#context: this is the MA senate debate | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

elizabethwarrenmemes · 5 years ago

Text

A brief story about that time Elizabeth Warren ran against a Republican nude male model and won.

(Buckle up for the cameo from Susan Collins- it’s a doozy)

When Senator Ted Kennedy died unexpectedly in 2009, attorney & former State Sen Scott Brown won a special election for the U.S. Senate seat representing Massachusetts in an upset

Viewed as a moderate Republican, he received support from some prominent Democrats, became popular in the state of Massachusetts & inspired this SNL skit.

One thing that got a lot of attention was his history as a male model. In college he won Cosmo’s “Sexiest Man Alive” contest & won $1,000 to pose naked.

He went on to do various modeling gigs while juggling school & his legal career.

In an interview with The Boston Herald, his former agent Maggie Trichon said he was “gorgeous” and that he had "excellent hands," with "straight fingers, perfect nails" and ability to "hold things correctly."

You know... talent.

Fast FWD to 2012. For the first time he is up for re-election.

Enter: Elizabeth F*@!ing Warren. Fresh off creating the CFPB & predicting the 2008 financial crash, she runs against him.

Expectations were low- there had never been a female U.S. Senator or Governor elected from the state of MA. He was polling 8 points above her.

She did what she does best. Persist.

She campaigned on the message she still does today: the economy is working better & better for the ultra-rich but leaving working class behind.

This election was the first to include a “People’s Pledge” to limit the use of funds from outside groups.

Supporters of Brown broke the pledge two times, and his campaign agreed to donate money to a charity of Warren’s choice in return. She chose The Autism Consortium.

Elizabeth Warren really crushed it at the debates with Brown- facing off attacks about her ancestry, gender, & alleged “elitism.”

When asked how she paid for college, she replied, “Well, I kept my clothes on.”

Brown was widely criticized for later saying in response “thank God.”

That was when GOP Sens. Susan Collins & Kelly Ayote came to his defense... you know just like male Senators would do for a female candidate if she had a history of nude modeling.

Compare that to the treatment of various female candidates that have run for office & were later slut-shamed for risqué photos: Katie Hill, Krystal Ball (not my favorite pundit but still), or Rachel Hundley.

tOTaLlY fAiR amirite?

Once this election was all said and done Elizabeth Warren won by a sizable margin and she was easily re-elected in 2018.

She proved that she could take on a popular, dare I say sexy?, male Republican incumbent and win.

But as for Scott Brown...

After working as a Fox News contributor and board member at a paper company, he moved to New Hampshire so he could run for U.S. Senate again.

He lost to Democrat Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, making him the first man in history to lose Senate races to two different women.

One footnote: I don’t think anyone be they male, female, GNC, or non-binary should be disqualified from a job because of past nudity or sexually oriented work. Just wanted to point out double standards. Plus when he’s propping up a misogynistic system, context is different.

#democratic primary #warren 2020 #2020 election #elizabeth warren #elizabeth warren memes #politics #warren memes #liz warren #persist #democrats #scott brown #senator scott brown #scott brown model #warren beats trump

32 notes · View notes

acusumano21ahsgov · 4 years ago

Text

BLOG POST #2: MEDIA ASSESSMENT OF ISSUE

1. Three articles pertaining to your civic action issue:

The Atlantic: Marijuana Reform Should Focus on Inequality

National Review: It’s Time to Decriminalize Marijuana

ABC News: Bill to decriminalize marijuana at federal level up for House vote next month

2. SACAPS each article

The Atlantic: Marijuana Reform Should Focus on Inequality

SUBJECT: Americans of color have wrongfully faced the harshness of the war on drugs. Black people are four times as likely as white people to be arrested for marijuana possession despite similar usage rates. As states move towards legalization, production regulations should be set so that the wealth from the huge potential profit can be spread rather than be exclusive to industries and corporations.

AUTHOR: Sarah Milov is a liberal history professor at the University of Virginia, with a BA from Harvard along with an MA and PhD from Princeton. She specializes in studies of the Modern United States, Political and Social Movements, History of Capitalism and Legal History. A left wing professor, her opinion agrees with the democratic party.

CONTEXT: This article was published on October 5th, 2019 from Virginia. Although still illegal in Virginia, around the time this article was published, laws and legislation came up regarding marijuana usage and were debated and voted on, creating multiple stances to take sides with.

AUDIENCE: Being a left leaning news source, The Atlantic pertains to liberal Americans or those seeking a reliable source. Thus, the source may be selective of information that supports its claim and may contain less objectivity.

PERSPECTIVE: Although mostly objective, the author has a partially biased, liberal perspective. Rather than the market being dominated by huge cannabis corporations, Milov believes the right to cultivate should be reserved to a smaller, human scale to build wealth in communities. I think I agree with the author’s perspective because it would be bad if the marijuana industry got so big that it had so much power like huge drug corporations such as Big Tobacco.

SIGNIFICANCE: Milov uses numbers and facts as evidence. For example, she cites an ACLU study reporting that black people are nearly four times as likely as white people to be arrested for marijuana possession. She also cites other articles from reliable sources such as Forbes, The Washington Post, and The Counter.

National Review: It’s Time to Decriminalize Marijuana

SUBJECT: The time has come for the decriminalization of marijuana on the federal level and to leave the laws to the states. Colorado Republican Senator Cory Gardner is in a position to make this reform, with various arguments to support him. One is that marijuana should be decriminalized to reduce police/person interactions and arrests to reduce the number of incarcerations.

AUTHOR: David French is a Republican author from Kentucky who currently resides in Tennessee as the senior editor of The Dispatch, a conservative fact based reporting and commentary online magazine. He was a senior writer for National Review for five years with a right leaning stance.

CONTEXT: On January 4th, 2018, Attorney General Jeff Sessions rescinded memoranda that made it Justice Department policy not to enforce federal bans on the sale and distribution of marijuana in states that have legalized it. This sparked reaction across varying political views, and gave way for authors like French to write on it.

AUDIENCE: Being a right leaning news source, National Review pertains to conservative Americans or those seeking a reliable source. Thus, the source may be selective of information that supports its claim and may contain less objectivity.

PERSPECTIVE: Although mostly objective, the author has a partially biased, conservative perspective. French claims that more senators need to advocate for legalization, which would decrease police/civilian interactions and lessen government regulation of private behavior as well as make way for the potential benefits of the drug itself on health. I agree with French’s stance because the only way to know for sure is if these government restrictions are lifted.

SIGNIFICANCE: Author David French cites and uses past legislation along with quotes from politicians to support his claim. He also uses facts and statistics, like that National support for legalization is at an all-time high of 64% as of October 2017.

ABC News: Bill to decriminalize marijuana at federal level up for House vote next month

SUBJECT: The House of Representatives is set to vote on a bill that would decriminalize marijuana at the federal level and expunge federal marijuana convictions and arrests. This would be the “greatest federal cannabis reform accomplishment in over 80 years.”

AUTHOR: Meredith Deliso is a current author for ABC News and has been employed there since April of 2020. There is not an author biography available for Deliso as she is likely writing under a pen name to remain private, however she can be trusted because she writes objectively on current political issues for a non-biased news site.

CONTEXT: Published on August 30th, 2020, this article is pertaining to a very current issue. Introduced by New York Representative Jerrold Nadler in 2019, the House of Representatives is voting this September 2020 on the MORE (Marijuana Opportunity Reinvestment and Expungement) Act. This issue has become increasingly urgent because of nationwide protests against racial injustices and can be a way to align cannabis laws with what the majority of Americans support while giving justice to those hurt by preexisting laws.

AUDIENCE: ABC News is an objective, reportative news site. This source was created for people looking for unbiased, fact based information and reports containing both political stances on current events.

PERSPECTIVE: With a goal of staying objective and unbiased, Deliso reports on the upcoming vote on the MORE Act. The democratic stance, as shown from democratic senators and representatives, is more in favor of the bill, whereas republican politicians like Mitch McConnell and even President Trump seem to be less for it although not entirely opposed. I agree with the democratic stance as shown by this article, for the approval of the bill would mean justice for those incarcerated for small marijuana crimes and would open the door for possible health benefits.

SIGNIFICANCE: Deliso uses quotes from Democratic senators and representatives, from both social media posts and public statements. It also includes facts from polls, like Pew Research Center and Gallup that both found that about two-thirds of Americans support legalizing marijuana, with Democrats more supportive of the move than Republicans.

3. What are the similarities and differences between these three accounts of your issue?

Both the left and right wing sources contain a similar pro-legalization stance, however differ slightly in the ways of doing so. Milov, from the Atlantic, believes that the main focus of legality should be on equality, and reducing production rights to a smaller scale to spread the wealth to the community with federal government regulations while giving justice to those incarcerated or mistreated because of preexisting laws. Similarly, French, for the National Review, believes that legalization can be a means for decreasing police/civilian interaction and be more racially just in doing so. However, French believes that the laws and legality should be determined individually by the state and not the federal government, allowing for more variation in the polarized society we live in. The ABC News stance also seems to be pro legalization, however neutral in the policies for doing so.

4. Finally, which source do you identify with most and why?

I identify most with the National Review source because I think the idea of each state having the right to choose its legislation on marijuana while not being under the grasp of federal criminal prosecution makes the most sense. I think that each state should be able to decide individually so that it can conform to the support of its own citizens, whether that be pro or anti legalization.

2 notes · View notes

kyprelaw · 4 years ago

Text

Facial Recognition Technology And Law Enforcement

By Brett Goble, Centre College Class of 2022

June 30, 2020

As protests in the wake of the murder of George Floyd continue, a growing number of tech companies, such as IBM and Amazon, are realizing that their respective facial recognition software, which in some cases are being used by police departments to track or arrest protestors, raises many ethical problems on the nature of mass facial recognition. IBM and Amazon and many similar companies have said that they will stop all R&D on facial recognition for one year, or until the federal government can craft stronger laws to deal with facial recognition software being used by the police (1).

The most recent example of these types of arrests is of a black man from Detroit, Robert Williams, who was mistakenly arrested in his home last week after a piece of facial recognition software mistook him for someone else who had shoplifted (2).

This ‘moratorium’ from tech companies has resulted in a bill called the Facial Recognition and Biometric Technology Moratorium Act currently being brought into congress with the hopes creating a metric for how accurate these types of facial recognition programs would need to be to be used by police departments, move to essentially ban facial recognition technology from being used by police departments until congress explicitly allows it, and also force state and local police departments that receive federal funding to ‘proceed with extreme caution’ in regards to using facial recognition technology (3) or risk losing some of their funding from the federal government.Civil rights groups such as the American Civil Liberties Union support the bill and claim that it is a necessary step. Senior legislative counsel, Neema Singh Giuliani, says, “It’s clear that this surveillance technology has been deployed without legislative approval or public debate about whether we should be using it at all (4).”

The last point here is worthy of elaboration. In China, where mass facial recognition has become commonplace for over a year, the ability of the government to monitor its citizens public and private lives has risen several red flags from groups like Amnesty International (5). This reality of surveillance was put on display by the Hong Kong protests last year where the umbrella, used by protestors to hide from cameras, became a symbol of fighting the perceived oppression from the Chinese government (6). There is also evidence that facial recognition technology is shockingly inaccurate when analyzing the faces ofblack and other minority persons. As mentioned earlier, Robert Williams was mistakenly identified by a piece of facial recognition software and arrested. Several studies have shown that what happened to Robert Williams will not be rare, as the computer algorithms behind facial recognition systems can only ‘reliably’ recognize the faces of white men (7). Senator Ed Markey (D-MA), one of the main authors of the bill said, “Facial recognition technology doesn’t just pose a grave threat to our privacy, it physically endangers Black Americans and other minority populations in our country” (8).

Given the national context of the black lives matter protests, large companies pulling their tech from police departments nationwide, and the false arrest of Robert Williams, it is no surprise such a bill is making waves in congress. However, though the bill looks promising to privacy advocates, many city government officials from around the US are taking matters of policing facial recognition into their own hands.Boston and San Francisco have both banned the use of facial recognition tech within their respective cities,Boston being the second largest city in the world to do so (9).

Whether or not the bill to limit the reach of facial recognition passes congress, the ability of facial recognition software to be used by police to hunt down protestors is not a new phenomenon to the current black lives matter movement. During the 2015 black lives matter protests in Baltimore, police used surveillance footage and a piece of facial recognition software called Geofeedia to examine social media feeds and match posts from social media accounts to photos and videos of those who had protested and many were arrested on charges that they were simply around the protests when they happened, not that there was any footage o fthem committing crimes (10).

In summary, those against facial recognition technology would not bat an eye in calling this technology Orwellian and as many groups like Amnesty have observed from places like China, there is much to be feared with facial recognition.

________________________________________________________________

1. Truong, K. (2020, June 25). Congress Introduces Bill to Ban Federal Agencies From Using Facial Recognition. Retrieved June 27, 2020, fromhttps://www.vice.com/en_ca/article/qj4jkx/congress-introduces-bill-to-ban-federal-agencies-from-using-facial-recognition

2. Ibid.

3. Solon, O. (2020, June 25). Facial recognition bill would ban use by federal law enforcement.Retrieved June 27, 2020, from https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/security/2-democratic-senators-propose-ban-use-facial-recognition-federal-law-n1232128

4. Ibid.

5. Jee, C. (2020, June 26). A new US bill would ban the police use of facial recognition. Retrieved June27, 2020, from https://www.technologyreview.com/2020/06/26/1004500/a-new-us-bill-would-ban-the-police-use-of-facial-recognition/

6. Whiteaker, C. (2019, September 20). Hong Kong Protests: Why Umbrellas Are the Most Essential Tool. Retrieved June 27, 2020, from https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2019-hong-kong-protesters-umbrellas/

7. See Citation 5.

8. Kelly, M. (2020, June 25). Feds would be banned from using facial recognition under new bill.Retrieved June 27, 2020, from https://www.theverge.com/2020/6/25/21303355/facial-recognition-ed-markey-ayanna-pressley-ban-federal-agencies-fed-law-enforcement

9. Ibid.

10. Police can track protesters even after the demonstrations end. (n.d.). Retrieved June 27, 2020, fromhttps://www.marketplace.org/shows/marketplace-tech/police-protesters-surveillance-tracking-facial-recognition/

0 notes

caveartfair · 7 years ago

Text

Why Sally Mann's Photographs of Her Children Can Still Make Viewers Uncomfortable

Jessie Bites, 1985. Sally Mann Phillips

In the early 1990s, photographer Sally Mann transformed one of the most banal elements of family life—the sentimental photo album—into discomfiting, divisive, and ultimately unforgettable artwork. For her series “Immediate Family,” she shot her three children (Emmett, Jessie, and Virginia) in vulnerable positions at their summer home in rural Virginia. The ensuing criticism the images received questioned the line between pornography and fine art and problematized the objectification of children.

This past December, elements of this debate again came to the fore after an online petition ordered the Metropolitan Museum of Art to either take down or newly contextualize the 1938 painting, Thérèse Dreaming, by the French artist known as Balthus. The older, male artist had portrayed a pre-teen girl sitting with a raised knee, revealing her underwear underneath a red skirt. (The museum declined to comply with the demands.) That controversy follows a long year of protests targeting art institutions and specific works, from Dana Schutz’s Open Casket (2016) at the Whitney Biennial to Sam Durant’s Scaffold (2012) at the Walker Art Center. Each of these fights hinged on the discrepancies in power between artist and subject. As artists of all disciplines grapple with the ever-evolving ethics of representing others, what can we learn from the scandal surrounding Mann’s “Immediate Family” photographs, a major touchstone of the 1990s culture wars?

Despite how the media has portrayed her, Mann views herself less as a portraitist and provocateur than as a documenter of place—specifically, the American South. Many of her photographs pay homage to her family farm in Lexington, Virginia. Mann was born Sally Munger in the small town in 1951. She first studied photography at the Putney School in Vermont, where she attended high school. During her two years at Bennington College, she met her husband, Larry Mann. She completed her undergraduate work back in Virginia, at Hollins College, in 1974, where she also received an MA in writing the following year. Her passion for narrative found another outlet when she published her memoir, the National Book Award finalist Hold Still, in 2015.

Vinland, 1992. Sally Mann Phillips

This March, the National Gallery of Art in Washington, D.C. will open “Sally Mann: A Thousand Crossings,” an exhibition of around 115 photographs culled from Mann’s over 40-year career. The southern landscape plays a starring role, whether the photographs are of Civil War battlefields or Mann’s children. A deep sense of drama derives from shadows and light on historically fraught land. “Despite her great talent and prominence...the full range of her work had not yet received sufficient and widespread critical and scholarly attention,” says exhibition curator Sarah Greenough.

This survey will doubtlessly broaden the knowledge of Mann’s career beyond her most indelible, and controversial, series. But the photographs in “Immediate Family” remain worth exploring in their own right.

Mann began photographing her children as soon as they were born. “For years I shot the underappreciated and extraordinary domestic scenes of any mother’s life with the point-and-shoot,” she recalls in Hold Still. “But it wasn’t really until 1985 that I put on my photography eyes, and began to see the potential for serious imagery within the family.” She considers her first “good family picture” to be a shot of Jessie’s face swollen from insect bites. Immediately, the darker side of childhood, as opposed to more pristine and tired visions of innocence, attracted her. She describes her family photographs as a superstitious means of warding off real harm to her family.

The New Mothers, 1989. Sally Mann Phillips

Many of the subsequent images that eventually formed the “Immediate Family” series featured her children on the family farm—in the nude, injured, or in other vulnerable positions. Emmett’s bloody nose, Virginia’s wet bed, and Jessie’s naked dance on a table all became aesthetic fodder through their mother’s lens. In the pictures, their ages range from around one to twelve years old. Mann debuted the series at New York’s Houk Friedman Gallery (now Edwynn Houk Gallery) in the spring of 1992. Later that year, she published the images in a photo book of the same title.

Within three months, the book sold out its printing of 10,000 copies. Mann’s children became ever more visible. While they enjoyed being photographed at the time, there was no telling how their opinions of the experience would develop. Mann recalls taking her children to a psychologist to assess the impact her series was having on them; he thought they were just fine.

In September 1992, The New York Times Magazine ran a cover story by arts critic Richard B. Woodward entitled “The Disturbing Photography of Sally Mann.” The piece wasn’t overtly critical, but honed in on the children’s sexuality and raised ideas about child abuse and incest that seemed deliberately designed to spark controversy. Mann later complained that Woodward had taken her words out of context. Letters to the editor ranged from pleas to consider how Mann’s actions were affecting her children’s sexuality, to applause for Mann’s novel and striking depictions of intense maternal love.

Damaged Child, 1984. Sally Mann Phillips

The Wall Street Journal published an op-ed in February 1991 by food writer Raymond Sokolov critiquing Mann’s work. The paper accompanied it with a nude image of Virginia that had run on the cover of Aperture Magazine in 1990. Here, however, they censored the photograph by placing black bars over her eyes, nipples, and vagina. “It felt like a mutilation, not only of the image but also of Virginia herself and of her innocence,” writes Mann. She argues that the censorship, not the picture itself, gave the image a tinge of pornography.

Defending her work, Mann stresses the dramatic nature of the photographs and their separation from reality. “These are not my children; they are figures on a silvery paper slivered out of time,” she wrote over two decades later. “I believe my morality should have no bearing on the discussion of the pictures I made.” She cites Ernest Hemingway, Ezra Pound, and Paul Gauguin as artists whose works shouldn’t be disregarded due to their less-than-angelic lives. (If Mann could dismiss the articles and the letters, more frightening was the stalker her work attracted. One man wrote to the children’s school—in addition to editors and journalists—asking for more information about them. Both Mann and at least one of her children suffered sleepless nights in fear of their own safety.)

I asked National Gallery curator Greenough about the connection between a series like “Immediate Family” and more recent backlash against, say, the work of Balthus. “I think that it’s fascinating the way culture seems to be going in cycles,” she noted. “When we began [planning our exhibition] in 2014, it did seem as if most of the moral panic over the depiction of child nudity had receded and that ‘Immediate Family’ really had been widely embraced as one of the most consistently affecting and revelatory photographic explorations of childhood that had ever been published.”

Dog Scratches, 1991. Sally Mann Edwynn Houk Gallery

The timing of Mann’s initial unveiling of “Immediate Family” situated her work within larger discussions about morality in photography. In 1989, U.S. senators Al D’Amato and Jesse Helms railed against artist Andres Serrano’s 1987 photograph Immersion (Piss Christ), which depicts a plastic figurine of Jesus on a crucifix submerged in Serrano’s urine. The artist had indirectly received partial funding from the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) to exhibit the work, and the senators wanted to prevent similarly “obscene” art from receiving government money. The Corcoran Gallery of Art in Washington, D.C. subsequently cancelled an exhibition of sexually explicit photographs by Robert Mapplethorpe, which had also received NEA funds. In 1990, the director of Cincinnati’s Contemporary Arts Center, Dennis Barrie, went to trial for obscenity after the museum displayed Mapplethorpe’s portraits of semi-nude children and BDSM practices. (He was acquitted later that year.)

The same year, the F.B.I. confiscated Jock Sturges’s equipment and prints of nude women and children who had consented to model for him. Sturges, they said, may be guilty of criminal violations of child-pornography statutes, but the U.S. Grand Jury decided not to indict him after a 17-month investigation. Mann worked under a similar threat, though the government never took action against her.

Interestingly, the uproar over “Immediate Family” represents one of the few cases where both the political right and left have united to condemn an artist. Feminist writer Mary Gordon attacked Mann for unnecessarily sexualizing her daughter, while charges of pornography emanated from conservative circles. In her defense, Mann invoked Oscar Wilde who, she writes, asserted “that the hypocritical, prudish, and philistine English public, when unable to find the art in a work of art, instead looked for the man in it.” Wilde died in 1900. Over a hundred years later, we’re still debating—albeit with more nuanced ideas about how power functions—whether artists’ foibles and oversights render their work unfit for exhibition halls, publications, and screens big and small.

from Artsy News

#Artsy News

2 notes · View notes

cksmart-world · 5 years ago

Text

The Completely Unnecessary News Analysis

By Christopher Smart

Dec. 3, 2019

THE RIGHT TO LIFE & BEAR ARMS

Everybody knows life begins at fertilization. The sperm and egg unite, two cells become four, and voilà — an embryo. This truth is non-negotiable. If a political candidate does not believe in “right to life,” then forget about it. Women do not have the freedom to choose what's going on with their own bodies, even in the case of rape or incest. Every life is precious and we must close all the embryo-killing abortion clinics immediately. And while we're considering morality and patriotism, it's also a truism that the 2nd Amendment guarantees everyone's right to own a gun, whether it be a snub-nosed .38 or an AR-15. “A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.” (Don't pay any attention to the “well regulated Militia” part). Of course, there are mass shootings going on every day in this country. But all those corpses piling up are just collateral damage — the price of freedom, as Bill O'Reilly likes to say. You see, life in the womb is precious; at Walmart or middle school, not so much.

IMPEACHMENT GLOSSARY

Soon the Senate will conduct the impeachment trial of President Donald J. Trump for alleged bribery, obstruction of justice and abuse of power regarding interactions with Ukraine. In order to help Americans understand the complexities of this historic event, the linguists here at Smart Bomb have assembled a hands-on glossary for political neophytes. To get oriented, we first turn to George Orwell for definitions such as: freedom is slavery; ignorance is strength; and war is peace. As has been reported recently on Fox News Channel For Real Americans, the term “whistleblower” in this context really means “lying sonofabitch.” And according to a forensic analysis of the July 25 phone call between Trump and Ukraine President Zalensky, quid pro quo is Pig-Latin for “Go ahead, make my day.” One subject that is bound to come up is “Burisma,” the name of a Ukrainian energy company. But here, Burisma actually is jargon for, “Joe Biden will sleep with the fishes.” And the phrase, “Check with Rudy,” has been revealed as double-speak for, “nobody fingers the White House or it's curtains.” During the trial, Republican senators are bound to bandy about the term “CrowdStrike” in an effort to indict Ukraine for meddling in the 2016 election. The subtext, however, indicates the real meaning is, “pure bullshit.”

AIR POLLUTION & BRAIN DAMAGE

A new scientific study reveals that air pollution leads to Alzheimer-like brain atrophy. (We are not making this up.) The findings from University of Southern California are the result of a scientific study of 998 women ages to 73 to 87. Alzheimer’s is the fourth-leading cause of death in Utah, according to Deseret News scoop Amy Joi O'Donoghue. Pollution can get so bad along the Wasatch Front that it's rated as some of the filthiest air in the country. Here, at Smart Bomb, we have have determined that air pollution impacts men's mental abilities, as well. Our team of crack researchers came to that conclusion by studying the actions of the male-dominated Utah Legislature. For example, Utah lawmakers recently determined to help low-income workers by imposing a new food tax, clearly indicating some kind of mental impairment. As you may know, the Capitol Building is located near Interstate 15 and the oil refineries — a double-whammy of air pollution. And it's no secret that legislators have been resistant to clean air initiatives, largely because they keep forgetting about them — a Catch 22 or sorts. Actually that explains a whole lot things.

BLACK FRIDAY CAPTURES X-MAS SPIRIT

American shoppers charged bazillions of dollars on their credit cards Nov. 29 — Black Friday. Among other things, Black Friday keeps the economy humming. Not just here, but in every country that imports to the U.S. We are the world's consumers — the bedrock of capitalism. Shopping is our way of celebrating the birth of Jesus of Nazareth, who everyone knows was way into new stuff and consumption. (Actually, Jesus wasn't born on Dec. 25, but Christians usurped the Pagan Winter Solstice celebration. But we digress.) The origins of the term “Black Friday” are up for debate. Most recently, it is believed to be the day that retailers broke into the black, as in black ink — profit. Another story is that the day after Thanksgiving was a traditional time that slave traders put their products — human beings — on sale before winter set in. How American can you get? But the story that rings true is that the term “Black Friday” was coined in Philadelphia in 1961 by cops overwhelmed by all the extra traffic created by hordes of shoppers heading for the city’s downtown stores (remember them?), long before Jeff Bezos was even a twinkle in his mother's eye.

Post Script — Well that's it for another fun-filled week here at Smart Bomb, where we keep track of Michael Bloomberg's election campaign spending so you don't have to. Time flies — the presidential election is now only 11 months away: Think of running a marathon barefoot on a Mojave highway in July with blisters on your feet. Coincidentally, the rate of clinical depression across the country is up sharply and the birthrate is down. No Wilson, we don't know if they've tried marijuana gummy bears. But listen, this is the holiday season and we ought to be focusing on joy, the spirit of giving and eggnog. Think good thoughts, like the Runnin' Utes ranked 5th in NCAA football (pinch yourself, it's real); the New England Patriots losing again; there's snow in the mountains; the lights are on at Temple Square; and nobody's dropping bombs on us from drones flying overhead (a different kind of giving we save for the Middle East).

All right, Wilson, wake up the band and take us into the festive season with something special: We were born before the wind / Also younger than the sun / Ere the bonnie boat was won / As we sailed into the mystic / Hark, now hear the sailors cry / Smell the sea and feel the sky / Let your soul and spirit fly into the mystic...

0 notes

worldtopnewsoftheday · 5 years ago

Link

Win McNamee/GettySen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) made remarks in the Democratic debate Tuesday night that harked back to President Obama’s “You didn’t build that” line, which became fodder for Republican attacks in the 2012 presidential election. “Look, I don’t have a beef with billionaires,” Warren said at the debate, arguing for higher taxes on the ultra-wealthy. “My problem is, you made a fortune in America, you had a great idea, you got out there and worked for it, good for you, but you built that fortune in America, I guarantee you built it in part using workers all of us help pay to educate.” Warren’s debate argument was the latest iteration of a line she pioneered during her 2012 campaign for a Massachusetts Senate seat. But when Obama tried to use Warren’s messaging in his 2012 presidential re-election campaign, he phrased it less clearly, leaving an opening for GOP attack ads that took Obama’s remarks out of context and made it seem as if he was saying business owners “didn’t build” their companies. “If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help,” Obama said. “There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business, you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen.”Obama rival Mitt Romney soon brought up the “you didn’t build that” line in a speech, claiming that it was akin to saying that “Steve Jobs didn't build Apple.”Read more at The Daily Beast.Got a tip? Send it to The Daily Beast hereGet our top stories in your inbox every day. Sign up now!Daily Beast Membership: Beast Inside goes deeper on the stories that matter to you. Learn more.

from Yahoo News - Latest News & Headlines https://ift.tt/2qi39SJ

#Blogger

0 notes

justsimplylovely · 5 years ago

Link

from Yahoo News - Latest News & Headlines https://ift.tt/2qi39SJ

#Blogger

0 notes

orendrasingh · 6 years ago

Link

Mark Makela/GettyIn seeking the 2020 nomination for the presidency, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) had made overtures that he’d operate more firmly within the Democratic Party as the party adopted procedural reforms to accommodate his concerns. The rapprochement was always delicate. And this week it hit a major snag as the senator’s presidential campaign opened fire at one of the Democratic Party’s leading think tanks over a video that its editorially independent news site posted on Sanders’ personal wealth. That video from ThinkProgress and the senator’s response, in which he accused the Center for American Progress of bias against liberal candidates and veneration for corporate interests, exposed the lingering animus between the Sanders and the Democratic Party’s actual institutions. It also raised alarm and questions as to whether Sanders was running to lead the party or to fundamentally change it. “If you always want to be an aggrieved factional candidate, then you do what they did here,” said a Democratic operative who is a fan of Sanders. “It has nothing to do with the electoral context of Iowa or New Hampshire or Nevada or South Carolina. Let’s go fight that battle. Voters don’t care about CAP.”The root of the latest blow up was a video produced by ThinkProgress noting that Sanders had stopped maligning millionaires—leaving his criticism for billionaires—when he became one himself. The news site is part of the CAP umbrella, which gave the video the veneer of a sanctioned attack. But it also claims editorial independence from the think tank, though the degree of that independence is difficult to define. Sanders’ campaign was initially uncertain of how it should respond to the post. But a day after it had been up—and shared gleefully by Republican operatives—they chose to push back in a way that, Democrats said, redefined disproportionality. Over the weekend, Sanders’ campaign sent a letter to the board of CAP and CAP Action Fund saying that the “counterproductive negative campaigning needs to stop.” The letter referenced content written about Sanders and two close colleagues who are also in the 2020 race: Senators Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) and Cory Booker (D-NJ). It also explicitly called out CAP president Neera Tanden, an ally of Hillary Clinton, who has been critical of Sanders in the past but has attempted to mend bridges. Among some Democrats, there was a sense of bewilderment that the Sanders campaign had gone—as one operative put it—”nuclear” over a mere web video. One Democratic consultant sympathetic to Sanders described the video as being “like a gnat buzzing around your ear,” one which should not have distracted from the candidate’s Midwest tour. It also raised questions as to whether the senator was ready for the scrutiny that would come from being a frontrunning candidate, after having run as an insurgent against an ideal foil, Hillary Clinton, in 2016. “When you’re leading in the polls of president of your party you should expect investigative stories to hit at least once a week and to be attacked by your opponents every day,” said Ben Labolt, who served as press secretary to Barack Obama during the 2012 campaign. “An attack on something like ThinkProgress is the sign of a super-narrow-minded campaign that isn’t actually thinking of how the election will be won... They have chosen an establishment force that no one outside of the Starbucks at 16th and K would recognize.” But within Sanders’ orbit, the pushback was seen as strategically prudent. Sanders has often bristled at personal questions that he deems irrelevant to the set of beliefs he has espoused for decades. And his attack on CAP effectively set a benchmark for the type of coverage that the his team would countenance and reinforced his brand as someone outside of typical party structures. It also undermined any notion that he was a political pushover—a suggestion that lingered for some after he muted some of his attacks on Clinton in 2016. It didn’t hurt matters that some prominent, though non-establishment, Democratic figures offered Sanders their support. Tom Steyer, the liberal billionaire donor and party activist, who also serves on the board of directors for CAP issued a statement on his own saying he would use his “voice on the Center for American Progress’ Board of Directors to discourage any such attacks on any candidate seeking the Democratic nomination in the future.”Those close to Steyer told The Daily Beast that he released the statement without consulting with others at the organization and that it by no means suggested he was endorsing Sanders. Another CAP board member, Stacey Abrams, declined to comment. But a spokesperson for the former Democratic gubernatorial candidate in Georgia directed The Daily Beast to a conciliatory statement Tanden issued on Monday afternoon, saying the video had been “overly harsh” and did “not reflect our approach to a constructive debate of the issues.”That, for now, seems to have quieted the skirmish with Sanders’ campaign manager Faiz Shakir saying that the campaign looked “forward to working in a more productive manner” with CAP, “if possible.” But within a few hours, Sanders was, once more, putting pressure on the press; this time on an outlet of a highly-different ideological bent than ThinkProgress. In a town hall with Fox News, the senator hit back on the suggestion that his income-inequality message was muddied by his personal wealth by directly challenging the newscasters to ask the president for his own tax rates. “I pay the taxes that I owe,” he declared, “and by the way, why don’t you get Donald Trump up here and ask them how much he pays in taxes?”Read more at The Daily Beast.Got a tip? Send it to The Daily Beast here

from Yahoo News - Latest News & Headlines https://yhoo.it/2DrF5Rd

#OS #Blogger

0 notes

beautytipsfor · 6 years ago

Text

Bernie Sanders Brings a Gun to a Democratic Primary Knife Fight

from Yahoo News - Latest News & Headlines https://yhoo.it/2DrF5Rd via Beauty Tips

from Blogger http://bit.ly/2VRGebU

#Blogger

0 notes

marvhagedorn · 8 years ago

Photo

Last Week's Summary of The Idaho Senate's Efforts to Finish Sine Die... #idpol #idleg. We’ve passed the majority of the budget bills, but there are still a few in the House that the Senate still needs to wait for and consider. The loss of the Transportation bill was also quite a setback from being able to Sine Die on Friday, so we will again meet tomorrow and the rest of the week if that’s what it takes to finalize a tax reduction bill and a transportation package for much needed maintenance and expansion projects required due to population growth. We are working on transferring existing General Funds to our multi-billion dollar transportation infrastructure and also enable a limited level of bonding to be able to build some badly needed projects that are very large and expensive. Some of the highlight bills are as follows: S1142A (The Healthcare Assistance bill I’ve worked on for 6+ months for the Gap population) failed to pass the Senate Floor. The purpose was to provide primary healthcare assistance to 15,000 individuals, many of which are chronically ill. Some thought it would be better to use federal funding as well and have access to $90 million versus $10 million. Some thought it would be best to not use federal funding giving the State of Idaho more authority. Others felt it would be wisest to see what the final outcome of the federal healthcare program was before acting as a state. H250 (Abortion relating Telehealth) passed the Senate Floor. The purpose of this legislation is to terminate the lawsuit between the State of Idaho and the United States District Court. It would repeal certain provision of the law regulating the performance of chemical abortions adopted by the legislature in 2015. Some felt we should continue to fight on principal. Most felt it was highly unlikely to win this particular lawsuit and it would be best to reframe the issue and fight another day. H222 (Secure Facility for Violent Incompetent Individuals) passed the Senate Floor. The purpose of this legislation is to allow for a wing of the facility to have secured features protecting more vulnerable clients and the community from the violent individuals. S1182 (In Regards to Faith Healing) failed to pass the Senate Floor. The purpose of this legislation was to provide a civil avenue to protect the life of the child and not criminalize a parent if they chose prayer or spiritual means of treatment for the child. In the context of treatment by spiritual means, a court could only take action under the Child Protection Act if the child was likely to suffer serious permanent injury or death and then was required to balance the constitutional interests involved. The court would also consider the desires of a child while weighing their age and maturity as in family law custody cases There were a variety of opinions in favor and against this bill. It was heavily yet respectfully debated. S1194 (Appropriations to Permanent Building Fund) passed the Senate Floor. This legislation provided funding in the amount of $71,425,700 for several projects including the Idaho State University Gale Life Sciences Building, Psychiatric Hospital Transformation, Boise State University for Materials Science, Lewis-Clark State College Career-Technical Education Building, and University of Idaho Center for Agriculture. The Senate adopted House Joint Memorial 8. The purpose of this Memorial is to request that the federal government appropriate $8 million of federal matching funding of the authorized $20 million allowed for fiscal year 2018 to the four Northwest States of Idaho, Montana, Oregon, and Washington for the purpose of combating the immediate threat of invasive quagga and zebra mussels. H274aaS (Invasive Species) passed the Senate Floor. It would amend the Idaho Invasive Species Act by establishing in the Office of the Governor, an Administrator of invasive species policy and establish the Idaho Invasive Species Council. This legislation sets up duties of the Administrator and the Department of Agriculture and lays out the coordination of efforts between state agencies. House Bill 67aaS (Grocery Tax) passed the Senate Floor with 25 ayes and 10 nays. This piece of legislation would repeal sales taxs on groceries, and also remove the grocery tax credit given back to taxpayers at income tax filing time. The Governor has indicated he is not a fan of this bill, so it it’s taken up in the House is anyone’s guess. An alternative is a 1/10th of a percent reduction at all levels of the income tax (i.e., reduce the top level of tax from 7.4% to 7.3%) that could be sent from the House to the Senate for consideration. S1188a (Transportation Plan, Relating to GARVEE bonding) failed to pass the Senate Floor with 20 nays and 15 ayes. This legislation provided authorization for selling up to $300 million in GARVEE bonds issued by Idaho Housing and Finance Association for ITD to finance highway transportation projects around the state. Ninety two percent of the repayment amount on Garvee bonds are paid from the federal dollars received by ITD and the state is not liable if it does not receive sufficient federal funds to make the bind payments. This piece of legislation deals directly with I-84 from Nampa to Caldwell as well as many other priority expansion projects around the state. There has been a lot of good, diplomatic debate on both sides of this issue, although this bill failed, we are staying to try put a transportation package together before we Sine Die. H301a (Oil and Gas) passed the Senate Floor unanimously. The purpose of this legislation is to protect private property owners, state endowment lands, and taxpayers. It would do so by updating the Idaho law in accordance with other Rocky Mountain States and it would improve processes, transparency, and reporting of oil and gas development. We were shooting for finishing last Friday, but just couldn’t get consensus to finish some very tough bills. We will come together once again this week and try to finish our work. Again, thank you for allowing me to represent you in the Idaho Senate! file/ma/marvhagedorn.20170327T023003.9zlnwsp.jpeg

#idpol #idleg:: We’ve

0 notes