Search Episodes (Word Weekend 2)

Are Kim Kardashian & Mark Sanchez Hooking Up?

Added 02/03/12
0 Views

Are Kim Kardashian & Mark Sanchez Hooking Up?

Added 02/03/12
0 Views

Next Stop: Occupy Congress #J17

Added 01/11/12
0 Views

Next Stop: Occupy Congress #J17

[LESS INFO] 0 VIEWS | ADDED 20:00:29 01/11/12
Occupation of the United States Capitol on January 17, 2012 will Highlight Corruption in America’s Political System Harnessing the considerable power of the Occupy Wall Street movement, protestors from all over the country are being called to participate in "Occupy Congress" next week. It is the next stage in the widespread public protest that began last September in New York. On January 17th, an Occupy "Call to Action" urges protestors to convene beginning at 9 a.m. EST on the West Front Lawn at Capitol Hill in an effort to bring the movement's message to the doorstep of Congressional lawmakers. Rallying against corporate greed and corruption, the "99 percent" will arrive on Martin Luther King's birthday weekend to participate in a day of organized protests. According to the Occupy Congress website , the day's activities will include Teach-ins, an Open Mic, a Multi-Occupation General Assembly, Idea Sharing Sessions, and a DC Voting Rights Vigil. The day will end with an "OCCUParty." "Come to the U.S. Capitol on January 17th to protest the greatest calling of our time: A democracy in crisis," states the message in the video above. The video opens with the words, "You Can't Evict an Idea," referring to the eviction of Occupy Wall Street protestors from encampments in many U.S. cities in recent weeks. "When members of Congress return from their recess, they will be taught a lesson in what democracy looks like." The Occupy Wall Street website describes its mission as "a leaderless resistance movement with people of many colors, genders and political persuasions. The one thing we all have in common is that We Are The 99% that will no longer tolerate the greed and corruption of the 1%." > Occupy Congress Event Schedule 9am – Converge at West Front Lawn at Capitol Hill (Meetings with Representatives concurrent) 10 am – Training for volunteers on De-escalation, Legal Observing, Medical, Direct Action 11 am – Teach-ins and Open Mic start and go all day 12 noon – Multi-Occupation General Assembly 2 pm – Open Activities and Idea Sharing Sessions *6pm* – Occupy Congress Rally and Protest and DC Voting Rights Vigil 8pm – 11pm - OCCUParty More scheduling information as well as sign in information if you wish to teach, share an idea, give a speech or a musical performace at Occupy Congress .

Beyonce Gives Birth to Blue Ivy Carter

Added 01/10/12
0 Views

There's No Mystery About Romney's Taxes and Tax Plan

Added 12/29/11
5 Views

There's No Mystery About Romney's Taxes and Tax Plan

[LESS INFO] 5 VIEWS | ADDED 21:00:06 12/29/11
Why is Mitt Romney alone among the Republican presidential candidates in refusing to release his tax returns ? And why is the former Massachusetts Governor also the only major GOP contender not calling for the complete elimination of the capital gains tax ? As it turns out, the answer - horrible political optics - is the same to both questions. Because Romney's continuing millions in annual income from Bain Capital are taxed at the 15 percent capital gains rate, Mitt already pays a much lower share to Uncle Sam than most middle class families . And if he called for changing the capital gains rate to zero, Mitt Romney would have to explain to voters why the $250 million man should pay virtually no tax bill at all . Despite his famous demand in the 1994 Senate race that Ted Kennedy release his tax returns to show he has "nothing to hide," Romney last week reiterated his own paperwork would not be forthcoming. "We don't have any current plans to release tax returns, but never say never," Romney said, adding: > "I can tell you we follow the tax laws, and if there's an opportunity to save taxes, we like anybody else in this country will follow that opportunity." Truer words were never spoken. In October, Citizens for Tax Justice estimated that the Romneys paid only 14 percent of their income in taxes . (It's no wonder Mitt opposes the " Buffett Rule .") As Time reported: > Just how much Romney pays in taxes is, for the moment, a private matter. But his income is public knowledge. In August, Romney disclosed that in 2010 he and his wife made between $1.1 million and $2.8 million in royalties, salary, speaking fees and interest, most of which was likely taxed at a marginal rate of 35%, after accounting for deductions. The Romneys made an additional $5.5 million to $37.3 million from dividends and capital gains, which is generally taxed at a much lower rate of 15%. Two weeks ago, the New York Times shed light on that "$5.5 million to $37.3 million from dividends and capital gains" that represents most of Romney's income. Though Mitt left Bain Capital in 1999, 13 years later his windfall continues uninterrupted: > In what would be the final deal of his private equity career, he negotiated a retirement agreement with his former partners that has paid him a share of Bain's profits ever since, bringing the Romney family millions of dollars in income each year and bolstering the fortune that has helped finance Mr. Romney's political aspirations... > In the process, Bain continued to buy and restructure companies, potentially leaving Mr. Romney exposed to further criticism that he has grown wealthier over the last decade partly as a result of layoffs. Moreover, much of his income from the arrangement has probably qualified for a lower tax rate than ordinary income under a tax provision favorable to hedge fund and private equity managers, which has become a point of contention in the battle over economic inequality. And that creates what Steve Benen aptly called "Romney's 'carried interest' problem." > In case anyone needs a refresher, there's a tax loophole on "carried interest" -- sometimes called "the carry" -- that taxes private equity and venture capital income at a lower, 15% rate, as compared to 35% on ordinary income. Hedge-fund managers and the Wall Street have fought tooth and nail to protect this loophole -- even after the Obama White House tried to eliminate it -- and so far, they've been successful. Which is why Mitt Romney has thus far refused to join his fellow GOP White House hopefuls in proposing the elimination of the 15 percent capital gains tax. Newt Gingrich, Rick Perry and Herman Cain all called for zeroing out the capital gains levy, which is one reason why their tax plans represent such a huge windfall for the wealthy . (Their support for a flat-tax is another.) The Washington Post explained why for the rich that would be "better than any Christmas gift": > While it's true that many middle-class Americans own stocks or bonds, they tend to stash them in tax-sheltered retirement accounts, where the capital gains rate does not apply. By contrast, the richest Americans reap huge benefits. Over the past 20 years, more than 80 percent of the capital gains income realized in the United States has gone to 5 percent of the people; about half of all the capital gains have gone to the wealthiest 0.1 percent. For his part, Romney has proposed reducing the capital gains tax rate only for the first $200,000 in income. But as ThinkProgress pointed out, Romney's claim that "The people in the middle...I focused my tax cut right there" is preposterous: > Romney may think he focused his tax cut on the middle-class, but according to a ThinkProgress analysis of Tax Policy Center data*, nearly three-fourths of households that make $200,000 or less annually would get literally nothing from Romney's tax cut, due to the simple fact that most of those households have no capital gains income. But while Mitt Romney didn't want to create the appearance of slashing most of his own tax bill, that doesn't mean his proposals wouldn't produce a massive payday for his own and other rich families while piling up yet more debt. Romney's 59-point economic plan calls for extending the Bush tax cuts, ending the estate tax and reducing corporate taxes. The result, as ThinkProgress explained: > Romney's tax plan includes a $6.6 TRILLION giveaway to corporations and the wealthiest Americans. Meanwhile, Romney's Medicaid cuts are even more draconian than the ones in Paul Ryan plan. Both of their plans end also end Medicare, naturally. Still, in an interview last weekend the reliably Republican Wall Street Journal wondered why Romney had been so "timid" compared to his rivals. In a rare moment of candor, Mitt revealed that his real preferences would make for very bad politics: > What about his reform principles? Mr. Romney talks only in general terms. "Moving to a consumption-based system is something which is very attractive to me philosophically, but I've not been able to sufficiently model it out to jump on board a consumption-based tax. A flat tax, a true flat tax is also attractive to me. What I like--I mean, I like the simplification of a flat tax. I also like removing the distortion in our tax code for certain classes of investment. And the advantage of a flat tax is getting rid of some of those distortions"... > Amid such generalities, it's hard not to conclude that the candidate is trying to avoid offering any details that might become a political target. And he all but admits as much. "I happen to also recognize," he says, "that if you go out with a tax proposal which conforms to your philosophy but it hasn't been thoroughly analyzed, vetted, put through models and calculated in detail, that you're gonna get hit by the demagogues in the general election." "The president," Romney complained, "will characterize anyone running for office, and me in particular, as just in there to lower taxes for rich people, and that is not my intent." Perhaps, but that's the inevitable impact. As John McCain learned in 2008 , refusing the release the details of his beer heiress wife Cindy's fortune while calling for tax policies delivering his family lottery-sized winning courtesy of the U.S. Treasury is not going to endear you to working Americans. (In Mitt Romney's case, revealing the 10 percent tithe he dutifully pays to his Mormon church probably won't endear him to the GOP's evangelical primary voters, either.) All of which explains why Mitt Romney won't release his tax returns or call for abolishing the capital gains tax, the love which dares not speak its name. Besides, Mitt Romney wants Americans to believe he's just part of the "80 to 90 percent of us" who are middle class. And, no doubt, Mitt's willing to bet you $10,000 to prove it. (This piece also appears at Perrspectives .)

There's No Mystery About Romney's Taxes and Tax Plan

Added 12/29/11
4 Views

There's No Mystery About Romney's Taxes and Tax Plan

[LESS INFO] 4 VIEWS | ADDED 21:00:06 12/29/11
Why is Mitt Romney alone among the Republican presidential candidates in refusing to release his tax returns ? And why is the former Massachusetts Governor also the only major GOP contender not calling for the complete elimination of the capital gains tax ? As it turns out, the answer - horrible political optics - is the same to both questions. Because Romney's continuing millions in annual income from Bain Capital are taxed at the 15 percent capital gains rate, Mitt already pays a much lower share to Uncle Sam than most middle class families . And if he called for changing the capital gains rate to zero, Mitt Romney would have to explain to voters why the $250 million man should pay virtually no tax bill at all . Despite his famous demand in the 1994 Senate race that Ted Kennedy release his tax returns to show he has "nothing to hide," Romney last week reiterated his own paperwork would not be forthcoming. "We don't have any current plans to release tax returns, but never say never," Romney said, adding: > "I can tell you we follow the tax laws, and if there's an opportunity to save taxes, we like anybody else in this country will follow that opportunity." Truer words were never spoken. In October, Citizens for Tax Justice estimated that the Romneys paid only 14 percent of their income in taxes . (It's no wonder Mitt opposes the " Buffett Rule .") As Time reported: > Just how much Romney pays in taxes is, for the moment, a private matter. But his income is public knowledge. In August, Romney disclosed that in 2010 he and his wife made between $1.1 million and $2.8 million in royalties, salary, speaking fees and interest, most of which was likely taxed at a marginal rate of 35%, after accounting for deductions. The Romneys made an additional $5.5 million to $37.3 million from dividends and capital gains, which is generally taxed at a much lower rate of 15%. Two weeks ago, the New York Times shed light on that "$5.5 million to $37.3 million from dividends and capital gains" that represents most of Romney's income. Though Mitt left Bain Capital in 1999, 13 years later his windfall continues uninterrupted: > In what would be the final deal of his private equity career, he negotiated a retirement agreement with his former partners that has paid him a share of Bain's profits ever since, bringing the Romney family millions of dollars in income each year and bolstering the fortune that has helped finance Mr. Romney's political aspirations... > In the process, Bain continued to buy and restructure companies, potentially leaving Mr. Romney exposed to further criticism that he has grown wealthier over the last decade partly as a result of layoffs. Moreover, much of his income from the arrangement has probably qualified for a lower tax rate than ordinary income under a tax provision favorable to hedge fund and private equity managers, which has become a point of contention in the battle over economic inequality. And that creates what Steve Benen aptly called "Romney's 'carried interest' problem." > In case anyone needs a refresher, there's a tax loophole on "carried interest" -- sometimes called "the carry" -- that taxes private equity and venture capital income at a lower, 15% rate, as compared to 35% on ordinary income. Hedge-fund managers and the Wall Street have fought tooth and nail to protect this loophole -- even after the Obama White House tried to eliminate it -- and so far, they've been successful. Which is why Mitt Romney has thus far refused to join his fellow GOP White House hopefuls in proposing the elimination of the 15 percent capital gains tax. Newt Gingrich, Rick Perry and Herman Cain all called for zeroing out the capital gains levy, which is one reason why their tax plans represent such a huge windfall for the wealthy . (Their support for a flat-tax is another.) The Washington Post explained why for the rich that would be "better than any Christmas gift": > While it's true that many middle-class Americans own stocks or bonds, they tend to stash them in tax-sheltered retirement accounts, where the capital gains rate does not apply. By contrast, the richest Americans reap huge benefits. Over the past 20 years, more than 80 percent of the capital gains income realized in the United States has gone to 5 percent of the people; about half of all the capital gains have gone to the wealthiest 0.1 percent. For his part, Romney has proposed reducing the capital gains tax rate only for the first $200,000 in income. But as ThinkProgress pointed out, Romney's claim that "The people in the middle...I focused my tax cut right there" is preposterous: > Romney may think he focused his tax cut on the middle-class, but according to a ThinkProgress analysis of Tax Policy Center data*, nearly three-fourths of households that make $200,000 or less annually would get literally nothing from Romney's tax cut, due to the simple fact that most of those households have no capital gains income. But while Mitt Romney didn't want to create the appearance of slashing most of his own tax bill, that doesn't mean his proposals wouldn't produce a massive payday for his own and other rich families while piling up yet more debt. Romney's 59-point economic plan calls for extending the Bush tax cuts, ending the estate tax and reducing corporate taxes. The result, as ThinkProgress explained: > Romney's tax plan includes a $6.6 TRILLION giveaway to corporations and the wealthiest Americans. Meanwhile, Romney's Medicaid cuts are even more draconian than the ones in Paul Ryan plan. Both of their plans end also end Medicare, naturally. Still, in an interview last weekend the reliably Republican Wall Street Journal wondered why Romney had been so "timid" compared to his rivals. In a rare moment of candor, Mitt revealed that his real preferences would make for very bad politics: > What about his reform principles? Mr. Romney talks only in general terms. "Moving to a consumption-based system is something which is very attractive to me philosophically, but I've not been able to sufficiently model it out to jump on board a consumption-based tax. A flat tax, a true flat tax is also attractive to me. What I like--I mean, I like the simplification of a flat tax. I also like removing the distortion in our tax code for certain classes of investment. And the advantage of a flat tax is getting rid of some of those distortions"... > Amid such generalities, it's hard not to conclude that the candidate is trying to avoid offering any details that might become a political target. And he all but admits as much. "I happen to also recognize," he says, "that if you go out with a tax proposal which conforms to your philosophy but it hasn't been thoroughly analyzed, vetted, put through models and calculated in detail, that you're gonna get hit by the demagogues in the general election." "The president," Romney complained, "will characterize anyone running for office, and me in particular, as just in there to lower taxes for rich people, and that is not my intent." Perhaps, but that's the inevitable impact. As John McCain learned in 2008 , refusing the release the details of his beer heiress wife Cindy's fortune while calling for tax policies delivering his family lottery-sized winning courtesy of the U.S. Treasury is not going to endear you to working Americans. (In Mitt Romney's case, revealing the 10 percent tithe he dutifully pays to his Mormon church probably won't endear him to the GOP's evangelical primary voters, either.) All of which explains why Mitt Romney won't release his tax returns or call for abolishing the capital gains tax, the love which dares not speak its name. Besides, Mitt Romney wants Americans to believe he's just part of the "80 to 90 percent of us" who are middle class. And, no doubt, Mitt's willing to bet you $10,000 to prove it. (This piece also appears at Perrspectives .)

Mitt Romney's Big Promises - and Bigger Lies

Added 12/29/11
6 Views

Mitt Romney's Big Promises - and Bigger Lies

[LESS INFO] 6 VIEWS | ADDED 16:00:56 12/29/11
Click here to view this media In the election of 1928, the Republican Party of Herbert Hoover promised voters "a chicken in every pot and a car in every backyard." (We all know how that turned out.) Now, Mitt Romney is pledging that "If I'm President" every college graduate will be guaranteed a job, Iran will have no nuclear weapons and the United States will dominate the 21st century. And when Romney isn't making fantastic promises about what he'll do when he gets to the White House, he's slandering the current occupant , Barack Obama. "I Won't Let Iran Get Nukes" Governor Romney's guarantees start with Iran and its nuclear program . In a November 10, 2011 op-ed in the Wall Street Journal, Romney pledged, " I won't let Iran get nukes ." Or as he put it 10 days earlier during a GOP national security debate : > "If we re-elect Barack Obama, Iran will have a nuclear weapon. If you elect me as president, Iran will not have a nuclear weapon." As to how he'll ensure that outcome, Romney explained that "If you want peace, prepare for war." And despite occasionally acknowledging the complexity of a strike against Iran and even the questionable possibility of success, Romney told the Wall Street Journal this weekend how he would get it done: > So what would he do about it? "I do not have a top secret security clearance at this stage to be able to define precisely what kinds of actions we could take." But he adds that "the range includes something of a blockade nature, to something of a surgical strike nature, to something of a decapitate the regime nature, to eliminate the military threat of Iran altogether." No U.S. Decline in Romney's "American Century" Romney's promise to "eliminate the military threat of Iran altogether" is just part of his larger assurance that the 21st century will be another " American Century ." Pretending that the rise of India, China and Brazil doesn't inevitably entail the relative loss of U.S. power and influence, Romney announced in his October address at The Citadel : > "This century must be an American Century. In an American Century, America has the strongest economy and the strongest military in the world. In an American Century, America leads the free world and the free world leads the entire world...As President of the United States, I will devote myself to an American Century. And I will never, ever apologize for America." Not content to rest there, Romney accused President Obama of "waving the white flag of surrender": > "An eloquently justified surrender of world leadership is still surrender. > I will not surrender America's role in the world. This is very simple: If you do not want America to be the strongest nation on Earth, I am not your President. > You have that President today." Two months later, Mitt Romney repackaged his promise and his slander at the December 15 Republican debate in Sioux City, Iowa: > "Our president thinks America is in decline. It is if he's president. It's not if I'm president. This is going to be an American century." As for Romney's charge that President Obama "went around the world and apologized for America," the Washington Post Fact Checker deemed it a Four-Pinocchio lie . A Job for Every College Graduate At an event in New Hampshire last week, Governor Romney's pandering went from the sublime to the ridiculous. There, Mitt pledged President Romney would deliver full-employment for all American college graduates: > "What I can promise you is this -- when you get out of college, if I'm president you'll have a job. If President Obama is reelected, you will not be able to get a job. That's the reason I will hopefully get young people who are in college is to say, You know what, I understand what it takes to get jobs in America." As the record shows , not so much. After all, as the Los Angeles Times recently documented, Romney's "Bain Capital often maximized profits in part by firing workers." That's why FactCheck.org , the Washington Post Fact Checker and Fortune all refused to vouch for Romney's claim that "In those hundreds of businesses we invested in, tens of thousands of jobs net-net were created." Obama "Has Not Created Any New Jobs" If Mitt Romney can't prove his boasts about his own job creation record, neither can he justify his blatant lie about President Obama's : > "25 million people are out of work because of Barack Obama. And so I'll compare my experience in the private sector where, net-net, we created over 100,000 jobs." > "I'll compare that record with his record, where he has not created any new jobs." Sadly for Mitt Romney, the Bush recession began in December 2007. As ThinkProgress rightly noted, "The private sector has added 2.3 million new jobs since March 2010, and it took the Obama economy one year to create more jobs than the economy under President Bush did in eight." As The Economist explained earlier, the recession was not at its deepest just as Barack Obama was entering office, but far worse than official statistics revealed at the time. Romney might also want to check with former McCain economic adviser Mark Zandi as well as the non-partisan CBO , who concluded that the Obama stimulus program "added up to 0.9 million jobs in 2009, 3.3 million jobs in 2010 and 2.6 million jobs in 2011." Obama's Debt Exceeds All Previous Presidents Combined Mitt Romney didn't just lie about Barack Obama's jobs record. At the Sioux City debate, he got President Obama's contribution to the federal debt all wrong as well: > "We all understand that the spending crisis is extraordinary, with $15 trillion now in debt, with a president that's racked up as much debt as almost all of the other presidents combined." Of course, we don't all understand that, because it's not true . After Ronald Reagan tripled the gross national debt and George W. Bush doubled it again, Uncle Sam's red ink totaled almost $11 trillion when Barack Obama took the oath of office. Obama is "Taking over 100 Percent" of Health Care In his desperate quest to win over conservative Republican primary voters, Mitt Romney has turned his back on his signature achievement which he once boasted was a health care model for the nation. And to do it, Romney has been lying for months by telling voters "Obamacare is about taking over 100 percent of the people's insurance in this country." In a September 15, 2011 interview with CNN's Wolf Blitzer , Romney made the same charge: > "The Massachusetts plan was crafted for Massachusetts, for the needs of 8 percent of our population that didn't have insurance, not for the 92 percent that did. Obamacare is a plan that takes over 100 percent of the people in the country and their health care, and that's one of the reasons why people don't want it." Sadly for Mitt Romney, repetition of a lie doesn't make it any more true. The Affordable Care Act passed by Congress and signed by President Obama in the spring of 2010 targets the 17 percent of people (over 50 million people) who are uninsured . As Politifact explained in deeming Romney's fraud another "Pants on Fire" lie: > According to the Census Bureau, the percentage of Americans without health insurance nationally was slightly under 17 percent in 2009, the year Obama began pushing for the bill. According to a Congressional Budget Office estimate, the number was about the same in 2010, when the measure was signed into law. Other estimates have pegged the national number at about 15 percent. As Henry Aaron, a senior fellow with the centrist-to-liberal Brookings Institution right noted, comparing 8 percent to 17 percent "would have been apples to apples" when it comes to the impact of the individual mandate at the center of both the Massachusetts and national plans. Sadly, Politifact concluded, Romney was guilty of "a felony case of comparing apples and oranges." Romney "Will Reverse President Obama's Massive Defense Cuts" During that same "American Century" speech in October, Governor Romney pledged: > "I will reverse President Obama's massive defense cuts. Time and again, we have seen that attempts to balance the budget by weakening our military only lead to a far higher price, not only in treasure, but in blood." Sadly for Romney, as Steve Benen pointed out, defense spending has not only gone up every year of the Obama presidency . It is higher than it ever was when George W. Bush sat in the Oval Office. Of course, Romney's confusion over matters of war and peace are hardly new. In an April op-ed for the Manchester Union Leader, Mitt forgot about the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan as he denounced President Obama for "one of the biggest peacetime spending binges in American history." Obama's "Equal Outcomes" and "Entitlement Society" Last week, the Romney campaign rolled out what may well become the meta-theme and meta-lie for the 2012 general election race. After President Obama declared in his Osawatomie, Kansas address that Republican trickle down economics "never worked," Romney struck back. Just not with the truth: > "Just a couple of weeks ago in Kansas, President Obama lectured us about Teddy Roosevelt's philosophy of government. But he failed to mention the important difference between Teddy Roosevelt and Barack Obama. Roosevelt believed that government should level the playing field to create equal opportunities. President Obama believes that government should create equal outcomes. > "In an entitlement society, everyone receives the same or similar rewards, regardless of education, effort, and willingness to take risk. That which is earned by some is redistributed to the others. And the only people who truly enjoy any real rewards are those who do the redistributing -- the government. > "The truth is that everyone may get the same rewards, but virtually everyone will be worse off." By raising the mythical red menace of communism and falsely attributing it to Barack Obama, Romney in the words of Paul Krugman had introduced " The Big Lie " into his " Post-Truth Campaign ." While Andrew Sullivan announced "Mitt Romney is a big, fat liar," Steve Benen lamented that "Romney, allegedly the responsible one in the Republican field, has been reduced to lying uncontrollably." And while Greg Sargent in the past had expressed amazement at "Mitt Romney's casual, effortless falsehoods," New York Magazine's Jonathan Chait explained that Romney's red scare rose to a whole new level of duplicity: > "This isn't just a casual line. In eight sentences, Romney asserts over and over again that Obama wants to create "equal outcomes" and give everybody the "same rewards." This is nuts, Glenn Beck-level insane. Restoring Clinton-era taxes is not a plan to equalize outcomes, or even close. It's not even a plan to stop rising inequality. Obama's America will continue to be the most unequal society in the advanced world -- only slightly less so. The alternative proposals accelerate inequality even further." Of course, as the proliferating profiles from the Wall Street Journal , the New York Times , the Washington Post and others show, Mitt Romney is no stranger to inequality. Legendarily cheap and analytical , as a Harvard Business School student Romney gave a presentation to his classmates that "proved the value of family time based not on emotion but on yield." Two Romney quotes - " I love business " and " I love data " - seem to sum up the man. As for loving the truth, that for Mitt Romney is apparently another matter altogether. (This piece also appears at Perrspectives .)

Fri, Dec 23, 2011

Added 12/23/11
0 Views

Lady Gaga & Choreographer Part Ways

Added 11/14/11
4 Views

Lady Gaga & Choreographer Part Ways

Added 11/14/11
1 Views

Kim Kardashian Visits Kris Humphries In Minnesota

Added 11/07/11
9 Views

Kim Kardashian Visits Kris Humphries In Minnesota

Added 11/07/11
3 Views

Cheerleaders' Wild Weekend (1979)

Added 10/27/11
0 Views

Wagging the Dog on the Iranian Threat

Added 10/16/11
2 Views

Wagging the Dog on the Iranian Threat

[LESS INFO] 2 VIEWS | ADDED 20:00:07 10/16/11
In our initial reporting of the alleged Iranian assassination/terrorism plot, I stated that I had some niggling questions on the Tom Clancy-like plot forwarded by the State Department. Turns out, other bloggers , far more well versed in Middle East politics, did as well . Former intelligence office Col. Pat Lang had this to say : > We are asked to believe that Iran and its skilled covert action force chose to set up an operation in which they ("they" being members of the "Quds Force" with approvals reaching up to Ayatollah Khamenei) relied on a used car salesman from Texas to recruit Mexican drug thugs to kill Adil al-Jubeir. This is a problem involving the suspension of belief. Why on earth would they create a situation in which they had to rely on this untested, untrained, unguided, and uncontrolled asset rather than their own people?[..] None of this is "rocket science." If as FBI Mueller said, this "plot" is like a Hollywood screenplay, then it is a screenplay written by a couple of kids high as a kite on a weekend and pitched in a producer's cottage on a film company's "campus." It is trash. The overwhelming likelihood is that this is someone's "information operation" intended to condition public attitudes for some purpose. The over riding question is that of where the ovens are located in which this confection was baked and who the bakers might be. Listen to House Intelligence Committee Chair Rep. Mike Rogers, here with Christiane Amanpour, talks about how "action" *MUST* take place in response to a plot to assassinate someone on American soil ( don't think about that too closely, Americans ) and that not even military action should be off the table (because with Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and now Uganda , we have the resources for another front.). Those words should be a red flag to us all. Prof. Juan Cole : > I personally do not understand how the corporate media in the US can report the following things about Manssor Arbabsiar and then go on to repeat with a straight face the US government charges that he was part of a high-level Iranian government assassination plot. It seems pretty obvious that Arbabsiar is very possibly clinically insane. Here are the top 10 reasons that he cannot be Iran’s answer to 007: 10. Arbabsiar was known in Corpus Christi, Texas, “for being almost comically absent-minded” 9. Possibly as a result of a knife attack in 1982, he suffered from bad short-term memory 8. He was always losing his cell phone 7. He was always misplacing his keys 6. He was always forgetting his briefcase and documents in stores 5. He “was just not organized,” a former business partner remarked 4. As part owner of a used car dealership, he was always losing title deeds to the vehicles 3. Arbabsiar, far from a fundamentalist Shiite Muslim, may have been an alcoholic; his nickname is “Jack” because of his fondness for Jack Daniels whiskey 2. Arbabsiar used to not only drink to excess, but also used pot and went with prostitutes. He once talked loudly in a restaurant about going back to Iran, where he could have an Iranian girl for only $50. He was rude and was thrown out of some establishments. 1. All of his businesses failed one after another The downward trajectory of Arbabsiar’s life, with his recent loss of his mortgage, all his businesses, and his second wife, along with his obvious cognitive defect, suggests to me that he may have been descending into madness. I hypothesized yesterday that Arbabsiar and his cousin Gholam Shakuri might have been part of an Iranian drug gang. But after these details have emerged about the former, I don’t think he could even have done that. Indeed, I have now come to view the entire story as a fantasy. That a monumental screw-up like Arbabsiar could have thought he was a government secret agent is perfectly plausible. I’m sure he thought all kinds of things. But that he was actually one is simply not believable. I have a question that I wish Christiane Amanpour had asked Rogers and Sanger as they advocate going to our allies to further isolate Iran for such hubristic attempts on American soil: Will you also ask Americans like the Koch brothers , Dick Cheney and current Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney as well? Shouldn't that be on the table as well?