Find a show you like and click the 
button. The show will be added to your My Playlist page and updated 24/7 with new videos.
Search Results
0 Views
21:00:11 01/29/12
Newt on This Week: Mitt Can't Tell The Truth, Has A 'Character' Problem
[LESS INFO] 0 VIEWS | ADDED 21:00:11 01/29/12
video platform video management video solutions video player
Now, I'm going to assume that you didn't come in during the third act of Newt's career, and therefore you can appreciate just how funny it is when, on This Week , he's whining to Jake Tapper about how hard it is to pin someone down who will just lie about anything ! >
TAPPER: In many ways, you are where you are because of your debate performances. Last week, you had a couple that were not your strongest, to say the least.
GINGRICH: Yep.
TAPPER: Why do you think that was? What happened?
GINGRICH: I was amazed. I mean, I'm standing next to a guy who is the most blatantly dishonest answers I can remember in any presidential race in -- in my lifetime. And I've seen, I think, every presidential debate -- presidential campaign debate or virtually every one. And, you know, he would say things that were just plain not true.
Look, it's a little bit like yesterday's L.A. Times report. I mean, now it found 23 foreign accounts he never reported until he released his taxes. He would say -- he would say thing after thing after thing that just plain wasn't true.
And I had -- I don't know how you debate a person with civility if they're prepared to say things that are just plain factually false. And that's going to become a key part of this. I think the Republican establishment believes it's OK to say and do virtually anything to stop a genuine insurgency from winning because they are very afraid of losing control of the old order.
We tried a moderate in 1996 for president. He lost. We tried a moderate in 2008 for president. He lost. It's very hard to take Romneycare and Obamacare and have a debate and have the Republican win that debate. You need to have a conservative who is a very big distance away from Obama, because you've got to have the space so that, in fact, you can communicate with the American people.
TAPPER: I want to follow up on some of these comments you're making about Mitt Romney. The race has taken something of a nasty turn. Here's an ad that you are currently running in Florida.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
(UNKNOWN): What kind of man would mislead, distort and deceive just to win an election? This man would, Mitt Romney. If we can't trust what Mitt Romney says about his own record, how can we trust him on anything?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
TAPPER: It sounds as if you're saying in that ad, and here this morning, that Mitt Romney is unfit and does not have the character to be president.
GINGRICH: I am saying that he would not be where he is today, the debates this week wouldn't have been where they were, if he had told the truth. And I think that's a very serious problem for somebody. I think that you look at -- again, he's supposedly a great manager, yet he can't explain 23 different foreign accounts that weren't reported. He's a great manager. He can't explain being on the board of directors of the company which got the largest Medicare fine in history for fraud?
Somehow, every time it's bad, he didn't know about it or he wasn't aware about it. He didn't really understand the Planned Parenthood by law, the largest abortion provider in the United States, is in Romneycare? Romneycare literally defines Planned Parenthood in a key -- in a part of the bill. He didn't seem to quite know it.
Every time you turn around, this great manager consistently doesn't understand whatever it is that would have hurt him. And you just have to look back and say, why can't you be candid with the American people? You cannot be president of the United States if you cannot be honest and candid with the American people. And that's compounded, frankly, by a number of the ads he runs, which are just plain false.
TAPPER: So you're saying that he does not have the character to be president of the United States, because he's, in your view, not honest.
GINGRICH: I'm saying it is a very -- it's a -- it is a very serious problem when you have somebody who on item after item after item -- I mean, the clip you had just now, he knows what he said in that clip is not true. I did not resign in disgrace. I did not pay a fine. And, in fact, CNN ran an entire piece recently in which they pointed out that on every single substantive count in the ethics investigation, every single one, that I was vindicated, including vindication by a federal judge, vindication by the Internal Revenue Service, vindication by the Federal Elections Commission . Now, Romney knows that.
(CROSSTALK)
TAPPER: Well, the clip -- the clip...
GINGRICH: So he's run a campaign of vilification.
TAPPER: The clip I just played was actually one of your ads, but let's get to that Romney ad that you're talking about...
GINGRICH: No, no, but I'm talking about the earlier -- I'm talking about -- I'm talking about the clip you showed of him campaigning yesterday.
TAPPER: Oh, OK.
GINGRICH: What he said yesterday, this wasn't true.
TAPPER: There...
GINGRICH: And so at some point, I don't quite -- I don't quite -- to be honest, Jake, I don't quite know how you deal with an opponent, because you want to deal with them with civility, you want to deal with them in a positive way. I want to talk about big issues.
I talked about space this week, which I think is important for the country's future. I talked about housing. I talked about creating jobs. I talked about the record I had working with Ronald Reagan to create jobs and the record I had working with Bill Clinton to create jobs. We talked about welfare reform as the first great entitlement reform.
There are all sorts of positive things. We have a proposal on Social Security which would allow every young American the option of having a personal Social Security account on the model of Galveston, Texas, and the country of Chile. So there are a lot of positive things.
And if you'll notice, when you get outside the zone where Romney carpet-bombs with Wall Street money, and you look at what's happening in the rest of the country, I'm ahead in all three national polls that were released this week. I'm ahead by a big margin, because when you come to positive ideas, I represent real change in Washington, I represent unleashing the spirit of the American people to get us back as a country, rebuilding the country we love. And when we get to a positive idea campaign, I consistently win.
It's only when he can mass money to focus on carpet-bombing with negative ads that he gains any traction at all.
61 Views
02:20:56 01/07/12
Will the Pursuit of Happiness Make You Happy?
[LESS INFO] 61 VIEWS | ADDED 02:20:56 01/07/12
Does the pursuit of happiness actually lead to happiness? Stanford business professor Jennifer Aaker reveals surprising data from two studies that may suggest otherwise.
Complete video at: http://fora.tv/conference/l2_innovation_forum_2011
A social psychologist and marketer, Jennifer is the General Atlantic Professor of Marketing at Stanford University's Graduate School of Business. Her research spans time, money, and happiness. She focuses on questions such as: What actually makes people happy, as opposed to what they think makes them happy? How can small acts create infectious action, and how can such effects be fueled by social media? Jennifer's work is widely published in the leading scholarly journals in psychology and marketing, and her work has been featured in a variety of media including The Economist, The New York Times, and the Wall Street Journal. Most recently she has co-authored The Dragonfly Effect: Quick Effective Powerful Ways to Harness Social Media for Impact.
5 Views
20:00:00 12/19/11
Havel the Dissident: A Legacy Worth Claiming
[LESS INFO] 5 VIEWS | ADDED 20:00:00 12/19/11
Former President Havel addresses a European cultural congress on the economics of culture
On a warm evening in 1991, a colleague and I found an out-of-the-way café in the old part of Prague. Two men with blank expressions stood outside. The interior was dim and close, with room for only eight or nine tables. The place was almost empty. Just a sleepy waitress, a bartender polishing glasses, and a single patron who sat alone drinking wine and chain-smoking cigarettes.
The President of Czechoslovakia wasn't reviewing official papers. He was reading a book, a startlingly un-Presidential act to our American eyes. My companion, a neoconservative State Department official, already admired him for defying and defeating a Communist state. He'd impressed me by bringing a writer's sensibility and an affinity for true underground culture to his role as head of state.
Václav Havel even tried to appoint Frank Zappa as his Minister of Culture. "We're not rock musicians," Zappa told a reporter back in the sixties. "We're electronic social workers." The State Department wouldn't let Zappa assume the post, but Havel had made his point to the Czech public by offering this apparatchik's position to the composer of songs like "What's the Ugliest Part of Your Body?" ("Some say your nose, some say your toes, but I think it's your mind .")
We never spoke to Havel that night. It didn't seem polite to offer anything more than the curt nod of acknowledgement any café patron gives another at that hour. But Havel spoke to us, to all of us. And on the occasion of his death, the real lessons of his life's work are in danger of being lost.
Today we're told that the Occupy movement is too idealistic, too naïve. Naïve? Try Havel's words if you want naïve: "May truth and love triumph over lies and hatred."
Think of that as the Velvet Revolution's "one demand."
Portrait of the President as a Young Freak
As millions of people know, the underground playwright Havel first made his political mark in Charter 77. That group was formed to defend the Plastic People of the Universe, a banned and imprisoned rock band working in the Zappa mold of musical dissonance and cultural dissidence.
The Occupy movement is not on the cultural fringe, despite what its detractors say. But Havel's movement began as a Yippie-like creature of the underworld. Charter 77 rarely had more than a thousand members. It was a strange blend of political idealism and the hippie subculture where people proudly labeled themselves "freaks" to the conventional world. Despite its later alignment with economically conservative forces, it was more Allen Ginsburg than Alan Greenspan.
And it was created to defend the Plastic People of the Universe, whose grating music makes Occupy's drum circles seem like a children's choir serenading the bored residents of a home for aging veterans.
Words
Liberté, Egalité, Fraternité - what wonderful words! And how terrifying their meaning can be! Freedom in the shirt unbuttoned before execution. Equality in the constant speed of the guillotine's fall on different necks. Fraternity in some dubious paradise ...
Havel addressed the liberal democratic West on words in the 1970s, noting that the suppression of speech can give language enormous power: >
I ... live in a country where a writers' congress speech is capable of shaking the system ... a manifesto served as one of the pretexts for the invasion of our country one night by five foreign armies ... a system in which words are capable of shaking the entire structure of government, where words can prove mightier than ten military divisions.
When a system has become inflexible and is in danger of collapsing, what it fears most is words. Think about that the next time you see a phalanx of cops tear down a tent city on television.
Havel had been burned by language, too: >
The same word can at one moment radiate great hope, at another it can emit lethal rays ... true at one moment and false the next, at one moment illuminating, at another, deceptive. On one occasion it can open up glorious horizons, on another, it can lay down the tracks to an entire archipelago of concentration camps.
And as we approach an election year that will be filled with the rhetoric of freedom, this observation still resonates: >
The same word can at one time be the cornerstone of peace, while at another time machine-gun fire resounds in its every syllable.
Control
In 1975 Havel had the presumption to write directly to Czechoslovakian head of state Gustáv Husák with a few suggestions. There's more than a passing resemblance between the fear-driven Communist society Havel condemned in that letter and the financial anxiety many Americans endure today: >
The technique of existential pressure is ... universal. There is no one in our country who is not, in a broad sense, existentially vulnerable. Everyone has something to lose and so everyone has reason to be afraid. The range of things one can lose is broad, extending from the manifold privileges of the ruling caste... down to the mere possibility of living in that limited degree of legal certainty available to other citizens.
Today, one out of two Americans lives in financial insecurity. Even many upper-middle-class citizens live from month to month, just one layoff notice away from medical bankruptcy or home foreclosure.
"Everyone has something to lose," observed Havel.
Havel's description of his 20th Century Communist society echoes our own: >
The more completely one abandons any hope of general reform, any interest in suprapersonal goals and values, or any chance of exercising influence in an 'outward' direction, the more one's energy is diverted in the direction of least resistance, that is, 'inwards.'"
People today are preoccupied far more with themselves ... They fill their homes with all kinds of appliances and pretty things, they try to improve their accommodations, they try to make life pleasant for themselves, building cottages, looking after their cars, taking more interest in food and clothing and domestic comfort ...They turn their main attention to the material aspects of their private lives.
Havel concluded that "Despair leads to apathy, apathy to conformity, and conformity to routine (political) performance - which is then quoted as evidence of 'mass political involvement.'"
Ambition
Havel understood the psychology of greed and power, too. From his letter to Husák: >
If it is fear which lies behind people's defensive attempts to preserve what they have, it becomes increasingly apparent that the chief impulses for their aggressive efforts to win what they do not yet possess are selfishness and careerism.
It is not surprising that so many public and influential positions are occupied more than ever before by notorious careerists, opportunists, charlatans, and men of dubious record.
From Prague to Washington, from Moscow to lower Manhattan, the opportunities change. But human nature never does: >
Seldom in recent times has a social system offered scope so openly and so brazenly to people willing to support anything as long as it brings them some advantage; to unprincipled and spineless men, prepared to do anything in their craving for power and personal gain; to born lackeys, ready for any humiliation and willing at all times to sacrifice their neighbors' and their own honor for a chance to ingratiate themselves with those in power.
Technocracy
It's a historical irony that those who claim they'll govern with the most efficiency usually wind up governing with the least effectiveness. Today corporate-funded politicians from both parties argue that the country should be led by "technocrats' who'll govern without messy "ideologies."
That's a false premise Havel knew well. He called it the "process by which power becomes anonymous and depersonalized, reduced to a mere technology of rule and manipulation."
Washington's technocratic "bipartisans" dream of a world where, in Havel's words, the "professional ruler is (seen as) the 'innocent' tool of an 'innocent' anonymous power ... legitimized by science, cybernetics, ideology, law, abstraction, and objectivity - that is, by everything except personal responsibility to human beings as persons and neighbors." Havel's Prague is our Beltway: >
States grow ever more machinelike; people are transformed into statistical choruses of voters, producers, consumers, patients, tourists, or soldiers, (where) in politics good and evil, categories of the natural world and therefore obsolete remnants of the past, lose all absolute meaning (and where) the sole method of politics is quantifiable success.
Havel condemned a system of state-orchestrated political theater, and the self-perpetuating failures of imagination which mistook the indifferent and pro forma participation of its citizens for genuine democracy. And he saw its universal nature: >
(It) has a thousand masks, variants, and expressions. Essentially, though, it is the same universal trend ... the essential trait of all modern civilization, growing directly from its spiritual structure, rooted in it by a thousand tangled tendrils and inseparable even in thought from its technological nature, its mass characteristics, and its consumer orientation.
"The contemporary concept of 'normal' behavior is," Havel wrote, "deeply pessimistic."
Responsibility
"I favor 'antipolitical politics,'" said Havel, "politics not as the technology of power and manipulation, of cybernetic rule over humans or as the art of the utilitarian, but politics as one of the ways of seeking and achieving meaningful lives, of protecting them and serving them." >
I favor politics as practical morality, as service to the truth, as essentially human and humanly measured care for our fellow humans.
None of us--as an individual--can save the world as a whole, but . . . each of us must behave as though it were in his power to do so.
Decades later he said this to the leaders of Western countries: >
Today, more than ever before in the history of mankind, everything is interrelated ... Because of this, the future of the United States or the European Union is being decided in suffering Sarajevo or Mostar, in the plundered Brazilian rain forests, in the wretched poverty of Bangladesh or Somalia.
Havel had glaring faults. American neocons offered him small favors during his final rise to power. He reciprocated, consciously or unconsciously, by aiding their destructive military ventures and adopting their foolish economic policies. He succumbed to the politics of personality, both his own and those of the leaders who courted him. But it would be a shame if that's all the world remembered.
Havel seemed unhappy in the role of leader. It's possible than he lost sight of his deepest insights, his truest gifts. It was the outsider Havel, the dreamer of the impossible, the surrealist and absurdist, we should remember. That's the Havel who can and should inspire dissidents everywhere.
"Is the human word truly powerful enough to change the world and influence history?" he once asked. With his life and his words, Václav Havel gave us his answer. He showed us the power in each individual and the responsibility that accompanies that power.
At his best, and above all else, Havel was a dissident outsider who realized his power and used it. Now it's our turn.
9 Views
19:00:00 10/03/11
#OccupyWallStreet Protester Lets Fox News Have It
[LESS INFO] 9 VIEWS | ADDED 19:00:00 10/03/11
This is just wonderful to see. Jesse LaGreca, also known as the Daily Kos blogger MinistryOfTruth , gets in front of a Fox News reporter and lets him know what he and the other 99 percent think of their news coverage.
Here's the transcript: >
Fox: Jesse, so Ray, your partner here, your ..
Ray: comrade.
Fox: Your colleague, she’d seen the protests in Greece and Europe and elsewhere. Did you guys take your cue from that? Are you hoping to cite certainly what was a lot of the tension, if not police activity. I know over the weekend there were over 100 arrests and you guys got things fired up. Are you taking your cues from the international movement and how do you want to see this? If you could have it in a perfect way, how would it be?
Jesse: Well I don’t know, its really difficult to answer questions leading to those conclusions. I’d say that we didn’t take our cue leading off of anybody really. It became a more spontaneous movement. As far as seeing this end, I wouldn’t like to see this end. I would like to see the conversation continue. This is what we should have been talking about in 2008 when the economy collapsed. We basically patched a hole on the tire and said let the car keep rolling. Unfortunately it’s fun to talk to the propaganda machine and the media especially conservative media networks such as yourself, because we find that we cant get conversations for the department of Justice’s ongoing investigation of News Corporation, for which you are an employee. But we can certainly ask questions like you know, why are the poor engaging in class warfare? After 30 years of having our living standards decrease while the wealthiest 1% have had it better than ever, I think it’s time for some maybe, I don’t know, participation in our democracy that isn’t funded by news cameras and gentlemen such as yourself.
Fox: But, uh, yeah well, let me give you this challenge Jesse.
Jesse: Sure.
Fox: We’re here giving you an opportunity on the record […] to put any
message you want out there, to give you fair coverage and I’m not
going to in any way
Jesse: That’s awesome!
Fox:…give you advice about it. So, there is an exception in the case, because you wouldn’t be able to get your message out there without us.
Jesse: No, surely, I mean, take for instance when Glenn Beck was doing his protest and he called the President, uh, a person who hates white people and white culture. That was a low moment in Americans’ history and you guys kinda had a big part in it. So, I’m glad to see you coming around and kind of paying attention to what the other 99 percent of Americans are paying attention to, as opposed to the far-right fringe, who who would just love to destroy the middle class entirely.
Fox: Alright, fair enough. You have a voice, an important reason to criticize myself, my company and anyone else. But, let me ask you that, in fairness, does this administration, President Obama, have any criticism as to the the financial situation the country’s in…?
Jesse: I think, myself, uh, as well as many other people, would like to see a little but more economic justice or social justice—Jesus stuff—as far as feeding the poor, healthcare for the sick. You know, I find it really entertaining that people like to hold the Bill of Rights up while they’re screaming at gay soldiers, but they just can’t wrap their heads around the idea that a for-profit healthcare system doesn’t work. So, let’s just look at it like this, if we want the President to do more, let’s talk to him on a level that actually reaches people, instead of asking for his birth certificate and wasting time with total nonsense like Solyndra.
[h/t Observer.com ]
3 Views
09:02:53 10/01/11
Does SEO Help Search Ranking?
[LESS INFO] 3 VIEWS | ADDED 09:02:53 10/01/11
"http://lockergnome.net/questions/128936/does-seo-help-search-results Tom Maxwell, a member of the LockerGnome community, asked: ""Does SEO help search ranking?"" Search engine optimization (SEO) is a series of methods used by content creators to help improve their ranking on various search engines including Google, Yahoo, and Bing. Having a higher search ranking means that people searching for a specific topic will be more likely to see your content before anyone else. Doing things like giving your content specific titles, using keywords and frequently searched phrases in the body of the page, and maintaining a set of standards across your site are great ways to start with SEO. More recently, search engines like Google and Bing have started to use social media as part of its search algorithms. Are people sharing your content? Has someone you associate with on Google or Facebook shared a specific link related to the subject you're searching for? These may very well be the biggest factors in ranking a site moving forward. What do you think? Does SEO improve your search ranking? http://lockergnome.com http://twitter.com/ChrisPirillo http://facebook.com/ChrisPirillo"
1 Views
22:01:27 09/28/11
Does SEO Help Search Ranking?
[LESS INFO] 1 VIEWS | ADDED 22:01:27 09/28/11
Tom Maxwell, a member of the LockerGnome community, asked: "Does SEO help search ranking?" Search engine optimization (SEO) is a series of methods used by content creators to help improve their ranking on various search engines including Google, Yahoo, and Bing. Having a higher search ranking means that people searching for a specific topic will be more likely to see your content before anyone else. Doing things like giving your content specific titles, using keywords and frequently searched phrases in the body of the page, and maintaining a set of standards across your site are great ways to start with SEO. More recently, search engines like Google and Bing have started to use social media as part of its search algorithms. Are people sharing your content? Has someone you associate with on Google+ or Facebook shared a specific link related to the subject you're searching for? These may very well be the biggest factors in ranking a site moving forward. What do you think? Does SEO improve your search ranking?
3 Views
01:39:35 09/09/11
Clash Of The Clueless Friedman V Santelli
[LESS INFO] 3 VIEWS | ADDED 01:39:35 09/09/11
We talk about the Villagers a lot on C%L , and you'll hear the term used in many progressive blogs as well. Tom Friedman is a high ranking beltway Villager and Rick Santelli is a free market CNBC/wingnut Villager. Remember, he did his rebel yell that helped kick off the tea party by blaming homeowners for the mortgage crisis instead of his Wall street pals who actually created it. However, Santelli told us that the economy was healthy right before the meltdown. Anyway, this is what you get when you put two Villagers together on one screen. The debate was about Social Security. Rick Perry, the new tea party favorite calls it a Ponzi scheme. Obviously Santelli wants to privatize it so he and his CEO pals can make tons of cash off of the backs of the middle class again and put their retirements at risk.
They'll attack it from any angle, even if it's an insane one. I hadn't heard that Social Security is like a chain letter before, have you? >
Texas Gov. Rick Perry stuck to his claim during last night’s presidential debate that Social Security is “a Ponzi scheme.” The media are getting a lot of mileage out of that sound bite, and the Ponzi-scheme debate is very much alive this morning. On Thursday’s “Squawk Box” on CNBC, CME Group floor reporter Rick Santelli, known to some as the father of the tea party movement, challenged New York Times columnist and Rick Perry critic Thomas Friedman on that claim. “I’d just like to know — you know, I was watching that debate last night, although it really wasn't a debate,” Santelli said. “It was like a weird press conference. But I would like to know — does Mr. Friedman think Social Security is a Ponzi scheme?”
That led to a heated back-and-forth between Friedman and Santelli: >
FRIEDMAN: No, I don’t think it’s a Ponzi scheme.
SANTELLI: Earlier in the show you said that we’re putting a burden on our kids that’s unsustainable . What’s the definition of a Ponzi scheme?
FRIEDMAN: It’s a program that made promises that it cannot keep in full and it needs to be fixed and reformed.
SANTELLI: Isn’t that exactly what a Ponzi pyramid is?
FRIEDMAN: I don’t think it is a Ponzi scheme as a criminal endeavor.
SANTELLI: No, no — forget the criminal side. You need more people to perpetuate a myth because if the people stop the myth is known to all. That’s my definition of a Ponzi scheme. Let’s call at it chain letter, a pyramid scheme. Isn’t that by definition what Social Security is? Take the legalities and fraud out.
STEVE LIESMAN: Why is it a Ponzi scheme, Rick?
FRIEDMAN: It is pay as we go. Ronald Reagan fixed it. Why can’t we fix it?
SANTELLI: What does Ronald Reagan have to do with my question?
FRIEDMAN: What does your question have to do with reality?
MICHELLE CARUSO CABRERA: We brought it up.
SANTELLI: You can’t decide that more people is the only thing made Social Security work. We have a real issue because many people in government seem to like to read your work.
FRIEDMAN: What makes Social Security work is fixing Social Security in terms of the population demands.
SANTELLI: I didn’t ask if we should fix it or not. I asked if it’s a pyramid scheme.
FRIEDMAN: Your question is idiotic. That’s what you asked.
SANTELLI: You’re idiotic. I’m done. I feel good.
FRIEDMAN: So do I.
Santelli is a Wall Street gasbag who won't ever need Social Security to live on when he retires and he's upset because Tom gets a lot of attention from his beltway pals. Screaming about bailouts is one thing, but calling the longest running social program a pyramid scheme or a chain letter won't set off waves of protests from the tea party since many of them receive it. Friedman at least understands that it's not a Ponzi scheme. However, Friedman also believes that the middle class and poor need to start sharing the sacrifice even more.
CEPR: >
On the first question, I suppose that Friedman and Mahbubani want to see taxes increased or benefits like Social Security and Medicare cut. Both of these steps would mean real sacrifices for low and middle class people, but how exactly do they help the recovery?
Remember our problem is too little demand. So we make people sacrifice by paying higher taxes. How does this increase demand? Or we cut their Social Security benefits or make them pay more for their Medicare. Again, this would imply real sacrifice, but how does this spur the economy?
Are there businesses out there who are saying that they will not hire or invest today because Social Security and Medicare are too generous? Will these businesses decide to hire more workers and expand their business if the government cut these benefits?
In more normal times, there was at least a plausible argument that this could be the case. The story would go that reducing the deficit would lower interest rates, thereby encouraging businesses to invest. (Actually most research shows that investment is not very responsive to interest rates.) However, with interest rates already at post-Depression lows, it is difficult to envision them going much lower, nor that there would be much additional investment even if they did. In other words, Friedman and Mahbubani seem to be calling for pointless sacrifice.
The second part of the story is who they want to sacrifice. The top 10 percent of income distribution received the vast majority of the gains from economic growth over the last three decades. A grossly disproportionate share went to the top 1.0 pecent and the top 0.1 percent. It might be reasonable to expect that the big gainers over this period would be the ones who should be doing the sacrificing.
But not in Thomas Friedman's world. In his world, sacrifice must be shared equally. Those who are incredibly rich and those who are barely getting are both called upon to make sacrifices for the greater good. That's Thomas Friedman justice.
Friedman happens to be a very wealthy man. (h/t Atrios )
2 Views
18:09:44 07/31/11
Mitch McConnell says there's a Debt Ceiling Deal closing in that makes us all Conservatives: UPDATED
[LESS INFO] 2 VIEWS | ADDED 18:09:44 07/31/11
UPDATE: Senate Votes Down Reid Bill, Awaits Obama/McConnell Spending-Cut-Only Debt Limit Bill
Sen. Mitch McConnell was on CNN's State of The Union this morning to proclaim that there's a deal which is roughly 3 trillion dollars in cuts on the table and he says will avert a disaster. Part of the process with be this crappy Supper Cat food commission that will include a trigger so that if the both sides don't come together then automatic cuts will appear. >
A first step would include about $1 trillion in spending cuts while raising the debt ceiling about the same amount. The proposal also would set up a special committee of Democratic and Republican legislators from both chambers of Congress to recommend additional deficit reduction steps -- including tax reform as well as reforms to popular entitlement programs such as Medicare and Social Security.
The committee's recommendations would be put to a vote by Congress, without any amendments, by the end of the year. If Congress fails to pass the package, a so-called "trigger" mechanism would enact automatic spending cuts. Either way -- with the package passed by Congress or the trigger of automatic cuts -- a second increase in the debt ceiling would occur, but with an accompanying congressional vote of disapproval.
In addition, the agreement would require both chambers of Congress to vote on a balanced budget amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Such an amendment would require two-thirds majorities in both chambers to pass, followed by ratification by 38 states -- a process likely to take years.
McConnell was preening on the air that we tax too much already in America and have a spending problem so this new deal will satisfy the American people. He means it will satisfy the Tea Party hostage takers and everyone that's a Republican of course. All polling shows Americans DO NOT want Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid touched.
TPM outlines more of the deal here: >
As noted here , the issue under contention was the design of a so-called "trigger," -- a penalty written into the bill meant to encourage Congress to pass further bipartisan deficit reduction legislation, authored by a new Special Committee, later this year. Here's what they've reportedly come up with, pending approval from Congressional Democrats and Republicans. From ABC News , the key detail: "The special committee must make recommendations by late November (before Congress' Thanksgiving recess). If Congress does not approve those cuts by December 23, automatic across-the-board cuts go into effect, including cuts to Defense and Medicare. This 'trigger' is designed to force action on the deficit reduction committee's recommendations by making the alternative painful to both Democrats and Republicans."
The Medicare cuts would supposedly fall on Medicare providers, not beneficiaries. The trigger would also include a vote on a Balanced Budget Amendment -- but no requirement that it be sent off to the states.
One source briefed on the negotiations confirms that the ABC story is correct "on the key points." A similar piece in National Journal suggests the Special Committee would not be allowed to reduce the deficit by raising new net tax revenue. The source disputes that notion, as does the ABC report.
Chuck Schumer steps in after Mitch had finished to try and reassure Democrats that there must be incentives put into the trigger.Throwing grandma under the bus for some cuts in defense spending is equitable in what way exactly? >
CNN, Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) said the final trigger must include incentives that don't simply allow Republicans to draw a line in the sand over revenues. "What is the sword over the Republican?" Schumer asked. >
Well it has to be equal -- the one thing we are certain of, it has to be of equal sharpness and strength. The preference would be some kind of revenues, on wealthy people, on tax loopholes that would be in that. But another alternative, possible, being discussed, no agreement has been reached, would be defense cuts of equal sharpness and magnitude to domestic cuts.
In the past, when the trigger has had significant defense cuts, it's brought the parties to the table and they've come up with a balanced agreement that had both revenues and cuts.
Doesn't that make you feel better?
Click here to view this media
Daivd Plouffe was on all morning too and tells me that progressives should be happy about all these cuts. I need to hear him scold me like I need a migraine.
Think Progress: >
Moreover, the deal includes zero revenue increases and no call for comprehensive tax reform, and achieving these things through the new bipartisan deficit commission will be almost impossible as Republicans are sure to reject it. Still, White House economic adviser Gene Sperling said today on State of the Union that the White House
64 Views
19:01:34 06/10/11
The Psychology of Twitter
[LESS INFO] 64 VIEWS | ADDED 19:01:34 06/10/11
This program was recorded in collaboration with the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, on April 26, 2011.
Do you post comments online? Blog about your ideas? Tweet your opinion? Perhaps you're a "lurker," listening to, reading and following others who have their say in social media? It's no secret that Twitter, blogs and Facebook have changed the way we communicate, but have they tapped in to our modern pathological need to be "revered"? And, what does it really mean to be "someone" in the Twittersphere?
At a pub in Brisbane, a panel of twittering journos and scientists fess up on their desires, obsessions, and hates of social media and try to unpick the psychology behind our intimate relationship with it. Among the panelists are Dr. Rod Lamberts, a science communications expert from ANU; Andy Gregson, a social networking entrepreneur; and Natasha Mitchell, the presenter of Radio National's "All in the Mind," who's a fervent blogger and Tweeter herself. Leading the conversation is "New Inventors" judge and ABC science broadcaster, Bernie Hobbs.
This event is presented by ABC Cafe Scientific, as part of the Brisbane 'media140' conference.
42 Views
19:00:42 06/07/11
Are You Lurking? The 90-9-1 Principle of Social Media
[LESS INFO] 42 VIEWS | ADDED 19:00:42 06/07/11
Social networks like Twitter boast ever-climbing rates of use, but how many account holders are actually participating? A panel of Australian media experts discusses the 90-9-1 principle of social media, which has it that 90 percent of users on any social media platform are lurking, 9 percent are moderate contributors, and 1 percent are super users.
Complete video at: http://fora.tv/2011/04/26/The_Psychology_of_Twitter
Do you post comments online? Blog about your ideas? Tweet your opinion? Perhaps you're a "lurker," listening to, reading and following others who have their say in social media? It's no secret that Twitter, blogs and Facebook have changed the way we communicate, but have they tapped in to our modern pathological need to be "revered"? And, what does it really mean to be "someone" in the Twittersphere?
At a pub in Brisbane, a panel of twittering journos and scientists fess up on their desires, obsessions, and hates of social media and try to unpick the psychology behind our intimate relationship with it. Among the panelists are Dr. Rod Lamberts, a science communications expert from ANU; Andy Gregson, a social networking entrepreneur; and Natasha Mitchell, the presenter of Radio National's "All in the Mind," who's a fervent blogger and Tweeter herself. Leading the conversation is "New Inventors" judge and ABC science broadcaster, Bernie Hobbs.
This event is presented by ABC Cafe Scientific, as part of the Brisbane 'media140' conference.
1 Views
12:14:58 05/31/11
THE POLITICS OF INDEBTEDNESS
[LESS INFO] 1 VIEWS | ADDED 12:14:58 05/31/11
The Politics of Indebtedness
Richard Dienst, Jeremy Glick, Randy Martin & Bruce Robbins The credit crisis has pushed the whole world so far into the red that the gigantic sums involved defy understanding. On a human level, what does such an enormous degree of debt and insolvency mean? In this timely book, cultural critic Richard Dienst considers the financial crisis, global poverty, media politics and radical theory to parse the various implications of a world where man is born free but everywhere is in debt. Written with humor and verve, Bonds of Debt ranges across subjects%mdashsuch as Obama%rsquos national security strategy, the architecture of Prada stores, press photos of Bono, and a fairy tale told by Karl Marx%mdashto capture a modern condition founded on fiscal imprudence. Moving beyond the dominant pieties and widespread anxieties surrounding the topic, Dienst re-conceives the world%rsquos massive financial obligations as a social, economic, and political bond, where the crushing weight of objectified wealth comes face to face with new demands for equality and solidarity. For this inspired analysis, we are indebted to him. Richard Dienst is the author of Still Life in Real Time: Theory after Televisionand The Bonds of Debt, and a co-editor of Reading the Shape of the World. He teaches in the Department of English at Rutgers University.
Jeremy Matthew Glick is an assistant professor in the Hunter College English Department, specializing in African diaporic literature, literary studies approaches to Black radicalism, and modern drama. He is working on a book about the Haitian Revolution and dramatic tragedy and an essay on George Jackson and aphoristic lines of flight in "The Coming Insurrection". He is coeditor of *Another World is Possible: Conversations in a Time of Terror" and has written extensively on the poetics of Amiri Baraka and Black liberation movement political prisoners in the United States. He is cowriter of the documentary film "Dead Prez: Its Bigger Than Hip Hop". Randy Martin is professor and chair of art and public policy at NYU. He is author of a number of books including On Your Marx: Relinking Socialism and the Left; Financialization of Daily Life; An Empire of Indifference: American War and the Financial Logic of Risk Management; and most recently, Under New Management: Universities, Administrative Labor and the Professional Turn. Bruce Robbins is Old Dominion Foundation Professor in the Humanities at Columbia University.
9 Views
20:12:29 05/30/11
Stories using Social Media Storify
[LESS INFO] 9 VIEWS | ADDED 20:12:29 05/30/11
What is Storify?
Storify is a way to tell stories using social media such as Tweets, photos and videos. You search multiple social networks from one place, and then drag individual elements into your story. You can re-order the elements and also add text to give context to your readers.
Why should I make stories with Storify? Millions of people are sharing content through social media. But these streams of information are quickly lost in the never-ending stream of updates. With Storify, you can put together the best Tweets, photos and videos to make stories that will be remembered.
Can't I just do this now with my regular blogging platform? It's a pain and takes a lot of time. You can cut and paste text, download and then re-upload photos, copy links to original sources, attempt to format that to look nice by going back and forth between previews and editing modes, etc. We make it easy to do that by just dragging-and-dropping, creating beautiful, simple stories. We preserve all attribution and metadata for each element. We let you notify all the sources quoted in a story with one click, a great way to help it go viral. Stories with Storify are interactive, and your readers can re-Tweet or reply to the people quoted in stories. Also, Storify's API opens up new possibilities for developers to display stories in new ways and on different devices.
What should I Storify? That’s up to you! You can create a story around an event using social media from people who were there, or put together a story using your own Tweets and photos. If you’re a business, you can use it to compile what people are saying about your product. You can also make an online scrapbook from a wedding or party with posts from your friends.
Can I use other sources? We have an API for that and will be opening up the platform to many other sources. We also plan to let you use different algorithms to search for social content. Please stay tuned and let us know what other sources you would like. I ’ve created a story with Storify, now what? You can point readers to the version on your profile page at http://storify.com/your_username. But you can also take the embed code from that story and put it on any Web site, much like you would embed a Youtube video. Because it’s an embed, you will always get attribution as the source and you will be able to see where your story is embedded and how many views it gets. When readers re-Tweet elements from your story and interact with it, you’ll get the attribution as the curator.
Isn’t there an issue with copyrights to use all this stuff? We use publicly available content in accordance with the terms for use provided by the sources we are searching. The content we display has been made public by the original creators. We also maintain links to original sources to make sure they always receive attribution for their work. And we even help you notify the content creators that they are now part of your story. You own the content you create with Storify, so it's ultimately your responsibility to make sure that you have appropriate licenses for any work depending on your use.
What about this feature that notifies the people I quote in my story with @replies on Twitter, aren't I spamming all my followers? We also don't like spam! The @replies don't show up in the timeline that your followers see unless they are following both you and the other person who you've @replied to. This is a feature that Twitter itself created to prevent clutter of people's feeds. Also, we always let you decide whether to send the @replies and to whom, so it's up to you whether you want to use the feature. We will never send tweets from your account without your permission.
What are you doing to help content creators? We care deeply about the debate over how to compensate content creators. That's why we always attribute original sources, as a first step to make sure people are credited for their work and can see how it's used.Having these metrics will help creators identify their best strategy. Should they continue giving it away for free to get exposure or should they monetize part or all of it? Providing these metrics to content owners is the first step for monetization. We are also looking at having paid content sources in Storify, please contact us at info@storify.com if you're interested
Will Storify work with my content management system (CMS)? As long as you can embed any kind of Javascript on your pages, you can embed a Storify story.
Will Storify work with my Wordpress blog? Yes for self-hosted Wordpress blogs! But not for now if your blog is hosted by Wordpress.com. Storify also works with Wordpress MU, but you may have to install a plugin to allow Javascript in blog posts.
Will Storify work with my Tumblr/Posterous site? Storify works with Tumblr and Posterous just fine, please feel free to embed and share your stories there!
How does Storify affect search engine rankings and affect SEO? Stories on Storify.com are optimized for SEO, because we link to all the sources used. We are working on a solution to optimize for SEO on embeds. However, our main focus is optimizing for social sharing, which is the fastest growing way that readers are discovering content.
What happens if someone deletes something they’ve posted? If it’s a Tweet, we keep a copy on our own site and it won’t be removed from your story. For other forms of rich media like photos and video, we simply link to the source so that content will not appear in your story if it's removed by the original creator, as would happen for any embedded content.
What about Storify on the iPad and other devices? Our drag-and-drop interface is ideal for the iPad and touch interfaces, we're working on it!
What does “Storify” mean?
It’s actually an obsolete word that used to be in the dictionary that means “to form or tell stories.” It’s also a word that was used internally at The Associated Press, where our co-founder Burt worked as a correspondent. Editors sending messages to reporters asking them to do a story would regularly write: “Can u pls storify?”
0 Views
01:51:13 05/30/11
The Gregory Mantell Show After Bin Laden
[LESS INFO] 0 VIEWS | ADDED 01:51:13 05/30/11
What does the death of bin Laden mean for the U.S. and Middle East? WIth documentary filmmaker Elan Frank, a former Israeli military officer who was a consultant for Fox News. Plus, social media guru Ed Reyes tells you how to turn Facebook and Twitter into gold.
2 Views
04:28:37 05/10/11
Why You Should Join Empire Avenue
[LESS INFO] 2 VIEWS | ADDED 04:28:37 05/10/11
Join Empire Avenue - Until now, there was no true way for you to exact an exact value from my participation in this new form of media (participatory). Sure, you might get some value from watching my videos, reading my Twitter updates, scanning the Facebook fan page, scoping out the RSS feed from my blogs, etc. - but what does it all mean? Empire Avenue may finally place a virtual value on my social media activity. You can invest in me, using virtual currency (eaves) - and for every comment I post, every video I upload, every song I sing - well, okay... not the singing, so much - for virtually everything that I do online, you'll be able to gain value as a shareholder of my stock ticker symbol on Empire Avenue.
12 Views
20:35:53 05/01/11
Why You Should Join Empire Avenue - a Social Media Exchange
[LESS INFO] 12 VIEWS | ADDED 20:35:53 05/01/11
"http://go.tagjag.com/empireavenue http://chris.pirillo.com/top-5-ways-to-increase-share-price-in-empire-avenue/ Social Media is all the rage. And if you disagree, then you shouldn't be on YouTube - where Social Media comes alive in the form of video media. Hey, don't blame me! I'm not a huge fan of the phrase, but that doesn't mean I don't love the tools. So, I tweet on Twitter. I post on Facebook. I upload to YouTube. I share on LinkedIn. I divulge more information on my blog. I am active. Constantly. Everywhere. I'm social, even though I seldom leave my house (damn this fear of sunshine). Until now, there was no true way for you to exact an exact value from my participation in this new form of media (participatory). Sure, you might get some value from watching my videos, reading my Twitter updates, scanning the Facebook fan page, scoping out the RSS feed from my blogs, etc. - but what does it all mean? Empire Avenue may finally place a virtual value on my social media activity. You can invest in me, using virtual currency (eaves) - and for every comment I post, every video I upload, every song I sing - well, okay... not the singing, so much - for virtually everything that I do online, you'll be able to gain value as a shareholder of my stock ticker symbol on Empire Avenue. The account is free, and you really don't have to do anything different than what you're doing now. Participating on YouTube generates value for you AUTOMATICALLY on Empire Avenue, and for anybody who becomes a shareholder in you. Grab PIRILLO while the price is still low - as I'm near-guaranteed to break 100 at some point. Will I maintain? Oh, I don't know. How often do you see me tweet, update, upload, and share? Exactly. http://twitter.com/ChrisPirillo http://www.facebook.com/ChrisPirillo http://youtube.com/ChrisPirillo http://chris.pirillo.com/"
5 Views
22:00:17 12/08/10
David Gregory says Gov. Christie got rave reviews in AEI speech, but from who?
[LESS INFO] 5 VIEWS | ADDED 22:00:17 12/08/10
Since Conservatives love a good bully, Chris Cristie has become a favorite among them, but how does that justify David Gregory's claim about him on Meet The Press? >
MR. GREGORY: And you're teeing up -- Governor Chris Christie of New Jersey , talk about austerity . He gave a speech here in Washington this week that got rave reviews in part because of his plain language about taking on issues like Social Security . Here's what he said. >
GOV. CHRIS CHRISTIE (R-NJ): You're going to have to raise the retirement age for Social Security . Ho , ho! I just said it, and I'm still standing here. I did not vaporize into the carpeting, and I said it.
MR. GREGORY: He didn't vaporize into the carpeting, Rick Santelli . I mean, this is the kind of plain talk that people are responding to. And yet, you just heard from Senator Durbin , you know, they want to take Social Security off the table right now in terms of dealing with that debt reduction.
The only people giving him rave reviews are Conservatives, so why did Gregory frame it in a way that appears all Americans are digging Christie's shtick? You would think that in NJ, Christie would have a 70% approval rating, but the fact is he's only a tad over fifty. Wow, you may not have known that because of all the positive media fanboy love going around.
Eric Boehlert: >
For instance, if you look at the polling, a small sliver of potential Republican primary voters are responding to Christie in that they pick him as their first choice for a 2012 candidate. But that sliver hardly represents any sort of national response from the "people" to Christie's partisan rhetoric. Meanwhile, in his home state Christie enjoys decent support, with an approval rating of about 50 percent. Although if you only listened to the Christie media chatter from inside Beltway you'd assume his poll numbers were in the sky-high, 60 or 70 percent range.
Perhaps more telling though, is the recent poll that showed if Christie ran against Obama in 2012, the governor would lose his home state by nearly 20 points. That's right, Christie would get trounced by Obama in N.J.
I realize much of the D.C. press corps is crushing on Christie. But before they announce that "people" are responding to the governor's "plain talk," pundits might want to find out if that response extends beyond their professional class.
President Obama trounces him by twenty points now. Christie can gab with the best of them , but why does the Beltway elite class immediately transfer what the AEI crowd thinks of him over to all Americans? It's ridiculous. And getting back to reality, it's a complete fallacy that raising the age of Social Security has to happen for Social Security to remain solvent forever. It's a Conservative lie and C%L readers and Dems all over the country know this except for the Villager class.
Atrios: >
I'm never quite sure if Villagers are just unable to distinguish "the GOP operatives and other Villagers we talk to" from "the people" or if they truly believe (perhaps correctly) that they are just the only people who matter.
I think it's kinda of both, but if I had to make a choice I'd tell Duncan that they believe that they are just the only people who matter.
