“A secretive, international group of hackers has aimed its keyboards and social media masses at BART, threatening to retaliate against the transit agency for its decision to cut off cellphone service at a planned protest Thursday.”—
“I follow the better chef Twitterers: José Andrés is particularly prolific and fun. René Redzepi. David Chang, Mario Batali, Eric Ripert — we’re all friends so we tweet each other pictures of what we’re eating. I also follow AntDeRosa on Twitter. It’s by a Reuters guy, I don’t know his real name. I’m a political junkie, and his interests seem to mirror my own.”—
Can you talk to whoever is doing the health care analysis for Reuters and politely ask him/her to link to the text of the court's decision? (It's available on the 11th Circuit's website in .pdf format.) None of the major news services have made it available--they just provide their own summaries and analysis.
Absolutely and you’re right, we should be linking to it.
Hey Soup, have you had the chance at all to read about the proposed measures by the US Postal Service? The USPS is attempting to cut its workforce by hundreds of thousands, while also removing employees from federal health and retirement plans, all of which is strictly against their recently negotiated union contract. These measures would require Congressional approval and set a pretty solid precedent for more union-busting in the future. Both of my parents work for the USPS and are extremely fearful of losing their pensions, especially since they are relatively close to retirement. You're usually a good source for current events and such, so I was wondering if you could shine some light on the subject. Do you think Congress would allow something like this? Would Obama allow it to pass through as well?
Personally, I think it’s reprehensible to take away benefits people were promised and were relying on.
As far as it being something congress would allow, I don’t see how it could possibly pass the House, nor do I see how Obama could not veto it the second it landed on his desk, especially since his #1 task at this moment is saving jobs, not cutting them.
RE the Bush v Obama debt, don't forget this piece from 2009 [from the NYT]: "For his first annual budget next week, President Obama has banned four accounting gimmicks that President George W. Bush used to make deficit projections look smaller. The price of more honest bookkeeping: A budget that is $2.7 trillion deeper in the red over the next decade than it would otherwise appear, according to administration officials.''
"The new accounting involves spending on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, Medicare reimbursements to physicians and the cost of disaster responses. "
Just wanted to say this; Post it if you'd like.
For all the assholes who think Bush made the National Debt worse than Obama:
When President Obama took office two years ago, the national debt stood at $10.626 trillion. It now stands at $14.071 trillion — a staggering increase of $3.445 trillion in just 735 days (about $5 billion a day).
So Bush’s record on deficit spending was not good at all: During his presidency, the national debt rose by an average of $607 billion a year.
How does that compare to Obama? During Obama’s presidency to date, the national debt has risen by an average of $1.723 trillion a year — or by a jaw-dropping $1.116 trillion more, per year, than it rose even under Bush.
Look up the facts before you talk shit people.
Since Bush left office, we’ve been forced to pay $265 billion in interest on loans to cover the lost revenue used to pay the 10.6 trillion he racked up and which the current GOP controlled House tried to skip the bill on, leading to a historic near default.
The $1.7 trillion in Bush tax cuts really cost around $2 trillion if you count the cost in interest. That amount alone is 1/3 of the debt Obama has been forced to add, mostly through stimulus, not discretionary, not entitlements, simply triage to try and pull the country out of the ditch we were driven into over the course of eight years, following a Clinton administration where we had a surplus.
All of this, though, is a smokescreen. “Deficits don’t matter” is what Dick Cheney once said. The same party of Reagan that Cheney is referring to there is obstructing, the party now trying to win an election in 2012 is making false statements about a failure to lead and not knowing how to run an economy. These people are willfully ignorant. They don’t care about a solution, they will say anything to get elected.
The economists look at these people and shake their heads, they don’t understand how an economy works. You don’t solve a deficit problem by not paying the bills you’ve already racked up.
In response to your comment on the riots in London, I'd ask what you would rather do? Let the vandals run the streets and trash more innocent peoples' homes and businesses? It's easy to sit in an ivory tower and condemn the government when you're not having you own shop smashed by yobs you don't know.
I assume you’re referring to my comment about the Prime Minister wanting to shut down social networks in order to deal with riots. This is using a nuclear bomb to kill a mosquito. Social networks are open networks, which actually help police monitor criminal activity. What is more difficult is monitoring encrypted closed Blackberry network activity, which you can bet the government is working on gaining access to by working with RIM.
I’m not necessarily condemning government, I am asking what civil rights are you willing to give up. What personal freedoms are you willing to hand over in order to deal with what largely seems like a slow and understaffed reaction by the police, not a symptom of not being able to shut down network communications.
People will find a way to organize, and the reasons why they’re organizing is not simply because they want a new pair of sneakers and a television set. That’s a pretty simplistic view of a systemic societal problem and a lost generation that has no voice and no chance for advancement.
The Huffington Post tends to be under constant fire for what many call over-aggregating - taking too much content from other sources and making it their own. It’s always been more of an issue with print stories than video, but that doesn’t seem to be the case anymore. The photo above is from a video embedded in a story on HuffPost about Charla Nash, who was attached by a chimpanzee in 2008. While the video is from the Today Show, you can see AOL has placed the video in their own player based on the “AOL” bug in the lower right. Rather than embed the video from The Today Show, Armstrong, Huffington & co. are ripping it straight from the TV, cutting the important parts, and placing it in their own player so the streams & ad views count for AOL - who really seems to need it, since the stock has seen record lows lately.
Here’s the giant splash page NBC created for the story, complete with an embed code for the video. You know, in case anyone wanted to share the story on their own news site/blog and give credit to the creator. -Matt
“Free flow of information can be used for good. But it can also be used for ill. And when people are using social media for violence we need to stop them. So we are working with the Police, the intelligence services and industry to look at whether it would be right to stop people communicating via these websites and services when we know they are plotting violence, disorder and criminality.”—
From Christ Wire, probably my number one source of news and opinion these days. They just get it.
“The people of the United Kingdom do not have a right to bear arms. They are mere fawns in a blistering sea of camouflaged hunters. Their people do not stand a chance to defend their right to life, liberty and happiness as guaranteed to them by the American guaranteed Geneva’s Convention. America has a Constitutional duty to protect the people of England and more than ever, they need us to cripple their corrupt government and set their nation straight.
In a time of civil unrest in all these third world monarchies and dictatorships, much as seen in Libya, Egypt, Syria and now famously the United Kingdom, it is imperative that the US uses precise, tactical action. We must not be shy in flexing our military strength, arming the people of England and bringing them a true revolution for the public.”