Category: American Empire

By Paul Krugman / New York Times / January 12, 2012

“And greed — you mark my words — will not only save Teldar Paper, but that other malfunctioning corporation called the U.S.A.”

That’s how the fictional Gordon Gekko finished his famous “Greed is good” speech in the 1987 film “Wall Street.” In the movie, Gekko got his comeuppance. But in real life, Gekkoism triumphed, and policy based on the notion that greed is good is a major reason why income has grown so much more rapidly for the richest 1 percent than for the middle class.

Today, however, let’s focus on the rest of that sentence, which compares America to a corporation. This, too, is an idea that has been widely accepted. And it’s the main plank of Mitt Romney’s case that he should be president: In effect, he is asserting that what we need to fix our ailing economy is someone who has been successful in business.

A Video of US Marines Urinating on Corpses Sparks Outrage

By Chris McGreal / RSN – Guardian UK / January 12, 2012

Afghan president Hamid Karzai and US defence secretary Leon Panetta have led a chorus of condemnation of American soldiers filmed urinating on the bodies of dead Afghans as “inhumane” and “utterly deplorable”.

The Pentagon said it is attempting to identify the soldiers responsible for the latest in a series of abuses by US forces which is likely to further inflame hostility to Nato troops in Afghanistan and reinforce the perception that there is an institutional problem in the American military.

Rising Share of Americans See Conflict Between Rich and Poor

by Rich Morin / PewResearchCenter / January 11, 2012

The Occupy Wall Street movement no longer occupies Wall Street, but the issue of class conflict has captured a growing share of the national consciousness. A new Pew Research Center survey of 2,048 adults finds that about two-thirds of the public (66%) believes there are “very strong” or “strong” conflicts between the rich and the poor—an increase of 19 percentage points since 2009.

Editor: As the GOP primaries pull into an open season, Newt Gingrich is still waging his one-man campaign either to derail Mitt Romney or to garner the real “conservative” votes. And he still touts himself as the “savior of immigration reform”. Here to refute that image is an article by San Diego immigration lawyer Carlos Batara written just before Christmas, but obviously still relevant. Batara also takes a swipe at President Obama’s policies as well.

Newt Gingrich: The Grinch Who Stole Immigration Reform

By Carlos Batara

Bah! Humbug! Having practiced deportation defense in the 1990s, I am no Johnny-come-lately to immigration issues.

I remember the xenophobic backlash led by Gingrich against the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) signed into law by a staunch conservative, Ronald Reagan.

I remember Gingrich as the Gin-Grinch who stole immigration reform.

Between SOPA, NDAA, telecommunications surveillance, and people’s willingness to share endlessly via social networking, will 2012 mark the year consumers irreversibly surrender their privacy and freedoms?

By Geoff Duncan / Digital Trends / Originally published Jan. 4, 2012

A mantra of the Internet age, articulated in 1984 by WELL founder Stewart Brand, is that “information wants to be free.” Back then — the days of 360K floppies and 1200 baud modems — Brand was referring to digital technology making information ever easier to distribute, copy, and remix than their old-school analog counterparts. The oft-forgotten corollary Brand offered at the same time was “Information also wants to be expensive,” because particular items, while perhaps of no interest to one person, can be “immeasurably valuable” to someone else.

Hey, local politics geeks, to celebrate this New-Hampshire-primary Tuesday, let’s morph the candidates for mayor of San Diego with the candidates for president of the United States!

Carl DeMaio seems akin to Ron Paul: a conservative outsider with a quirky personality who seems to enjoy rattling cages on both sides of the aisle.

As a candidate, CarlPaul would sport a perpetual disdain for the effectiveness of government, an admittedly eyebrow-raising characteristic for someone seeking more time as a government employee. Because government sometimes is ineffective, and sometimes worse, CarlPaul’s cranky message would carry more than a little truth and earn the support of a diverse range of disenfranchised folks with axes to grind, including many axes of the not-very-sharp variety.

President Obama just signed the National Defense Authorization Act into law on December 31, 2011, despite startling provisions that will allow the military to indefinitely detain American citizens. It’s a travesty, defying basic principles of justice and due process in perhaps the most extreme respect our nation has ever seen.

Thankfully, several lawmakers are keeping up the fight. Senator Dianne Feinstein has introduced legislation to undo these provisions of the NDAA, in the form of the Due Process Guarantee Act. We need to urge other Senators to support it.

Every year for over three decades, there has been a Martin Luther King Day Parade in San Diego, and this year’s is the 32nd such event.

During its first years, the Parade was a great outpouring from the African-American community in this area and their supporters who believed in King. It was the Black community of San Diego’s annual presentation of King’s words and values, and an event in honor of his leadership in overturning the Jim Crow laws of the segregationist South, and in showcasing the racism of the North and the West.

Editor: Yes, President Obama signed the notorious National Defense Authorization Act on New Year’s Eve day. Happy New Year everyone! And as promised, the White House released his “Signing Statement” on the bill, which we repost in its entirety (see especially the sections in bold with our emphasis):

From the White House

Statement by the President on H.R. 1540

Today I have signed into law H.R. 1540, the “National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012.” I have signed the Act chiefly because it authorizes funding for the defense of the United States and its interests abroad, crucial services for service members and their families, …

In response to constant police surveillance, violence, and arrests, Occupy Wall Street protesters and legal observers have been turning their cameras back on the police.

By Noel Sharkey and Sarah Knuckey / AlterNet / December 22, 2011

The police may soon be watching you in your garden picking your vegetables or your bottom. As police plans for increasing unmanned aerial surveillance take shape, there is a new twist. Private citizens can now buy their own surveillance drones to watch the police.

This week in New York, Occupy Wall Street protesters have a new toy to help them expose potentially dubious actions of the New York police department. In response to constant police surveillance, police violence and thousands of arrests, Occupy Wall Street protesters and legal observers have been turning their cameras back on the police. But police have sometimes made filming difficult through physical obstruction and “frozen zones”. This occurred most notably during the eviction of protesters from Zuccotti Park in lower Manhattan, where police prevented even credentialed journalists from entering.

By Bernie Sanders / RSN – Green Mountain Daily / December 30, 2011

The year 2011 has been a tough one for Vermont and our country. The recession caused by the greed, recklessness and illegal behavior of Wall Street continues. While Vermont is doing better economically than much of the country, too many of our friends and neighbors are unemployed or underemployed or are earning less than they need to adequately support their families.

Further, in Vermont we have had to deal with the devastation of Hurricane Irene, which caused so much hardship for individuals and businesses. We should all be grateful for the efforts of state and local officials, first responders, the many hundreds of volunteers, and members of the National Guard who all did such an extraordinary job in the cleanup and recovery effort.

Across the country, state legislatures and governors are pushing laws that seek to restrict access to the voting booth.

By Amy Goodman / AlterNet / December 28, 2011

All eyes are on Iowa this week, as the hodgepodge field of Republican contenders gallivants across that farm state seeking a win, or at least “momentum,” in the campaign for the party’s presidential nomination. But behind the scenes, a battle is being waged by Republicans—not against each other, but against American voters. Across the country, state legislatures and governors are pushing laws that seek to restrict access to the voting booth, laws that will disproportionately harm people of color, low-income people, and young and elderly voters.