Jump to content

Unca T

Forum Members
  • Posts

    371
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Unca T

  1. Autopsy Doctor Speculates Marijuana Could Have Made Michael Brown Act ‘Crazy’
  2. Mike Brown had THC in his system when he was murdered. Are we not allowed to talk about Ferguson on this board anymore?
  3. https://firstlook.or...ic-states-trap/ There are many reasons the U.S. shouldn’t go to war with the Islamic State — and the best one may be because that is exactly what they want us to do. A growing number of people I consider experts in the field believe that the recent beheadings of two American journalists and a British aid worker were deliberate acts of provocation, and that ISIS is not just hoping for an American overreaction, but depending on it — perhaps even for its own survival. Ali Soufan, the former FBI agent who was one of the few heroes of modern American counter-terrorism, tells Mehdi Hasan of the Huffington Post UK: They are trying to suck the west into the war with them…. Then they’ll be not only the regional bad boy, but also the bad boy for the global jihadi movement. They can then claim they are in an international war – a modern day Crusade – against all the countries coming to fight them.What good would that do? According to Soufan: [The Islamic State is] fearful of Islamists within [their movement] turning against them…. They want to fight the British and the Americans… to unify the extremists within and diminish any kind of meaningful threat within their support base. They are not fearful of secular or moderate people.Journalist and author Steve Weissman writes for Reader Supported News that Obama is giving ISIS just what it wants: He plays the role they purposely provoked with their brutal beheadings, summary executions, and sickening use of mass rape to keep their fighters happy. He becomes the foreign, Christian crusader defiling a Muslim land, and he does it in company with Iranian as well as Iraqi Shiites, whom Islamic State despises as heretics, and with the blessing of Sunni Arab leaders it correctly sees as outrageously corrupt. In other words, the more jihadis Obama kills, the more Sunnis that Obama recruits to their ranks. Not a winning strategy.Syndicated columnist Cynthia Tucker writes: You have to give the bloodthirsty jihadists of the Islamic State (also known as ISIL or ISIS) credit: They may be savages, but they know us well. They used well-produced, high-quality videos of their grisly murders of American journalists to provoke the United States into a bipartisan frenzy of retribution.But an editorial in the Guardian on Sunday lays out the case for self-control in the immediate aftermath of the third ISIS beheading last week, of British aid worker David Haines: The killing of Mr Haines was not an act of revenge. It was an act of provocation. Like the two murders of the American journalists, it was designed to frighten and to inflame. It seems nothing would please Isis more than for these killings to provoke an intemperate and thoughtless violent reaction from those at whom they are aimed. Such a reaction might, in Isis’s crude and perverse logic, give them public legitimacy as victims rather than as killers. Such things have happened all too often in history. This in itself is a good enough reason for western leaders to have cool reactions.Matthew Hoh, a former State Department official who resigned in protest in 2009 over U.S. strategy in Afghanistan, responded to ISIS provocation with a provocative headline in his Huffington Post essay: “The Beheadings Are Bait.” He sees a repeat of the invasion of Iraq in 2003, which achieved the goals of radical extremists vastly more than it achieved those of the U.S.: While escalating American airstrikes and sending more troops to Iraq may assuage the fear and horror affecting the American public, and motivating America’s politicians, acting on those feelings will ensure greater conflict and loss. The Islamic State, like al Qaeda, requires the United States to serve as a villain in order for the Islamic State to receive manpower, logistics and financial support from Sunni Muslim communities. Additionally, an American military re-entry into the Iraqi Civil War in support of Shia and Kurdish factions, without lasting and serious political concessions from Baghdad towards Sunni grievances, will worsen the same political disenfranchisement and sense of existential danger that has pushed the Sunnis to align with the Islamic State. In the short-term American bombs may hurt the Islamic State, but in the long-term it is what they need and want. The Islamic State is a parasite of war. Its members and its narrative need war for their personal, organizational and ideological validation and success. That is why the only way to defeat the Islamic State is to take the war away from them.A few members of Congress have raised concerns about playing into the Islamic State’s hands. Rep. Mark Pocan (D-Wisc.) recently spoke from the House floor, saying: We have got to be sure that we are not falling into doing something that could be counterproductive because, clearly, ISIL did that to provoke a reaction, and I think that needs to be a part of the debate we have.And Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), a member of the House Intelligence Committee, told CNN last month: [W]e shouldn’t allow this horrible act to provoke us into doing things that are counterproductive. There’s nothing that ISIS would like more than having us reintroduce ground troops in Iraq, for example. So we have to be careful not to let this, the horror of this act provoke us to doing things that don’t make sense for us to do and that’s very difficult, but I think it’s extraordinarily important we keep our focus on what we can achieve.Whether a military response would be exactly what the Islamic State wants was the first question that former CIA Middle East expert Paul Pillar raised when I asked him earlier this month what sorts of questions the press should be pursuing instead of banging the drums for war. And Juan Cole, the University of Michigan professor and authoritative Middle East blogger, writes that journalists are also getting played, by giving the beheadings too much free media: These acts of public brutality against a helpless individual are intended in part to announce that despite their military superiority, Westerners are not 10 feet tall and can be cut down to size. They announce leadership and encourage angry young men to join ISIL rather than one of its many rivals. They also push Western publics to demand reprisals. Reprisals in turn can be used by the radical group as proof to its followers that it really is being unjustly targeted by the big bad superpower. It is a passive aggressive form of terrorism. It seems to me that editors should refuse to play along with this sick game. The fact is that almost no news organization covers the killing of American troops in Afghanistan any more. If it happens it is on page 17, and this had been the case for years. So let’s get this straight. The Taliban can actually kill US troops without our headlining the fact. But the slaughter of an innocent captive is front page news. These are editorial decisions, not acts of nature.(As it happens, Cole was wrong about one thing: The latest deaths of Americans in Afghanistan — in a massive suicide car-bombing right outside the Kabul Embassy — did make the papers: page A10 in the Washington Post; page A7 in the New York Times.)
  4. Robert Reich: Harvard Business School is ruining America The former secretary of labor explains how the famed university is complicit in the country's widening inequality No institution is more responsible for educating the CEOs of American corporations than Harvard Business School – inculcating in them a set of ideas and principles that have resulted in a pay gap between CEOs and ordinary workers that’s gone from 20-to-1 fifty years ago to almost 300-to-1 today. A survey, released on September 6, of 1,947 Harvard Business School alumni showed them far more hopeful about the future competitiveness of American firms than about the future of American workers. As the authors of the survey conclude, such a divergence is unsustainable. Without a large and growing middle class, Americans won’t have the purchasing power to keep U.S. corporations profitable, and global demand won’t fill the gap. Moreover, the widening gap eventually will lead to political and social instability. As the authors put it, “any leader with a long view understands that business has a profound stake in the prosperity of the average American.” Unfortunately, the authors neglected to include a discussion about how Harvard Business School should change what it teaches future CEOs with regard to this “profound stake.” HBS has made some changes over the years in response to earlier crises, but has not gone nearly far enough with courses that critically examine the goals of the modern corporation and the role that top executives play in achieving them. A half-century ago, CEOs typically managed companies for the benefit of all their stakeholders – not just shareholders, but also their employees, communities, and the nation as a whole. “The job of management,” proclaimed Frank Abrams, chairman of Standard Oil of New Jersey, in a 1951 address, “is to maintain an equitable and working balance among the claims of the various directly affected interest groups … stockholders, employees, customers, and the public at large. Business managers are gaining professional status partly because they see in their work the basic responsibilities [to the public] that other professional men have long recognized as theirs.” This view was a common view among chief executives of the time. Fortune magazine urged CEOs to become “industrial statesmen.” And to a large extent, that’s what they became. For thirty years after World War II, as American corporations prospered, so did the American middle class. Wages rose and benefits increased. American companies and American citizens achieved a virtuous cycle of higher profits accompanied by more and better jobs. But starting in the late 1970s, a new vision of the corporation and the role of CEOs emerged – prodded by corporate “raiders,” hostile takeovers, junk bonds, and leveraged buyouts. Shareholders began to predominate over other stakeholders. And CEOs began to view their primary role as driving up share prices. To do this, they had to cut costs – especially payrolls, which constituted their largest expense. Corporate statesmen were replaced by something more like corporate butchers, with their nearly exclusive focus being to “cut out the fat” and “cut to the bone.” In consequence, the compensation packages of CEOs and other top executives soared, as did share prices. But ordinary workers lost jobs and wages, and many communities were abandoned. Almost all the gains from growth went to the top. The results were touted as being “efficient,” because resources were theoretically shifted to “higher and better uses,” to use the dry language of economics. But the human costs of this transformation have been substantial, and the efficiency benefits have not been widely shared. Most workers today are no better off than they were thirty years ago, adjusted for inflation. Most are less economically secure. So it would seem worthwhile for the faculty and students of Harvard Business School, as well as those at every other major business school in America, to assess this transformation, and ask whether maximizing shareholder value – a convenient goal now that so many CEOs are paid with stock options – continues to be the proper goal for the modern corporation. Can an enterprise be truly successful in a society becoming ever more divided between a few highly successful people at the top and a far larger number who are not thriving? For years, some of the nation’s most talented young people have flocked to Harvard Business School and other elite graduate schools of business in order to take up positions at the top rungs of American corporations, or on Wall Street, or management consulting. Their educations represent a substantial social investment; and their intellectual and creative capacities, a precious national and global resource. But given that so few in our society – or even in other advanced nations – have shared in the benefits of what our largest corporations and Wall Street entities have achieved, it must be asked whether the social return on such an investment has been worth it, and whether these graduates are making the most of their capacities in terms of their potential for improving human well-being. These questions also merit careful examination at Harvard and other elite universities. If the answer is not a resounding yes, perhaps we should ask whether these investments and talents should be directed toward “higher and better” uses.
  5. Chuck Berry, 87, Still Keeps Monthly Concert Schedule Chuck Berry: Still Rockin' at 87 (video)
  6. Why hasn't Chuck Berry's name been mentioned ITT?
  7. THE GREAT STAGNATION You Can’t Feed a Family With G.D.P. The most important thing to know about the state of the United States economy was revealed in a report Tuesday morning that Wall Street barely noticed. Every year, the Census Bureau delivers a sweeping set of numbers that give the richest annual picture of how much Americans are making, how many are living in poverty, and how many have access to health insurance. The numbers are backward-looking, covering conditions from a year ago. But the new numbers, released Tuesday, in many ways tell us more about how well the economy is serving — or failing — the mass of Americans than data that create hyperventilation in the financial markets. The census numbers on what American families made last year are as mediocre as they are predictable. We now know that if your household brought in $51,939 in income last year, you were right at the 50th percentile, with half of households doing better and half doing worse. In inflation-adjusted terms, that is up a mere 0.3 percent from 2012. If you’re counting, that’s an extra $180 in annual real income for a middle-income American family. Don’t spend your extra $3.46 a week all in one place. Going back a little further, the numbers are even gloomier. The 2013 median income remained a whopping 8 percent — about $4,500 per year — below where it was in 2007. The 2008 recession depressed wages for middle-income Americans, and they haven’t recovered in any meaningful way. And 2007 household incomes were actually below the 1999 peak. There are a few sunnier points in the report. The poverty rate fell to 14.5 percent, from 15 percent. And as the White House Council of Economic Advisers points out, incomes rose a good bit more in 2013 for the median family — that is households where people who are related live together — than they did for the more widely cited measure of households, which includes singles and roommates. But the new evidence that pay is stagnant for middle-income families strikes us as the most important thing contained in this report. That’s partly because it is supported by so much other evidence, some of which we have written about recently. This simple fact may be the most important thing to understand about today’s economy: Around 1999, growth in the United States economy stopped translating to growth in middle-class incomes. In the last 15 years, median income has been more or less flat while there was far sharper growth in, for example, per capita gross domestic product. There are various potential reasons. Evolving technology favors those with the most advanced skills and allows companies to replace formerly middle-class workers with machines. Declining union power gives workers less power at the bargaining table over wages. Cultural norms have shifted such that top executives and financiers are paid much more compared with regular workers than they used to be. But there really is no mystery as to why public opinion has been persistently down on the quality of the economy for years. You can’t eat G.D.P. You can’t live in a rising stock market. You can’t give your kids a better life because your company’s C.E.O. was able to give himself a big raise. The rubber-meets-road measure of whether the economy is working for the mass of Americans is median real income and related measures of how much money is making its way into their pockets and what they can buy with that money. And the newest census numbers show that the nation experienced virtually no progress on that frontier in 2013, and remains far behind where we were seven years ago. Americans feel disappointed by the economy; the new data show that they have good reason.
  8. "So Joshua defeated the whole land, the hill country and the Negeb and the lowland and the slopes, and all their kings; he left no one remaining, but utterly destroyed all that breathed, as the LORD God of Israel commanded." (Joshua 10:40-41, NRSV)
  9. I just don't get why a lot of these athletes have so many illegitimate kids. One or two, I can understand. But by the time you're on your third baby mama, you'd think these guys would start considering condoms or vasectomies. ADRIAN PETERSON BABY MAMA - HE'S FATHERED 7 KIDS ... NOT 5 ATL Falcons RB Michael Turner: 7 Kids, 5 Baby Mamas & Tons of Drama! [PHOTOS]
  10. How many baby mommas does AP have? I wonder if it's more than Michael Turner.
  11. I recommend brutalizing children with phone books. That way liberal do-gooders won 't be able to use incriminating bruises, welts, or cuts against you.
  12. Bruce Levenson has got some Jew in him. Not a bad thing, I just think he might be a little shifty.
  13. Amen, brother. "If someone has a stubborn and rebellious son who will not obey his father and mother, who does not heed them when they discipline him, then his father and his mother shall take hold of him and bring him out to the elders of his town at the gate of that place... . Then all the men of the town shall stone him to death." (Deuteronomy 21:18-22, NRSV)
  14. Robert S. Mueller was director of the FBI from 2001-2013. Can't get anything past that guy!
  15. I've yet to meet anyone who self identifies as a "foodie" that wasn't insufferable.
  16. If I owned a restaurant the dress code would stipulate that men aren't allowed to wear jorts.
  17. Tracking drugs is hard, too. In 2005 the DEA reported seizing $477 million worth of drugs, whereas the estimated value of drugs sold within and into the US is $64 billion dollars. This makes the efficiency rate of the DEA less than 1% at curtailing US drug trade. Obviously we need to raise the DEA's budget 100 fold.
  18. Georgia Says Ex-Cop Convicted Of Sexually Assaulting A Woman With His Gun Gets To Own A Gun
  19. Keeping the Police Honest America’s police departments need greater accountability—and it must come from outside the forces.
  20. Cop Threatens To Shoot Group Of Black Men For Filming Police (VIDEO) A police officer in Boynton Beach, FL. is under scrutiny after a video of him threatening to shoot a group of young black men who were video taping the encounter after being stopped for a traffic violation. Here’s the video: Boynton Beach Police Chief Jeffrey Katz defended the aggressive reaction of his officers in a Youtube video Tuesday, claiming the men in the car were “escalating” the situation by “recording the interaction,” causing one of the officers to fear for his life when a man “reached out of his window with a black object in his hand,” which was nothing more than a camera phone trying to record the cop’s name tag after he refused to provide it. That cop slapped the phone out of his hand, then yanked the man out of the car, throwing him facedown on the grass while another cop with his gun drawn comes charging towards the other men, threatening to shoot one of them for who knows what. “I’ll put a round in your *** so quick,” the cop said, even though none of the men in the car were doing anything more than being assertive about their rights, even if they were doing it in a profane manner, which is protected by the First Amendment. Source: Photography is Not a CrimeKatz claimed there had been a home invasion in the area, which supposedly justified his officers’ behavior. Katz also claimed that, “When I watch this video, I don’t see a car full of young men who are behaving in a manner consistent with fear of the police.” When I watch this video, I see young men with, granted, smart mouths and a cell phone camera. Neither of which is illegal and neither of which deserves death threats.
  21. Police cameras need to be managed and stored by an independent third party. And no Off switches. New Orleans Police Officer Turns Off Body Camera Minutes Before Shooting Suspect In Forehead In New Orleans, Armand Bennet, 26, was shot in the forehead during a traffic stop by New Orleans police officer Lisa Lewis. However, the police department did not reveal until much later that Lewis turned off her body camera just before shooting Bennett. ... New Orleans Police Superintendent Ronal Serpas called the late disclosures on the shooting simply a “snafu.”
  22. Federal investigators are focused on one Ferguson, Mo., police officer who fatally shot an unarmed black teenager, but at least five other police officers and one former officer in the town’s 53-member department have been named in civil rights lawsuits alleging the use of excessive force. http://wapo.st/1sRY60Y Ferguson police officers 20x more likely to have an excessive force complaint than officers nationally.
×
×
  • Create New...