Hillary is playing progressives for fools: Why you shouldn’t believe her populist talk on trade

Hillary Clinton is allegedly still making up her mind about TPP. Does anyone really believe this?

By Jim Newell

Last week, congressional Democrats and Republicans reached a deal to give the Obama administration Trade Promotion Authority, which would give the administration more leeway to negotiate trade treaties, like the 12 country Trans Pacific Partnership, with less congressional interference. It’s being billed as the first big fight within the Democratic presidential primary, pitting labor groups, environmentalists and other progressive activists against the more New Democrat, “corporate-friendly” wing of the party.

Since the great battles within the Democratic presidential primary will most likely be played out within the Hillary Clinton campaign, not among various competitive candidates, all eyes turned to the former secretary of state for her position on TPP. Her campaign’s spokesperson, Nick Merrill, issued a statement last Friday saying Clinton had not made up her mind yet:

A statement from her spokesperson, Nick Merrill, Friday afternoon struck a delicate balance. “Hillary Clinton believes that any new trade measure has to pass two tests: First, it should put us in a position to protect American workers, raise wages and create more good jobs at home. Second, it must also strengthen our national security. We should be willing to walk away from any outcome that falls short of these tests,” Merrill said.

“The goal is greater prosperity and security for American families, not trade for trade’s sake. She will be watching closely to see what is being done to crack down on currency manipulation, improve labor rights, protect the environment and health, promote transparency, and open new opportunities for our small businesses to export overseas. As she warned in her book, “Hard Choices,” we shouldn’t be giving special rights to corporations at the expense of workers and consumers,” Clinton’s spokesperson continued.

Uh-huh. So, here’s a question: If Clinton does eventually come out against TPP, why would anyone in their right mind believe that? If candidate Clinton says that as president, she would either withdraw from or renegotiate TPP, how naive would you possibly have to be to believe that she would follow through with that?

---

Within hours of Merrill’s statement, IBT reporter David Sirota dug up a Clinton statement from 2012 swooning over TPP. You know all that stuff about labor and environmental protections that Clinton says she’s going to keep a close eye on? In 2012, she referred to TPP as the “gold standard” there.

In November 2012, the then-secretary of state declared that “we need to keep upping our game both bilaterally and with partners across the region through agreements like the Trans-Pacific Partnership or TPP. … This TPP sets the gold standard in trade agreements to open free, transparent, fair trade, the kind of environment that has the rule of law and a level playing field. And when negotiated, this agreement will cover 40 percent of the world’s total trade and build in strong protections for workers and the environment.”

You could argue that Clinton was only saying that in her official capacity as secretary of state, serving at the pleasure of the Obama administration. That in her heart of hearts, she was always mighty suspicious of this gargantuan trade deal. Perhaps her campaign will try to run with that excuse.

So what does Clinton believe deep down? The best way to decide how Hillary Clinton really feels about trade deals is to delve into her history. Hillary was a consistent supporter of the North American Free Trade Agreement from the time her husband pushed it through upon entering office through the early 2000s. Only when she launched her first presidential bid, in 2007, did she begin to argue that NAFTA “has not lived up to its promises.”

Both Clinton and then-Sen. Barack Obama made suckers out of progressive primary voters when it came to trade issues in the 2008 election. Each promised to renegotiate NAFTA if they became president. This was a big deal ahead of the Ohio primary, where trade agreements have served the working-class economy poorly.

Clinton won the primary safely thanks in part to “NAFTAgate.” In the days ahead of the vote, you see, a Canadian government memo leaked, revealing a meeting Obama campaign economist Austan Goolsbee conducted with a Canadian government official. Goolsbee reassured the Canadians that Obama’s anti-NAFTA rhetoric was just for the sake of “political positioning,” and that they had no reason to worry otherwise. The Obama campaign tried to deny the story, but that didn’t work so well.

The kicker here is that a couple days after Clinton won the primary, a report came out that Clinton’s team had told the Canadians more or less the same thing: that Clinton’s rhetoric about wanting to renegotiate NAFTA should be taken “with a grain of salt.”

As we know, Obama became president of the United States and appointed Clinton his secretary of state. The two of them combined spent approximately zero seconds working to renegotiate NAFTA, but they did push forward on new, bigger, more opaque trade agreements.

If Hillary Clinton comes out against TPP, or promises to renegotiate TPP to make it perfect and great for workers (should it reach the finish line), there’s little reason to digest it as anything other than pandering. The only interesting aspect of her public statements on TPP — and trade deals in general — is political: what hedged language she’ll settle on to secure access to labor unions’ campaign cash ATM's, and how low labor sets its bar because it’s a captive interest of the Democratic Party and has nowhere else to go.

Jim Newell covers politics and media for Salon.

It ate our brains

Police Cadet Quits Academy, Reports Cops After Witnessing Homeless Man Being Beaten By Officers

Notorious Albuquerque, NM police department reaches an all new low

By Cassandra Fairbanks 

 

District Attorney Kari Brandenburg has provided new details in the case of two Albuquerque police officers who are under investigation for brutality after allegedly beating a homeless man on March 20.  According to Brandenburg, the person who reported the assault was a police cadet who has since resigned.

 

 

Few details are known about what exactly transpired, and Police Chief Gorden Eden told KOAT that it is partly because he’s concerned for the safety of the cadet who reported the incident. Mayor Richard Berry says the fact that it was an employee shows there is a level of comfort and internal accountability within the department, as someone felt safe enough to come forward. However, the department is afraid for anyone to know the identity of the cadet – possibly implying that they do not even trust their own officers.

The department has not named the officers involved, provided any details on the beating or condition of the victim, or even reported where exactly the incident took place.

The only information shared by the chief came from a YouTube video posted to the department’s Facebook page. He stated that an internal affairs investigation was immediately launched and the Department of Justice, FBI, and US Attorney’s Office were also notified. The case is now being investigated by the state police.
 

 

Since 2009, the troubled department has been involved in 47 shootings, 32 of which were fatal.

Chief Eden has stated that these numbers reflect a “systemic failure in our ability to track employee misconduct.”

In April of last year, the department was accused of using excessive force by the Justice Department after the frightening murder of the homeless James Boyd when he was approached for “illegally camping.”  Boyd was shot by an officer who had discussed his plans to shoot him in the penis, hours prior to his death.  Their own police chief openly admitted that he is stuck with officers who should not be on the force.

“Based on our investigation, we have reasonable cause to believe that APD engages in a pattern or practice of use of excessive force, including deadly force, in violation of the Fourth Amendment and Section 14141. Our investigation included a comprehensive review of APD’s operations and the City’s oversight systems. We have determined that structural and systemic deficiencies—including insufficient oversight, inadequate training, and ineffective policies— contribute to the use of unreasonable force,” the Department of Justice wrote of the department.

While the APD may have lost a desperately needed actual “good cop”, the violent duo accused of the assault are currently on paid leave.

7 Times Bill Maher Revealed Himself to Be a Bigot

The host's Islamophobia isn't a recent development.

 By Joanna Rothkopf

SACRAMENTO, CA - AUG 19: Bill Maher performs at Sacramento Convention Center in Sacramento, California on August 19th, 2011
Photo Credit: Randy Miramontez/Shutterstock

Bill Maher’s long, illustrious career is perhaps, more than anything else, an excellent example of mass public manipulation. Under the guise of being a liberal comedian, he has managed to build for himself an ultra-successful career predicated on being a massive dick.

Maher has been consistently racist, sexist, transphobic and otherwise ignorant throughout his career, and responds to each allegation of hatred with more indignation than before. Let’s set the record straight: Bill Maher is a bigot. A bigot with a HBO show, but a bigot nonetheless.

Here are some of his worst moments:

1. When he compared former One Direction member Zayn Malik with Dzhokhar Tsarnaev
“Just tell me two things, Zayn,” Maher said in a Web clip. “Which one in the band were you? And where were you during the Boston Marathon?”

Malik is half Pakistani. The Boston Marathon bombers were half-Chechen. The joke is 100 percent bad.



2. When he defended NFL player Shawne Merriman for choking Tila Tequila

Back in 2009, Maher responded to the news that Tila Tequila had been assaulted by her then-boyfriend: “New rule: Stop acting surprised someone choked Tila Tequila! The surprise is that someone hasn’t choked this bitch sooner.”

3. When he attempted to stand up for Muslim women’s rights, but was flat-out racist against Arab men

On an episode of “Real Time” from 2011, Maher said, “Talk to women who’ve ever dated an Arab man. The results are not good.”

4. “[Islamophobia] is not a real thing when we do it.”

In a now-notorious debate between Maher, Sam Harris and Ben Affleck, Maher defended his own Islamophobia as nothing of the sort.

“All these billion people don’t hold these pernicious beliefs? That’s just not true, Ben.”



5. When he said Hillary Clinton tried crying to get her way

In 2008, Maher discussed Clinton’s campaign strategy: “I’m not trying to be sexist here, but I’m just saying that women try a lot of different tacks when they’re in arguments… I’m not being sexist, I’m just saying that men, when we argue, we’re kind of a one-trick pony — we try our thing, and then we sulk when we don’t get our way.”

“But look at Hillary Clinton,” he said before playing a number of clips of Clinton on the campaign trail. “Because the first thing a woman does, of course, is cry… and then they go to sweet talking… and then they throw an anger fit totally unrelated to anything…. And when it doesn’t work, they bring out the sarcasm.”

6. When he suggested that all Muslims support the Charlie Hebdo attack

Days after the attack on the satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo’s offices in Paris, Maher appeared on “Jimmy Kimmel Live” to condemn the second-largest religion in the world.

“I know most Muslim people would not have carried out an attack like this,” he said. “But here’s the important point. Hundreds of millions of them support an attack like this. They applaud an attack like this. What they say is, we don’t approve of violence, but you know what, when you make fun of the prophet, all bets are off.”

7.

Click to enlarge.

Walmart closes 5 stores: Walmart trots out 'sham' excuse to shutter five stores?

By Linsey Bald
 
Employees at five Walmart stores find themselves out of a job this week after the multinational retailer temporarily shuttered a number of its stores and super centers – because of alleged plumbing problems. Thousands of workers were laid off by the discount department store, surprising everyone, especially the over 2,200 employees, many of whom say they were literally only given hours notice.

Photo by Joe Raedle/Getty Images

Writes CNN Money: “The reason for the shut down: plumbing problems, according to the retailer. Two of the stores are in Texas, and the others are in California, Florida and Oklahoma. They will be closed for ‘extended repairs’ for approximately six months, the company said. The stores closed at 7 p.m. Monday, after workers were notified just hours before that they were losing their jobs.”

The abruptness of the announcement has left many employees questioning if Walmart is being truthful about the cause of the hasty closings. Officials at area locations have said that there is no record of any work or building permits being filed by Walmart prior to undertaking these “major pluming repairs.”

Rene Bobadilla, a city repair manager from Pico Rivera, Calif. said of their local Walmart store: “This is the first time we're hearing of their sewer problems.”

According to ABC Action News, the Midland, Texas store, “which, until Monday, was home to one of the 10 busiest Wal-Mart stores in the country,” was visited by City Building Official Steve Thorpe.

According to ABC, “his plumbing inspector was sent away” when he arrived.

Each store followed the same protocol – Walmart corporate officials arrived unannounced, called an impromptu meeting of the senior staff, and told them that the store would be closed that evening.

Venanzi Luna, who managed the deli department at the Pico River Super Walmart, said of the announcement: “Everybody just panicked and started crying.”

Walmart released a statement, indicating that full-time and part-time employees will receive two months worth of paid leave. They are also free to look into the possibility of transferring to another Walmart. If they cannot, then some of the former employees – only those who worked full-time – may be eligible for a severance package. When the stores reopen, some may be eligible to return.

“Our goal, of course, as a business is to keep our stores open and serving customers,” the company’s statement read. “We made a tough business decision in five locations around the country to fix recurring plumbing problems in these stores. We understand this decision has been difficult on our associates and our customers and we aim to reopen these stores as soon as these issues are resolved and improvements are made.”

Plumber Codi Bauer, who did previous pipe and drainage work at the now closed Walmart in Brandon, Florida, questioned the repair time frames given.

“Even if they had to replace the whole sewer line, it wouldn't take six months,” Bauer said.

Luna, like many employees, think the plumbing repairs are a smokescreen to weed out employees.

Many local contractors say that for almost all plumbing issues, the store could certainly remain open.

If they were forced to close, then six months is excessive. Brand new Walmarts can be built from the ground up in six month’s time, they say.

Luna said she believes her location was targeted for its involvement in Black Friday protests and demonstrations demanding higher pay. Other employees are coming up with similar thoughts as they find themselves without a job this weekend.

WikiLeaks Republishes Hacked Sony Data In Searchable Database

Cache of data stolen in crippling hack includes emails, company documents, and personal information of studio employees and celebrities.

• by Steven Musil
  @stevenmusil
• April 16, 2015 4:22 PM PDT

Sony condemns WikiLeaks' republishing of data stolen in a crippling hack last year. AFP/Getty Images

WikiLeaks has republished the data stolen in last year's crippling hack of Sony Pictures Entertainment, making all the documents and emails available in a "fully searchable" format.

Although hackers had released the data in raw, bulk form last fall, WikiLeaks -- best known for the release of classified government and military documents - announced Thursday it has published the information in a searchable database called "The Sony Archives." The release of the data cache, which includes 30,287 documents, 173,132 emails, and other sensitive information, proved a disruptive and embarrassing security gaffe for the studio - one that the Japanese electronics and entertainment giant is still trying to contain.

"This archive shows the inner workings of an influential multinational corporation," WikiLeaks editor in chief Julian Assange said in a statement on the website. "It is newsworthy and at the centre of a geo-political conflict. It belongs in the public domain. WikiLeaks will ensure it stays there."

Sony representatives condemned WikiLeaks' republishing the data, calling the initial cyberattack a "malicious criminal act."

"The attackers used the dissemination of stolen information to try to harm SPE and its employees, and now WikiLeaks regrettably is assisting them in that effort," Sony Pictures said in a statement. "We vehemently disagree with WikiLeaks' assertion that this material belongs in the public domain and will continue to fight for the safety, security, and privacy of our company and its more than 6,000 employees."

The security breach, which Sony discovered in late November, turned out to be more serious and pervasive than initially believed, forced Sony to shut down its computer network for several weeks and delay issuing its quarterly results. A group calling itself #GOP, aka "Guardians of Peace," claimed responsibility and said it had obtained internal information. Hackers leaked the personal information -- including Social Security numbers - of more than 47,000 celebrities, freelancers. and current and former Sony employees. They also leaked then-unreleased movies, as well as embarrassing emails between Sony Pictures executives, among other internal documents.

The hackers, which the FBI traced to North Korea, were apparently trying to prevent the release of the satirical movie "The Interview," which depicts actors Seth Rogen and James Franco as TV journalists drawn into a CIA plot to assassinate North Korean leader Kim Jong-un.

In a sternly worded letter sent to news organization in December, Sony Pictures general counsel David Boies referred to the leaked Sony documents as "stolen information" and warned them against any use of the leaked data. Later that month, Boies sent a similar letter to Twitter, warning that if "stolen information continues to be disseminated by Twitter in any manner," Sony "will have no choice but to hold Twitter responsible for any damage or loss arising from such use or dissemination by Twitter."

Despite the negative attention generated by the hack, Sony said in January that it didn't expect the security breach to have a substantial impact on its earnings. While some reports pinned Sony's cost to overcome the hack as high as $100 million, Sony's preliminary fiscal third-quarter financial results in February revealed that the company planned to take a $15 million charge in the current quarter to cover "investigation and remediation costs" related to the breach.

Terrified ‘Tea Party Patriot’ Realizes He Could Lose Healthcare If GOP Wins in 2016

"The Republican Party, they haven’t done nothing for me, man. Nothing."

By Dave Edwards 

A conservative video blogger with over a million views on YouTube said this week that he would likely vote for Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton because he was terrified that a Republican president would take away his affordable health insurance.

James Webb, a 51-year-old YouTube celebrity who devotes his “Hot Lead” channel to topics like his love of guns and ranting about gay men kissing on The Walking Dead, may have shocked his viewers on Monday when he revealed that he was torn over which party to vote for in the 2016 election.

“And I’m serious because I asked myself, ‘Which party has helped me out the most in the last, I don’t know, 15 years, 20?’ And it was the Democrat [SIC] Party,” Webb lamented. “If it wasn’t for Obama and that Obamacare, I would still be working.”

“With Obamacare, I got to retire at age 50 because if it wasn’t for Obamacare, I would have had to work until I was 65 and get on Medicare because health insurance is expensive when you’ve got medical problems,” he continued.

Webb said that he hoped to lose some weight and get in shape by taking advantage of a gym membership that was covered by his health insurance.

“But you know, the Republican Party, they haven’t done nothing for me, man. Nothing,” he remarked. “So, I’m leaning toward voting for Hillary unless something major comes up. I don’t trust the Republicans anymore because they’re wanting to repeal the Obamacare. And I don’t want them to do that, man, because then I’ll have to go to work again. My life’s already planned out.”

“Just a tough decision,” Webb sighed. “I voted for Republicans for 32 years, I’m a charter member of my Tea Party Patriots chapter. I’m also a veteran of the U.S. Army under Reagan, when Reagan was in. That was great when Reagan was in there.”

“Things have changed. So unless the Republicans change with it, I’m probably going to have to swing my vote over toward Hillary.”

Watch the video below from the Hot Lead YouTube channel.

Cops Only Do Bad Things When They’re Being Filmed

The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt - New Gameplay Trailer!

Find out all about The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt's story, characters and the locations all while watching a load of brand new game play.

Paul Ryan's immoral act requires a response

By Egberto Willies



It is hard to believe that Paul Ryan (R-WI) and his ilk would be so blatant in showing that their main purpose in Congress is to serve the wealthy. This is neither hyperbole nor an exaggeration. Matt O'Brien in the Washington Post says it best:

A specter is haunting America's super-rich — the specter of progressive taxation. Don't worry, though, the Republican Party is manning the barricades against this menace. That's been true for the last 35 years, and it's no less so now. Indeed, the Paul Ryan-led House Ways and Means Committee just symbolically voted to end the estate tax entirely. In other words, to stand in solidarity with the heirs of the top 0.2 percent.

That's how many households pay the estate tax now: 2 out of 1,000. Why so low? Well, the first $5.43 million that an individual or $10.86 million that a couple leaves behind isn't taxed when they pass away. The estate tax, with its 40 percent top rate, only kicks in for anything more than that. And even then, creative accountants and big deductions can shield a lot of the rest from Uncle Sam. So it's important to remember that there's a difference between the top marginal tax rate and the effective tax rate that estates pay.

Since the super-rich only owe the estate tax on some of what they own, they actually pay, on average, 16.6 percent of the value of their estate.

Here is the thing: According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, the estate tax repeal would cost $269 billion in reduced revenues between fiscal 2016 and 2025. If one counts the incurred interest on the debt from the deficit it would create, the figure jumps to $320 billion.

Worse, the estate tax repeal affects only 0.2 percent of Americans—in other words, 99.8 percent of Americans get no benefit from said tax cut because they could not possibly inherit, or receive income and capital they did not work for, that would qualify for the estate tax repeal.

At the same time that Ryan and his ilk are willing to donate more financial benefits to their wealthy benefactors, their proposed budget would cut $5 trillion in programs during the same period for low- and moderate-income Americans. They also make deep cuts in investments that strengthen productivity and future economic growth such as education, training, and basic research.

The estate tax repeal is an immoral act. First, the rich did not get wealthy in a vacuum. Absent a system that transfers the value of one's excess labor to the employer/shareholder, the rich would not have more than the working person. As such, they owe our entire society for existing within an economic model that affords them their wealth. Transferring said wealth tax-free upon death to an heir who did not earn it is a supremely immoral act. It is a transfer of unearned wealth without a pay-in to the society that allowed for its existence.

There are over 300 million Americans, and as pointed out by Ed Schultz and Congressman Chris van Hollen, Ryan and his allies are willing to inflict further pain on the poor and the middle class to give free money to about 4,000 super-rich Americans. That is immoral. One can only guess that Ryan and his ilk follow the doctrine of this Christian conservative who believes it’s heresy to deny that God entitles the rich at the expense of the masses.

These politicians will continue acting with disregard for the masses until the masses mobilize with a conviction politicians cannot deny. Mobilization does not only mean street protest, although that is part of it.

Mobilization means doing what you are capable of doing to be a part, however small or large, in forcing a change—hounding your representative on the phone, fax, and via letters. Mobilization means calling into Koch-inspired right-wing talk shows to use their platform to tell the truth, even if you simply get 10 seconds to do so.

Mobilization means voting, and encouraging and taking others to vote. Mobilization means civilly providing truth in a digestible manner to your family, neighbors, and acquaintances anywhere (grocery store, coffee shop, hair salon, barber shop, etc.)

Mobilization means being involved and engaged. Paul Ryan and his allies can lie, confuse, and misinform because enough of us in the grassroots and in the know are not as relentless in enlightening our family, friends, neighbors, and acquaintances. Let's get busy.

Bill Maher’s Bigoted Atheism: His Arrogant Shtick Is Just as Ugly as Religious Intolerance

As the 'Real Time' host and his ilk prove, you don’t need a religion to be in the business of spreading hate.

By Mary Elizabeth Williams

You know what you call someone who makes sweeping generalizations on billions of people based on the extreme actions of a few? A bigot. Bill Maher, for example, is a bigot. And if you’re a fan of his smug, dismissive shtick, you’re a bigot too.

On Friday’s “Real Time,” Maher, who has been openly atheist his whole career but has been increasingly vocal against organized religion in recent years, squared off against Fareed Zakaria, who gave a powerful rebuttal to Maher’s reiteration of the “Islam is the motherlode of bad ideas”assertion.

“My problem with the way you approach it,” Zakaria said, “is I don’t think you’re going to reform a religion by telling 1.6 billion people — most of whom are just devout people who get some inspiration from that religion and go about their daily lives — I don’t think you’re going to change religion by saying your religion is the motherlode of bad ideas, it’s a terrible thing. Frankly, you’re going to make a lot of news for yourself and you’re going to get a lot of applause lines and joke lines.” Instead, he urged, “Push for reform with some sense of respect for the spiritual values.”And on behalf of Muslims, Christians, Jews and anybody else who prays to somebody sometimes, let me just say, thank you.

As the threats of terrorism and right-wing Christianity have risen in the past few years, Maher’s aggressive brand of atheism — also popularized by the likes of Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris — has gained a strong following among a certain type of self-professed intellectual. Maher has famously said, “Religion is dangerous because it allows human beings who don’t have all the answers to think that they do” — which is pretty funny, given the know-it-all arrogance of the anti-religion big leaguers like Maher himself.

As Zakaria very eloquently pointed out, that stance has given Maher more power and reach than he’s ever had in his long career. But whatever you believe or don’t, if you’re selling blanket intolerance, you don’t get to call yourself one of the good guys. You shouldn’t even get to call yourself one of the smart ones.

I’m a Christian, which in my urban, media-centric world is basically equivalent to self-identifying as a hillbilly. It also means that I have to accept that I apply the same word to myself that a lot of hateful morons do. But on Sunday at my little neighborhood church, our priest delivered a sermon in which he said, “I can’t understand how in places like Indiana, people are using Christianity as an excuse to close their doors, when we should be welcoming to everyone.” Guess what? That’s faith too. I am also keenly aware that in other parts of the world, people are being murdered for a faith that I am privileged to practice openly and without fear. And anyone, anywhere, who is openly hateful to others for their religion is part of a culture that permits that kind of persecution to endure.

Here’s what I would like Bill Maher and his smug, self-righteous acolytes to understand. There are literally billions of individuals in this world who are not murderous, ignorant, superstitious, hatemongers, who also happen to practice a religion. Billions of people who I swear — to God — have no investment in forcing their beliefs on Bill Maher. Right here in the U.S., there are millions of my fellow Christians who are strongly committed to the ideals of the Constitution, and who don’t want to live in a theocracy any more than they do.

I recently had a conversation with an atheist friend who asked why, knowing all I do of the wrongs committed by the Catholic Church, disagreeing as strongly as I do with many of its positions on women’s rights, LGBT equality and reproductive justice, I continue to stay within it. And my reply was that this is where I feel I can do the most good. I am not a disinterested party. I’m a citizen of my church and I’m going to continue to demand better of it. I don’t, however, want to sell it to anybody else. You don’t have to believe in God — or however else you may define the concept of something else out there. I don’t have all the answers to life, the universe and everything; I’m just trying to get through this plane of existence in a manner that’s philosophically satisfying and guides me in the direction of not being a selfish jerk. That’s it.

All I ask — all that many, many, many of us who practice their respective religions ask — is that you conduct yourself with respect and compassion and a spirit of coexistence, and we’ll do the same. I ask that you not make assumptions about the vast majority of the world’s population based on your own need to feel good about yourself and how smart you are. Like Zakaria says, you’re not going to bring about reform that way. And as Maher and his ilk prove, you don’t need a religion to be in the business of spreading hate.

Hillary declares for 2016

Hillary's running for president because everyday Americans need a champion—and she wants to be that champion. Watch her announcement video to kick off the campaign.

http://hillaryclinton.com/join/

Ted Cruz Is Practically President Already

If Rand Paul Fucks Up One More Day This Week, He Wins A New Car!

By Gary Legum

Senator Dr. Rand Paul has fucked up in so many ways since kicking off his presidential campaign on Tuesday that we are probably going to be able to write a daily “How Is Rand Paul Fucking Up Today?” feature for this here Wonkette for the next year.

We’re really looking forward to documenting all the ways Paul will fuck up between now and the day next February when he suspends his campaign after finishing ninth in Iowa behind Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio, Ben Carson, Zombie Orval Faubus, and a placemat from a Council Bluffs Denny’s.

Anyway, how has Rand Paul fucked up today, on day three of his galactic fuck-up of a campaign?

• A spot on the Senate Homeland Security Committee is a plum assignment, one that a presidential candidate could really use to burnish his national security credentials during a time when, Republicans keep reminding us, President Golf Bag’s own fuck-ups have made the world such a dangerous place. This could especially be a good spot for a candidate who keeps screaming “BENGHAAAZI!!1!” at Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton. The Republican base loves a person who will scream “BENGHAAAZI!!1!” at Clinton until he is hoarse. So why has Rand Paul skipped 68 of 73 Homeland Security Committee meetings in the last 15 months? An anonymous aide tells BuzzFeed:
  

  In that same timeframe, he has made more than 98 percent of the votes in the Senate and authored more than 50 bills and amendments, all the while maintaining a full schedule of meetings with Kentuckians in his office. When schedules conflict, he has chosen to spend his time hearing the thoughts of Kentuckians.

  Come on, guys. Have you seen that magnificent mop top of Rand Paul’s? Just admit he has to spend a lot of time in the Senate barbershop getting that perm spiffy and the hair curled just so, and all that follicle maintenance takes time away from Homeland Security meetings. We understand he has priorities.
•  
• BuzzFeed also reports the Paul campaign is threatening to sue TV stations that run a commercial made by a Republican group attacking the candidate for not being fully on board with bombing Iran into a rubble-strewn wasteland. The commercial actually uses Paul’s own quotes, and we know how candidates feel about opponents quoting the words that they said with their mouth holes against them. (Hint: They do not care for it!) We don’t think this tactic is going to make the senator look like less of a dick, but he has won exactly one more Senate campaign than we have, so what do we know.

• Some footage in the video Paul showed at his kick-off on Tuesday may have violated rules against Senate members using official government resources for a campaign. At issue is a brief clip of the senator during his 13-hour “filibuster” two years ago over John Brennan’s appointment to head the CIA. According to Time:
  

  “The use of any tape duplication of radio or television coverage of the proceedings of the Senate for political campaign purposes is strictly prohibited,” the Senate Manual states.

  There is no word yet on whether Senate Democrats will lodge an official complaint with the chamber’s Rules Committee or just note this fuck-up and then let the Paul campaign flounder around whining about it.
• 
  
• Paul has made history – dubious who-gives-a-shit history, but apparently history nonetheless – by becoming the first presidential candidate to accept campaign donations in Bitcoin through his website. As the New York Times points out, this does raise some questions about whether some tech-savvy contributors could use the relative anonymity of Bitcoin to get around donation limits.The campaign has limited online Bitcoin donations to $100, but as one election law expert points out, the currency is essentially untraceable. Could motivated dudebros get around this limit through straw donors and multiple accounts? The Times seems split on the issue. In any case, Bitcoin is still new enough that the amount Paul is likely to collect is probably pretty small. This only becomes a major fuck-up if anyone decides to care.

• Following up on that fuck-up from Wednesday when Paul gave his prickly interview with Savannah Guthrie, the ladies on Fox’s “Outnumbered” today went on the air to say that … the senator is the one who looked bad in the exchange? Hang on, we’re going to slap our face a few times and re-watch the video. Okay, yes! 
•  
• We can confirm (EXCLUSIVE! MUST CREDIT WONKETTE!) that Rand Paul was such a dick to Guthrie that even Andrea Tantaros noticed. Even Andrea Tantaros thinks the senator needs to work on his temperament, particularly with women reporters. It’s bad optics, which as Yr Doktor Zoom points out, is an area that one would think an eye doctor would be particularly concerned with. There does seem to be a split here amongst right-wing females on this point. Disagreeing with Tantaros is Megyn Kelly, who interviewed Rand Paul on her show last night and gave him some free advice, just in case there is anyone out there who still pretends Fox is not a propaganda organ for the Republican Party.
  

  “Chuck Todd came out and said you had to be careful because you attacked two prominent female interviewers. The Guardian said you were condescending to female reporters,” Kelly told Paul.

  “I, as a female reporter, would say to Chuck Todd and The Guardian, we don’t need your help. Savannah Guthrie doesn’t need your help. Kelly Evans doesn’t need your help, and you are entitled to push back on the interviewer just as much as you would if you are a man.”

  Also on his side is – ugh – Dana Loesch. Always a good ally to have if you want to run your campaign directly into a wall.
  Sure, being a combative, bad-tempered jackwagon in interviews is a great strategy for winning an election. Just ask President John McCain. For the record, yr Wonkette is split on this issue. While we agree that Rand Paul’s dickishness knows no gender bias, some of us also can’t imagine him shushing a male reporter the way he did to Kelly Evans on CNBC recently. But the fact this will remain an issue until Paul gets through one interview with a woman without turning into Sean Connery in Goldfinger is a pretty major fuck-up.

Join us again tomorrow, when Rand Paul will surely fuck something else up.
[Buzzfeed / Buzzfeed again / Time / New York Times / TPM]

Big banks require tellers to use predatory practices

By Moyers & Company

Front-line workers at our nation’s big banks — tellers, loan interviewers and customer service representatives — are required by their employers to exploit customers, according to a revealing report out today from the Center for Popular Democracy (CPD). Big banks have internal systems of penalties and rewards that entice employees to push subprime loans and credit cards on customers who would be better off without them.

CPD’s report outlines several illegal predatory practices big banks have been caught employing, usually via their front-line workers:

• Blatantly discriminatory lending:
  In 2011 and 2012, Bank of America and Wells Fargo paid out settlements for charging higher rates and fees to tens of thousands of African American and Hispanic borrowers than to similarly qualified white customers. Minority customers were also more likely to be steered into (more expensive, riskier) subprime mortgages.
• Manipulating payment processing to maximize overdraft charges:
  When a savings account balance drops too low, the bank charges a hefty overdraft fee on each subsequent purchase. Both Bank of America and US Bank paid settlements for intentionally processing customers’ largest debit card payments first, regardless of chronological order, in order to hit $0 faster and maximize overdraft fees. US Bank was also accused of allowing debit card purchases on zero-balance accounts to go through (and incur overdraft fees), instead of denying the charges upfront.
• Forcing sale of unneeded products:
  Wells Fargo, JP Morgan Chase and Citigroup were accused of forcing customers to purchase overpriced property insurance.
• Manipulative sales quotas:
  Lawsuits show Wells Fargo and Bank of America created incentive programs for employees with the interests of the company — not the customer — in mind. Wells Fargo’s sales quotas encouraged bank workers to steer prime-eligible customers to subprime loans, while falsifying other clients’ income information without their knowledge. Bank of America’s “Hustle” program rewarded quantity over quality, encouraging workers to skip processes and checks intended to protect the borrower.

Instead of cutting back on the risky, unethical practices that led to the Great Recession, the CPD report asserts that big banks have not learned from their mistakes. Bank workers report higher levels of sales pressure in 2013 than in 2008, and most do not have the job security or seniority to simply refuse to hawk credit cards or steer customers into risky financial situations. While the financial sector is turning near-record profits, the average bank teller made just $12.25 an hour in 2013 (a real-dollar decrease from 2007), causing 31 percent of tellers’ families to rely on public assistance. What’s more, 85 percent of these underpaid front-line bank employees are women, and one-third are people of color. Most are in no position to risk losing their job or having their pay docked for stepping out of line.

Several anonymous big bank employees went into detail about how their employers incentivize sales:

• An HSBC employee reported that when workers fell short of sales goals, the difference was taken out of their paychecks.
• A teller at a major bank said she is expected to sell three new checking, savings, or debit card accounts every day. If she falls short, she gets written up.
• Customer service representatives at one major bank’s call-center said everyone is expected to make at least 40 percent of the sales of the top seller. Credit card sales count for extra, encouraging callers to push credit cards on customers who would be better served with checking or savings accounts.
• A call-center worker said she offers a credit card to every customer, regardless of whether it would be beneficial. She explained: “If you aren’t offering, you can get marked down — the managers and Quality Analysts listen to your call, and can tell if you aren’t offering.”

“We’re not servicing their needs,” said one front-line worker. “What they want, what they need, isn’t important to us. Selling them a product is … Some of our customers just have their savings, many are just retirees.”

As the report concludes, “Our nation’s big banks are committed to a model that jeopardizes our communities and prevents bank employees from having a voice in their workplace.”

April 9, 2015 by Katie Rose Quandt
This post first appeared on BillMoyers.com.

Could Rand Paul’s Incoherence Be An Asset?

By Taegan Goddard

Marc Ambinder: “As the press struggles to label him, Paul’s plunge into the primaries has the potential to upconvert his opponents. His value to Republicans is that his final position on a number of issues cannot be predicted from his past statements. This is valuable, and not a knock against him, because his unpredictability will force the rest of the field to respond in real time to a politician who seems willing to change his mind.”

“Paul can’t quite acknowledge his penchant for inconsistency, because there’s a convention in politics that equates consistency with strength. But it’s perhaps his most genuine quality.”

Boston Globe: Paul’s tough task in New Hampshire

Package Installer through WebKit

By Reprep · April 8, 2015

Do you remember the last time you heard about the WebKit exploit of Vita? Was it the Pong? It seems our good friend SMOKE is baking something.

It has been sometime since the WebKit on Vita has been exploited. This WebKit exploit works up to 3.20 firmware. Even though the progress continues, we rarely hear about it.

If you are following SMOKE on twitter, you must have noticed he is into Vita hacking lately. He posted a video where he manages to open Package Installer through WebKit.

I can already hear you saying we can run Package Installer through the e-mail application. That is true, but the e-mail application was introduced in Vita Firmware 2.00, and this is confirmed to work on 1.80. Without further ado, I present you the video:



You can contact SMOKE through his twitter account, he says he can share the script if you have a 1.80 Vita.



For more info about the WebKit exploit, visit the thread on /talk or go to the github page of Vitasploit.

MSNBC Analyst Found Dead From Self-Inflicted Gunshot Wound

By Andrew Kirell

Prominent attorney and frequent MSNBC legal analyst John “Jay” Fahy was found dead of a self-inflicted gunshot near his office in Rutherford, N.J on Wednesday afternoon.

Fahy was a frequent guest on MSNBC, most recently appearing to discuss George Zimmerman‘s now-concluded second-degree murder trial. His body was discovered under a railroad bridge, little more than 300 yards from his office. He was discovered by two juveniles.

Bergen County Prosecutor John L. Molinelli confirmed the death, which he said was “the result of a single gunshot wound to the head, fired with a handgun.”

A close associate of Fahy’s expressed bewilderment at his colleague’s death: “I feel like I just lost my brother,” the unidentified person told the Cliffview Pilot. “Everybody’s in tears right now.”

“Something happened in the last two weeks,” the person added. “But none of us can figure out what it is.”

Police have indicated that there doesn’t appear to be any evidence of foul play. But the investigation is ongoing.

Fahy was once the Bergen County Prosecutor, and before that, the chief of the political corruption unit at the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Newark, N.J. Most recently, he worked at his firm Fahy Choi, LLC, before which he was a partner at Cole Schotz Meisel Forman & Leonard, PA; Water McPherson McNeill, PC and Reed Smith LLP.

Man Commits Suicide, Blames Casino and Loss of Free Buffet for Life

By Josh Feldman

A Las Vegas man committed suicide and, in material he left behind, blamed the M Resort Spa Casino, its employees, and the fact that he ended up being banned from free buffets for life.

John Noble had apparently won free buffets for life, but according to The Las Vegas Review-Journal, he was banned two years ago after he harassed some of the female employees.

Noble caused a panic when he committed suicide on Sunday because he took out a gun and killed himself at the buffet. When authorities arrived on the scene, his car outside was burning.

Noble mailed a lengthy suicide note to the Review-Journal, replete with “a table of contents, photographs and a two-hour DVD of him talking about his troubles.” He had reportedly gone after employees of the casino online and was harassing them, even posting their personal information online.

In all the documents the Review-Journal received, Noble “spells out all the harm he wishes on those he believed wronged him,” including multiple female employees who worked at the buffet.

You can watch parts of his video message here, via the Las Vegas Review-Journal:



If you or someone you know is struggling with suicidal thoughts, make sure to reach out to the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline here.

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.