6 Outrageous Ways Airlines Try to Yank Your Wallet

Sometimes your only choice is to go without or suck it up.

 By Sage McHugh

These days, getting a good deal on an airfare isn’t as simple as buying a cheap ticket. Unwitting customers may be lured in by amazingly low ticket prices online, but sometimes the deal ends there. 

With domestic carriers tacking on extra charges for all sorts of basic services, travelers are often blindsided by additional fees once they arrive at the airport. You may not be able to avoid every a la carte service you’re hit with. But knowing which airlines charge the most egregious fees can help you make a more informed decision when comparing fares and calculating total costs.

1. Carry-on fees: up to $100. If you’re hoping to dodge a checked bag fee by bringing a carry-on item onboard, think again. Three airlines (Allegiant, Frontier and Spirit) now charge for carry-on bags. The fees could increase significantly if you don’t follow protocol or you’re unaware. For example, the fee for a carry-on on Spirit will vary greatly depending on where and when you pay for it. When purchased during online booking, you’ll pay $35, and $45 during online check-in. If you hold off until you arrive at the airport, you will be charged $50 per carry-on. Wait until you get to the gate and you’ll pay a whopping $100. Similar terms and fees apply to checked bags.

Spirit Airlines is notorious for offering low fares, then tacking on a slew of exorbitant and hard-to-avoid fees. A quick search turns up dozens of articles like this one, which help customers outsmart the fee-hungry carrier and avoid extra charges. According to the Wall Street Journal, fees brought in two-fifths of Spirit’s revenue in 2013, so despite public annoyance, it has no incentive to eliminate or reduce them.

2. Selecting your own seat: up to $80. Choosing a specific seat on a plane is as easy as selecting an empty seat on a diagram with a single keystroke. Yet that doesn’t stop five major carriers from making passengers pay for this so-called privilege. Allegiant seems to be the biggest culprit when it comes to a seat selection fee, with customers complaining of charges as high as $80. In some cases, the cost of choosing a specific seat can be as high as the ticket itself. Allegiant states that when passengers check in for their flight, whether online or at the airport, they will automatically be assigned a seat at no cost.  However, those traveling with a companion or in a group must pay extra in order to sit together. Imagine how quickly that adds up for families with small children.

3. Printing a boarding pass at the airport: up to $10. Last year, Allegiant implemented a $5 charge per boarding pass if it’s printed at the airport by a ticket agent. "We now have mobile scanning technology in even the smallest airports in our network so that every Allegiant customer can ‘go paperless’ and use their smartphone or tablet to check-in, pass through security and board their flight,” Andrew Levy, Allegiant Travel Co. president and COO, said in a statement. Spirit charges $10 to print each boarding pass at the airport.

There is no doubt that services like paperless check-in can save travelers time and money, providing they do their research and fully understand each carrier’s unique protocol. On major airlines like American and Delta, customers can print their boarding pass once they arrive at the airport without paying a fee. Check-in procedures, baggage policies and fees vary so greatly from one carrier to another, that travelers are often forced to scour the fine print or navigate a maze of red tape. If they don’t do their homework, they will likely get burned.

4. Booking a ticket by phone or in-person: up to $40. Another example of conflicting policies between carriers involves online versus in-person bookings. All domestic carriers, with the exception of Spirit and Frontier, allow users to purchase tickets online without any additional fees. If you opt for a person-to-person booking, either over the phone or at the airport, most airlines, with the exception of Frontier and Southwest Airlines, charge a fee ranging from $15 to $25. US Airways charges the highest price for tickets issued by phone or in-person: $30 for domestic travel and $40 for international trips.   

Spirit charges a passenger usage fee, from $8.99 to $16.99 each way, when you book online. Allegiant tacks on a $10 convenience fee per flight for tickets purchased online. However, no fees are applied to tickets issued at the airport on either carrier. Both carriers have backward policies that are directly at odds with other airlines. According to Conde Nast Traveler, both Spirit and Allegiant’s rationale is strategically based on consumer behavior and convenience factors. “See, these two airlines know it's very unlikely that you'll actually go to the airport, and you'd be willing to pay more just so you don't have to do that,” author Brett Synder says.

5. Bringing a pet onboard: up to $250. Expect to pay a minimum of $75 if you are traveling with a pet. If you have a larger animal who needs to be placed in the cargo hold, you will likely pay a lot more. Fees for bigger animals are more justifiable since airport personnel is required to handle and transport them. If your pet is small enough to remain with you in the cabin, you’ll still pay through the nose to carry him or her onboard yourself. Keep in mind that pet fees are broken down by one-way fares, so if you’re taking a roundtrip flight, you will have to pay double. In some cases, a pet’s ticket could cost the same or even more than your own, and your pet doesn’t even get a seat.

When it comes to pet flight fees, United is the biggest offender, charging as much as $250 one way; Hawaiian Airlines trails close behind with fees up to $225. Why should it cost so much to travel with your pet? There’s no real formula here; it’s all about what the market will bear.  

6. Change your ticket: up to $400. Airlines often delay or even cancel flights for various reasons, and offer little (if any) compensation to inconvenienced passengers. However, when travelers have to change or cancel their reservations, they are penalized with heavy fees. This is one area in which budget carriers Allegiant and Frontier seem to be more forgiving. Allegiant currently charges a non-refundable ticket change fee of $75 per segment. This same fee ranges from $50 to $100 on Frontier. American Airlines and Delta both charge a steep $200 change fee on domestic flights. Delta may charge up to $400 on international flight changes.  

The list of ridiculous charges for some of the most basic things—beverages, inflight Wi-Fi or even a pillow—could go on and on. In an industry that is constantly changing, or as some believe, conspiring against its own customers, sometimes your only choice is to go without or suck it up. Even if you know the ins and out of domestic travel and have mastered the challenge of dodging extra fees, you also know all too well that the rules are subject to change at any time.

Bernie Sanders: 'This Country Belongs to All of Us, Not Just the Billionaire Class'

"We must launch a political revolution which engages millions of Americans from all walks of life in the struggle for real change."

 

The good news is that the economy today is much better than it was six years ago when George W. Bush left office. The bad news is that, despite these improvements, the 40-year decline of the American middle class continues. Real unemployment is much too high, 35 million Americans continue to have no health insurance and more of our friends and neighbors are living in poverty than at almost any time in the modern history of our country.

Meanwhile, as the rich become much richer, the level of income and wealth inequality has reached obscene and unimaginable levels. In the United States, we have the most unequal level of wealth and income distribution of any major country on earth, and worse now then at any other time since the 1920s. Today, the top one-tenth of 1 percent of our nation owns almost as much wealth as the bottom 90 percent, and one family owns more wealth than the bottom 42 percent. In terms of income, 99 percent of all new income is going to the top 1 percent.

This is what a rigged economic system looks like. At a time when millions of American workers have seen declines in their incomes and are working longer hours for lower wages, the wealth of the billionaire class is soaring in a way that few can imagine. If you can believe it, between 2013 and 2015, the 14 wealthiest individuals in the country saw their net worth increase by over $157 billion dollars. Children go hungry, veterans sleep out on the streets, senior citizens cannot afford their prescription drugs -- and 14 individuals saw a $157 billion dollar increase in their wealth over a two-year period.

The grotesque level of income and wealth inequality we are experiencing is not just a moral and economic issue, it is a political issue as well. As a result of the disastrous Citizens United Supreme Court decision, billionaires are now able to spend unlimited sums of money to buy the candidates they want. The Koch brothers, an extreme right-wing family, recently announced that they were prepared to spend some $900 million in the next election cycle. This is likely more money than either the Democratic or Republican parties will spend. If you think that it is an accident that the Republican Party has become a far-right party, think again. The Koch brothers' agenda -- ending Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, the U.S. Postal Service, the Environmental Protection Agency and all campaign finance limitations -- has become the agenda of the Republican candidates they fund.

And, by the way, if you think that the Republican Party's refusal to acknowledge that climate change is real, is caused by human activity and is a severe threat to our planet, is not related to how we finance campaigns, you would be sorely mistaken. With the Koch brothers (who make much of their money in the fossil fuel industry) and big energy companies strongly supporting Republican candidates, it should not surprise anyone that my Republican colleagues reject the views of the overwhelming majority of scientists who study climate issues.

With Republicans now controlling both houses of Congress, let me briefly touch on some of the battles that I will be helping to lead in this extreme right-wing environment. In my view, with so many of our fellow citizens demoralized about the political process, it is absolutely imperative that we establish a strong progressive agenda that Americans can rally around. It must be an agenda that reflects the real needs of the working families of our country. It must be an agenda that engages people in a political struggle that they are prepared to fight for.

Jobs, Jobs, Jobs: The truth is that real unemployment in our country is not the "official" and widely-reported 5.5 percent. Counting those who are under-employed and those who have given up looking for work, real unemployment is 11 percent. Even more disturbingly, youth unemployment is close to 17 percent and African-American youth unemployment is much higher than that.

If we are truly serious about reversing the decline of the middle class and putting millions of people back to work, we need a major federal jobs program. There are a number of approaches which can be taken, but the fastest way to create jobs is to rebuild our crumbling infrastructure -- roads, bridges, dams, levees, airports, rail, water systems and waste water plants.

In that regard, I have introduced legislation which would invest $1 trillion over 5 years to modernize our country's physical infrastructure. This legislation would create and maintain at least 13 million good-paying jobs. It would also make our country more productive, efficient and safe.

I will also continue my opposition to our current trade policies and vote against fast tracking the Trans-Pacific Partnership. Simply put, our trade policies have failed. Permanent normal trade relations with China have led to the loss of more than 3.2 million American jobs. The North American Free Trade Agreement has led to the loss of nearly 1 million jobs. The Korean Free Trade Agreement has led to the loss of some 60,000 jobs.

We have got to fundamentally rewrite our trade rules so that American jobs are no longer our No.1 export. Corporate America must start investing in this country, not China.

As we struggle for decent-paying jobs, we must also rebuild the trade union movement. Throughout the country, millions of workers want to join unions but are meeting fierce opposition from their employers. We need legislation that makes it easier, not harder, for unions to flourish.

Raising Wages: Today, millions of Americans are working for starvation wages. The current federal minimum wage of $7.25 an hour is totally inadequate. In fact, the real value of today's minimum wage has declined by one-third since 1968. By raising the minimum wage to a living wage we can provide an increase in income for those people who need it the most. Our goal must be that no full-time worker in this country lives in poverty.

We must also bring about pay equity. There is no rational reason why women should be earning 78 cents on the dollar compared to men who perform the same work.

Further, we have got to expand overtime protections for millions of workers. It is absurd that "supervisors" who earn $25,000 a year are currently forced to work 50 or 60 hours a week with no overtime pay. Raising the income threshold to at least $56,680 from the absurdly low level of $23,660 a year for overtime will mean increased income for many millions of salaried workers.

Addressing Wealth and Income Inequality: Today the richest 400 Americans own more than $2.3 trillion in wealth, more than the bottom 150 million Americans combined. Meanwhile, nearly half of Americans have less than $10,000 in savings and have no idea how they will be able to retire with dignity.

We need real tax reform which makes the rich and profitable corporations begin to pay their fair share of taxes. It is absurd that in 1952 corporate income taxes provided 32 percent of federal revenue while in 2014 they provided 11 percent. It is scandalous that major profitable corporations like General Electric, Verizon, Citigroup and JP Morgan have, in a given recent year, paid nothing in federal income taxes. It is fiscally irresponsible that the U.S. Treasury loses about $100 billion a year because corporations and the rich stash their profits in the Cayman Islands, Bermuda and other tax havens.

Warren Buffett is honest. He has pointed out the unfairness of him, a multi-billionaire, paying a lower effective tax rate than his secretary. It is disgraceful that millionaire hedge fund managers are able to pay lower tax effective tax rates than truck drivers or nurses because they take advantage of a variety of loopholes that their lobbyists wrote.

This must end. We need a tax system which is fair and progressive. Children should not go hungry in this country while profitable corporations and the wealthy avoid their tax responsibilities.

Reversing Climate Change: The United States must lead the world in reversing climate change and make certain that this planet is habitable for our children and grandchildren. We must transform our energy system away from fossil fuels and into energy efficiency and sustainable energies. Millions of homes and buildings need to be weatherized, our transportation system needs to be energy efficient and we need to greatly accelerate the progress we are already seeing in wind, solar, geothermal and other forms of sustainable energy. Transforming our energy system will not only protect the environment, it will create good-paying jobs.

Health Care for All: The United States remains the only major country on earth that does not guarantee health care for all as a right. Despite the modest gains of the Affordable Care Act, 35 million Americans continue to lack health insurance and many more are under-insured. Yet, we continue paying far more per capita for health care than any other nation. The United States must move toward a Medicare-for-All single-payer system.

Protecting Our Most Vulnerable: Today the United States has more people living in poverty than at almost any time in the modern history of our country. We have the highest rate of childhood poverty of any major nation, 35 million Americans still lack health insurance and millions of seniors and disabled people struggle to put food on the table because of insufficient Social Security benefits.

The Republican response to the economic pain of so many of our people was to make a bad situation much worse. The recently-passed Republican budget throws 27 million Americans off of health insurance, cuts Medicare, makes huge cuts to nutrition and makes it harder for working class families to afford college or put their kids in the Head Start program.

In my view, we have a moral responsibility to make certain that no American goes hungry or sleeps out on the streets. We must also make certain that seniors and people with disabilities can live in dignity. Not only must we vigorously oppose Republican attacks on the social safety net, we must expand benefits for those in need. That is why I have recently introduced legislation which would increase the solvency of Social Security until 2065, while expanding benefits for those who need them the most.

Making College Affordable for All: We live in a highly competitive global economy. If this country is to do well economically, we need to have the best-educated workforce in the world. Yet today many Americans cannot get a higher education, not because they are unqualified, but because they simply cannot afford it. Millions of others who do graduate from college or graduate school are drowning in debt. According to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the total amount of outstanding student loan debt in the United States has tripled in the last 10 years, and has now reached $1.2 trillion.

The United States must join many other countries in understanding that investing in our young people's education is investing in the future of our nation. I will soon be introducing legislation to make tuition in public colleges and universities free, as well as substantially lower interest rates on student loans.

And these are just SOME of the issues we are dealing with.

Let me conclude this letter by stating the obvious. This country is in serious trouble. Our economic system benefits the rich and large corporations and leaves working families behind. Our political system is dominated by billionaire campaign contributors and their lobbyists and is moving us in the direction of oligarchy. Our media system, owned by the corporate world, spends enormous time and energy diverting our attention away from the most important issues facing us. Climate change threatens the planet and we have a major political party denying its reality.

Clearly, the struggle to create a nation and world of economic and social justice and environmental sanity is not an easy one. But this I know: despair is not an option if we care about our kids and grandchildren. Giving up is not an option if we want to prevent irreparable harm to our planet.

We must stand up and fight back. We must launch a political revolution which engages millions of Americans from all walks of life in the struggle for real change. This country belongs to all of us, not just the billionaire class.

Please join the grass-roots revolution that we desperately need.

Occupy L.A. Demonstrators Win $2.5 Million Settlement for Brutal 2011 Police Crackdown

By Brad Friedman on 4/3/2015, 7:05am PT

That so-called "conservatives" cheered when L.A. police officials suddenly cleared the eight-week old Occupy encampment off the grounds of City Hall in 2011, will now cost the city some $2.5 million in settlement payments to the disrupted demonstrators.

The L.A. City Council, which had passed a resolution in support of the protesters in October of 2011, agreed to settle the lawsuit filed by a number demonstrators who said they were mistreated by police officials after then Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa (D) ordered LAPD Chief Charlie Beck to clear the tents and peaceful demonstrators from the City Hall grounds.

As we reported at the time, after the space was cleared in a late night law enforcement offensive, hundreds of demonstrators were detained in poor conditions for hours on end, many handcuffed in buses without access to food, water or medicine. The excessive force and deplorable conditions were often brutal and, yes, bordered on torture. Some were forced to urinate and defecate in their seats during the hours of detention and faced other brutal and humiliating treatment at the hands of both L.A. City and County police officials.

As Patrick Meighan, a writer for Fox' animated sitcom Family Guy and one of the non-violent protesters arrested on the night of the crackdown, detailed at the time: "They forced us to kneel on the hard pavement of that parking garage for seven straight hours with our hands still tightly zipcuffed behind our backs. Some began to pass out. One man rolled to the ground and vomited for a long, long time before falling unconscious. The LAPD officers watched and did nothing."

Finally, however, it appears there will at least be some accountability...

According to the L.A. Times:

 

The Los Angeles City Council approved a $2.45-million agreement Wednesday to settle all claims involving Occupy L.A. protesters arrested during a violent clash with Los Angeles police in 2011. Although the City Council agreed to settle, the deal must still be approved by a U.S. District Court judge before it's finalized, said Frank Mateljan, a spokesman for the city attorney's office.

Cheryl Aichele and five other demonstrators filed a lawsuit in December 2012, alleging the police department used a "shock and awe" campaign to forcibly remove hundreds of protesters from a campsite on the south side of City Hall.
...
[I]n court documents, protesters allege that the military tactics resulted in nearly 300 arrests in November 2011 and violated their "First, Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights to assembly, association, freedom from unlawful seizure and liberty."

The protesters claimed their handcuffs were tight and they were refused basic rights, including access to water or bathroom facilities. They alleged they were told to urinate and defecate on themselves, according to the lawsuit.

The Occupy Wall Street demonstrations quickly spread nationwide in the fall of 2011, and were often brutally and violently crushed by state and local law enforcement groups at the orders of both Democratic and Republican elected officials in a number of states and cities. Protesters argued at the time that the police actions, which often turned incredibly violent, were in violation of the Constitution's First Amendment "right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Rightwingers, who, at other times (see "Tea Party" rallies or the armed standoff against federal officials at the Bundy Ranch in Nevada last summer) have declared their love for First Amendment protest against government tyranny, were largely antagonistic towards Occupy demonstrators at the time. While many on the Right, perhaps ironically, were vocal in their support of the Big Government-led crackdowns on the large and sustained demonstrations against economic inequality and corporate favoritism, their perverse brand of "conservatism" is, once again, coming at a very high cost.

In this case, the price was not only against Constitutional free speech rights, but also against the pocket books of tax-payers who will now be forced to cough up nearly $2.5 million as recompense for unlawful and unconstitutional actions by law enforcement.

[Hat-tip Margot Paez on the Twitters...]

Florida Republican Senator Denounces Koch Brothers: 'You People Serve No Purpose'

An apparent voice of sanity in the GOP.

 
By Zaid Jilani

Photo Credit: via YouTube

It's no secret that the billionaire Koch brothers own the Republican Party – after all, they've committed themselves to spending up to a billion dollars in 2016, and that's money that an awful lot of candidates are courting.

But in Florida, one state lawmaker is fed up with one Koch organization, Americans For Prosperity, and let them have it, the Miami Herald reports:

In a Senate committee hearing of her film incentive bill Thursday, Sen. Nancy Detert, R-Venice, took Koch brothers-backed, ultra-conservative political action committee Americans for Prosperity to task.

After AFP lobbyist Skylar Zander tried to waive his time in opposition to the bill, Sen. Jack Latvala, R-Clearwater, the Transportation, Tourism, and Economic Development Appropriations Subcommittee chairman asked to hear full testimony.

That's when Detert got her shots in: "I appreciate the mail-outs that you do against me on a monthly basis that say I give money to Hollywood moguls, which, of course, I don't have any money to give, and neither does the state of Florida give money to Hollywood moguls. "You're all on the Koch brothers' payroll. Good for you. I'm glad you're all employed ... I hope you're getting paid a lot of money to show up to these meetings and say meaningless things. "Obviously you're for prosperity for yourself and not anyone else ... You people serve absolutely no purpose."

One wonders how many other Republican lawmakers are sick of bullying by Big Money, and how long it will take for them to speak up like Detert did.

Al Jazeera America Beat MSNBC for 2 Hours in the Key 25-54 Ratings Demo

By Andrew Kirell

A prevailing narrative in cable news analysis has been the decline of MSNBC in the past year — especially as the network deals with an identity crisis in the face of two show cancellations and the realization that around-the-clock progressive commentary is not a recipe for success.

Last month, Ronan Farrow — the network’s outward attempt to court Millennial viewers — hit his lowest 25-54 demographic rating ever just one week before his and Joy Reid‘s shows were both nixed — moving newsman Thomas Roberts back into two daytime hours. Since then, MSNBC has openly touted its move towards hard news and some “changes in primetime” to help stave the decline.

But has it paid off so far?

Sure, it’s only been a month, but here’s one reason to think the situation is getting dire over at the peacock cable network: On Monday, March 30, MSNBC lost two daytime hours in the key 25-54 demographic to fledgling cable news network Al Jazeera America (AJAM).

During the 2 p.m. ET hour, AJAM’s live news hour racked up 28k in the demo, beating out Roberts’ 14k demo-garnering broadcast for MSNBC. And during the 3 p.m. ET hour, AJAM’s half hour of live news plus investigative series Fault Lines scored 21k in the demo, outpacing The Cycle‘s 18k demo rating on MSNBC.

What’s especially noteworthy about a network like AJAM beating out MSNBC for two hours is that, just 16 months ago, the Qatar-owned network was bringing in a zero demo rating during its primetime hours. And this comes as MSNBC supposedly focuses on reworking its network to compete with an overtaking CNN and an ever-dominant Fox News.

As we reported earlier today, in the first quarter of 2015, MSNBC saw a 45% decrease in primetime demo viewership, and a 39% decrease in daytime demo viewership — both year-over-year from Q1 2014.

In addition, the quarter saw the network’s 6-9 a.m. staple Morning Joe lose its third straight quarter in both demo and total viewership to CNN’s New Day, a 20-month-old show.

Mike Pence, Then and Now

By Taegan Goddard

“Congress should oppose any effort to recognize homosexual’s as a ‘discreet and insular minority’ entitled to the protection of anti-discrimination laws similar to those extended to women and ethnic minorities.”
— Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN), on his campaign website in 2000.

“I don’t support discrimination against anyone. I don’t support discrimination against gays and lesbians or anyone else. I abhor discrimination.”
— Gov. Mike Pence (R), quoted by the Indianapolis Star at a press conference addressing his controversial “religious freedom” law.

Triangle Head Joe Scarborough Usurps Chuck Todd, Commandeers Meet The Press Segment

By Karoli



On its surface, this segment is yet another Hillary Clinton email segment, featuring Neera Tanden and Joe Scarborough as panelists. But it's really about Joe Scarborough's ambitions at NBC/MSNBC and the weight he likes to throw around.

Mediaite has a good take on the overall segment:

A panel featuring mostly professional pundits considered the latest development in the Hillary Clinton email story, and ended up yelling, to the extent that it was impossible to make out any of what the three or four people talking were trying to say. It got so bad even host Chuck Todd could no longer control it. Yet for all that hollering, no real point was made; whether anything was learned depended on what you knew of the story going in; whether any side was advanced or defended depended upon your ideological preconceptions.

Of course, that's exactly what Joe Scarborough wants. It's hardly a deep dark secret that he wanted that Meet the Press gig. He didn't get it, but he got the promise that he'd appear on it as much as he wanted to, which gives him plenty of room to be a jerk and tank the show -- as if Chuck Todd wasn't doing that on his own without any help.

Scarborough, the Republican congressman turned MSNBC talking head and host of Morning Joe, had been after Gregory’s job for years, according to former NBC employees. And inside MSNBC’s New York offices, Scarborough is known as a prima donna who doesn’t respond well to “no.”

Jihad Joe isn't one to sit meekly and accept his fate, either. Watch him marginalize Chuck Todd in this segment while trying to step all over Neera Tanden with the Fox News talking points and imagine him hosting this show weekly, if you can. It almost makes Chuck Todd look like a decent choice.

Almost.

Fracking Town’s Desperate Laid-off Workers: ‘They Don’t Tell You It’s All a Lie’

The boom and bust in North Dakota has trapped people there, with little hope of work or escape.

 

By Evelyn Nieves

 

WILLISTON, N.D.—From the looks of it, the nation’s boom town is still booming. Big rigs, cement mixers and oil tankers still clog streets built for lighter loads. The air still smells like diesel fuel and looks like a dust bowl— all that traffic — and natural gas flares, wasted byproducts of the oil wells, still glare out at the night sky like bonfires.

Not to mention that Walmart, still the main game in town, can’t seem to get a handle on its very long lines and half­ empty shelves.

But life at the center of the country’s largest hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, boom has definitely changed. The jobs that brought thousands of recession­-weary employment­-seekers to this once peaceful corner of western North Dakota over the last five years have been drying up, even as the unemployed keep coming.

Downtown, clutches of men pass their time at the Salvation Army, watching movies or trolling Craigslist ads on desktop computers. The main branch of the public library is full, all day, every day, with unemployed men in cubbyholes. And when the Command Center, a private temporary jobs agency, opens every morning at 6am, between two and three dozen people are waiting to get in the door.
 

Some of these job seekers are sleeping in their trucks, in utility sheds, behind piles of garbage by the railroad tracks, wherever they can curl up.

Only a year ago, Williston’s shale oil explosion was still gushing jobs. From 2010 to 2014, thanks to the Bakken shale oil patch, it was the fastest growing small city in the nation. Williston nearly tripled in size, from 12,000 to 35,000 people. But the number of active rigs used to drill new wells in the Bakken dropped to 111 in March, the lowest number since April 2010, according to state figures.

Low oil prices have prompted drilling to slow down, and companies big and small have been laying off workers and cutting hours.

City officials paint a rosy picture. They cite North Dakota Job Service reports that maintain there are 116 jobs in Williston for every 100 residents, point to North Dakota’s ranking among oil­-producing states (number two, after Texas), call the oil production slowdown a blip and say the oil patch is still growing.
 

But the city’s job numbers do not match the reality on the ground. At the Command Center, oil jobs have dropped by 10 percent since last Fall, said Kyle Tennessen, the branch manager. Compounding the job shortage, laid-­off oil workers were competing with others for construction jobs and everything else, Tennessen added.

 

Some migrants have already left, or are planning to, according to the local U­Haul companies. They report fewer people renting vans and trucks to move into town and more laid­-off workers renting vehicles to move out.

The rest are becoming Williston’s version of day laborers. They compete for low­-paying jobs such as picking up trash, doing laundry and mopping floors, that make enough for them to eat, but not enough to afford a place to live. (The average one­-bedroom apartment in Williston costs $2,395 a month.)

Some live in one room with several other men, pooling resources and splitting costs. Others don’t know where they’ll sleep from one night to the next.

The Salvation Army has offered stranded workers a one­-way ticket back home. But many job seekers seem unwilling to leave—at least not until they can make a success out of their sacrificial move to a place with six months of winter, the worst traffic they’ve ever seen, and a disgruntled, if not miserable, populace.
 

“You just have to cowboy up and expect things to get better,” said Terry Ray Cover, a 56­ year old farmer and jack­-of-­all-­trades who came from southeast Iowa on a Greyhound bus in November. He’d heard North Dakota was raining jobs.

“They don’t tell you it’s all a lie,” he said, sipping coffee in the Salvation Army on a frigid day in early March. “Places advertise jobs and then tell you they’re not hiring.”

The jobs he sees ads for, Cover said, require certifications and degrees, “like engineering.” He had found odd jobs, one at a cattle ranch, since he arrived in Williston. But he hadn’t worked in four weeks, despite daily treks to the Command Center.

Cover, bundled in a ski suit, had spent the most frigid nights of winter (­20 Fahrenheit) in a tin shelter he discovered within walking distance of the Command Center, his best hope for work. He was relying on the Salvation Army for his daily bread and new friends for his daily smokes.

The men—they are all men—hanging out at the Salvation Army for coffee, bread and whatever donated goods there might be on a given day (from 9am to 3pm) have come from all over, including Iowa, Minnesota, Montana, Louisiana, New Jersey and Washington, D.C. They include a number of African immigrants originally from Liberia, Sierra Leone, Nigeria and Senegal.

But their stories are close to the same. They heard Williston had jobs, and they weren’t having any luck back home. So they hopped in their truck, or a Greyhound bus, and hopped off to a rude awakening.

Most of the men, who range in age from their early 30's to late 50's, have spent 10 nights, the maximum allowed, at a 10­-bed emergency shelter the Salvation Army and a local church set up, leasing 10 beds at a camp for oil workers (a so-­called man camp). More than 100 men applied to stay at the emergency shelter since it resumed operating for the second year in November. (It was set to close March 31 but has extended its season due to demand.)

Although there is camaraderie among the migrants, they are openly frustrated, and the room where they hang out at the Salvation Army is often tense and gloomy. Men who have been sleeping outside in the elements, or trying to, fold themselves into corners to get real sleep. The African immigrants tend to hang together, but a lot of loners fill the room.

Ali Singa, who moved to North Dakota from Nashville nine months ago, started out in Fargo, making $11 an hour the day after he arrived in shipping. He stayed for three months before heading to Williston, where he heard he could make more money, enough to send to his wife and three children in Sierra Leone.

He found work in a nearby oil patch town, Watford City, hauling water, but he was laid off in December and has not been able to land another job.
 “A lack of a job has trapped me here,” Singa said. “Right now, I’m staying with friends. I’m in a very bad situation. You must put this down in your report: At the same time that they’re advertising jobs, they’re laying people off, and people keep coming and keep coming.”

Singa, a high school French teacher in his native country, moved to Washington, D.C. from the Sierra Leone 10 years ago, seeking a better life for his family back home. But after being laid off from a baggage handler job, he has not had much luck with his relocations.

“Had I stayed home I would’ve been better off by now,” he said. “But hope has kept me here, because hope is the poor man’s bread. Why can’t I get a job? I don’t have any felonies, no arrests. I am a good person. It’s the strangest thing. Is it because of the color of my skin? I tell people back home to not come here.”

Singa leaves to find work every morning at 5:30, and is usually the first one to arrive at the Command Center. But jobs are not doled out on a first­-come basis. They are handed out based on qualifications, and rankings workers have received from employers, Kyle Tennessen said. That works against the newest workers, without a hiring history.

On a recent typical morning, Tennessen doled out seven day jobs—restaurant work, construction site clean­up, maintenance­­—leaving 22 people who’d arrived before daybreak with no work for another day.

One of them happened to be a woman. Louise Provus, 50, moved from Spokane to Williston two years ago with her husband, Randy Fleming, 57. “For the first two years,” she said, “I had a job at the local dry cleaners. In April, I started working for a cleaning company as a domestic. But that’s just once a week now, so I’m still looking.”

Fleming, who lost an automotive shop in Spokane to fire, has been looking for work doing anything. But he has not landed a permanent job. “I’ve got like 40 applications out there,” he said. “I’ve been in here all week. And some days, I’ve been in here all day, just in case. We’ll come here at six and I’ll stay till two or three in the afternoon. Then I’ll take the heel ­toe express home.”

He and his wife are among the luckier regulars at the Command Center. They found an apartment in subsidized senior housing for $600 a month. Even so, Provus said, they struggle to pay the rent. “I think I’ll go to the library after this and put in an application at Walmart,” she said.

Walmart has had the same sign out front advertising jobs at $17 an hour for three years, despite hiring freezes.


“I know it’s a long shot,” Provus said. “Make sure you tell people that if you get any job out here, no matter how bad, you’d better take it, because it’s the best you’re going to get.”

Evelyn Nieves is a senior contributing writer and editor at AlterNet, living in San Francisco. She has been a reporter for both the New York Times and the Washington Post.

6 Desperate Ways the Church of Scientology Is Trying to Stop 'Going Clear'

Alex Gibney's damning HBO documentary has set off a war with the famously aggressive church.

By Kali Holloway

The Church of Scientology has a well-publicized history of going after its critics with everything it has, including its tons and tons of dollars, which reportedly total about $3 billion. So it’s not all that surprising that, as Alex Gibney’s much talked-about Scientology documentary “Going Clear” – which numerous reports claim uncovers some fairly batshit revelations – heads to HBO on March 29, the Church has undertaken a full-scale, multimedia counterattack. Here are six ways Scientology, gloves off, is going after Gibney and everyone involved in "Going Clear."

1. Buying A Super Bowl Ad. After the film was lauded by critics from numerous outlets after its Sundance Film Festival premiere in January, the Church ran an ad before America’s biggest television event. The commercial, titled “The Age of Answers,” looked like any generic ad for a new rising technology, except that the hot, new gadgetry shown is an e-meter. “Imagine an age in which the predictability of science and the wisdom of religion combine,” says a voice over in the deep, disembodied voice of someone who knows more than you. A few seconds later, the words “spiritual technology” appear on the screen, which in a literal flash blend to become the word “Scientology.”
The Super Bowl ad, which appeared in markets around the country, likely cost the Church millions by even the most conservative estimates. Not that it matters when you have billions, but it's a mark of commitment, nonetheless.



2. Sending a Five-Page Letter to the Hollywood Reporter Calling Every Ex-Scientologist in the Film a Liar. Earlier this month, the Hollywood Reporterrequested to screen the documentary with high-ranking Church officials. Instead, Church spokesperson Karin Pouw suggested the magazine send a list of questions relating to allegations, which she in turn would “be happy” to answer. But in lieu of answers to the 20 individual questions asked, Pouw responded with a five-page letter, which you kind of have to read to marvel at the astounding over-the-top attacks.  In it, she essentially offers individualized takedowns of each participant, and attempts to discredit them in numerous personal ways. Pouw writes:  

In two hours this film racks up more falsehoods, errors, embellished tales and blatant omissions than were committed by Rolling Stone, Brian Williams and Bill O’Reilly combined. By our calculation, the film on average includes at least one major error every two minutes.

Rather than provide a response to each of these questions, which are part of Gibney’s propaganda, I am going to take up the sources of these allegations so you understand their motivations to spread hatred, religious bigotry and lies. We are not trying to discredit these people. It is simply that Mr. Gibney is miscrediting them.

The inclusion of any one of these liars is enough to irrevocably taint the film as biased propaganda.

But the letter contains more than just blurbs essentially accusing each participant of lying, it includes links to several videos. Which brings us to our next point.

3. Producing a Series of Mini-Documentaries to Defame Everyone Associated with the Film and the Book Upon Which It’s Based. The Church apparently decided to enter the realm of documentary filmmaking in its own defense, producing several films that individually attack those who appear in or were part of the creation of "Going Clear." Titles include “Sara Goldberg: The Homewrecker,” “Marc Headley: The Soulless Sellout,” “Marty Rathbun: A Violent Psychopath,” “Mike Rinder: The Wife Beater,” and more. Each is filled with the hallmarks of fear-mongering filmmaking: haunting orchestral musical scores; greyscale images of the accused; that tabloid-news “swoosh” noise between segments; etc. (Again, the full list of films is in the letter.) Check out “Spanky Taylor: The Drama Queen,” below:



4. Purchasing Google Ads to Redirect and Confuse People Looking for Information About the Film. As the Daily Beast recently noted, a Google search for “Going Clear” brings many hits, but it’s the top hit that’s most curious. Marked “Going Clear Documentary—HBO's Going Clear‎,” it leads to the URL www.freedommag.org/HBO. Freedom Magazineis published by the Church of Scientology, and says its dedicated mission is "Investigative Reporting in the Public Interest." Granted, most Internet users know the first return on any search is likely to be a paid ad, but there are likely many who don’t know. When those seekers click on the link, they’ll find themselves on a page titled “Exterminating” [Director Alex] Gibney’s Propaganda,” which features a video takedown of Gibney that immediately starts playing.

5. Starting a Twitter Account Under the Guise of Merely Being a Media Watchdog. The Church has launched a Twitter account under the name Free Media Ethics, which describes itself as “taking a resolute stand against the broadcasting and publishing of false information.” While that lofty goal may be its true ambition, all it really seems to do is tweet mean stuff about “Going Clear.” That includes name-calling people involved in the film, criticizing the documentary’s musical score and tweeting taunts about how the movie failed to fill a room.

Click to enlarge.

Click to enlarge.

Click to enlarge.

6. Taking Out a Full-Page Ad in the New York Times. On January 16, the Church took out a full-page ad in the New York Times to denounce the movie. Its method? Comparing it to the now widely discredited Rolling Stone University of Virginia rap expose. The ad’s headline reads, “Is Alex Gibney’s Upcoming HBO ‘Documentary’ a Rolling Stone/UVA Redux?” When trying to minimize press for your issue, hitching your wagon to another story still making headlines might not be the best way to go.

Click to enlarge

Downton Abbey has been officially canceled

By International Business Times

Image from the PBS show Downton Abbey (Screenshot)

Bad news for “Downton Abbey” fans. Executive producer Gareth Neame announced Thursday that Season 6 will be the last year of Crawley family drama.

“Millions of people around the world have followed the journey of the Crawley family and those who serve them for the last five years,” Neame said in a statement. “Inevitably there comes a time when all shows should end and ‘Downton’ is no exception. We wanted to close the doors of 'Downton Abbey' when it felt right and natural for the storylines to come together and when the show was still being enjoyed so much by its fans. We can promise a final season full of all the usual drama and intrigue, but with the added excitement of discovering how and where they all end up ...”

For fans who have been following “Downton” gossip, the cancellation is hardly surprising. The British show has been rumored to be ending for quite some time. The decision not to renew "Downton Abbey" beyond Season 6 reportedly was made by the cast. TV Line reported last week that the majority of the actors wanted to leave the show, which was consistent with earlier reports that actors were searching for work in the U.S. The cast even made several comments that indicated the end was near.

Allen Leech, who plays Tom Branson, said in November that he couldn’t see the show going beyond another season or two. “In my heart of hearts, I can't see it going more than two [seasons] more,” Leech told E! Online. “I think the period of time we want to tell, we're coming to the end that us as actors we can keep playing these characters.”

Maggie Smith also stirred up some controversy recently when she said Season 6 would be her last. “I mean, I certainly can't keep going,” the actress told the Sunday Times (via Radio Times) regarding her character, Lady Violet. “To my knowledge, I must be 110 by now. We're into the late 1920s.” The series began in the aftermath of the sinking of the Titanic in 1912.

“Downton Abbey” is the highest-rated show on PBS. The Season 5 finale drew in 9.8 million viewers. A premiere date for Season 6 has not been announced yet.

Malicious user hides trojan links in cloned Steam Greenlight pages

Malware links briefly appear in fan-voting section despite $100 submission fee.

By Kyle Orland

Steam

A malicious user exploited the somewhat open submission structure of Steam's Greenlight section over the weekend to briefly hide malware links in cloned versions of legitimate game pages.

Polygon reports that a Steam user going by the handle bluebunny14 posted copies of pages for five games to the Steam's Greenlight section over the weekend. The cloned pages copied the text, screenshots, and videos of existing Greenlight games, including Melancholy Republic and The Maze, to look exactly like legitimate titles seeking attention in Steam's fan-voting area. But the cloned versions of the pages also included links to purported "beta version" links for the games that instead linked users to what Polygon calls "a known Trojan."

After being posted Sunday, the malicious links were reportedly removed by early Monday, and the cloned game pages themselves reportedly removed by Monday afternoon. "Community members alerted us of the situation over the weekend by flagging the content," said Valve's Doug Lombardi in a statement. "Our Community Moderators responded quickly by removing all malicious links from the fake Greenlight material and then we banned the submissions. We are taking further steps to deal with anyone involved in posting the links. We'd like to thank those who reported the issue in addition to our Community Moderators, and we encourage everyone to report any suspicious activity in the future by using the flag icon located throughout the Steam Community."

Steam Greenlight launched in the summer of 2012 as a clearinghouse allowing the community to vote on game concepts and in-progress projects it would like to see offered for sale on Steam. But the section was quickly flooded with spam submissions for fake and offensive listings, and misleadingly sourced clones of copyrighted and trademarked games.

Is Valve locking out poorer developers or just imposing order?

 

To "cut down on the noise" of these fraudulent submissions, Valve instituted a one-time, $100 fee for Greenlight developers in September of 2012. "It was obvious after the first weekend that we needed to make some changes to eliminate pranksters while giving folks in the community the ability to focus on 'their kind' of games," Valve UI designer Alden Kroll told Ars at the time. While that fee apparently didn't stop bluebunny14's malicious submissions over the weekend, it will likely slow down the same user from continuing to post more malicious links under different accounts.
Open app marketplaces, like those on many smartphone platforms, are often plagued with fake listings purporting to be popular games and software, sometimes hiding malware behind the legitimate-seeming facade. Since its launch in 2003, though, Steam has cultivated a reputation as a more carefully curated marketplace of the best of the PC gaming marketplace, without risk of viruses or other malware.

Steam's curated image has been diluted somewhat in recent years, though, as the number of games available on the service has skyrocketed, doubling in the last 18 months to encompass over 4,000 distinct titles. Over 3,200 submissions have garnered enough user votes to be officially "greenlit" by Valve in the last two years, and over 570 of those games have been officially released on Steam.

How Privatization Rips Us All Off

Average Americans are the products, and few of us see any profits.

By Paul Buchheit

The Project on Government Oversight found that in 33 of 35 cases the federal government spent more on private contractors than on public employees for the same services. The authors of the report summarized, "Our findings were shocking."

Yet our elected leaders persist in their belief that free-market capitalism works best. Here are a few fact-based examples that say otherwise.

Health Care: Markups of 100%....1,000%....100,000%

Broadcast Journalist Edward R. Murrow in 1955: Who owns the patent on this vaccine?
Polio Researcher Jonas Salk: Well, the people, I would say. There is no patent. Could you patent the sun?

We don't hear much of that anymore. The public-minded sentiment of the 1950's, with the sense of wartime cooperation still in the minds of researchers and innovators, has yielded to the neoliberal winner-take-all business model.

In his most recent exposé of the health care industry in the U.S., Steve Brill notes that it's "the only industry in which technological advances have increased costs instead of lowering them." An investigation of fourteen private hospitals by National Nurses United found that they realized a 1,000% markup on their total costs, four times that of public hospitals. Other sources have found that private health insurance administrative costs are 5 to 6 times higher than Medicare administrative costs.

Markup reached 100,000% for the pharmaceutical company Gilead Sciences, which grabbed a patent for a new hepatitis drug and set the pricing to take whatever they could get from desperate American patients.

Housing: Big Profits, Once the Minorities Are Squeezed Out

A report by a coalition of housing rights groups concluded that "public housing is a vital national resource that provides decent and affordable homes to over a million families across the country."

But, according to the report, a privatization program started during the Clinton administration resulted in "the wholesale destruction of communities" and "the displacement of very large numbers of low-income households of color."

It's gotten even worse since then, as Blackstone and Goldman Sachs have figured out how to take money from former homeowners, with three deviously effective strategies:

1. Buy houses and hold them to force prices up
2. Meanwhile, charge high rents (with little or no maintenance)
3. Package the deals as rental-backed securities with artificially high-grade ratings

Private Banks: Giving Them Half Our Retirement Money

The public bank of North Dakota had an equity return of 23.4% before the state's oil boom. The normally privatization-minded Wall Street Journal admits that "The BND's costs are extremely low: no exorbitantly-paid executives; no bonuses, fees, or commissions; only one branch office; very low borrowing costs.."

But thanks to private banks, interest claims one out of every three dollars that we spend, and by the time we retire with a 401(k), over half of our money is lost to the banks.

Internet: The Fastest Download in the U.S. (is on a Public Network)

That's in Chattanooga, a rapidly growing city, named by Nerdwallet as one of the "most improved cities since the recession," and offering its residents Internet speeds 50 times faster than the American average.

Elsewhere, 61 percent of Americans are left with a single private company, often Comcast or Time Warner, to provide cable service. Now those two companies, both high on the most hated list, are trying to merge into one.

The Post Office: Private Companies Depend on it to Handle the Unprofitable Routes

It costs less than 50 cents to send a letter to any remote location in the United States. For an envelope with a two-day guarantee, this is how the U.S. Postal Service recently matched up against competitors:

• U.S. Post Office 2-Day $5.68
• Federal Express 2-Day $19.28
• United Parcel Service 2 Day $24.09

USPS is so inexpensive, in fact, that Fedex actually uses the U.S. Post Office for about 30 percent of its ground shipments. As Ralph Nader notes, the USPS has not taken any taxpayer money since 1971, and if it weren't required by an inexplicable requirement to pre-fund employee benefits for 75 years, it would be making a profit. Instead, this national institution has been forced to cut jobs and routes and mailing centers.

Paul Buchheit teaches economic inequality at DePaul University. He is the founder and developer of the Web sites UsAgainstGreed.org, PayUpNow.org and RappingHistory.org, and the editor and main author of "American Wars: Illusions and Realities" (Clarity Press). He can be reached at paul@UsAgainstGreed.org.

Rep. Peter King slams ‘carnival barker’ Ted Cruz: I’ll jump off a bridge if he’s the GOP nominee

By Arturo Garcia

Rep. Peter King (R-NY) blasts Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) in a CNN interview on March 23, 2015. [CNN]

Rep. Peter King (R-NY) hammered longtime rival Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) on Monday, telling CNN host Wolf Blitzer that he did not want Cruz to become his party’s next presidential nominee.

“I hope that day never comes,” King said. “I will jump off that bridge when we come to it.”

“You’re leaving open that possibility after you said what you said?” Blitzer asked.

“It’d be very difficult,” King responded. “Maybe he can go on the road to Damascus, he can have a complete conversion. But the way it is right now, it’d be very difficult to support Ted Cruz.”

King appeared on Blitzer’s show after releasing a statement calling the Texas Tea Party favorite a “carnival barker.” Cruz announced early Monday morning that he was officially entering the 2016 presidential race.

“Ted Cruz may be an intelligent person, but he doesn’t carry out an intelligent debate,” King said. “He oversimplifies, he exaggerates.”

King also accused Cruz of leading the GOP “off the cliff” in 2013 for inciting the federal government shutdown. At the time, King blamed Cruz and his “acolytes” for the shutdown, saying it was “madness” for the party to follow his lead.

While scoffing at both Cruz and Sen. Rand Paul’s (R-KY) credentials, King did say he was exploring his own presidential campaign, describing it as his chance to appeal to his party’s “true conservatives,” as opposed to “counterfeit conservatives” like Paul and Cruz.

“From what I understand personally, he’s a very nice guy,” King said of Paul. “But his views are so isolationist in the world we face today, I think he’d be taking us back to the 1930's.”

Watch Blitzer’s interview with King, as aired on Monday, below.

Justice Dept. rips Philadelphia cops for excessive force and ‘operational deficiencies’

By Reuters

'Police Officer In Uniform With His Citation Book' [Shutterstock]

Philadelphia police need more training to defuse significant tension with the community, according to a U.S. Justice Department report released on Monday.

The highly anticipated report on police use of deadly force identified “serious deficiencies in the department’s use of force policies and training,” the Justice Department said.

The report came in response to a 2013 request for help from Philadelphia Police Commissioner Charles Ramsey, considered a national leader in policing, after a spike in officer-involved shootings.

“Our assessment uncovered policy, training and operational deficiencies in addition to an undercurrent of significant strife between the community and department,” the report said.

Philadelphia’s police are among a growing number of departments to come under scrutiny for use of deadly force after the deaths of unarmed individuals in U.S. cities ranging from Ferguson, Missouri, to Albuquerque, New Mexico, and New York.

Ramsey was tapped by President Barack Obama to head up a national task force to improve police and community relations following unrest touched off by the 2014 killing of Michael Brown, an unarmed black teen shot by a white officer in Ferguson.

In Philadelphia, cases of brutality and rogue behavior have eroded the community’s trust in the police department, the report said.

Among them was a Philadelphia detective charged with helping his girlfriend, a murder suspect, hide from police, and narcotics officers accused of dangling people from high-rise balconies as an interrogation technique and stealing dealers’ drug stashes.

“Incidents involving discourtesy, use of force, and allegations of bias by officers leave segments of the community feeling disenfranchised and distrustful of the police department,” the report said.

The American Civil Liberties Union of Pennsylvania said 81 percent of people shot by Philadelphia police are African-American, although they make up only about 44 percent of the population.

“The police department must begin to repair this relationship by emphasizing de-escalation and mutual respect in their interactions rather than relying on force,” said Sara Mullen, ACLU-PA associate director.

Ramsey and Mayor Michael Nutter said they were committed to making the recommended changes.

“The only way to achieve the levels of public safety we all want is by ending the notion of ‘Us vs. Them’ and replacing it with a shared sense of the city’s future based on police and the public working together,” Nutter said in a statement.

The recommendations will be implemented over the next 18 months, the Justice Department said.

(Reporting by Barbara Goldberg in New York; Editing by Andrew Hay, Ellen Wulfhorst and Eric Beech)

The Six Most Evil Presidents In U.S. History

If evil is as evil does, then these guys wreaked some serious havoc.

By Larry Schwartz

Evil, like beauty, is sometimes in the eye of the beholder.

It is difficult to distinguish an evil act from an evil person. Few people, for example, would argue that Adolph Hitler, Pol Pot, and Josef Stalin were not evil men. But if killing lots of people is the criteria, Abraham Lincoln was a pretty evil guy, too; he just happened to be on the right side of history. As the saying goes, history is written by the winners and, it seems, the winners get to decide who is evil. For a long time, we Americans have thought of ourselves as a shining beacon of goodness. Ronald Reagan stoked that mood with his “Morning in America” administration. Meanwhile, those bad guys over there in the Soviet "Evil Empire" were wreaking their havoc. Only, the rest of the world does not quite see it that way. Distrust of America is growing and we are seen as one of the biggest perpetrators of evil and bloodshed, the“Great Satan” to some. This confuses Americans because that's not what we see when we look at ourselves in the mirror, and through the lens of American exceptionalism.

The point is, objective truths are hard to pin down, and subjective truths are many and contradictory. Adolph Hitler was evil because he killed people out of spite and a bankrupt and hate-filled ideology (although he also probably didn’t see himself as evil when he looked in the mirror.) Lincoln was not evil because he was forced into the position of killing people for the preservation of the country. But many Germans worshipped Hitler, and many in the Confederacy despised Lincoln.

No one sets out to do evil, U.S. Presidents included. Our most murderous, warmongering presidents did not intend to become killers, but they did end up committing acts that are considered evil. Here are six of the most evil Presidents in our history (followed by a healthy list of runner-ups.)

1. Andrew Jackson
Andrew Jackson, Old Hickory, our seventh president, was beloved by the common people of the United States. He was a populist who railed against the federal banking system, a man who grew up poor and climbed the ladder to ultimate power, a war hero, a romantic who pined for his wife who passed away only days after he won the presidency. He was a slave owner who believed in the morality of owning human chattel (although many of our early presidents owned slaves and felt similarly).

What set Jackson apart, and places him high in the “Evil President” ranks was his actions against Native Americans. Simply put, Andrew Jackson never met an Indian he liked or felt obliged to respect. Appointed by President Thomas Jefferson to wage war on the Creek and Cherokee tribes in order to gain their territory, Jackson was a brutal Indian killer whose nickname Sharp Knife was well earned. At his command, his troops killed not only vast numbers of male Native Americans, but also women and children. Millions of acres of land was stolen from the tribes during his campaigns.

In 1818 Jackson and his men invaded Spanish Florida and incited the First Seminole War, killing Seminoles and capturing escaped slaves who lived among them. As he illegally swept through Florida, he, “violated nearly every standard of justice,” wrote historian Bertram Wyatt-Brown. Long before ethnic cleansing became a term to describe the terrible war crime, Jackson perfected the practice.

Supporting and signing, as President, the Indian Removal Act in 1830, over 46,000 Native Americans were forcibly removed from their homes and lands east of the Mississippi River and marched to reservations in the western territories. In one such forced march, which occurred after Jackson left office, 4,000 Cherokees died during the infamous Trail of Tears. Millions of acres of Indian land was seized and handed over to the white slave aristocracy. Old Hickory carried his actions against Native Americans out despite the fact that the Supreme Court ruled it unconstitutional. "John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it!" cried Jackson.

2. Harry Truman
Famous for the sign on his desk, “The Buck Stops Here”, Harry ”Give ‘Em Hell” Truman never shied away from his decision to drop the A-bomb on Japan. Debate has raged ever since. In1945, Truman ordered the U.S. military to drop atom bombs on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Was his action, which literally incinerated many thousands of civilian men, women, and children, and crippled and mutilated many thousands more, justified in order to end World War Two and save the lives of a million American soldiers, who would have had to invade mainland Japan otherwise?

That is the argument in favor of the decision, but that turns out to be disingenuous. Japan was willing to surrender to the United States in July of 1945 with one condition, that the Japanese Emperor Hirohito not be tried as a war criminal. The truth was that Japan was virtually helpless by this time, its military in a shambles, its cities bombed, and its people starving. Truman ignored the offer, and in August ordered the bombs dropped. Since the U.S. ultimately granted that condition anyway, the dropping of the bombs was unnecessary, and the horrific death and destruction that resulted was also unnecessary.

3. William McKinley
When most people think of William McKinley, our 25th President, they are most likely to think of America’s fattest president. Weighing in at over 300 pounds, McKinley was a mountain of a man. He also was a man with blood on his hands, the blood of hundreds of thousands of Filipino people. At the conclusion of the Spanish-American War in 1898, in which the United States defeated Spain, McKinley found himself with the question of what to do about the Philippines. The Filipino people had expected to be given their independence, which they had fought with Spain over prior to the war.

Instead, McKinley decided, “that we could not leave them to themselves - they were unfit for self-government - and they would soon have anarchy and misrule over there worse than Spain’s was; and…that there was nothing left for us to do but to take them all, and to educate the Filipinos, and uplift and civilize and Christianize them, and by God’s grace do the very best we could by them, as our fellow-men for whom Christ also died." Thus, under McKinley’ mandate, the U.S. brutally put down the Filipino insurrection in a war that lasted until 1902.

“I want no prisoners. I wish you to kill and burn: the more you kill and burn, the better you will please me,” said one of McKinley’s generals, General Jacob H. Smith. Tens of thousands died in direct combat in the guerrilla war, and hundreds of thousands more from disease transmitted in the concentration camps where Filipino prisoners were herded.

4. Ronald Reagan
Today’s Republican Party may remember The Gipper as a saintly figure, but it is doubtful that many in the gay community share the sentiment. In the 1980s, an unidentified disease began decimating the gay community, and in 1981 it was identified as AIDS. While not specifically a gay disease, it was the homosexual community (as well as intravenous drug users) that was primarily infected with it in the United States at first. Reagan’s attitude towards homosexuals was well known. While campaigning for President in 1980, Reagan referred to gay civil rights: “My criticism is that [the gay movement] isn’t just asking for civil rights; it’s asking for recognition and acceptance of an alternative lifestyle which I do not believe society can condone, nor can I.”

His beliefs carried over into his administration, and he virtually ignored the AIDS crisis for the several years as it ravaged and killed thousands of infected people. Even his old Hollywood friend Rock Hudson’s death from the disease did not sway him from his indifference to the suffering.

Reagan’s Surgeon General, C. Edward Koop was specifically prevented from speaking out about the ways to minimize contracting AIDS. When he did speak about it, The Great Communicator actually served to inflame the crisis. Despite the Centers for Disease Control issuing a report that casual contact did not pose a threat to contract AIDS, parents in many parts of the country spoke out against allowing children with AIDS (who mostly contracted AIDS through blood transfusions) to attend school.

Rather than soothing these fears, Reagan stoked them. “…medicine has not come forth unequivocally and said, This we know for a fact, that it is safe. And until they do, I think we just have to do the best we can with this problem.” It was only after organizations like ACT UP, and celebrities like Elizabeth Taylor, began pressuring Reagan to acknowledge the crisis that he allowed Koop to issue a report in 1986, a full five years after the disease was identified.

Even then, his Administration was ultimately at odds with Koop, as the report went way beyond what Reagan wanted, rejecting AIDS testing and urging use of condoms and sex education.

5. Andrew Johnson
Andrew Johnson, 17th President of the United States, was just not a worthy successor to Abraham Lincoln. Maybe anyone succeeding The Great Emancipator would suffer in comparison, but Johnson energetically earned his incompetence with deeds that the African Americans in the former Confederacy could truly consider evil.

Considering the fact that Johnson was a fervent racist, and pre-Civil War slave owner, who believed in the inferiority of African Americans, it was no surprise that the Reconstruction of the South, post-Civil War, did not go as Lincoln would have liked. “This is a country for white men, and by God, as long as I am President, it shall be a government for white men,” wrote Johnson in a letter to the governor of Missouri.

In 1867, in his message to Congress, he said, “…wherever they [black people] have been left to their own devices they have shown a constant tendency to relapse into barbarism.” In order to minimize the influence of newly freed slaves, and to prevent the redistribution of land to them, he pardoned all but the most egregious Confederates, and they quickly began grabbing the seats of government.

Soon after, they began passing “Black Codes”, laws that, while granting some rights, effectively made African Americans second-class citizens. Radical Republicans in the Congress passed a civil rights bill, which Johnson promptly vetoed, claiming the bill unfairly favored people of color over whites (the veto was overturned).

 In response, the Congress created the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, giving African Americans equal protection under the law. Johnson vehemently campaigned against the amendment.

6. James Buchanan
There’s a lot not to like about our 15th President, James Buchanan, not the least of which is that he fiddled while Rome burned, i.e., he allowed the country to slide to the brink of civil war, which it did shortly after his successor, Abraham Lincoln, took office. The issue that the American Civil War revolved around was, of course, slavery.

During Buchanan’s administration, the debate in the air was whether slavery would be legal in U.S. territories, or would only be decided once statehood was imminent. Northern interests leaned towards territorial decision, where the decision could be made before significant numbers of slave owners arrived. The South preferred that states make the decision, believing that at that point, slave owners could flood the soon-to-be state and vote it pro-slavery. Buchanan sided with the southern states on the issue, and saw an opportunity to have the courts decide the matter.

On the Supreme Court docket was a case involving a slave, Dred Scott. Scott sued for his freedom, based on the claim that he had lived for a period of time with his owner in Illinois and Wisconsin (at the time, part of Minnesota), both free under the Missouri Compromise of 1820 (which had limited slavery primarily to Southern states and had diffused the issue for several years).

There were five southern justices on the Court, but they let Buchanan know they were inclined to allow an earlier lower court ruling stand and not make new federal law. However, Buchanan was informed that if northern judge Robert Cooper Grier could be persuaded to side with the Southerners, the Court would agree to rule on the matter. Improperly infringing on judicial territory, Buchanan proceeded to write Grier and request that he side with the Southerners, which Grier agreed to do.

The resulting Dred Scott decision declared that slaves were not citizens and could not therefore sue.

Secondly, it said that slaves were property, not people, and were therefore protected by the Constitution in all territories and could not be prohibited there. The decision invalidated the Missouri Compromise. The President of the United States, James Buchanan, colluded with the Supreme Court to eliminate territorial barriers to slavery, opened the door to the expansion of the “peculiar institution”, and ultimately set the stage for the Civil War.

Some Evil Runner-ups

George W. Bush: For invading Iraq under false pretenses (“Weapons of Mass Destruction”), resulting in the deaths of thousands of U.S. soldiers, and hundreds of thousands of Iraqi citizens.

James Polk: For starting a war with Mexico under the doctrine of “Manifest Destiny” (the belief that the United States was destined to expand and acquire land), resulting in the deaths of 25,000 Mexicans and the theft of most of southwest North America.

Franklin Roosevelt: For the imprisonment of over 100,000 Japanese American citizens for the crime of looking Asian.

Lyndon Johnson: For expansion of the Vietnam War while lying to the American people about both the reasons for the war and the prospects for victory.

Richard Nixon: For further expanding the Vietnam War after promising a secret plan to end it, and illegally spying on American citizens perceived as political enemies.

Dwight Eisenhower: For authorizing the overthrow of the Iranian government via the CIA, resulting in the coronation of the Shah, countless subsequent political murders, and ultimately the rise of Muslim extremism.

Glenn Beck leaves the Republican Party - 'I am done!'

By Egberto Willies



Glenn Beck was irate on his show. He let the Republican Party have it.

"The Republican Party, I've made my decision," said Glenn Beck. "I am out! I'm out! I am not a Republican. I will not give a dime to the Republican Party. I am out! I highly recommend, run from the Republican Party. They are not good and you see it now. All this stuff that they ran and they said they were doing all these great things. And they were going to stand against Obamacare and everything else and legal immigration, set us up. Enough is enough. They are torpedoing the Constitution and they are doing so knowingly. They are taking on people like Mike Lee and Ted Cruz. And they are torpedoing them, knowingly. And these guys are standing for the Constitution. So I am done with them."

Wilson at GlennBeck.com wrote:

It should come as no surprise to long time listeners that Glenn is fed up with the Republican party as it exists in Washington, DC. He’s been outspoken in his criticism of the establishment’s leadership, including John Boehner, Mitch McConnell, and Lindsey Graham. Meanwhile, he’s watched those same establishment politicians try to destroy passionate conservatives like Ted Cruz and Mike Lee. So today on radio he made it crystal clear that he is done with the Republican Party.

“When we first started the 9/12 Project and everything else, we said stay in the Republican party. Change it from the inside. Then we saw now how rotted the Republican is. There’s no saving it. Don’t give another dime to the Republican party. We tried to do it from the inside. They are knifing us from the inside,” Glenn said.

In other words, the Republicans are not enough to the right for Glenn Beck and his ilk. Really? If it wouldn't hurt so many people, it would be great to give these folks the country they claim to want for a couple years. They would become card-carrying liberals quickly thereafter.

Adding Injury To Insult

This post originally appeared on RingofFireRadio.com.

As if one of the wealthiest corporations on the planet paying poverty wages wasn’t bad enough, McDonald’s (one of several franchises being represented in a lawsuit against the city of Seattle over its recent mandate to raise wages to $15 an hour) apparently believes itself to be exempt from regulations of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA).

Remember Ketchup As a Vegetable?

In the great tradition of the Reagan years, the management at McDonald’s “restaurants” consider mustard and mayonnaise to be first aid ointments. It’s not a joke. In a press release from the website FightFor15.org, a McDonald’s worker from Chicago described her experience:

“My managers kept pushing me to work faster, and while trying to meet their demands I slipped on a wet floor, catching my arm on a hot grill…the managers told me to put mustard on it, but I ended up having to get rushed to the hospital in an ambulance.”

This worker’s story is not unusual. At least 80% of McDonald’s employees report suffering moderate to severe burn injuries. Of that 80%, 6 out of every 10 workers suffered multiple injuries. 1 in 3 report that the first aid kit (mandated under OSHA regulations) is either not readily accessible, lacking supplies – or missing altogether.

And what of safety equipment? Dream on, folks – you think this is a four-star French cafe?

(Incredibly, there are 1,200 McDonald’s outlets in France – but in order to survive in that country, the corporation was forced to adapt to French eating habits and preferences…and you’d better believe working conditions are better as well.)

Actually, McDonald’s and most other “fast food” franchises have far more in common with an automotive assembly line than any sort of upscale dining establishment.

A Bit of History

The concept of “fast food” in the United States goes back over a century, but arguably, the first modern “fast food” chain was A&W (of root beer fame), which began franchising in 1921. 19 years later, two brothers in San Bernardino, California, created a kitchen and food service method modeled on the same assembly lines pioneered by Henry Ford.

The brothers’ names? Richard and Maurice McDonald.

In 1954, a salesman for milkshake blending machines visited the McDonald’s operation in order to learn why the brothers had ordered a dozen machines (most eating establishments and soda fountains had one or two at most). When the dust settled from that visit, the McDonald’s had a partner in that visiting salesman, who went by the name of Ray Kroc. He opened the first McDonald’s franchises in his home state of Illinois shortly thereafter. By 1961, Kroc was in a position to buy out the McDonald brothers – and the modern McDonald’s Corporation was born.

It’s Not All Bad

For better or worse, this food service business model has become almost ubiquitous. However, some present-day fast food restaurants treat employees far better than others. Not surprisingly, these tend to be either small, independent family businesses or more localized chains, such as the Pacific Northwest’s Burgerville or the Southwest’s In-N-Out Burger. Both of these companies have always paid starting employees more than minimum wage and provide low-cost, full medical and dental benefits. Current and former employees give the companies high marks when it comes to worker satisfaction, despite the fast-paced and stressful nature of the job.

So….what is it about these issues that McDonald’s doesn’t get?

Ronald Could Learn a Thing or Two

On 16 March, 28 complaints from workers having suffered burn injuries were filed with OSHA. This issue – now attracting national attention – is quickly becoming part of the fight for higher wages among these workers from across the nation. Demonstrators in the San Francisco Bay area and elsewhere in the country are gathering outside of McDonald’s stores, not only demanding $15 an hour, but speaking out about unsafe working conditions as well.

A spokesperson for McDonald’s told USA Today that alleged safety violations would be investigated, but added that the media should to be aware that said allegations were “part of a larger strategy” on the part of “activists” who were targeting the company.

According to the allegations, as managers exert extreme pressure on employees to work faster and “more efficiently,” basic, common-sense safety precautions are ignored. One of these is to wait for cooking oil to cool down before emptying fryers for cleaning. At least one employee was instructed to line a cardboard box with plastic, fill it with ice, and dump hot cooking oil into it so the fryer could be cleaned faster and the used product disposed of sooner.

After all, profits are at stake. Franchisees are themselves under intense pressure from the corporate office, which sends out inspectors regularly to make certain they are toeing the line. (Conformity appears to be the main concern, here; safety is low on the priority list.)

It must be paying off for someone. Despite a great deal of bad press in recent years, McDonald’s – a global corporation with 36,000 locations worldwide – has been seeing a modest increase in sales. In 2012, the corporation had revenues of $27.5 billion, a little over 3% over the prior year. That averages just under $764,000 per restaurant.

In-N-Out, which has a mere 232 locations in five Western states, made an estimated $625 million that same year. But that represents an income of nearly $2.7 million per restaurant – about 350% better than McDonald’s.

One significant difference between the two restaurant change is that the global corporation must grow and expand at all costs. If that means cutting corners and gaming the system, so be it. If workers get hurt and customers get sick, well, that’s just part of the cost of doing business.

It is what the late author and social critic Edward Abbey described as “the mentality of the cancer cell.”

The regional chain, which was founded in 1948, has an entirely different business philosophy. Central to In-N-Out’s philosophy is treating employees well and sharing the corporation’s success with the workers who make it possible. According to Wall Street wisdom, anything that cuts into the profit margin and prevents constant, rapid expansion is bad business.

Yet In-N-Out is doing phenomenally well by all standards. McDonald’s, which follows Wall Street convention, is facing charges for violating labor regulations, armies of angry, dissatisfied employees demanding a greater share of the wealth they work to generate – and a rapidly tarnishing public image.

And in the meantime, McDonald’s employees continue to suffer unnecessary, painful, on-the-job injuries. One hopes that OSHA officials will take these complaints seriously and give the Golden Arches a good, hard, detailed once-over.

Republicans to America: JK

By Tom Tomorrow