Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Bill USA
Bill USA's Journal
Bill USA's Journal
March 20, 2014
American business needs more conscience, not less, whether from religious motivation like Hobby Lobby or from secular intentions. And that is what American consumers want, too. Fully 80% of Americans would prefer to shop at businesses that embrace a social mission.
... yes, and those people who do not consider a religious bias part of a social mission - when forced on emplyees, should be provided the information so they can follow their own consciences when deciding whether or not to patronize such a business. [font size="3"]I hope the business won't [font size="4"]mind[/font] customers having their [font size="4"]own[/font] convictions about a business having a policy with regard to employees personal behavior. [/font]
Hobby-Lobby's 'conscience' position doesn't justify dictating to employees what are acceptable
medical/health protocols followed by their employees. Employers cannot dictate personal behavior requirements as a condition of employment.
HOWEVER, if Ayatolla Roberts decides for Hobby Lobby then, the "conscience rule" must also apply to human human beings, not just corporate Roberts-humans. That means it applies to customers of any business who chooses to refuse employees certain services legal and paid for by the employees tax dollars. Thus, any business who denies Affordable Health care coverage for it's employees WILL BE REQUIRED TO POST PROMINENTLY FOR ALL CUSTOMERS TO SEE - that they do not allow their employees full benefits of the Affordable Health Care law.
THIS WAY CUSTOMERS CAN FOLLOW THEIR CONSCIENCES AS THEY SEE FIT, IN DECIDING WHETHER TO PATRONIZE SAID BUSINESSES.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2014/03/19/hobby-lobby-obamacare-contraception-mandate-column/6630649/
American business needs more conscience, not less, whether from religious motivation like Hobby Lobby or from secular intentions. And that is what American consumers want, too. Fully 80% of Americans would prefer to shop at businesses that embrace a social mission.
... yes, and those people who do not consider a religious bias part of a social mission - when forced on emplyees, should be provided the information so they can follow their own consciences when deciding whether or not to patronize such a business. [font size="3"]I hope the business won't [font size="4"]mind[/font] customers having their [font size="4"]own[/font] convictions about a business having a policy with regard to employees personal behavior. [/font]
March 16, 2014
What’s more, seven in 10 respondents oppose Roe v. Wade being overturned, which is the highest percentage on this question since 1989.
“These are profound changes,” says Republican pollster Bill McInturff, who conducted this survey with Democratic pollster Peter D. Hart and his colleagues.
~~
~~
The 1973 Roe v. Wade decision established a woman’s constitutional right to an abortion, at least in the first three months of pregnancy.
According to the poll, 54 percent of adults say that abortion should be legal either always or most of the time, while a combined 44 percent said it should be illegal – either with or without exceptions.
(more)
NBC/WSJ Poll: 54% say abortion should be legal "either always or most of the time"
http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/01/21/16626932-nbcwsj-poll-majority-for-first-time-want-abortion-to-be-legal?liteWhat’s more, seven in 10 respondents oppose Roe v. Wade being overturned, which is the highest percentage on this question since 1989.
“These are profound changes,” says Republican pollster Bill McInturff, who conducted this survey with Democratic pollster Peter D. Hart and his colleagues.
~~
~~
The 1973 Roe v. Wade decision established a woman’s constitutional right to an abortion, at least in the first three months of pregnancy.
According to the poll, 54 percent of adults say that abortion should be legal either always or most of the time, while a combined 44 percent said it should be illegal – either with or without exceptions.
(more)
March 16, 2014
A recent post raised the issue of privatization of science in the U.S. http://www.democraticunderground.com/101688115
But Big Oil started doing this several years ago.
When Big Oil, an implacable foe of renewable fuels (ethanol is reducing gas/oil prices and thus reducing Oil industry revenues and profits. THis is NOT how to win friends in the oil industry), controls what research is done at public universities (i.e. research funded by Big Oil's grant money) can we still believe that we are getting unbiased research from these institutions?
Big Oil buys Berkeley
BP 'grants' Half a Billion to University of California Berkeley (with strings/chains attached) --
(emphases my own)
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-washburn24mar24,0,6286060.story#axzz2w9ccCchr
What's more, BP would set up shop on campus: 50 scientists employed by the company would work on joint projects with academic scientists at Berkeley and the University of Illinois. BP also would set up private labs on these campuses, where all the research would be proprietary and confidential.
~~
~~
The fine print of the plan, which UC made public only after it was leaked, doesn't create much confidence. Californians need to know that their public university is dedicated to pursuing the best science, not just science that generates profits for BP. Unfortunately, the plan indicates that narrow commercial criteria could guide much of the Energy Biosciences Institute's research.
http://www.latimes.com/la-oe-washburn24mar24,0,5211524.story#ixzz2w9fO7EML
[font size="3"]Normally, even when university research is corporate sponsored, professors alone direct and shape it. Often, funds are assigned and research proposals are accepted through an independent, peer-review process.[font color="red"] In the BP deal, however, the institute — with a director to be "proposed" by BP and other high-level positions to be filled by BP employees or appointees — would play a major role in setting research agendas and controlling purse strings. The plan touts the company's role: BP's "business industry leadership will strongly differentiate the EBI from other primarily academic research enterprises."[/font]
The plan also would hand unusual control to BP in other areas. A bedrock principle of academia is that campus-based research should be published. That's why Berkeley bans classified military research from campus; the open exchange of information is fundamental to the advancement of science and education. But those 50 BP scientists on campus would, according to the plan, have "no obligation to publish."
(more)
[/font]
http://www.latimes.com/la-oe-washburn24mar24,0,5211524.story#ixzz2w9dvUgE9
Big Oil Goes to College - Center for American Progress
http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2010/10/15/206877/big-oil-goes-to-college-university-industry-research-collaborative/#
Why are highly profitable oil and other large corporations increasingly turning to U.S. universities to perform their commercial research and development instead of conducting this work in-house? Why, in turn, are U.S. universities opening their doors to Big Oil? And when they do, how well are U.S. universities balancing the needs of their commercial sponsors with their own academic missions and public-interest obligations, given their heavy reliance on government research funding and other forms of taxpayer support?
The answers to these three questions are critical to energy-related research and development in our country, given the current global-warming crisis and the role that academic experts have traditionally played in providing the public with impartial research, analysis, and advice. To unpack these questions and help find answers, this report provides a detailed examination of 10 university-industry agreements that together total $833 million in confirmed corporate funding (over 10 years) for energy research funding on campus.
~~
~~
•In nine of the 10 energy-research agreements we analyzed, the university partners failed to retain majority academic control over the central governing body charged with directing the university-industry alliance. Four of the 10 alliances actually give the industry sponsors full governance control.
•Eight of the 10 agreements permit the corporate sponsor or sponsors to fully control both the evaluation and selection of faculty research proposals in each new grant cycle.
(more)
(complete report, Big Oil Goes to College, in PDF can be downloaded here)
California's Love Affair with Big Oil
Last week, the Southern California Association of Governments turned down $11 million in stimulus money for Pearson Fuels to install 55 E85 stations. Huh. And this shortly after the expanded rules were announced for the Renewable Fuels Standard not to mention the Low Carbon Fuel Standard that went into effect on January 1.
What would cause the most notorious state, hailed around the world for its progressive environmental policies, to shun a lower carbon fuel? Hmmm…could it maybe, just possibly be that it is blinded by it’s Big Love for Big Oil?
~~
~~
Last year California Lawyer Magazine Awarded its Clay Awards which are given to lawyers who show extraordinary achievements. Lawyers John Daum and Mary Nichols both won a Clay Award for two very different achievements. Daum won for his co-counsel regarding the worst oil spill in environmental history – the Exxon Valdez. But he didn’t win for his work to hold Exxon accountable for its actions – he won the award because he was able to lower the punitive damages that were to be paid to fisherman, landowners and others to one-tenth of the original damages. The magazine writes, “This was truly a signature punitive damages case, and it could have major implications for environmental and other torts in the future.”
[font size="3"]While Daum was given an award for his work in defending Big Oil’s environmental offenses, [font color="red"]Mary Nichols, who is the chairman of the California Air Resources Board and Daum’s wife, was given an award for her role in passing the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006. This piece of legislation is intended to reduce CO2 emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. While the final rules are just now coming through the pipeline, the policy could potentially regulate all areas of energy use including land use and will be enforced through a “cap-and-trade” program. It is important to note that through this program, Big Oil doesn’t have to reduce its CO2 emissions solely through alternative fuels. If they bring to market technology that reduces CO2 but still uses fossil fuels, the technology will still meet policy requirements.[/font]
(more)
Big Oil Buys Berkeley, California's Love Affair with Big Oil, Big Oil Goes to College
A recent post raised the issue of privatization of science in the U.S. http://www.democraticunderground.com/101688115
But Big Oil started doing this several years ago.
When Big Oil, an implacable foe of renewable fuels (ethanol is reducing gas/oil prices and thus reducing Oil industry revenues and profits. THis is NOT how to win friends in the oil industry), controls what research is done at public universities (i.e. research funded by Big Oil's grant money) can we still believe that we are getting unbiased research from these institutions?
Big Oil buys Berkeley
BP 'grants' Half a Billion to University of California Berkeley (with strings/chains attached) --
(emphases my own)
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-washburn24mar24,0,6286060.story#axzz2w9ccCchr
What's more, BP would set up shop on campus: 50 scientists employed by the company would work on joint projects with academic scientists at Berkeley and the University of Illinois. BP also would set up private labs on these campuses, where all the research would be proprietary and confidential.
~~
~~
The fine print of the plan, which UC made public only after it was leaked, doesn't create much confidence. Californians need to know that their public university is dedicated to pursuing the best science, not just science that generates profits for BP. Unfortunately, the plan indicates that narrow commercial criteria could guide much of the Energy Biosciences Institute's research.
http://www.latimes.com/la-oe-washburn24mar24,0,5211524.story#ixzz2w9fO7EML
[font size="3"]Normally, even when university research is corporate sponsored, professors alone direct and shape it. Often, funds are assigned and research proposals are accepted through an independent, peer-review process.[font color="red"] In the BP deal, however, the institute — with a director to be "proposed" by BP and other high-level positions to be filled by BP employees or appointees — would play a major role in setting research agendas and controlling purse strings. The plan touts the company's role: BP's "business industry leadership will strongly differentiate the EBI from other primarily academic research enterprises."[/font]
The plan also would hand unusual control to BP in other areas. A bedrock principle of academia is that campus-based research should be published. That's why Berkeley bans classified military research from campus; the open exchange of information is fundamental to the advancement of science and education. But those 50 BP scientists on campus would, according to the plan, have "no obligation to publish."
(more)
[/font]
http://www.latimes.com/la-oe-washburn24mar24,0,5211524.story#ixzz2w9dvUgE9
Big Oil Goes to College - Center for American Progress
http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2010/10/15/206877/big-oil-goes-to-college-university-industry-research-collaborative/#
Why are highly profitable oil and other large corporations increasingly turning to U.S. universities to perform their commercial research and development instead of conducting this work in-house? Why, in turn, are U.S. universities opening their doors to Big Oil? And when they do, how well are U.S. universities balancing the needs of their commercial sponsors with their own academic missions and public-interest obligations, given their heavy reliance on government research funding and other forms of taxpayer support?
The answers to these three questions are critical to energy-related research and development in our country, given the current global-warming crisis and the role that academic experts have traditionally played in providing the public with impartial research, analysis, and advice. To unpack these questions and help find answers, this report provides a detailed examination of 10 university-industry agreements that together total $833 million in confirmed corporate funding (over 10 years) for energy research funding on campus.
~~
~~
•In nine of the 10 energy-research agreements we analyzed, the university partners failed to retain majority academic control over the central governing body charged with directing the university-industry alliance. Four of the 10 alliances actually give the industry sponsors full governance control.
•Eight of the 10 agreements permit the corporate sponsor or sponsors to fully control both the evaluation and selection of faculty research proposals in each new grant cycle.
(more)
(complete report, Big Oil Goes to College, in PDF can be downloaded here)
California's Love Affair with Big Oil
Last week, the Southern California Association of Governments turned down $11 million in stimulus money for Pearson Fuels to install 55 E85 stations. Huh. And this shortly after the expanded rules were announced for the Renewable Fuels Standard not to mention the Low Carbon Fuel Standard that went into effect on January 1.
What would cause the most notorious state, hailed around the world for its progressive environmental policies, to shun a lower carbon fuel? Hmmm…could it maybe, just possibly be that it is blinded by it’s Big Love for Big Oil?
~~
~~
Last year California Lawyer Magazine Awarded its Clay Awards which are given to lawyers who show extraordinary achievements. Lawyers John Daum and Mary Nichols both won a Clay Award for two very different achievements. Daum won for his co-counsel regarding the worst oil spill in environmental history – the Exxon Valdez. But he didn’t win for his work to hold Exxon accountable for its actions – he won the award because he was able to lower the punitive damages that were to be paid to fisherman, landowners and others to one-tenth of the original damages. The magazine writes, “This was truly a signature punitive damages case, and it could have major implications for environmental and other torts in the future.”
[font size="3"]While Daum was given an award for his work in defending Big Oil’s environmental offenses, [font color="red"]Mary Nichols, who is the chairman of the California Air Resources Board and Daum’s wife, was given an award for her role in passing the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006. This piece of legislation is intended to reduce CO2 emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. While the final rules are just now coming through the pipeline, the policy could potentially regulate all areas of energy use including land use and will be enforced through a “cap-and-trade” program. It is important to note that through this program, Big Oil doesn’t have to reduce its CO2 emissions solely through alternative fuels. If they bring to market technology that reduces CO2 but still uses fossil fuels, the technology will still meet policy requirements.[/font]
(more)
March 13, 2014
Two recent reports from the International Monetary Fund – one just out today – make a compelling case that not only is inequality bad for economic growth, but redistributive policies might also actually be good for it.
These reports are part of what Oxfam America’s Nick Galasso calls a new “evidence-based arsenal” of inequality research coming from the Fund that’s challenging conventional economic wisdom, which has long held that efforts to redistribute wealth undermine future growth.
The new studies are absolutely unequivocal on the issue: “Redistribution is overall pro-growth,” the authors write. “On average, across countries and over time, the things that governments have typically done to redistribute do not seem to have led to bad growth outcomes, unless they were extreme. And the resulting narrowing of inequality helped support faster and more durable growth.”
The two charts below help illustrate the relationship between inequality and GDP growth (on the left), and redistribution and GDP growth (on the right). The authors note a “strong negative relationship” between inequality and growth – as inequality increases, growth numbers decline. Turning to the redistribution chart, the nearly-flat line indicates a weak (and if anything, positive) relationship between redistributive policies and GDP.
(more)
[font size="3"]"conventional economic wisdom, which has long held that efforts to redistribute wealth undermine future growth"[font size="=1"].. WTF!???[/font][/font]
'conventional wisdom' only if the only people you listen to are idiots like GOPer twerps such as A. "Mr. Magoo" Greenspan and "mad-mad" Milton (Friedman) whose economic thoughts were driven entirely by his perverse political confusion. Anybody with common sense knows if you put more money into the hands of people who will spend it (because they are just making enough money - after taxes (i.e. ALL taxes) - to get by) this will create more demand and thus spur job growth which will - create MORE demand - creating more job growth. And that's how you get a strong growing economy, and a LOWER unemployment rate! Because of pressure keeping wages too low and tax loop-holes built into the tax code by well compensated lobbyists operating in the service of the wealthy and powerful - individuals and of course the new Lords of the land: corporations - the tax burden is shifted from the very wealthy onto those who can't afford lobbyists to pervert the tax code.
Obama was right: To boost the economy, spread the wealth - This is supposed to be a 'bulletin'???
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2014/03/13/obama-was-right-to-boost-the-economy-spread-the-wealth/Two recent reports from the International Monetary Fund – one just out today – make a compelling case that not only is inequality bad for economic growth, but redistributive policies might also actually be good for it.
These reports are part of what Oxfam America’s Nick Galasso calls a new “evidence-based arsenal” of inequality research coming from the Fund that’s challenging conventional economic wisdom, which has long held that efforts to redistribute wealth undermine future growth.
The new studies are absolutely unequivocal on the issue: “Redistribution is overall pro-growth,” the authors write. “On average, across countries and over time, the things that governments have typically done to redistribute do not seem to have led to bad growth outcomes, unless they were extreme. And the resulting narrowing of inequality helped support faster and more durable growth.”
The two charts below help illustrate the relationship between inequality and GDP growth (on the left), and redistribution and GDP growth (on the right). The authors note a “strong negative relationship” between inequality and growth – as inequality increases, growth numbers decline. Turning to the redistribution chart, the nearly-flat line indicates a weak (and if anything, positive) relationship between redistributive policies and GDP.
(more)
[font size="3"]"conventional economic wisdom, which has long held that efforts to redistribute wealth undermine future growth"[font size="=1"].. WTF!???[/font][/font]
'conventional wisdom' only if the only people you listen to are idiots like GOPer twerps such as A. "Mr. Magoo" Greenspan and "mad-mad" Milton (Friedman) whose economic thoughts were driven entirely by his perverse political confusion. Anybody with common sense knows if you put more money into the hands of people who will spend it (because they are just making enough money - after taxes (i.e. ALL taxes) - to get by) this will create more demand and thus spur job growth which will - create MORE demand - creating more job growth. And that's how you get a strong growing economy, and a LOWER unemployment rate! Because of pressure keeping wages too low and tax loop-holes built into the tax code by well compensated lobbyists operating in the service of the wealthy and powerful - individuals and of course the new Lords of the land: corporations - the tax burden is shifted from the very wealthy onto those who can't afford lobbyists to pervert the tax code.
March 11, 2014
A new Pew Research Center survey out Friday showed that half of America's young adults, ages 18 to 33, consider themselves political independents, identifying with neither party. But asked which way they lean politically, half of the so-called millennials say they lean toward the Democratic Party, the highest share for any age group over the last decade.
In addition, young adults seem to be turning away from their predecessors' proclivity for religion and marriage. Almost two-thirds don't classify themselves as "a religious person." And when it comes to tying the knot: Only about 1 in 4 millennials is married. Almost half of baby boomers were married at that age.
The new survey shows how the millennial adults are "forging a distinctive path into adulthood," said Paul Taylor, Pew's executive vice president and co-author of the report.
This can especially be seen when it comes to politics. Only 27 percent said they consider themselves Democrats and 17 percent said Republicans. The half of millennials who say they are independent is an increase from 38 percent back in 2004.
(more)
PEW research: Millenials leaning away from Totalitarian Fascism - uh-oh GOP
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/half-millennials-lean-democrats-22813066A new Pew Research Center survey out Friday showed that half of America's young adults, ages 18 to 33, consider themselves political independents, identifying with neither party. But asked which way they lean politically, half of the so-called millennials say they lean toward the Democratic Party, the highest share for any age group over the last decade.
In addition, young adults seem to be turning away from their predecessors' proclivity for religion and marriage. Almost two-thirds don't classify themselves as "a religious person." And when it comes to tying the knot: Only about 1 in 4 millennials is married. Almost half of baby boomers were married at that age.
The new survey shows how the millennial adults are "forging a distinctive path into adulthood," said Paul Taylor, Pew's executive vice president and co-author of the report.
This can especially be seen when it comes to politics. Only 27 percent said they consider themselves Democrats and 17 percent said Republicans. The half of millennials who say they are independent is an increase from 38 percent back in 2004.
(more)
March 11, 2014
Working out of an nondescript brick rowhouse in suburban Virginia, a little-known organization named Donors Trust, staffed by five employees, has steered hundreds of millions of dollars to the most influential think tanks, foundations, and advocacy groups in the conservative movement. Over the past decade, it has funded the right's assault on labor unions, climate scientists, public schools, economic regulations, and the very premise of activist government. Yet unlike its nearest counterpart on the progressive side, the Tides Foundation, a bogeyman of Glenn Beck and Bill O'Reilly, Donors Trust has mostly avoided any real scrutiny. It is the dark-money ATM of the right.
Founded in 1999, Donors Trust (and an affiliated group, Donors Capital Fund) has raised north of $500 million and doled out $400 million to more than 1,000 conservative and libertarian groups, according to Whitney Ball, the group's CEO. Donors Trust allows wealthy contributors who want to donate millions to the most important causes on the right to do so anonymously, essentially scrubbing the identity of those underwriting conservative and libertarian organizations. Wisconsin's 2011 assault on collective bargaining rights? Donors Trust helped fund that. ALEC, the conservative bill mill? Donors Trust supports it. The climate deniers at the Heartland Institute? They get Donors Trust money, too.
Donors Trust is not the source of the money it hands out. Some 200 right-of-center funders who've given at least $10,000 fill the group's coffers. Charities bankrolled by Charles and David Koch, the DeVoses, and the Bradleys, among other conservative benefactors, have given to Donors Trust. And other recipients of Donors Trust money include the Heritage Foundation, Grover Norquist's Americans for Tax Reform, the NRA's Freedom Action Foundation, the Cato Institute, the American Enterprise Institute, the Federalist Society, and the Americans for Prosperity Foundation, chaired (PDF) by none other than David Koch.
In a recent interview, Ball, who calls herself a libertarian, went to great lengths to stress that she's no Koch brothers stooge, and that Donors Trust is not yet another appendage of the almighty "Kochtopus." She insists, "We were not created by them at all."
(more)
Exposed: The Dark-Money ATM of the Conservative Movement
[font size="+1"]You haven't heard of Donors Trust, but it's bankrolled the right's fights against unions, public schools, climate scientists, and more.[/font]
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/02/donors-trust-donor-capital-fund-dark-money-koch-bradley-devos
Working out of an nondescript brick rowhouse in suburban Virginia, a little-known organization named Donors Trust, staffed by five employees, has steered hundreds of millions of dollars to the most influential think tanks, foundations, and advocacy groups in the conservative movement. Over the past decade, it has funded the right's assault on labor unions, climate scientists, public schools, economic regulations, and the very premise of activist government. Yet unlike its nearest counterpart on the progressive side, the Tides Foundation, a bogeyman of Glenn Beck and Bill O'Reilly, Donors Trust has mostly avoided any real scrutiny. It is the dark-money ATM of the right.
Founded in 1999, Donors Trust (and an affiliated group, Donors Capital Fund) has raised north of $500 million and doled out $400 million to more than 1,000 conservative and libertarian groups, according to Whitney Ball, the group's CEO. Donors Trust allows wealthy contributors who want to donate millions to the most important causes on the right to do so anonymously, essentially scrubbing the identity of those underwriting conservative and libertarian organizations. Wisconsin's 2011 assault on collective bargaining rights? Donors Trust helped fund that. ALEC, the conservative bill mill? Donors Trust supports it. The climate deniers at the Heartland Institute? They get Donors Trust money, too.
Donors Trust is not the source of the money it hands out. Some 200 right-of-center funders who've given at least $10,000 fill the group's coffers. Charities bankrolled by Charles and David Koch, the DeVoses, and the Bradleys, among other conservative benefactors, have given to Donors Trust. And other recipients of Donors Trust money include the Heritage Foundation, Grover Norquist's Americans for Tax Reform, the NRA's Freedom Action Foundation, the Cato Institute, the American Enterprise Institute, the Federalist Society, and the Americans for Prosperity Foundation, chaired (PDF) by none other than David Koch.
In a recent interview, Ball, who calls herself a libertarian, went to great lengths to stress that she's no Koch brothers stooge, and that Donors Trust is not yet another appendage of the almighty "Kochtopus." She insists, "We were not created by them at all."
(more)
March 11, 2014
You'll be shocked, shocked to learn that the Koch brothers' Americans for Prosperity is responding to the debunking of their anti-Obamacare ad featuring leukemia patient Julie Boonstra by pouring $300,000 more into another ad. This ad will not answer to the facts presented by critics of the ad, but will feature Boonstra, again, [font color="burnt-ochre"]as victim[/font] because—irony alert—she's being silenced.
[blockquote style="background:#ffDDDD;"]In the new ad, Ms. Boonstra says the attacks on her credibility have been devastating and accuses Mr. Peters of trying to silence her. “All I want is to be listened to,” she says in the commercial. “There are thousands of people out there who are hurting because of Obamacare.” [...]
Tim Phillips, the president of Americans for Prosperity, which is backed by the billionaires David and Charles Koch, said the organization was standing by its ads and would not be deterred by criticism from Democrats like Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the majority leader, who last week called the first Michigan ad “absolutely false.”
“We are completely comfortable about the accuracy of every item in our ads,” said Mr. Phillips, who suggested that Mr. Reid was trying to start a political dispute to shift attention from what he called an effective advertising campaign.
Reality check: of course Boonstra is being listened to, thanks to the $2 million that the Koch brothers is pouring into this campaign, $300,000 on this ad alone. She's being listened to and questioned about the factual statements she's making—the implication that she's losing her doctor and that she's paying so much more money out of pocket—which turned out not to be true. That's what is in question, not her free speech. If she were doing an ad that told the truth, that she has an ideological problem with Obamacare and is opposed to it because of that, no one would be questioning her.
But that doesn't make for a compelling ad. No, there has to be victim and it has to scare people. If Boonstra isn't a victim of Obamacare, she's the victim of mean people who are trying to silence her. Because she "believes" she's being hurt by Obamacare, even though she cannot or will not provide any proof that this is true.
And so we have another professional conservative victim. There's nothing conservatives love to do more than to pretend that they are being persecuted and silenced. They particularly like to do that by spending hundreds of thousands of dollars to blanket the airwaves with their complaints, so that the whole world can hear how they're being silenced.
(more)
In the new ad she repeats the lie that her new plan is NOT meeting her needs (not an exact quote) but the truth is, her new plan with Blue Cross includes the doctor she says she likes as a participant. She can keep her doctor. And the new plan is $2 dollars more expensive than the one she had (not to mention it also thanks to Obamacare has NO LIFETIME CAPS ON TREATMENTS ... AND NO CANCELLATIONS IF YOU GET TOO SICK).
DOUBLING DOWN ON LIES. H-M-M-M ... WONDER IF THERE IS ANY MEDICAL TREATMENT FOR LIEING?
Americans' for Prosperity's Debunked Obamacare 'victim' doubles down on victimhood
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/03/04/1281760/-Debunked-Obamacare-victim-doubles-down-on-nbsp-victimhoodYou'll be shocked, shocked to learn that the Koch brothers' Americans for Prosperity is responding to the debunking of their anti-Obamacare ad featuring leukemia patient Julie Boonstra by pouring $300,000 more into another ad. This ad will not answer to the facts presented by critics of the ad, but will feature Boonstra, again, [font color="burnt-ochre"]as victim[/font] because—irony alert—she's being silenced.
[blockquote style="background:#ffDDDD;"]In the new ad, Ms. Boonstra says the attacks on her credibility have been devastating and accuses Mr. Peters of trying to silence her. “All I want is to be listened to,” she says in the commercial. “There are thousands of people out there who are hurting because of Obamacare.” [...]
Tim Phillips, the president of Americans for Prosperity, which is backed by the billionaires David and Charles Koch, said the organization was standing by its ads and would not be deterred by criticism from Democrats like Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the majority leader, who last week called the first Michigan ad “absolutely false.”
“We are completely comfortable about the accuracy of every item in our ads,” said Mr. Phillips, who suggested that Mr. Reid was trying to start a political dispute to shift attention from what he called an effective advertising campaign.
Reality check: of course Boonstra is being listened to, thanks to the $2 million that the Koch brothers is pouring into this campaign, $300,000 on this ad alone. She's being listened to and questioned about the factual statements she's making—the implication that she's losing her doctor and that she's paying so much more money out of pocket—which turned out not to be true. That's what is in question, not her free speech. If she were doing an ad that told the truth, that she has an ideological problem with Obamacare and is opposed to it because of that, no one would be questioning her.
But that doesn't make for a compelling ad. No, there has to be victim and it has to scare people. If Boonstra isn't a victim of Obamacare, she's the victim of mean people who are trying to silence her. Because she "believes" she's being hurt by Obamacare, even though she cannot or will not provide any proof that this is true.
And so we have another professional conservative victim. There's nothing conservatives love to do more than to pretend that they are being persecuted and silenced. They particularly like to do that by spending hundreds of thousands of dollars to blanket the airwaves with their complaints, so that the whole world can hear how they're being silenced.
(more)
In the new ad she repeats the lie that her new plan is NOT meeting her needs (not an exact quote) but the truth is, her new plan with Blue Cross includes the doctor she says she likes as a participant. She can keep her doctor. And the new plan is $2 dollars more expensive than the one she had (not to mention it also thanks to Obamacare has NO LIFETIME CAPS ON TREATMENTS ... AND NO CANCELLATIONS IF YOU GET TOO SICK).
DOUBLING DOWN ON LIES. H-M-M-M ... WONDER IF THERE IS ANY MEDICAL TREATMENT FOR LIEING?
March 11, 2014
UN: 5.5 Million Syrian Children Affected by War
The number of Syrian children affected by the civil war in their homeland has doubled in the past year to at least 5.5 million — more than half the country's children — with devastating effects on the health, education and psychological well-being of an entire generation, the United Nations children's agency said Thursday.
The conflict, which enters its fourth year this month, has unleashed massive suffering across all segments of Syrian society, but the impact on children has been especially acute, according to a new report by UNICEF. Malnutrition and illness have stunted their growth; a lack of learning opportunities has derailed their education; and the bloody trauma of war has left deep psychological scars.
"After three years of conflict and turmoil, Syria is now one of the most dangerous places on earth to be a child," the agency said. "In their thousands, children have lost lives and limbs, along with virtually every aspect of their childhood. They have lost classrooms and teachers, brothers and sisters, friends, caregivers, homes and stability."
"Millions of young people risk becoming, in effect, a lost generation," UNICEF said.
(more)
will the World stop Assad?: UN: 5.5 Million Syrian Children Affected by War
UN: 5.5 Million Syrian Children Affected by War
The number of Syrian children affected by the civil war in their homeland has doubled in the past year to at least 5.5 million — more than half the country's children — with devastating effects on the health, education and psychological well-being of an entire generation, the United Nations children's agency said Thursday.
The conflict, which enters its fourth year this month, has unleashed massive suffering across all segments of Syrian society, but the impact on children has been especially acute, according to a new report by UNICEF. Malnutrition and illness have stunted their growth; a lack of learning opportunities has derailed their education; and the bloody trauma of war has left deep psychological scars.
"After three years of conflict and turmoil, Syria is now one of the most dangerous places on earth to be a child," the agency said. "In their thousands, children have lost lives and limbs, along with virtually every aspect of their childhood. They have lost classrooms and teachers, brothers and sisters, friends, caregivers, homes and stability."
"Millions of young people risk becoming, in effect, a lost generation," UNICEF said.
(more)
March 11, 2014
POSTED AT 11:33 AM BY DAVID HALPERIN
[div class="excerpt" style="width:280px;float:left;"]
It’s a busy time for APSCU, the trade association of America’s for-profit colleges. The group spends its time trying to block reasonable measures to hold the worst actors in its industry responsible for their systematic abuses of students and taxpayers, as if the industry is permanently entitled to the enormous amounts of federal taxpayer money — $33 billion in a recent year — that it receives. And the industry is under siege, now that media and government investigations have exposed that many for-profit colleges offer a toxic mix of deceptive recruiting, high prices, low quality instruction, and poor job placement records.
Last week the Guardian revealed documents that, among other things, reaffirmed the link between the troubled for-profit college sector and the controversial corporate advocacy group the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC). The documents show that ALEC is facing financial pressures, in part because numerous major corporations quit after media exposed its role in promoting the Stand Your Ground gun laws. ALEC was criticized after Florida police invoked Stand Your Ground in initially refusing to arrest George Zimmerman, the shooter of Trayvon Martin, and ALEC was already under scrutiny at the time for its role in advancing “Voter ID” laws that make it harder for citizens to vote. ALEC documents showed that the group has a “prodical son” (sic) project that seeks to return to the fold lapsed members, and that list included the for-profit college companies Kaplan and Bridgepoint Education. Republic Report was the first to report last year that industry members including Kaplan, Bridgepoint, Corinthian Colleges — and APSCU itself — have all been ALEC members. The documents revealed by the Guardian also show that ALEC listed as possible recruits for membership the for-profit college businesses Capella, DeVry, and Education Management Corp.
Although we don’t know whether any of those companies were actually recruited or joined ALEC, the documents do remind the public of APSCU’s partnership with the group that advanced controversial gun and voting laws just as it opens a two-day event in Washington this morning, called “Inaugural State of the Workforce Symposium: From Education to Employment.” Keynote speakers scheduled for the APSCU event include Representative John Kline (R-MN) and Rob Andrews (D-NJ), both regular recipients of campaign contributions from the for-profit college industry, as well as, curiously, Andrew Stern, the former president of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), which has taken a strong stand against for-profit college abuses.
Given that in the past year numerous for-profit college companies, including Corinthian and Career Education Corporation, have been accused by state attorneys general and others of misleading students about their job placement rates, and given that for-profit colleges today account for 13 percent of college students but nearly half of all student loan defaults, it would be great if APSCU actually got serious about pressing its members to train students for careers. But this two-day session is just talk, not action.
(more)
- See more at: http://www.republicreport.org/2013/for-profit-college-group-linked-alec-working-harm-students-taxpayers/#sthash.Y1xPvWIk.dpuf
For-profit college group, linked to ALEC, keeps working to harm students & taxpayers RepublicReport
http://www.republicreport.org/2013/for-profit-college-group-linked-alec-working-harm-students-taxpayers/POSTED AT 11:33 AM BY DAVID HALPERIN
[div class="excerpt" style="width:280px;float:left;"]
It’s a busy time for APSCU, the trade association of America’s for-profit colleges. The group spends its time trying to block reasonable measures to hold the worst actors in its industry responsible for their systematic abuses of students and taxpayers, as if the industry is permanently entitled to the enormous amounts of federal taxpayer money — $33 billion in a recent year — that it receives. And the industry is under siege, now that media and government investigations have exposed that many for-profit colleges offer a toxic mix of deceptive recruiting, high prices, low quality instruction, and poor job placement records.
Last week the Guardian revealed documents that, among other things, reaffirmed the link between the troubled for-profit college sector and the controversial corporate advocacy group the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC). The documents show that ALEC is facing financial pressures, in part because numerous major corporations quit after media exposed its role in promoting the Stand Your Ground gun laws. ALEC was criticized after Florida police invoked Stand Your Ground in initially refusing to arrest George Zimmerman, the shooter of Trayvon Martin, and ALEC was already under scrutiny at the time for its role in advancing “Voter ID” laws that make it harder for citizens to vote. ALEC documents showed that the group has a “prodical son” (sic) project that seeks to return to the fold lapsed members, and that list included the for-profit college companies Kaplan and Bridgepoint Education. Republic Report was the first to report last year that industry members including Kaplan, Bridgepoint, Corinthian Colleges — and APSCU itself — have all been ALEC members. The documents revealed by the Guardian also show that ALEC listed as possible recruits for membership the for-profit college businesses Capella, DeVry, and Education Management Corp.
Although we don’t know whether any of those companies were actually recruited or joined ALEC, the documents do remind the public of APSCU’s partnership with the group that advanced controversial gun and voting laws just as it opens a two-day event in Washington this morning, called “Inaugural State of the Workforce Symposium: From Education to Employment.” Keynote speakers scheduled for the APSCU event include Representative John Kline (R-MN) and Rob Andrews (D-NJ), both regular recipients of campaign contributions from the for-profit college industry, as well as, curiously, Andrew Stern, the former president of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), which has taken a strong stand against for-profit college abuses.
Given that in the past year numerous for-profit college companies, including Corinthian and Career Education Corporation, have been accused by state attorneys general and others of misleading students about their job placement rates, and given that for-profit colleges today account for 13 percent of college students but nearly half of all student loan defaults, it would be great if APSCU actually got serious about pressing its members to train students for careers. But this two-day session is just talk, not action.
(more)
- See more at: http://www.republicreport.org/2013/for-profit-college-group-linked-alec-working-harm-students-taxpayers/#sthash.Y1xPvWIk.dpuf
March 10, 2014
The Supreme Court is on the brink of doubling down on the Citizens United decision's shameful legacy. If the Court sides with the plaintiff in McCutcheon v. FEC and overturns aggregate contribution limits, a single individual could spend as much as $3.6 million on a single election -- enough to buy the attention of the President and every single member of Congress.
Robert Reich re expected follow-up Supreme Court decision to Citizens United ruling
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251356453The Supreme Court is on the brink of doubling down on the Citizens United decision's shameful legacy. If the Court sides with the plaintiff in McCutcheon v. FEC and overturns aggregate contribution limits, a single individual could spend as much as $3.6 million on a single election -- enough to buy the attention of the President and every single member of Congress.
Profile Information
Member since: Wed Mar 3, 2010, 05:25 PMNumber of posts: 6,436
