Search posterous

Search all posts and users. Type a name, type a favorite song title, whatever! See what comes up.
  

More posterous blogs











More recommended blogs »

Here are posterous posts filed under politics...

MarkEdwards says...

Glenn Beck is coming to your neighborhood to teach you how to be a "political force". Here's his theme song! http://ping.fm/GJSO9

Details are in the New York Times

November 22, 2009

Glenn Beck Stakes Out a More Activist Role in Politics

 

 

Glenn Beck, the popular and outspoken Fox News host, says he wants to go beyond broadcasting his opinions and start rallying his political base — formerly known as his audience — to take action.

To do so, Mr. Beck is styling himself as a political organizer. In an interview, he said he would promote voter registration drives and sponsor a series of seven conventions across the country featuring what he described as libertarian speakers.

On Saturday he held a festive campaign-style rally in The Villages in Florida, north of Orlando, in which he promoted his recently released book, “Arguing With Idiots,” and announced another book to come next August filled with right-leaning policy proposals gathered from the conventions.

Mr. Beck provided few details about his plans for the tour, making it unclear if he truly intends to prod his audience of millions into political action or merely burnish his media brand ahead of a book release.

Mr. Beck did say the conventions would resemble educational seminars, and he emphasized that while candidates may align themselves with the values and principles that he espouses, he would not take the next step to endorse them.

In describing the conventions, he told the crowd on Saturday: “You’re going to learn about finance. You’re going to learn about community organizing. You’re going to learn everything we need to know if you want to be a politician.”

His staff would not say whether particular candidates for office in the 2010 midterm elections would be invited to speak at the conventions or the August rally.

As for the question of Mr. Beck’s intentions, “He might just be trying to sell books, but there are much simpler ways to sell books,” said Ari Rabin-Havt, a vice president at Media Matters, the liberal media monitoring group. He said Mr. Beck sounded more like a presidential candidate than a pundit.

Mr. Beck, having used his television and radio pulpit to lay out his list of the country’s impending problems — deficit spending, health care legislation that will “destroy” the economy, a dearth of “personal responsibility” — says he now wants to also provide solutions.

In the interview, Mr. Beck, a frequent critic of President Obama, chose his words carefully but made clear that he intended to help elect politicians aligned with his limited-government world view. “We’ll be looking for ways to get people involved in politics,” he said.

Mr. Beck is not the only media firebrand trying to mobilize Americans disaffected with a Democratic-controlled government. The radio host Laura Ingraham is inviting candidates to sign a 10-point pledge on her Web site. Sean Hannity, on his afternoon radio show and prime-time Fox News program, is promoting “Conservative Victory 2010,” his name for the map on his site that will spell out questions for candidates.

And the former presidential candidate Mike Huckabee, who has a show on Fox News, has steered viewers to his Web site, where they can contribute money to his political action committee in support of conservative candidates.

Pundits have used their media stages to encourage political action before, but people like Mr. Beck and Mr. Hannity are taking on outsize roles now, political experts and conservative commentators say. One reason, they say, is the weakened state of the Republican Party.

The media figures’ roles may exacerbate the ideological feuds that are already roiling the party. For the diffuse tea party movement that taps into anti-government sentiments, “the media guys are the closest things we even have to a leader,” said Adam Brandon, the vice president for communications at FreedomWorks, a conservative advocacy group.

These efforts are reminiscent of the Contract With America pledge made by conservatives during the 1994 elections, though some Republicans who are uncomfortable with media personalities taking on new political roles note that that effort originated with lawmakers.

When asked about Mr. Beck at a conference last month, Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina, said: “Here’s what I worry about. How many people in my business are going to be controlled by what’s said on the radio or in a TV commercial?”

It was not lost on Mr. Beck’s fans that the Saturday rally and book signing were held in Florida, where the Republican governor, Charlie Crist, has been sharply criticized by conservatives as he runs for an open seat in the United States Senate. Mr. Crist’s challenger, Marco Rubio, has already signed the pledge on Ms. Ingraham’s Web site, as have a smattering of other conservative candidates.

Already, Mr. Beck’s page on FoxNews.com features what it calls “In or Out 2010,” a “simple challenge” for lawmakers. It includes a pledge to back a freeze in government spending; oppose all tax increases “until our economy has rebounded”; and support stricter immigration enforcement.

Amy Green contributed reporting.

 

My favorite quote is on Newser.com I have begun meeting with some of the best minds in the country that believe in limited government, maximum freedom and the values of our Founders. I am developing a 100-year plan.- Glenn Beck

I have to go read the First Amendment now to remind myself that the whole free speech thing is actually good, and not evil.  And I have to go watch the epic film "Network".  I do believe Howard Beale is coming to life and he wants to be President. 

And should you not know the work of Mr. Beck, please enjoy this snippet from his Fox News show, wontcha...

Filed under: Politics

sighnpen says...

バカはなおせる 脳を鍛える習慣、悪くする習慣 楽天ブックス

 

Filed under: politics

joshuaseek says...

WASHINGTON – Evangelical, Orthodox and Catholic leaders who unveiled the "Manhattan Declaration" Friday insisted the document is not a political ploy.

Rather, it is a testament to their common Christian witness as they stand to uphold what they believe are the three most foundational issues in society – the sanctity of life, the historic understanding of marriage, and religious liberty.

via www.christianpost.com

 

So I have to give credit where credit is due:  A group of faith leaders who normally spend their time cursing each other for their heretical beliefs came together and agreed on something.

The problem is one statement:

"We are talking out of deep religious principles grounded in the holy Scriptures and the use of reason as we understand it as a God-given gift."

-Dr. Timothy George, one of three leaders who drafted the document, emphasis mine.

Here's the problem: There are enough topics that we have been wrong about in the past to fill entire volumes.  Drafting a document that pushes you into action, while admitting you could be wrong, is honest but still dangerous.

I agree that abortion is sad, but the rage against abortion should be directed into action, not political documents that curse abortion.  Every week I see people protesting abortion clinics, but I never see that group approaching women who are in need walking into that clinic and offering to assist them, to raise their child, to offer them hope.  Instead, we see them offering condemnation.

The Manhatten Declaration seems to do one thing: Affirm the topics which christian politicians take a stand on and declare their rights to continue to have freedom to voice these viewpoints.

There is truly nothing new under the sun.

Filed under: politics

S.O.S. says...

Hatch: Legalizing immigrants not a 'boon' to economy

Politics » Napolitano says doing so would allow them to pay taxes.
tburr@sltrib.com?subject=Salt Lake Tribune: Hatch: Legalizing immigrants not a 'boon' to economy" class="articleByline">

By Thomas Burr

The Salt Lake Tribune


Sen. Orrin Hatch and fellow Republican senators criticized Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano on Friday for her recent remarks that putting undocumented immigrants on a path to citizenship would boost the economy.

Napolitano, in remarks last week to the Center for American Progress, said that a "tough and fair pathway" to legal status for millions of immigrants would bring them out of the "shadows" and allow them to pay taxes as legal Americans do.

"Making sure these people become full taxpayers and pay their fair share will both benefit our economy and make it easier to enforce the laws against unscrupulous or exploitative employers," Napolitano said.

Hatch and 11 fellow Republican senators charge that rewarding undocumented immigrants with legal status would hinder Americans' ability to find jobs.

"With all due respect, legalizing those who have no legal right to be in the United States will not be a 'boon' to American workers," the senators wrote. "Rather, it would only exacerbate the unfair competition American workers currently face as they struggle to find jobs."

The senators asked Napolitano to halt any talk of enacting a "legalization program" that would only hurt U.S. workers and impede law-abiding citizens opportunities during the economic downturn.

Napolitano said in her speech Nov. 13 that a rigid pathway to legal status would require immigrants

who are in the United States illegally to register, pay a fine, pass a criminal background check, learn English and pay all taxes.

 

"Our system must be strong enough to prevent illegal entry and to get criminal aliens off our streets and out of the country," Napolitano said. "But it must also be smart enough to reward the hard work and entrepreneurial spirit that immigrants have always brought to America -- traits that have built our nation."

Department of Homeland Security spokesman Matt Chandler would not respond directly to Hatch's criticisms, but defended Napolitano's position.

"Secretary Napolitano will respond directly to Senator Hatch, as we do not respond to correspondence through the media," Chandler said. " As the secretary has said, Congress needs to create the legal framework to bring people out of the shadows and increase the number of productive taxpayers -- otherwise all we have is amnesty by inaction. By disrupting the shadow economy that draws millions of illegal immigrants to this country, American workers will benefit."

 

Filed under: politics

domin8 says...

You ever been wrong? Then you know why. If you have ever been wrong then you can be wrong again and you know what happens then, right? You fuck shit up. No, in order to get anything down right you can't just trust your own instincts and judgment, you need to have people around you sign off on your ideas. How many truly original thinkers do you know who have actually been successful? None, that's because original ideas aren't ever very good. They are like Kool-Aid in the packet, they need watering down or they taste horrible.

The problem is that everybody is flawed, we all have a blind-spot. Your original concept has a problem that anybody else but you can see and if you never actually share it with other people you won't ever find out. You have to let people dilute it to where it is palatable.

Had Timothy McVeigh run his idea by a bunch of other people his idea might have been diluted to some kind of Glenn Beck/Teabagger type of protest, instead he went ahead with the full-strength product and got his ass executed. The same thing went with Son of Sam and Ted Bundy. Success is about conformism. If McDonald's decided to put forth original, healthy, flavorful food they would be bankrupt in a couple of weeks. The ideas in your head have to be blanded out, have to be made into something with less flavor, less of your thinking and more everybody else's. They have to be dumbed down, simplified.  

Ordinariness is your salvation
Anything else is to suppose humanity to be smarter and better than they ever are. "Success" and popularity are always the same thing whatever people tell you. In the end only the completely gray and common will win.

Filed under: politics

domin8 says...

 

They are the expression of the common man's rage. They are the fuel for democracy even though fl_fox_©jeremynicholl_007gb101689.jpg (by jeremy_nicholl)nobody really wants to think about that. The mobs are comprised of us exercising our will in the streets. The powers that be fear the ones below who outnumber them,. it has always been that way. You think the cops exist to protect you, no they don't. Of course they don't. You don't matter. From, the vantage point of power you are an ordinary, solitary, powerless little fragment, you serve no purpose, make no money, by yourself. You are alike a grain of rice that a cook is perfectly happy to wash down the drain. You, on your own, do not represent a significant loss or gain. The mob, however, the conglomeration of the population fueled by emotions that are not easily pacified, that's a whole different matter. The individuals do not matter, but the flood of individuals does.

You have to remember that any society is on the verge of mob-takeover at any moment. People, if they aren't wealthy and have no hope, tend to be pissed off. There is no place in the world where there is not a lot of these. Also remember that people love power, and people who are fueled by anger and wonderful for manipulation. They are like little vials of crack for your would-be demagogue, and those are all over the place,. Amateur Hitlers abound, looking for their opportunities to stir up some shit. The government knows this and this makes them afraid. Right now there are all kinds of efforts sponsored by your government to prevent something like this, to keep people from uniting in one common goal, to keep the support-beams from cracking. They diffuse anger, they pacify and sedate, and they keep a certain elvel of division and unease running thorughout the society.

The danger never was a race war. Those are relatively rare, notable in how rare they are. The danger is race unity. When people unify across cultural and ethnic bounds there is usually a glue, a catalyst. They are usually uniting int he service of something, against something. How many common things do disparate communities have in common? Well there is one big one: the government. The danger is not a race war, it is race unity. Who benefits by keeping people hateful and suspicions of each other? Who benefits if they remain passive, always looking in the wrong direction for an enemy that never comes? Who loses if they all get pissed off at the same time?

 

Filed under: politics

joe says...

"We have finally realized that the Internet is much more than a network of computers. It is an endless web of people. Men and women from every corner of the globe are connecting to one another, thanks to the biggest social interface ever known to humanity. Digital culture has laid the foundations for a new kind of society.
And this society is advancing dialogue, debate and consensus through communication. Because democracy has always flourished where there is openness, acceptance, discussion and participation. And contact with others has always been the most effective antidote against hatred and conflict.
That's why the Internet is a tool for peace.
That's why anyone who uses it can sow the seeds of non-violence.
And that's why the next Nobel Peace Prize should go to the Net.
A Nobel for each and every one of us."

This is the manifesto of a campaign launched this week by Wired Italy to nominate the net - and thereby all of us - for the Nobel Peace Prize in 2010.

Sign the petition and find out more on InternetForPeace.org.

Filed under: politics

Ezra Klein's blog has this interesting post about how, according to the rule that normally governs the Fed, interest rates should actually be negative right now. In other words, you'd be getting paid to borrow money.

 

Ezra Klein - Inflation and the Fed

Filed under: Politics

jfca says...

In the face of widespread criticism of the lack of ACTA transparency, participating governments and music industry lobbyists have claimed that the transparency issue is much ado about nothing.  As governments seek to keep relevant information secret, those same governments released a joint statement last week arguing that "it is accepted practice during trade negotiations among sovereign states to not share negotiating texts with the public at large, particularly at earlier stages of the negotiation."

Filed under: politics

jfca says...

‘ONE-CHINA’ PRINCIPLE: The UN did not bother to consider the two human rights covenants that President Ma Ying-jeou signed because it doesn’t recognize Taiwan
By Jenny W. Hsu and Shih Hsiu-chuan
STAFF REPORTERS
Saturday, Nov 21, 2009, Page 1

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MOFA) yesterday confirmed that the UN in June rejected two human rights covenants signed by President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) earlier in the year, but said the refusal did not indicate that Taiwan’s diplomacy had failed.

The two UN covenants — the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights — were ratified by the legislature and signed by Ma in March and May respectively.

However, the Liberty Times (the Taipei Times’ sister newspaper) reported that the global body refused to recognize Taiwan as an official signatory, citing the “one China” principle.

Filed under: politics