There’s some strange respect shown today for one particular multi-billionaire investor in the liberal pages of the New York Times. Friday’s lead story by Nelson Schwartz, “Buffett to Invest $5 Billion In Shaky Bank of America .” introduced Buffett as “ Warren E. Buffett, the legendary investor, is sinking $5 billion into Bank of America in a bold show of faith in the country’s biggest, and most beleaguered, financial institution.” Schwartz also called him “the legendary investor” in a March 23, 2008 story. In all, Times reporters have referred to Buffett as a “legendary investor” at least nine times in its pages over the last five years, not counting several references to him as a “legendary investor” on the paper’s DealBook blog. No other investor has been hailed as “legendary” in print more than once by the Times. The top of Friday’s Business Day section story by Ben Protess and Susanne Craig also hailed Buffett’s bounty: “Buffett’s Bank of America Stake Viewed as a Seal of Approval.” Why would a paper traditionally hostile to business interests hail this particular multi-billionaire business? Because Buffett is the sort of rich person liberals like – the kind who demands the government make him pay even more in taxes. Buffett previously made waves with an August 15 Times op-ed that went viral in liberal circles, “ Stop Coddling the Super-Rich ,” pleading for the government to raise the effective tax rate on wealthy investors like him: “Some of us are investment managers who earn billions from our daily labors but are allowed to classify our income as “carried interest,” thereby getting a bargain 15 percent tax rate….what I paid was only 17.4 percent of my taxable income — and that’s actually a lower percentage than was paid by any of the other 20 people in our office.” Buffett is of course free to donate directly to the Treasury Department, or take his income as salary instead of in the form of capital gains and dividends, which would raise his effective tax rate.
Continue reading …There’s some strange respect shown today for one particular multi-billionaire investor in the liberal pages of the New York Times. Friday’s lead story by Nelson Schwartz, “Buffett to Invest $5 Billion In Shaky Bank of America .” introduced Buffett as “ Warren E. Buffett, the legendary investor, is sinking $5 billion into Bank of America in a bold show of faith in the country’s biggest, and most beleaguered, financial institution.” Schwartz also called him “the legendary investor” in a March 23, 2008 story. In all, Times reporters have referred to Buffett as a “legendary investor” at least nine times in its pages over the last five years, not counting several references to him as a “legendary investor” on the paper’s DealBook blog. No other investor has been hailed as “legendary” in print more than once by the Times. The top of Friday’s Business Day section story by Ben Protess and Susanne Craig also hailed Buffett’s bounty: “Buffett’s Bank of America Stake Viewed as a Seal of Approval.” Why would a paper traditionally hostile to business interests hail this particular multi-billionaire business? Because Buffett is the sort of rich person liberals like – the kind who demands the government make him pay even more in taxes. Buffett previously made waves with an August 15 Times op-ed that went viral in liberal circles, “ Stop Coddling the Super-Rich ,” pleading for the government to raise the effective tax rate on wealthy investors like him: “Some of us are investment managers who earn billions from our daily labors but are allowed to classify our income as “carried interest,” thereby getting a bargain 15 percent tax rate….what I paid was only 17.4 percent of my taxable income — and that’s actually a lower percentage than was paid by any of the other 20 people in our office.” Buffett is of course free to donate directly to the Treasury Department, or take his income as salary instead of in the form of capital gains and dividends, which would raise his effective tax rate.
Continue reading …This is scary stuff. If you’re in the path of the storm, take it seriously, and EVACUATE when you are told to do so. Open thread below…..
Continue reading …CBS Runs Out of Time Before Getting to Biden’s China Gaffe; Covers It Online
August 26, 2011 No Comment
CBS referenced Vice President Joe Biden's recent gaffe about “fully understanding” China's one-child policy on Friday's Early Show as ” off-the-cuff remarks ” and ” interesting comments ,” but failed to get to it during the segment. Anchor Chris Wragge merely explained that viewers would find ” more on that on our website .” Oddly, Wragge and his colleagues did broach the subject in an online video segment. The anchor, along with co-anchor Erica Hill, brought on political correspondent Jan Crawford to discuss “the busy week in politics” 46 minutes into the 7 am Eastern hour. Besides mentioning the Vice President's “off-the-cuff remarks,” Wragge also previewed another subject of the segment, which was Senator Marco Rubio Tuesday save of former First Lady Nancy Reagan, who stumbled while walking with the Florida politician. But even before getting to that, the three first discussed Texas Governor Rick Perry becoming the presumptive front-runner in the race for Republican presidential nomination. After briefly noting Perry's lead in the polls, Crawford decided to zero in on the possible drawbacks to his candidacy and highlighted one of the caricatures of the governor: CRAWFORD: There are a lot of unanswered questions about Rick Perry. The Republican strategists that I'm talking to say, look, he's really good at winning elections in Texas, but can he broaden it out to a national level? He's kind of seen as almost a gunslinger, and I mean that literally. Remember, he shot a coyote when he was on a jog. So, you know, he's got a reputation of sometimes shooting from the hip . You know, he said that Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke could be treasonous, and if he went down to Texas, you know, it might get ugly down there. People- and independent voters and women voters, you know, don't necessarily like that . Strategists say, you know, that doesn't sound presidential , so we'll have to see if Perry's initial burst actually lasts. By contrast, the CBS correspondent then spoke more positively of Senator Rubio: CRAWFORD: He [Rubio] catches her, saves her. You know… all he needed was a cape, right? You know, like, kind of the new superhero . And Marco Rubio is someone that Republicans are incredibly excited about. They think his future is unlimited., and there are two reasons for that: number one, Hispanic voters. That is an important constituency that could well decide this election. President Obama, of course, did well in 2008 with Hispanics, but his approval numbers are slipping. Two years ago, 85% approval rating among Hispanics- last week, 44%. So, Republicans see a real opening with someone like a Marco Rubio on the ticket, and already, pundits are saying he's a lock for VP no matter who wins…the other point is he personifies the American dream . You know, his parents came here from Cuba, and that could speak to people outside, of course, the Hispanic community. Wragge ended the segment after Crawford gave her analysis on the senator, stating that “of course, Vice President Biden had some interesting comments over the week, and you'll find some more on that on our website, too, at earlyshow.cbsnews.com .” On their website , The Early Show puts up video of many of their segments, but instead of the segment that aired (at least on the East Coast), the site has a similar report that touched on the same issues , but also got to the Biden issue. This time, Crawford acknowledged the controversial nature of the gaffe, but then brushed it aside: HILL: …Vice President Biden, making a few headlines, which he's very good at doing, including what was off-the-cuff remarks when he was in China this week. CRAWFORD: That's right. I mean, obviously, he went out there and- to assure the Chinese that we're good for our debts, and he said he would not second guess, when he was out there, China's one-child policy. Obviously, that's something that's quite controversial, and people here say it would abhorrent . And that's exactly what the Republican candidates did. They immediately shot back at Biden, criticizing him for- saying, how could anyone say they understand that policy? But, of course, like you said, Erica, it's Joe Biden. People almost roll their eyes and say, well, there he goes again. It doesn't really stick . The full transcript of the Jan Crawford segment from Friday's Early Show: ERICA HILL: It's been, actually, a rather busy week in politics, and not only because of the presidential campaign. CHRIS WRAGGE: It just may be you haven't heard much about it because we've been talking so much about the hurricane this week. There's Vice President Biden's off-the-cuff remarks in China, and the senator who caught Nancy Reagan when she almost fell. And CBS News political correspondent Jan Crawford has a look at this week's highlights. Jan, good to have you with us this morning. JAN CRAWFORD: It's good to be here. HILL: Nice to have you here in person- CRAWFORD: Yeah- HILL: Let's start off with the presidential race, though, because there's so much focus on this, especially with a lot of changes in the front-runners- CRAWFORD: That's right- HILL: So, there's a
Continue reading …In June, more than 52,000 ColorOfChange members spoke out against a proposed merger between AT&T and T-Mobile, arguing that the deal is likely to destroy jobs, raise the price of cellular service, and threaten net neutrality for wireless high-speed Internet. Now, there’s one more reason to oppose the merger — and AT&T gave it to us. The company has repeatedly claimed that merging with T-Mobile is the only way it would make good business sense to cover 97 percent of Americans with the latest mobile broadband technology. But according to a letter filed by AT&T , the cost of building its 4G wireless system to the entire nation is $3.8 billion — a mere one tenth the cost of the $39 billion merger! And if the merger isn’t approved, AT&T will be obligated to pay T-Mobile a $3 billion fee, more than 75 percent of the cost of extending 4G coverage to 97 percent of Americans. This new revelation makes clear that AT&T’s major public interest rationale for merging with T-Mobile amounts to nothing more than fuzzy math. But Democratic 76 members of Congress, led by North Carolina Rep. G.K. Butterfield, have signed a letter advancing AT&T’s false rationale. In response, we’ve launched a campaign calling on these members to withdraw their support for the deal. Here’s the message we sent to ColorOfChange members on Wednesday. We hope you’ll consider signing the petition and spreading the word to your friends and family. Dear friends, There’s just one problem with AT&T’s claim that buying T-Mobile is the only way it would be able to give 97% of Americans access to its high-speed mobile network: it isn’t true, and a letter filed recently by AT&T proves it. 1 Seventy-six House Democrats wrote a public letter supporting the merger, largely based on the argument that purchasing T-Mobile was necessary in order for AT&T to expand its high-speed mobile Internet service to underserved communities. 2 We now know that argument is false. If history is any guide, the other claim made in the letter for supporting the merger — that the merger would protect jobs — is false as well, and what’s most likely is that the reduction in competition that would result would raise the cost of wireless services for everybody and harm Internet freedom. 3 Join us in demanding that these members of Congress publicly renounce their support for the merger. Together we can expose AT&T’s lies and make it impossible to justify approving this dangerous merger. It takes just a moment of your time: http://act.colorofchange.org/sign/attcongress In June, Congressman G.K. Butterfield of North Carolina worked with Congressman Gene Green of Texas to organize Democratic support for AT&T’s merger with T-Mobile. The resulting letter to the Federal Communications Commission and Department of Justice — the two federal agencies responsible for approving or rejecting the acquisition — argues that the merger would benefit the public for two reasons: 1) it would enable AT&T to expand high-speed wireless Internet to low-income and rural customers, and 2) the required build-out would result in new jobs. 4 Thanks to a letter filed by AT&T’s attorneys that contained confidential information, we now know with certainty that AT&T could easily upgrade its wireless networks without buying T-Mobile — it has simply chosen not to do so. The letter pegs the price of covering 97% of Americans with advanced 4G LTE wireless service at $3.8 billion, less than one tenth the cost of the $39 billion merger. 5 And as we’ve stated before, the merger is likely to be bad for consumers. The merger wouldn’t just allow AT&T to raise prices on its customers — every wireless carrier would be subject to fewer competitive pressures to keep prices low. 6 If that happens, more poor people, Black Americans, and Latinos — who disproportionately rely on wireless broadband to access the Internet — would be subject to higher prices and undue economic hardship just to get online. There are also major implications for Internet freedom. Without competition from other wireless carriers or effective regulation by the FCC, AT&T and Verizon — net neutrality opponents who would together control nearly 80% of the wireless market — would have an unacceptable level of control over what we can and can’t access on the mobile web. 7 The 76 members of Congress who signed Rep. Butterfield’s letter now have an opportunity to correct the record. With the letter’s rationale for supporting the merger undermined, these representatives should publicly walk back their support for the merger. Please join us in calling on them to do exactly that. Your action won’t only protect consumers and the open Internet — together, we’ll make it more likely that members of Congress take pause before supporting corporate positions that could harm our communities. http://act.colorofchange.org/sign/attcongress Thanks and Peace, — Rashad, James, Gabriel, William, Dani, Matt, Natasha and the rest of the ColorOfChange.org team August 24, 2011 Help support our work. ColorOfChange.org is powered by YOU–your energy and dollars. We take no money from lobbyists or large corporations that don’t share our values, and our tiny staff ensures your contributions go a long way. You can contribute here: http://www.colorofchange.org/donate References: 1. “Leaked AT&T Letter Demolishes Case For T-Mobile Merger Lawyer Accidentally Decimates AT&T’s #1 Talking Point,” DSLReports.com, 8-12-2011 http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/Leaked-ATT-Letter-Demolishes-Case-For… 2. “71 AT&T-Funded Democrats Endorse Merger,” The Bilerico Project, 6-28-2011 http://www.bilerico.com/2011/06/70_att-funded_democrats_endorse_attt-mob… 3. “Free Press Anti-Trust Letter,” Free Press, 5-10-2011 http://www.freepress.net/files/Free_Press_May_2011_Antitrust_Letter_ATT_… 4. See reference 2 5. AT&T Filing with Federal Communications Commission, 8-8-2011 http://www.dslreports.com/r0/download/1678331~018ee90413e657e412818181a5… 6. “AT&T-T-Mobile merger will hurt wireless market, says Yankee Group”, Network World, 8-17-2011 http://www.networkworld.com/news/2011/081711-att-wireless-249823.html 7. “The net neutrality threat of the T-Mobile merger with AT&T,” The Guardian, 4-1-2011 http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/apr/01/net-neutr… 8. See Reference 4
Continue reading …Women finally earned the right to vote 91 years ago today – after 72 years of largely unappreciated, back-breaking, work. It took another 66 years before we elected the first Democratic Senator in her own right – today Barbara Mikulski is the longest serving female Senator. And she shares the chamber with 11 other Democratic women. I’m proud and lucky to be a part the community of campaign staffers who has worked to get women elected. The work that we have all been able to do is because of the women who paved the way for us and 91 years later, there have been over 100 pro-choice Democratic women elected to the halls of the U.S. Congress, and more than 500 women to state and local office. And those are the women who are standing up for us fighting everyday – but there aren’t enough. We’ve seen what happens when Republicans are in charge – since day one it’s been an all-out war on women and families: they’ve tried to repeal health care reform, strip funding for family planning, eliminate collective bargaining, gut education, end Medicare, and destroy the economic safety net for many Americans. If we stand together – just like we’ve done so many times already this year – we can stop the Republicans and elect people who will fight for us every day. I can tell you right now, 2012 will be game changer if women get to the polls. So on the 91st anniversary of the 19th Amendment, I’m asking women across the country to stand up and pledge to vote in 2012. The suffragists paved the way for our success – and now, it’s up to us to continue their fight. We have the chance to change things in 2012 – by mobilizing our families and friends and getting women to the polls to help elect Democrats up and down the ticket. With each race we win, each new staffer that is trained, each blog we write, we are working toward that victory, but we need everyone together. There is so much we can do and after 75 years of struggle for suffrage we must be united in standing for those who will always stand for women and families. I want to take this anniversary to thank all of those brave women who came before me, and all of those young women just joining the fight. The suffragists gave us the right to vote in 1920, and in 2012, I’m sure as heck going to use it. Crossposted from EMILY’s List Blog
Continue reading …How Many Innocents Have To Die Before We Get Honest About The Death Penalty?
August 26, 2011 No CommentWe’ve written about how death penalty-happy Rick Perry is . But bless him, guest host Ron Reagan really narrowed down the question that we must address if we want to be honest about having a death penalty: How many innocent people is it permissible to kill in order to exact vengeance on the guilty? There’s no easy answer for that if you’re still advocating for the death penalty. Personally, I’m against the death penalty. I’ve participated in protests and vigils against it. It horrifies me that we’re one of the only Western nations still acting so barbarically . But besides that, the death penalty has inherent flaws : [The application of the death penalty is often] racist, unfair to poor and the mentally retarded, and often ends in the state sanctioned murder of innocents. Less than 1% of all murderers are condemned to death 2% of death row inmates are actually executed Over 113 people on death row have been exonerated since 1973 68% of the death penalty convictions between 1973 – 1995 were reversed Today more than 75 death row inmates have spent 20 years on the Row. Capital punishment is applied to a higher percentage of minorities than whites. It is not cost effective: Capital murder trials threaten to bankrupt townships costing taxpayers: $2 million in legal fees to try a death penalty case, nearly 4 times higher than comparable murder trials. The automatic appeal process costs up to $700,000 in legal fees. $1.2 million in execution costs. 1973 -1998, Florida spent $57 million on 18 executions. It is does not deter crime: The European Union (EU) is opposed to the death penalty in all cases and is “deeply concerned about the increasing number of executions in the United States of America (USA), all the more since the great majority of executions since reinstatement of the death penalty in 1976 have been carried out in the 1990s. Furthermore, in the US, young offenders who are under 18 years of age at the time of the commission of the crime may be sentenced to death and executed, in clear infringement of internationally recognized human rights norms.” Russia and Turkey have abolished the death penalty which is condemned by the European Union and the World Court, which claimed that the U.S. violated the rights of 51 Mexicans on death rows in eight states. Despite a U.S. Supreme Court ban, Texas has continued to send mentally retarded criminals to death row. Will a Mexican immigrant’s case correct this injustice? The two states with the most executions in 2003, Texas 24, and Oklahoma 14, saw increases in their murder rates from 2002 to 2003. Both states had murder rates above the national average in 2003: Texas – 6.4, and Oklahoma – 5.9. The top 13 states in terms of murder rates were all death penalty states. The murder rate of the death penalty states increased from 2002, while the rate in non-death penalty states decreased. Death Penalty Information Center So it’s ineffective as a deterrent, applied inequitably, unfairly focusing on the poor, mentally challenged and minorities, costs more than life in prison and we’re basically applying the same punishment that countries we hold up as barbaric do? What exactly is the benefit of the death penalty except for Rick Perry’s bloodlust?
Continue reading …At least 10 killed after car loaded with explosives detonated outside academy in Cherchell, west of Algiers A suicide bomber detonated a car loaded with explosives outside a military academy west of the Algerian capital on Friday, killing at least 10 people. More were wounded at the academy in Cherchel, which lies west of Algiers. The officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity, citing policy, gave conflicting tolls, and it was not clear whether those killed were troops or civilians. But they confirmed that at least 10 people were dead. Friday was a sacred day in the Muslim calendar that falls toward the end of the holy month of Ramadan, and it is often accompanied by attacks. Although no one immediately claimed responsibility for the attack, similar assaults have been blamed on al-Qaida in the Islamic Maghreb. Islamist extremists have battled Algerian security forces since 1992 when the army cancelled a national election that a now-banned Muslim fundamentalist party was poised to win. Security forces gained the upper hand over the years, but sporadic attacks continue and increased dramatically in July. An estimated 200,000 people civilians, insurgents and security forces have been killed since the violence began. Algeria Africa guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …At least 10 killed after car loaded with explosives detonated outside academy in Cherchell, west of Algiers A suicide bomber detonated a car loaded with explosives outside a military academy west of the Algerian capital on Friday, killing at least 10 people. More were wounded at the academy in Cherchel, which lies west of Algiers. The officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity, citing policy, gave conflicting tolls, and it was not clear whether those killed were troops or civilians. But they confirmed that at least 10 people were dead. Friday was a sacred day in the Muslim calendar that falls toward the end of the holy month of Ramadan, and it is often accompanied by attacks. Although no one immediately claimed responsibility for the attack, similar assaults have been blamed on al-Qaida in the Islamic Maghreb. Islamist extremists have battled Algerian security forces since 1992 when the army cancelled a national election that a now-banned Muslim fundamentalist party was poised to win. Security forces gained the upper hand over the years, but sporadic attacks continue and increased dramatically in July. An estimated 200,000 people civilians, insurgents and security forces have been killed since the violence began. Algeria Africa guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Click here to view this media Republican presidential candidate Rick Perry Thursday responded to criticism from people like former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush and Karl Rove by attacking the city that he wants to make his new home. “With all due respect to anybody that’s out there either directly or indirectly criticizing me because I speak plainly, I call it like I see it,” Perry told conservative radio host Laura Ingraham. “Look, I am not an establishment figure, never have been and frankly I don’t want to be. I dislike Washington; I think it’s a seedy place.” He continued: “Our country is in trouble and I don’t have the privilege to sit on the sideline and watch our country be destroyed economically by a president who has been conducting an experiment on the American economy for the last two and half years. My wife told it like it was when she looked me in the eye and said listen, you have to do your duty. And that’s what I’m doing”
Continue reading …