Breaking News Events

[Cin]

Dream Defenders and DREAMers Were Cut From ‘I Have a Dream’ Ceremony

People attending the “Let Freedom Ring” ceremony yesterday, featuring President Obama, were expecting to hear from Philip Agnew, executive director of the Dream Defenders in Florida, and Sofia Campos, chairperson of the immigrant rights youth-led organization United We Dream. Both names were listed on the ceremony’s program. But as Agnew was about to take the stage, he was told that he could not speak. Campos was also told she could not speak.

Talk about civil rights action interrupted, the Dream Defenders camped out in the Florida capitol building in Tallahassee for a full month in protest of the George Zimmerman verdict, and to demand new laws that would dismantle school-to-prison pipelines, racial profiling and Stand Your Ground gun laws. Campos, 24, is helping lead a movement demanding humane immigrant rights reform, which has called out Obama on his record-setting deportations.

Agnew is now calling for people to publish their own dream speeches on video and post them on Twitter and Facebook. The Dream Defenders are releasing today a video of the speech Agnew was going to deliver at the ceremony yesterday.

“This is about more than the speech,” said Agnew. “It’s about the voices of hundreds of thousands of people across the country that have been silenced for too long. Our generation’s dreams have been deferred for too long. While the words spoken amidst the pillars of the Lincoln Memorial yesterday may have reverberated throughout the nation, the actions, energy and love of the rising generation will resound in history books for centuries to come, like those of giants before us.”

http://colorlines.com/archives/2013/..._ceremony.html

[MsTinkerbelly]

Same-sex couples can file joint tax returns, IRS says

Reuters

All legal same-sex marriages will be recognized for U.S. federal tax purposes, regardless of where the couple lives, government says.


WASHINGTON — All legal same-sex marriages will be recognized for U.S. federal tax purposes, the Obama administration said on Thursday, allowing gay couples to claim the same tax benefits that heterosexual couples do.

As expected after a landmark Supreme Court ruling in June, the U.S. Treasury and Internal Revenue Service said:

"The ruling applies regardless of whether the couple lives in a jurisdiction that recognizes same-sex marriage or a jurisdiction that does not recognize same-sex marriage."

[Kelt]

This is not really Breaking News, but certainly contemporary. It is a longish article so I will link it out.



How to Become a Part-Time Worker Without Really Trying

How corporate America used the Great Recession to turn good jobs into bad ones.

Barbara Garson August 20, 2013

Watch closely: I’m about to demystify the sleight-of-hand by which good jobs were transformed into bad jobs, full-time workers with benefits into freelancers with nothing, during the dark days of the Great Recession.
 
First, be aware of what a weird economic downturn and recovery this has been.From the end of an “average” American recession, it ordinarily takes slightly less than a year to reach or surpass the previous employment peak. But in June 2013—four full years after the official end of the Great Recession—we had recovered only 6.6 million jobs, or just three-quarters of the 8.7 million jobs we lost.

Here’s the truly mysterious aspect of this “recovery”: 21 percent of the jobs lost during the Great Recession were low wage, meaning they paid $13.83 an hour or less. But 58 percent of the jobs regained fall into that category. Rest of article...

[Cin]

Stopping the War in Syria

http://www.alternet.org/visions/stop...-and-much-more

[Cin]

Are We Being Ruled by Self-Centered Jerks? What New Studies Reveals About the Ultra Wealthy
And why increasing economic disparities will make it worse.

Two studies released last week confirmed what most of us already knew: the ultra-wealthy tend to be narcissistic and have a greater sense of entitlement than the rest of us, and Congress only pays attention to their interests. Both studies are consistent with earlier research.

In the first study, published in the current Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, Paul Piff of UC Berkeley conducted five experiments which demonstrated that “higher social class is associated with increased entitlement and narcissism.” Given the opportunity, Piff also found that they were more likely to check themselves out in a mirror than were those of lesser means.

Piff looked at how participants scored on a standard scale of “psychological entitlement,” and found that those of a high social class — based on income levels, education and occupational prestige — were more likely to say “I honestly feel I’m just more deserving than others,” while people further down the social ladder were likelier to respond, “I do not necessarily deserve special treatment.”

In an earlier study, published last year in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Piff and four researchers from the University of Toronto conducted a series of experiments which found that “upper-class individuals behave more unethically than lower-class individuals.” This included being more likely to “display unethical decision-making,” steal, lie during a negotiation and cheat in order to win a contest.

In one telling experiment, the researchers observed a busy intersection, and found that drivers of luxury cars were more likely to cut off other drivers and less likely to stop for pedestrians crossing the street than those behind the wheels of more modest vehicles. “In our crosswalk study, none of the cars in the beater-car category drove through the crosswalk,” Piff told The New York Times. “But you see this huge boost in a driver’s likelihood to commit infractions in more expensive cars.” He added: “BMW drivers are the worst.”

Summing up previous research on the topic, Piff notes that upper-class individuals also “showed reduced sensitivity to others’ suffering” as compared with working- and middle-class people.

"Lower-class individuals are more likely to spend time taking care of others, and they are more embedded in social networks that depend on mutual aid. By contrast, upper-class individuals prioritize independence from others: They are less motivated than lower-class individuals to build social relationships and instead seek to differentiate themselves from others."

These findings may appear to represent a bit of psychological trivia, but a study to be published in Political Science Quarterly by Thomas Hayes, a scholar at Trinity University, finds that U.S. senators respond almost exclusively to the interests of their wealthiest constituents – those more likely to be unethical and less sensitive to the suffering of others, according to Piff.

Hayes took data from the Annenberg Election Survey — a massive database of public opinion representing the views of 90,000 voters — and compared them with their senators’ voting records from 2001 through 2010. From 2007 through 2010, U.S. senators were somewhat responsive to the interests of the middle class, but hadn’t been for the first 6 years Hayes studied. The views of the poor didn’t factor into legislators’ voting tendencies at all.

As Eric Dolan noted for The Raw Story, “The neglect of lower income groups was a bipartisan affair. Democrats were not any more responsive to the poor than Republicans.” Hayes wrote that his analysis “suggests oligarchic tendencies in the American system, a finding echoed in other research.”

Hayes’ study is consistent with earlier research, including Princeton University scholar Larry Bartels’ 2005 study of “Economic Inequality and Political Representation.”

There are a few of ways of looking at these findings. They could be the result of genuinely held ideological beliefs which happen to justify inequality and privilege.

According to OpenSecrets, the average net worth of senators in 2011 was $11.9 million, so it could be a matter of legislators advancing their own interests and those of the people with whom they socialize and associate.

But MIT economist Daron Acemoglu, who co-authored Why Nations Fail with Harvard’s James Robinson, says that this kind of political inequality is a product of widening economic disparities. “It’s a general pattern throughout history,” he told Think Progress. “When economic inequality increases, the people who have become economically more powerful will often attempt to use that power in order to gain even more political power. And once they are able to monopolize political power, they will start using that for changing the rules in their favor. And that sort of political inequality is the real danger that’s facing the United States.”
http://www.alternet.org/economy/are-...thy?paging=off

Well I might be poor and I may be looking at a very financially problematic old age but at least I'm part of a group less likely to display unethical behavior, who individually do not believe they deserves special treatment and has empathy for the suffering of others. Unfortunately one can't take that to the bank, use it to keep warm or eat it when your hungry. Viva la revolución!

[*Anya*]

US Won't Block States' Legalization of Marijuana

By ASHLEY SOUTHALL and JACK HEALY
WASHINGTON — The Justice Department on Thursday said it would not sue to block laws legalizing marijuana in 20 states and the District of Columbia, a move that proponents hailed as an important step toward ending the prohibition of the drug.
In a memo to federal prosecutors nationwide on Thursday, James M. Cole, the deputy attorney general, erased some uncertainty about how the government would respond to state laws making it legal to use marijuana for medical or recreational purposes.
Citing “limited prosecutorial resources,” Mr. Cole explained the change in economic terms. But the memo also made clear that the Justice Department expects states to put in place regulations aimed at preventing marijuana sales to minors, illegal cartel and gang activity, interstate trafficking of marijuana, and violence and accidents involving the drug.
“A system adequate to that task must not only contain robust controls and procedures on paper; it must also be effective in practice,” he wrote.
Voters in Washington and Colorado recently approved measures decriminalizing the possession of small amounts of recreational marijuana, while 18 other states and the District of Columbia permit the use of marijuana for medical purposes.
In a phone call on Thursday afternoon, Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. explained the government’s “trust but verify” approach to Gov. Jay Inslee of Washington and Gov. John W. Hickenlooper of Colorado, a Justice Department official said.
Marijuana advocates praised the decision as a potentially historic shift in the federal government’s attitude toward a drug it once viewed as a menace to public health. By allowing states to legalize and regulate marijuana, advocates said, the federal government could reduce jail populations and legal backlogs, create thousands of jobs, and replenish state coffers with marijuana taxes.
“This is a historic day,” said Ean Seeb, a co-owner of a marijuana dispensary called Denver Relief. “This is the beginning of the end of marijuana prohibition.”
But the prospect that marijuana could be legalized after a ban of decades drew criticism from law enforcement and drug policy officials. They warned that the Justice Department’s decision would have unintended consequences, like more impaired driving and more criminal marijuana operations.
“This sends the wrong message,” said former Representative Patrick J. Kennedy, who is a recovering prescription drug addict and a founder of Smart Approaches to Marijuana, a policy group. “Are we going to send up the white flag altogether and surrender and say ‘have at it’? Or are we going to try to reduce the availability and accessibility of drugs and alcohol? That should be our mission.”
Under the new guidance, a large scale and a for-profit status would no longer make dispensaries and cultivation centers a potential target for criminal prosecution.
However, prosecutors have broad discretion in determining, for instance, whether drug laws exacerbate “adverse public health consequences associated with marijuana use.”
If federal prosecutors believe that a state’s controls are inadequate, “the federal government may seek to challenge the regulatory structure itself in addition to continuing to bring individual enforcement actions, including criminal prosecutions,” Mr. Cole wrote.
The Justice Department official said the guidance was mandatory and did not apply retroactively.
In Colorado and Washington, the passage of ballot measures left the states’ drug laws in sharp opposition to federal drug policy, and raised questions about how federal law enforcement agents would respond to new retail marijuana stores. Some members of Congress sought to have the administration clarify whether state officials risked federal criminal prosecution while carrying out their duties under the state laws.
“It’s a relief,” said Representative Jared Polis, a Colorado Democrat. “It’ll get the criminal element out of the marijuana trade. It’ll provide legitimate business opportunities for everything from farmers to processors to retail store owners.”
Mr. Cole is scheduled to testify on Sept. 10 at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing focused on clarifying the administration’s stance.
The White House said last week that President Obama did not support changing federal laws regulating marijuana, which treat the drug as a dangerous substance with no medical purpose.
Josh Earnest, a White House spokesman, said the president believed it was best to focus on high-level offenders like kingpins and traffickers.
The decision on Thursday followed Mr. Holder’s announcement this month that federal prosecutors would no longer seek federal mandatory minimum sentences for certain low-level nonviolent drug offenders.
The announcement did not address the financial hurdles facing marijuana dispensaries and growing operations, like their access to loans and other banking services. Many banks are reluctant to do business with marijuana growers and sellers, for fear of violating federal laws. ■

Ashley Southall reported from Washington, and Jack Healy from Denver.

New York Times
PUBLISHED AUGUST 29, 2013

[Cin]

The Return of Direct Action



Curtis Hierro speaks into the phone like he’s talking into a bullhorn. The passion the 26-year-old Dream Defenders field director has used to get himself and fellow occupiers through more than four weeks in the Florida statehouse is evident in his voice. He’s ready for their 30th (and what will turn out to be their final) night there, despite an announcement that the state will test the building’s fire alarms from 8 p.m. to midnight. That’ll make it hard to get a moment’s peace, let alone sleep. But Hierro takes it in stride, as he did when the “Star Wars” theme went blaring at dawn, the weekends when getting access to a shower was tough, and other challenges that make putting one’s body on the line to achieve a political goal a test of endurance.

“That’s expected in this work, and we’ve made sure that everyone who comes in this space knows our norms and that we’re nonviolent,” Hierro said. “They’re trying to provoke us so they can discredit us and kick us out.”

Since July 16—three days after the George Zimmerman verdict was announced—Hierro and between a dozen and 60 other Dream Defenders had camped out in Gov. Rick Scott’s office, demanding a special legislative session and the consideration of Trayvon’s Law, a bill crafted in collaboration with state legislators and the NAACP. The young Floridians are using the direct action tactics its founders honed in a previous takeover of the statehouse and in a march they organized after Zimmerman killed Trayvon Martin in an effort to turn this post-verdict moment into a movement.

In doing so, they joined others around the country who are turning to civil disobedience and strategic protest as a way to force change, or at least create the conditions for a new conversation about issues ranging from racial profiling to the death penalty, workers’ rights, long term solitary confinement and immigration policy. A spirit similar to the one that motivated 250,000 people to converge on Washington, D.C. 50 years ago this month is moving today. And much of that spirit is being harnessed and directed by millennials.

Young people are filling a role they’ve held in organizing throughout history, says Cathy Cohen, a University of Chicago political science professor and founder and director of the Black Youth Project. The students who led sit-ins at lunch counters and boarded buses to challenge segregation were part of that vanguard during the civil rights era. Today’s organizers who use direct action, from the Dream Defenders to the Dream 9, are part of that legacy.

“Young people don’t always have to think about mortgages and jobs and childcare and are freer to engage in a certain kind of risk that as you get older you’re less likely to get involved in,” Cohen says.

People in their 20s and early 30s also backed Barack Obama by more than a two-to-one ratio in 2008, and now they’re frustrated by the pace of progress through institutional channels. But if North Carolina is any indication, that frustration hasn’t led them to stop believing in the power of the ballot box. Young people were at the forefront of some of the Moral Mondays demonstrations there, particularly those that called out the state GOP’s efforts to restrict access to the polls through a new law that requires photo ID, shortens the early voting period and ends the same-day registration option. More than 900 North Carolinians were arrested during the 13 weeks that Moral Mondays protests took place at the Raleigh statehouse, drawing attention to conservative attacks on abortion rights, wages and jobs. The intergenerational group of protestors had a clear effect, and approval ratings for the Republican governor and Republican-controlled legislature are down.

Black Youth Project’s Cohen said the 24-hour news cycle and the speed at which information travels via social networks has given young people a new understanding and sense of urgency of how high the stakes are.

“Given that reality that’s in their faces and the infrastructure for mobilization that’s developing, there’s an opportunity for young people to engage in direct action in a way that is hopeful for all of us,” she said.

Much of this infrastructure is dependent on what Daniel Maree, the 25-year-old lead organizer of last year’s Million Hoodies March in New York City, refers to as the democratization of technology. Using Facebook, Twitter, YouTube and design techniques normally seen in corporate advertising, Maree and collaborators got thousands of people to Union Square in just two days. Despite the near absence of mainstream news stories about Martin’s death, images from the rally and Maree’s subsequent push of a petition demanding Zimmerman’s arrest helped get the incident onto the national stage.

In the days following the March 21st march, coverage of and Twitter conversations about the killing as well as signatures on a Change.org petition that had been started earlier that month skyrocketed. In June, the Pew Research Center reported that in the five years that it’s tracked weekly news coverage, Martin’s killing received more sustained coverage than any other story that was largely about race.

Maree, a digital strategist at an ad agency, worked with people such as Andrea Ciannavei, 38, a writer and Occupy Wall Street participant who offered up InterOccupy.net to help coordinate the mobilization. He hadn’t set out to position himself as a leader in the wake of the tragedy, but he saw a vacuum that needed to be filled.

“Every time I Googled Trayvon’s name, I didn’t see anything coming from any organization,” Maree said. “I thought, ‘Nobody’s doing anything about this so I have to do something.’ “

This pattern—an expectation that an established progressive or legacy civil rights organization would already be responding to a crisis, a realization that those groups didn’t have a game plan or were being slow to implement, followed by a quick pivot to take the reins and a willingness to work with (but not for) whoever then shows up—came up again and again as I spoke with young organizers. For many, the first wakeup call came with an acknowledgment of the Obama Administration’s limitations.

Nelini Stamp, an advisor to Dream Defenders who also participated in Occupy said that she’d had high hopes that the president would use the power of his office to address issues like racial profiling and police brutality. As her expectations have shifted, she’s put her hopes in the power of young people, especially young people of color, to bring about change.

“Now you have a movement that is really strong,” Stamp, 25, said. “We should push this man and this country to do better because that’s what we thought we were getting.”

One characteristic of how these younger organizers push is a willingness to move at a fast pace, abandoning what’s not working and moving on to new tactics when demands aren’t met.

“I think people are escalating a lot quicker and a lot earlier,” Stamp said.

No group demonstrates this fearlessness and righteous impatience like the Dream 9, the transnational activists who until August 7 had been held for more than two weeks at a detention center in Eloy, Ariz. In an effort to bring attention to the 1.7 million deportations that have taken place since Obama has been in office, the group of undocumented immigrants traveled to Mexico, then turned themselves in at the U.S. border seeking reentry on humanitarian grounds. This border crossing was broadcast via a Ustream live feed that attracted more than 10,000 viewers who cheered them on from around the world.

While the hashtag and rallying cry “Bring them home” shot around the Internet, the Dream 9 waited to learn whether they’d be granted return to the country they’ve known as home since they were children. Members of the group were isolated in solitary confinement, participated in a hunger strike and organized deportees inside the detention center, all in an effort to highlight the plight of many.

It’s necessary action that people at negotiating tables aren’t taking, said 27-year-old Mohammad Abdollahi, a member of the National Immigrant Youth Alliance (NIYA) and a coordinator of the action. Abdollahi said the NIYA maintains a broad view of what undocumented immigrants and their families actually need, and he echoes the sentiments of other organizers who see their work as the nimble and envelope-pushing counterpart to more plodding, bureaucratic processes that legacy organizations are often confined to.

“Our goal has always been for the greater immigration rights movement to catch up,” he said. “Folks can have a trajectory of what’s possible in the movement and hopefully replicate or come up with more creative ways to do things themselves.”

http://colorlines.com/archives/2013/...llennials.html

[Cin]

The 8 Types of Americans Who Suffer the Most Economic Pain
Are political and corporate leaders even remotely aware of the conditions of society beneath the wealthiest 10% or so?

We live in a society that allows one man to make $15 million a day while a low-income mother gets $4.50 a day for food, and much of Congress wants to cut the $4.50.

Are political and corporate leaders even remotely aware of the conditions of society beneath the wealthiest 10% or so?

The following are some of the victims of an economic system that has forgotten the majority of its people.

Children

One out of every five American children now lives in poverty, and for black children it's nearly one out of TWO. Almost half of food stamp recipients are children.

UNICEF places us near the bottom of the developed world in the inequality of children's well-being, and the OECD found that we have more child poverty than all but 3 of 30 developed countries. It's rather embarrassing to view the charts.

Students

Over the last 12 years, according to a New York Times report, the United States has gone from having the highest share of employed 25- to 34-year-olds among large, wealthy economies to having among the lowest. The number of college grads working for minimum wage has doubled in just five years.

Higher education was cut by nearly $17 billion in the years leading up to 2012-13. Through those same years large corporations were avoiding about $14 billion annually in taxes. To make up the difference, students face tuition costs that have risen almost ten times faster than median family income, leading them into their low-wage post-college positions with an average of $26,000 in student loan debt.

The Elderly

Three-quarters of Americans approaching retirement in 2010 had an average of less than $30,000 in their retirement accounts. The percentage of elderly (75 to 84) Americans experiencing poverty for the first time doubled from 2005 to 2009.

The folly of cutting Social Security is reflected in two facts. First, even though Social Security provides only an average benefit of $15,000, it accounts for 55 percent of annual income for the elderly. And second, seniors have spent their working lives paying for their retirement. According to the Urban Institute the average two-earner couple making average wages throughout their lifetimes will receive less in Social Security benefits than they paid in. Same for single males. Almost the same for single females. (the fact that it's only almost for single females reflects the lower wages for most women relative to men)

Wage Earners

Workers have 30% LESS buying power today than in 1968. If the minimum wage had kept up with employee productivity, it would be $16.54 per hour instead of $7.25.

Almost unimaginably, conditions for workers have gotten even worse since the recession. While 21 percent of job losses since 2008 were considered low-wage positions, 58 percent of jobs added during the recovery were considered low-wage.

As for members of Congress who say "get a job," only one of them was present at the start of a recent unemployment hearing.

The Sick and Disabled

Over 200 recent studies have confirmed a link between financial stress and sickness. In just 20 years America's ranking among developed countries dropped on nearly every major health measure. Victims suffer both physically and mentally. A recent study found that unemployment, whether voluntary or involuntary, can significantly impact a person's mental health. Even grimmer, from 1999 to 2010 the suicide rate among Americans ages 35 to 64 increased by almost 30 percent.

In the long run, the only Americans to increase their life expectancy have been seniors covered by Medicare.

Women

Recent figures from the Bureau of Labor Statistics reveal that women earn just 80% of men's pay. In Washington, DC and California, Hispanic women make only 44 cents for every dollar made by white men. The only deviation from the norm is that in 47 of 50 large metropolitan areas, well-educated single childless women under 30 earn more than their male counterparts.

But the overall disparities have worsened since the recession, with only about one-fifth of new jobs going to women, and with median wealth for single black and Hispanic women falling to a little over $100. And there's no respite with advancing age. The average American woman's retirement account is 38 percent less than a man's, and women over 65 have twice the poverty rate of men.

Minorities

The Economist states: Before the 1960s...most blacks were poor, few served in public office and almost none were to be found flourishing at the nation's top universities, corporations, law firms and banks. None of that is true today.

Wrong. Much of that is true today. According to the Economic Policy Institute (EPI), median wealth for black families in 2009 was $2,200, compared to $97,900 for white families. (Pew Research reported $5,677 for blacks, $113,149 for whites). EPI said median financial wealth (stocks, etc.) was $200 for blacks, compared to $36,100 for whites.

Since the recession, black and Hispanic wealth has dropped further, by 30 to 40 percent, while white family wealth dropped 11 percent.

Blacks and Hispanics, with 29% of the population, are also severely under-represented on corporate boards and in higher education.

One of the reasons it's so hard for young blacks to be successful is that they're viewed as criminals by many white authority figures. In The New Jim Crow, Michelle Alexander documents the explosion of the prison population for drug offenses, with blacks and Hispanics the main targets even though they use drugs at about the same -- or lesser -- rate as white Americans.

The Homeless

The super-rich want homeless people to get jobs. But they don't want to pay taxes to support job creation. If the richest Americans - the Forbes 400 - had paid a 5% tax on their 2012 investment earnings, enough revenue would have been generated to provide a full-time minimum wage job for every person who was homeless in America on a January night in 2012.

Instead, it keeps getting worse for the homeless. North Carolina made it a crime to feed them. Columbia, South Carolina approved a plan to remove them. Tampa, Florida passed a law that makes it a crime for them to sleep in public.

So who's left after all this? Oh yes, rich white men.

[Cin]

Where Labor Day Comes from, and Where It's Headed
We are in the grasp of oligarchs who think they owe nothing to a public that has made them so wealthy.

Webster's dictionary tells us that Labor Day was "set aside for special recognition of working people."

That's nice, but "set aside" by whom? It certainly wasn't the Wall Street corporate and political powers that be. They nearly swallowed their cigars when the idea of honoring labor's importance to America's economy and social well-being was first proposed in 1882. Rather, this holiday was created by the workers themselves, requiring a 12-year grassroots struggle that finally culminated with an act of Congress in 1894.

The campaign helped coalesce unions into a national movement. And its message of labor's essential role also countered the haughty insistence of the robber barons of that time. The barons insisted they were America's "makers"—the invaluable few whose monopolistic pursuits should be unfettered. For they claimed that they and their corporations were the God-ordained creators of wealth.

Despite their bloated sense of self-importance, notice that the American people do not celebrate a CEO Day. Indeed, as Abraham Lincoln put it, the real makers are the many ground-level workers who actually do the making: "Labor is prior to and independent of capital," Abe declared in his first state of the union address. "Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration."

Yet on Labor Day 2013, robber barons are again ascendant, declaring that they owe nothing—not even a shared prosperity—to the workers, consumers, taxpayers, and other American people who sustain them. Quite the opposite, they and their political henchmen are blithely shredding America's social contract and again insisting that the corporate elite must be unfettered, unions eliminated, and middle-class jobs Wal-Marted.

This intentional hollowing out of our middle class is not just ignorant, but also immoral

Yet today's establishment economists are asking: Why are so many people so glum? The Great Recession ended in 2009, they note, and even job creation is picking up. So come on people—get happy!

Maybe Labor Day is a good time to clue them into one big reality behind this so-called "recovery:" Most Americans haven't recovered. Not by a long shot. In June, median household income was still $3,400 less than in 2007, when Wall Street's crash started the collapse of our real economy.

Why are working people still so far down? Take a peek at those new jobs the economists are hailing. They're really "jobettes," paying only poverty-level wages, with no benefits or upward mobility. In the recession, about 60 percent of the jobs we lost were middle-wage positions, paying approximately $14 to $21 an hour. Most of those jobs have not come back. Instead, of the jobs created since the recovery began, nearly six out of 10 are low-wage, paying less than $14 an hour. A central fact of the new American economy is that working-class people are increasingly unable to make a living from their jobs.

To grasp this widening inequity, befuddled economists might bite into a burger or pizza. Seven of the 12 biggest corporations that pay their workers the least are fast-food giants. Yum! is one. It's a conglomerate that owns Pizza Hut, KFC, and Taco Bell. Workers don't find these chains so yummy; for pay averages $7.50 an hour, with no health care, pensions, etc. In contrast, Yum!'s CEO hauls off about $20 million a year, even as he dispatches lobbyists to oppose any hike in our nation's miserly minimum wage.

This is no way to run a business, an economy, or a society. Fast-food giants are hugely profitable. (Yum! quaffed down $1.3 billion in profits last year alone.) They are more than able to pay living wages and decent benefits, as many local, independently-owned fast-food businesses do. Deliberately and unnecessarily holding down an entire workforce by funneling rightful wages into the coffers of a few ultra-rich executives and big investors is shameful—and dangerous. After all, even a dog knows the difference between being stumbled over ... and being kicked.

At last, workers are beginning to kick back. All across the country, broad coalitions of religious leaders, unions, civil rights groups, community supporters, and others are joining thousands of fast-food workers in a rolling series of one-day strikes against particular chains, publicly shaming them for profiting through gross exploitation of employees. As one Baptist church leader said of his presence in these protests, "It's a matter of justice."

Yes—and that's what Labor Day has always been about.

[Cin]

Somebody should put this on a T-shirt.

Somebody did, but The National Security Agency did not think it was funny.

Quelle surprise; I always thought they had a great sense of humor.

http://www.salon.com/2013/08/30/the_..._wear_partner/

[CherylNYC]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/0...r=Gay%20Voices

KEY WEST, Fla. -- Looking dazed and sunburned, U.S. endurance swimmer Diana Nyad walked on to the shore Monday, becoming the first person to swim from Cuba to Florida without the help of a shark cage.

Nyad swam up to the beach just before 2 p.m. EDT, about 53 hours after she began her journey in Havana on Saturday. As she approached, spectators waded into waist-high water and surrounded her, taking pictures and cheering her on.

"I have three messages. One is, we should never, ever give up. Two is, you're never too old to chase your dream. Three is, it looks like a solitary sport, but it is a team," she said on the beach...

[*Anya*]

VA To Provide Benefits to Gays, says Administration

NY Times September 4, 2013

By CHARLIE SAVAGE

WASHINGTON — The Obama administration on Wednesday escalated its effort to dismantle federal barriers to same-sex marriages, announcing that the Department of Veterans Affairs would immediately begin providing spousal benefits to gay men and lesbians despite a federal statute that limits such benefits to veterans’ spouses who are “of the opposite sex.”

In letters to Congressional leaders, Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. said that President Obama had directed the executive branch to stop obeying the statute because it had decided that it was unconstitutional in light of a Supreme Court ruling in June that struck down a similar law, a part of the Defense of Marriage Act.

“Decisions by the Executive not to enforce federal laws are appropriately rare,” Mr. Holder wrote. “Nevertheless, for the reasons described below, the unique circumstances presented here warrant nonenforcement.”

The move will allow the same-sex spouses of service members to receive health care benefits, and widows and widowers from same-sex marriages to receive survivor benefits, among other matters.

After the Supreme Court ruling, many agencies — the Pentagon and the Internal Revenue Service among them — have been rewriting their regulations to define marriage in gender-neutral terms. Last month the military announced that the same-sex spouses of active-duty personnel would receive similar family and spousal benefits, including housing allowances.

But the V.A. is in a different situation because Congress codified its definition of who was eligible for spousal benefits as a statute, and lawmakers have not changed it.

Eric K. Shinseki, the secretary of veterans affairs, said last month in a letter released by Senator Jeanne Shaheen, Democrat of New Hampshire, that his agency was struggling with the question of providing benefits to surviving spouses because the statutory language defining “spouse” was slightly different from the law that the court had struck down.

In the letter, Mr. Shinseki said that although the Department of Veterans Affairs could recognize a same-sex marriage that is valid under state law, “nonetheless, a same-sex spouse whose marriage to a veteran was valid in the state where the parties resided at the time they entered the marriage would not meet the definition of ‘spouse’ ” under the federal statute for the purpose of veterans benefits.

Should Congress approve legislation revising the spousal definitions statute or should a court strike the law down, Mr. Shinseki added, the V.A. would swiftly adjust its policy.

Last week, a Federal District Court judge ruled that the veterans spouse statute was unconstitutional, but that ruling has not been reviewed by a higher court. But in his letters on Wednesday, Mr. Holder said there was no point in waiting for such a definitive result.

“In the meantime, continued enforcement would likely have a tangible adverse effect on the families of veterans and, in some circumstances, active-duty service members and reservists, with respect to survival, health care, home loan and other benefits,” he wrote.

The Obama administration’s decision to stop obeying the law without a definitive court ruling is a new step in its increasingly aggressive approach to providing same-sex marriage rights.
■

PUBLISHED SEPTEMBER 4, 2013

[Cin]

Elizabeth Warren assails Supreme Court as too far right

LOS ANGELES — Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren and AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka denounced the United States Supreme Court on Sunday as a right-wing panel that serves the interests of corporate America, previewing a theme that is likely to rise in prominence with the approach of the 2016 election.

On the opening day of the AFL-CIO’s convention, Warren — the highest-profile national Democrat to address the gathering here — warned attendees of a “corporate capture of the federal courts.”

In a speech that voiced a range of widely held frustrations on the left, Warren assailed the court as an instrument of the wealthy that regularly sides with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. She cited an academic study that called the current Supreme Court’s five conservative-leaning justices among the “top 10 most pro-corporate justices in half a century.”

“You follow this pro-corporate trend to its logical conclusion, and sooner or later you’ll end up with a Supreme Court that functions as a wholly owned subsidiary of Big Business,” Warren said, drawing murmurs from the crowd.

Speaking to reporters earlier Sunday, Trumka sounded a similar note on the Supreme Court, calling the current panel “the best champion of corporate America” and raising the prospect of a constitutional amendment to reverse the court’s rulings against campaign finance regulation.

“If may take a constitutional amendment, because this Supreme Court, as currently constituted, equates money with free speech,” Trumka said.

The heated rhetoric about judicial power underscores a simmering anxiety within the Democratic coalition: that only a slight change in the balance of power on the Supreme Court could shift the balance sharply in Democrats’ favor, or create a more conservative majority that would have struck down the narrowly upheld Affordable Care Act, and other liberal legislation in the future.

Warren’s reception in Los Angeles also underscored her core appeal to the progressive base of the Democratic Party. Her entrance into the convention hall was greeted was effusive applause; Trumka hailed her as “an honest-to-God champion, the real deal” and a senator who stands up to “billion-dollar corporations and Wall Street on behalf of working people.”

And indeed, the former Harvard Law professor’s speech was a populist paean to the role of labor in fighting “powerful interests [that] have tried to capture Washington and rig the system in their favor.”

In particular, Warren took aim at the financial services industry, touting the importance of the Dodd-Frank banking regulation law and calling for new separation between commercial and investment banking.

“The big banks and their army of lobbyists have fought every step of the way to delay, water down, block or strike down regulations,” Warren said. “When a new approach is proposed — like my bill with John McCain, Angus King and Maria Cantwell to bring back Glass-Steagall — you know what happens — they throw everything they’ve got against it.”

Departing from her prepared remarks, Warren alluded to the long-delayed confirmation of Richard Cordray to lead the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and told the crowd: “That’s your work.”

Warren drew some of the loudest applause of her precisely worded, sharply enunciated speech with a statement of skepticism about upcoming trade deals — debates that may pit Big Labor and liberal members of the Senate against the Obama administration.

“Wall Street, pharmaceuticals, telecom, big polluters and outsourcers are all salivating at the chance to rig upcoming trade deals in their favor,” Warren said. “I’ve heard people actually say that [trade deals] have to be secret because if the American people knew what was going on, they would be opposed.”

She continued: “I believe that if people would be opposed to a particular trade agreement, then that trade agreement should not happen.”

If the overall tone of Warren’s speech was relatively grim — not the kind of podium-pounding, emotive address that brings crowds to their feet — she closed with a riff that drew a standing ovation, proclaiming to the audience the good news that they have an electoral mandate to enact their agenda.

“I am proud to stand with you, to march with you, to fight with you,” she said. “Our agenda is America’s agenda and if we fight for it, we win.”

Returning to the stage after Warren concluded, Trumka sighed into the microphone: “Ah, if we could only clone her.”

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/0...ght-96449.html

[Cin]

5 Years Later, Wall Street Still Sucking Life Out of America Like Vampires at a Blood Drive
Only massive reform and no-holds-barred prosecutorial assault will drive a stake into the heart of this monster.

On Sept. 15, 2008, the Lehman Brothers collapse became the 9/11 of the financial world, sending the global economy into panic. Stocks plunged, credit dried up and working people were forced out of their homes. Jobs and pensions were wiped out in the ugliest financial episode since the Great Depression—mostly because the financial sector had gotten out of control..

Five years later, the big banks continue the most expansive crime spree in the history of capitalism, getting bigger, richer and bolder every day. Like undead creatures from a horror film, financial predators have spread themselves into every corner of society, preying and feeding and making us weaker. In an epic fail on the part of federal prosecutors and the SEC, no one at Lehman was ever prosecuted for financial shenanigans that included shady accounting practices former CEO Dick Fuld claims he didn't know about. As the five-year anniversary approaches and the statute of limitations runs out, we can be sure that no one will ever pay for Lehmans' crimes—except for us.

You could wallpaper your house with the list of dirty deals that have gone down since the financial crisis. JPMorgan sent $6 billion up in smoke in a bad bet, then lied about it to regulators. HSBC laundered money for drug cartels. Big banks manipulated the world’s benchmark interest rates. Every day, bankers defraud municipal and state finances with rigged deals that enrich them as schools crumble and children go without healthcare. There’s insider trading, racketeering, tax evasion, usury, and creative financial products set to explode in your face. Everything you can think of, and, alas, much that you can’t.

Oh, well, say the regulators. Stuff happens.

It’s perfectly obvious that if ginormous Wall Street banks don’t fear prosecution— and Attorney General Eric Holder told us flat-out they needn’t—then the cheating, lying, casino games, and law-breaking will continue. Jim Chanos, an early detector of the Enron fraud, warns that today’s Wall Street executives have even embraced the perverse logic that they have a fiduciary duty to cheat — if everybody else is doing it, says the executive, then I have an obligation to get in on the action.

Nothing but massive reform and no-holds-barred prosecutorial assault will drive a stake into the heart of this monster.

Yet on Tuesday, the smart financial reformer Eliot Spitzer lost his bid for NYC comptroller, a role in which he could keep public money out of the hands of financial predators, whose scams he understands. It can't escape notice that NYC is the home of several of the most powerful banking institutions on Earth: Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan Chase, Morgan Stanley and Citigroup. Or that newspapers, presumably on different sides of the political spectrum, melted into one giant anti-Spitzer bullhorn; ignoring positive polls, running biased stories and denouncing him on their editorial pages.

Economist and former regulator Bill Black noted in an email that “Wall Street was obsessed with defeating Eliot Spitzer in the Democratic primary election for Comptroller" and pointed out that his anti-financial fraud prosecution was extremely effective when he served as New York's attorney general: "An economic study found that victims of financial frauds received a substantially greater recovery of their losses when Spitzer's office was involved in cases compared to securities fraud cases where only the SEC brought an action." Clearly Wall Street doesn't like that kind of outcome.

It's not easy to find potent weapons against Wall Street predators, and in the meantime, we’re still waiting for reform. We wanted it so badly that we pitched tents in city parks during the Occupy movement to send the message, but the politicians wouldn’t hear us, because their ears were stuffed with Wall Street money. Thanks to an army of lobbyists unleashed in Washington, we can’t even seem to get the relatively timid Dodd-Frank rules designed to stop bankers from playing casino games with our savings.

The Federal Reserve could rein in the banks by splitting them up through antitrust laws, as economist Robert Reich has suggested. But we’d need someone at the Fed who is actually willing to take on this project. Unfortunately, over at the White House, we have Obama pushing crony capitalist poster boy Larry Summers for Fed chair—a man who played a key role in deregulating the financial sector, who has gleefully gorged himself on Wall Street money, and who, while in the White House, opposed even the weak Volcker Rule to curb risky trading contained in Dodd-Frank.

The banks continue to bigfoot their way around our legal and political systems, buying up whatever support they require to keep the show going.

If you think things have gotten pretty ugly, just stick around. Another financial crisis is likely. Former Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson just told a group of bankers and economists in Manhattan to expect it, and he has a unique perspective on the topic, having helped bring on the last one.

Paulson knows something else: This time the Democrats will likely be held responsible.

[Kelt]

Miss Tick

I notice the last three articles you have shared about economics do not have links to the original articles or any attribution/citation. I see you have provided them for other articles. Could you please provide them for these?

You are bolding and highlighting portions, were they originally written and published this way?
I like to know sources/have context since this is a news thread.

Thanks

[Cin]

Originally Posted by Kelt

Miss Tick

I notice the last three articles you have shared about economics do not have links to the original articles or any attribution/citation. I see you have provided them for other articles. Could you please provide them for these?

You are bolding and highlighting portions, were they originally written and published this way?
I like to know sources/have context since this is a news thread.

Thanks

No they were not originally written and published bolded or highlighted. I bolded and highlighted certain portions for emphasis. Although the emphasis is mine, they are otherwise written exactly as I posted.

Sorry for forgetting the links to the original articles. It was not purposeful. It's caused by my rushing through what I'm doing so I can be doing something else. A recurring issue of mine. I promise to watch more carefully in the future. And thank you for your interest. Here are the links in order of first to last.

http://www.alternet.org/hard-times-u...ory-capitalism

http://www.alternet.org/labor/where-...ere-its-headed

http://www.alternet.org/economy/lehm...rs-anniversary

Oh wait, I forgot this. The part in blue in the first article "8 groups most screwed over" is mine. It is this part "(the fact that it's only almost for single females reflects the lower wages for most women relative to men)" but it is referenced later in the article in the section entitled Women, "The average American woman's retirement account is 38 percent less than a man's, and women over 65 have twice the poverty rate of men." I should be more clear that when I post articles I put anything I have to say in blue. Like in post 3205. I should maybe add that whenever I post something in my own words near or in an article. Sorry.

[Kelt]

Originally Posted by Miss Tick

No they were not originally written and published bolded or highlighted. I bolded and highlighted certain portions for emphasis. Although the emphasis is mine, they are otherwise written exactly as I posted.

Sorry for forgetting the links to the original articles. It was not purposeful. It's caused by my rushing through what I'm doing so I can be doing something else. A recurring issue of mine. I promise to watch more carefully in the future. And thank you for your interest. Here are the links in order of first to last.

http://www.alternet.org/hard-times-u...ory-capitalism

http://www.alternet.org/labor/where-...ere-its-headed

http://www.alternet.org/economy/lehm...rs-anniversary

Oh wait, I forgot this. The part in blue in the first article "8 groups most screwed over" is mine. It is this part "(the fact that it's only almost for single females reflects the lower wages for most women relative to men)" but it is referenced later in the article in the section entitled Women, "The average American woman's retirement account is 38 percent less than a man's, and women over 65 have twice the poverty rate of men." I should be more clear that when I post articles I put anything I have to say in blue. Like in post 3205. I should maybe add that whenever I post something in my own words near or in an article. Sorry.

All good. Thanks for the clarification.

Most threads and posts it doesn't matter as it is our own voice. When using another persons writing I like to give attribution.

[Cin]

Why Do We Spend Billions on the National Security State While We Let Detroit Go Bankrupt?
During a peace-time economy, the budgets of the five intelligence agencies have grown exponentially while urban cities and social services have dwindled.

By Dr. Marsha Coleman-Adebayo
September 12, 2013 |

The existence of a secret US budget, amounting to a well-financed shadow government, used to spy on American citizens and monitor their daily activities, was always derisively consigned to insane conspiracy theorists. After recent revelations by National Security Agency leaker Edward Snowden, called a traitor and being forced to hide from the Obama Administration in Russia, the existence of this budget is no longer in question. Snowden has smoked out the details of the secret budgets used by the intelligence community, known as the “Black Budget.”

The reported amount of this budget is approximately $52.6 billion. These funds are in addition to the congressionally-approved budgets of the Armed Forces and the Department of Defense of $526.6 billion dollars for a total of more than half a trillion dollars. According to the National Priorities project:

“In the Obama administration 2014 fiscal year, the administration is seeking a $526.6 billion budget for the Department of Defense, not including war funding or nuclear weapons activities at the Department of Energy.”

According to the Washington Post, the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), National Security Agency (NSA) and National Reconnaissance Office (NRO) receive nearly 68% of the black budget. During a peace-time economy, the budgets of the five intelligence agencies have grown exponentially while urban cities and social services have dwindled. For example, the CIA budget was increased to $14.7 billion dollars, a 56% increase since 2004. The NSA budget for domestic and international spying has increased to $10.8 billion dollars or 53% since 2004. The NRO, the office purportedly responsible for designing, building and operating the country’s imagery satellites increased its budget to $10.3 billion dollars or 12% increase since 2004. The National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (NGIA) that provides imagery and map-based intelligence increased its budget to $4.9 billion dollars or an increase of 108% since 2004. Finally, in 2004 the General Defense Intelligence Program that conducts, collects and documents human and technical intelligence and media management within the DoD increased its budget to $4.4 billion dollars.

“Snowden has smoked out the details of the secret budgets.”

These kinds of intelligence organizations have operated in every repressive government to control populations, such as East Germany’s Stasi organization that deterred dissent, free speech and basic civil liberties of its people. In recent BAR articles, I explored “Big Brother” programs instituted and operated within the U.S. Federal government, such as the “Insider Threat Program,” created by President Obama under Executive Order 13587. This program is designed to predict any behavior by an employee in the government that could lead to blowing the whistle on corruption and abuse, contradicting his campaign promises to protect whistleblowers, enshrine government transparency, combat activities inimical to the very tenets of our basic democratic principles and rights under the law. (See BAR here, here and here.) Edward Snowden’s revelations continue to inform and illuminate the American media and public about a government operating in the shadows without accountability to the people or any pretense of adhering to democratic principles. We can only assume that there are additional funds unreported within these secrecy organizations. Yet, the country suffers from high structural unemployment, sky rocketing poverty rates, inferior education for low-income communities, infrastructure decline and environmental degradation.

The recent 50th anniversary of the historic March on Washington reminds us of the FBI surveillance of Dr. Martin Luther King in the 1960s that escalated after the march under the pretext that he was affiliated with communist organizations. This FBI surveillance earned King the label of “the most dangerous Negro in America.”

Had the US civil rights movement that was celebrated on the National Mall with pomp and presidential ceremony occurred today, the $56.2 Billion dollar budget and its thousands of foot soldiers would have left no stone unturned to undermine and destroy the movement and its leaders leaving some to face life in prison, like Bradley Manning, or others to seek refuge in foreign lands like Edward Snowden.

We now have a glimpse into the biology of the US shadow government that is stunning in depth, detail and viciousness. It allows cities and populations like Detroit to decay while exhorting the rich culture of Motown and the African heritage that gave rise to the music that became a global anthem. Dead children, particularly dead black children, perishing for lack of basic nutrition, disproportionate exposure to environmental toxins, a lack of access to quality education and an over exposure to societal violence continues while the national security state demands more power and money.

This week, the Huffington Post reports that, based on internal US government documents, “the NSA in partnership with the British government, has secretly been unraveling encryption technology that billions of Internet users rely upon to keep their electronic messages and confidential data safe from prying eyes.”

Welcome to the insane and violent world of the US national security state.

[Licious]

I consider Economic Violence to be the single most critical issue of our time. I feel that other ills spring forth in some way from this vile root. Power as economic force, implemented by dominating and keeping less advantaged persons powerless seems to be the name of the game.

Miss Tick, I appreciate the posts you have made regarding economic injustice.

Thanks so much!

I quote a portion of one of your posts...


Instead, it keeps getting worse for the homeless. North Carolina made it a crime to feed them. Columbia, South Carolina approved a plan to remove them. Tampa, Florida passed a law that makes it a crime for them to sleep in public.



How about all three?

Where I live, it is illegal to feed homeless without a permit, illegal for people to sleep in any public space, day or night. Even a harmless afternoon nap on the library lawn is illegal, and you will be ticketed. Any type of camping or sleeping day or night night in bushes/vacant lots is illegal of course.

Police patrol every night trying to find the poor sleeping in vehicles on the street, car, van, anythings... as it is illegal to sleep in a vehicle on city and county streets, day or night.

My city was caught putting homeless on buses and sending them to Los Angeles skid row, but stopped doing it.

Three years ago, my city had proposed a system for rounding up homeless and restricting them to a "zone". The first attempt failed. The zone was one small portion of town, near the industrial section, where most of the homeless shelters and several rehab centers are located.

Homeless people would have actually been ID'd and confined to a 7 block ghetto of sorts. (Anyone smell Nazi Germany here, or is that just me?) The first attempt failed. As I heard it... city counsel reviewed it and found the California State Constitution might be at odds, so got dropped. Rumor has it they may be working on a second version of this "law".

Oh, did I mention? In my City, two of the council members are heavily invested in local rehab centers and receive funds for consulting and admin fees, directly related to the number of clients in their facilities.

That takes me back to the first line of my post.

[Cin]

Originally Posted by Licious

I consider Economic Violence to be the single most critical issue of our time. I feel that other ills spring forth in some way from this vile root. Power as economic force, implemented by dominating and keeping less advantaged persons powerless seems to be the name of the game.

Miss Tick, I appreciate the posts you have made regarding economic injustice.

Thanks so much!

I quote a portion of one of your posts...


Instead, it keeps getting worse for the homeless. North Carolina made it a crime to feed them. Columbia, South Carolina approved a plan to remove them. Tampa, Florida passed a law that makes it a crime for them to sleep in public.



How about all three?

Where I live, it is illegal to feed homeless without a permit, illegal for people to sleep in any public space, day or night. Even a harmless afternoon nap on the library lawn is illegal, and you will be ticketed. Any type of camping or sleeping day or night night in bushes/vacant lots is illegal of course.

Police patrol every night trying to find the poor sleeping in vehicles on the street, car, van, anythings... as it is illegal to sleep in a vehicle on city and county streets, day or night.

My city was caught putting homeless on buses and sending them to Los Angeles skid row, but stopped doing it.

Three years ago, my city had proposed a system for rounding up homeless and restricting them to a "zone". The first attempt failed. The zone was one small portion of town, near the industrial section, where most of the homeless shelters and several rehab centers are located.

Homeless people would have actually been ID'd and confined to a 7 block ghetto of sorts. (Anyone smell Nazi Germany here, or is that just me?) The first attempt failed. As I heard it... city counsel reviewed it and found the California State Constitution might be at odds, so got dropped. Rumor has it they may be working on a second version of this "law".

Oh, did I mention? In my City, two of the council members are heavily invested in local rehab centers and receive funds for consulting and admin fees, directly related to the number of clients in their facilities.

That takes me back to the first line of my post.

Thank you Licious. I appreciate you saying that.

Here is an article addressing exactly what you said in your post:
http://www.alternet.org/economy/5-sc...ess?paging=off

It really isn't necessary though because you covered the issue thoroughly and admirably with your own words.

It's a scary new world and I shudder to think what the future holds for those of us who find ourselves economically challenged. The Masters of the Universe show no signs of stopping their plundering and in an oligarchy where the rich own pretty much everything and everyone, including the supreme court, it is near impossible to get any laws passed that would slow these cowboys down. We live in interesting times.