UPDATE: Senate Votes Down Reid Bill, Awaits Obama/McConnell Spending-Cut-Only Debt Limit Bill Sen. Mitch McConnell was on CNN’s State of The Union this morning to proclaim that there’s a deal which is roughly 3 trillion dollars in cuts on the table and he says will avert a disaster. Part of the process with be this crappy Supper Cat food commission that will include a trigger so that if the both sides don’t come together then automatic cuts will appear. A first step would include about $1 trillion in spending cuts while raising the debt ceiling about the same amount. The proposal also would set up a special committee of Democratic and Republican legislators from both chambers of Congress to recommend additional deficit reduction steps — including tax reform as well as reforms to popular entitlement programs such as Medicare and Social Security. The committee’s recommendations would be put to a vote by Congress, without any amendments, by the end of the year. If Congress fails to pass the package, a so-called “trigger” mechanism would enact automatic spending cuts. Either way — with the package passed by Congress or the trigger of automatic cuts — a second increase in the debt ceiling would occur, but with an accompanying congressional vote of disapproval. In addition, the agreement would require both chambers of Congress to vote on a balanced budget amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Such an amendment would require two-thirds majorities in both chambers to pass, followed by ratification by 38 states — a process likely to take years. McConnell was preening on the air that we tax too much already in America and have a spending problem so this new deal will satisfy the American people. He means it will satisfy the Tea Party hostage takers and everyone that’s a Republican of course. All polling shows Americans DO NOT want Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid touched. TPM outlines more of the deal here: As noted here , the issue under contention was the design of a so-called “trigger,” — a penalty written into the bill meant to encourage Congress to pass further bipartisan deficit reduction legislation, authored by a new Special Committee, later this year. Here’s what they’ve reportedly come up with, pending approval from Congressional Democrats and Republicans. From ABC News , the key detail: “The special committee must make recommendations by late November (before Congress’ Thanksgiving recess). If Congress does not approve those cuts by December 23, automatic across-the-board cuts go into effect, including cuts to Defense and Medicare. This ‘trigger’ is designed to force action on the deficit reduction committee’s recommendations by making the alternative painful to both Democrats and Republicans.” The Medicare cuts would supposedly fall on Medicare providers, not beneficiaries. The trigger would also include a vote on a Balanced Budget Amendment — but no requirement that it be sent off to the states. One source briefed on the negotiations confirms that the ABC story is correct “on the key points.” A similar piece in National Journal suggests the Special Committee would not be allowed to reduce the deficit by raising new net tax revenue. The source disputes that notion, as does the ABC report. Chuck Schumer steps in after Mitch had finished to try and reassure Democrats that there must be incentives put into the trigger.Throwing grandma under the bus for some cuts in defense spending is equitable in what way exactly? CNN, Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) said the final trigger must include incentives that don’t simply allow Republicans to draw a line in the sand over revenues. “What is the sword over the Republican?” Schumer asked. Well it has to be equal — the one thing we are certain of, it has to be of equal sharpness and strength. The preference would be some kind of revenues, on wealthy people, on tax loopholes that would be in that. But another alternative, possible, being discussed, no agreement has been reached, would be defense cuts of equal sharpness and magnitude to domestic cuts. In the past, when the trigger has had significant defense cuts, it’s brought the parties to the table and they’ve come up with a balanced agreement that had both revenues and cuts. Doesn’t that make you feel better? Daivd Plouffe was on all morning too and tells me that progressives should be happy about all these cuts. I need to hear him scold me like I need a migraine. Think Progress: Moreover, the deal includes zero revenue increases and no call for comprehensive tax reform, and achieving these things through the new bipartisan deficit commission will be almost impossible as Republicans are sure to reject it. Still, White House economic adviser Gene Sperling said today on State of the Union that the White House “fine” with the idea that the bill will be “only spending cuts.” He added that Obama won’t seek new revenues before the 2012 election anyway, and will in fact be pushing for a payroll tax cut. As ThinkProgress’ Matt Yglesias notes, the fallout from this deal may extend far beyond the plan itself : [A]t this point the biggest damage is to the overall system of government. Obama has successfully transformed massive debt ceiling hostage taking from an act of breathtakingly irresponsible brinksmanship into a proven effective negotiating tactic . Suppose he gets re-elected in 2012. What’s he going to do when this issue recurs in 2013? Every time the president’s party has fewer than 60 votes in the Senate, we may face a recurrence of this crisis. Nothing is done yet so until the details of a deal are released I can’t say for sure this will be the deal, but all the talk today has been infuriating. Digby writes: For me this isn’t a shocking disappointment. I have felt that this whole process was a disaster from the beginning and it really doesn’t matter to me if the Democrats eke out a couple of concessions about defense cuts or close a few loopholes “in return” for these cuts. That isn’t “shared sacrifice,” it’s asking the poorest, oldest and sickest among us to give up a piece of their meager security in exchange for the wealthy giving up some tip money and the defense industry giving up a couple of points of profit. It’s stripping the nation of necessary educational, safety and environmental protections while the wealthy greedily absorb more and more of the nation’s wealth and the corporations and financial industry gamble with the rest. The idea that they are even talking about this at a time of nearly 10% official unemployment with the economy looking like it’s going back into recession (if it ever left) makes this debate surreal and bizarre. To cut the safety net and shred discretionary spending in massive numbers at a time like this is mind boggling. That it’s happening under a Democratic President and a Democratic Senate is profoundly depressing. This Super Congress idea is frightening as well. Last weekend, HuffPost reported on the extraordinary powers being delegated to the emerging Super Congress, but beltway media largely reacted by dismissing it as just another Washington commission. On Sunday, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) sought to disabuse anyone listening of that notion. And as I’ve said before, will we ever see the Bush Tax cuts gone? That would cut almost 4 trillion dollars out of the deficit. I disagree with Ezra’s title on this article because Keynesian policies have been thrown under the bus in this entire debate as he tries to find light at the end of a tunnel: Republicans have shown, that they will block any and all tax increases, no matter what incentives they are offered in return and no matter how dire the consequences of their refusal. Next year’s deadline offers Democrats their only chance to negotiate from a superior strategic position. Republicans will still be able to refuse to raise taxes. But if they do, it won’t matter. The only way they can succeed in keeping taxes from rising is if the Obama administration and the Democrats stand shoulder-to-shoulder with them to extend the Bush tax cuts.
Continue reading …A replica of the Wright brothers’ Model B 1910 plane crashed in Ohio yesterday, killing both of its pilots, reports CNN . The plane, which was first launched in June, was built with a modern engine, materials, and controls, and was modified to make it easier to transport, but resembled the…
Continue reading …After weeks of posturing and pleading, with threat of a default just days away, news of a possible debt ceiling deal is dribbling out of Washington, first reported by ABC ‘s Jonathan Karl. The deal would raise the ceiling by $2.4 trillion in two phases, enough to last into…
Continue reading …Don’t Hug Me I’m Scared is a well-crafted short film with some seriously dark humor. It’s surprising to see that Sid and Marty Krofft were not behind this project, with the puppets, the wild, bright colors and high concept but low budget special effects. Actually, it’s probably how all Krofft shows really ended. This Is Broadcasting platform : Vimeo Source : Laughing Squid Discovery Date : 29/07/2011 15:54 Number of articles : 4
Continue reading …Socialist government says ministry of culture will be responsible for development and protection of controversial sport The debate over bullfighting has been reignited in Spain after the government recognised the spectacle as “an artistic discipline and cultural product”, delighting enthusiasts but outraging animal rights campaigners. Prime minister José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero’s socialist government announced that the ministry of culture will from now on be responsible for the “development and protection” of bullfighting, which previously fell within the remit of the interior ministry. The move follows pressure from bullfighting organisations keen to protect their livelihood following a controversial vote to ban bullfighting in the Catalonia region last year. The ministry of culture said in a statement: “As it is understood that bullfighting is an artistic discipline and a cultural product, it was considered that the ministry of culture was the correct place for its development and protection.” Supporters, who see bullfighting as an integral part of Spain’s cultural identity, hope the announcement is a step towards protecting the tradition from further regional bans. Juan Diego, a matador speaking for the Bullfighters Union, welcomed the announcement as necessary “for the protection and guardianship of bullfighting”, describing the sport as “a symbol of Spanish cultural heritage that shapes the national identity”. The change was backed by the conservative Popular party (PP), in opposition but favourite to win power in the general election on 20 November. Miguel Cid Cebrián, chairman of the Parliamentary Bullfighting Association, said he hoped the PP would provide legal protection for bullfighting as a special “cultural interest” if it takes power, in order to stop other regions outlawing the tradition. Last year the regional government in Madrid announced it was awarding bullfighting legal protection locally, because of its cultural importance. Opponents, who describe the practice as a barbaric bloodsport, accused the government of abandoning a commitment to animal rights. Silvia Barquero, spokeswoman for Pacma, an anti-bullfighting political party, told newspaper Público the decision to switch responsibility for bullfighting to the ministry of culture was “complete nonsense … a measure which sends us back to the Middle Ages”. Animal rights campaigners say bullfighting only survives because it is subsidised by the Spanish taxpayer. Attendances are falling, its appeal has faded among younger Spaniards and the industry has been hit by the economic crisis. The number of bullfights taking place at local fiestas has diminished as spending cuts have been enforced. The Catalan regional government voted to ban bullfighting in the northeastern region last July, by 68 votes to 55, with nine abstentions, on the grounds it is cruel and outdated. The vote was held after campaign group Prou! (Enough! in Catalan) collected 180,000 signatures in favour of a ban. Anti-bullfighting organisations hope the Catalan example will be copied in some of Spain’s 16 other autonomous communities. Critics of the ban said it was motivated more by Catalan nationalism and a desire to assure political independence from Madrid than by a genuine desire to outlaw the tradition. The ban, which will come into effect next January and will not be affected by Friday’s decision, will be the first to be introduced in mainland Spain. The Canary Islands outlawed bullfighting in 1991. A poll last year for the newspaper El País found 60% of Spaniards did not enjoy bullfighting, but 57% disagreed with the ban in Catalonia. Bullfighting Spain José Luis Zapatero Europe guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Virginia Zeani Puccini – Manon Lescaut, ‘In quelle trine morbide’ S.Margherita Ligure,Miss Italia 2011 Selezioni,Miss Cinema Veribel,feat.Gaia De Martino.3 Chant – Rise Of The Triad OST (lossless audio source) necta_rin says: @ lkozloff as for the frog, it’s root is prolly this: http://t.co/NgDUwnD @ evilmink
Continue reading …humorfeast says: Humor Feast: Drew Barrymore directs indie band video http://t.co/7FWuGVK via @ humorfeast
Continue reading …The very talented http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2011/07/fiscally-responsible-punk-rock-music.php entered this video into the $100,000 Power Line Video Contest. “You’re Gonna Pay!” Fiscally Responsible Punk Broadcasting platform : YouTube Source : Gateway Pundit Discovery Date : 31/07/2011 07:30 Number of articles : 2
Continue reading …Design Council chief celebrates Prince Charles’ lack of involvement as traditionalists complain about ‘overt prejudice’ A new skirmish in a long-running and often bitterly fought architectural “style war” between modernists and traditionalists has broken out over the stadiums and arenas of the London Olympics park. Prince Charles’s favourite architects have accused the head of England’s national architectural review body of “overt prejudice” after he made a barbed attack on the heir to the throne’s love of traditional buildings, and heaped praise on the resolutely modernist designs that will be beamed around the world as the backdrop to next summer’s games. Paul Finch, chairman of the Design Council Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment, the government-funded design watchdog that vets major planning applications with the help of government funding, applauded the selection of Zaha Hadid, the avant garde Iraqi-born architect who designed the sinuous aquatics centre, and Populous, the designer of the main 80,000-seat stadium. But, more provocatively, Finch celebrated the fact that the country’s leading traditional architects, who are favoured by the Prince of Wales, were not in any way involved. “One of the good things about the London 2012 Olympics is the realisation that we have a set of buildings produced not by Quinlan Terry, Robert Adam, John Simpson, but by Hopkins, Hadid, Populous, Make, Heneghan Peng et al,” he said. “None of it endorsed by the Prince of Wales, none of it to do with heritage.” The Traditional Architecture Group, whose members include Terry and Adam, both leading exponents of classical buildings inspired by architects from the past, including Sir Christopher Wren and Andrea Palladio, has complained to the culture secretary, Jeremy Hunt, and communities secretary, Eric Pickles, that Finch’s remarks, made in the Architects’ Journal, displayed “significant prejudice against one style or architectural philosophy at the highest level”. The group said its members were “dismayed and alarmed”. “His is a fundamentally prejudicial point of view from someone in a senior position,” added Adam. “He shouldn’t be in the position he is in.” Prince Charles has previously enraged some British architects by speaking out against modernist designs. In 2009 Richard Rogers was dropped as the designer of a £3bn housing development at Chelsea Barracks after the Prince questioned his design in a private letter to the Qatari client. In 1984 he torpedoed a modernist extension to the National Gallery in London by complaining it was “like a monstrous carbuncle on the face of a much-loved and elegant friend”. Now the prince’s architectural allies feel they have found in Finch a lightning rod for their own simmering sense of injustice that a parallel “modernist establishment” is seeking to marginalise them with the result that some traditional architects believe commissions for Olympic projects were effectively closed to them. “It was considered a waste of time to go for the Olympic work,” said Adam, a classicist who has designed a new 4,000-home settlement in Wales with the Prince’s Foundation for the Built Environment. Lord Rogers chaired the selection panel for the aquatics centre and Ricky Burdett, professor of urbanism at the London School of Economics and a close ally of Rogers, was hired as chief design adviser to the Olympic Delivery Authority. Finch continues to chair the panel scrutinising designs for stadiums and arenas for the Olympics. The firm of Sir Michael Hopkins, who designed the Portcullis House MPs’ office, was responsible for the velodrome which is favourite to win this year’s Stirling prize for the best building designed or built in Britain. Make, a firm led by Ken Shuttleworth who was a lead designer on the gherkin tower in London, has designed the handball arena, while Heneghan Peng, a Dublin-based firm, has designed a sinuous complex of footbridges between the main stadium and the aquatics centre. In his remarks Finch singled out Terry, who provided architectural advice to Prince Charles in his successful attempt to block the modernist redevelopment of Chelsea Barracks, and John Simpson who was hired to carry out alterations to Kensington Palace. The Traditional Architecture Group has asked Pickles, whose department funds the Design Council Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment, to instruct councils to ignore the watchdog’s views until Finch apologises and retracts his remarks. “It is the policy of this and recent governments to favour no architectural style in planning decisions,” wrote Alireza Sagharchi, the group’s chairman. “Yet by contrasting some better-known traditional architects with those working on the Olympics, Mr Finch has expressed his very clear bias against traditional architecture.” He asked for assurances that Finch’s views would “not be allowed to taint the planning system”, according to Building Design magazine. In response Finch said: “I will respond to them when they show me the courtesy of writing to me and I will be only too happy to point out the many apparent errors in what passes for their analysis.” A spokesman for the Department for Communities and Local Government said: “These are opinions expressed in a magazine article, not official advice to central or local government. As such we have no comment to make.” Finch’s comments in favour of the modernist appearance of Olympic Park architecture appear to undermine the neutral stance he advocated last year when asked about a proposal by Prince Charles’s Foundation for the Built Environment to take on some of the design review role now undertaken by the Design Council. He said: “The public interest is better served by concentrating on the quality of a piece of architecture rather than style which can come down to superficial visual appearance. It comes down to whether their advice would be independent and disinterested and they obviously have a stylistic preference.” Charles’s tastes: rated and hated • Charles praised Dharavi, one of the largest slums in Mumbai, for its “underlying intuitive grammar of design”, saying it represented a better model for housing populations in the developing world than western architecture • He backed Quinlan Terry’s alternative designs for Chelsea Barracks which were inspired by the work of Sir Christopher Wren, the 17th century architect of St Paul’s cathedral • Poundbury in Dorset is the most complete version of Prince Charles’ architectural vision, including the fire station which has been described as “the Parthenon meets Brookside” • When talking to soldiers destined for service in Afghanistan in 2008 he said the Ivor Crewe building at Essex University “looks like a dustbin from the outside” • Earlier that year he warned a series of planned skyscrapers in London would be “not just one carbuncle on the face of a much-loved friend, but a positive rash of them that will disfigure precious views and disinherit future generations of Londoners” • Charles said the brutalist concrete Birmingham Central Library, designed in 1974 by John Madin, looked like “a place where books are incinerated, not kept” Olympic Games 2012 Architecture Zaha Hadid Monarchy Prince Charles Robert Booth guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …