Interesting article.
 

Sometimes the breaking news is broken (or incomplete)
 

If information is power, then the average citizen is indeed powerless. We are spoon fed by the corporate media some version of the news giving it the slant the power elite desires for us. We are served a limited kind of reality rolled in lies and deep fried in innuendo.

Even those labeled progressive who profess to want change seem to be only capable of speaking in sound bites and catchy slogans. There is no depth, no real understanding of the issues offered for public consumption.

For example, the version of the SOPA controversy we are offered is that the bill is meant to address internet piracy but simply goes too far and may restrict the free flow of information on the web. That it borders on censorship. And while this is true, it is by no stretch of the imagination the full story. The amount of money claimed to be lost because of internet piracy is considered to be greatly exaggerated. The numbers at best are based on faulty logic and at worst are a purposeful attempt to deceive the public in an effort to convince everyone that these restrictive types of legislation are necessary. In reality the anti-piracy campaign is to a great extent about stunting the growth of legitimate online distribution because smaller companies are coming up with new and cheaper streaming alternatives. We are told the bill has been tabled and for now the internet is currently safe from this threat of censorship. But I know this is not true simply because sites I use, such as Mega Video (Megaupload) were shut down yesterday. No one talks about the bullying being done by international corporations to coerce countries around the world to adopt these so called security measures in order to censor the web globally as well as end the opportunity for cheaper but legitimate streaming alternatives.

Another example is the housing crisis. It doesn’t matter how illogical it is to believe that people who accepted mortgages over their budgets are the cause of a global economic crisis. The reality is that people do believe it. Apparently, if you have control of the media and get it to repeat something often enough no matter how ludicrous, it will become truth. The truth of what happened and continues to happen is available but the information is not easily understood so it is power we aren’t able to harness. Hedge funds, derivatives, especially credit derivatives and a particularly toxic one called credit default swaps are the means to financial armageddon. Yet the how and why of this, this extremely powerful yet available information, still eludes most of us. And without it we are powerless to ask the right questions and to make the right demands. The information and understanding that would allow us to stop this economic destruction and financial terrorism remains just out of reach. We continue to blame people for buying houses they couldn’t afford and countries like Greece for living beyond their means. And the masters of the financial universe twirl their handlebar moustaches and cackle wildly at our stupidity.

My final example of misunderstanding an issue because of a lack of enough information will lead to the reason for this post (yes, there actually is a reason.) ‘Corporations are not people' and ‘money is not speech’ sounds good and fits nicely on cardboard signs but are much too simplistic and as slogans make an issue of infinite depth seem easy to comprehend. We need to understand this issue much better than we do before we can come up with a plan to fix it that will actually do what we need it to do. Here is a rather long but in informative and marginally in depth article about what we need to understand to fix corporate control of our elections and our country.
http://www.alternet.org/news/153814/...s/?page=entire

This speaks directly to one of the reasons I watch things like Charlie Rose & Bill Moyers. At least I feel like I am getting somewhat behind these "bites" and then can study issues further by looking up people and things talked about afterwards- on my own. Some progressive pundits are as lax as right wingers with their research and bias. I know that I have to take personal action (and the time) to weed out what is at the core of issues and is accurate.

In 2010, for example, here in CA there was a ballot initiative for medical marijuana that was just not as it was portrayed. Many left leaning voters supported it and did not take the time to research it- depended on sound bites that "sounded" more progressive in nature, but did not tell the whole story.

Being informed for me, means getting past these "bites" even if promoted by someone I usually agree with and weeding out what what is really the substance.

Catholic Bishop: Children Want to Be Sexually Abused



http://www.secularnewsdaily.com/2010...xually-abused/

Yes, of course they do. And women want to be beaten by their husbands. That's why they piss them off.

"There are 13 year old adolescents who are under age and who are perfectly in agreement with, and what’s more wanting it, and if you are careless they will even provoke you."

If you are careless? That's what they are calling it nowadays? I wonder how careless Bishop Álvarez has been?

Paterno's medical condition worsens
Former PSU coach reported gravely ill
Sunday, January 22, 2012
By Ron Musselman, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/image...pg_09e_500.jpg
Gene J. Puskar/Associated Press
People gather Saturday night around a statue of Joe Paterno outside Beaver Stadium on the Penn State University campus.


UNIVERSITY PARK, Pa. -- Family and friends gathered around a gravely ill Joe Paterno on Saturday, keeping watch over the former Penn State University coach, the winningest in major college football history.
Mr. Paterno, 85, has "deteriorated" since being readmitted to Mount Nittany Medical Center Jan. 13 for treatment of lung cancer, a source told the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.
Police put barricades up on McKee Street to block off the road where Mr. Paterno lives. His son Jay canceled a speaking engagement in Reading on short notice, and close friends were called to the hospital.
"Over the last few days Joe Paterno has experienced further health complications," family spokesman Dan McGinn said in a brief statement Saturday night. "His doctors have now characterized his status as serious.
"His family will have no comment on the situation and asks that their privacy be respected during this difficult time."
Mr. Paterno was diagnosed with cancer Nov. 18, just days after he was fired as head coach in the aftermath of the child sex abuse charges against former assistant coach Jerry Sandusky.
Mr. Paterno also broke his pelvis in a fall at home. He initially suffered the injury in August after being blindsided in practice by wide receiver Devon Smith.
Mr. Sandusky is out on bail and awaiting trial after denying the allegations that he sexually assaulted young boys over a 15-year period. Mr. Paterno testified before a state grand jury investigating Mr. Sandusky, and authorities have said he is not a target of the probe.
But school trustees voted unanimously Nov. 9 to oust him anyway -- even though Mr. Paterno had announced that morning he would retire by the end of the season -- in part because they said Mr. Paterno failed a moral responsibility to report an allegation made in 2002 against Mr. Sandusky to authorities outside the university.

Continued on next page
1 2 Next Last


Read more: http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/12022...#ixzz1kBX1WA00

Thank you for that rousing commentary. It spurred me to get into some reading, which led to watching, which led to...never mind, suffice to say it is time well spent. This video reviewed some of the points in your post and gives a quick background on what is fueling the movement for real government by the people. I particularly appreciated, near the end of the video, the plea to support across parties for a common cause. Any opinions on his idea of the "first 50 dollar project"? He does say in the Q&A video that a constitutional amendment is necessary but may prove difficult. Focus is on real change though. Obviously heavy monetary control over congress was alive and well before Citizens United and an amendment would not be a panacea.

I am in the process of reading about the currently ongoing development of the vision and strategy of the movement. Framing our rights as rights rather then entitlements how radical. lol I would appreciate any links to particularly enlightening articles.

Wading through the BS to find viable, unskewed information is difficult; calling for cooperative energy. I appreciate your tireless effort toward this end.
You are not just another pretty face. <w>

I like Lawrence Lessig. Of course if you scratch his liberalism too hard you will find a conservative underneath, but that can be said about many a liberal I imagine. And at this point it isn't about whether you stand to the left or to the right, it's more about whether you want to regain control of your country. He has some good ideas and he has spoken out and worked against insane copyright infringement and anti-piracy laws, so that wins him points in my world. As for the first 50 dollar project(the Grant and Franklin Project), I find it pretty interesting. I like it. It definitely wouldn't fix everything, but it doesn't propose that it could. And I'm not sure about a constitutional amendment. I don't know what the amendment would have to say that would allow it to actually work. The supreme court's quirky interpretation of the first amendment to cover the rights of individual citizens to be able to listen (listening to what? to the corporate dollar go ca ching) makes it a pretty sticky wicket and hella confusing.

I put a couple of links to some articles explaining the project, but I'm pretty sure they won't tell you much more than you already know.

I'm not sure there is one answer or one strategy to such a complicated issue. It took a long time to completely loose any control or influence over the government so it will probably take awhile to get any back. I think it is important though to take the time to thoroughly understand the problems from all angles so as not to jump at ineffective strategies and quick fixes. Although in my opinion the fifty dollar project would be a great first step.

And you would think i have a pretty face, it looks a lot like yours.:tease:

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/...street/247561/

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-1...ce-lessig.html

http://lessig.tumblr.com/post/143571...anklin-project

http://coffeepartyaustin.org/?page_id=1402

I'd like to believe Republic Lost... is a "roadmap" or a next step. I'd like to believe that Lessig is not just one more person selling an idea, a book, a platform. I'd like to believe that one more person is not going to ultimately use to personal advantage the very dynamic, un-level playing field and hierarchy that s/he protests perhaps too much against.

And maybe the anomalous heroes are still out there. Maybe there are some who still believe that the only things worth fighting for are something other than yourself or bigger than yourself and that that sometimes doesn't ride you to some safe shore on the crest of a book deal and a lecture circuit and endless engagements. So I hope.

Let the ideas lead but not the personalities. And let us not replace one inequitable hierarchy with another. And in fact, let's look askance at all hierarchies and not just question a corrupted democracy and proffer "fixes," but lets cast a cold, discerning eye on the flawed seed in human nature that grew it.

Paterno died
 

I don't imagine Lessig is some kind of hero. I don't actually believe in heroes. Sometimes I believe in human beings or better said is that there are some human beings I believe in. But ultimately people are only human. Still I don't think that his interest only lies with selling books. He has been a political activist for many years and I like some of the things he says and I liked some stuff he wrote about the anti piracy and copyright laws. He was an advocate. But if anything taught me not to believe in personalities it was Obama.

I do like the fifty dollar project and I would no matter whose idea it was.

I do believe in heroes because I've seen them, and I've met them, quiet as they are and quiet as they go.

And I hope the ideas lead. Ideas like the $50 project, ideas like local dollars, ideas like permacultual restoration, ideas like the talking stick. I believe in the ideas and the people who carry them forward without bravado and some times at great personal risk. Here's to that and this future we live in brought to us by ideas and the people who risked belief in them.

Rep. Gabrielle Giffords Steps Down from Congress

Parents: Gay teen took his life because of bullying


A Gordonsville boy's parents say bullying caused their son to take his own life. Phillip Parker, 14, died this week. His parents said he was constantly bullied for being gay.

More than 100 people gathered in Gordonsville on Saturday night, grieving the loss of Phillip.

"He was fun, he was energetic, he was happy," said Gena Parker, Phillip's mother.

To his many friends, Phillip was known as the boy who told everyone they're beautiful.

"He kept telling me he had a rock on his chest," said Ruby Harris, Phillip's grandmother. "He just wanted to take the rock off where he could breathe."

Phillip's family said they reported their concerns over their son's bullying to Gordonsville High School on multiple occasions, but the bullying by a group of students just got worse.

"I believe my whole family up in heaven's taking good care of him," said friend Megan Redinger.

"I want to say I love him dearly," added friend Heather Hunt. "He'll never be forgotten. He's always in my heart."

"That's my son," said Phillip Parker, Phillip's father. "I love him. I miss him. He shouldn't have had to kill himself to be brought to life."

An official with Smith County Schools told Channel 4 they are now planning how to handle a crisis situation with students Monday. Friends added they are planning to set up a memorial fund in Phillip's name but haven't made the arrangements just yet.


http://www.wsmv.com/story/16572441/p...ue-to-bullying

From the Prop 8 Blog
 

Gov. Christie nominates openly gay New Jersey Supreme Court justice
By Adam Bink

Well, like Steven Goldstein of Garden State Equality, you could pick me up off the floor too. His statement:

A few minutes ago, just before announcing his two new Supreme Court nominees, Governor Christie called me on my cell phone to tell me he is nominating Bruce Harris to the New Jersey Supreme Court. Bruce will become the first openly LGBT person in history, and the third African-American person in history, to serve on the New Jersey Supreme Court. Most importantly, Bruce is eminently qualified to be a Supreme Court justice.

As I told the Governor right then and there, you could have picked me up off the floor.

When I met with Governor Christie in 2010 at his request, he told me that though we would differ on some issues like marriage equality, he viewed the LGBT community as an important part of New Jersey, and that he wanted his Administration to have a good working relationship with Garden State Equality. That has been the case every step of the way. Since Governor Christie took office, his Administration has treated us with warmth and responsiveness. Yes is yes, no is no, and we’ll get back to you means they get back to you faster than you thought, usually with invaluable help. To be clear, the Governor and his staff were invaluable in helping us pass the Anti-Bullying Bill of Rights, the nation’s strongest anti-bullying law that the governor signed in January 2011.

No one’s asked me to say any of this – I am simply giving credit where credit is due, too rare in political life.

Now, as for the marriage equality bill: The Governor and I didn’t discuss that in our phone conversation. I recognize, and caution everyone, that it would be unwise to read any change here in the Governor’s position on marriage equality; he has said in past months and years that he would veto the bill, and we take him at his word. We will fight hard every minute of every day to win marriage equality in New Jersey. Nothing will deter us.

But again, right now, that doesn’t mean we should not give credit where credit is due. Today, the Governor has made civil rights history, and on behalf of all of us at Garden State Equality, I extend to him our most profound appreciation.

Worth noting that this week will begin hearings on the marriage equality legislation in New Jersey (as well as in Washington — more on that from Jacob later).

High court: warrant needed for GPS tracking
 

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court ruled unanimously Monday that police must get a search warrant before using GPS technology to track criminal suspects.

The decision was a defeat for the government and police agencies, and it raises the possibility of serious complications for law enforcement nationwide, which increasingly relies on high tech surveillance of suspects, including the use of various types of GPS technology.

A GPS device installed by police on Washington, D.C., nightclub owner Antoine Jones' Jeep helped them link him to a suburban house used to stash money and drugs. He was sentenced to life in prison before the appeals court overturned the conviction.

Associate Justice Antonin Scalia said that the government's installation of a GPS device, and its use to monitor the vehicle's movements, constitutes a search, meaning that a warrant is required.

"By attaching the device to the Jeep" that Jones was using, "officers encroached on a protected area," Scalia wrote. He concluded that the installation of the device on the vehicle without a warrant was a trespass and therefore an illegal search.

All nine justices agreed that the GPS monitoring on the Jeep violated the Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable search and seizure, a decision the American Civil Liberties Union said was an "important victory for privacy."

Washington lawyer Andy Pincus called the decision "a landmark ruling in applying the Fourth Amendment's protections to advances in surveillance technology." Pincus has argued 22 cases before the Supreme Court and filed a brief in the current case on behalf of the Center for Democracy and Technology, a civil liberties group with expertise in law, technology, and policy.

The Democratic chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Patrick Leahy of Vermont, said the court's decision is "a victory for privacy rights and for civil liberties in the digital age." He said the ruling highlights many new privacy threats posed by new technologies. Leahy has introduced legislation to update the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, a 1986 law that specifies standards for government monitoring of cell phone conversations and Internet communications.

Scalia wrote the main opinion of three in the case. He was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas and Sonia Sotomayor.

Sotomayor also wrote one of the two concurring opinions that agreed with the outcome in the Jones case for different reasons.

Justice Samuel Alito wrote, in the other concurring opinion, that the trespass was not as important as the suspect's expectation of privacy. Police monitored the Jeep's movements over the course of four weeks after attaching the GPS device.

"The use of longer term GPS monitoring in investigations of most offenses impinges on expectations of privacy," Alito wrote in an opinion joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and Elena Kagan. Sotomayor in her concurring opinion specifically said she agreed with Alito on this conclusion.

Alito added, "We need not identify with precision the point at which the tracking of this vehicle became a search, for the line was surely crossed before the four-week mark."

Regarding the issue of duration, Scalia wrote that "we may have to grapple" with those issues in the future, "but there is no reason for rushing forward to resolve them here."

Alito also said the court should address how expectations of privacy affect whether warrants are required for remote surveillance using electronic methods that do not require the police to install equipment, such as GPS tracking of mobile telephones. Alito noted, for example, that more than 322 million cellphones have installed equipment that allows wireless carriers to track the phone's location.

"If long-term monitoring can be accomplished without committing a technical trespass — suppose for example, that the federal government required or persuaded auto manufacturers to include a GPS tracking device in every car — the court's theory would provide no protection," Alito said.

Sotomayor agreed. "It may be necessary to reconsider the premise that an individual has no reasonable expectation of privacy in information voluntarily disclosed to their parties," she said.

A federal appeals court in Washington had overturned Jones's drug conspiracy conviction because police did not have a warrant when they installed a GPS device on his vehicle and then tracked his movements for a month. The Supreme Court agreed with the appeals court.

The case is U.S. v. Jones, 10-1259.

http://news.yahoo.com/high-court-war...153034235.html

World's Government Spent $500 Billion Subsidizing Fossil Fuels, $66 Billion on Renewables

SustainableBusiness.com News

by Lester Brown

The world's governments are shelling out a combined $1.4 billion per day to further destabilize the earth's climate. Worldwide, direct fossil fuel subsidies added up to roughly $500 billion in 2010, in contrast to just $66 billion for renewable energy. Not only do fossil fuel subsidies dwarf those for renewables today, but a long legacy of governments propping up oil, coal, and natural gas has resulted in a very uneven energy playing field.

Out of the $500 billion in fossil fuel subsidies, $100 billion supports production and $400 billion supports consumption (ie., keeping gas prices low). The oil industry receives $193 billion of that, while natural gas gets $91 billion and coal gets $3 billion. $122 billion is spent subsidizing the use of fossil fuel-generated electricity. We distort reality when we omit the health and environmental costs associated with burning fossil fuels from their prices. When governments actually subsidize their use, they take the distortion even further. Iran's government spent the most of any country to promote fossil fuel consumption in 2010, doling out $81 billion in subsidies, and amounting to over 20% of its gross domestic product. Saudi Arabia was a distant second at $44 billion, followed by Russia ($39 billion), India ($22 billion), and China ($21 billion).

http://www.earth-policy.org/images/u...top25total.PNG
Graph on Fossil Fuel Consumption Subsidies in Top 25 Countries, 2010

Kuwait's fossil fuel subsidies were highest on a per capita basis, with $2,800 spent per person. The United Arab Emirates and Qatar followed, each spending close to $2,500 per person. Carbon emissions could be cut in scores of countries by simply eliminating fossil fuel subsidies. Some countries are
already doing this. Belgium, France, and Japan phased out all subsidies for coal, for example. As oil prices have climbed, a number of countries that
held fuel prices well below world market prices have greatly reduced or eliminated their motor fuel subsidies because of the heavy fiscal cost, including China and Indonesia.

Even Iran, which priced gasoline at one fifth its market price, dramatically reduced gasoline subsidies in December 2010 as part of broader energy subsidy reforms. A world facing economically disruptive climate change can no longer justify subsidies to expand the burning of coal and oil. Over this past year, the typically conservative International Energy Agency has urged governments around the world to stop subsidizing fossil fuels, to set a price on carbon, and to instead subsidize renewable energy to stabilize the earth's climate. Eliminating all fossil fuel consumption subsidies by 2020 would reduce global energy demand nearly 5% while reducing government debt.

In 2009, the G20 pledged to stop subsidizing fossil fuels, but that has yet to happen.

++++

http://www.sustainablebusiness.com/i...splay/id/23338

Romney's tax return info- 2011 is "projected"
 

http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/20...te-in-2010.php

TPM2012
Mitt Romney Paid A 13.9% Effective Tax Rate In 2010

January 24, 2012, 12:30 AM 143124After being hounded by Democrats and Republicans for refusing to and then hedging about releasing his federal tax returns, Mitt Romney released his 2010 tax return Tuesday morning. They show that Romney paid an effective tax rate of 13.9% on $21.6 million in income.

Romney’s total wealth is estimated at $190 million to $250 million.
The returns also show that over 2010 and 2011 Romney donated more money to charity, $7 million, than he will pay in taxes, much of that going to the Mormon church. The campaign stressed that Romney’s low tax rate was based on the fact that much of his income comes from 15% tax rate on capital gains, rather than the 35% rate on earned income as well as charitable deductions. They also note that much of the money comes from interest from Romney’s blind trust.

Key Takeaways From Romney’s Tax Returns
—Mitt Romney paid a 13.9 percent tax rate on $21.6 million in income last year.

—Most of the income came from dividends and interest on investments, which are taxed at a much lower rate.
—Romney raked in America’s median adjusted gross income of $33,048 in “less than a day,” Bloomberg notes. His income over a one-week span puts him in the top 1 percent of annual earners.—Romney, who files jointly with his wife Ann, expects to pay a 15.4 percent rate on $20.9 million in income this year.

—His campaign said he had $7.4 million in carried interest last year; this year the figure is $5.5 million.

—Romney contributed $7 million in charitable donations in the last two years, at least $4.1 million of which was to the Mormon Church.Sahil Kapur contributed to this post.

******

Yanno- "carried interest means he defers paying any tax on millions for years- one of those "loopholes" for the 1%!

Tweet from ThinkProgress-

Romney's return that reveals his Swiss bank account is the "good' return. He won't release previous years.

Obama is being called the food stamp president. And they don't mean isn't it problematic so many people are hungry on his watch. No. It is the fact that so many are getting help by receiving food stamps that is the issue. How can the impression you are trying to feed the hungry, whether it is true or not, be purposely cultivated by political opponents in an effort to discredit you? How can an illusion of compassion for the hungry be used against you? And even more disgusting, how can it actually be working? There is something so morally, ethically, spiritually and just plain humanly wrong with this that it makes me feel a little heart sick and a lot afraid for humanity.

Is this what we have become? Frankly it leaves me stunned that a presidential candidate can win a state primary by sending out messages like “hey let’s get this guy who feeds hungry people out of office.” I guess it shouldn’t when I think about how people actually clapped and cheered at the death of man who had no health insurance. That people want to vote for someone who thinks it’s ridiculous for the government to give food to hungry citizens shouldn’t surprise me. But I guess it still does.

To me there is something so deeply disturbing in the reality that a politician is able to actually find a constituency that is welcoming to this mean spirited, inhumane and immoral political philosophy. I mean what do people say to themselves that this kind of bullshit makes sense to them. Are they thinking hell ya, too many people are getting food stamps for no reason? They have money to buy food but they would rather embarrass themselves using food stamps. Or do they think, hell, it’s just those blacks, Latinos and immigrants who get food stamps anyway. They don’t deserve to eat. You know being black or Mexican or whatever. I mean even if this were true, which it is not, there are more poor white people getting food stamps, but if it were true, does that really make sense to them? Are these the same Christians who spew all that bullshit about family values? Is allowing people to go hungry now a family value?

If someone says more people are on food stamps now than ever before wouldn’t that beg the question why? What is going on that so many people are hungry in the richest nation in the world? Wouldn’t that be the logical question? To me it is abhorrent to think it is okay for people to go hungry. To hear from a politician’s own lips that there are more people hungry in the United States than ever before, then to hear this same guy say he would cut off people from food stamps if he was president and then to vote for him as your candidate is just beyond unacceptable, it is loathsome, abhorrent. What is wrong with people?

Corporate America is spending more money trying to elect their president than ever before. This president, whoever he is, is going to cost them more money than any other president they have purchased in the past. Since it really doesn’t matter who wins, they control them all, why can’t they just spend some of that money on creating jobs for people? That way there will be less of them on food stamps. Since that’s such an annoyance and all.

Okay, since this is the breaking news thread, here is the link to the breaking news article about the growing problem of hunger in the U.S.

http://www.alternet.org/story/153859...r_in_america_/

Fact Checker: Is Gingrich right about food stamps?
 

It amuses me, an not in a funny way, how politicians and others miscontrue the facts and ignore the context in which something may occur. After all, all they need to do is plant the seed of mistruth. The media then picks it up, puts their own spin on it for their own reasons, and distributes it wholesale to an unsuspecting public.

The average voter does not dissect the manure that is fed to them on a continuous basis. This is the reason our forefathers created a republic rather than a democracy. In a republic, we are suppose to have people whose job it is to wade thru the poop to get to the truth.

To me, Gingrich is and has always been just a human poop making machine.


-------------------------------

Newt Gingrich claims that “more people have been put on food stamps by Barack Obama than any president in American history.”

He’s wrong. More were added under Bush than under Obama, according to the most recent figures.

The former speaker made that claim Jan. 16 in a Republican debate in Myrtle Beach, S.C., and his campaign organization quickly inserted the snippet in a new 30-second TV ad that began running Jan. 18 in South Carolina.

Gingrich would have been correct to say the number now on food aid is historically high. The number stood at 46,224,722 people as of October, the most recent month on record. And it’s also true that the number has risen sharply since Obama took office.

But Gingrich goes too far to say Obama has put more on the rolls than other presidents. We asked the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Food and Nutrition service for month-by-month figures going back to January 2001. And they show that under President George W. Bush the number of recipients rose by nearly 14.7 million. Nothing before comes close to that.

And under Obama, the increase so far has been 14.2 million. To be exact, the program has so far grown by 444,574 fewer recipients during Obama’s time in office than during Bush’s.

It’s possible that when the figures for January 2012 are available they will show that the gain under Obama has matched or exceeded the gain under Bush. But not if the short-term trend continues. The number getting food stamps declined by 43,528 in October. And the economy has improved since then.

Gingrich often cites the number of persons on food stamps to support his view that the U.S. is becoming an “entitlement society,” increasingly dependent on government aid. And he has a point. One out of seven Americans is currently getting food stamps.

But Gingrich strains the facts when he accuses Obama of being responsible. The rise started long before Obama took office, and accelerated as the nation was plunging into the worst economic recession since the Great Depression.

The economic downturn began in December 2007. In the 12 months before Obama was sworn in, 4.4 million were added to the rolls, triple the 1.4 million added in 2007.

To be sure, Obama is responsible for some portion of the increase since then. The stimulus bill he signed in 2009 increased benefit levels, making the program more attractive. A family of four saw an increase of $80 per month, for example. That increase remains in effect and is not set to expire until late next year, according to USDA spokeswoman Jean Daniel.

The stimulus also made more people eligible. Able-bodied jobless adults without dependents could get benefits for longer than three months. That special easing of eligibility also expired on Sept. 30, 2010. Spokeswoman Daniel told us that 46 states have been able to continue the longer benefit period under special waivers granted because of high unemployment. Previously, able-bodied adults without dependents could collect food stamps for only three months out of any three-year period.

Otherwise, current eligibility standards are unchanged from what they were before Obama took office, USDA officials say. Generally, those with incomes at or below 130 percent of the official poverty level, and savings of $2,000 or less, may receive aid. The income level is currently just over $29,000 a year for a family of four.

That leaves the economic downturn that began in 2007 — and the agonizingly slow recovery that followed — as the principal factors making more Americans eligible for food stamps. Officials say that another factor is that Americans today are less reluctant to accept aid than before.

Of those whose income was low enough to qualify, only 54 percent actually signed up in 2002, but that rose steadily to 72 percent by fiscal 2009, the latest USDA figures show (See Table 2).

USDA researchers said the jump in the participation rate happened because of actions by state governments. In a report released in August 2011, the Office of Research and Analysis said: “States have increased outreach to low-income households, implemented program simplifications, and streamlined application processes to make it easier for eligible individuals to apply for and receive SNAP [food stamp] benefits. Most States also have reduced the amount of information that recipients must report during their certification period to maintain their eligibility and benefit levels, making it easier for low-income households to participate.”

Another reason might be that “food stamps” no longer exist as paper coupons. Instead, beneficiaries now receive plastic debit cards, known as “Electronic Benefit Transfer” or EBT cards, which look pretty much like an ordinary credit card when used in a supermarket checkout line.

EBT cards have been used in all states since 2004, according to the USDA website. The change to plastic cards was done both to reduce the possibility of fraud, and also to reduce the stigma felt by beneficiaries, and they might account for some of the increase in participation.

In fact, the program is no longer officially called the “food stamp” program. Since 2008, it has been the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP for short.

Who Gets Food Stamps?
The most recent Department of Agriculture report on the general characteristics of the SNAP program’s beneficiaries says that in the fiscal year that ended Sept. 30, 2010:

• 47 percent of beneficiaries were children under age 18.

• 8 percent were age 60 or older.

• 41 percent lived in a household with earnings from a job — the so-called “working poor.”

• The average household received a monthly benefit of $287.

• 36 percent were white (non-Hispanic), 22 percent were African American (non-Hispanic) and 10 percent were Hispanic (Table A.21).

We don’t argue that the program is either too large (as Gingrich does) or too small. It has certainly reached a historically high level, and may or may not grow even larger in the months to come. But the plain fact is that the growth started long before Obama took office, and participation grew more under Bush.

Kevin Concannon, the USDA’s undersecretary for food, nutrition and consumer services, told the Wall Street Journal: “I realize Mr. Gingrich is a historian, but I’m not sure he’d get very high marks on that paper.”

Footnote
There was an earlier easing of eligibility standards buried in a 2008 farm bill that Congress enacted over Bush’s veto. Obama voiced support for the measure while campaigning, but was not present for either the Senate vote to pass the bill or the vote to override.

Both votes enjoyed strong bipartisan majorities. Only 12 Republicans and two Democrats voted to sustain Bush’s veto, for example. Bush didn’t mention the food stamp provisions when he vetoed the bill, but instead cited what he called excessive subsidies to farmers.

http://www.rgj.com/article/20120124/...t-food-stamps-

PLEASE SIR MAY I HAVE SOME MORE
 

I have to disagree with this article's stance that Gingrich has a point that the U.S. is becoming an entitlement society. Here is the quote "Gingrich often cites the number of persons on food stamps to support his view that the U.S. is becoming an “entitlement society,” increasingly dependent on government aid. And he has a point. One out of seven Americans is currently getting food stamps."

It just boggles my mind. If one out of seven Americans is currently getting food stamps, then one out of seven Americans qualifies for them. That's a freaking no brainer. It's not like they are stealing them. Or abusing the system. And the reason they qualify is because they don't have enough money to feed their family. That is the issue. And the next issue is what can be done to help people find jobs that give them enough money to feed their families. Being hungry and wanting to eat and wanting to feed your children, that's not being an entitlement society. WTF!

Maybe it's me but I can't see how anyone can confuse this issue and make it about too many people getting food stamps. It should be about too many people not having enough money to feed themselves and their families and what can we do about that. Not what can we do about convincing people that when they want enough to eat they are acting like they live in an entitlement society.

NH Bill Would Allow Service Refusal To Gay Couples
 

CONCORD, N.H. (AP) — Florists, caterers and other wedding-related businesses could turn away engaged gay couples under legislation before the House that opponents likened to segregation and Nazi Germany’s race laws.

The House Judiciary Committee held a hearing Tuesday on the bill, which would allow providers of wedding-related goods or services to withhold those services if they believe doing business with gay couples would violate their conscience or religious faith. The bill also would bar lawsuits against business owners in such situations.

Bill sponsor Rep. Jerry Bergevin, R-Manchester, called it a “business protection bill” and said a person’s personal religious beliefs should receive protection in his or her capacity as a service provider.

Noting that New Hampshire protects against discrimination based on both religion and sexual orientation, Bergevin asked, “How do you strike a balance between them?”

State Rep. Cynthia Chase, D-Keene, called the bill “codified discrimination” and the beginning of a “slippery slope.”

“When you begin to codify things for one group, pretty soon it’s OK for that group, and then that group,” Chase said.

Although the bill was presented in reference to gay marriage, opponents said allowing a “person’s conscience or religious faith,” as the bill reads, to determine whom they serve would open the door to discrimination against inter-faith and inter-racial couples, too.

“There are some religions that still believe that African-Americans and Caucasians shouldn’t be able to marry. They would be allowed to discriminate against them under this bill,” said New Hampshire Civil Liberties Union Executive Director Claire Ebel.

New Hampshire’s gay marriage law already exempts churches and religious groups from being forced to officiate gay marriages or provide services, facilities and goods of any kind to participants. The bill would provide the same protections to individuals, which gay marriage opponents sought in 2009.

At the time, then-state Senate Democratic Leader Maggie Hassan of Exeter said she had heard of no legal challenges filed by gays over businesses refusing to provide services for their civil unions in the 17 months civil unions had been legal in New Hampshire. No cases were mentioned in Tuesday’s hearing either.

The committee has not issued a recommendation on the bill. Once they make a recommendation, the bill will move to the full House for a vote.

Another bill facing a vote in the coming weeks would repeal gay marriage and replace it with civil unions of any two adults, including relatives. It would also allow individuals to refuse their services for a civil union’s’ ceremony and to refuse to treat the civil union as valid if it conflicted with their religious or moral beliefs.

http://boston.cbslocal.com/2012/01/2...o-gay-couples/

Well i this is the eighth paragraph of that article.

"Gingrich often cites the number of persons on food stamps to support his view that the U.S. is becoming an “entitlement society,” increasingly dependent on government aid. And he has a point. One out of seven Americans is currently getting food stamps."

Maybe there is another way to take it. But I don't know what way that might be? Am I missing something?

Ah okay. I didn't get that but my reading comprehension skills could have been overshadowed by my extreme pissed offness.

Text of Obama's State of the Union found here:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washing...ipt/52780694/1

my favorite:

Those of us who've been sent here to serve can learn from the service of our troops. When you put on that uniform, it doesn't matter if you're black or white; Asian or Latino; conservative or liberal; rich or poor; gay or straight. When you're marching into battle, you look out for the person next to you, or the mission fails. When you're in the thick of the fight, you rise or fall as one unit, serving one Nation, leaving no one behind.

i really loved it that he mentioned undocumented students:

After the SOTU speech, there are large numbers of tweets (public education unions mainly) about Obama and his commitment to the education platforms he has favored. These include rewarding teachers that demonstrate effectiveness and is you caught it, getting rid of those that do not. He did mention "creativity" in teaching and not "teaching to a test."

What are the thoughts about this? Our public educational system and funding always is under scrutiny and debate.

I'm struggling with how his comments actually fit with what is going on throughout the country in education and all of the education legislation over the past decade.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032525/ns/us_news/

US: American's weak health led to Somali rescue

Judge says Obama must appear in 'birther' suit
 

Will this never end?


A judge in Georgia has ordered President Barack Obama to appear in court this week in a lawsuit challenging whether he is a natural-born US citizen qualified to be president.

The latest case was spawned by the so-called "birther" movement that has made claims -- which have not been substantiated -- that Obama was born overseas.

Although it is unclear whether a court could force a sitting president to appear in a court case, Georgia Deputy Chief Judge Michael Malihi has denied a motion by the president's lawyer to quash a subpoena that requires Obama to show up.

A Georgia resident made the complaint, which is intended to keep Obama's name off the state's ballot in the March presidential primary.

Orly Taitz, a California attorney who brought the legal challenge, said she expects the president's legal team to fight his appearance in the Georgia court but by doing so would expose his vulnerability.

An Obama campaign official said the case would not likely proceed.

"As courts around the country have ruled time and again, these claims have no merit and any attempts to compel the president's personal involvement will fail," a statement said.

http://news.yahoo.com/judge-says-oba...020453359.html

I am aware that many people like Obama and I don't get involved into the US politics since I am just visitor here . Hence , growing up in the communist country it feels like I am going back in the time instead living the American dream .

GA law it's ridiculous , still absurd laws in the justice system . I am tired of that Obama has been hammered by his birth certificate for years now .

Only thing I am concerned now it's that a middle class it's not eradicated and we don't have rich and poor only .

As if he needs to waste time on this bullshit! The level of direspect of this president just makes me sick. john McCain was freaking born in the Panama Canal Zone! Gee, ya' think this is about race?

Sometimes I really don't know how he and Michelle Obama don't get unglued over this garbage. Oh, they can't- would be viewed as angry black people...

As I said , I don't get into politics in this country , not that I do not follow it , but I am just a visitor here . It's absolutely absurd that Obama it's still under scrutiny of his birth certificate .

Obama and Gov. Jan Brewer putting her finger in his face it's very much to me disrespectful . He it's president of the US , period .

I was raised with the intelligent parents they though me of not being racist and I am grateful and yes it's about a race in Obama case . My God people we are in 2012 , get over it !