Jill Stein, or Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson. Armes was thinking in the binary two-party logic that forces her to choose between either a Democrat or a Republican.

There is only one way to win an election for president in our country today and that is by being the nominee of one of the two principal parties. The reason for this is that we have “winner-take-all” system. In almost every state, the candidate with the majority of votes wins all of the Electoral College votes. So voting for a third party can really skew the outcome. Even worse, it usually skews it away from your likely second-choice candidate toward the person you fear winning the most.

This is why many Sanders supporters who now say they are voting Clinton have switched over. In general, they won’t be voting for Clinton because they like her; they will be voting for Clinton because they are terrified of Trump. And the same dislike is taking place on the other side of the political spectrum. Voters are supporting Trump because they deeply dislike Clinton.

In fact, as Harry Enten reports for Five Thirty Eight, “Clinton and Trump are both more strongly disliked than any nominee at this point in the past 10 presidential cycles.” So this really is the election between two evils. The only question, thus far, has been which of the two is the worst one.

Dissatisfaction with voting choices, though, may have opened a window for serious debate about an alternative voting system. In an interview with Green Party candidate Jill Stein for Redacted Tonight VIP, Lee Camp asked Stein how voters could justify “wasting” a vote on her. Stein said the answer was simple: change the system from winner take all to ranked choice voting.

As FairVote.org explains, ranked choice voting makes democracy more fair and functional. In ranked choice voting, alternatively known as instant-runoff voting, voters rank their votes. If your first choice does not win, then your vote goes to your second choice, and so on. So, under ranked voting, you could vote Stein first, then Clinton. That would guarantee that a vote for Stein could not actually help Trump. It would also guarantee that we could get a fair and accurate assessment of how many people really picked Clinton or Trump as their first choice. If it seems complicated, check out a sample ballot here.

Ranked choice voting is used in local elections throughout the country. It is also used in national elections in Ireland and New Zealand. It has a history of making elections more open and fair. Even more importantly, it encourages candidates to cultivate a broad, moderate base of support rather than intense, zealous supporters.

Proponents of the system also point out that if we had used it in the 2000 elections, Al Gore would have beaten George H. W. Bush in Florida, since most of the voters who chose Ralph Nader first would have chosen Gore second.

The mere idea that voting for Nader wrecked the election and skewed votes leading to a Bush Jr. presidency should be sign enough that we are due for change. Voters who wanted to support a splinter candidate were punished for exercising their rights. The problem is not just the anti-democratic nature of the Electoral College; it is the way the all-or-nothing system forces a two-party duopoly that can’t be challenged without grave consequences.

In the past 200 years, there have been 700 proposals introduced to Congress to change or eliminate the Electoral College. As the National Archives reports, “There have been more proposals for Constitutional amendments on changing the Electoral College than on any other subject.” Scholars also agree that the Electoral College makes it virtually impossible for a third party to challenge the system.

The reasons for considering an alternative voting system go beyond a desire to give third parties a chance for greater visibility and more votes. There is much more at stake. First of all, the winner-take-all system increases fear-based voting. Voters are more inclined to vote against a candidate than to vote for someone.

And second, our current system increases partisanship since candidates campaign more on their differences from other candidates than on their actual policies. Research by Pew shows a marked increase in political polarization. This is especially true in Congress, where “partisanship or non-cooperation … has been increasing exponentially for over 60 years with no sign of abating or reversing.”

In contrast, ranked choice voting has been proven to reduce political polarization because candidates are not simply fighting to be #1, they are also hoping to be considered as backup choices, which often means reaching across party lines. When San Francisco implemented it in 2004, observers noticed a direct decrease in hostility among rival candidates.

But the biggest reason to consider an alternative system is the health of our democracy. FairVote.org reports that according to domestic and international experts, “US elections are rated as the worst among all Western democracies.”

From the influence of big money in races to dysfunctional polling places to voters purged from rosters, this election cycle has been plagued by endless allegations of election flaws. As Matthew Cooke points out, when AP called the primary early for Clinton, that was just the frosting on a series of election disasters.

All of this points to an election cycle that offers new opportunities for a third party candidate. Johnson is polling at 10 percent nationally and appears to have about 18 percent of Sanders supporters. Stein, when she is included in polls, seems to be pulling about 5 percent of the vote. It is all very exciting for both Johnson and Stein, who have a chance to increase the visibility of their platforms, but without ranked choice voting those too afraid of Trump or Clinton will still likely vote out of fear.

So, as you ponder the two unappealing choices likely to head the November ballot, consider bucking the closed two-party system and voting a third way, but more importantly consider fighting to change the rigged system that got us into this mess.
Sophia A. McClennen is Professor of International Affairs and Comparative Literature at the Pennsylvania State University. She writes on the intersections between culture, politics, and society. Her latest book, co-authored with Remy M. Maisel, is, Is Satire Saving Our Nation? Mockery and American Politics

Tuesday, June 21, 2016

Rep. Chaka Fattah Guilty On All Counts In Corruption Trial

A jury has convicted a veteran U.S. Congressman Chaka Fattah in a racketeering case that largely centered on various efforts to repay an illegal $1 million campaign loan.

U.S. Rep. Chaka Fattah was found guilty of all counts against him, including racketeering, fraud and money laundering. His lawyers had argued that the schemes were engineered without Fattah's knowledge by two political consultants who pleaded guilty in the case.

As he emerged from the courthouse after the guilty verdict, Fattah made a brief statement about conferring with his lawyers before continuing to walk away without answering further questions from reporters.

The 59 year old Democrat has represented West Philadelphia as well as parts of Center City, South Philly, Montgomery County and the Main Line in Congress since 1995 and served on the powerful House Appropriations Committee. But he lost the April primary and his bid for his 12th term. His current term ends in December.

Fattah's jovial and calm demeanor didn't change much as the verdict was read, said NBC10's Deanna Durante who was in the courtroom.

Fattah will remain out on bail ahead of his October sentencing.

Jurors began deliberations late Wednesday afternoon, nearly month after the trial began May 16. A juror was dismissed in the racketeering case without explanation Friday. An alternate replaced the missing member, and U.S. District Judge Harvey Bartle III ordered jurors to begin deliberations again.

Four co-defendants also faced numerous charges.

- Fattah's former chief of staff, Bonnie Bowser, was found guilty on some of her 21 counts.
- Fattah's friend and wealthy supporter, Herbert Vederman, was found guilty on all 8 counts.
- Political consultant Robert Brand was found guilty on all two counts.
- Former Fattah aide Karen Nicholas was found guilty on some of her seven counts.

The four-week trial concluded quicker than most observers expected and did not involve any bombshell testimony or evidence entered by prosecutors and defense attorneys.

Instead, the trial revolved around the legality of the defendants actions related to a $1 million loan made during Fattah's failed 2007 mayoral campaign.

Prior to the trial, Fattah's chief strategist for that mayoral bid, Richard Naylor, pleaded guilty to misuse of campaign funds. He testified early on in the trial as a prosecution witness.

“This charge cost him his reelection. He’d been an 11-term Congressman and did a lot of things for his constituents when he was in office,” said Howard Bruce Klein, a former federal prosecutor. “So I would say it’s a sad ending for a public servant who made scholarships available for thousands of students over the years, but now has come to a very unhappy ending, being guilty of corruption. So it’s a day for the Congressman, it’s a sad day for his constituents and it’s a sad day for Philadelphia.”

Members of the jurors didn't immediately comment as they left the courtroom Tuesday afternoon.
Fattah's son Chaka "Chip" Fattah Jr. was also found guilty of federal fraud charges.

Could this woman really stop Trump?

Teacher and Republican convention delegate Kendal Unruh has a plan to deprive Donald Trump of the nomination on the convention floor.

Monday, June 20, 2016

Alex Jones Thinks Any Mass Shooting That Has Or Ever Will Happen Is A False Flag

In this Majority Report clip, we are lucky enough to hear the wise words of Alex Jones concerning the Orlando massacre. Jones (of course) thinks that the globalists/U.S. Government/anti-gun lobby (??)/probably the Illuminati/Obama are to blame for the mass shooting at Orlando nightclub Pulse because of immigration laws.

The shooter, Omar Mateen, was an American-born citizen, reportedly not that religious, likely mentally ill, and possibly gay himself.

These are all incredibly sound reasons to conclude that Alex Jones is wrong, as always, but here you go.  He ruins a lovely nature scene while he’s at it.


Gun Talk