Saturday, April 07, 2012
Friday, April 06, 2012
Friends or Foes: Christoph Hoerstel on situation in Syria
On the Other Side: views to consider (true journalism) How does one weigh the reality of what we hear today from the media?
Turkey Syria Protest 1/4/2012
There are many Syrian refugees in Turkey, this is a protest pro-Assad and against Assad in nearby Turkey.
Syrian Army Mocking Dead Civilians
This reminds me of a video that was released regarding some U.S. soldiers. This must happen in every war where there are brutal killings. Maybe this is a way of handling the mental crisis when it comes to killing people?
Reporter: Al Jazeera told me to ignore Syria intervention
This is an interesting twist on reality. Remember, it is always best to look at all sides, and if possible it is best to be there yourself in order to know what is really going on in the world of journalism.
Tuesday, April 03, 2012
Six ways to get the Rich Richer under Romney
1. Housing bargains – but only for the wealthy and uber-wealthy. The largest transfer of wealth from the public to private sector. The federal government will be bulk-selling the massive portfolio of foreclosed homes now owned by HUD, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to private investors — vulture Read More... funds. “You and I will not be allowed to participate” is that these properties will only be sold to those that can bring “a billion dollars or more to each transaction”
2. Tax breaks are good – especially if you’re rich - RYAN PLAN - $MANY TRILLIONS - PLUS CAYMAN and SWISS ACCOUNTS. PAY FOR THIS CUTTING PROGRAMS FOR THE 99%.
3. Hedge funds: A typical minimum investment is $2.5 million, but many have much higher admission prices. PLANNED SCAMS FOR THE RICH!
4. Borrowing is easy – if you don’t need the money
Mark Twain said, “A banker is a fellow who lends you his umbrella when the sun is shining, but wants it back the minute it begins to rain.”
5. Buy low and sell high – easier if you’re rich - capitalize on bad times as prices plummet and demand drops and supply increases.
6. Good credit is money in the bank - More income and money you have, the easier it get credit at ZERO%
related articles:
recalculating romneys four percent gimmick
2. Tax breaks are good – especially if you’re rich - RYAN PLAN - $MANY TRILLIONS - PLUS CAYMAN and SWISS ACCOUNTS. PAY FOR THIS CUTTING PROGRAMS FOR THE 99%.
3. Hedge funds: A typical minimum investment is $2.5 million, but many have much higher admission prices. PLANNED SCAMS FOR THE RICH!
4. Borrowing is easy – if you don’t need the money
Mark Twain said, “A banker is a fellow who lends you his umbrella when the sun is shining, but wants it back the minute it begins to rain.”
5. Buy low and sell high – easier if you’re rich - capitalize on bad times as prices plummet and demand drops and supply increases.
6. Good credit is money in the bank - More income and money you have, the easier it get credit at ZERO%
related articles:
recalculating romneys four percent gimmick
Monday, April 02, 2012
Procedures for handling Assemblies and Mass Demonstrations, D.C.
From: Public Intelligence
The Standard Operating Procedures (SOP) outlined in this manual are to ensure that this department is prepared to respond effectively and efficiently in accordance with applicable law and District of Columbia policy to any unlawful conduct occurring in the context of First Amendment assemblies. These SOP’s incorporate revisions to the manner in which the Metropolitan Police Department responds to demonstrations and other assemblies on District of Columbia public space that the District has implemented in resolving litigation. This manual also reflects measures mandated by the First Amendment Rights and Police Standards Act of 2004.
This handbook sets forth general policy and shall serve as standard operating procedures for all members in carrying out the mission of the Metropolitan Police Department in dealing with all demonstrations, rallies, marches, picket lines, or other similar gatherings conducted for the purpose of persons expressing their political, social, or religious views. This policy is intended to exceed constitutional requirements and satisfy the heightened requirements of local statutory law and best practices.
The manual also is designed around the concept of operational flexibility within the requirements of the National Incident Management System. It is impossible to devise specific standard procedures for handling all possible situations, for each has its own characteristics and problems. The overall police philosophy must be one of moderation, flexibility and controlled response. Since each situation is unique, both commanders and supervisory officials must plan to respond according to the nature and size of the crowd. The tactical procedures established within this manual are a guide, and not a substitute for the exercise of sound judgment and proper command and supervision within the context of general departmental policy.
It is imperative that members of the force understand the role of the Metropolitan Police Department during mass demonstrations and major disturbances in our city and the manner by which the department prepares itself to fulfill this role. It is to this end that this handbook is dedicated.
…
V. VIOLENT CIVIL DISTURBANCES
Unplanned civil disturbances may arise from a number of causes such as political grievances, economic conflicts, community unrest, or in response to police action taking place in neighborhoods, or in the midst of a crowded street, park or public place. Civil disturbance participants come from all walks of life and cover the entire political spectrum.
Whenever an unplanned First Amendment assembly arises, the first officer on the scene will serve as the initial incident commander. That member will be responsible for conducting an assessment of the scene, notifying the CIC and the element Watch Commander of the situation and requesting assistance from the Special Operations Division.
The basic human element sparking a civil disturbance is usually the presence of a crowd. Civil disturbances usually arise when a crowd:
1. Gathers to air grievances on issues, and transfers its anger from the issues to the people dealing with the issues.
2. Swells uncontrollably as curious bystanders and sympathetic onlookers join forces with the activists or protestors.
3. Is incited to irrational action by skillful agitators.
In civil disturbances, crowds employ any number of tactics to achieve their goals. Their tactics may be unplanned or planned, non-violent or violent confrontations. As indicated, the situations that could evolve into a violent civil disturbance are numerous and varied. Often there will be little or no warning before the onset of violence or property damage. In a few instances, it may be possible to predict a level of civil disorder by the nature of a pre-planned event. However, each civil disturbance situation is unique and commanders and supervisory officials must, therefore, plan and respond according to the nature and size of the disturbance. The policies and procedures presented in this SOP are based upon the concept of operational flexibility, and it is expected that officials will exercise sound judgment and proper command and supervisory responsibility in the control of a civil disturbance.
To Download the entire manual click here
Recalculating Romneys Four Percent Gimmick
2 April 2012 (Think before you vote...really) This is one of the most important elections in our history, our future is at stake and this is not a time for playing around...(side note: Susan Brannon)
I have a new piece up at ForeignPolicy.com on Ron Paul and the Republican Party, focused in particular on the strong support that Paul draws from young people, with some additional speculation about where those young people will end up, if and when Paul steps back from his very public role. My instincts are that these young people are motivated at least as much by the ideas that Paul espouses as by Ron Paul, the person. If I am correct, many of them are likely to remain active in politics. I close with a warning to GOP leaders that they would be making a grave error if they ignored this libertarian-leaning voting bloc. Unfortunately, that is what the GOP’s leading candidate, Mitt Romney, seems to be doing by pushing a short-sighted plan for boosting military spending at a time when the country is awash in debt.
I have always been puzzled by the fact that conservatives who rail against welfare dependency here at home miss the pernicious effects of security dependency among our allies. Tim Pawlenty didn’t get it. Neither does Mitt Romney. Rather than questioning the mantras that have guided U.S. foreign policy for over a generation, Romney simply assumes that the United States will remain the world’s policeman, other countries will continue to free-ride on our security guarantees, and U.S. taxpayers will happily foot the bill. He proposes spending at least four percent of GDP on the military’s base budget, plus whatever additional money might be needed to fight the wars that he wants to fight (for example, this one).
I commented on the Four Percent Gimmick a few months ago, and now I have a bit more detail about Romney’s plan relative to the Obama administration’s latest 10-year projections. I alluded to these numbers in the ForeignPolicy.com piece, and below provide some more detail. (I am grateful, as always, for the help of my colleague Charles Zakaib in sorting through these, and in preparing the charts).
The chart above shows spending in nominal, current-year dollars, over the next ten years. The Obama administration plans to spend $5.7 trillion between 2013 and 2022 (the blue bars). If Romney keeps his promise of four percent for defense, he will spend at least $8.3 trillion (using OMB’s GDP projections) over that same period, an additional $2.58 trillion (the yellow bars). His budget in 2022 would top $1 trillion, and would be at least 61 percent higher than Barack Obama’s. He hasn’t said what other spending he will cut, or what taxes he would increase, to cover that difference. Until he does, it is logical to conclude that he plans to pile on more debt.
And we should remember that current laws call for even less spending than President Obama has proposed, but he has chosen to ignore the sequestration provisions of the Budget Control Act. GOP leaders in Congress seem equally disinterested in following through on their promise to kick the spending habit, and several have put forward plans to undo sequestration for the Department of Defense. Either way, the bottom line is more debt. As I speculate at ForeignPolicy.com, no wonder young people seem to like Ron Paul so much (and Mitt Romney so little).
Another way to demonstrate the absurdity of Romney’s plan is to control for inflation and compare it to future and past trends. Looking ahead, in constant, 2012 dollars, annual Pentagon spending will average $744.8 billion over the next ten years—again assuming the same GDP projections as Obama’s plan. That is 44 percent higher than Obama’s average budget (the bright pink line) over that same period, and nearly 59 percent higher than sequestration (the dark red line).
Now consider how this compares with the recent past. As you can see, Romney’s Four Percent Gimmick would result in taxpayers spending more than twice as much on the Pentagon as in 2000 (111 percent higher, to be precise), and 45 percent more than in 1985, the height of the Reagan buildup. Over the next ten years, Romney’s annual spending (in constant dollars) for the Pentagon would average 64 percent higher than annual post-Cold War budgets (1990-2012), and 42 percent more than the average during the Reagan era (1981-1989).
Mitt Romney may genuinely believe that today’s enemies are 42 percent more frightening than the big bad Soviets. He might believe that spending an average of $450 billion (in constant dollars) every year since 1990 has left the country dangerously vulnerable. If that is true, he should say so. More importantly, however, he should be compelled to answer the question on everyone’s mind: Where is he going to get the money to fund his Pentagon spending binge?
Cross-posted from Cato @ Liberty
Related Information:
(Mar 01, 2012) - T12-0040 - Romney Tax Plan Without Unspecified Base Broadeners; Baseline: Current Policy; Distribution of Federal Tax Change by Cash Income Level, 2015
I have a new piece up at ForeignPolicy.com on Ron Paul and the Republican Party, focused in particular on the strong support that Paul draws from young people, with some additional speculation about where those young people will end up, if and when Paul steps back from his very public role. My instincts are that these young people are motivated at least as much by the ideas that Paul espouses as by Ron Paul, the person. If I am correct, many of them are likely to remain active in politics. I close with a warning to GOP leaders that they would be making a grave error if they ignored this libertarian-leaning voting bloc. Unfortunately, that is what the GOP’s leading candidate, Mitt Romney, seems to be doing by pushing a short-sighted plan for boosting military spending at a time when the country is awash in debt.
I have always been puzzled by the fact that conservatives who rail against welfare dependency here at home miss the pernicious effects of security dependency among our allies. Tim Pawlenty didn’t get it. Neither does Mitt Romney. Rather than questioning the mantras that have guided U.S. foreign policy for over a generation, Romney simply assumes that the United States will remain the world’s policeman, other countries will continue to free-ride on our security guarantees, and U.S. taxpayers will happily foot the bill. He proposes spending at least four percent of GDP on the military’s base budget, plus whatever additional money might be needed to fight the wars that he wants to fight (for example, this one).
I commented on the Four Percent Gimmick a few months ago, and now I have a bit more detail about Romney’s plan relative to the Obama administration’s latest 10-year projections. I alluded to these numbers in the ForeignPolicy.com piece, and below provide some more detail. (I am grateful, as always, for the help of my colleague Charles Zakaib in sorting through these, and in preparing the charts).
The chart above shows spending in nominal, current-year dollars, over the next ten years. The Obama administration plans to spend $5.7 trillion between 2013 and 2022 (the blue bars). If Romney keeps his promise of four percent for defense, he will spend at least $8.3 trillion (using OMB’s GDP projections) over that same period, an additional $2.58 trillion (the yellow bars). His budget in 2022 would top $1 trillion, and would be at least 61 percent higher than Barack Obama’s. He hasn’t said what other spending he will cut, or what taxes he would increase, to cover that difference. Until he does, it is logical to conclude that he plans to pile on more debt.
And we should remember that current laws call for even less spending than President Obama has proposed, but he has chosen to ignore the sequestration provisions of the Budget Control Act. GOP leaders in Congress seem equally disinterested in following through on their promise to kick the spending habit, and several have put forward plans to undo sequestration for the Department of Defense. Either way, the bottom line is more debt. As I speculate at ForeignPolicy.com, no wonder young people seem to like Ron Paul so much (and Mitt Romney so little).
Another way to demonstrate the absurdity of Romney’s plan is to control for inflation and compare it to future and past trends. Looking ahead, in constant, 2012 dollars, annual Pentagon spending will average $744.8 billion over the next ten years—again assuming the same GDP projections as Obama’s plan. That is 44 percent higher than Obama’s average budget (the bright pink line) over that same period, and nearly 59 percent higher than sequestration (the dark red line).
Now consider how this compares with the recent past. As you can see, Romney’s Four Percent Gimmick would result in taxpayers spending more than twice as much on the Pentagon as in 2000 (111 percent higher, to be precise), and 45 percent more than in 1985, the height of the Reagan buildup. Over the next ten years, Romney’s annual spending (in constant dollars) for the Pentagon would average 64 percent higher than annual post-Cold War budgets (1990-2012), and 42 percent more than the average during the Reagan era (1981-1989).
Mitt Romney may genuinely believe that today’s enemies are 42 percent more frightening than the big bad Soviets. He might believe that spending an average of $450 billion (in constant dollars) every year since 1990 has left the country dangerously vulnerable. If that is true, he should say so. More importantly, however, he should be compelled to answer the question on everyone’s mind: Where is he going to get the money to fund his Pentagon spending binge?
Cross-posted from Cato @ Liberty
Related Information:
(Mar 01, 2012) - T12-0040 - Romney Tax Plan Without Unspecified Base Broadeners; Baseline: Current Policy; Distribution of Federal Tax Change by Cash Income Level, 2015
Sunday, April 01, 2012
TTZ S01E22 The Monsters are Due on Maple Street.avi
Here is my response to "The Police Tracking our Cellphones" From the Twilight Zone. Watch this! Growing in suspicion on a daily basis, anything goes and just watch...neighbors will be suspicious of each other, family members, into a frizzy. This will justify and does justify our privacy rights being violated in America today.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
