Archive | Front Page

Exit Polls Indicate Nation Suffering from Severe Memory Loss

Exit polls conducted across the country on Election Day indicate a nation suffering from severe memory loss, those who conducted the polls confirmed Tuesday night.

According to the polls, Americans who cast their votes today had a difficult time remembering events that occurred as recently as six years ago, while many seemed to be solid only on things that have happened in the past ten days.

While experts were unable to explain the epidemic of memory loss that appears to have gripped the nation, interviews with Americans after they cast their votes suggest that their near total obliviousness to anything that happened as recently as October may have influenced their decisions.

“I really think it’s time for a change,” said Carol Foyler, a memory-loss sufferer who cast her vote this morning in Iowa City. “I just feel in my gut that if these people were in charge they’d do a really amazing job with the economy.”

Harland Dorrinson, who voted in Akron, Ohio, and who has no memory of anything that happened before 2013, said his main concern was a terrorist attack on American soil.

“I really think we need to put a party in charge that won’t ever let something like that happen,” he said.

In Texas, exit polls showed strong support for George P. Bush, who was running for the Republican nomination for Texas land commissioner. “George Bush sounds like the name of someone who would be really good at running things,” said one voter.

The national exit polls revealed an electorate deeply fearful of a number of threats, including ISIS, Ebola, and, oh, what was that other thing?

 

ANDY BOROWITZ, The New Yorker

Continue Reading

Republicans didn’t win as big as you think they did. And Obama didn’t lose

In the end, there was no Republican wave. Indeed, ideologically it was barely a ripple. Unlike 2010, with the Tea Party, or 2006, when the Democrats took over, there was no all-encompassing agenda or over-arching theme. The Republicans won the US midterms – there’s no denying that – but they didn’t win as big as it first seems.

This election cycle included not only conservative-friendly states but a disproportionate number of competitive states in which incumbent Democrats were stepping down. Democrats have not won Louisiana or Arkansas in a presidential election since 1996, Georgia since 1992 and Alaska since 1964. A Democrat losing in these places is no great surprise. They were low-hanging fruit, and Republicans expended a lot of energy – and even more money – trying to get to it. They were successful. Democrats fared better on Tuesday night than they did in 2010, two years after which Barack Obama beat Mitt Romney. States where Democrats fared worse, like VirginiaNorth Carolina or Florida (in the governor’s race), are swing states that are always in play.

This election was not a referendum on Obama. Or if it was, it was inconclusive. He is as much the president in New Hampshire, where Democrats won a Senate seat, as in Colorado and Georgia, where they lost.

But the midterms were a reflection on Obama’s presidency. His second term has lacked purpose and direction as it has lurched from crisis to crisis, many of which – the NSA, the IRS, White House security – have been self-imposed. Where he has taken a stand, like on gun control after the shootings in Newtown, Connecticut, Obama was unable to achieve legislative change. Where he has not taken a stand, as with immigration reform, he is being punished for it. Polling shows the public actually backs Obama rather than Republicans on key issues, including mending rather than repealing Obamacareimmigration reformincreasing the minimum wagesame-sex marriage and a host of other issues. The problem is few people have any confidence that Obama will actually get any of them done.

Still, 2014 was hardly an endorsement of the Republicans. Red states like Nebraska and Arkansas voted to raise the minimum wage, Alaska and Oregon and Washington DC voted to legalize marijuana, and Washington state voted for a gun control measure. That the GOP has now taken control of the Senate marks a substantial change in terms of leadership but not a particularly consequential one in terms of legislation. The Republicans will emerge with only a small majority, and if the party’s recent experience running the House of Representatives is anything to go by, the GOP is likely to be a dysfunctional caucus – and anything Republicans do come up with that is unpalatable to Democrats, the president still holds a veto. Obama at times has proved himself in negotiations to possess the spine of a jellyfish, but unless he caves, nothing much more will get done this session than during the previous one.

Only this time the excuses will be different. Instead of Democrats blaming House Republicans for refusing to compromise, Republicans will blame Obama for thwarting the will of Congress. “Just because we have a two-party system doesn’t mean we have to be in perpetual conflict,” Mitch McConnell, the presumptive new Senate majority leader, said in his victory speech on Tuesday night. “I think I’ve shown that to be true at critical times in the past. I hope the president gives me the chance to show it again.”

According to a CNN exit poll, 8 in 10 Americans disapprove of how Congress has been handling its job, while almost 6 in 10 are displeased with President Obama. A full 44% have a positive view of Democrats; 40% have a positive view of Republicans. Americans have just elected the party they like the least to run the government body they least trust. Even greater cynicism is the most likely outcome.

On Tuesday night, the electorate wasn’t waving. It was drowning.

 

Gary Young, The Guardian

Continue Reading

Science Committee chair shrugs off terrifying new climate data

Over the weekend, the United Nations published a synthesis report of its “most comprehensive assessment of climate change ever.” As Jane C. Timm noted, “The 40-page report sums up 800 scientists’ thousands of pages of research from over 13 months, using an enormous amount of science to argue that carbon emissions must be dramatically reduced.”

The findings can fairly be described as terrifying. The New York Times’ report noted, “Failure to reduce emissions, the group of scientists and other experts found, could threaten society with food shortages, refugee crises, the flooding of major cities and entire island nations, mass extinction of plants and animals, and a climate so drastically altered it might become dangerous for people to work or play outside during the hottest times of the year.”

The U.N. report pointed to the “increasing the likelihood of severe, pervasive and irreversible impacts for people and ecosystems.”

And though the document was specifically intended to help provide guidance to policymakers, Republican officials just don’t care.
The chairman of the House Science, Space, and Technology Committee said on Sunday that a United Nations report that said the earth is heading toward “severe, pervasive, and irreversible” climate change impacts is “nothing new.”

Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas) said in a statement that he appreciates efforts “to better understand the complex science of our ever-changing planet,” but adds that the new report “says nothing new.”

“Similar to previous reports, the latest findings appear more political than scientific,” he said. “People are tired of the re-packaged rhetoric. It’s time to stop fear mongering and focus on an honest dialogue about real options.”
Smith may not fully appreciate what the word “scientific” means.

For elected U.S. officials, who are ostensibly interested in Americans’ well being, to casually dismiss terrifying warnings is alarming. It is not, however, surprising – contemporary Republican politics is dominated by a fairly aggressive strain of climate denial.

Indeed, it’s about to get considerably worse.

Ron Brownstein took a closer look at the 14 most competitive U.S. Senate candidates in the Republican Party this year, most of whom are favored to win.
[W]hile all 14 GOP contenders promise to fight the proposed Environmental Protection Agency climate regulations limiting power-plant carbon emissions, Ernst would eliminate the EPA itself – a position rarely heard. […]

Other than Terri Lynn Land in Michigan, who is the least likely to win, none of the 14 has endorsed the scientific consensus that carbon emissions are driving global climate change.
Of the U.S. House members poised to get a promotion to the U.S. Senate, all of them are such fierce climate deniers that they voted to prohibit the Pentagon from even considering the national-security implications of global warming.

The more serious the crisis becomes, the more forceful the GOP becomes in rejecting the science. History will not be kind.

 

Steve Benin, MSNBC

Continue Reading

Which Country Searches Google For The Most Gay Porn?

Google analyzed its data to report on gay porn search habits. Can you guess which countries found themselves in the top five searchers of gay porn on Google, according to the report? If you answered “countries that criminalize homosexuality,” you’d be mostly right! Except for South Africa, all of the top five countries that search for gay porn throw their gay people in prison — or worse.

Kenya, which took the tiara in the report, criminalizes homosexuality with prison sentences between five and 14 years.

Countries more tolerant of their LGBT citizens don’t appear until the latter half of the Top 10, starting with Australia and the U.S. at numbers seven and eight, respectively.

Does this report prove that criminalizing being gay doesn’t actually “rid” a country of homosexuality?

 

Jonathan Higbee, Instinct

Continue Reading

A 330-sq-ft former earthquake cottage in Telegraph Hill sells for $765K

When the refugee camps began closing a year after the big 1906 San Francisco earthquake and fires, anyone with a mule and a piece of land could take a U.S. Army-built earthquake shack and make it a home. These tiny cottages were dragged all over the city, but many of them ended up in Bernal Heights and the Sunset—outlying neighborhoods with plenty of room.

But, according to Socketsite, at least one ended up in densely populated Telegraph Hill, where land was already selling at a premium a century ago. Obviously, that trend has only continued and the 330-square-foot former shack at 1448 Kearny Street has recently sold for $765K—or over $2,000 a square foot.

Admittedly, the artist owner of the home has done as much as could be done to make the small single-family feel bigger, from white-washing the fir floors to raising the ceiling to adding a loft bedroom to making room for a walk-in closet. (Check out the gallery above for some impressive before and afters.) But even so, that price per square foot is pretty astounding considering that the average price per square foot in the neighborhood is about half that.

However, it is rare to find a condo in the neighborhood south of $1 million, and single-family homes in Telegraph Hill are practically nonexistent. So, even with the small footprint and no real room to expand, the sellers seemed to have no problem finding a buyer. It was listed in late September at $679K and closed less than a month later for nearly 100K over asking, netting the new owners a pricey piece of San Francisco history and honorary membership into the Tiny House Movement.

Emily Landis, SF Gate

Continue Reading

Charles Schwab Files Libel, Defamation Lawsuits against Beverly Hills Law Firm for Bogus Websites

Law Firm Steiner & Libo, Partner Leonard Steiner, Plaintiff Nicholas Behunin Sued by Charles Schwab Family For Libel

San Francisco-The Los Angeles law firm Steiner & Libo and one of its clients is being sued for defamation and libel for creating bogus websites as part of a plot to extract money from the family of respected investment advisor Charles R. Schwab, according to lawsuits filed today in Superior Court.

Legal complaints from Charles R. Schwab and his son Michael Schwab were filed against Steiner & Libo, partner Leonard Steiner, and plaintiff Nicholas Behunin of Los Angeles, Calif.

The lawsuits claims the law firm and its client knowingly made false claims on defamatory websites to purposely harm the reputation of the Schwab family in retaliation for not settling a lawsuit, which itself was an effort to shakedown the family.

The Charles R. Schwab lawsuit alleges the sites were “a tool for the extortion of Schwab” by creating the false impression that Mr. Schwab, his son, and family did business with a brutal dictator.

The defamatory sites state that Mr. Schwab sought to do business with the family of the late Indonesian dictator Suharto and his son Tommy Suharto, a convicted murderer. The sites advertise that Mr. Schwab can provide advice to investors on “how to profit from a brutal dictator” and methods to “launder money overseas.”

The Schwab lawsuits unequivocally state that neither Mr. Schwab nor his son Michael ever met President Suharto or Tommy Suharto or had any business dealings with them.

“The only reason to create these fraudulent websites was to besmirch the good name and reputation of Charles R. Schwab and his son Michael. Not one claim on the landing page of the site is true or correct and the guilty parties were aware of that prior to making the defamatory statements,” said attorney Robert R. Moore of the law firm of Allen Matkins, representing Charles R. Schwab.

The lawsuit claims “In sum, (Leonard) Steiner (Steiner & Libo and Nicholas Behunin) used the Websites as a tool for the extortion of Schwab.  The Website’s clear objective was, and is, to publicly embarrass and shame Schwab and then to leverage that public embarrassment into litigation advantage in Behunin’s lawsuit against Schwab.”

“The Defendants agreed to a scheme that included providing false and defamatory information to third parties who would post articles or blogs on the internet repeating the false and defamatory statements provided to them by Defendants…creating the impression that the false statements on the websites had been independently corroborated by the third-party posters,” according the lawsuit by Michael Schwab filed by his attorney David H. Schwartz.

Schwartz pointed to a false and defamatory story by HuffingtonPost.com blogger Bruce Fein entitled “Does This Schwab Charity Satisfy the IRS Perfume Test?<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bruce-fein/does-this-schwab-charity-_b_5978502.html>” which is based on the libelous and defamatory statements from the bogus websites.

The Schwab’s attorneys said the bogus websites were posted after they refused to pay $25 million to Nicholas Behunin, who, through his attorney Leonard Steiner, threatened to sue unless the payment was made.   When no payment was made, Behunin sued the Schwabs on May 28, 2014, to recover his purported ownership interest in a real estate development venture with Michael Schwab. (The case is Sealutions LLC et al. case number BC546925, in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles).

“The only purpose and intent of this scheme was to force a settlement through the implicit threat that Defendants would continue to disseminate such false and defamatory statements to the public unless and until Plaintiff and/or his father agreed to a settlement of the pending action,” according to the suit by Michael Schwab.

The Schwab legal filings claim that they initially contacted attorney Steiner in early October to inquire if he or his client was responsible for the websites. Steiner told them he had no knowledge of the sites, according the lawsuits.  The websites were registered anonymously. After further investigation, the Schwab’s attorneys found the sites were registered to Levick Strategic Communications public relations.  Later, after notifying attorney Steiner again, he still denied knowledge of them. After that contact with Steiner, the Schwab lawsuit says, the website was changed to include the name of Steiner & Libo law firm. In the past few days, the firm removed its name and now the site lists its owner as: N. Behunin.

Charles R. SchwabCharles R. Schwab

Continue Reading

Just Theater Presents the World Premiere IN FROM THE COLD

JUST THEATER (JT) presents the World Premiere of In From The Cold by Jonathan Spector, opening with a press night on Monday, November 3 (Previews Nov 1 & 2) running through November 23 in the Live Oak Theatre, 1301 Shattuck Ave (at Berryman) in North Berkeley, in which a Cold War spy’s past maybe isn’t past after all, the secret meaning of 80s movies is revealed, and its Ladies Night at Chilis. In From The Cold is a funny and provocative new play about what is means when you used to mean a lot, and now you don’t mean much anymore.

Following up on it’s hit production of A Maze, Just Theater brings this hilarious, troubling new work inspired by the little known true story of the Cold-War’s biggest spy. In From The Cold exposes the personal consequences of political actions and asks deep questions about the trade-offs we make in the name of our ideals. In From The Cold gives life to the actions of a former spy, playing out when a prodigal son returns home to take up residence in the basement with both funny and tragic results.

”A few years ago I discovered that one of the biggest spies from the Cold War had lived in hiding across the street from my suburban high school, and that I’d actually met him a few times. I’m always interested in people who are caught up in moments of great historical change, and in the incongruity of the large social forces and mundane everyday life – like the fact that this guy who may have prevented WWIII still had to worry about moving his car on Tuesdays for street sweeping.” remarks playwright and Just Theater Co-Artistic Director Jonathan Spector. In From The Cold is directed by Christine Young, featuring Seton Brown*, Julian Lopez-Morillas*, Harold Pierce, Sarah Moser*, David Sinaiko (*Actors Equity).

In From The Cold was a winner of Aurora Theater’s Global Age Prize, featured in Playwrights Foundation’s ROUGH reading series, and a finalist for the O’Neill Playwrights Conference. It was commissioned and developed in Just Theater’s New Play Lab.

Live Oak Theatre, Live Oak Park, 1301 Shattuck Ave,  (at Berryman) North Berkeley, CA 94709

Nov 1 – 23 (Previews Nov 1 & 2)

Performances: Thurs 7 pm Fri- Sat 8 pm Sunday 5 pm.

Continue Reading

Court Refuses To Intervene In Case of 40,000 Missing Voters In Georgia

—On Tuesday, Judge Christopher Brasher of the Fulton County Superior Court denied a petition from civil rights advocates to force Georgia’s Secretary of State to process an estimated 40,000 voter registrations that have gone missing from the public database.

Though early voting is well underway in the state, Judge Brasher called the lawsuit “premature,” and said it was based on “merely set out suspicions and fears that the [state officials] will fail to carry out their mandatory duties.”

Angela Aldridge, an organizer with the group 9 to 5 Atlanta Working Women who has been working to register voters for several months, told ThinkProgress she was “furious” when she learned of the outcome: “That impedes people’s rights,” she said. “People need information before they go out to vote and they don’t even know if they’re registered or not. They were discouraged, upset, kind of frazzled, not really knowing what was going on. What can you even say to people who want to vote but possibly can’t? They might get disengaged and say, ‘Why vote? It doesn’t matter.’ It’s really disheartening.”

The New Georgia Project, who spearheaded the voter registration drive and brought the lawsuit against the state, vowed Tuesday to “continue to pursue all legal avenues available.” But with the election mere days away, there may be little remedy for the tens of thousands of people who submitted all necessary documents, but have still not received a registration card. Four of those impacted voters were present at the court hearing, but were denied the opportunity to testify.

Dr. Francys Johnson, President of the Georgia NAACP, who represented the 40 thousand voters in the court, called the ruling “outrageous.”

“All in all – a republican appointed judge has backed the republican Secretary of State to deny the right to vote to a largely African American and Latino population,” Johnson wrote in a press release.
On Monday, dozens of Georgians occupied the Secretary of State’s office to demand he meet with them and explain what happened to the tens of thousands of missing registrations. At that protest, in which eight activists were arrested, former American Government teacher and civil rights lawyer Marsha Burrofsky told ThinkProgress she suspects foul play.

“When we started registering people this spring, people were saying, ‘You know, I registered six months ago, but I haven’t gotten anything yet!’ We thought that was strange,” she said. So we sat down with our list of registrations and checked, and about 20 to 20 percent were not showing up. We truly don’t know where things stand with them.”

Burrofsky said the people she registered in Dunwoody, Georgia, a more affluent and conservative community, did show up in the system, while those in more diverse and low-income communities in DeKalb County mysteriously disappeared.

“It just hadn’t occurred to me that this would be a tactic that the Secretary of State could use. I was very naive, I guess. I feel absolutely sick that this election is being stolen,” she said.
With the races for the state’s governor’s mansion and Senate seat too close to call, the missing voters could not only sway the political control of the state, but the political control of Congress’ upper chamber. Aldridge, who has spent several months registering voters in Fulton and Cobb County, told ThinkProgress that it is imperative to increase participation in marginalized communities so that elected officials better represent the constituents.

“I don’t believe that the government represents the whole state yet,” she said. “The politicians always say, ‘These are our values.’ But it has nothing to do with my personal values! That’s why we have to get out to vote, to make sure our state represents our values.”

Longtime Atlanta resident Atuarra McCaslin with Moral Monday Georgia, who organized Monday’s action, summed up his feelings on the situation. “It’s an unjust thing going on, he said. “Those 40,000 now can’t participate in the voting process, even though it’s their right as citizens. The Secretary of State doesn’t really care about those 40,000 people, who are primarily people of color and youth. Those kids have been waking up politically, and now their voices are going unheard. It’s just not right.”

ALICE OLLSTEIN, From Think Progress

Continue Reading

3-Month-old Baby Shoots Texas Man In The Face

This totally never happens except when it does. After another apparent accidental shooting, Houston police are investigating. This time, the culprit is a 3-month-old baby. You see, the baby had access to his binkie, a blankie and of course, a gun.

20-year-old Patrick Sanders was shot on Saturday after a gun fell out of his pocket during a nap and landed in the hands of an infant, according to Houston Press Blogs.

Sanders was napping on the couch in the living room of his apartment, according to the police report, when the gun stashed in his pocket slipped out and onto the floor.

What could go wrong?

Well, when the man awoke, he found his firearm in the hands of the three-month-old boy, HPD Homicide Division Sergeant R. Rodriguez and W. Gilbert said.

You know how babies are. Oh look, a shiny thing!

Sanders tried to grab the gun from the infant, which caused the gun to fire, resulting in the man being shot in the face.

The baby was not injured during the incident, according to the police report.

Sanders was transported to a local hospital where he is listed in critical condition. It’s not clear as to whether Sanders is the3-month-old shooter’s father or not.

On the plus side: At least the baby didn’t put the gun in its mouth. Babies tend to put everything in their mouths, like shiny things, for example.

As far as I know, the gun survived the incident and is ready for the next. I’m sure the NRA would support gun owners teaching little babies proper gun safety. “More guns” is totally the answer.

From Libraland

Continue Reading

RightWingRo.com Educates Republicans about the Truth Behind Ro Khanna’s Republican Support

We recently wrote about how Congressional Candidate Ro Khanna is a Democrat in name only at this point – even attracting criticism from Howard Dean for his anti-Democratic statements. Now it appears Khanna is courting Republicans by repeatedly calling on the political ghost of the former Republican Congressman Tom Campbell of San Jose.

But Campbell hasn’t endorsed Khanna and, as of today, the Mike Honda campaign is pushing back with a new website, RightWingRo.com, that educates voters about the real Republicans behind Khanna’s bid for Congress – aka, none other than the disgraced former Congressman Ernie Konnyu, who recently came under fire for some homophobic remarks.

“While Khanna has frequently drawn on the memory of former Congressman Tom Campbell in his last-ditch attempt to secure the conservative vote, Republicans deserve to know where Khanna’s support is actually coming from – former Congressman Ernie Konnyu, who Campbell defeated in the 1980s,” said Honda Campaign Manager Doug Greven in a statement. “We have launched this latest effort to provide Republicans with the facts behind the company Khanna keeps so that they can make an informed decision about who is best to represent the 17th Congressional District.”

Despite Konnyu’s questionable character, Khanna has not renounced Konnyu’s endorsement. In fact, he’s said he was “happy” to have the support of Konnyu, his highest-ranking Republican endorser who tried to rally the support of the Tea Party Express for Khanna in August.

The new website goes on to show how Konnyu was disowned by his own party in the 1980s after three aides accused him of sexual harassment. Even Campbell has attacked Konnyu for vulgarly addressing female aides and lobbyists. Campbell, who challenged Konnyu in 1988 and won, chided him for his “insensitivity” and “crassness,” and called Konnyu “a fraud,” and “a turkey,” according to media reports from the 1980s.

So, while Khanna may be courting Republicans, his highest-ranking Republican ally is a guy Republicans don’t even want on their team – not exactly a ringing endorsement for a candidate trying to establish credibility among some of the state’s savviest voters.

Continue Reading

By the Numbers: How Canada’s Gun Laws Compare to Ours

The Ottawa shootings at the National War Memorial and inside Parliament shone a light on our northern neighbor’s laws, which have often been credited with helping Canada avoid the multitudes of mass shootings the U.S. has seen.

Annual homicides by gun:

Canada had 173 homicides by gun, according to a 2012 report.
The U.S. had 9,146 that year.

Total number of civilian guns:

Canada has 9,950,000.
The U.S. has more than 27 times as many: 270,000,000.

Guns per person:

Canada reports 30.8 firearms per 100 people. The country ranks 13 worldwide for firearms per capita, according to a report published by The Washington Post in September
The U.S. has 88.8. It ranks No. 1.

Waiting period to purchase a gun:

Canada requires a 60-day waiting period.
There is no federally mandated waiting period.
In the U.S. Residents can receive a gun after a background check.

Largest mass shootings:

Canada’s largest mass shooting was in 1989, when 25-year-old Marc Lepine killed 14 people at Montreal’s École Polytechnique.
The U.S. has had 160 mass shooting incidents between 2000 and 2013, CNN reports from a study released by the FBI. The largest U.S. shooting was at Virginia Tech in 2007, when 23-year-old student Seung-Hui Cho killed 32 people. In 2012, twenty children and seven adults were killed at Sandy Hook Elementary School.

License and registration requirements:

To own a gun in Canada, residents must take a safety course and pass both a written and a practical exam. The license expires in five years. Residents have to register restricted firearms, such as handguns and automatic weapons, with the Royal Canadian Mounted Police’s Canadian Firearms Program.
In the U.S., license and registration laws vary from states to state, often with no such requirements. There is no mandatory course or exam.

Background checks:

Canada requires a background check that focuses on mental health and addiction. Agents are required to inform an applicant’s spouse or family before granting a license.
The U.S. requires a federal background check for all those buying guns from licensed dealers but does not require one in private transactions such as at gun shows.

 

(Information is gathered from data collected by the Small Arms Study, The United Nations Office on Drug and Crime, and the Canadian Firearms Program).

Samantha Cowen, TakePart

Continue Reading

14 Facts About The Obama Presidency That Most People Don’t Know

People have many perceptions of how the US economy or the country as a whole is doing in recent years. Depending on your political views, you may think the country is doing exceptionally well or on the verge of collapse.

Listed below are 14 objective facts, without interjecting any opinion, about the state of America under the leadership of President Obama. Every statement is followed up with a link to a source where you can verify these facts for yourself.

1. We’ve now had 63 straight months of economic expansion.

That’s right, for 63 consecutive months the US economy has gotten progressively better. That includes 54 consecutive months of private sector job growth. Forbes magazine, no fan of President Obama, crunched the numbers and demonstrated how the economic recovery under President Obama has been better in just about every measurable way than the recovery under President Reagan.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/adamhartung/2014/09/05/obama-outperforms-reagan-on-jobs-growth-and-investing/

2. We are currently enjoying the longest period of private sector job creation in American history.

Again, this statistic comes from the Forbes Magazine article listed above. In fact, we have now had 54 straight months of private sector job creation. That is the longest period of job creation since the Department of Labor has been keeping statistics. See the link below.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/wp/2014/09/15/obamas-claim-that-businesses-are-in-the-longest-uninterrupted-stretch-of-job-creation/

3. Unemployment has dropped from 10.1% in October of 2009 to 5.9% and projected to reach 5.4% by summer of 2015.

Not only has the unemployment rate dropped significantly, but since the recession ended, our economy as added over ten million new jobs. You can refer to the Forbes article above or check this article on PoliticsUSA.

http://www.politicususa.com/2014/09/05/jobs-report.html

4. The stock market continues to set new records since President Obama has been in office.

Since early 2009 there has been a steady trend in stock market growth. The Dow Jones Industrial averages reached an all-time high of 17,098 in August, 2014. Since most Americans have 401K retirement investments in the stock market, this stock market growth benefits millions of middle class Americans.

http://www.macrotrends.net/1358/dow-jones-industrial-average-last-10-years

5. The Federal budget deficit is shrinking. It’s been reduced by two-thirds since 2009.

The $1.4 trillion federal budget deficit that Obama inherited in 2009 was in a large part due to the high rate of unemployment. When millions of people were put out of work in 2008 and 2009, it resulted in far less income taxes and less economic activity to generate federal revenue. As ten million people have been put back to work, there have been billions more tax dollars generated. As a result, the deficit has been shrinking each year. The 2014 deficit is projected to be around $500 billion, the smallest deficit since 2007 and roughly 1/3 of what it was in 2009.

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/federal_deficit_chart.html

6. Under President Obama, spending has increased only 1.4% annually, the lowest rate since Eisenhower was president.

You may have heard critics say that President Obama is spending money wildly and running up our debt. According to this article from Forbes, Obama has increased spending by 1.4% annually, far less than President Reagan (8.7%) or George W. Bush (8.1%). In fact, Obama has increased spending less than any president since Eisenhower.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2012/05/24/who-is-the-smallest-government-spender-since-eisenhower-would-you-believe-its-barack-obama/

7. For 95% of American taxpayers, income taxes are lower now than just about any time in the previous 50 years.

After President Obama took office, thousands of Tea Party members all over the country held rallies protesting Obama’s tax increases. At that time, President Obama had actually passed several tax cuts to stimulate the economy. Most of the Tea Partiers who were protesting had only seen their taxes decrease under Obama. Yet polls indicated that most Tea Party members wrongly believed their taxes had gone up.

In fact, the only people whose income taxes have gone up during Obama’s presidency are those making $400,000 per year or more. That’s less than 2% of the population. Today, for the vast majority of people, tax rates are exactly where they were when Obama first took office or lower. The article below from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities explains this in greater detail.

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=3151

8. Our dependence on foreign oil has shrunk due to record domestic oil production and improved fuel efficiency standards.

While some people claim that oil production has declined under President Obama, the truth is just the opposite. Oil production has reached record highs. The United States now produces so much oil that we export more oil and gasoline than we import.

http://www.indexmundi.com/g/g.aspx?c=us&v=88

9. At least 7 million more Americans now have health insurance than before.

Depending on whose numbers you use, between 7 and 10 million Americans acquired health insurance due to the Affordable Care Act. Now that those 7 to 10 million Americans have insurance, the rest of us are no longer on the hook to pay for their health care when they get sick. This saves the American people billions of dollars in the long run.

http://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-care/obamacare-helped-10-million-get-insurance-gallup-finds-n78446

10. The Affordable Care Act has added years to the life of Medicare.

The Medicare trust fund had been on course to run out of money by the end of 2016. But due to cost savings from the Affordable Care Act and lower healthcare expenses, Medicare’s trust fund is now stable until the year 2030 without cutting benefits.

http://online.wsj.com/articles/medicare-social-security-headed-in-different-directions-1406564712

11. Since passage of the Affordable Care Act, we are seeing the slowest rate of increase in healthcare costs since 1960.

Contrary to the predictions from Republicans, health care costs have increased at a much slower pace since the passage of the ACA.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/docs/healthcostreport_final_noembargo_v2.pdf

12. We currently have fewer soldiers, sailors and airmen in war zones than any time in over 10 years.

With the end of the Iraq war and the steady withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan, we have fewer people in war zones now than any time since 2002.

13. There have been zero successful attacks by al Qaeda on US soil since Obama became president.

Despite Dick Cheney’s claim that if voters elect a Democrat as president, we’ll be “hit again and hit hard” by al Qaeda, we have actually been far safer from terrorist attacks on US soil in recent years than we were under the previous president. There have been several unsuccessful attacks against the US under both presidents, but under Obama, al Qaeda has been largely unsuccessful in striking the US on our home soil.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_al-Qaeda_attacks

14. We now successfully catch and deport more illegal immigrants than ever before.

Despite the publicity from busloads of children who illegally entered the country, the numbers prove that President Obama has deported more illegal immigrants than any other president.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/aug/10/american-principles-action/has-barack-obama-deported-more-people-any-other-pr/

All of the facts stated above can be confirmed through multiple sources, yet most Americans are not aware of all of this positive news. I invite you to do your own research and check these facts for yourself.

The truth is, most other presidents would envy President Obama’s record despite the fact that he inherited the worst economic crash since the Great Depression.

Here’s a bonus. If you feel particularly ambitious, feel free to research these additional facts.

  1. Since Obama became president, our economy has gone from losing 800,000 jobs per month to adding 200,000 jobs per month. That’s a net improvement under Obama of about 1 million jobs per month!
  2. Before Obama became president, our financial system was in ruins and millions of people were at risk of losing their life savings. Now, the financial loopholes have been fixed and we are no longer at risk of another financial collapse.
  3. In 5 years under Obama the economy has created twice as many jobs as were created in 8 years under George W. Bush.
  4. President Obama passed credit card reforms that protects consumers from excessive fees, rate hikes, deceptive marketing and unreasonable due dates.
  5. Thanks to “Obamacare”, senior citizens have saved billions of dollars on prescription drugs.
  6. The Affordable Care Act requires insurance companies to spend at least 80% of your premiums on health care. As a result millions of Americans have received refunds from their health insurance companies.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/07/24/health-insurance-rebates_n_5614570.html

Despite the unprecedented obstructionism and record number of filibusters used by Republicans to kill even the most routine legislation, the fact remains, in almost every measurable way, the American people are profoundly better off today than they were before President Obama took office.

From Hub Pages

Continue Reading

CA School to Become First Vegan School in the Country

The United States will have its first ever all vegan school in 2015.

MUSE School CA was founded by environmental activist Suzy Amis Cameron (aka wife of James Cameron) and her sister Rebecca Amis back in 2006. Since then, kids have been encouraged to “live consciously within themselves” and with solar panels across the school, classrooms built with recycled materials and 160 raised boxes for planting produce on site, the school has been doing the same. Now, getting rid of meat for good is the next eco-friendly move.

“Each year since I’ve been here, we’ve eliminated one or two days of meat to the point where now we’re just serving one meat meal a week,” said Kayla Webb, who started working at the school three years ago when it served organic meat at lunch for students and staff every day of the week. “Starting next year, it’s going to be completely plant-based eating.”

 

vegan school

In a recent interview with Ecorazzi, Amis Cameron said earlier this year that the switch was a goal for the school but was also a sensitive subject to discuss with the parents.

“If the families have an issue with it, depending on what they want to do in their own homes, it’s a lunch and a snack. It will be up to them if they want to feed their children differently for breakfast and dinner [and on weekends]. MUSE is an environmental school and we walk our walk in every other respect. This was just one of those ah-hamoments, which made us realize we aren’t walking our walk 100 percent if we’re still serving animal products,” she explained.

To make sure the transition to a completely plant-based meal plan went smoothly, MUSE offered a speaker series with doctors and cookbook authors that was also open to the public. Now the school doesn’t offer any meat, dairy or soy products and instead of soda, the 175 people on the two campuses get to drink water and tea.

“By 175 people eating one meal a day, we have begun to reduce our carbon footprint by over half a ton per person, which over a nine month period, is the equivalent of taking 25 cars off the road which would have driven 300,000 miles,” said Dr. Reese Halter, chair of mathematics and science at MUSE.

It was that environmental impact in addition to all health benefits that initially made Cameron and her husband go vegan. The multi award winning director has lost weight and claimed he has more energy since going on the plant based diet.

Across the country, in Queens, where Public School 244 made the choice in January to go vegetarian, the same results have been witnessed so far. School officials said that kids are not only loving the new menu but the healthier foods have led to higher attention spans and test scores.

From Ecorazzi

 

Continue Reading

Scottie’s terrible horrible no good very bad debate

You gotta love the fact that Scott Brown is providing the comic relief for yet one more election cycle. It’s just gravy that he’s doing it this year as a carpetbagger. Today’s fun can be found in Tuesday night’s debate, moderated by NBC’s Chuck Todd. Todd asked him to provide the evidence for his contention that ISIS was poised at the border to attack the U.S. from Mexico. Scottie’s response?

BROWN: With respect, I did not say that. What I have said is that ISIS is real.

Um, no, as a matter of fact. And much to Scottie’s detriment, there’s this thing now called the internet that helps keep a record of all the times he said that ISIS could attack the U.S. from Mexico. Dave Weigel does the research. There was when he said it last month in a foreign policy speech (“these ISIS thugs have been saying for months that they’re going to send people here to kill Americans on as big a scale as they can, and never mind that a porous border is the most obvious pathway for terrorists to enter our country”), and onFox News (“There’s deep concerns that there are members of ISIS actually coming through the border right now”), and last week on the radio, when he threw in some Ebola just for fun (“I think it’s naive to think that people aren’t going to be walking through here who have those types of diseases and/or other types of intent, criminal or terrorist”).But the most entertaining whopper from Scottie of the evening, at least for the New Hampshire crowd, was when Todd asked him why he passed up on the opportunity to run for the Senate again in Massachusetts special elections. “Because I live here,” said Scottie, and you can immediately hear the laughs and the skeptical guffaws from the crowd. He doubles down, “I was born at the Portsmouth Naval shipyard!” And the crowd laughs even harder. “My mom was a waitress at Hampton Beach!” And the crowd gives up on him entirely.

Ah, Scottie, thanks for all the laughs. But we really won’t miss you when you’re gone. On the other hand, there are 48 other states you could try.

 

Joan Carter, Daily Kos

 

Continue Reading

Koret Foundation Criticized for Sexism in Lawsuit Against Susan Koret

Koret Foundation Should Apologize for Statements Against Immigrant and Domestic Workers

Partner of the San Francisco law firm Greene, Radovsky, Maloney, Share & Hennigh

Partner of the San Francisco law firm Greene, Radovsky, Maloney, Share & Hennigh

 

Anita Friedman, JFCS

Anita Friedman, JFCS

 

San Francisco—A diverse group of immigrant, domestic worker, labor and Jewish advocates demanded the Koret Foundation apologize for and withdraw negative comments directed against Susan Koret, the widow of Koret Foundation founder Joseph Koret, who sued for the Foundation for misdirecting and misusing monies from her husband’s fortune that were meant for the poor.

“The comments by the Koret Foundation and its spokesperson denigrate not only Ms. Koret, but they demean people of color, women, and those workers who tirelessly give their lives to improving the lives of others,” said Alysabeth Alexander.

At issue was a statement by official Koret Foundation spokesman Nathan Ballard who told the media, in response to Ms. Koret’s lawsuit, that “Susan was a housekeeper to Joe Koret and his first wife, Stephanie, and was only married to him for a brief period.” Mr. Ballard is also the spokesman for the Golden State Warriors NBA basketball team.

The group said Ballard’s “denigration of Susan Koret’s background as a housekeeper in an attempt to discredit her is both sexist and classist and should have no place in the public discourse in San Francisco. His statement and language is purposely designed to demean and denigrate women, immigrants, and domestic workers and is unacceptable under any circumstance.”

The group also wrote the Foundation in its letter, saying “While we cannot speak to Ms. Koret’s service on your Board of Directors, we can say that some of the Koret Foundation’s contributions to conservative, right-wing causes that were highlighted in recent news articles are anathema to those of us who work every day to lift up low-wage workers, immigrants, women, and communities of color.”

The letter was sent to the entire Koret Foundation board, including real estate investor Tad Taube; Richard L. Greene of Greene Radovsky Maloney Share & Hennigh; Anita Friedman, the executive director of director of Jewish Family and Children’s Services in San Francisco; Richard Atkinson, former president of the University of California; Michael J. Boskin, Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution; and Abraham D. Sofaer, Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution.

The Koret Board is expected to attend  the opening next week in Warsaw, Poland, of the Museum of the History of Polish Jews. There may be protests in Warsaw against the Koret Foundation because of  the alleged misdirection of Koret funds to the museum by Taube and the Koret Board and their alleged discrimination against Mrs. Koret.

The full text of the letter is below:

 

Open Letter to the Koret Foundation Board of Directors

October 17, 2014

It is with great concern we write to you regarding comments made by your spokesperson, Nathan Ballard, in the San Francisco Chronicle on October 8th about Susan Koret.

“Susan was a housekeeper to Joe Koret and his first wife, Stephanie, and was only married to him for a brief period. Susan is an incompetent director who lacks even a basic understanding of the foundation and its operations.”

Mr. Ballard’s denigration of Susan Koret’s background as a housekeeper in an attempt to discredit her is both sexist and classist and should have no place in the public discourse in San Francisco. His statement and language is purposely designed to demean and denigrate women, immigrants, and domestic workers and is unacceptable under any circumstance.

From reports, we understand that Susan Koret is an immigrant from Korea who began her career as a housekeeper. While we can’t speak to her personal experience or to the legal dispute at the Koret Foundation, we know that the contributions of millions of immigrant women–a great many of whom are domestic workers–should never be slighted.

Domestic workers care for our children, our parents, our elderly, and our communities. Many of us in San Francisco have fought to get the importance of domestic work recognized, so that the workers can enjoy many of the same right that the rest of us take for granted. With a significant legislative victory this year in Sacramento, now is not the time to go backwards.

We know that millions of immigrant women work tirelessly to improve the lives of their families and communities. This experience provides a critical perspective that is often-times missing when important decisions are made.

While we cannot speak to Ms. Koret’s service on your Board of Directors, we can say that some of the Koret Foundation’s contributions to conservative, right-wing causes that were highlighted in recent news articles are anathema to those of us who work every day to lift up low-wage workers, immigrants, women, and communities of color.

We demand that the Board of Directors and Nathan Ballard immediately apologize for and withdraw the negative comments directed against Ms. Koret that demean all people of color, women, and those workers who tirelessly give their lives to improving the lives of others.

Sincerely,

National Domestic Worker Alliance

Alysabeth Alexander, Vice-President of Politics, SEIU Local 1021*

Juanita Flores, Co-Director, Mujeres Unidas y Activas

Katie Joaquin, Campaign Director, CA Domestic Workers Coalition

Hene Kelly, Jewish Labor Committee*

Andrea Lee, Co-Director, Mujeres Unidas y Activas

Shaw San Liu, Tenant and Workers Organizing Center, Chinese Progressive Association*

Kay Vasilyeva, Former Board Member, SF Women’s Political Committee*

*organization listed for identification purposes only — does not imply organizational endorsement

Continue Reading

Judge tosses S.F. law meant to shield evicted tenants

San Francisco apartment owners scored a major victory Tuesday when a federal judge declared unconstitutional the city’s attempt to shield evicted tenants from soaring rents by substantially increasing the relocation fees the tenants must be paid by landlords who decide to get out of the rental business.

The law, which took effect in June, requires property owners to pay displaced tenants the difference for two years between the current rent and the amount needed to rent a comparable unit in the city at market rates — more than $100,000 in most cases. That violates property rights, said U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer, because it requires owners to pay for conditions they didn’t cause — the skyrocketing prices of rental housing, and the gap between market rates and maximum charges under the city’s rent-control law.

The ordinance “seeks to force the property owner to pay for a broad public problem not of the owner’s making,” said Breyer, who held a one-day trial in the case this month. “A property owner did not cause the high market rent to which a tenant who chooses to stay in San Francisco might be exposed, nor cause the lower rent-controlled rate the tenant previously enjoyed.”

He said the city’s claim of a causal link between a landlord’s actions and the relocation fees was further weakened by the fact that the ordinance did not require tenants to spend the fees on replacement housing in San Francisco, or anywhere else.

Breyer stayed his ruling until Friday to give the city time to ask a federal appeals court to intervene. Gabriel Zitrin, spokesman for City Attorney Dennis Herrera, said Herrera was “very disappointed” by the ruling and would decide whether to appeal in the next few days.

Previous ordinance

An earlier city ordinance, enacted in 2005 and upheld by the courts, required landlords to pay displaced tenants $4,500 plus inflation adjustments, an amount that Breyer said was roughly equal to the expenses they face in moving out. But tenant advocates said it came nowhere near the actual costs of finding new housing.
The author of the new ordinance, Supervisor David Campos, urged Herrera to continue defending it.

“When you stand up against powerful special interests like San Francisco did, by demanding fair payments to tenants evicted under the Ellis Act, you can expect those interests to fight back,” Campos said in a statement. “That’s what we’re seeing right now. This is not a permanent setback.”

Dean Preston, executive director of Tenants Together, a statewide advocacy organization that filed arguments in support of the ordinance, criticized the ruling. He said the Ellis Act, a state law allowing property owners to evict all their tenants without cause when they leave the rental business, contemplated that local governments could pass laws to reduce the impact on tenants.

“There’s no reason why the city can’t tie that (landlord’s decision) to the cost of displacement,” Preston said.
But J. David Breemer of the Pacific Legal Foundation, a lawyer for landlords who challenged the ordinance, called the ruling “a great win for property rights.”

‘Pay a ransom’

Campos’ measure “requires property owners to pay a ransom simply to stop being landlords and use their own property,” Breemer said. “Property owners didn’t cause the affordable housing crisis. The public should address it, not put it on the backs of property owners.”

The lead plaintiffs, husband and wife Daniel and Maria Levin, bought a two-unit North Beach building in 2008 with a single downstairs tenant. The Levins, who lived upstairs, filed an Ellis Act eviction in December, saying they wanted to use the lower unit for family members. The eviction was still pending when the new ordinance took effect, requiring the couple to pay their tenant nearly $118,000, the difference between the current rent and two years’ payments on a comparable unit elsewhere.

Breyer said the ordinance was unprecedented and violated a constitutional principle: When the government confiscates private property, by condemning land or exacting a fee for owners’ use of their property, the price must be at least “roughly proportional” to the impact of the owners’ actions.

Judge’s assessment

“The ordinance requires an enormous payout untethered in both nature and amount to the social harm actually caused by the property owner’s action,” the judge said. He said Ellis Act evictions — just over 200 in a recent 12-month period, in a city with more than 230,000 rental units — have little impact on the housing crisis or on tenants’ relocation costs.

“San Francisco’s housing shortage and the high market rates that result are significant problems of public concern, and the city (supervisors’) attempts to ameliorate them are laudable,” Breyer said. “But there are outer limits to how this may be done.”

By Bob Egelko, SF Chronicle

Continue Reading

GOP governor: Obamacare has made ‘real improvements in people’s lives’

Once in a great while, a politician will slip and accidentally tell the truth. Take Ohio Gov. John Kasich (R), for example, who inadvertently praised the Affordable Care Act.

“Repeal and replace” has been a Republican mantra for nearly as long as Obamacare has been in existence. Yet one of the GOP’s rumored 2016 front-runners isn’t playing along.

Ohio Gov. John Kasich, who is expected to cruise to reelection this year and then seek the Republican nomination in 2016, recently told the Associated Press that repealing the Affordable Care is “not gonna happen.” “The opposition to it was really either political or ideological,” he said. “I don’t think that holds water against real flesh and blood, and real improvements in people’s lives.”

You could almost hear Kasich’s national ambitions evaporating as the AP article made the rounds.

In context, it’s hard to tell whether the Ohio Republican was speaking about the Affordable Care Act overall or specifically the part of the law related to Medicaid expansion, which Kasich has long supported. In either case, for a prominent GOP policymaker – a former Fox News analyst, no less – to admit out loud that all or part of “Obamacare” is making “real improvements in people’s lives” is a striking development. Kasich’s assessment, which happens to be true, is a reminder that the right’s repeal crusade has already died with a whimper.

Of course, Kasich was forced to scramble last night, undoing the political damage done by his candor. The Ohio governor turned to Twitter to say, “As always, my position is that we need to repeal and replace,” but the damage was already done. Kasich has already made clear – in words and deeds – that he sees no future in repealing the entirety of the federal health care system. Indeed, was fairly explicit on this, telling the AP that the right-wing arguments don’t hold water “against real flesh and blood.”

Jonathan Cohn added a good point:

This is heresy on the political right, although it shouldn’t be. It’s easy to forget, but the basic idea of Obamacare – a system of competing private insurance plans, with subsidies to help lower income people pay them – used to have the support from many conservatives. Many of the law’s features, like a cap on the tax exemption for group health insurance, remain popular on the right. And while Republicans don’t typically like Medicaid, there’s a long history of Republican governors working with Washington to implement the program in ways that ultimately benefit their states.

The reason you don’t hear more praise like this from Republicans is largely political (it’s Obama’s law) and ideological (it involves some government intervention) – which, of course, was precisely Kasich’s point.
In fact, I’d add that Kasich, during his congressional tenure, introduced a health care reform plan of his own, and looking back at his 1994 blueprint, Kasichcare looks pretty similar to Obamacare.

In the short term, Kasich’s candor on health care probably won’t have much of an effect on his career – the incumbent governor has a big lead in the polls over his Democratic challenger, and with just two weeks remaining, it’ll take more than honest rhetoric about health care to shake up that race.

But in the long term, the Ohio Republican has committed a mortal Republican sin by giving away a secret the GOP tries to keep hidden: President Obama’s health care reform system is actually helping people, and its opponents on the right largely deserve to be ignored. Were Kasich to run for national office, this would be quite an albatross.

Steve Benin, MSNBC

Continue Reading

Isis fighters ‘crucify’ 17-year-old boy in Syria

Isis fighters have reportedly executed a 17-year-old boy and left his body on display on a cross in Syria.

Pictures being shared online show a banner attached to the teenager’s chest saying the boy has been crucified for taking photos of Isis military bases, as well as receiving “500 Turkish lira” for any footage taken.  

The message describes the ruling for the alleged crime as “apostasy” and states the teenager has been “killed and crucified for a period of three days” as the punishment.

The alleged execution comes after it emerged Isis militants had beheaded their own fighters for spying and espionage.

It is not known who took the picture, which was circulated across social media by some Isis supporters on Friday.

Charlie Winter, Programs Officer at counter-extremism think tank the Quilliam Foundation, said crucifixion is a prescribed punishment meted out by Isis for specific crimes.

He told The Independent: “Crucifixion has been used many times before – it’s an age-old punishment dealt out to people who have committed treason.”

He said this punishment arises from Isis’s fundamentalist interpretation of Verse 33 of the fifth book of the Koran, which reads: “Indeed, the penalty for those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger and strive upon earth [to cause] corruption is none but that they be killed or crucified or that their hands and feet be cut off from opposite sides or that they be exiled from the land.

“That is for them a disgrace in this world; and for them in the Hereafter is a great punishment.”

However, he said the next very next verse emphasises forgiveness and removes the imperative to use such a punishment, saying: “Except for those who return [repenting] before you apprehend them. And know that Allah is Forgiving and Merciful.”

Mr Winter said the apostasy ruling suggested a fusion of theological and statutory terms.

The recent killing follows a series of executions in Raqqa in May believed to have been committed by Isis militants, where bodies were left suspended on wooden crosses for two days.

In March, the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights said Isis crucified a man for “purposefully killing a Muslim to take his money”.

 

From The Independent

Continue Reading

First Gay Couples In Arizona Get Married, Gov. Jan Brewer Losing Her Shit by Dan Avery

Karen Bailey and Nelda Majors, who have been together for 58 years, became the first same-sex couple to get married in Arizona after a federal judge declared the state’s ban on marriage equality unconstitutional.

They met in college, where they lived in the same dorm, and started out as friends. But things blossomed a few months later: “I came back from spring break and told Nelda I loved her,” Bailey revealed to Why Marriage Matters Arizona, “It was all so new and amazing for me.”

Outside the Maricopa County Superior Court today, Majors, 76, said, “I have no words to express how I feel. It’s wonderful!”

Another couple—David Larance, 36, and Kevin Patterson, 31—married outside the county clerk’s office in downtown Phoenix. Patterson rushed straight from the gym when the verdict was announced and was so excited he forgot to bring a ring.

“I feel a lot of gratitude that this day finally came,” he told The Republic.

One Arizonan who’s not feeling gracious, however, is Governor Jan Brewer. (You know, the lady shook a pointed finger at President Obama on an airport tarmac with armed Secret Service only a few feet away.)

She’s furious that gay and lesbian couples have been allowed to marry in her state, now that Attorney General Tom Horne revealed he wouldn’t appeal today’s ruling.

arizona jan brwer

In a press release Brewer ranted that “the federal courts have again thwarted the will of the people” and eroded individual states’ rights.

It is not only disappointing, but also deeply troubling, that unelected federal judges can dictate the laws of individual states, create rights based on their personal policy preferences and supplant the will of the people in an area traditionally left to the states for more than 200 years.

As Justice Scalia opined, such action is tantamount to ‘an assertion of judicial supremacy over the people’ and is an image of the judiciary ‘that would have been unrecognizable to those who wrote and ratified our national charter.’

Brewer insisted that determining who can get married “is not the role of the judiciary.”

Perhaps she’s forgotten landmark cases like Loving v. Virginia? Or maybe it’s just more convenient to ignore them.

Regardless, congratulations to all the lucky couples today!

 

 

by Dan Avery, Logo TV

Continue Reading

‘Republican Lite’ Ro Khanna Severs Loyalties with Democrats in Campaign Mailer

Democratic Congressional challenger Ro Khanna seems determined to isolate the last of his Democratic supporters – and give new meaning to his moniker, ‘Republican lite.’

According to the San Jose Mercury News, Democrats nationwide are questioning Khanna’s loyalties after he released campaign mail criticizing his opponent, Congressman Mike Honda, for … consistently voting with fellow democrats on issues including the budget. Huh?

Even Howard Dean, a Honda supporter and founder of Democracy for America, voiced his confusion in a mass email on Wednesday: “As the former Chair of the Democratic National Committee, it’s obvious to me that Ro Khanna is campaigning like a Republican,” Dean wrote. “Real Democrats don’t use ‘liberal’ as an epithet or attack fellow Democrats for standing up for progressive values like making sure the wealthy pay their fair share in taxes.”

It’s no wonder every major Democrat here and across the U.S. – from President Barack Obama, Khanna’s former boss, to Gov. Jerry Brown and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi –endorsed Honda.

The only high-profile Democrat missing from Honda’s extensive endorsement list is Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom, who became Khanna’s highest-profile elected endorser back in April. Newsome is probably regretting it.

Not only is Khanna the choice of Republicans, including the homophobic former Congressman Ernie Konnyu and the Tea Party, but his latest mail piece proves he’s on the warpath against liberal values.

Sticking by Khanna is a no-win situation for Newsom, who has his sights set on higher statewide or national office. Now that Khanna has made his right-wing politics crystal clear, the Lieutenant Governor would be wise to withdraw his support.

Continue Reading

Krugman: Obama One of the Most Successful Presidents in American History

President Barack Obama may be facing some of his lowest approval ratings to date, but that isn’t stopping Paul Krugman from defending the president’s overall track record. In fact, the Nobel Prize-winning economist is arguing Obama is one of the most “successful presidents in American history.”

Krugman, who was once among the president’s more notable skeptics, made his case in a new feature for Rolling Stone aptly titled “In Defense of Obama,” in which he dismissed persistent attacks from Republicans and mounting disappointment expressed by Democrats with an outline of the Obama administration’s key achievements in several areas including healthcare, the environment, national security, and the economy.

It’s a tough time to be making that case. Americans are increasingly frustrated byObama’s handling of ISIS and continued unrest in Iraq. As for the economy, even Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) recently blamed Obama’s economic advisers for repeatedly failing ordinary Americans in favor of Wall Street.

But in a follow-up interview with ABC News, Krugman told Jonathan Karl the recent onslaught of criticism is unwarranted, noting Americans have experienced more “consequential” changes under Obama’s presidency than ever before.

“People who had this idea that Obama was going to bring a transformation of America, I thought were being naïve,” Krugman said in the interview. “But, by God, we got health reform, and we got a significant financial reform. We are getting the environmental action … it’s not everything you would have wanted, but it’s more than anyone else has done for decades.”

By Inae Oh, Mother Jones

Continue Reading

Ann Coulter: ‘Give Ebola to Migrant Children’

Ann Coulter suggested today that America should infect migrant children with ebola in order to discourage illegal immigration.

In an interview this morning on Fox News, the controversial conservative commentator was asked how she would handle the growing humanitarian crisis caused by the arrival of thousands of unaccompanied children from Central America.

“First thing I would do is infect every one of those kids with the ebola virus,” she told host Sean Hannity. “The reason why people come to this country is because the government gives illegal immigrants free goodies like welfare.

“I say we give them a free case of hemorrhagic fever instead. If we pump every illegal child in this country full of ebola, parents would think twice before sending their kids to U.S. shores.

“This is just a classic case of making lemonade out of lemons. Whether we like it or not, this disease has arrived in America. So let’s put it to good use.”

An estimated 70,000 unaccompanied children from Central America will arrive at the United States’ southern border this year. Most are fleeing violent gangs in their home countries who fund their operations by smuggling drugs to the U.S.

Their sheer numbers are overtaxing America’s ability to provide for their basic needs while they await immigration hearings. Efforts to expedite the process have been bogged down in Congress amid a border debate about immigration levels and border security.

The crisis coincides with the worst outbreak of the Ebola virus in history. Over 900 people have died in West Africa this year from the disease, which carries a mortality rate between 50-90 percent.

Infecting the migrants with such a deadly virus may seem like an extreme solution. However, Coulter explained that her plan goes far beyond simply killing a few thousand innocent children.

“The best part is that once the children are infected, we can deport them back to Central America where they can infect the rest of the population,” she explained. “Once all the taco jockeys in Central America are dead we’ll colonize the territory with Americans.

“We could put up a few McDonalds, Wal-Marts and Home Depots. Maybe build a Disneyland. It would be a paradise.”

Ann Coulter the author of Mugged: Racial Demagoguery from the Seventies to Obama. She is well-known for hyperbolic statements designed to increase her book sales.

 

From The Daily Current

Continue Reading

San Francisco Bay Guardian Closed by San Francisco Media Company

Employees of San Francisco Print Media Company, the parent company of the Examiner, SF Weekly, and San Francisco Bay Guardian were this morning informed that the latter paper will be shuttered after 48 years.

The paper was founded by husband and wife Jean Dibble and Bruce Brugmann — whose visage, urging locals to “Read my paper, dammit” — grew ubiquitous over the years. Its founding mission was to “print the news and raise hell,” and, as an independent paper, it ostensibly did just that for 46 years. In 2012 Brugmann and Dibble sold the Guardian to the  San Francisco Media Company, which subsequently acquired theWeekly last year. After decades of lawsuits and acrimony, the dueling San Francisco weeklies were situated next door to one another, within the same office suite.

That situation changed today, however.

“Unfortunately, the economic reality is such that the Bay Guardian is not a viable business and has not been for many years,” wrote SFMC publisher Glenn Zuehls in the interoffice communique “When SFMC took over the publication, the company believed the publication’s finances could rise out of the red and benefit from joining forces with the Examiner and the Weekly. We have tried hard to make that happen over the past few years. … Since then, I have come to realize that this isn’t possible and that the obstacles for a profitable Bay Guardian are too great to overcome. The amount of money that the Bay Guardian loses each week is causing damage to the heart of the company and cannot justify its continued publication. The success of this company, providing the highest quality journalism for our readers along with superior results for our advertisers, is my sole priority.”

Zuehls characterized the decision as the most difficult of his career.

Guardian editor Steven T. Jones describes himself and the staff as “in shock. We’re still trying to stay cool. We’re still trying to absorb this.”

The paper’s curtailment is effective immediately. The edition hitting the streets tomorrow figures to be its last.

“We are in discussions of the possibility of buying the paper,” Jones says. “We’ll turn to our community and try to see if this is possible.”

Zuehls tells SF Weekly that a sale is possible: “Anybody can come and ask.” Exactly what one obtains in buying the Guardian is a matter to still be negotiated.

“I hope the passion of the Guardian lives on. Everyone in San Francisco can learn from that passion,” Zuehls continues. But “it has lost revenue since day one and the trend is losing more.”

Continue Reading

How To Fix The Supreme Court: Lessons From A Disenchanted Legal Scholar

Erwin Chemerinsky, the founding Dean of UC-Irvine School of Law and a renowned legal scholar, has some scathing words for the Supreme Court: It “has frequently failed, throughout American history, at its most important tasks, at its most important moments.”

This critique is contained in the progressive legal luminary’s new book, provocatively titled “The Case Against The Supreme Court.”

Chemerinsky tells TPM he wrote the book after realizing he had been “making excuses” for the Court over three decades of teaching it, and decided to make the case that it has often failed its duty to protect individual and minority rights against the passions of the majority.

His disenchantment is shared: The Court’s popularity with Americans is near an all-time low of 44 percent, down from 60 percent in the early 2000s. Forty-eight percent now disapprove of it, according to a Gallup poll last week.

Chemerinsky spoke to TPM about why the Supreme Court is broken and how to fix it. A lightly edited transcript follows.

Your book is called “The Case Against The Supreme Court.” That could be read as meaning you want to abolish the Supreme Court, but that’s not what you’re saying. What should be done with it?

I don’t believe we should eliminate the Supreme Court. I believe that the Supreme Court is essential to enforce the Constitution. But I do propose many reforms, ranging from a clear definition of the role of the Court, to merit selection of Supreme Court justices, to changing the confirmation process, to term limits for justices, to changing the way the Court communicates — like cameras in the Court, to applying the ethics rules that apply to lower court judges for Supreme Court justices, and also changing recusal policies in the Supreme Court.

You also argue that Supreme Court nominees should clearly express their views on constitutional issues like the right to an abortion, which they don’t do today.

All presidents through history have considered ideology in choosing who to appoint for the Court. It’s fully appropriate for the Senate to consider ideology. I think the Senate should insist as a condition for confirmation that all candidates answer certain questions about their views.

There are only two reasons I could think of to not ask somebody their views. One is that the views of the nominee don’t matter to what he or she is going to do on the bench. And that seems clearly wrong. If you put somebody on the Court who strongly opposes or strongly supports abortion rights, the odds are overwhelming that’s how he or she is going to vote. The other is the idea that it’s inappropriate to know somebody’s views before they deal with cases because that means they’re not longer impartial. But that seems wrong. We know how Antonin Scalia is going to vote on abortion, we know how Ruth Bader Ginsburg is going to vote on abortion, based on what they said in prior cases. The fact that we know somebody’s views is not disqualifying.

Of the changes you discuss in the book — merit selection of judges, making nominees express their views, 18-year term limits, broadcasting oral arguments — if you had to pick one change that’d best fix the Court, what would it be and why?

I would choose term limits for the justices. It’s also the hardest to bring about because I think it would take a constitutional amendment.

There are a couple of reasons why. Life expectancy has thankfully increased tremendously since 1787. Clarence Thomas was 43 when he went on the Court in 1991. If he remains until he’s 90 years old, the age which Justice [John Paul] Stevens stepped down, he’ll be a justice for 47 years. John Roberts and Elena Kagan were each 50 when they went on the Court. If they stay until they’re 90, they’ll be there 40 years. That’s too much power for any one person to hold for too long a period of time.

Also, too much now depends on the fortuity of timing with vacancies. Richard Nixon got four vacancies in four years; Jimmy Carter got no vacancies in four years. Eighteen-year term limits would mean a vacancy every two years — every president with the same ability to shape the composition of the Court.

You write that the Court has “sanctioned terrible injustices” throughout its history in ruling like Dred Scott to uphold slavery, Plessy v. Ferguson to validate racial segregation and when it upheld Japanese internment camps. Have you in your years as a legal scholar always felt this way about the Court?

I’ve always felt that those decisions have been tragically wrong. I think what I was doing implicitly in my teaching was making excuses in the Court. I tried to portray the Court’s Dred Scotts and Plessys as exceptions and that the Court overall has really succeeded. And it’s only in the last few years that I had this realization that the Court has often failed at its most important tasks at the most important times.

To what extent have the Roberts Court decisions, which you and many others have criticized, on issues like race and minority rights, factored into your dissatisfaction with the Supreme Court?

I think my criticism of the Court is much broader than the Roberts Court. I didn’t want to write the liberal case against the Supreme Court. In the first few chapters I criticize the Supreme Court on race, and at times of crisis, and the Lochner Era [an early 20th century period when it struck down minimum wage and federal child labor laws]. I think liberals and conservatives would agree that those decisions were wrong.

You have high praise for the Warren Court and its decisions for equality likeBrown v. Board of Education which overturned the doctrine of separate but equal. Was that the Supreme Court at its best, in your view? Has any other iteration of the Court matched it?

I think the Marshall Court was the best iteration of the Supreme Court. I think decisions likeMarbury v. Madison [which established judicial review] laid the foundations for all constitutional law. I applaud the Warren Court but as I argue, it didn’t do nearly enough in key areas like school desegregation and like in making sure that everyone tried for a crime has competent counsel.

What are the best three or four decisions the Court has made in its history?

That’s a great question. I’d certainly put Brown v. Board of Education there. I’d put Marbury v. Madison and McCulloch v. Maryland there. I’d put Gideon v. Wainwright. I’d put Baker v. Carrand Reynolds v. Sims.

And the worst?

Well, Dred Scott, Plessy v. Ferguson, Korematsu [which said Japanese internment camps were constitutional]. That’s a good hall of shame to start with.

What are the worst misconceptions about the Supreme Court in popular society? What does the general public most get wrong about it?

The belief that the justices are objective. The belief that the justices are just applying the law and not making law. The belief that the justices are just umpires. Supreme Court justices have tremendous discretion in the kind of cases that come before them. And I think people don’t recognize that.

Are all Supreme Court justices politically motivated?

I don’t think it’s political in the sense of Democrats versus Republicans. I think it is political in the sense of ideological. The ideology of justices matters enormously. Justices Ginsburg and Scalia so often disagree. It’s not that one is smarter. It’s not that one knows the Constitution better. It’s that their ideology is different.

 

SAHIL KAPUR, Talking Points Memo

Continue Reading

Z Space presents two plays by renowned scientist and playwright Carl Djerassi

Ego, October 15 – November 9, 2014

Insufficiency, October 16 – November 7, 2014

Z Space is proud to present two plays by renowned chemist and playwright Carl Djerassi, October 15 – November 9, 2014 at Z Below. Dr. Djerassi is best known for the development of the birth control pill but in recent years he has turned to fiction and the theatre, with a series of novels and ten other plays, which have since been translated into 20 languages. His plays at Z Below coincide with his 90th birthday year and the publication of his latest autobiography, In Retrospect: From the Pill to the Pen.

Ego runs October 15 – November 7 and is directed by British director and producer Andy Jordan. Ego tells the story of a writer obsessed with his reputation to the point of faking his own death in order to find out what people really think of him. Featuring a psychiatrist sworn to silence, and a wife who’s on the trail of her husband’s alleged death, comedy and outrage converge in classic form. Bob Ernst, Lisa Anne Morrison and Jackson Davis star in this production.

Insufficiency, also directed by Jordan runs October 16 – November 7 and tells the story of a polish chemist named Jerzy Krzyz with an unusual specialty: Bubbleology. As a new arrival at a university’s chemistry department, he is determined to secure a senior post and is willing to do almost anything to get it, including producing some experimental and very lethal champagne, which he is only too willing to share with those standing in the way of his career ambitions. Insufficiency features actors Patrick Edwards, Rachel Harker, Lizzie Calogero, Dennis McIntyre and Timothy Redmond.

Dr. Djerassi, who celebrates his 90th birthday this year, is scheduled to attend all performances between October 17 and 25.

 

About Carl Djerassi

Carl Djerassi, emeritus professor of chemistry at Stanford University, is one of two American chemists to have been awarded both the National Medal of Science (for the first synthesis of a steroid oral contraceptive–”the Pill”) and the National Medal of Technology. A member of the US National Academy of Sciences, the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, the Royal Society (London) as well as the Leopoldina and many other foreign academies, Djerassi has received 34 honorary doctorates together with numerous other honors, such as the first Wolf Prize in Chemistry, the first Award for the Industrial Application of Science from the National Academy of Sciences, the Erasmus Medal of the Academia Europeae, the Perkin Medal of the Society for Chemical Industry, the American Chemical Society’s highest award, the Priestley Medal, the Austrian Cross of Honor for Science and Art,  the Great Merit Cross of Germany, and in 2011 the Edinburgh Medal. An Austrian postage stamp with his image was issued in 2005.

For the past quarter century, he has turned to fiction writing, mostly in the genre of “science-in-fiction,” whereby he illustrates, in the guise of realistic fiction, the human side of scientists and the personal conflicts faced by scientists in their quest for scientific knowledge, personal recognition, and financial rewards. In addition to a poetry collection (A Diary of Pique), a short story collection (“How I beat Coca-Cola and other Tales of One-upmanship”),  5 novels (“Cantor’s Dilemma;” “The Bourbaki Gambit;” “Marx, deceased;” “Menachem’s Seed;” and “NO”),  autobiography (“The Pill, Pygmy Chimps, and Degas’ Horse”  and in 2014 “In Retrospect: From the Pill to the Pen”) and memoir (“This Man’s Pill”), he has written 11 plays which have cumulatively been translated into 21 languages. His prose docudrama, “FOUR JEWS ON PARNASSUS-a Conversation” (dealing with Benjamin, Adorno, Scholem, and Schönberg), published in 2008 was followed in 2011 by the play, FOREPLAY, dealing with Hannah Arendt, Walter Benjamin, and Theodor and Gretel Adorno.

He is the founder of the Djerassi Resident Artists Program near Woodside, California, which provides residencies and studio space for artists in the visual arts, literature, choreography and performing arts, and music. Over 2300 artists have passed through that program since its inception in 1982.

Djerassi lives in San Francisco, Vienna, and London.

 

Tickets: $20-35, www.zpace.org or by calling 866.811.4111

Continue Reading