One of the most powerful Republicans in Pennsylvania could introduce legislation
next month to reallocate his state's electoral votes. Ed Schultz explains how it works
and why 5 other states have abandoned the idea. Contributing writer for The
Nation Magazine, Ari Berman, explains how the plan puts Democrats and voters at
a disadvantage.
Wednesday, February 6, 2013
Most Americans Now Fear The Government
By Wendy Gittleson
Glenn Beck and Alex Jones might be hawking overpriced “survival seeds,” but you can be sure that the only seeds they are personally planting sprout a big, ugly strain of paranoia. That paranoia is growing – so much so that the majority of Americans now believe that the big, bad gubmint is out to take away their rights.
Please allow me to submit Exhibit One – Alex Jones on a five-hour
freakout. You don’t have to watch the entire five hours. In fact, the
first 15 seconds or so will give you an idea, but trust me, there are
plenty of Americans who have listened to five hours.
Or there is this from Glenn Beck:
Obviously, I could go on. There’s Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter and who could forget the Tea Partiers…right there, destroying the government from within.
According to an irony-filled poll conducted by Pew Research, a full 53% of Americans believe that the government is out to take away their rights. 43% feel that the government is more benign. That is almost a direct reversal from 2003 (during the George W. Bush administration), when the numbers were 45% and 54%, respectively.
Here’s where the irony starts: Despite the GOP’s laser focus on
eliminating women’s reproductive rights, men are more likely to feel
that their rights will be stripped away.
Despite the fact that minorities are most likely to be wrongfully incarcerated, it’s white people who are most likely to fear for their freedom. Ditto for young people and older people.
Republicans fear the government more than Democrats. Gun owners more than non-gun owners.
Most significant though, was the partisan divide - which of course, goes back to Alex Jones and Glenn Beck.
The growing view that the federal government threatens personal rights and freedoms has been led by conservative Republicans. Currently 76% of conservative Republicans say that the federal government threatens their personal rights and freedoms and 54% describe the government as a “major” threat. Three years ago, 62% of conservative Republicans said the government was a threat to their freedom; 47% said it was a major threat.
By comparison, there has been little change in opinions among Democrats; 38% say the government poses a threat to personal rights and freedoms and just 16% view it as a major threat. [Source]
In Republicans’ defense, it was Democrats who distrusted the government during the Bush administration, but instead of fearing the government, dissatisfied liberals expressed anger.
There is one thing everyone agrees upon though – Congress doesn’t work.
Glenn Beck and Alex Jones might be hawking overpriced “survival seeds,” but you can be sure that the only seeds they are personally planting sprout a big, ugly strain of paranoia. That paranoia is growing – so much so that the majority of Americans now believe that the big, bad gubmint is out to take away their rights.
Or there is this from Glenn Beck:
Obviously, I could go on. There’s Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter and who could forget the Tea Partiers…right there, destroying the government from within.
According to an irony-filled poll conducted by Pew Research, a full 53% of Americans believe that the government is out to take away their rights. 43% feel that the government is more benign. That is almost a direct reversal from 2003 (during the George W. Bush administration), when the numbers were 45% and 54%, respectively.
Despite the fact that minorities are most likely to be wrongfully incarcerated, it’s white people who are most likely to fear for their freedom. Ditto for young people and older people.
Republicans fear the government more than Democrats. Gun owners more than non-gun owners.
Most significant though, was the partisan divide - which of course, goes back to Alex Jones and Glenn Beck.
The growing view that the federal government threatens personal rights and freedoms has been led by conservative Republicans. Currently 76% of conservative Republicans say that the federal government threatens their personal rights and freedoms and 54% describe the government as a “major” threat. Three years ago, 62% of conservative Republicans said the government was a threat to their freedom; 47% said it was a major threat.
By comparison, there has been little change in opinions among Democrats; 38% say the government poses a threat to personal rights and freedoms and just 16% view it as a major threat. [Source]
In Republicans’ defense, it was Democrats who distrusted the government during the Bush administration, but instead of fearing the government, dissatisfied liberals expressed anger.
Sunday, February 3, 2013
Geraldo for Senate?
Geraldo Rivera expresses interest in running for Senate in 2014, and The Ed Show has obtained a (fake) exclusive copy of Geraldo Rivera's first campaign ad for United States Senate!
Friday, February 1, 2013
GOP could be in need of storm aid
A huge stretch of severe storms ripped through the east coast yesterday with
some of the worst damage happening in Georgia. Every entire Republican
delegation from the state of Georgia, with the exception of Rep. Jack Kingston
voted against Sandy aid.
Ed Schultz gives his thoughts on what should happen if the state of Georgia ends up needing federal assistance.
Ed Schultz gives his thoughts on what should happen if the state of Georgia ends up needing federal assistance.
Thursday, January 31, 2013
Jindal plans cuts for the poor
Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal is planning big cuts to Medicaid that would have
a devastating impact on his state's poorest citizens. “Tha Hip Hop Doc” Dr. Rani
Whitfield of the National Association of Free Clinics tells Ed Schultz what
these cuts mean for Louisiana.
Wednesday, January 30, 2013
'Dead-Eye Dick' Cheney Asked For Gun Control Advice
By David
Dick Cheney may have accidentally shot a man in the face while he was vice president, but that didn't stop Fox News from flying to Nevada to get his advice on recently-proposed gun control laws.
Fox News correspondent Griff Jenkins caught up with Cheney over the week at the Safari Club International convention for gun owners and manufacturers, where the former vice president and his daughter, Liz, participated in a discussion about gun rights and the realism of torture in the film "Zero Dark Thirty."
Cheney told Jenkins he was "worried" about President Barack Obama's efforts to increase gun safety.
"We may end up in a situation where you get a proposal or a proposition that does, in fact, threaten the rights of law-abiding Americans, and at the same time, doesn't do anything with respect to the problem everybody's concerned about, such as the shooting that happened in Connecticut," the Wyoming Republican said.
"I find especially in groups like the group here and an awful lot of my folks in Wyoming who supported me all those years in Congress are very, very concerned that there isn't adequate regard for the rights of law-abiding citizens," he added. "We understand that there's clearly an effort underway, but one of the things we've done in Wyoming -- with respect to Jackson Hole, where I live, with respect to safety of schools -- we have a deputy sheriff, armed deputy sheriff at the schools in the city. And that's probably a more effective deterrent than anything that Congress seems to be debating at the present time."
"How worried are you the President Obama's gun control plan threatens the Second Amendment rights of every law-abiding American?" Jenkins asked.
"I think a lot of people are worried," Cheney said, pointing to a recent ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit which found that Obama had violated the Constitution by making recess appointments while lawmakers were using gimmick to keep Congress in session over the holidays.
"So I think the concern is very real and very legitimate, that the administration sometimes isn't as cautious or as precise, if you will," Cheney opined.
While on a 2006 hunting trip for quail in Texas, Cheney mistakenly shot 78 year old Harry Whittington in the face.
"I am the guy who pulled the trigger and shot my friend," he later told Fox News. "That is something I will never forget."
Dick Cheney may have accidentally shot a man in the face while he was vice president, but that didn't stop Fox News from flying to Nevada to get his advice on recently-proposed gun control laws.
Fox News correspondent Griff Jenkins caught up with Cheney over the week at the Safari Club International convention for gun owners and manufacturers, where the former vice president and his daughter, Liz, participated in a discussion about gun rights and the realism of torture in the film "Zero Dark Thirty."
Cheney told Jenkins he was "worried" about President Barack Obama's efforts to increase gun safety.
"We may end up in a situation where you get a proposal or a proposition that does, in fact, threaten the rights of law-abiding Americans, and at the same time, doesn't do anything with respect to the problem everybody's concerned about, such as the shooting that happened in Connecticut," the Wyoming Republican said.
"I find especially in groups like the group here and an awful lot of my folks in Wyoming who supported me all those years in Congress are very, very concerned that there isn't adequate regard for the rights of law-abiding citizens," he added. "We understand that there's clearly an effort underway, but one of the things we've done in Wyoming -- with respect to Jackson Hole, where I live, with respect to safety of schools -- we have a deputy sheriff, armed deputy sheriff at the schools in the city. And that's probably a more effective deterrent than anything that Congress seems to be debating at the present time."
"How worried are you the President Obama's gun control plan threatens the Second Amendment rights of every law-abiding American?" Jenkins asked.
"I think a lot of people are worried," Cheney said, pointing to a recent ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit which found that Obama had violated the Constitution by making recess appointments while lawmakers were using gimmick to keep Congress in session over the holidays.
"So I think the concern is very real and very legitimate, that the administration sometimes isn't as cautious or as precise, if you will," Cheney opined.
While on a 2006 hunting trip for quail in Texas, Cheney mistakenly shot 78 year old Harry Whittington in the face.
"I am the guy who pulled the trigger and shot my friend," he later told Fox News. "That is something I will never forget."
36 Republicans vote no on disaster aid for victims of Hurricane Sandy
36 Republicans vote no on disaster aid for victims of Hurricane Sandy.
Yet, most of those "no" votes voted "yes" when it came to disaster relief for
their own constituents. Ed Schultz looks into the hypocrisy, and discusses it
with Salon's Joan Walsh.
Civil rights on the factory floor
Some employees in Canton, Miss., say they want a fair vote on whether or not to
unionize. But several workers report feeling pressured to vote down a union.
What are their rights?
Ed Schultz explains why this has become a serious civil rights issue and talks to Betty Jones, a worker from the Canton plant, as well as Derrick Johnson, the President of the Mississippi State NAACP.
Ed Schultz explains why this has become a serious civil rights issue and talks to Betty Jones, a worker from the Canton plant, as well as Derrick Johnson, the President of the Mississippi State NAACP.
Tuesday, January 29, 2013
Rewriting Sarah Palin's future
Sarah Palin has gone from being what MSNBC's Lawrence O'Donnell called "the most
recent losing vice presidential candidate who will never be president" to
someone who has "has lost even the slightest connection to political relevance"
now that she's been dropped as a political pundit by FOX News. He explains in
the Rewrite.
Monday, January 28, 2013
How Not to Panic as Your Party Seems to Be Collapsing
By Garrett Epps
Rick Snyder, Scott Walker, John Kasich -- would you rather be remembered like John Jay or like Reince Priebus?
Portrait of John Jay by Gilbert Stuart, 1794 (The National Gallery of Art)
Everyone in American politics wants to follow the example of the Founding Generation. Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell seems to have done so over the weekend. The lesson came from John Jay, one of the co-authors of The Federalist. Here's hoping McDonnell introduces Jay to fellow Republican Governors Tom Corbett of Pennsylvania, Scott Walker of Wisconsin, Rick Snyder of Michigan, and John Kasich of Ohio.
Rick Snyder, Scott Walker, John Kasich -- would you rather be remembered like John Jay or like Reince Priebus?
Portrait of John Jay by Gilbert Stuart, 1794 (The National Gallery of Art)Everyone in American politics wants to follow the example of the Founding Generation. Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell seems to have done so over the weekend. The lesson came from John Jay, one of the co-authors of The Federalist. Here's hoping McDonnell introduces Jay to fellow Republican Governors Tom Corbett of Pennsylvania, Scott Walker of Wisconsin, Rick Snyder of Michigan, and John Kasich of Ohio.
Jay, then serving as Governor of New York, protected his
own reputation by blocking a Federalist Party plan to rig the Electoral
College in 1800. In so doing, he left a lesson for today's Republicans,
which might be called "How Not to Panic as Your Party Seems to Be
Collapsing."
In 1800, the Federalist Party -- which had governed the
new nation since the Constitution took effect in 1789 -- found itself
facing many of the same forces that seem to be undoing Republicans
today: demographic changes, regional migration, immigration, and the
memory of a failed administration.
The Jeffersonian Republicans had the
wind at their back, led by the terrifying Thomas Jefferson (whom
Alexander Hamilton called "an atheist in religion and a fanatic in
politics").
Jay enters the story when Hamilton had a nifty idea to
hold onto power. On May 7, 1800, Hamilton wrote Governor Jay to warn
that Federalists had lost control of the state legislature in the recent
election. This disaster, he said, "will bring Jefferson into the
Chief Magistracy, unless it be prevented by . . . the immediate calling
together of the existing legislature." The old legislators, before they
left office, could change New York's electoral-vote system. Instead of
selection of a single statewide slate by the legislature, they could
award electoral votes by the popular vote by Congressional district. "I
am aware that there are weighty objections to the measure," Hamilton
admitted; but "in times like these in which we live, it will not do to
be overscrupulous."
Jay, a better politician than Hamilton ever was, never
committed an answer to paper. But on the back of the letter, he wrote,
"Proposing a measure for party purposes which it would not become me to
adopt."
On Friday, Bob McDonnell seemed to doom a plan by Virginia
legislators to use the old Hamilton scam -- awarding electoral votes by
district -- in future elections in Virginia. The Governor, a spokesman declared, "believes Virginia's existing system works just fine as it is. He does not believe there is any need for a change."
Jay and McDonnell's words should warn other GOP governors
of blue states, who are being urged to try to swing the next
presidential election by congressional-district electoral-vote plans.
Republican Chairman Reince Priebus, looking at the electoral map, is in a
distinctly Hamiltonian mood. The congressional-district switcheroo, he said recently, is "something that a lot of states that have been consistently blue that are fully controlled red ought to be looking at."
As Nate Silver points out in Sunday's New York Times,
the congressional-district plan, if implemented in 2012 by Florida,
Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Wisconsin -- all of which
meet Priebus's "blue-but-red-controlled" criterion -- would have made
Mitt Romney President, even if Obama still obtained, as he did, an
absolute majority of the popular vote.
McDonnell's decision may put the brakes on a
congressional-district-vote stampede. But there is still enthusiasm in
some GOP circles for this sort of trick. One can see why: It's a lot
easier than confronting the long-term political trends that seem to be
hustling the Republican Party into the Great Caucus Room above where the
Federalists and the Whigs still hold their spectral meetings.
But it has a number of problems. It is dishonorable. It
would weaken our nation's commitment to principled application of the
Constitution. It would produce a political backlash. And worst of all,
considering this is politics, it probably wouldn't work.
Hamilton's scheme -- "the most high-handed and
undemocratic act of his career," according to biographer Ron Chernow --
is a permanent blot on the record of a distinguished Founder. Republican
governors like McDonnell may be asking themselves whether history will
judge them as more like Jay or more like Reince Priebus.
The Republican Party may very well right itself without
tricks or thuggery. Or it may disappear. That happened to the
Federalists, who never won another national election. Hamilton, ever the
hothead, followed his party into darkness; he provoked a fatal duel
with Aaron Burr in 1804.
Jay, on the other hand, retired to Westchester County,
lived another three decades, and died, honored by all, at the age of 83.
He is remembered as the man who signed the treaties that guaranteed
American independence. He refused to pervert his constitutional power
for "party purposes."
Today's Republicans might profit by his example.
Sunday, January 27, 2013
Scientology Drags Out Old Playbook In Response To New Exposé
By Lorraine Devon Wilke
There are few organizations that elicit the combustible mix of disdain, curiosity, horror and sheer confusion quite like Scientology. A “church” whose methodology hews more closely to high-priced self-help seminars than the God-based spirituality of traditional churches, this brainchild of controversial “rainman,” L. Ron Hubbard, truly is the poster-child religion of our modern times.
Complete with salacious stories of its highest-profile celebrities, tabloid tit-for-tats in response to media dissention, mob-like retaliation against heretics and “apostates” (as they so often brand their former members), it relies on a response playbook that can always be counted on in the face of journalistic exposé.
The most recent brouhaha has erupted in response to the just released book, Going Clear – Scientology, Hollywood, and the Prison of Belief by Lawrence Wright, a staff writer at The New Yorker and author of The Looming Tower: Al-Qaeda and the Road to 9/11, which won the 2007 Pulitzer Prize for General Nonfiction and was named one of Time’s Top 100 Books of all time.
Clearly a guy with some bona fides.
As the story goes, Wright, in his position as a staff writer for The New Yorker, wrote a piece called “The Apostate” on Oscar-winning writer/director Paul Haggis’ explosive exit from Scientology back in 2009; it won the 2012 National Magazine Award and became the basis of Wright’s new book.
Haggis, as you may know, is one of the most famous people to come out against Scientology; a top-line writer/director whose long career in Hollywood began in TV (most notably on the iconic 80s series, thirtysomething) and later moved in films. He won two screenplay Oscars (one for Clint Eastwood’s Million Dollar Baby, the other for Crash), as well as a directing Oscar for Crash. He is credible, smart, and very articulate on both his reasons for joining and leaving the organization, which he boldly labels a “cult.”
See his video interview with NBC’s Harry Smith:
Follow Lorraine Devon Wilke on Twitter, Facebook and Rock+Paper+Music; for her archive at Addicting info click here; details and links to her other work: www.lorrainedevonwilke.com.
There are few organizations that elicit the combustible mix of disdain, curiosity, horror and sheer confusion quite like Scientology. A “church” whose methodology hews more closely to high-priced self-help seminars than the God-based spirituality of traditional churches, this brainchild of controversial “rainman,” L. Ron Hubbard, truly is the poster-child religion of our modern times.
Complete with salacious stories of its highest-profile celebrities, tabloid tit-for-tats in response to media dissention, mob-like retaliation against heretics and “apostates” (as they so often brand their former members), it relies on a response playbook that can always be counted on in the face of journalistic exposé.
The most recent brouhaha has erupted in response to the just released book, Going Clear – Scientology, Hollywood, and the Prison of Belief by Lawrence Wright, a staff writer at The New Yorker and author of The Looming Tower: Al-Qaeda and the Road to 9/11, which won the 2007 Pulitzer Prize for General Nonfiction and was named one of Time’s Top 100 Books of all time.
Clearly a guy with some bona fides.
As the story goes, Wright, in his position as a staff writer for The New Yorker, wrote a piece called “The Apostate” on Oscar-winning writer/director Paul Haggis’ explosive exit from Scientology back in 2009; it won the 2012 National Magazine Award and became the basis of Wright’s new book.
Haggis, as you may know, is one of the most famous people to come out against Scientology; a top-line writer/director whose long career in Hollywood began in TV (most notably on the iconic 80s series, thirtysomething) and later moved in films. He won two screenplay Oscars (one for Clint Eastwood’s Million Dollar Baby, the other for Crash), as well as a directing Oscar for Crash. He is credible, smart, and very articulate on both his reasons for joining and leaving the organization, which he boldly labels a “cult.”
See his video interview with NBC’s Harry Smith:
That’s the set-up: two intelligent, highly
honored, very credible men taking on one of the most notorious churches
in the world, and how does Scientology respond? As it always does:
attacking the messengers.
The Daily Beast very graciously (in this writer’s opinion) ran an editorial from Scientology spokesperson, Karen Pouw,
in which she runs the standard Scientology playbook: everyone’s lying,
he’s lying, anyone with criticism is an “apostate” or a “disgruntled
suppressive person”; small factual mistakes are blown up into evidence
of larger “untruths,” and no one, NO ONE who has ever left the church
could possibly be speaking the truth. It’s the usual litany typically
spewed from various sources within the church when anyone writes
anything negative about the organization, but with a book and author
this high-profile, all wheels must be spinning. The Daily Beast did their own analysis of Pouw’s rebuttal to Wright’s facts in, “Scientology vs. Lawrence Wright” … see what you think.
Before I go any further, let me offer some
disclosure: I was an active member of Scientology for 10 years,
extending from my early to late 20s. While I had some significantly
negative experiences while a member, I left without any particular
fanfare or backlash (I apparently wasn’t high-profile enough!). I had
many friends within the organization who are now also out, many of whom
I’m still close with. Some had very negative experiences, others less
dramatic. I knew many good people while there; I knew many not-so-good
people. I left, quite simply, because it ultimately did not represent my
worldview, it did not offer me what I was looking for, and in my
personal experience, compassion for those outside the church was
lacking. It took years to fully deprogram my thinking, as it did for
everyone I knew, and I still find myself stunned by their antipathy
towards many methods of human healing, talk therapy in particular. Their
darker, more insidious abuses are known and documented and merit the
exact kind of exposure offered by Lawrence Wright’s book.
And with that insider perspective, I view the imbroglio over Going Clear with no surprise. Beyond The Daily Beast, the church also got in touch with The Atlantic
magazine in late 2012 to purchase advertising space to coincide with
the release of Wright’s book. Clearly this was meant to counteract – or
perhaps, lure – the attention of interested readers. The Atlantic agreed in good faith, but what was supposed to be advertising turned out to be a rather shamefaced editorial called “David Miscavige Leads Scientology to Milestone Year” (Miscavige is the group’s “ecclesiastical leader”), a journalistic embarrassment for The Atlantic that was widely mocked and ultimately taken down, as reported by The Huffington Post. The Atlantic further apologized with an unusually chagrined statement:
Regarding an advertisement from the Church of Scientology that appeared on TheAtlantic.com on January 14: We screwed up. It shouldn’t have taken a wave of constructive criticism — but it has — to alert us that we’ve made a mistake, possibly several mistakes. We now realize that as we explored new forms of digital advertising, we failed to update the policies that must govern the decisions we make along the way. It’s safe to say that we are thinking a lot more about these policies after running this ad than we did beforehand. In the meantime, we have decided to withdraw the ad until we figure all of this out. We remain committed to and enthusiastic about innovation in digital advertising, but acknowledge—sheepishly—that we got ahead of ourselves. We are sorry, and we’re working very hard to put things right.
Notwithstanding the mortifying snafu, one of Atlantic’s top writers, Jeffrey Goldberg, took to his own page in defense of his colleague:
Working with Lawrence Wright was one of the great pleasures of my journalism career. Even before I met Larry, at the New Yorker, I was a great admirer of his, and my admiration only grew as I got to know him personally, and as I watched him work. There is no more careful reporter in the world than Larry, and no one who is as thorough and as indefatigable.
That said, apparently Wright did get some
dates wrong (damn that copy editor!), which gave Pouw and others their
opening to editorially smear the writer. But the big facts, the salient
points, the major issues? Like any good journalist, he put in his
research work and has solid facts to back up his assertions. And while
there’s plenty of material to cull (just Google “L. Ron Hubbard” or
“Scientology” and the bombardment is biblical!), getting at the truth
of Scientology, particularly from sources within the church is,
frankly, impossible. Adherents are typically blind followers, mandated
explicitly and implicitly to speak positively of the church under all
circumstances. In my years of involvement, we were not only so
thoroughly programmed to not have any criticisms, to express it
publicly if we did was considered heresy and could result in all manner
of undesirable consequences. Given that, unbiased, objective opinions
from those still “inside” is literally not possible. Wright eludes to
that in response to the criticism from church spokeswoman, Pouw:
Pouw’s overall complaint is that Wright refused assistance and never attempted to contact the church to confirm facts, other than asking “about a dozen esoteric and obtuse” fact-checking questions.
“I don’t know how many times she’s said that we only asked 12 fact-checking questions. We asked about 160! It’s just such a blatant lie that it makes me puzzled,” says Wright. He says the church provided little help, either responding to his inquiries after long delays, disputing the legitimacy of his questions, or not responding at all. “What they really wanted, again and again, was a list of my sources. And I wasn’t going to give that to them.”
Wright acknowledges Pouw’s point that his publishers in the U.K. and Canada have decided to pull the book because of legal concerns.
“It’s a big project to write, essentially, a history of a hostile organization that hides its data and tries to mislead you about its past. And if I’ve made mistakes they will be corrected,” says Wright. “But it is a monumental task to try to get at the truth of what goes on inside Scientology.” [Source. Emphasis added.]
Surely one of the most difficult things for
the uninitiated to understand is how intelligent, well-meaning people
ever end up in this organization in the first place. In a Salon interview with L. Ron Hubbard’s great-grandson, Jamie DeWolf, (L. Ron Hubbard’s great-grandson: Scientology is a brainwashing “cult”), the following points are made:
DeWolf said that Scientology leaders “prey on narcissism….[You’re] told you’re a God-like creature.”
DeWolf also explained how Scientology specifically tries to rope in celebrities, though they are often “insulated from the nastier aspects of it.” DeWolf said Elvis Presley turned down an offer to join Scientology.
But I and others have
often found it gut-wrenching to watch any one of the famous who sit in
judgment of others in service of their defense of the church; giggling
in dismissal of questions about the “dark side” of Scientology, when I,
as many do, personally know, have witnessed or, in some cases,
experienced that “dark side.” And there’s your narcissism: “my
experience has been fabulous so they must all be liars.” It’s akin to
the sibling of an abused child dismissing that child’s experience by
saying, “Daddy never touched me so you must be lying!” (and not such an
extreme example.)
What would have more integrity is if one of
the interviewed celebrities told Barbara Walters: “I have not
personally experienced a dark side, but if someone else has, that’s
horrible and I hope they and the church work together to make it right.”
Or how amazing would it be if the spokespeople of Scientology came out and sincerely and honestly said:
“There are many good people in the church doing their best to do create positive change in the world. As in many large organizations, mistakes have been made, policies have been poorly implemented, unethical people have perverted the intent of good rules, and people have been hurt. We are deeply sorry for any hurt or damage that has been inflicted upon any current or former member of this organization, and will do everything possible to rectify that hurt and damage. We move forward with a goal of transparency and compassion and welcome any questions or suggestions.”
Can you imagine?? But that will never happen.
Because this organization is not built on the notion of transparency,
compassion and truth. Its very DNA is subsumed in the secrecy of
invention, built on the foundation of science fiction, fantasy and
obfuscation and true spirituality cannot thrive in that atmosphere. In a
fascinating piece in the Daily Beast that documents the “tall tales”
told by Scientology’s L. Ron Hubbard while he was a member of the
Explorers Club of New York City, his fantastical and highly creative
“history” is explored in detailed text and compelling photographs. I
urge you to take a look; it’s quite entertaining!
For many of us watching the rollout of
Wright’s book from the sidelines, it’s interesting to see what “guns”
the church pulls out this time in their exhaustive quest to shoot down
criticism. Their predictable script, however, not only rings hollow
after so many years of the same, it works to further alienate and create
disdain. This is an organization that’s spent years in the practice of
annihilating its enemies and is rife with written policy on just how to
do that. Pre-Internet, that usually involved mob-like tactics of
personal and professional harassment that often led to extreme duress
and incendiary lawsuits. More recently, with the ubiquity of information
available online, the church has been less successful in shutting down
critical content; in fact, even its most mysterious and arcane spiritual
philosophy regarding evil lords named Xenu and exploding volcanoes,
once so secret it was considered deadly to reveal before a student was
properly prepared, is now splattered all over the web in every
permutation available. So far no one has died from reading.
The point is: like other controversial
groups with zealot followers and blind allegiance as a mandate, the
church of Scientology, as seen from the outside, is an extremist cult
that dissembles for the sake of protecting its secrets. Transparency can
only exist in an organization that has nothing to hide and a
willingness to welcome and embrace all interested parties. But, as
Lawrence Wright discovered, “…it is a monumental task to try to get at
the truth of what goes on inside Scientology.” [Source]
As for Going Clear, perhaps the words of reviewer James Kirchick at The Daily Beast are the most instructive to conclude:
But it is precisely Wright’s measured tone, his use of a scalpel instead of a hammer to dissect Scientology and its manifold abuses, which renders his conclusions all the more damning. Acknowledging that members of a religion can “believe whatever they choose,” Wright adds the important caveat that “it is a different matter to use the protections afforded a religion by the First Amendment to falsify history, to propagate forgeries, and to cover up human rights abuses.” Scientology critics, myself included, have long argued that the U.S. government should follow the lead of other countries and at the very least revoke the Church’s tax-exempt status, if not take harsher measures against it for a variety of criminal activities. Lawrence Wright’s courageous investigation is a warrant to act.
A conclusion many of us – those who have been inside as well as those peering from the edges – share.
[For more information on this and other Scientology matters, visit Tony Ortega's The Underground Bunker.]
Follow Lorraine Devon Wilke on Twitter, Facebook and Rock+Paper+Music; for her archive at Addicting info click here; details and links to her other work: www.lorrainedevonwilke.com.
Saturday, January 26, 2013
Mitch McConnell brags about filibuster deal
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell brags about filibuster deal in a
fundraising letter one day after getting Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to
Cave. Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., joins Ed Schultz to talk about next steps.
Friday, January 25, 2013
Republicans attempt to rig the electoral college
Democrats are moving to expand their electoral map and turn Texas blue, while
Republican-controlled legislatures are trying to change the rules to
disenfranchise Democratic voters in states that went for President Obama in
2012. MSNBC's Lawrence O'Donnell discusses with Steve Kornacki.
Thursday, January 24, 2013
How Senate Graybeards Killed Real Filibuster Reform
By David A. Graham
Harry Reid and Mitch McConnell have agreed to a set of rule changes, but the new regime falls far short of what young Democrats had demanded to fix the chamber.
Like Huey Long quoting his oyster recipe, Al D'Amato singing Gene Autry, and Bernie Sanders just plain speechifying,* the filibuster-reform push was fun while it lasted, but it's over now.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid announced today that he's reached a deal with Minority Leader Mitch McConnell on some procedural reforms that are intended to help cure the chronic, appalling dysfunction that's bedeviled the Senate since 2006 or so, when Democrats took over the body. Here's a quick list of the formal changes:
That's ... something. But the changes fall far short of what reformers had hoped for. In December, I wrote a primer on what the reformers wanted. Here's a list of those proposals and their fate:
What happened? The reformers had the wind at their backs. Everyone agreed that the Senate was grievously broken. Democrats had not only not lost seats in the Senate but had gained them. And Reid had publicly said that reform was needed and that he was willing to use the "nuclear option" -- changing the official Senate rules with a bare majority of 51 votes -- to get it done if he had to.
But the veterans got in the way. This was always the danger. Merkley and Udall are both freshman senators; neither one has ever been in the minority. While they agitated for changes, more senior Democratic senators eyed them warily, remembering when they'd been in the minority and used filibusters -- albeit less frequently than the current minority. Changing the rules with less than 60 votes seemed to them to set a dangerous precedent. Back in December, a Hill staffer told me that despite public reservations, those members would get in line when push came to shove. But it turned out Reid himself wasn't willing to use the 51-vote nuclear option to get the changes.
"I'm not personally, at this stage, ready to get rid of the 60-vote threshold," Reid told Ezra Klein Thursday. "With the history of the Senate, we have to understand the Senate isn't and shouldn't be like the House."
Advocates for major reform aren't delighted, but it looks like this plan will get through. (Progressive advocacy groups are less happy, and have been firing off angry missives all afternoon.) Democrats get at least some streamlining of the procedure, and Republicans get a chance to offer amendments, their major gripe.
And there will be ample chances to see whether it works soon. Will Richard Cordray, the recess-appointed director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau now up for confirmation, get a vote? Will judicial nominees? Will the pace of business speed up? Time will tell.
__
* Yes, all of those are real filibusters of yore.
Filibuster Reform (1) by tpmdocs
Filibuster Reform (2) by tpmdocs
Harry Reid and Mitch McConnell have agreed to a set of rule changes, but the new regime falls far short of what young Democrats had demanded to fix the chamber.
Like Huey Long quoting his oyster recipe, Al D'Amato singing Gene Autry, and Bernie Sanders just plain speechifying,* the filibuster-reform push was fun while it lasted, but it's over now.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid announced today that he's reached a deal with Minority Leader Mitch McConnell on some procedural reforms that are intended to help cure the chronic, appalling dysfunction that's bedeviled the Senate since 2006 or so, when Democrats took over the body. Here's a quick list of the formal changes:
- Shorten debate following a cloture vote on the motion to proceed from 30 hours to four.
- Leave the ability to filibuster that cloture vote essentially intact.
- Allow the minority to offer two amendments on every bill.
- Shorten confirmation time for judicial nominees once cloture is invoked.
- Senators will have to actually be on the floor to threaten a filibuster.
- Time allocated for debate will have to actually be spent on debate.
That's ... something. But the changes fall far short of what reformers had hoped for. In December, I wrote a primer on what the reformers wanted. Here's a list of those proposals and their fate:
- End the filibuster altogether: As expected, Senator Tom Harkin's call for legislation to pass by a simple majority died. The idea was always fringe, even within the hardcore reform group.
- Ban filibuster on the motion to proceed: Though debate after the vote is curtailed, the motion to proceed can still be filibustered.
- Bring back the talking filibuster: This was probably the central tenet of a plan put forward by reform ringleaders Jeff Merkley of Oregon and Tom Udall of New Mexico. It won't be happening either. They wanted to force the minority to actually stay on the floor and speak, just like Long and D'Amato back in the day, in order to hold up business.
- Ban filibusters on House-Senate conferences: No dice, although there will now be only one chance to filibuster bills after they've passed both chambers, rather than three.
- Shift the burden on cloture: Al Franken's proposal to force the minority to come up with 41 votes rater than forcing the majority to produce 60, got nowhere.
What happened? The reformers had the wind at their backs. Everyone agreed that the Senate was grievously broken. Democrats had not only not lost seats in the Senate but had gained them. And Reid had publicly said that reform was needed and that he was willing to use the "nuclear option" -- changing the official Senate rules with a bare majority of 51 votes -- to get it done if he had to.
But the veterans got in the way. This was always the danger. Merkley and Udall are both freshman senators; neither one has ever been in the minority. While they agitated for changes, more senior Democratic senators eyed them warily, remembering when they'd been in the minority and used filibusters -- albeit less frequently than the current minority. Changing the rules with less than 60 votes seemed to them to set a dangerous precedent. Back in December, a Hill staffer told me that despite public reservations, those members would get in line when push came to shove. But it turned out Reid himself wasn't willing to use the 51-vote nuclear option to get the changes.
"I'm not personally, at this stage, ready to get rid of the 60-vote threshold," Reid told Ezra Klein Thursday. "With the history of the Senate, we have to understand the Senate isn't and shouldn't be like the House."
Advocates for major reform aren't delighted, but it looks like this plan will get through. (Progressive advocacy groups are less happy, and have been firing off angry missives all afternoon.) Democrats get at least some streamlining of the procedure, and Republicans get a chance to offer amendments, their major gripe.
And there will be ample chances to see whether it works soon. Will Richard Cordray, the recess-appointed director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau now up for confirmation, get a vote? Will judicial nominees? Will the pace of business speed up? Time will tell.
__
* Yes, all of those are real filibusters of yore.
Filibuster Reform (1) by tpmdocs
Filibuster Reform (2) by tpmdocs
Leon Panetta Lifts Ban on Women in Combat
By Ernesto Londoño,
Outgoing Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta plans to announce Thursday a lifting of the ban on female service members in combat roles, a watershed policy change that was informed by women’s valor in Iraq and Afghanistan and that removes the remaining barrier to a fully inclusive military, defense officials said.Panetta made the decision “upon the recommendation of the Joint Chiefs of Staff,” a senior defense official said Wednesday, an assertion that stunned female veteran activists who said they assumed that the brass was still uneasy about opening the most physically arduous positions to women. The Army and the Marines, which make up the bulk of the military’s ground combat force, will present plans to open most jobs to women by May 15.
The Army, by far the largest fighting force, currently excludes women from nearly 25 percent of active-duty roles. A senior defense official said the Pentagon expects to open “many positions” to women this year; senior commanders will have until January 2016 to ask for exceptions.
“The onus is going to be on them to justify why a woman can’t serve in a particular role,” said the official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss the plan before the official announcement.
The decision comes after a decade of counterinsurgency missions in Iraq and Afghanistan, where women demonstrated heroism on battlefields with no front lines. It dovetails with another seismic policy change in the military that has been implemented relatively smoothly: the repeal of the ban on openly gay service members.
Lawmakers and female veterans applauded Wednesday’s news, saying the ban on women in combat roles is obsolete.
“This is monumental,” said Anu Bhagwati, a former Marine captain and executive director of the Service Women’s Action Network, which has advocated for the full inclusion of women. “Every time equality is recognized and meritocracy is enforced, it helps everyone, and it will help professionalize the force.”
Critics of opening combat positions to women have argued for years that integration during deployments could create a distracting, sexually charged atmosphere in the force and that women are unable to perform some of the more physically demanding jobs.
Advocates and experts say women are unlikely to flock to those positions, such as roles in light infantry and tank units and Special Forces — although some may. More substantively, they say, lifting the ban will go a long way toward changing the culture of a male-dominated institution in which women have long complained about discrimination and a high incidence of sexual assault.
Changes long sought
Lawmakers and advocates have long pressed the Pentagon to create a more inclusive force, yielding incremental changes. The American Civil Liberties Union recently sued the Pentagon over its policy, calling it discriminatory.
Last year, military officials opened numerous job categories to women after a study concluded that the Defense Department was ready for greater inclusion in combat units. That made it easier for women to be assigned, for example, to combat brigades as radio operators. It also gave commanders a sense of how a broader integration process could work, said an Army general who played a key role in last year’s effort to open new positions for women.
“The average professional will say, ‘I’ve served with women at all levels, and based on my experience, women have done a phenomenal job,’ ” said the officer, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the change had not been formally announced.
The debate over the supposed pitfalls of women and men sharing close quarters has been rendered moot by the recent wars, he said, adding: “If you were having this debate in peacetime, it might be more emotional.”
The fact that women have excelled in de facto front-line roles in Iraq and Afghanistan has proved such concerns unwarranted, Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.), the head of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said in an interview Wednesday afternoon.
“The reality is that so many women have been, in effect, in combat or quasi-combat,” he said. “This is catching up with reality.”
In a statement, Sen. James M. Inhofe (Okla.), the leading Republican on the Armed Services Committee, voiced a measure of concern, saying last year’s study raised “serious practical barriers” that, if ignored, could jeopardize the “safety and privacy” of service members.
Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), another member of the panel, said he supports the decision, but he alluded to some of the thorny implementation issues that have yet to be addressed.
“It is critical that we maintain the same high standards that have made the American military the most feared and admired fighting force in the world — particularly the rigorous physical standards for our elite special forces units,” he said.
The senior defense official said the Pentagon expects to have gender-neutral standards for combat jobs.
‘The time has come’
Overall, women make up about 14 percent of the active-duty military. According to the Defense Department, 152 female troops have been killed in the Iraq and Afghan wars.
The Pentagon announced last February that it would open about 14,000 combat-related positions to female troops. But an estimated 238,000 other jobs — about one-fifth of the regular active-duty military — were kept off limits to women. Virtually all of those jobs were in the Army and Marine Corps.
Panetta, who is expected to step down soon, has long favored a more inclusive military, and after last year’s review, the senior defense official said, the Joint Chiefs and service chiefs began seeing eye to eye on the issue.
In a Jan. 9 letter to Panetta, Gen. Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, wrote that the chiefs “unanimously” supported his goal of integrating women into “occupational fields to the maximum extent possible.”
“The time has come to rescind the direct combat exclusion rule for women and to eliminate all unnecessary gender-based barriers to service,” he wrote.
“It is a paradigm shift for the military,” the senior defense official said, “one that everyone is ready to make.”
Julie Tate contributed to this report.
Wednesday, January 23, 2013
Coward Ted Nugent Ready For Armed Revolt
Rocker-turned-gun rights provocateur Ted Nugent is willing to say just about anything to attack President Barack Obama and his administration for what he believes is an imminent effort by the government to snatch up guns.
During a recent interview, Nugent again raised the bar, invoking a Revolutionary war milestone to suggest that he and his "buddies" were prepared to fight such an effort at all costs...".* Ana Kasparian and Cenk Uygur break it down on The Young Turks.
During a recent interview, Nugent again raised the bar, invoking a Revolutionary war milestone to suggest that he and his "buddies" were prepared to fight such an effort at all costs...".* Ana Kasparian and Cenk Uygur break it down on The Young Turks.
Elder Scrolls Online beta applications
By Kyle Orland
- Jan 22 2013, 12:15 P.M. EST
Bethesda Softworks announced today that it has started taking beta applications for the upcoming Elder Scrolls Online MMO based on its popular single-player RPG series.
The beta signup page features a live update of your chances of selection for the limited beta as you fill out information like previous MMO and RPG experience, play style, and system information for your computer. "Completing all the optional sections will significantly increase your chances of being selected for beta participation," the site advises.
Bethesda also used the beta signups as an opportunity to release a new five-minute CGI video promoting the game, shown below. The video is suitably epic—it would serve as an excellent trailer for a fantasy movie—but it bears only a passing resemblance to what actual gameplay will look like.
I got a short preview of the game back at E3, where the creators stressed that quests would all factor into an epic storyline, without any of the pointless "kill ten rats"-style chores that plague other games. The developers went into more detail about their goals in a November preview trailer.
It's hard to get a real feel for this type of game without fully inhabiting it for a while. And it might be a while before we get that chance; the beta is still undated, and the game is only set for a vague "2013" release. Still, the Elder Scrolls series has definitely already put in the requisite world-building effort, and it has a suitably developed mythos to build an MMO on top of already. Then again, so did BioWare's The Old Republic universe, and that MMO has been struggling a bit to live up to its lofty WoW-killer ambitions.
Kyle Orland / Kyle is the Senior Gaming Editor at Ars Technica, specializing in video game hardware and software. He has journalism and science degrees from University of Maryland. He is based in Pittsburgh, PA.
Bethesda Softworks announced today that it has started taking beta applications for the upcoming Elder Scrolls Online MMO based on its popular single-player RPG series.
The beta signup page features a live update of your chances of selection for the limited beta as you fill out information like previous MMO and RPG experience, play style, and system information for your computer. "Completing all the optional sections will significantly increase your chances of being selected for beta participation," the site advises.
Bethesda also used the beta signups as an opportunity to release a new five-minute CGI video promoting the game, shown below. The video is suitably epic—it would serve as an excellent trailer for a fantasy movie—but it bears only a passing resemblance to what actual gameplay will look like.
I got a short preview of the game back at E3, where the creators stressed that quests would all factor into an epic storyline, without any of the pointless "kill ten rats"-style chores that plague other games. The developers went into more detail about their goals in a November preview trailer.
It's hard to get a real feel for this type of game without fully inhabiting it for a while. And it might be a while before we get that chance; the beta is still undated, and the game is only set for a vague "2013" release. Still, the Elder Scrolls series has definitely already put in the requisite world-building effort, and it has a suitably developed mythos to build an MMO on top of already. Then again, so did BioWare's The Old Republic universe, and that MMO has been struggling a bit to live up to its lofty WoW-killer ambitions.
Kyle Orland / Kyle is the Senior Gaming Editor at Ars Technica, specializing in video game hardware and software. He has journalism and science degrees from University of Maryland. He is based in Pittsburgh, PA.
Monday, January 21, 2013
News flash: The President's speech was not about the Republicans
The President spoke today about protecting Social Security, Medicare and
Medicaid. Some Republicans thought he didn't extend the olive branch.
Ed Schultz explains why this speech was meant for the Americans who got President Obama re-elected, and not for the handful of feuding Republicans behind him. John Nichols of The Nation Magazine talks about the President's mandate, and what today's speech could mean for all Americans.
Ed Schultz explains why this speech was meant for the Americans who got President Obama re-elected, and not for the handful of feuding Republicans behind him. John Nichols of The Nation Magazine talks about the President's mandate, and what today's speech could mean for all Americans.
Unemployable At 50 - Fate Of Present And Future Workers
By TheMastersNemesis
Forget working until you are 70 in any kind of meaningful job as you age. The CEO and corporate culture looks at 50 as the unemployable age in the new age economy. In Logan's Run people were supposed to be trashed at 30. Today your corporate CEO will trash you by 50 because a of new business attitude that has shred the social contract.
Fifty somethings are already finding out in great numbers what being unemployable means. In the past by the time you reached 50 in most jobs you had maximum vacation and numerous benefits for being a senior employee. Today you are considered a liability and drag on the company at a time when you need higher income for your retirement and to support getting your kids started in life with a good education.
Now corporations and CEO's are saying that you should wait until 70 or longer to get your Social Security and Medicare. And they REALLY WANT TO ABOLISH THAT AS WELL. So senior workers will face 20 years of part time and minimum wage jobs if they can get any job at all.
And if you are disabled or ill you are royally screwed if you CAN'T WORK. Any sensible person knows that you cannot save for retirement at today's wages when pay is essentially capped at 30K. And you cannot build a future when most jobs are being reduced to part time, temporary, seasonal and less in the new Reagan revolution economy.
By the time the GOP and its allies have their way only 30% or less of the job market will support a person or family and 70% of the work force will be stuck in the "service economy". What you are seeing in this recovery is what the GOP and Reagan has wrought since 1980. Yet we still elect them. Obama himself cannot change this corporate model. Only the business community and corporations can. And only government policy can force them. FDR was right and knew what he was doing.
Look at the handwriting on the wall. THE CONVERSATION has to change and the business community has be to be challenged to change its ways and its attitude that only gets worse by the day. The prevalent anti union and anti labor and anti government attitude has given us this SUICIDAL situation.
I worked in the DOL for 24 years and could see what was coming. I am really puzzled at why the American worker embraced all of this mayhem. Now the next generation seems to be doomed to a life of low wages and virtual poverty.
Forget working until you are 70 in any kind of meaningful job as you age. The CEO and corporate culture looks at 50 as the unemployable age in the new age economy. In Logan's Run people were supposed to be trashed at 30. Today your corporate CEO will trash you by 50 because a of new business attitude that has shred the social contract.
Fifty somethings are already finding out in great numbers what being unemployable means. In the past by the time you reached 50 in most jobs you had maximum vacation and numerous benefits for being a senior employee. Today you are considered a liability and drag on the company at a time when you need higher income for your retirement and to support getting your kids started in life with a good education.
Now corporations and CEO's are saying that you should wait until 70 or longer to get your Social Security and Medicare. And they REALLY WANT TO ABOLISH THAT AS WELL. So senior workers will face 20 years of part time and minimum wage jobs if they can get any job at all.
And if you are disabled or ill you are royally screwed if you CAN'T WORK. Any sensible person knows that you cannot save for retirement at today's wages when pay is essentially capped at 30K. And you cannot build a future when most jobs are being reduced to part time, temporary, seasonal and less in the new Reagan revolution economy.
By the time the GOP and its allies have their way only 30% or less of the job market will support a person or family and 70% of the work force will be stuck in the "service economy". What you are seeing in this recovery is what the GOP and Reagan has wrought since 1980. Yet we still elect them. Obama himself cannot change this corporate model. Only the business community and corporations can. And only government policy can force them. FDR was right and knew what he was doing.
Look at the handwriting on the wall. THE CONVERSATION has to change and the business community has be to be challenged to change its ways and its attitude that only gets worse by the day. The prevalent anti union and anti labor and anti government attitude has given us this SUICIDAL situation.
I worked in the DOL for 24 years and could see what was coming. I am really puzzled at why the American worker embraced all of this mayhem. Now the next generation seems to be doomed to a life of low wages and virtual poverty.
Sunday, January 20, 2013
Republicans surrender on debt ceiling
Congressional Republicans concede the debt ceiling must be increased. Now
they're linking it to the passage of a Senate budget. Rep. Debbie Wasserman
Schultz joins Ed Schultz to explain whether the new Republican plan is serious,
or a shallow gimmick.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)