Chicago Tribune to Senator Burris: Resign

It's starting to look like the Senate term of Roland Burris may be very, very short. And, that's his own fault. Every day, we're learning more about his contacts with Rod Blagojevich's fundraising operation -- keeping mind that Burris testified under oath that there really weren't any.

The Chicago Tribune Editorial Board has had enough and wants Burris to resign:

The benefit of the doubt had already been stretched thin and taut by the time Roland Burris offered his third version of the events leading to his appointment to the U.S. Senate. It finally snapped like a rubber band, popping him on that long Pinocchio nose of his, when he came out with version four.

Let?s see if we have it right: Burris had zero contact with any of Gov. Rod Blagojevich?s cronies about his interest in the Senate seat being vacated by President Barack Obama? unless you count that conversation with former chief of staff Lon Monk, and, on further reflection, the ones with insiders John Harris, Doug Scofield and John Wyma and, oh yeah, the governor?s brother and fund-raising chief, Robert Blagojevich. But Burris didn?t raise a single dollar for the now ex-governor as a result of those contacts because that could be construed as a quid pro quo and besides, everyone he asked refused to donate.

The story gets worse with every telling.

Enough. Roland Burris must resign.

The sooner the better at this point. While a single newspaper editorial isn't determinative, this one seems to encapsulate the growing consensus. U.S. Senate Democrats aren't springing to the defense of Burris. This line, from The Hill, says a lot:

On Capitol Hill, Democratic leaders largely stayed silent Tuesday.

Read The Full Article:
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/Americablog/~3/PszeY1vxEPI/chicago-tribune-to-sena
tor-burris.html

Add to del.icio.us   Digg this   Post to Furl   Add to reddit   Add to myYahoo!

Both Republicans and Democrats, and I, have this
prediction game nailed

THE FIFTH COLUMNIST by P.M. Carpenter

"Politics," replied a nearly but never-quite-chastened Larry Summers in a frisky evasion of a NY Times question about his "rocky week," as he played Obama's Don Quixote to Washington's assorted windmills, "are hard to predict."

Yes, it can be a tough racket, this prophet-of-politics thing, even for the likes of the omnipotent Mr. Summers. But not so for the politicians themselves. For that crowd (not to mention me and my own, the column-spawning commentariat), the 2010 Congressional elections are in the bag, as good as over, a done deal, with both sides having achieved an awesome victory -- a victory derived solely, of course, from both side's sheer and undeniable awesomeness.

OK, already I find I must walk that back, just a bit Bookmark/Search this post with: buzzflash | delicious | digg | yahoo | technorati Technorati Tags: P.M. Carpenter republicans democrats predictions steele cantor rove

read more

Read The Full Article:
http://www.buzzflash.com/articles/carpenter/315

Add to del.icio.us   Digg this   Post to Furl   Add to reddit   Add to myYahoo!

Muse in the Morning

Muse in the MorningAn Edge in the RainbowWhen I DreamWho am Iwhen I dream?What is this housewith many roomshidden entrancesstaircases to adventuresopening into who knowswhat world?Where is this placeand timeand why am I thereor here?Where is the[...]

Read The Full Article:
http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/Docudharma/~3/542397314/showDiary.do

Add to del.icio.us   Digg this   Post to Furl   Add to reddit   Add to myYahoo!

We Have Met The Enemy, And It Is Us. Fatmerica,
2009.

In a response to a recent Booman post on Booman Tribune, Bad Economic News, MNPundit wrote:

As I said before, the problem is for the human race to maintain our current lifestyle, humanity must sell more than humanity can buy.

There is no way out of that that doesn't lead to reducing standards of living.

You've got that one right, MNPundit!!!

And there is only one segment of the world population that can...and must...do that.

It's us, baby.

It's us.

Walt Kelly knew this 38 years ago.

Earth Day, 1971.

Ol' Walt knew. Now we have to get it together.

Read on if you are so inclined.
We must lean down, and we must start doing so today.

America first, Western Europe next, much of the the Pacific Rim carrying up the rear.

Only...we cannot do this precipitously, because doing so would destabilize the world economy on a disastrous level. It's got to be slow and steady. This is our new president's REAL Job One. (Our lean new president...didja notice? And y'all thought that only his race was symbolic? He doesn't go to the gym twice a day to stay dark, babies. Nope. He knows his symbolic place at all times. That's what got him where he is today. Bet on it.) ) All the rest of his action...that's tactics. Strategy? We've got to back offa the world feedtrough, and we have to do it now, before it's too late.

This process is already in place, and it is market forces that are driving it. Food is more expensive; fuel fluctuates but is always headed up; consumer goods are more expensive; credit is (Thank God!!!) harder to get...the works.

Studies were done only last year by the U.N. that indicate the seriousness of this problem.

Read it and weep. (Weep if you still have not totally mortgaged your conscience, of course. Otherwise, feel free to get angry and defensive. Fatmerica is SO over, and so are you if you don't get your shit together.)

Pioneering Study Shows Richest Two Percent Own Half World Wealth

The richest 2% of adults in the world own more than half of global household wealth according to a path-breaking study released today by the Helsinki-based World Institute for Development Economics Research of the United Nations University (UNU-WIDER).

The most comprehensive study of personal wealth ever undertaken also reports that the richest 1% of adults alone owned 40% of global assets in the year 2000, and that the richest 10% of adults accounted for 85% of the world total. In contrast, the bottom half of the world adult population owned barely 1% of global wealth.

The research finds that assets of $2,200 per adult placed a household in the top half of the world wealth distribution in the year 2000. To be among the richest 10% of adults in the world required $61,000 in assets, and more than $500,000 was needed to belong to the richest 1%, a group which - with 37 million members worldwide - is far from an exclusive club.

---snip---

Wealth is heavily concentrated in North America, Europe, and high income Asia-Pacific countries. People in these countries collectively hold almost 90% of total world wealth. (Figure 2: Regional Wealth Shares)

Although North America has only 6% of the world adult population, it accounts for 34% of household wealth. Europe and high income Asia-Pacific countries also own disproportionate amounts of wealth. In contrast, the overall share of wealth owned by people in Africa, China, India, and other lower income countries in Asia is considerably less than their population share, sometimes by a factor of more than ten. (Figure 3: Population and Wealth Shares by Region)

---snip---

Where do the world's wealthy live?

According to the study, almost all of the world's richest individuals live in North America, Europe, and rich Asia-Pacific countries. Each of these groups of countries contribute about one third of the members of the world's wealthiest 10%. (Figure 4: Regional Composition of Global Wealth Distribution)

China occupies much of the middle third of the global wealth distribution, while India, Africa, and low-income Asian countries dominate the bottom third.

---snip---

A small number of countries account for most of the wealthiest 10% in the world. One-quarter are Americans and another 20% are Japanese. (Figure 5: Percentage Membership of Wealthiest 10%)

These two countries feature even more strongly among the richest 1% of individuals in the world, with 37% residing in the USA and 27% in Japan. (Figure 6: Percentage Membership of Wealthiest 1%)

According to Anthony Shorrocks, a country's representation in the rich person's club depends on three factors: the size of the population, average wealth, and wealth inequality.

'The USA and Japan stand out', he says, 'because they have large populations and high average wealth. Although Switzerland and Luxembourg have high average wealth, their populations are small. China on the other hand fails to feature strongly among the super-rich because average wealth is modest and wealth is evenly spread by international standards. However, China is already likely to have more wealthy residents than our data reveals for the year 2000, and membership of the super-rich seems set to rise fast in the next decade.'

---snip

Only redistribution can change this situation, and until some sort of organic redistrubution of the wealth of this world occurs the ongoing wars and resistances of which the Vietnam and Iraq conflicts were only the opening salvoes will continue. The nationalist movements in South America will be echoed eventually in Africa, and the Islamic fundamentalist movements...by far the most reactionary of such events and thus the most dangerous...will also continue. As I have said so many times on these blogs..."Them injuns got repeatin' rifles now, Clem!!!"

Nuclear repeatin' rifles.

There is no way on earth that we can continue to bogart this joint.

Sorry, folks.

Get rid of your empty, middle class, bourgeois, advertising-driven aspirations and join the working class.

It's nice down here. You buy what you can afford and it all works out.

Try it.

You'll like it.

Sell your McMansions...or break them up into apartments, whichever best suits your needs...sell your suburban McMansions and move into respectable, mixed-race working class neighborhoods. Get rid of your fucking SUVs; walk, use bicycles, public trans or motorized transport that fits your real space and travel needs; stop eating empty, nutritionless crap that makes you fat and stupid and join the rest of the fucking human race.

And yeah...I mean you. Whoever the shoe fits.

You know who you are.

And if you do not know who you are, you are about to learn. That shoe that fits? The other shoes are gonna drop eventually, and they are going to land right on your lardassed lives until you either wise up or go down swilling.

Bet on that as well.

Thank you and good morning.

AG

Read The Full Article:
http://www.myleftwing.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=24377

Add to del.icio.us   Digg this   Post to Furl   Add to reddit   Add to myYahoo!

We Have Met The Enemy, And It Is Fatmerica.

In a response to a recent Booman post on Booman Tribune, Bad Economic News, MNPundit wrote:

As I said before, the problem is for the human race to maintain our current lifestyle, humanity must sell more than humanity can buy.

There is no way out of that that doesn't lead to reducing standards of living.

You've got that one right, MNPundit!!!

And there is only one segment of the world population that can...and must...do that.

It's us, baby.

It's us.

Walt Kelly knew this 38 years ago.

Earth Day, 1971.

Ol' Walt knew. Now we have to get it together.

Read on if you are so inclined.
We must lean down, and we must start doing so today.

America first, Western Europe next, much of the the Pacific Rim carrying up the rear.

Only...we cannot do this precipitously, because doing so would destabilize the world economy on a disastrous level. It's got to be slow and steady. This is our new president's REAL Job One. (Our lean new president...didja notice? And y'all thought that only his race was symbolic? He doesn't go to the gym twice a day to stay dark, babies. Nope. He knows his symbolic place at all times. That's what got him where he is today. Bet on it.) ) All the rest of his action...that's tactics. Strategy? We've got to back offa the world feedtrough, and we have to do it now, before it's too late.

This process is already in place, and it is market forces that are driving it. Food is more expensive; fuel fluctuates but is always headed up; consumer goods are more expensive; credit is (Thank God!!!) harder to get...the works.

Studies were done only last year by the U.N. that indicate the seriousness of this problem.

Read it and weep. (Weep if you still have not totally mortgaged your conscience, of course. Otherwise, feel free to get angry and defensive. Fatmerica is SO over, and so are you if you don't get your shit together.)

Pioneering Study Shows Richest Two Percent Own Half World Wealth

The richest 2% of adults in the world own more than half of global household wealth according to a path-breaking study released today by the Helsinki-based World Institute for Development Economics Research of the United Nations University (UNU-WIDER).

The most comprehensive study of personal wealth ever undertaken also reports that the richest 1% of adults alone owned 40% of global assets in the year 2000, and that the richest 10% of adults accounted for 85% of the world total. In contrast, the bottom half of the world adult population owned barely 1% of global wealth.

The research finds that assets of $2,200 per adult placed a household in the top half of the world wealth distribution in the year 2000. To be among the richest 10% of adults in the world required $61,000 in assets, and more than $500,000 was needed to belong to the richest 1%, a group which - with 37 million members worldwide - is far from an exclusive club.

---snip---

Wealth is heavily concentrated in North America, Europe, and high income Asia-Pacific countries. People in these countries collectively hold almost 90% of total world wealth. (Figure 2: Regional Wealth Shares)

Although North America has only 6% of the world adult population, it accounts for 34% of household wealth. Europe and high income Asia-Pacific countries also own disproportionate amounts of wealth. In contrast, the overall share of wealth owned by people in Africa, China, India, and other lower income countries in Asia is considerably less than their population share, sometimes by a factor of more than ten. (Figure 3: Population and Wealth Shares by Region)

---snip---

Where do the world's wealthy live?

According to the study, almost all of the world's richest individuals live in North America, Europe, and rich Asia-Pacific countries. Each of these groups of countries contribute about one third of the members of the world's wealthiest 10%. (Figure 4: Regional Composition of Global Wealth Distribution)

China occupies much of the middle third of the global wealth distribution, while India, Africa, and low-income Asian countries dominate the bottom third.

---snip---

A small number of countries account for most of the wealthiest 10% in the world. One-quarter are Americans and another 20% are Japanese. (Figure 5: Percentage Membership of Wealthiest 10%)

These two countries feature even more strongly among the richest 1% of individuals in the world, with 37% residing in the USA and 27% in Japan. (Figure 6: Percentage Membership of Wealthiest 1%)

According to Anthony Shorrocks, a country's representation in the rich person's club depends on three factors: the size of the population, average wealth, and wealth inequality.

'The USA and Japan stand out', he says, 'because they have large populations and high average wealth. Although Switzerland and Luxembourg have high average wealth, their populations are small. China on the other hand fails to feature strongly among the super-rich because average wealth is modest and wealth is evenly spread by international standards. However, China is already likely to have more wealthy residents than our data reveals for the year 2000, and membership of the super-rich seems set to rise fast in the next decade.'

---snip

Only redistribution can change this situation, and until some sort of organic redistrubution of the wealth of this world occurs the ongoing wars and resistances of which the Vietnam and Iraq conflicts were only the opening salvoes will continue. The nationalist movements in South America will be echoed eventually in Africa, and the Islamic fundamentalist movements...by far the most reactionary of such events and thus the most dangerous...will also continue. As I have said so many times on these blogs..."Them injuns got repeatin' rifles now, Clem!!!"

Nuclear repeatin' rifles.

There is no way on earth that we can continue to bogart this joint.

Sorry, folks.

Get rid of your empty, middle class, bourgeois, advertising-driven aspirations and join the working class.

It's nice down here. You buy what you can afford and it all works out.

Try it.

You'll like it.

Sell your McMansions...or break them up into apartments, whichever best suits your needs...sell your suburban McMansions and move into respectable, mixed-race working class neighborhoods. Get rid of your fucking SUVs; walk, use bicycles, public trans or motorized transport that fits your real space and travel needs; stop eating empty, nutritionless crap that makes you fat and stupid and join the rest of the fucking human race.

And yeah...I mean you. Whoever the shoe fits.

You know who you are.

And if you do not know who you are, you are about to learn. That shoe that fits? The other shoes are gonna drop eventually, and they are going to land right on your lardassed lives until you either wise up or go down swilling.

Bet on that as well.

Thank you and good morning.

AG

Read The Full Article:
http://www.myleftwing.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=24377

Add to del.icio.us   Digg this   Post to Furl   Add to reddit   Add to myYahoo!

Kansas Senate Approves Statewide Smoking Ban

In the kerfuffle that has been the last two days, I've not been able to keep up on some of the[...]

Read The Full Article:
http://kansasjackass.blogspot.com/2009/02/kansas-senate-approves-statewide.html

Add to del.icio.us   Digg this   Post to Furl   Add to reddit   Add to myYahoo!

A Case Against Home Owning

As the Obama Administration unveils its $50 billion plan today to prevent foreclosures, an urban theorist argues that a nation of renters would be better for America's future.

In the Atlantic, Richard Florida takes on the sanctity of home ownership by calling decades of housing growth in the Sun Belt and elsewhere a Ponzi scheme:

"To an uncommon degree, the economic boom in these cities was propelled by housing appreciation: as prices rose, more people moved in, seeking inexpensive lifestyles and the opportunity to get in on the real-estate market where it was rising, but still affordable. Local homeowners pumped more and more capital out of their houses as well, taking out home-equity loans and injecting money into the local economy in the form of home improvements and demand for retail goods and low-level services.

"Cities grew, tax coffers filled, spending continued, more people arrived. Yet the boom itself neither followed nor resulted in the development of sustainable, scalable, highly productive industries or services. It was fueled and funded by housing, and housing was its primary product. Whole cities and metro regions became giant Ponzi schemes."

Now that the housing bubble has burst, Florida advocates "removal of homeownership from its long-privileged place at the center of the U.S. economy. Substantial incentives for homeownership (from tax breaks to artificially low mortgage-interest rates) distort demand, encouraging people to buy bigger houses than they otherwise would. That means less spending on medical technology, or software, or alternative energy?the sectors and products that could drive U.S. growth and exports in the coming years...

"If anything, our government policies should encourage renting, not buying. Homeownership occupies a central place in the American Dream primarily because decades of policy have put it there. A recent study...shows that...homeowners are no happier than renters, nor do they report lower levels of stress or higher levels of self-esteem."

As provocative as this argument may be, it will meet heavy resistance. In yesterday's Times, David Brooks mocks urban planners who dream Americans "will give up their love affair with suburban sprawl and will rediscover denser, more environmentally friendly, less auto-dependent ways of living."

He cites a Pew study: "City dwellers are least happy with where they live" and most Americans still long for "places where you can imagine yourself with a stuffed garage--filled with skis, kayaks, soccer equipment, hiking boots and boating equipment. These are places you can imagine yourself leading an active outdoor lifestyle."

Right or wrong, Americans will be worshipping at the shrine of home ownership until this economic crisis eases, and the government will keep pumping billions of bailout money into keeping them there.



Read The Full Article:
http://ajliebling.blogspot.com/2009/02/case-against-home-owning.html

Add to del.icio.us   Digg this   Post to Furl   Add to reddit   Add to myYahoo!

Investigations

It looks like the Senate is going to investigate Roland Burris. This fascinates me, but not for the reason you might think. What I'm thinking about is fairness, and "likability".

Think about your personal life. Over time, you've known people who you didn't like. When you don't like them everything they do bothers you.  Maybe it's a distant relative you have to put up with at the holidays, or the spouse of a friend, or a co-worker. There could be another person who does the exact same things, but you ignore those character traits because you like the person. Search your mind and your heart, you know exactly what I'm talking about.

Now, expand that to people you only "know" from reading about them in the newspapers. People don't like Rod Blagojevich (I'm convinced it's his hair) so he was the object of scorn, and he was quickly ousted. But he didn't do anything that MANY other politicians do. Roland Burris isn't liked only because he's associated with Rod, and therefore it's okay to investigate him. Bill Richardson has all sorts of pay-to-play problems, but we hear nothing about it, because people like him. Ted Stevens was never investigated by the Senate, and he's a convicted felon. Chris Dodd will never be investigated for his ties to banking. Over on the House side, neither will Barney Frank. Charlie Rangel's ethics charges just hang in the air, and John Murtha is going to get a walk for his ethics problems (although I don't think he'll be running again next year because of them.) Tom Daschle is gone, gone, gone, and Tim Geithner is in charge of Treasury. 

Why is it? I think it's because most people will ignore things that matter if they like someone. Most people seem to care less about the action itself, than who did it. 

The other night, I had a number of people over the house to work on the 2009 project. We discussed the spring and summer voter registration plan, hooking up with other groups who are working towards early voting in Pennsylvania by 2012, and then we had a little political discussion. And one of the topics was whether we, as Democrats, should talk about people who have potentially broken the law, or may be guilty of ethics violations. 

One school of thought says "NO! We're Democrats, and we're in power, and we need to keep quiet about anything even potentially negative. We should only talk about bad things if they're all over the news and we can't ignore them."

The other side (which is also my position) is that we need to hold our people accountable as much as we hold the IIE responsible. There are good Democrats and bad Democrats, good people and bad people. The way we affect change, and move forward, and change the system is to shine a critical eye on actions which are wrong, irrespective of those who undertake them. 

Here's an example: pay to play. If Rod is the poster child, and everyone else gets a walk, the system doesn't change, because it was an isolated incident. But pay to play is NOT isolated, it's ubiquitous, and so long as people get away with it, the process will continue in perpetuity. Do you wish to direct your ire to someone you don't like, or actually change pay to play so that contracting is fair, and bond derivative swaps become a thing of the past? Which is more important to you, finding a scapegoat in someone you don't even know, but dislike, or actually solving the problem? 

Online Surveys & Market Research

 

Read The Full Article:
http://www.Demconwatchblog.com/diary/916/investigations

Add to del.icio.us   Digg this   Post to Furl   Add to reddit   Add to myYahoo!

US Campaign to End the Israeli Occupation : Watch
The Commercial on the U.S. Role in Israel's War on Gaza and Take Action

  Watch the 30-second commercial we produced about the U.S. role in Israel?s recent war on the Gaza Strip, which was censored by DIRECTV. US Campaign to End the Israeli Occupation : Watch Our Commercial on the U.S. Role in Israel's War on Gaza and Take Action Technorati Tags: Israel,Gaza,Gaza Strip,war,violence,video

[[ This is a content summary only. Visit my website for full links, other content, and more! ]]

Read The Full Article:
http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/uncomfortablyNumb/~3/542529238/us-campaign-to-end-
israeli-occupation.html

Add to del.icio.us   Digg this   Post to Furl   Add to reddit   Add to myYahoo!

O'Reilly cites bogus poll to defend attack on
Helen Thomas.

video details and more



Bill O'Reilly now seeks to defend his decision to mock Helen Thomas' age - despite the fact that age was supposedly out of bounds when it came McCain during the last election - by quoting his own poll, from his own website, as somehow proof that the country is sick of "out of control PC nonsense".

So I asked you about that, and the results are in. About 75,000 folks voted. Big number in our BillOReilly.com poll. A whopping 93 percent say I should not apologize to Helen. Only 7 percent say I should.

Now, according to a Pew study, 47 percent of people watching "The Factor" are women. So that's not good news for the left-wing women's group. And about 50 percent of "Factor" viewers are either independents or Democrats. More bad news for the far-left loons.

So what I'm getting from this is that many Americans are fed up with out of control PC nonsense, and there is plenty of it around.

The man becomes more delusional with each day that passes. The people who listen to his ranting day after day agree with him, so not only does he not have to apologise, but the entire US public has obviously taken some huge swing to the right. As I say, it's simply delusional.

And just what is Juan Williams up to? This was never about people's "sense of humour" nor was it about, as O'Reilly now claims, the validity of the question Helen Thomas asked, it was pure and simple ageism, coming from the people who had objected to that very thing loudly and clearly during the last election.

It was that hypocrisy which most of us objected to.

Tags: Bill O'Reilly, PC nonsense, Helen Thomas

Read The Full Article:
http://the-osterley-times.blogspot.com/2009/02/oreilly-cites-bogus-poll-to-defend
.html

Add to del.icio.us   Digg this   Post to Furl   Add to reddit   Add to myYahoo!