12
   

Monitoring Biden and other Contemporary Events

 
 
hingehead
 
  2  
Fri 25 Aug, 2023 10:57 pm
@blatham,
Loving the Trump camp saying they are going after anyone who violates their intellectual property by using his mugshot so much.
A) their is no copyright for a mugshot, it’s public domain
B) because Trump has always respected intellectual property laws e.g.
Trump loses bid to escape 'Electric Avenue' copyright lawsuit https://www.reuters.com/legal/transactional/trump-loses-bid-escape-electric-avenue-copyright-lawsuit-2021-09-28/
Neil Young is suing Donald Trump for using his music at campaign rallies. Here's how it might play out https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-08-05/neil-young-sues-donald-trump-copyright-infringement-using-songs/12467978
R.E.M, The Rolling Stones, Adele, Rhianna, Pharrell Williams and Tom Petty, to name a few more https://www.dw.com/en/musicians-pile-on-trump-campaign-for-unpermitted-song-use/a-54485340
BillW
 
  1  
Sat 26 Aug, 2023 11:03 pm
OK,.I've got it figured out. The military needs to grab Trump - just Trump - and have a Military Cojrt Martial and try Trump for Sedition and attempt to overthrow the govern. Show just enough to prove the point, find him guilty and take him out back and face an immediate military firing squad. All completed in a total of 16 hours in the same day!

If someone doesn't like - well, sorry, he's dead!
0 Replies
 
Wilso
 
  1  
Sun 27 Aug, 2023 02:54 am
Trump tweeted that he shot a 67 in a golf championship. And his cult will actually be stupid enough to believe it. For context, I’ve seem him swing a club, and would have trouble believing that he could score 167.

Where does the US get people like this?
BillW
 
  1  
Sun 27 Aug, 2023 02:56 am
@Wilso,
sham
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  2  
Sun 27 Aug, 2023 09:47 am
@thack45,
Quote:
I just wish media reporting could/would find a way to point that out without being editorial. Is that even possible?


I don't think so. But the role of news coverage is (and should be) far deeper than simply repeating politicos' speeches or relaying polling data.

Quote:
Jay Rosen, New York University professor of journalism, has a credo we take delight in quoting: Not the odds, but the stakes. Rosen elaborated on this recently, 'That's my shorthand for the organising principle we most need from journalists covering the 2024 election. Not who has what chances of winning, but the consequences for our democracy.'


A lot of smart people have written on the now-ingrained hesitancy (cowardice) of mainstream media outlets regarding openly taking moral positions on political questions but one of the very best works on this is Eric Alterman's What Liberal Media. It really is a must-read for anyone studying modern US politics and media.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Sun 27 Aug, 2023 09:48 am
@hingehead,
Right on the money, hingehead!
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Sun 27 Aug, 2023 09:54 am
@blatham,
blatham wrote:

Right on the money, hingehead!


Yup...nail squarely on its head.

Nancy and I are heading into town right now. Gonna have drink on the Pan...and roam around the Chelsea Piers for a while. Jonathan was gonna meet us, but that seems to be in question. Wish you were here. Would be fun.
blatham
 
  2  
Sun 27 Aug, 2023 10:16 am
@Frank Apisa,
God yes. Would love to join you. Sorry.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  2  
Sun 27 Aug, 2023 10:17 am
Thou shalt not bear false witness.

Quote:
ProPublica
@propublica
In acquiring church status, the Family Resource Council told the IRS it holds chapel services at its office, averaging 65+ people.

But when we called to inquire about service times, a staffer responded, “We don’t have church service.”
Story Here
hightor
 
  1  
Sun 27 Aug, 2023 11:33 am
@blatham,
I really love those people.
blatham
 
  1  
Mon 28 Aug, 2023 08:03 pm
@hightor,
Yes. They really do great work consistently.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Mon 28 Aug, 2023 08:04 pm
A pleasing coincidence. March 4 is my birthday.
0 Replies
 
hightor
 
  2  
Wed 30 Aug, 2023 03:13 am
Quote:
“For far too long, Americans have paid more for prescription drugs than any major economy. And while the pharmaceutical industry makes record profits, millions of Americans are forced to choose between paying for medications they need to live or paying for food, rent, and other basic necessities. Those days are ending,” President Joe Biden declared today.

The government announced the first ten drugs whose prices it will negotiate with pharmaceutical companies for about 65 million Medicare recipients. Until now, the United States has been virtually alone as the only country in which the government did not negotiate or regulate medicine prices, instead allowing companies to set whatever prices they believe the market will bear. Since their products often are the difference between life and death, it turns out the market will bear quite high prices, but—as Biden observed—those prices often force consumers to sacrifice in other ways to afford them.

A 2021 study by the RAND corporation found that drug prices average 2.56 times higher in the U.S. than in 32 other countries. For name brand drugs, U.S. prices were 3.44 times those in comparable nations.

As Amy Goldstein and Daniel Gilbert explained today in the Washington Post, when Congress created Medicare and Medicaid in 1965 as part of President Lyndon B. Johnson’s Great Society program, it covered drugs administered in a health care setting but excluded those a patient took at home. In 2003, after almost 40 years of medical innovation had significantly changed our management of chronic illnesses, Congress included those drugs under a separate Medicare plan—Part D—or as part of managed-care plans, but to get Republicans behind the bill, Congress explicitly prohibited the government from negotiating the prices of medications.

In 2021 a nearly three-year investigation by the House Committee on Oversight and Reform, then overseen by Democrats as they held the majority in the House of Representatives, concluded that “[d]rug companies have raised prices relentlessly for decades while manipulating the patent system and other laws to delay competition from lower-priced generics. These companies have specifically targeted the U.S. market for higher prices, even while cutting prices in other countries, because weaknesses in our health care system have allowed them to get away with outrageous prices and anticompetitive conduct.”

Republicans sided with the drug company executives who insisted that high prices were necessary to create an incentive for drug companies to innovate, as their investment in research and development depends on the revenue they expect from new drugs. But the committee’s report said their investigation concluded that “sky-high drug prices are not justified by the need to innovate. The largest drug companies spend more on payouts for investors and executives than on research and development. And many blockbuster drugs rely on scientific discoveries from research funded by taxpayers, while drug companies’ R&D spending often focuses on minor changes to extend patent protection and block lower-priced competitors.”

In 2022, Democrats passed the Inflation Reduction Act without a single Republican vote. That law permits the government to negotiate with pharmaceutical companies over drug prices the government will pay.

The ten drugs listed in today’s announcement are among those with the highest total spending in Medicare Part D, and today the Department of Health and Human Services released a report that 9 million seniors paid a total of $3.4 billion for these drugs in 2022. The Congressional Budget Office, the nonpartisan agency that provides budget and economic information to Congress, estimates that government negotiation over these drugs will save taxpayers about $98.5 billion over ten years. If a drug maker refuses to negotiate, it either will face a significant tax or must withdraw from Medicare and Medicaid.

This measure is extraordinarily popular. More than eighty percent of Americans want the government to be able to negotiate drug costs.

The new negotiated prices are scheduled to go into effect in 2026. Pharmaceutical companies are suing to stop the law, claiming it is unconstitutional, although when asked by reporters today about the lawsuits, domestic policy advisor Neera Tanden pointed out that the government “negotiates prices for every other element” Medicare covers of the health care system,, including rates for doctors, other providers, and hospitals. “The only reason why Medicare has not been negotiating drug prices is because Pharma got a sweetheart deal decades ago to basically prohibit negotiations,” she said. “Negotiations are part of [a] market system. It's very normal for that to happen.”

“This plan is a key part of Bidenomics, my economic vision for growing the economy from the middle out and the bottom up—not the top down,” Biden said. “And it’s working.”

hcr
izzythepush
 
  1  
Wed 30 Aug, 2023 03:15 am
@hightor,
When I was on holiday in Mexico there were queues of Americans at the pharmacists getting their scripts done.

They wondered why we Europeans weren't bothering.
0 Replies
 
hightor
 
  3  
Thu 31 Aug, 2023 02:55 am
Quote:
Four days ago, on Saturday, August 26, in the early afternoon, a heavily armed, 21-year-old white supremacist in a tactical vest and mask, who had written a number of racist manifestos and had swastikas painted on his rifle, murdered three Black Americans at a Dollar General store in Jacksonville, Florida. He had apparently intended to attack Edward Waters University, a historically Black institution, but students who saw him put on tactical gear warned a security guard, who chased him off and alerted a sheriff’s deputy.

As David Kurtz of Talking Points Memo put it two days later, “America is living through a reign of white supremacist terror,” and in a speech to the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under the Law on Monday, President Joe Biden reminded listeners that “the U.S. intelligence community has determined that domestic terrorism, rooted in white supremacy, is the greatest terrorist threat we face in the homeland—the greatest threat.”

Biden said he has made it a point to make “clear that America is the most multiracial, most dynamic nation in the history of the world.” He noted that he had nominated the first Black woman, Ketanji Brown Jackson, for the Supreme Court and has put more Black women on the federal circuit courts than every other U.S. president combined. Under him, Congress has protected interracial and same-sex marriages, and his administration has more women than men. He warned that “hate never dies. It just hides.”

But in his Editorial Board newsletter, John Stoehr pointed out that the increasing violence of white supremacists isn’t just about an “ideology of hate” rising, but it is “about a minority faction of the country going to war, literal war, with a majority faction.” He pointed to former governor of Alaska Sarah Palin’s recent prediction of civil war because “We’re not going to keep putting up with this…. We do need to rise up and take our country back.” Stoehr calls these white supremacists “Realamericans” who believe they should rule and, if they can’t do so lawfully, believe they are justified in taking the law into their own hands.

Indeed, today’s white supremacist violence has everything to do with the 1965 Voting Rights Act that protected the right to vote guaranteed by the Fifteenth Amendment to the Constitution, ratified in 1870 after white supremacists refused to recognize the right of Black Americans to vote and hold office. Minority voting means a government—and a country—that white men don’t dominate.

In the 1870s, once the federal government began to prosecute those white men attacking their Black neighbors for exercising their right to vote, white supremacists immediately began to say that they had no issues with Black voting on grounds of race. Their issue, they said, was that Black men were poor, and they were voting for lawmakers—some Black but primarily white—who supported the construction of roads, schools, hospitals, and so on. While these investments were crucial in the devastated South and would help white Americans as well as Black ones, white supremacists insisted that such government action redistributed wealth from white people to Black people and thus was a form of socialism.

It was a short step from this argument to insisting that Black men shouldn’t vote because they were “corrupting” the American system. By 1876, former Confederates had regained control of southern state legislatures, where they rewrote voting laws to exclude Black men and people of color on grounds other than that of race, which the Fifteenth Amendment had made unconstitutional.

By the end of the nineteenth century, white southerners greeted any attempt to protect Black voting as an attempt to destroy true America. Finally, in North Carolina in 1898, Democrats recognized they were losing ground to a biracial fusion ticket of Republicans and Populists who promised economic and political reforms. Before that year’s election, white Democratic leaders ran a viciously racist campaign to fire up their white base. “It is time for the oft quoted shotgun to play a part, and an active one,” one woman wrote, ”in the elections.”

Blocking Fusion voters from the polls and threatening them with guns gave the Democrats a victory, but in Wilmington the biracial city government had not been up for reelection and so remained in power. Vigilantes said they would never again be ruled by Black men and their unscrupulous white allies who intended to “dominate the intelligent and thrifty element in the community.” They destroyed Black businesses and property and killed as many as 300 Black Americans, then portrayed themselves as reluctant victims who had been obliged to remove inefficient and stupid officials before they reduced the city to further chaos.

In 2005, white supremacists in North Carolina echoed this version of the Wilmington coup, claiming it was a natural reaction to “oppressive radical social policies” and a “carnival of corruption and criminality” by their opponents, who used the votes of ignorant Black men to stay in power.

That echo is no accident. The 1965 Voting Rights Act ended the power of white supremacists in the Democratic Party once and for all, and they switched to the Republicans. Then-Democratic South Carolina senator Strom Thurmond had launched the longest filibuster in U.S. history to try to stop the 1957 Civil Rights Act; Republican candidate Richard Nixon deliberately courted him and those who thought like him in 1968.

Republicans adopted the same pattern Democrats had used in the late nineteenth century, claiming their concerns were about taxes and government corruption, pushing voter suppression legislation by insisting they cared about “voter fraud,” insisting their opponents were un-American socialists attempting to overthrow a fairly-elected government.

This political side of white supremacy is all around us. As Democracy Docket put it last month, “Republicans have a math problem, and they know it. Regardless of their candidate, it is nearly certain that more people will vote to reelect Joe Biden than his [Republican] opponent.” After all, Democrats have won the popular vote since 2008. Under these circumstances and unwilling to moderate their platform, “Republicans need to make it harder to vote and easier to cheat.”

Republican-dominated state legislatures are working to make it as hard as possible for minorities and younger Americans to vote, while also pushing the election denier movement to undermine the counting and certification of election results. At the same time, eight Republican-dominated states have left the nonpartisan Electronic Registration Information Center (ERIC), a compact between the states that makes it easier to share voter information to avoid duplicate registration and voting, and three more are considering leaving.

In a special session of the Tennessee legislature this week, Republican lawmakers blocked the public from holding signs (a judge blocked the rule), kicked the public out of a hearing, and passed new rules that could prohibit Democrats from speaking. House speaker Cameron Sexton silenced young Black Democratic representative Justin Jones for a day and today suggested the Republicans might make the rule silencing minority members permanent.

In Wisconsin, where one of the nation’s most extreme gerrymanders gives Republicans dominance in the legislature, Republicans in 2018 stripped Democratic governor-elect Tony Evers of power before they left office, and now right-wing Chief Justice Annette Ziegler has told the liberal majority on the state supreme court that it is staging a “coup” by exercising their new power after voters elected Justice Janet Protasiewicz to the court by a large majority in April. Now the legislature is talking about keeping the majority from getting rid of the gerrymandered maps by impeaching Protasiewicz.

The courts are trying to hold the line against this movement. In Washington, D.C., today, U.S. District Court Judge Beryl Howell decided in favor of Black election workers Ruby Freeman and Shaye Moss, who claimed that Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani defamed them when he claimed they had committed voter fraud. Not only did Howell award the two women court costs and damages, she called out Giuliani and his associates for trying to keep their records hidden.

But as the courts are trying to hold the line, its supporters are targeting the courts themselves, with MAGA Republicans threatening to defund state and federal prosecutors they claim are targeting Republicans, and announcing their intention to gather the power of the Department of Justice into their own hands should they win office in 2024.

After pushing a social studies curriculum that erases Black agency and resistance to white supremacy, Florida governor Ron DeSantis on Monday suggested the Jacksonville shooting was an isolated incident.

The Black audience booed.

hcr
0 Replies
 
tsarstepan
 
  2  
Thu 31 Aug, 2023 12:26 pm
Trump launched an ambitious effort to end HIV. House Republicans want to defund it

Quote:
Zeroing out CDC's part of Trump's plan
The proposal would zero out the agency's share of the Trump HIV plan, which was more than a third of the program's budget in the current fiscal year. It would also eliminate funding through other channels, such as the Health Resources and Services Administration's Ryan White HIV/AIDS Program.

With another budget fight and potential government shutdown looming Oct. 1, the specific proposal is unlikely to clear Congress. Still, former CDC officials said they fear it is the opening bid on what could nonetheless be debilitating reductions to a strained agency that has lost some public support in recent years.

The cuts come on the heels of other recent reductions at the CDC, triggered by the 11th-hour debt-ceiling deal, to its budgets for childhood vaccination programs and prevention of sexually transmitted infections. And they provide an early opportunity for the CDC's new director, Mandy Cohen, to show how well she can convince members of Congress to protect the agency's interests in a polarized political landscape.

"Public health is being politicized to a point that's never been seen," said Kyle McGowan, of consulting firm Ascendant Strategic Partners, who served as chief of staff at the CDC during the Trump administration. Cutting public health spending "is not smart," he said. "These culture wars are now leaking into and harming public health."
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  4  
Thu 31 Aug, 2023 05:16 pm
Quote:
Former President Donald Trump's trial in Fulton County, Georgia, will be televised and live streamed, a judge said Thursday.

Fulton County Superior Court Judge Scott McAfee said he will allow a YouTube stream of all related hearings and trials stemming from the investigation into an alleged scheme to overturn the state's 2020 presidential election results. The live stream will be operated by the court. There will also be pool coverage for television, radio and still photography allowed, he said...
HERE
0 Replies
 
hightor
 
  2  
Sat 2 Sep, 2023 03:50 am
Quote:
New figures out today from the Labor Department show that employers added 187,000 jobs in August, up but at a slower rate than the red-hot job market has been adding since the pandemic. Unemployment ticked up to 3.8%, in part because of the 37,000 jobs lost when the trucking company Yellow declared bankruptcy. The economy appears to be steadying, with only 1.5 jobs for every person looking, down from the 2 openings in early 2022.

As the hiring frenzies of the past two years calm down, economists expect job growth to continue in health care and education, which have made up 85% of the job growth in the past three months. After that, government investments in infrastructure under the Bipartisan Infrastructure Act, renewable energy thanks to the Inflation Reduction Act, and semiconductor manufacturing thanks to the CHIPS and Science Act are likely to keep demand growing.

The economic numbers for the Biden administration are remarkable and demonstrate the strength of the system under which the government operated from 1933 to 1981: the idea that investing in ordinary Americans builds the economy far more efficiently than so-called “supply-side economics.” That economic ideology, advanced by the Reagan Republicans, claimed that cutting regulations and concentrating wealth at the top of the economy would enable business leaders to invest in the economy efficiently, cutting costs and driving economic growth.

But that vision has never produced as promised, while it has dramatically concentrated wealth and power since it went into effect in 1981. “Bidenomics” is a rejection of that theory and a return to the economic vision that built the country in the fifty years before it. Investing in infrastructure and programs that help ordinary Americans puts money and the power of innovation into their hands, driving the economy from the bottom up and the middle out, as Biden puts it.

In a reflection of the plan to use the government to help those at the bottom of the economy, the administration yesterday canceled $72 million in student loans for 2,300 borrowers who were cheated by the for-profit Ashford College, which was purchased in 2020 by the University of Arizona. It says it will try to recoup the money from the University of Arizona, which denies any responsibility for the actions of Ashford or its parent company, the education technology services company Zovio.

Meanwhile, Republicans continue to focus on ending abortion, and their determination is leading them to assert power over citizens of Republican-dominated states in a way that is commonly associated with authoritarian governments.

Alabama attorney general Steve Marshall claimed in a court filing on Monday that Alabama, which has one of the strictest abortion bans in the country, can prosecute people who help women travel out of the state to obtain an abortion as part of a “criminal conspiracy.”

Today, Caroline Kitchener reported in the Washington Post that at least 51 jurisdictions in Texas have passed ordinances to make it illegal to transport anyone on roads within city or county limits to get an abortion. Their hope is to target interstates and the roads around airports to block off routes out of Texas and keep pregnant women trapped in the antiabortion state.

The laws also allow any private citizen to sue any person or organization they think is violating the ordinance, leading to expensive lawsuits against the friends and family members of the most economically vulnerable people in society. Antiabortion activists call aid to women seeking abortions “abortion trafficking,” which makes it sound like women are being forced to get an abortion, when in fact, the ordinances ensnare women who want to get an abortion and their friends, preventing them from leaving an antiabortion state. Even if such an ordinance is impossible to enforce, it legally endangers the people who would help someone trying to get an abortion, moving such reproductive care beyond the financial reach of many women, and makes people hesitant to help each other.

Such barriers are precisely the same as those for people trying to leave authoritarian countries. Someone who is prohibited from leaving a jurisdiction is not a citizen but a subject. Free and full citizens of a democracy have the right to travel, both inside the country and out of it. That right is guaranteed to U.S. citizens by the Constitution. But authoritarian countries often restrict travel for their subjects outside their borders out of concern that exposure to freer countries will weaken the authority of the government at home.

Crucially, authoritarian countries also urge people to turn on each other, reporting them to the state for punishment, often in exchange for a reward. Such a system breaks the ability of opponents to organize to resist the government because of the risk that their neighbors will sell them out.

While such circumstances affect most authoritarian governments, it is impossible to miss the parallels between these ordinances and the various laws that circumscribed the lives of Black Americans before the Civil War here in the United States. In that era, free Black Americans had to carry identification papers, known as “free papers,” to prove they should be allowed to travel. White Americans had no such requirement.

Enslaved Americans could not travel at all, of course, unless they accompanied their enslavers; they were confined to the states in which they were enslaved. When some escaped north to freedom, that restriction was enforced with the 1850 Fugitive Slave Act. Part of the Compromise of 1850, which was a series of laws cobbled together in an attempt to reduce the tensions between the North and the South over human enslavement, the Fugitive Slave Act required federal officials—including those in free states—to return to the South anyone a white enslaver claimed was his property. Black Americans could not testify in their own defense, and anyone helping a “runaway” could be imprisoned for six months and fined $1,000, about three years’ income. Those turning in Black refugees were paid a fee and the costs of their effort.

When citizens of free states spoke out against the Fugitive Slave Act for making them enforce laws they opposed, southern enslavers insisted they were “radicals” because they refused to enforce a law, and insisted that American democracy supported enslavement. Ten years later, extremists in the South put that argument into their political platform, saying that “the enactments of State Legislatures to defeat the faithful execution of the Fugitive Slave Law are hostile in character, subversive of the Constitution, and revolutionary in their effect.”

No longer willing to say they would accept free states in the West if voters there wanted freedom, enslavers demanded that Congress pass a new federal law to protect enslavement in the western territories. No longer defending states’ rights except when it protected them from federal intervention into the institution of slavery, they demanded the right to use the power of the federal government to control the majority of Americans who opposed enslavement.

Although the Supreme Court justified last year’s Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision by saying abortion should be a state decision, antiabortion activists are echoing enslavers in their attempt to get federal legislation to enforce their will. More than half of all abortions in the U.S. are medication abortions, and a Trump-appointed antiabortion judge in Texas, U.S. District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk, is currently trying to get rid of such abortions by suspending the approval of mifepristone, given by the Food and Drug Administration more than 20 years ago. Republican presidential candidates former vice president Mike Pence and South Carolina senator Tim Scott both say they support a federal ban on abortion.

Today’s attempted restriction of those who are supposed to be equal citizens from leaving extremist states raises a whole factory of red flags.

Last year, after the Supreme Court handed down the Dobbs decision ending the recognition of the constitutional right to an abortion, I suggested to a group of people that it was only a question of time until we saw laws designed to make it impossible for women to travel across state lines. They told me there was no way such a thing could happen in the United States.

And yet, here we are.

hcr
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  2  
Sat 2 Sep, 2023 04:28 am
‘Astonishingly cruel’: Alabama seeks to test execution method on death row ‘guinea pig’
Quote:
Kenneth Smith is one of two living Americans who can describe what it is like to survive an execution, having endured an aborted lethal injection last November during which he was subjected to excruciating pain tantamount, his lawyers claim, to torture. ... ... ...

If the state of Alabama has its way, he will become the test dummy for an execution method that has never before been used in judicial killings and which veterinarians consider unacceptable as a form of euthanasia for animals – death by nitrogen gas.
... ... ...
glitterbag
 
  2  
Sat 2 Sep, 2023 09:07 pm
@Walter Hinteler,
Again, this is one of the reasons I hate the Confederate Flag and the morons who display them.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 1.55 seconds on 01/20/2025 at 06:49:02