I went to the rally today, and was blown away by the energy inside the park. I saw Matt Taibi there and I haven't felt like that since the 60's.
The thing that got me the most though, was directly across from Zuccotti Park where the protestors are is a huge plaque paying tribute
to Harry Helmsley. For those that don't know him, Harry was a real estate developer and hotel owner who did indeed do a lot of building
in NYC. However, he was also indicted for tax evasion and married to Leona Helmsley. For those who don't get the reference, Leona was famous
for a quote after she was convicted of tax evasion. "We don't pay taxes, the little people pay taxes". Harry would probably have been convicted too,
but he had had a stroke and was determined unfit to stand trial.

"change we could believe in", for "the audacity of hope", and "the fierce urgency of now"
And a lot of us worked our asses off to make that happen, and guess what..... it isn't.
The issue isn't is he better then McCain and Palin would have been, the issue is there
is not a hell of a lot of transparency in his government, the war he spoke out against
is getting more involved, and it's an un-winnable war that is plundering our national treasure.
Rendition is still going on, Gitmo is still open, and in all likelihood will stay open for a
while. There has been no action taken for verified voting, Glass Steagal has not been put
back into place, the banks are still too big to fail, and are not lending money. So tell
me my good friend, isn't it wonderful that he's going to repeal Don't ask don't tell, wow
change I can believe in, I'm sooooo thrilled I sent him money and had my kids go door to
door in Nevada for him. Talk is cheap, actions speak. If you're going to inspire and lead
then you damn well better deliver or you're going to raise another generation of cynics
who won't vote

 
"and by the way, those who say our enemies won’t abide the Geneva Conventions they will if they know there’s going to retribution for their violation of it."

How can we justify retribution to our enemies if we don't punish our own?

There was a documentary on POV back in the late 80's it moved and outraged me more then anything I've ever seen.
Here is the EW write up on it.


"Too much of television has for a long time been committed to the deadening notion of ''balance,'' of always presenting two sides of every issue, reducing everything to mush so that it won't offend a single viewer. In this context, a documentary anthology like P.O.V.can seem startling, even revolutionary. Here are filmmakers actually expressing their opinions, and no one's getting equal time to contradict them!

P.O.V. — the title is short for ''point of view'' — leads off a strong third season with Through the Wire, director Nina Rosenblum's extraordinary documentary about three women consigned to a high-security underground unit within the state prison in Lexington, Ky.

The women were convicted of nonviolent political crimes but were deemed ''violent and dangerous offenders.'' They were placed in an area that was constantly lighted, were watched 24 hours a day by video cameras, and were strip-searched almost daily for nearly two years.

We hear the testimony of the women themselves, who feel their sentences had less to do with their crimes than with their left-wing political affiliations.

That notion is supported by the women's attorneys, the American Civil Liberties Union, and Amnesty International, which has described the women as ''political prisoners'' being subjected to ''physical and psychological torture.''

Prison officials are given their say as well, but there's never any doubt whom filmmaker Rosenblum supports. Through the Wire is her well-crafted expose of a prison few people in America know about, and a vivid argument for shutting it down."

No America doesn't torture....Sleep deprivation, isolation... no we didn't waterboard them but. after this documentary was started and Nina and crew were going to do the second round of interviews they arrived to learn that they had been moved to a new 24 bed facility only for "potentially violent" offenders, it just happened to be located in the swamps of Florida, almost inaccessible. The crew made it down there only to be denied entry. No, the U.S. doesn't torture, one of the women developed cancer and sued to be moved to general population back in Kentucky, where there were medical facilities to help her. She won her suit, however the Bush justice department, (first Bush) appealed and had that decision overturned, and she returned to the prison in the swamps, and no medical care and isolation, effectively making a death sentence. No the U.S, doesn't torture, not at all

The reason there is no economic profitability in the music business is because no one buys cd's when they can steal the music on limewire
and there is an entire generation who came of age with this concept, and it fucked things up for everyone. Yes, read Mellencamps article
on the music biz, he's right too, the whole thing went south because of greed from the corporations who overcharged for a lesser
product, and the passive aggressive backlash of consumers who decided that made it ok to steal

on a day to day basis. To use the what is it worth today argument as the entire weight of value ignores the
changes in value. When Gold was 240 an oz, and at a 40 year low, it was easy to see that it was undervalued
for THE LONG TERM even though that was what the market said it was valued at.
The same is true of the securities that were talking about, there's todays value, which anyone with a brain
knows is a fire sale price, or there's the long term value of it. The problem with the markets, and what has
gotten us to this place, has been the obsessive short sighted focus on short term profits.

There is no question that tax rates for the wealthy need to rise. The top rate of 91% would apply in
todays $$$ on people with over 3.5 mil annual income. Yes there were lots of loopholes and the
lowering to 70% by Kennedy is probably closer to where it should actually be, if it closes the
loopholes. There are so many things that need to be re evaluated and reworked that it borders
on being overwhelming.
One could easily make a case for an AMT on corporations, demanding that any corporation doing
business in this country has to pay a minimum profit of a certain % of its gross.
There has a been a massive redistribution of wealth from the lower and middle classes to the rich.
One can argue for days and days why, but one cannot argue that it's true.

Beverly Eckert My Silence Cannot Be Bought killed in a plane crash

Published on Friday, December 19, 2003 by the USA Today
My Silence Cannot Be Bought
by Beverly Eckert

I've chosen to go to court rather than accept a payoff from the 9/11 victims compensation fund. Instead, I want to know what went so wrong with our intelligence and security systems that a band of religious fanatics was able to turn four U.S passenger jets into an enemy force, attack our cities and kill 3,000 civilians with terrifying ease. I want to know why two 110-story skyscrapers collapsed in less than two hours and why escape and rescue options were so limited.

I am suing because unlike other investigative avenues, including congressional hearings and the 9/11 commission, my lawsuit requires all testimony be given under oath and fully uses powers to compel evidence.

The victims fund was not created in a spirit of compassion. Rather, it was a tacit acknowledgment by Congress that it tampered with our civil justice system in an unprecedented way. Lawmakers capped the liability of the airlines at the behest of lobbyists who descended on Washington while the Sept. 11 fires still smoldered.

And this liability cap protects not just the airlines, but also World Trade Center builders, safety engineers and other defendants.

The caps on liability have consequences for those who want to sue to shed light on the mistakes of 9/11. It means the playing field is tilted steeply in favor of those who need to be held accountable. With the financial consequences other than insurance proceeds removed, there is no incentive for those whose negligence contributed to the death toll to acknowledge their failings or implement reforms. They can afford to deny culpability and play a waiting game.

By suing, I've forfeited the "$1.8 million average award" for a death claim I could have collected under the fund. Nor do I have any illusions about winning money in my suit. What I do know is I owe it to my husband, whose death I believe could have been avoided, to see that all of those responsible are held accountable. If we don't get answers to what went wrong, there will be a next time. And instead of 3,000 dead, it will be 10,000. What will Congress do then?

So I say to Congress, big business and everyone who conspired to divert attention from government and private-sector failures: My husband's life was priceless, and I will not let his death be meaningless. My silence cannot be bought.

How does this affect the status of the lawsuits?

Then we add what happened a month or so ago

Michael Connell, the Bush IT expert who has been directly implicated in the rigging of George Bush's 2000 and 2004 elections, was killed when his single engine plane crashed three miles short of the Akron airport.

I am not an economist, or a reat student of history, however I was looking at the history of Income Tax in this country, and
there are some very interesting things to note.

1) National debt was flat or declining from 1945-1982 and the tax rate for the rich for those years varied between 70-91%
2) When the rich were taxed more, and taxes were more progressive, this country went through its greatest growth periods.

When Federal Income Tax was first established in 1913 the tax rates were between a low of 2% and a high of 7%
In 1916 The top rate was raised to 15%
In 1917 as we entered WW 1 The top rate was 67% and there were many tiers raising about 5% every 20 or 50K
that your income went up
In 1918 taxes continued to rise as we fought the war with the top rate rising to 77%
With the war over in 1922 Taxes went down and the top rate was 58%. They continued to drop slowly and in 1925
to a max of 25%.
In 1932 With FDR preparing to fund the First New Deal top tier taxes rose to 63%
In 1936 As FDR prepared to fund the Second New Deal, the top income tax rate was 79%. I think this is the year
that the aristocracy tired to get Smedley Butler to overthrow FDR.
As we prepared to enter WW 2 the top tax rate was 81%, in 1942 88%. In 1944 94%,
As the war ended in 1946 the top rate dropped to 91% and stayed there until 1964. when JFK lowered all taxes and
the top rate was lowered to 77% and finally in 1965 to 70% where it stayed until 1982 and Ronald Reagan who's tax
cuts that lowered the top rate to 50%, though it's cuts predominantly lowered taxes for the wealthy.
In 1987 he lowered the top rate again to 38.5%, and in 1988 created a top tier of 28% for those earning more then
114K single or 150K married, while putting a 33% rate on those earning between 36K and 113 K single and 71.9K
and 149.9K married
Clinton raised the top tier to 39.6%, until Bush lowered it to 35% while taking the country to war and began to
bankrupt it

http://www.taxfoundation.org/publications/...

There's a lot of food for thought here, but it's really common sense, when the government is adequately funded and
working for the benefit of the people, the people benefit

A friend of mine once defined Power as the ability to provide work. He's a pretty powerful guy himself, and I think he's correct.
By that definition, speaking truth to power practically guarantees living in poverty. I did a job as a favor for a very progressive
organization, and I remember asking them to do something courageous that would have cost them nothing. They were too
scared to do it. They would make films that would challenge the government, but wouldn't help their own. It leaves a sour taste.
Right wingers for all their crazy politics do get one thing, they are in it together. It would be great if progressives could
remember that, but it is harder for us in some ways, we don't have the resources and entrenched money of conservatives.
That should however only make us have a stronger commitment to each other

 
Have the guy either take the 5th, cite executive privilege, or held in contempt of congress.
If he cites Executive privilege, then hold him in contempt anyway. That would be balls.
And for the record why hasn't Waxman let Sibel Edmonds speak or signed on to the resolution
to impeach Cheney. He is a WIMP who knows better

Harvard educated man who sounds like he's Harvard educated, who comes from the Chicago school of politics, and "he speaks not so fluent politician"
Is english your first language?

All Hillary can do is force a brokered convention. She can't win, she can destroy, and if that happens there are over 1,300,000 people who have put their
money where their mouths are who will not support Hillary, if at all, then with any conviction. The only choice then would be to draft Al Gore. Hillary
just makes me sick, and I'm a democrat. I've voted democratic since 1968. If she gets the nom I don't know if I hold my nose and vote for her, or consider
leaving the country. I find it hard to fathom why there are people that don't embrace Obama, I just don't get it. But I do get that Hillary is divisive politics,
politics as usual, and she's doing her best to bring it down to the gutter and bring down the party

Hillary’s candidacy divides. It plays right into the hands of the Republican party and their grand plan to continue dividing America. She is as polarizing a figure as possible. George Bush beat Al Gore, and even though Gore was running as the candidate who would continue peace and prosperity, he was colored by being a part of the drama of the Clinton years, Monica gate, all the other Bimbo’s gate, lying under oath, and getting impeached.
The Democrats have lost seats in congress every election after the Clintons came to power, including control of the House after Bill’s first term. That trend continued as they lost the Whitehouse. The Republicans don’t really care if Hillary wins, they know she won’t really change things, and that in 4 - 8 years they can regain control of the Whitehouse and continue their divisive politics that she will not change.
How is it possible to take money and endorsements from Richard Mellon Scaiffe and Rupert Murdoch, along with more money from PAC and special interest groups then ny other candidate Republican or Democrat, and be considered an agent of change?
How can you challenge Fox News and demand a return to the fairness doctrine in the media when you are indebted to Rupert Murdoch?
How can you have a Healthcare plan that puts people first when you are indebted to the insurance companies?
How can you inspire people to greatness when you appeal to their fears?
How can you challenge China on trade and human rights abuses when your economic policy plays right into their hands, and you have been on the board of directors of Wal Mart?
How can you be an agent of change when you’re invested in what needs to be changed?
Hillary accuses Obama of being nothing but rhetoric, but look at her actions and think if this is the direction the country needs to go… the same way it’s been going.

I'm just wondering what Hillary Clinton gets from fighting a battle she has such little chance of winning. Anyone who
wants to be President that much, shouldn't be President. The money people are giving to each one could be so well
utilized for the general election instead of dividing the party. If there were that great a difference in their agendas or
their platforms I could understand it better, but it just feels like ego and arrogance, and haven't we had enough of that?