Search Episodes (What Does Social Media Mean )

Geek Out: Why I Like Windows 8 (and Other News)

Added 05/26/12
0 Views

Geek Out: Why I Like Windows 8 (and Other News)

[LESS INFO] 0 VIEWS | ADDED 00:37:47 05/26/12
Qualify for today's giveaway - click here and go to the Geekstakes tab: https://www.facebook.com/Modis/app_161033847281768 Why I Like Windows 8 http://www.lockergnome.com/windows/2012/05/24/why-i-like-windows-8/ Can You Be Happy with a Cheap Android Tablet? http://www.lockergnome.com/android/2012/05/24/can-you-be-happy-with-a-cheap-android-tablet/ Five Things to Check on Your Camcorder Before Recording http://www.lockergnome.com/media/2012/05/24/five-things-camcorder-before-recording/ Common Facebook Annoyances and How to Fix Them http://www.lockergnome.com/blade/2012/05/24/common-facebook-annoyances-and-how-to-fix-them/ How to Have a Better Google+ Hangout Experience http://www.lockergnome.com/social/2012/05/24/how-to-have-a-better-google-hangout-experience/ Pirillo Vlog 031 - The Mustache Man Woos Diana http://youtu.be/Xy9uzV2DbFI DannyJSchwe45 on YouTube asked: So does this mean you need to change your icon to having a mustache? southeastpacarshows on YouTube asked: How do you manage to make so many videos on a daily basis? ryebread761 on LockerGnome.net asked: http://lockergnome.net/questions/185478/your-opinion-on-so-cl Snoopazz1 on YouTube asked: Chris, do you ever use your iMac? Because I have never seen it on.... AaronXLV on YouTube asked: How many mini figs do you own? julianenguillado on YouTube asked: Does it feel weird holding up the camera to your face in public? Just wondering. rodneyseay08 on YouTube asked: where is the full video? dsalzr on YouTube asked: Have you felt the need to park outside a school in a white van since you grew that mustache? SEEVCar on YouTube asked: Do you run linux on your Mac and if so what distro do you run? aldinlapinig on YouTube asked: Hi Chris... How do you organize your daily routine? Do you have time to clean the house? James Swanson (TechGuru) asked: When you started LockerGnome how big did think it would get? Bayron Urbina on YouTube asked: Hi there Chris, I was wondering what type of glasses you are wearing like the model and brand? Have you tried GoToAssist? http://go.tagjag.com/gotoassist http://www.lockergnome.com/subscribe/ http://www.gnomies.com http://go.tagjag.com/spread https://profiles.google.com/chris.pirillo http://twitter.com/ChrisPirillo http://www.facebook.com/chrispirillo

Myth McConnell

Added 05/25/12
0 Views

Myth McConnell

[LESS INFO] 0 VIEWS | ADDED 02:01:26 05/25/12
In the wake of the debt-ceiling crisis he helped manufacture last summer, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell boasted it was "a hostage that's worth ransoming" which "also is a new template" for the future. As it turns out, those threats were among the few true words McConnell has uttered. Because while he's promising once again to blackmail the White House over the debt ceiling, the Kentucky Republican claimed it's because "we'd like to do something about the nation's biggest problem, spending and debt, which of course is the reason for this economic malaise." Of course, as the data show, it's the very austerity policies here and in Europe which are costing jobs and hurting growth. But Mitch McConnell's myth-making hardly ends there. On the economy, taxes, deficits, health care and so much else, virtually all of McConnell's talking points are tried - and untrue. ( Click a link to jump to the details for each below ): * "Obama Made the Economy Worse" * "No Evidence Whatsoever That the Bush Tax Cuts Actually Diminished Revenue" * "Punishing Job Creators" * "We Look a Lot Like Greece Already" * Public Sector Layoffs Are a "Local" Problem * 47 Million Uninsured Americans "Don't Go Without Health Care" * The Public Option "May Cost You Your Life" * Democrats Are "Sticking It to Seniors with Cuts to Medicare" "Obama Made the Economy Worse" For months, Mitch McConnell (for example, here , here and here ) regurgitated the GOP talking point that President Obama " made the economy worse ." Sadly for the trickle-down mythmakers of the Republican Party , the facts and the overwhelming consensus of economists - including John McCain's 2008 brain trust - prove otherwise. President Obama not only did not make the American economy worse; no thanks to obstructionist Republicans in Congress he saved the United States from "Great Depression 2.0" and put the nation on the path to recovery. Start, for example, with the conclusions of the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO). Despite Republican mythmaking that the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) "created zero jobs," in November the CBO reported that the stimulus added up to 2.4 million jobs and boosted GDP by as much as 1.9 points in the previous quarter. As The Hill explained, the CBO has found that "President Obama's 2009 stimulus package continues to benefit the struggling economy": > The agency said the measure raised gross domestic product by between 0.3 and 1.9 percent in the third quarter of 2011, which ended Sept. 30. The Commerce Department said Tuesday that GDP in that quarter was only 2 percent total... By CBO's numbers, the $800 billion stimulus added up to 0.9 million jobs in 2009, 3.3 million jobs in 2010 and 2.6 million jobs in 2011. Mark Zandi , an adviser to John McCain in 2008, was adamant on positive role of the stimulus. Federal intervention, he and Princeton economist Alan Blinder argued in August 2010, literally saved the United States from a second Great Depression. In " How the Great Recession Was Brought to an End ," Blinder and Zandi's models confirmed the impact of the Obama recovery program and other federal interventions dating back to 2008, concluding that "laissez faire was not an option": > We find that its effects on real GDP, jobs, and inflation are huge, and probably averted what could have been called Great Depression 2.0. For example, we estimate that, without the government's response, GDP in 2010 would be about 11.5% lower, payroll employment would be less by some 8½ million jobs, and the nation would now be experiencing deflation. "No Evidence Whatsoever That the Bush Tax Cuts Actually Diminished Revenue" In his version of the Republican myth that " tax cuts pay for themselves ," President Bush confidently proclaimed, "You cut taxes and the tax revenues increase." As it turned out, not so much. After Ronald Reagan tripled the national debt with his supply-side tax cuts, George W. Bush doubled it again with his own. (Reagan's performance would have been much worse, had he not raised taxes 11 times to help make up the shocking shortfall.) As a share of American GDP, tax revenues peaked in 2000; that is, before the Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003. As the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities concluded, the Bush tax cuts accounted for half of the deficits during his tenure, and if made permanent , over the next decade would cost the U.S. Treasury more than Iraq, Afghanistan, the recession, TARP and the stimulus - combined . Nevertheless, as the Republican Party waged its all-out attack in 2010 to preserve the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy , the GOP's number two man in the Senate provided the talking point to help sell the $70 billion annual giveaway to America's rich. "You should never," Arizona's Jon Kyl declared, "have to offset the cost of a deliberate decision to reduce tax rates on Americans." For his part, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell rushed to defend Kyl's fuzzy math: > "There's no evidence whatsoever that the Bush tax cuts actually diminished revenue. They increased revenue because of the vibrancy of these tax cuts in the economy. So I think what Senator Kyl was expressing was the view of virtually every Republican on that subject." That may have been a view universally shared by virtually every Republican, but it happens to be wrong. "Punishing Job Creators" For years, Senator McConnell has been among the legions of Republicans wrongly arguing that even the slightest increase in taxes for the wealthiest Americans is tantamount to " punishing job creators ." As his colleague John Boehner put it: > "The top one percent of wage earners in the United States...pay forty percent of the income taxes...The people he's [President Obama] is talking about taxing are the very people that we expect to reinvest in our economy." If so, those expectations were sadly unmet under George W. Bush. After all, the last time the top tax rate was 39.6 percent during the Clinton administration , the United States enjoyed rising incomes, 23 million new jobs and budget surpluses. Under Bush? Not so much. On January 9, 2009, the Republican-friendly Wall Street Journal summed it up with an article titled simply, " Bush on Jobs: the Worst Track Record on Record ." (The Journal's interactive table quantifies his staggering failure relative to every post-World War II president.) The meager one million jobs created under President Bush didn't merely pale in comparison to the 23 million produced during Bill Clinton's tenure. In September 2009, the Congressional Joint Economic Committee charted Bush's job creation disaster, the worst since Hoover. That dismal performance prompted David Leonhardt of the New York Times to ask last fall, "Why should we believe that extending the Bush tax cuts will provide a big lift to growth?" His answer was unambiguous: > Those tax cuts passed in 2001 amid big promises about what they would do for the economy. What followed? The decade with the slowest average annual growth since World War II. Amazingly, that statement is true even if you forget about the Great Recession and simply look at 2001-7... > Is there good evidence the tax cuts persuaded more people to join the work force (because they would be able to keep more of their income)? Not really. The labor-force participation rate fell in the years after 2001 and has never again approached its record in the year 2000. > Is there evidence that the tax cuts led to a lot of entrepreneurship and innovation? Again, no. The rate at which start-up businesses created jobs fell during the past decade. The data are clear: lower taxes for America's so called job-creators don't mean either faster economic growth or more jobs for Americans . As Jared Bernstein aptly put it earlier this month: > "Tax cuts and job growth? They're just not that into each other." "We Look a Lot Like Greece Already" As their last round of hostage-taking of the debt heated up last summer, Republicans including Mitch McConnell warned, "We look a lot like Greece." hile FactCheck.org was quick to conclude that "whatever it 'looks like' through Sen. McConnell's eyes -- the fact is that the U.S. is not yet a fiscal wreck of Greek proportions," its analysis hardly does justice to the scale of the Republican myth-making. The Washington Monthly's Steve Benen summed it up quite succinctly: > New rule: every time a confused Republican lawmakers compare the United States' fiscal conditions to that of Greece, an angel loses its wings. Look, the very idea is just crazy. The U.S. has extremely low interest rates and foreign investor are happy to loan us money; Greece has extremely high interest rates and no one is eager to loan the country money. The U.S. has our own currency; Greece has the Euro. We have a great credit rating (for now); Greece has an awful credit rating. We have a manageable debt; Greece has a debt crisis. We're a large country with an enormous economy; Greece is a small country with a small economy. We have one of the world's most stable systems of government (at least until six months ago); Greece's government structure is a little shaky. For his part, Nobel Prize-winning economist and New York Times columnist Paul Krugman has been decrying the " Hellenization of economic discourse " for months. "Greece -- with a long history of fiscal irresponsibility, very high public debt, and a country without a currency -- doesn't bear much resemblance even to the other peripheral Europeans, let alone the United States." > Here's debt levels (if you ask me the IMF projections for Greece are too optimistic). > Plus there's the having your own currency thing, and the fact that the interest rate on US 10-year bonds is 3.11 percent, on Greek bonds 16.82 percent. > Otherwise we're exactly the same. Public Sector Layoffs a "Local" Problem Last fall, Minority Leader McConnell led the GOP opposition to President Obama's proposed $400 billion American Jobs Act. The loss of hundreds of thousands of police, firefighter, teacher and other public sector jobs, he insisted, was a "local" problem. As it turns out, the 600,000 state and local government jobs already lost since December 2008 is very much a national issue. That " anti-stimulus ," it turns out, has added a full point to America's unemployment rate . Last month, the Economic Policy Institute noted that the private sector had gained 2.8 million jobs while federal, state and local governments shed 584,000 just since June 2009. EPI concluded that the public sector job losses constituted "an unprecedented drag on the recovery": > "The current recovery is the only one that has seen public-sector losses over its first 31 months." Back in March, Paul Krugman expressed the same point , but with some inconvenient historical context for the Party of Reagan. "In fact, if it weren't for this destructive fiscal austerity," Krugman explained, "Our unemployment rate would almost certainly be lower now than it was at a comparable stage of the 'Morning in America' recovery during the Reagan era." > We're talking big numbers here. If government employment under Mr. Obama had grown at Reagan-era rates, 1.3 million more Americans would be working as schoolteachers, firefighters, police officers, etc., than are currently employed in such jobs. > And once you take the effects of public spending on private employment into account, a rough estimate is that the unemployment rate would be 1.5 percentage points lower than it is, or below 7 percent -- significantly better than the Reagan economy at this stage. 47 Million Uninsured Americans "Don't Go Without Health Care" McConnell the " strict obstructionist " was naturally in the forefront of the all-out Republican effort to block health care reform at any cost. As he repeatedly put it in June 2009 , "all of us want reform, but not reform that denies, delays, or rations health care." To prove his point, McConnell didn't merely trot out a Canadian patient who came to the U.S. for special treatment, but insisted to NBC's David Gregory that no American does without health care now. > GREGORY: Do you think it's a moral issue that 47 million Americans go without health insurance? > McCONNELL: Well, they don't go without health care. It's not the most efficient way to provide it. As we know, the doctors in the hospitals are sworn to provide health care. We all agree it is not the most efficient way to provide health care to find somebody only in the emergency room and then pass those costs on to those who are paying for insurance. So it is important, I think, to reduce the number of uninsured. The question is, what is the best way to do that? That President George W. Bush, Tom Delay and Paul Broun among other Republicans also claimed "people have access to health care in America...after all, you just go to an emergency room" doesn't make it any more true. As the numbers show -- 50 million uninsured, another 25 million uninsured, 45,000 unnecessary deaths, one in five Americans "self-rationing" care and 62 percent of all personal bankruptcies being related to medical bills -- the crisis is far worse than the one Mitch McConnell pretends doesn't exist. The Public Option "May Cost You Your Life" While Mitch McConnell insisted that the lack of insurance doesn't prevent anyone from getting health care, in 2009 he suggested having coverage could prove fatal . Months before the passage of the Affordable Care Act without the so-called "public option," Minority Leader McConnell said it would be deadly. That irresponsible fear-mongering came during an appearance on Dennis Miller's radio show in October 2009. Blasting the "opt-out" version of the public option then being considered in the Senate bill, the Senator from the state ranked 45th in health care performance insisted access to coverage could kill you : > MCCONNELL: Well, it doesn't make any difference frankly whether you opt-in or you opt-out, it's still a government plan. You know, Medicaid, the program for the poor now, states can opt-out of that, but none of them have. I think if you have any kind of government insurance program, you're going to be stuck with it and it will lead us in the direction of the European style, you know, sort of British-style, single payer, government run system. And those systems are known for delays, denial of care and, you know, if your particular malady doesn't fit the government regulation, you don't get the medication. > MILLER: Right. > MCCONNELL: And it may cost you your life. I mean, we don't want to go down that path. As a Harvard Medical School study found, each year the path of no health insurance leads 45,000 Americans to the grave. Democrats Are "Sticking It to Seniors with Cuts to Medicare" For two years running, Mitch McConnell has been among the 40 GOP Senator voting for Paul Ryan's House budget plan to privatize and inevitably ration Medicare now used by 46 million American seniors. In the late 1990's, McConnell joined in Newt Gingrich's effort to slash almost 15 percent from the Medicare budget so that the program would "wither on the vine." But when the Affordable Care Act called for savings from the private Medicare Advantage program used by only 15 percent of elderly beneficiaries, it was Mitch McConnell who warned seniors about the mythical danger. In July 2009, McConnell tried to scare America's 46 million Medicare beneficiaries by declaring, "The administration plans to use Medicare cuts to fund yet another new government program." Hoping to build on the momentum of the GOP's disgusting and demonstrably false " euthanasia " talking point, McConnell cautioned: > "Some in Congress seem to be in such a rush to pass just any reform, rather than the right reform, that they're looking everywhere for the money to pay for it -- even if it means sticking it to seniors with cuts to Medicare." That salvo comes just two weeks after McConnell promised to defeat health care reform in the Senate, warning America's highest turnout voting block: > "They are going to pay for this plan by cutting Medicare, that is cutting seniors." Those claims, the New York Times pointed out the day after the Republicans' overwhelming triumph in the 2010 midterms elections were misleading at best and false at worst. But, sadly, they worked . And so it goes. As Joshua Green documented last year in the Atlantic , "Mitch McConnell is a master manipulator and strategist" whose "relentless tactics have made his party victorious." But that doesn't make him a truth-teller, except on those rare occasions when he reveals his true motivations. During the debt ceiling stand-off last summer , McConnell briefly got weak in the knees at the prospect of U.S. sovereign default not because it would be a disaster for the nation, but because it could damage his Republican Party : > "I refuse to help Barack Obama get re-elected by marching Republicans into a position where we have co-ownership of a bad economy. ... If we go into default, he will say that Republicans are making the economy worse and try to convince the public -- maybe with some merit, if people stop getting their Social Security checks and military families start getting letters saying service people overseas don't get paid. It's an argument he could have a good chance of winning, and all of the sudden we have co-ownership of a bad economy," he said. "That is very bad positioning going into an election." Especially an election which marks the culmination of Mitch McConnell's work over the past three and a half years: > "The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president." (This piece also appears at Perrspectives .)

Kony 2012: How Social Media Changes Activism

Added 03/09/12
172 Views

Kony 2012: How Social Media Changes Activism

Added 03/09/12
51 Views

Kony 2012: How Social Media Changes Activism

Added 03/09/12
2 Views

Google's New Privacy Policy: Does It Concern You?

Added 02/29/12
0 Views

Newt on This Week: Mitt Can't Tell The Truth, Has A 'Character...

Added 01/29/12
1 Views

Newt on This Week: Mitt Can't Tell The Truth, Has A 'Character' Problem

[LESS INFO] 1 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.

Will the Pursuit of Happiness Make You Happy?

Added 01/07/12
131 Views

Havel the Dissident: A Legacy Worth Claiming

Added 12/19/11
13 Views

Havel the Dissident: A Legacy Worth Claiming

[LESS INFO] 13 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.

#OccupyWallStreet Protester Lets Fox News Have It

Added 10/03/11
11 Views

#OccupyWallStreet Protester Lets Fox News Have It

[LESS INFO] 11 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 ]

Does SEO Help Search Ranking?

Added 10/01/11
6 Views

Does SEO Help Search Ranking?

Added 09/28/11
1 Views

Clash Of The Clueless Friedman V Santelli

Added 09/09/11
10 Views

Clash Of The Clueless Friedman V Santelli

[LESS INFO] 10 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 )

Mitch McConnell says there's a Debt Ceiling Deal closing in th...

Added 07/31/11
4 Views

Mitch McConnell says there's a Debt Ceiling Deal closing in that makes us all Conservatives: UPDATED

[LESS INFO] 4 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

The Psychology of Twitter

Added 06/10/11
87 Views

Are You Lurking? The 90-9-1 Principle of Social Media

Added 06/07/11
63 Views

Sign in to Channels.com!

Search Results

Geek Out: Why I Like Windows 8 (and Other News)

Myth McConnell

Kony 2012: How Social Media Changes Activism

Kony 2012: How Social Media Changes Activism

Kony 2012: How Social Media Changes Activism

Google's New Privacy Policy: Does It Concern You?

Newt on This Week: Mitt Can't Tell The Truth, Has A 'Character' Problem

Will the Pursuit of Happiness Make You Happy?

Havel the Dissident: A Legacy Worth Claiming

#OccupyWallStreet Protester Lets Fox News Have It

Does SEO Help Search Ranking?

Does SEO Help Search Ranking?

Clash Of The Clueless Friedman V Santelli

Mitch McConnell says there's a Debt Ceiling Deal closing in that makes us all Conservatives: UPDATED

The Psychology of Twitter

Are You Lurking? The 90-9-1 Principle of Social Media