292 plays
Eddie Vedder - Rise
(Source: silentsongsofsadness)
A nation where 93 percent of income growth goes to the top 1 percent is not a nation that will embark on great projects, or long command the allegiance of its people.
The rich are different; they get richer
By Harold Meyerson,
Occupy Wall Street is not known for the precision of its economic analysis, but new research on income distribution in the United States shows that the group’s sloganeering provides a stunningly accurate picture of the economy. In 2010, according to a study published this month by University of California economist Emmanuel Saez, 93 percent of income growth went to the wealthiest 1 percent of American households, while everyone else divvied up the 7 percent that was left over. Put another way: The most fundamental characteristic of the U.S. economy today is the divide between the 1 percent and the 99 percent.
It was not ever thus. In the recovery that followed the downturn of the early 1990s, the wealthiest 1 percent captured 45 percent of the nation’s income growth. In the recovery that followed the dot-com bust 10 years ago, Saez noted, 65 percent of the income growth went to the top 1 percent. This time around, it’s reached 93 percent — a level so high it shakes the foundations of the entire American project.
While never putting a premium on economic equality, America has always prided itself on being the preeminent land of economic opportunity. If all of this nation’s wealth is captured by a narrow stratum of the very rich, however, that claim is relegated to history’s dustbin. Research by Julia Isaacs of the Brookings Institution, as part of the Economic Mobility Project, has shown that intergenerational mobility in the United States has fallen far below the levels in Germany, Finland, Denmark and other more social democratic nations of Northern Europe. Now, Saez’s analysis of income data provides further evidence that mocks America’s self-image as a land where hard work yields rewards.
How has the top 1 percent been able to decouple itself from the nation beneath it? To begin, much of its income comes from investments in funds and firms that are raking in profits from overseas ventures in economies like China’s, which weathered the downturn better than ours. Much of those firms’ profits also derive from their reduced labor costs — the result of layoffs and paycuts. Finally, as Saez points out, there has been “an explosion of top wages and salaries” since 1970. In that year, 5.1 percent of all wages and salaries paid in the United States went to the wealthiest 1 percent. In 2007, the share going to the wealthiest 1 percent had more than doubled, to 12.4 percent.
The consequences of this concentration of wealth and income extend beyond the purely economic. A middle class enduring prolonged stagnation isn’t likely to fund projects the nation needs to undertake — such as rebuilding our infrastructure or increasing teacher pay — or, ultimately, to retain its faith in the efficacy of democracy. The rise of super PACs, the low rates of taxation on capital gains and hedge fund operators, the ability of the major banks to fend off reform — all testify to the power of a neo-plutocracy beyond democratic control.
Most proposals to restore a modicum of balance to the American economy focus on making the tax code more progressive. Raising the tax on investments to the level of the tax on wages, for instance, and increasing the inheritance tax would help start reconstruction of a more viable economy.
But changes to the tax code, indispensable though they would be, aren’t remotely sufficient to the challenge of restoring the broadly shared prosperity that Americans enjoyed in the mid-20th century. That would require changing some laws to give stockholders and other corporate stakeholders the power to diminish the share of corporate revenue routinely claimed these days by top executives — at the expense of everyone else. It would require revitalizing unions. David Madland and Nick Bunker of the Center for American Progress recently found that in 1968, when 28 percent of the workforce was unionized, 53 percent of the nation’s income went to the middle class. In 2010, when 11.9 percent of the nation’s workers were unionized, the share claimed by the middle class had fallen to 46.5 percent.
Capitalism can create prosperity, but left unfettered it doesn’t create broadly shared prosperity — and never will. If belief and participation in democracy are sustained by people’s conviction that democracy produces good economic outcomes, then the growing concentration of wealth and income in the United States is a long-term threat to everything we profess to stand for. A nation where 93 percent of income growth goes to the top 1 percent is not a nation that will embark on great projects, or long command the allegiance of its people.
There is a reason the Zombie Apocalypse is the end game scenario I most hope for.
(Source: progressive-libertarianism)
30 plays
The Dictator speech set against a portion of the score from Inception
In announcing the Republicans’ new budget and tax plan Tuesday, House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan said “We are sharpening the contrast between the path that we’re proposing and the path of debt and decline the president has placed us upon.”
Ryan is right about sharpening the contrast. But…
The best thing for being sad is to learn something. That is the only thing that never fails. You may grow old and trembling in your anatomies, you may lie awake at night listening to the disorder of your veins, you may miss your only love, you may see the world about you devastated by evil lunatics, or know your honour trampled in the sewers of baser minds. There is only one thing for it then — to learn. Learn why the world wags and what wags it. That is the only thing which the mind can never exhaust, never alienate, never be tortured by, never fear or distrust, and never dream of regretting.
T.H White
“The Once and Future King”
443 plays
Always on My Mind
Michael Buble
TPB - We were down a few hours earlier today. There’s no need to worry, we haven’t been raided this time. We’re only upgrading stuff since we’re still growing.
One of the technical things we always optimize is where to put our front machines. They are the ones that re-direct your traffic to a secret location. We have now decided to try to build something extraordinary.
With the development of GPS controlled drones, far-reaching cheap radio equipment and tiny new computers like the Raspberry Pi, we’re going to experiment with sending out some small drones that will float some kilometers up in the air. This way our machines will have to be shot down with aeroplanes in order to shut down the system. A real act of war.
We’re just starting so we haven’t figured everything out yet. But we can’t limit ourselves to hosting things just on land anymore. These Low Orbit Server Stations (LOSS) are just the first attempt. With modern radio transmitters we can get over 100Mbps per node up to 50km away. For the proxy system we’re building, that’s more than enough.
But when time comes we will host in all parts of the galaxy, being true to our slogan of being the galaxy’s most resilient system. And all of the parts we’ll use to build that system on will be downloadable.
Cui Fei. Ready by Touch, 2005-2006. Thorns on rice paper, each page 9 1/4” x 10 3/4”, total 11 pages.
http://www.cuifei.net/index.htm
(Source: darksilenceinsuburbia)
‘A 19 year old has been arrested for a quote “racially aggravated public order offence” for simply angrily ranting about the injustice of the occupation of Afghanistan on Facebook [1].
Following the deaths of six British soldiers in the region last week, Azhar Ahmed of Ravensthorpe took to the social networking site to point out the hypocrisy of fawning over the troops, when far more innocent Afghans have been murdered at the hands of the Western war machine.
“What about the innocent families who have been brutally killed?” he wrote. “The women who have been raped, the children who have been sliced up?” Ahmed continued.
“Your enemies were the Taliban not innocent families”.
Official figures state that in 2011 alone, troops murdered 410 civilian and injured 335 [2].
Although the public don’t like to accept it, Ahmed’s claim of rape is also one that shouldn’t be overlooked. There are dozens of cases of US and other allied forces carrying out various sexual related crimes on Afghans and female soldiers. It was only in January that two British soldiers were arrested for allegations that they filmed and abused two 10 year old children before happily showing it off to their fellow servicemen [3].
The particular comment that most likely landed Ahmed in trouble was his closing line: “All soldiers should DIE and GO TO HELL! THE LOWLIFE FOKKIN SCUM! gotta problem go cry to your soldiers grave and wish him hell because thats where he is going”.
Although it’s perhaps not the most tactful approach, do such comments really warrant arrest? Considering the contention of the war itself and the numerous crimes committed, is it surprising that people feel this way? And if we flip it around how many times have you heard ignorant comments like “we should just nuke them all and get it done with” by our supposed British patriots down the boozer?
At no point does the teenager express any intent to do harm or name any solider in-particular.
A West Yorkshire Police spokesman admitted that “He didn’t make his point very well and that is why he has landed himself in bother.” So is it a crime to not make your point very well? This is Facebook, people aren’t exactly writing essays with good grammar and citations. It’s not like he was in a public place, getting in the face of a solider.
It appears the law has been stretched to make a political point, while endangering everybody else’s free speech in the process.
It is also not clear why he was charged with a “racially aggravated public order offence”. Are the British troops a race? He didn’t use any racial terms. Or is that he himself is not British bred? In that case who is stirring up the racial hatred? Ahmed or the police trying to pigeon hole the incident? Although we don’t have a crystal ball I’d make the bet that if his name was David Smith he probably wouldn’t have been charged.
Ahmed has been bailed to an address outside the county – and the pro war propaganda continues.’
The series of discoveries has been called “astounding” and “almost beyond explanation”, as no other body parts have turned up.[35] The discoveries have caused speculation that the feet may be those of people who died in a boating accident or a plane crash in the ocean.[2] One explanation is that some of the feet are those of four men who died in a plane crash near Quadra Island in 2005 and whose bodies have not been recovered, though one of the feet has been determined to be from a female.[7] Foul play has also been suggested,[36] although none of the first four feet showed tool marks.[33] This does not rule out foul play, however; it is possible that the bodies could have been weighted down and disposed of, and the feet are separating due to natural decay.
Determining the origin of the feet is complicated because ocean currents may carry floating items long distances,[37] and because currents in the Strait of Georgia may be unpredictable.[36] A foot may float as far as 1,000 miles (1,600 km).[33] Also, human feet have a tendency to becomeadipocere (a soap-like substance formed from body fat), which makes it hard for forensic scientists to find clues.[5] Under optimal conditions, a human body may remain intact in water for as long as three decades, meaning that the feet may have been floating around for years.[38]
Another theory is that the feet belonged to people who died in the Asian Tsunami on December 26 of 2004. Richmond, British Columbia-based writer Shane Lambert has advocated this position, pointing to the fact that many of the shoes found were manufactured and sold in 2004 or earlier. Lambert acknowledges that there could be other sources for the shoes or multiple sources. However, besides the dates when the shoes were manufactured, Lambert cites ocean currents and their ultimate northward tendencies up the Pacific Ocean from part of the region that was hit by the 2004 Tsunami.[39]
-Did no one consider they might have been pulled n by the….undertow? Get it? under..toe? haa
![6 Writing Tips From John Steinbeck
1. Abandon the idea that you are ever going to finish. Lose track of the 400 pages and write just one page for each day, it helps. Then when it gets finished, you are always surprised.
2. Write freely and as rapidly as possible and throw the whole thing on paper. Never correct or rewrite until the whole thing is down. Rewrite in process is usually found to be an excuse for not going on. It also interferes with flow and rhythm which can only come from a kind of unconscious association with the material.
3. Forget your generalized audience. In the first place, the nameless, faceless audience will scare you to death and in the second place, unlike the theater, it doesn’t exist. In writing, your audience is one single reader. I have found that sometimes it helps to pick out one person—a real person you know, or an imagined person and write to that one.
4. If a scene or a section gets the better of you and you still think you want it—bypass it and go on. When you have finished the whole you can come back to it and then you may find that the reason it gave trouble is because it didn’t belong there.
5. Beware of a scene that becomes too dear to you, dearer than the rest. It will usually be found that it is out of drawing.
6. If you are using dialogue—say it aloud as you write it. Only then will it have the sound of speech.
Read more.[Image: AP]](http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m0sevcgD2Z1qcokc4o1_400.jpg)
6 Writing Tips From John Steinbeck
1. Abandon the idea that you are ever going to finish. Lose track of the 400 pages and write just one page for each day, it helps. Then when it gets finished, you are always surprised.
2. Write freely and as rapidly as possible and throw the whole thing on paper. Never correct or rewrite until the whole thing is down. Rewrite in process is usually found to be an excuse for not going on. It also interferes with flow and rhythm which can only come from a kind of unconscious association with the material.
3. Forget your generalized audience. In the first place, the nameless, faceless audience will scare you to death and in the second place, unlike the theater, it doesn’t exist. In writing, your audience is one single reader. I have found that sometimes it helps to pick out one person—a real person you know, or an imagined person and write to that one.
4. If a scene or a section gets the better of you and you still think you want it—bypass it and go on. When you have finished the whole you can come back to it and then you may find that the reason it gave trouble is because it didn’t belong there.
5. Beware of a scene that becomes too dear to you, dearer than the rest. It will usually be found that it is out of drawing.
6. If you are using dialogue—say it aloud as you write it. Only then will it have the sound of speech.
Read more.[Image: AP]
