Two thousand jobs to go, a reduction in sport and entertainment – and more TV repeats A shrunken BBC will lose 2,000 jobs, show more repeats on BBC2 and cut spending on sport and entertainment programmes as the broadcaster sets out plans to show that it could contend with a licence fee freeze that is due to last until at least 2017. BBC News will bear the brunt of the job losses, with 800 positions lost, largely from merging the broadcaster’s publicly funded news operation with the World Service, and not transmitting programmes such as Newsnight and Radio 4′s PM live from party conferences. Meanwhile, BBC3 will be moved to the corporation’s northern base in Salford, which will become home to at least another 1,000 staff, taking its total workforce to 3,300, while the BBC prepares to leave its west London headquarters. There will also be wide-ranging cuts to the BBC’s radio output, with the exception of Radio 4. Mark Thompson, the BBC’s director general, said the review – called “delivering quality first” – would lead to a smaller and radically reshaped BBC. The changes were designed to save £670m a year by 2017. But the corporation had come to the end of the road, he said, if more cuts were forced on it in the future. “We can’t do this again. Another real-terms cut in the licence fee will inevitably lead to a loss of services or diminution in quality or both,” he said. “If [we are forced] to go for more real-terms cuts the amount of road left for productivity savings is rapidly running out.” A year ago, intense behind-the-scenes negotiations between Thompson and the culture secretary, Jeremy Hunt, left the BBC with its licence fee frozen at £145.50. The corporation also agreed to take on extra responsibilities from the government, including the taxpayer-funded World Service. Despite the freeze, the corporation has been able to avoid axing any of its digital channels or services, and its chairman, Lord Patten, argued that its scope was not significantly diminished: “The BBC is far from perfect but it is a great institution and, at its best, a great broadcaster. We have a tough and challenging new licence fee settlement, but it should still be possible to run an outstanding broadcaster on £3.5bn a year.” Unions voiced concern at the impact of the changes. Gerry Morrissey, general secretary of technicians’ trade union BECTU, said: “When Mark Thompson did the licence fee deal he said the BBC could not continue to do everything. But this is salami slicing. I believe the BBC should have been brave and should have said we are not going to damage quality. This strategy is destroying quality, jobs and the
Continue reading …Two thousand jobs to go, a reduction in sport and entertainment – and more TV repeats A shrunken BBC will lose 2,000 jobs, show more repeats on BBC2 and cut spending on sport and entertainment programmes as the broadcaster sets out plans to show that it could contend with a licence fee freeze that is due to last until at least 2017. BBC News will bear the brunt of the job losses, with 800 positions lost, largely from merging the broadcaster’s publicly funded news operation with the World Service, and not transmitting programmes such as Newsnight and Radio 4′s PM live from party conferences. Meanwhile, BBC3 will be moved to the corporation’s northern base in Salford, which will become home to at least another 1,000 staff, taking its total workforce to 3,300, while the BBC prepares to leave its west London headquarters. There will also be wide-ranging cuts to the BBC’s radio output, with the exception of Radio 4. Mark Thompson, the BBC’s director general, said the review – called “delivering quality first” – would lead to a smaller and radically reshaped BBC. The changes were designed to save £670m a year by 2017. But the corporation had come to the end of the road, he said, if more cuts were forced on it in the future. “We can’t do this again. Another real-terms cut in the licence fee will inevitably lead to a loss of services or diminution in quality or both,” he said. “If [we are forced] to go for more real-terms cuts the amount of road left for productivity savings is rapidly running out.” A year ago, intense behind-the-scenes negotiations between Thompson and the culture secretary, Jeremy Hunt, left the BBC with its licence fee frozen at £145.50. The corporation also agreed to take on extra responsibilities from the government, including the taxpayer-funded World Service. Despite the freeze, the corporation has been able to avoid axing any of its digital channels or services, and its chairman, Lord Patten, argued that its scope was not significantly diminished: “The BBC is far from perfect but it is a great institution and, at its best, a great broadcaster. We have a tough and challenging new licence fee settlement, but it should still be possible to run an outstanding broadcaster on £3.5bn a year.” Unions voiced concern at the impact of the changes. Gerry Morrissey, general secretary of technicians’ trade union BECTU, said: “When Mark Thompson did the licence fee deal he said the BBC could not continue to do everything. But this is salami slicing. I believe the BBC should have been brave and should have said we are not going to damage quality. This strategy is destroying quality, jobs and the
Continue reading …
Abramovich lawyers say Berezovsky gave contradictory and untrue evidence in support of his multi-billion damages claim The Russian oligarch Boris Berezovsky faced repeated accusations in the high court that he had given untrue and contradictory evidence in his multi-billion damages claim against Roman Abramovich. Berezovsky is suing the owner of Chelsea football club for more than $5bn (£3.2bn). He claims that Abramovich “betrayed” him after Berezovsky fell out with the Kremlin and fled to Britain in 2000, forcing him to sell his share in the Russian oil company Sibneft for a knockdown price. Berezovsky told the court how he, Abramovich and the Georgian businessman Badri Patarkatsishvili created Sibneft in 1995, against the backdrop of Russia’s infamous “loans for shares” privatisation programme. He insisted that there had been an agreement under which Abramovich would own half the company and in effect manage it, while he and Patarkatsishvili owned the other half. Giving evidence for the first time, Berezovsky conceded that from early 1994 he became one of Russia’s most politically influential oligarchs. He had a “good relationship” with President Boris Yeltsin’s powerful daughter Tatyana, as well as with other members of Yeltsin’s inner circle, and was the first businessman to join the president’s exclusive Moscow tennis club. But Berezovsky said the main reason for his influence with the Kremlin was his superior “intellectual capacity”. He described Abramovich scathingly as “not a person of the first level” and said he was not talented enough to succeed in business on his own. “To get leverage you need to be smart …He [Abramovich] wasn’t,” Berezovsky said bluntly, conceding in written evidence that Abramovich was instead “very charming”. However, Abramovich’s star lawyer, Jonathan Sumption QC, accused Berezovsky of inconsistencies. Berezovsky had publicly denied he was a Sibneft shareholder only to claim in 2001, once he had left Russia, that he and Patarkatsishvili actually owned half, the court heard. The barrister said the oligarch had lied when he sued Forbes magazine for libel in 2001. In that case he had denied influencing Yeltsin through his daughter – something, Sumption said, Berezovsky now admitted. “Why did you deny it and then sign a statement of truth in support of your denial?” he asked. Speaking in English, and visibly flustered, Berezovsky answered: “It’s a good question.” The packed court erupted in laughter. The judge, Mrs Justice Gloster, appeared unimpressed, chipping in: “Well, could you answer it please.” Berezovsky said his lawyers had prepared the document, and he had not paid too much attention to it. Abramovich, who was in court, listened to the proceedings via a Russian translation, intently, occasionally rubbing his face. Berezovsky asserts that Abramovich held his interest in Sibneft for him in trust, even though officially he was never a shareholder. Abramovich – who is still close to Russia’s prime minister, Vladimir Putin – eventually gave him a $1.3bn pay-off. Berezovsky maintains this was a gross undervaluation for what his interest in the oil company was actually worth. Abramovich sold Sibneft to Gazprom in 2005. Berezovsky said he agreed with Sumption’s description of Russia in the 1990s as the “wild east”. The oligarch admitted that corruption was widespread, but said that he personally “wasn’t corrupt”. But he said that under Yeltsin Russia was significantly less corrupt than today under Putin’s authoritarian leadership, which scored 10 out of 10 for corruption compared with Yeltsin’s “3 or 4″ out of 10. Berezovsky that his main priority had been to secure Yeltsin’s re-election as president in 1996 against the spectre of a communist comeback during closely fought elections. He said he had used his lobbying skills to ensure Sibneft won an auction for two Siberian oil companies as a way of raising money. His real goal, though, he said, was to support his loss-making ORT TV station, a crucial tool in Yeltsin’s faltering re-election campaign. The case is scheduled to last two months. Boris Berezovsky Roman Abramovich Russia Luke Harding guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Abramovich lawyers say Berezovsky gave contradictory and untrue evidence in support of his multi-billion damages claim The Russian oligarch Boris Berezovsky faced repeated accusations in the high court that he had given untrue and contradictory evidence in his multi-billion damages claim against Roman Abramovich. Berezovsky is suing the owner of Chelsea football club for more than $5bn (£3.2bn). He claims that Abramovich “betrayed” him after Berezovsky fell out with the Kremlin and fled to Britain in 2000, forcing him to sell his share in the Russian oil company Sibneft for a knockdown price. Berezovsky told the court how he, Abramovich and the Georgian businessman Badri Patarkatsishvili created Sibneft in 1995, against the backdrop of Russia’s infamous “loans for shares” privatisation programme. He insisted that there had been an agreement under which Abramovich would own half the company and in effect manage it, while he and Patarkatsishvili owned the other half. Giving evidence for the first time, Berezovsky conceded that from early 1994 he became one of Russia’s most politically influential oligarchs. He had a “good relationship” with President Boris Yeltsin’s powerful daughter Tatyana, as well as with other members of Yeltsin’s inner circle, and was the first businessman to join the president’s exclusive Moscow tennis club. But Berezovsky said the main reason for his influence with the Kremlin was his superior “intellectual capacity”. He described Abramovich scathingly as “not a person of the first level” and said he was not talented enough to succeed in business on his own. “To get leverage you need to be smart …He [Abramovich] wasn’t,” Berezovsky said bluntly, conceding in written evidence that Abramovich was instead “very charming”. However, Abramovich’s star lawyer, Jonathan Sumption QC, accused Berezovsky of inconsistencies. Berezovsky had publicly denied he was a Sibneft shareholder only to claim in 2001, once he had left Russia, that he and Patarkatsishvili actually owned half, the court heard. The barrister said the oligarch had lied when he sued Forbes magazine for libel in 2001. In that case he had denied influencing Yeltsin through his daughter – something, Sumption said, Berezovsky now admitted. “Why did you deny it and then sign a statement of truth in support of your denial?” he asked. Speaking in English, and visibly flustered, Berezovsky answered: “It’s a good question.” The packed court erupted in laughter. The judge, Mrs Justice Gloster, appeared unimpressed, chipping in: “Well, could you answer it please.” Berezovsky said his lawyers had prepared the document, and he had not paid too much attention to it. Abramovich, who was in court, listened to the proceedings via a Russian translation, intently, occasionally rubbing his face. Berezovsky asserts that Abramovich held his interest in Sibneft for him in trust, even though officially he was never a shareholder. Abramovich – who is still close to Russia’s prime minister, Vladimir Putin – eventually gave him a $1.3bn pay-off. Berezovsky maintains this was a gross undervaluation for what his interest in the oil company was actually worth. Abramovich sold Sibneft to Gazprom in 2005. Berezovsky said he agreed with Sumption’s description of Russia in the 1990s as the “wild east”. The oligarch admitted that corruption was widespread, but said that he personally “wasn’t corrupt”. But he said that under Yeltsin Russia was significantly less corrupt than today under Putin’s authoritarian leadership, which scored 10 out of 10 for corruption compared with Yeltsin’s “3 or 4″ out of 10. Berezovsky that his main priority had been to secure Yeltsin’s re-election as president in 1996 against the spectre of a communist comeback during closely fought elections. He said he had used his lobbying skills to ensure Sibneft won an auction for two Siberian oil companies as a way of raising money. His real goal, though, he said, was to support his loss-making ORT TV station, a crucial tool in Yeltsin’s faltering re-election campaign. The case is scheduled to last two months. Boris Berezovsky Roman Abramovich Russia Luke Harding guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Abramovich lawyers say Berezovsky gave contradictory and untrue evidence in support of his multi-billion damages claim The Russian oligarch Boris Berezovsky faced repeated accusations in the high court that he had given untrue and contradictory evidence in his multi-billion damages claim against Roman Abramovich. Berezovsky is suing the owner of Chelsea football club for more than $5bn (£3.2bn). He claims that Abramovich “betrayed” him after Berezovsky fell out with the Kremlin and fled to Britain in 2000, forcing him to sell his share in the Russian oil company Sibneft for a knockdown price. Berezovsky told the court how he, Abramovich and the Georgian businessman Badri Patarkatsishvili created Sibneft in 1995, against the backdrop of Russia’s infamous “loans for shares” privatisation programme. He insisted that there had been an agreement under which Abramovich would own half the company and in effect manage it, while he and Patarkatsishvili owned the other half. Giving evidence for the first time, Berezovsky conceded that from early 1994 he became one of Russia’s most politically influential oligarchs. He had a “good relationship” with President Boris Yeltsin’s powerful daughter Tatyana, as well as with other members of Yeltsin’s inner circle, and was the first businessman to join the president’s exclusive Moscow tennis club. But Berezovsky said the main reason for his influence with the Kremlin was his superior “intellectual capacity”. He described Abramovich scathingly as “not a person of the first level” and said he was not talented enough to succeed in business on his own. “To get leverage you need to be smart …He [Abramovich] wasn’t,” Berezovsky said bluntly, conceding in written evidence that Abramovich was instead “very charming”. However, Abramovich’s star lawyer, Jonathan Sumption QC, accused Berezovsky of inconsistencies. Berezovsky had publicly denied he was a Sibneft shareholder only to claim in 2001, once he had left Russia, that he and Patarkatsishvili actually owned half, the court heard. The barrister said the oligarch had lied when he sued Forbes magazine for libel in 2001. In that case he had denied influencing Yeltsin through his daughter – something, Sumption said, Berezovsky now admitted. “Why did you deny it and then sign a statement of truth in support of your denial?” he asked. Speaking in English, and visibly flustered, Berezovsky answered: “It’s a good question.” The packed court erupted in laughter. The judge, Mrs Justice Gloster, appeared unimpressed, chipping in: “Well, could you answer it please.” Berezovsky said his lawyers had prepared the document, and he had not paid too much attention to it. Abramovich, who was in court, listened to the proceedings via a Russian translation, intently, occasionally rubbing his face. Berezovsky asserts that Abramovich held his interest in Sibneft for him in trust, even though officially he was never a shareholder. Abramovich – who is still close to Russia’s prime minister, Vladimir Putin – eventually gave him a $1.3bn pay-off. Berezovsky maintains this was a gross undervaluation for what his interest in the oil company was actually worth. Abramovich sold Sibneft to Gazprom in 2005. Berezovsky said he agreed with Sumption’s description of Russia in the 1990s as the “wild east”. The oligarch admitted that corruption was widespread, but said that he personally “wasn’t corrupt”. But he said that under Yeltsin Russia was significantly less corrupt than today under Putin’s authoritarian leadership, which scored 10 out of 10 for corruption compared with Yeltsin’s “3 or 4″ out of 10. Berezovsky that his main priority had been to secure Yeltsin’s re-election as president in 1996 against the spectre of a communist comeback during closely fought elections. He said he had used his lobbying skills to ensure Sibneft won an auction for two Siberian oil companies as a way of raising money. His real goal, though, he said, was to support his loss-making ORT TV station, a crucial tool in Yeltsin’s faltering re-election campaign. The case is scheduled to last two months. Boris Berezovsky Roman Abramovich Russia Luke Harding guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Abramovich lawyers say Berezovsky gave contradictory and untrue evidence in support of his multi-billion damages claim The Russian oligarch Boris Berezovsky faced repeated accusations in the high court that he had given untrue and contradictory evidence in his multi-billion damages claim against Roman Abramovich. Berezovsky is suing the owner of Chelsea football club for more than $5bn (£3.2bn). He claims that Abramovich “betrayed” him after Berezovsky fell out with the Kremlin and fled to Britain in 2000, forcing him to sell his share in the Russian oil company Sibneft for a knockdown price. Berezovsky told the court how he, Abramovich and the Georgian businessman Badri Patarkatsishvili created Sibneft in 1995, against the backdrop of Russia’s infamous “loans for shares” privatisation programme. He insisted that there had been an agreement under which Abramovich would own half the company and in effect manage it, while he and Patarkatsishvili owned the other half. Giving evidence for the first time, Berezovsky conceded that from early 1994 he became one of Russia’s most politically influential oligarchs. He had a “good relationship” with President Boris Yeltsin’s powerful daughter Tatyana, as well as with other members of Yeltsin’s inner circle, and was the first businessman to join the president’s exclusive Moscow tennis club. But Berezovsky said the main reason for his influence with the Kremlin was his superior “intellectual capacity”. He described Abramovich scathingly as “not a person of the first level” and said he was not talented enough to succeed in business on his own. “To get leverage you need to be smart …He [Abramovich] wasn’t,” Berezovsky said bluntly, conceding in written evidence that Abramovich was instead “very charming”. However, Abramovich’s star lawyer, Jonathan Sumption QC, accused Berezovsky of inconsistencies. Berezovsky had publicly denied he was a Sibneft shareholder only to claim in 2001, once he had left Russia, that he and Patarkatsishvili actually owned half, the court heard. The barrister said the oligarch had lied when he sued Forbes magazine for libel in 2001. In that case he had denied influencing Yeltsin through his daughter – something, Sumption said, Berezovsky now admitted. “Why did you deny it and then sign a statement of truth in support of your denial?” he asked. Speaking in English, and visibly flustered, Berezovsky answered: “It’s a good question.” The packed court erupted in laughter. The judge, Mrs Justice Gloster, appeared unimpressed, chipping in: “Well, could you answer it please.” Berezovsky said his lawyers had prepared the document, and he had not paid too much attention to it. Abramovich, who was in court, listened to the proceedings via a Russian translation, intently, occasionally rubbing his face. Berezovsky asserts that Abramovich held his interest in Sibneft for him in trust, even though officially he was never a shareholder. Abramovich – who is still close to Russia’s prime minister, Vladimir Putin – eventually gave him a $1.3bn pay-off. Berezovsky maintains this was a gross undervaluation for what his interest in the oil company was actually worth. Abramovich sold Sibneft to Gazprom in 2005. Berezovsky said he agreed with Sumption’s description of Russia in the 1990s as the “wild east”. The oligarch admitted that corruption was widespread, but said that he personally “wasn’t corrupt”. But he said that under Yeltsin Russia was significantly less corrupt than today under Putin’s authoritarian leadership, which scored 10 out of 10 for corruption compared with Yeltsin’s “3 or 4″ out of 10. Berezovsky that his main priority had been to secure Yeltsin’s re-election as president in 1996 against the spectre of a communist comeback during closely fought elections. He said he had used his lobbying skills to ensure Sibneft won an auction for two Siberian oil companies as a way of raising money. His real goal, though, he said, was to support his loss-making ORT TV station, a crucial tool in Yeltsin’s faltering re-election campaign. The case is scheduled to last two months. Boris Berezovsky Roman Abramovich Russia Luke Harding guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …In March, Bill O’Reilly used footage of “union thugs” in Wisconsin shoving people. The clip used to illustrate his assessment had some suspicious looking palm trees in the background. Suspicious because there are no palm trees in Wisconsin. Yes, the family-friendly polite mid-western saunter around the Capitol Building was being reported as violent by right-wingers on Fox News. Those who couldn’t get enough of all those wonderful tea partiers showing up with Glocks talking about watering the tree of liberty with BLOOD – denounced the teachers’ union supporters as being ready to bust heads if their demands were not met. They doctored footage for it. In Madison, there had been palm trees – blow up palm trees carried as an homage to the uprising in Egypt. Then O’Reilly tried to paint them all as psychopaths. Then the number of blow up palm trees increased, the meaning then changed. After the Factor clip above those palm tress were a big middle figure to Billo’s BS. And they were still peaceful. Mayor Bloomberg has allowed the NYPD to arrest the Occupy Wall Street demonstrators. They were again pepper sprayed Wednesday. On the other side of the country, a horrible law passed during the midterms called Measure L , criminalized sleeping on the streets of San Fransisco. So the OccupySF group had a run in with SFPD last night too. Those who oppose people who work for a living are figuring out how to kill this movement. They’re going to throw whatever they can at it until something sticks. We’ve grown so used to the extremist right-wing being smitten with protests and demonstrations because it’s been their billionaire-funded buses bringing the outraged to photo ops. It’d be easy to assume they just enjoy the First Amendment in their venerated Constitution on display. The airing of ideas in the public square. They don’t. This is the brilliance of OccupyTogether . It disseminates the storyline. How can it be said that the Occupy Wall Street crowd are anarchists who want to eat your children for Satan/Soros/Mao/Hitler/Moveon/Unions/BlackPanthers/ACORN/Muslims/BigGovernment/Czars/Socialism/IllegalImmigrants/Obama/DeathPanels/ShariaLaw if the solidarity demonstrations are all peaceful? If it’s your neighbors in your neighborhood locally being out there voicing their frustrations with a rigged system fixed for the 1 percent – it’s impossible to slime all of them. The OccupyTogether movement is a Spartacus moment: ” We are the 99 percent.” We are still doling out pizzas to the demonstrators. This is what I knew I could do to support locally-owned businesses and the protestors: buy pizzas across America. I had no IDEA how big it would get. Amato tells me over 440 of you have donated over $13,000 now. We’ve given out pizzas in seven or eight cities and it’s only growing. Thank you guys for participating!
Continue reading …In March, Bill O’Reilly used footage of “union thugs” in Wisconsin shoving people. The clip used to illustrate his assessment had some suspicious looking palm trees in the background. Suspicious because there are no palm trees in Wisconsin. Yes, the family-friendly polite mid-western saunter around the Capitol Building was being reported as violent by right-wingers on Fox News. Those who couldn’t get enough of all those wonderful tea partiers showing up with Glocks talking about watering the tree of liberty with BLOOD – denounced the teachers’ union supporters as being ready to bust heads if their demands were not met. They doctored footage for it. In Madison, there had been palm trees – blow up palm trees carried as an homage to the uprising in Egypt. Then O’Reilly tried to paint them all as psychopaths. Then the number of blow up palm trees increased, the meaning then changed. After the Factor clip above those palm tress were a big middle figure to Billo’s BS. And they were still peaceful. Mayor Bloomberg has allowed the NYPD to arrest the Occupy Wall Street demonstrators. They were again pepper sprayed Wednesday. On the other side of the country, a horrible law passed during the midterms called Measure L , criminalized sleeping on the streets of San Fransisco. So the OccupySF group had a run in with SFPD last night too. Those who oppose people who work for a living are figuring out how to kill this movement. They’re going to throw whatever they can at it until something sticks. We’ve grown so used to the extremist right-wing being smitten with protests and demonstrations because it’s been their billionaire-funded buses bringing the outraged to photo ops. It’d be easy to assume they just enjoy the First Amendment in their venerated Constitution on display. The airing of ideas in the public square. They don’t. This is the brilliance of OccupyTogether . It disseminates the storyline. How can it be said that the Occupy Wall Street crowd are anarchists who want to eat your children for Satan/Soros/Mao/Hitler/Moveon/Unions/BlackPanthers/ACORN/Muslims/BigGovernment/Czars/Socialism/IllegalImmigrants/Obama/DeathPanels/ShariaLaw if the solidarity demonstrations are all peaceful? If it’s your neighbors in your neighborhood locally being out there voicing their frustrations with a rigged system fixed for the 1 percent – it’s impossible to slime all of them. The OccupyTogether movement is a Spartacus moment: ” We are the 99 percent.” We are still doling out pizzas to the demonstrators. This is what I knew I could do to support locally-owned businesses and the protestors: buy pizzas across America. I had no IDEA how big it would get. Amato tells me over 440 of you have donated over $13,000 now. We’ve given out pizzas in seven or eight cities and it’s only growing. Thank you guys for participating!
Continue reading …In March, Bill O’Reilly used footage of “union thugs” in Wisconsin shoving people. The clip used to illustrate his assessment had some suspicious looking palm trees in the background. Suspicious because there are no palm trees in Wisconsin. Yes, the family-friendly polite mid-western saunter around the Capitol Building was being reported as violent by right-wingers on Fox News. Those who couldn’t get enough of all those wonderful tea partiers showing up with Glocks talking about watering the tree of liberty with BLOOD – denounced the teachers’ union supporters as being ready to bust heads if their demands were not met. They doctored footage for it. In Madison, there had been palm trees – blow up palm trees carried as an homage to the uprising in Egypt. Then O’Reilly tried to paint them all as psychopaths. Then the number of blow up palm trees increased, the meaning then changed. After the Factor clip above those palm tress were a big middle figure to Billo’s BS. And they were still peaceful. Mayor Bloomberg has allowed the NYPD to arrest the Occupy Wall Street demonstrators. They were again pepper sprayed Wednesday. On the other side of the country, a horrible law passed during the midterms called Measure L , criminalized sleeping on the streets of San Fransisco. So the OccupySF group had a run in with SFPD last night too. Those who oppose people who work for a living are figuring out how to kill this movement. They’re going to throw whatever they can at it until something sticks. We’ve grown so used to the extremist right-wing being smitten with protests and demonstrations because it’s been their billionaire-funded buses bringing the outraged to photo ops. It’d be easy to assume they just enjoy the First Amendment in their venerated Constitution on display. The airing of ideas in the public square. They don’t. This is the brilliance of OccupyTogether . It disseminates the storyline. How can it be said that the Occupy Wall Street crowd are anarchists who want to eat your children for Satan/Soros/Mao/Hitler/Moveon/Unions/BlackPanthers/ACORN/Muslims/BigGovernment/Czars/Socialism/IllegalImmigrants/Obama/DeathPanels/ShariaLaw if the solidarity demonstrations are all peaceful? If it’s your neighbors in your neighborhood locally being out there voicing their frustrations with a rigged system fixed for the 1 percent – it’s impossible to slime all of them. The OccupyTogether movement is a Spartacus moment: ” We are the 99 percent.” We are still doling out pizzas to the demonstrators. This is what I knew I could do to support locally-owned businesses and the protestors: buy pizzas across America. I had no IDEA how big it would get. Amato tells me over 440 of you have donated over $13,000 now. We’ve given out pizzas in seven or eight cities and it’s only growing. Thank you guys for participating!
Continue reading …In March, Bill O’Reilly used footage of “union thugs” in Wisconsin shoving people. The clip used to illustrate his assessment had some suspicious looking palm trees in the background. Suspicious because there are no palm trees in Wisconsin. Yes, the family-friendly polite mid-western saunter around the Capitol Building was being reported as violent by right-wingers on Fox News. Those who couldn’t get enough of all those wonderful tea partiers showing up with Glocks talking about watering the tree of liberty with BLOOD – denounced the teachers’ union supporters as being ready to bust heads if their demands were not met. They doctored footage for it. In Madison, there had been palm trees – blow up palm trees carried as an homage to the uprising in Egypt. Then O’Reilly tried to paint them all as psychopaths. Then the number of blow up palm trees increased, the meaning then changed. After the Factor clip above those palm tress were a big middle figure to Billo’s BS. And they were still peaceful. Mayor Bloomberg has allowed the NYPD to arrest the Occupy Wall Street demonstrators. They were again pepper sprayed Wednesday. On the other side of the country, a horrible law passed during the midterms called Measure L , criminalized sleeping on the streets of San Fransisco. So the OccupySF group had a run in with SFPD last night too. Those who oppose people who work for a living are figuring out how to kill this movement. They’re going to throw whatever they can at it until something sticks. We’ve grown so used to the extremist right-wing being smitten with protests and demonstrations because it’s been their billionaire-funded buses bringing the outraged to photo ops. It’d be easy to assume they just enjoy the First Amendment in their venerated Constitution on display. The airing of ideas in the public square. They don’t. This is the brilliance of OccupyTogether . It disseminates the storyline. How can it be said that the Occupy Wall Street crowd are anarchists who want to eat your children for Satan/Soros/Mao/Hitler/Moveon/Unions/BlackPanthers/ACORN/Muslims/BigGovernment/Czars/Socialism/IllegalImmigrants/Obama/DeathPanels/ShariaLaw if the solidarity demonstrations are all peaceful? If it’s your neighbors in your neighborhood locally being out there voicing their frustrations with a rigged system fixed for the 1 percent – it’s impossible to slime all of them. The OccupyTogether movement is a Spartacus moment: ” We are the 99 percent.” We are still doling out pizzas to the demonstrators. This is what I knew I could do to support locally-owned businesses and the protestors: buy pizzas across America. I had no IDEA how big it would get. Amato tells me over 440 of you have donated over $13,000 now. We’ve given out pizzas in seven or eight cities and it’s only growing. Thank you guys for participating!
Continue reading …