Rove Complains Obama Never Thanked Romney For
Acknowledging That He Was Born In The United States

post from Media Matters for America - Latest Items on 25 August 2012 04:12:22 AM. © Media Matters for America - Latest Items

From the August 25 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends Saturday:

Previously:

Limbaugh: Romney Is "Test-Driving" Line About Obama's Birth Certificate

Hannity Finds Romney's Birth Certificate Comment Hilarious

Karl Rove: Birther Phenomenon Is "White House Strategy"

Read The Full Article:
http://feeds.mediamatters.org/~r/mediamatters/latest/~3/aG2uJWl9lEo/189571

Digg this

Late Night Karaoke

post from Docudharma - Front Page on 25 August 2012 03:00:00 AM. © Docudharma - Front Page

[...]

Read The Full Article:
http://www.docudharma.com/diary/30661/late-night-karaoke

Digg this

Campaign Money Raised In 2012

post from jobsanger on 25 August 2012 01:07:00 AM. © jobsanger

This picture of the campaign money raised so far for the 2012 election is from the blog of Bill Moyers.

Read The Full Article:
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/blogspot/lhav/~3/LgS2ACHRDsU/campaign-money-raised
-in-2012.html

Digg this

Media "Gatekeepers" Stifle Democracy

post from jobsanger on 25 August 2012 01:06:00 AM. © jobsanger

The logos pictured above are of two political parties in the United States. They may not be as big or as famous as the two "major" political parties in this country, but both are on the ballot in enough states to give them a mathematical possibility of winning 270 electoral votes.

But you won't read anything about them in your favorite newspaper or see anything about them on any of the television news programs (whether broadcast or cable). And because they get no media coverage, they are also not included in any political polls and will most certainly be shut out of all of the presidential debates.

Why is this happening? Because the corporate-owned major media outlets have decided that it is their job to decide who should be covered, included in polls, and allowed to debate. They are the self-appointed gatekeepers of the American electoral system -- and they have decided that only Republicans and Democrats should be allowed to have a chance to reach out to the American people to ask for their votes, meaning only Republicans and Democrats should be elected to the presidency (or any other federal office).

It has nothing to do with whether the Green and Libertarian party candidates are qualified or not for office. Both candidates, Dr. Jill Stein for the Greens and former Gov. Gary Johnson for the Libertarians, are just as qualified as any Republican or Democrat running for the presidency -- maybe more so. And it is not because the programs and ideals of the Green and Libertarian parties could never appeal to the American people, because I believe there are many millions of Americans whose views are closer to those of these two parties than they are to either the Republicans or Democrats.

The truth is that the corporate-owned media doesn't want people to vote for (or even know about) the Green Party or the Libertarian Party -- because neither of these parties is corporate-owned and would act more on behalf of the citizens than the corporations. And the corporations don't want that -- because they have spent many billions of dollars to buy influence in the Republican and Democratic parties, and they don't want to lose the power they have bought.

The media needs to go back to reporting on candidates and elections -- not trying to control who can run and get elected. They should cover all candidates who can get on enough state ballots to give them a mathematical possibility of getting a majority of electoral votes (whether the media thinks they will actually get those electoral votes or not). And those candidates should be included in all political polls and debates. Until then, the media is just stifling true democracy in the United States.

Read The Full Article:
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/blogspot/lhav/~3/7zVkkJK5zQo/media-gatekeepers-sti
fle-democracy.html

Digg this

Medicare Preservation

post from jobsanger on 25 August 2012 01:05:00 AM. © jobsanger

Political Cartoon is by Mike Luckovich in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution.

Read The Full Article:
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/blogspot/lhav/~3/IkTDrhkHK8U/medicare-preservation
.html

Digg this

Texas GOP Forces Huge Tax Increases

post from jobsanger on 25 August 2012 01:04:00 AM. © jobsanger

It has been two decades since the Republicans seized control of the state government in Texas. Currently, there are no Democrats holding a statewide elected office (and haven't been for more than 18 years). The Republicans took control by promising not to raise taxes, and they have kept power by repeating that promise in every election since then. Have they kept that promise?

Not really. We know that they have raised all sorts of fees -- on everything from driver's licenses to hunting and fishing licenses. They have a certain kind of myopia that allows them to think fees are not taxes. That's ridiculous, of course, since anytime the government takes money from a citizen it is a tax -- whether they want to call it that or not.

But there is another way they have raised taxes on Texas citizens that most people don't realize. By refusing to raise taxes at the state level, and by cutting state services and the money the state provides to cities and counties for things such as public education (the state GOP leaders chopped $5 billion out of education funding in the last legislative session), they have forced counties and cities to raise taxes to make up for it.

And those raises have been huge. State Comptroller Susan Combs recently released figures showing that property taxes have been raised about 188% in the two decades since Republicans came to power. This is because of property taxes being raised and new taxing districts being created (that also get funding from property taxes). And most of this huge rise in property taxes has been because the state GOP leaders were more interested in playing politics that funding services for citizens.

Have the state Republican leaders kept their promises to not raise taxes. No. They have just hidden their failure by shifting the tax burden from the state level to the local level. But for citizens, does it matter whether the tax raise is a state one or a local one? No. It is still a tax raise, and that is all that matters.

There are some services that must be performed by government, and if the state refuses to do it, it must be done on the local level. A 188% rise in property taxes is a huge tax raise, and the blame for most of it rests with the state Republican leaders. They have failed to keep their promise, and they have done it in a very sneaky way.

Read The Full Article:
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/blogspot/lhav/~3/M-Z1TnXFsdI/texas-gop-forces-huge
-tax-increases.html

Digg this

Diagnosis

post from jobsanger on 25 August 2012 01:03:00 AM. © jobsanger

Political cartoon is by John Cole in the Scranton Times-Tribune.

Read The Full Article:
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/blogspot/lhav/~3/CM_5idBkqj0/diagnosis.html

Digg this

Entitlement - A Dirty Word

A few days ago, I posted the graphic above about Social Security. My purpose, of course, was to defend Social Security as an excellent government program that has worked exactly as it was supposed to (keeping millions of elderly Americans from slipping into poverty after their retirement).

But one of my readers called me out on part of what the graphic says -- that Social Security is not an entitlement. The reader said there is nothing wrong with the word "entitlement", and we should stop allowing the right-wing to demonize and redefine words -- making them sound dirty. After giving the matter some thought, I have to say that he is right. There is nothing wrong with feeling entitled to a check from Social Security after paying into the program for most of a person's life.

Here is how that reader, Jayhawk, puts it on his own blog called On My Mind (which I highly recommend):

Liberals (or ?progressives?) have espoused a variation of this image, one which goes on to talk about privatization, which is a different subject altogether. At any rate, they are vigorously denying that the Social Security program is an?entitlement.?

One definition of ?entitlement? is ?a government program providing benefits to members of a specified group,? but there is nothing inherently ?dirty? about that, really. In any case, that is a secondary definition, established by common usage fairly recently in historical context and the primary definition is ?a right to benefits specified especially by law or contract.? Which is why Social Security absolutelyis an entitlement.

Beneficiaries of the Social Security entered into a contract that for all of their working lives they would pay money into a trust fund and that once they were no longer working they would receive that money back in the form of a retirement stipend. Having upheld their end of the contract, workers are entitled by contract to receive those benefits, and the government is bound by contract to honor their side of the deal and pay the stipend to which the contractees are entitled.

The second statement on that image, about the ?problem? of government borrowing from the fund, is a canard. In fact, the trust fund has invested its surplus in the safest place possible anywhere in the world; in US Treasuries. That is not a problem by anyone?s definition of problem, since the investment with the absolute lowest risk of loss world wide is US government debt. No one has ever lost one cent by investing in US Treasuries, so how is that a ?problem,?pray tell?

I never can understand why liberals allow the other side not only to define the argument for them, but even to distort the meanings of individual words, and not push back.

Liberals should be standing up and asserting that ?entitlement? is not a dirty word; that an entitlement represents an obligation on the part of the US government no less binding than monetary debt. We should be shouting that in making the claims that they do about entitlements, conservatives are demanding the this nation default on its debt as surely as if it were to refuse to pay on bonds due for redemption; that they are demanding that the government refuse to honor contracts made in good faith.

Instead, we accept the premise of the big lie made by conservatives and hunker down in a defensive crouch, whimpering that ?Social Security is not an entitlement.?

I don't disagree at all with this. I have paid into the Social Security program since the mid-sixties. I did so because of an agreement with the federal government -- that if I would pay a percentage of my income throughout my working life, then they would provide me with a check during my retirement years. I kept my part of the bargain, and I have the right to expect the government to keep their part of the bargain. I am "entitled" to that.

As Jayhawk says, "entitlement" is not a dirty word. It is just the expectation that a contract will be honored.

Read The Full Article:
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/blogspot/lhav/~3/L9E1DjSMZn4/entitlement-dirty-wor
d.html

Digg this

Trustworthy

Political Cartoon is by Nick Anderson in the Houston Chronicle.

Read The Full Article:
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/blogspot/lhav/~3/lOiR7DjuBiY/trustworthy.html

Digg this

News Desk: Apple Wins Big in Samsung Suit

In all counts but the claims about iPad design, the jury ruled overwhelmingly in Apple?s favor. [Wired]

THE JURY SLAPS Samsung with six patent violations and hands down $1.05 billion in damages as one of the largest intellectual-property awards in history.

From the Wall Street Journal:

Nine jurors delivered a sweeping victory to Apple Inc. in a high-stakes court battle against Samsung Electronics Co., awarding the Silicon Valley company $1.05 billion in damages and providing ammunition for more legal attacks on its mobile-device rivals.
Jurors Friday found that Samsung infringed all but one of the seven patents at issue in the case?a patent covering the physical design of the iPad. They found all seven of Apple’s patents valid?despite Samsung’s attempts to have them thrown out. They also decided Apple didn’t violate any of the five patents Samsung asserted in the case.

For the record, I recently bought the Galaxy S3 and am enthralled with it. I’ve used my husband’s Apple iPhone and just couldn’t warm to it. The Galaxy S3 is an amazing device, with the natural elements designed into it a hit with me. I also have a Samsung laptop, with backlit keyboard, because I work late into the night, which is an amazing machine. The video above explains well what using the Galaxy S3 is like, capturing the elements that hook the user to the device.

I guess I’m now supposed to feel guilty, but I just don’t. That Apple will get a whopping fee and vindication soothes whatever guilt I’m supposed to feel.

Read The Full Article:
http://taylormarsh.com/blog/2012/08/apple-wins-big-in-samsung-suit/

Digg this