Monday, April 30, 2012

Rachel Maddow: Women get paid less than men for the same work

Rachel Maddow: Women get paid less than men for the same work:
264 out of 265 professions men get paid more. Women in average get 77c for a $ paid to men, doing the same job.
'via Blog this'

भारत की मूल प्रकृति - YouTube

भारत की मूल प्रकृति - YouTube:

'via Blog this'

भारत की मूल प्रकृति - YouTube

भारत की मूल प्रकृति - YouTube:
Ramdev & Pavan Gupta invocation to India & Indian thoughts to go forward.
'via Blog this'

Sunday, April 29, 2012

We are rid of Murdoch and that is worth celebrating | Henry Porter | Comment is free | The Observer

We are rid of Murdoch and that is worth celebrating | Henry Porter | Comment is free | The Observer:

We are rid of Murdoch and that is worth celebrating

But the villain of the piece did not do it all by himself. Leading figures from many walks of life have enabled his dark side

- Henry Porter
- guardian.co.uk, Saturday 28 April 2012 16.00 EDT
- Article history

Rupert Murdoch day 2 at the Leveson inquiry

A king-maker no more. Rupert Murdoch at the Leveson inquiry. Photograph: Observer

Assuming the role of the loyal manservant after Rupert Murdoch's first day of evidence at the Leveson inquiry, the Times suggested in its leader that we were at last seeing its master humanised. Instead of the familiar caricature, "Murdoch emerged as someone with a broad experience, a ready wit, a commitment to newspapers and readers and a becoming humility". Only in that word "becoming" was there anything resembling a Jeeves-like demurral on the matter of Murdoch's personality.

By the end of the second day's testimony, the paper looked silly. Murdoch had revealed himself as one of those toxic elderly relatives who leverage as much from the weakness of others as from their own ability, spreading self-doubt and calamity along the way. We watched for the facts about his access to Number 10, business practices and response to the phone-hacking scandal, but the really compelling part was the character revealed in those 10 hours. To that degree, he was humanised – or at least made flesh – and, in the process, his grip on British political life was relaxed that much more.

Murdoch's defenders always said that his power was never as great as his enemies maintain and now insist the issue is only of historic interest, because newspapers are in decline. They add, as if obituarising, that he risked much to increase plurality in the British media and was one of the boldest and most visionary entrepreneurs to emerge since the Second World War. To concede these things does not invalidate the truth of theNews International scandal, which is that the body count of those who had direct or indirect contact with Murdoch, whether by chance or choice, is extremely high. Prime ministers, MPs, newspaper editors, business executives, members of the public, special advisers, ordinary journalists, celebrities, senior policemen, lawyers and even family members are littered in his trail.

While more than 30 individuals wait to hear if they will face criminal charges, reputations are in shreds and political careers on life support, Murdoch, like a Marvel Comics villain, puts on the don's Borsalino at the end of last week's show, flashes the re-enamelled fangs and is swept from the Royal Courts of Justice looking triumphant. Of course he has been irreparably damaged by the scandal, as he pointed out several times (like all true villains, Murdoch aspires to victimhood). It's just that he seems to be suffering a good deal less than anyone else who became entangled with his enterprises.

Even after his tactical penitence in court, he couldn't help himself from settling scores with, among others, Gordon Brown, Harold Evans, Colin Myler, Tom Crone, David Yelland and Paul Dacre. The most revealing barb was aimed at Andrew Neil, because it showed Murdoch's self-pity as well as his vindictiveness – "Mr Neil seems to have found it very profitable to get up and spread lies about me, but that's his business."

To watch him was both fascinating and debilitating. Never before had I quite understood friends in New York who dread dinners with Murdoch, because he is liable to tell you at length about his company's new iPad app or give you a tour d'horizon of new and old media. Like many autocrats, he's a bit of a crasher, astonishingly incurious and profoundly lowering. But the part where my ears pricked up during his evidence was when he started talking about democracy, because while democracy and free speech nearly always form his alibi, it is in these areas that he has done most damage.

His frequent claim on the word democracy was striking. While speaking about privacy, he said: "If we're a transparent society, a transparent democracy, let's have it out there" and: "A privacy law is always proposed for the protection of the great and the good... not for the people who make up our democracy."

He also told the inquiry that "meeting politicians is part of the democratic process"; "local newspapers have a great history of contribution to our democracy"; and "a varied press guarantees democracy and we want democracy rather than autocracy".

The use of the first person plural, the "we" and "our" of these utterances is highly objectionable, because Murdoch is obviously not one of us. He is an American citizen who does not pay taxes in Britain and does not vote here. It is no more his democracy to preach to us about than it is Vladimir Putin's.

But the larger hypocrisy is that while he argues that he increased media plurality, he has been a steady drain on British democracy, debauching it with his cynicism and corrupting the process with threats and inducements, murmured in back channels. The idea that he did not ask favours from those seeking election is simply risible. They needed him and he needed them – why else would Cameron go to Santorini or Blair go to Hayman Island?

But, hey, this particular nightmare is over. A reporter and editor did their jobs brilliantly, the long-awaited House of Commons select committee report will be published this week and cannot surely fail to doubt his and son James's word, and Leveson trundles on, eliciting truth with great subtlety.

We can take heart that Murdoch is already finished as a political force here, that the record of his morbid influence is being settled and serious crimes will be prosecuted. What we have to focus on now is protecting our democracy from the influence of such a character again.

And that means directing an unflinching gaze at our own complacency as well as the evidence of current influence on, for instance, the Scottish first minister, Alex Salmond. Did Salmond lobby for the BSkyB merger, and was it in exchange for favourable coverage in the Scottish Sun?

Jeremy Hunt is in grave trouble because of similar dealings and he should resign immediately, while Cameron may yet find himself in a greater fix, having allowed himself in a few brief weeks around Christmas 2010 to be surrounded by people lobbying for the merger between News International and BSkyB, talking to James about the deal at dinner with Rebekah Brooks, riding one of the horses loaned to her by the police and employing in a senior position at Number 10 Andy Coulson, Brooks's former deputy at the News of the World.

It's humiliating to realise how easy it was for Murdoch to ensnare the British prime minister and Scotland's first minister and, before that, how his company's agenda formed the core of at least three of Cameron's announcements on the scrapping of Ofcom, a review of the BBC licence fee and the relaxation of impartiality rules in broadcasting. It is as if Cameron had taken dictation.

My belief is that he is in serious trouble and that this scandal has a long way to go and might yet bring him down.

We can no longer trust politicians to adjudicate on bids and mergers involving the media because they have too much to gain and lose. If journalists are to be more closely regulated, politicians must also be distanced from these decisions and changes in media ownership made more transparent and open to challenge and meaningful consultation.

The point of regulations and institutions is to defend the relatively fragile democratic process from people like Murdoch. The fact that none of the safeguards worked and we came within a whisker of allowing his near total dominance of the marketplace further erodes our faith in the political class to act in the interests of the public. Let's not forget that it was largely accident, and the dedication of a very few journalists, that exposed the cover-up, of which Murdoch now claims, with eye-watering hypocrisy, that he was a victim.

Rupert Murdoch didn't do all this by himself. Over the years, he accrued a large number of supporters outside politics and his own newspapers; people who were happy to attend his parties and write sycophantic pieces about the benefits he brought to our society – whether because they were in awe of his withering cynicism or simply supported his obsessions with neoliberal economics and going to war in Iraq. These hangers-on were corrupted by Murdoch and enabled his dark side as much as any politician did over the last 30 years.

We are rid of this destructive character, and that is worth celebrating, for nothing so becomes him as this slow-motion downfall. But let's not forget that he took advantage of our weaknesses and of our failure to apprehend his true nature.

'via Blog this'

Saturday, April 28, 2012

FOCUS: This Supremely Republican Supreme Court

FOCUS: This Supremely Republican Supreme Court:

Conservative Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia. (photo: AP)

This Supremely Republican Supreme Court

By Scott Lemieux, Guardian UK

28 April 12

The Roberts court redefines judicial activism: it is pursuing a states' rights, anti-federal agenda, reckless of the constitution.

he 2008 elections represented a decisive repudiation of the policies of George W Bush and the Republican party. Yet, conservative Republicans still control the supreme court - and this fact may effectively nullify the results of the 2008 election in several important respects. Worse, the Roberts court seems poised to advance its own partisan policy preferences not in the name of fundamental rights or even serious concerns about federal power, but behind feeble constitutional arguments that all but announce their own unseriousness.

The most egregious example, of course, is the very real possibility that the supreme court will strike down the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), otherwise known as Obamacare, the centerpiece domestic legislation of President Obama's first term. While Obama exaggerated when he asserted that this kind of judicial activism would be "unprecedented", it would be the first time in more than 70 years that the supreme court will have struck down a legislative enactment that was so central to the agenda of an incumbent administration.

Particularly since the constitutional vision of the court that rejected the New Deal was thoroughly discredited, surely such an unusual assertion of judicial power demands appropriately compelling arguments? Instead, however, the constitutional harms being asserted by those challenging the PPACA and urging the supreme court to go against decades of settled law are almost laughably trivial. There is no significant claim of individual liberty being advanced, and nor is there even a claim of a major misallocation of powers between levels of government.

Neither the challengers nor the justices most sympathetic to their arguments have claimed that the federal government does not have the power to regulate healthcare in any number of ways (including the cherished Medicare and Medicaid programs). The challengers have even suggested that had the mandate to purchase been structured as a direct tax, rather than a tax "penalty", it would clearly be constitutional. The idea that a major act of Congress could fall based on such hair-splitting is absurd.

What's even worse is that, at the oral arguments, several justices could not even bother to conceal the partisan political sentiments which the implausible constitutional arguments against the PPACA are clearly meant to advance. Justice Antonin Scalia, in particular, peppered his arguments with inane Republican buzzwords used to oppose the PPACA, sounding more like a third-rate wingnut talkshow host than an associate justice of the supreme court of the United States.

This unprincipled attack on federal power does not stop with challenges to the PPACA. Continuing with one of the Rehnquist court's most dubious lines of precedent, last month a bare majority of the Roberts court (consisting entirely of its Republican appointees) denied a state employee the right to sue his employer over a violation of the Family Medical Leave Act. The court's conclusion that, in this case, a person had a right without a remedy is based on the unattractively anti-democratic principle of "sovereign immunity", the idea that a state cannot be sued even by its own citizens without its consent.

That this principle is inconsistent with basic democratic values would not be the responsibility of the Roberts court if it were actually in the Constitution. But it is not. The 11th amendment, which only bars suits against states by citizens of other states, permits intra-state suits by implication. Modern conservatives on the supreme court, however, will not let the mere text of the constitution interfere with the ability of state governments to violate the rights of their citizens.

And earlier this week, what appears to be another imminent Roberts court attack on federal power could be seen at the oral arguments addressing the constitutionality of Arizona's controversial SB1070. Much of the legislation, which requires state law enforcement officials to enforce federal immigration laws, seems to directly contradict plenary federal powers over immigration and naturalization, but the court is very likely to uphold some or all of its provisions.

Perhaps the most disturbing part of the oral argument - aside from yet more Fox News-style posturing by Scalia - was the fact that Chief Justice Roberts immediately announced that the potential for racial profiling not be considered by the court. This is a strange contention, given that the Arizona law requires local police to ascertain the immigration status of people "reasonably suspected" of being undocumented - a recipe for racial profiling if ever there was one. This is problematic not only because of human rights considerations, but because the need to protect civil rights is a crucial reason why the federal government wishes to preserve the uniform rules it is constitutionally entitled to make. In its zeal to side with the states over federal power, it looks as if the Roberts court will sweep legitimate federal powers, as well as the fourth and 14th amendments, under the rug.

The Republican party may have lost in 2008, but its political will still lives on in a Republican-dominated supreme court that, at times, cannot even bother to pretend that it is doing constitutional law.

'via Blog this'

FOCUS: Mittness Protection Program

FOCUS: Mittness Protection Program:

NEWS DESK

Notes on Washington and the world by the staff of The New Yorker.

APRIL 26, 2012

PRESIDENT ROMNEY’S SECOND MEETING WITH WORLD LEADERS

Posted by Calvin Trillin

Aides want to illustrate to skeptical voters that Mr. Romney is a ‘real guy,’ but his gaffe-prone campaigning has convinced handlers to keep him behind a protective ring, known to insiders as the Mittness Protection Programme.

—The Times of London, April 4, 2012

The evening being unseasonably mild, the opening reception of the G-8 summit was being held on the hotel’s terrace, overlooking the Mediterranean. As President Mitt Romney entered, he was greeted by Stephen Harper, the Prime Minister of Canada, who said, “Hello, Mr. President. Pretty warm for this time of year, eh?”

President Romney started to speak, but a large, clean-cut gentleman stepped between him and Prime Minister Harper. The man could have been mistaken for a Secret Service agent—he was wearing the characteristic earpiece; he had the blank expression—but in the buttonhole of his lapel, in the place where President Romney had an American flag, he was wearing a pin that said M.P.P. He was Special Agent Kevin Harrington, of the Mittness Protection Program.

“The President’s position on the absence of proof of man-made global warming is available in several position papers,” Special Agent Harrington said. “Any of them is available by e-mail or the United States Postal Service, if you will simply write down your contact information on this form.” He handed the Prime Minister of Canada a form and a pen that had on it the 2012 Romney campaign motto: ”We Settle For Mitt!”

“But I only…” the Prime Minister began. At that point, he was interrupted by the appearance of Prime Minister Yoshihiko Noda, of Japan, who gave the President a high five and said, “Hey, Mr. President, how about those Red Sox!”

Before President Romney could reply, two additional M.P.P. men, Special Agents Newton and Bainbridge, suddenly appeared, picked up Prime Minister Noda under his arms, and deposited him across the terrace, behind a rhododendron.

Prime Minister Noda looked crestfallen. “Was it my English?” he muttered. “Should it have been ‘How about them Red Sox?’”

But the two M.P.P. men were already out of earshot. They were striding across the terrace to where President Romney stood with Nicolas Sarkozy, who, as President of France, was the host of the conference. President Sarkozy was sipping a glass of the 1982 Château Cheval Blanc Saint-Émilion he’d arranged to have furnished for the reception and President Romney was holding a Dr. Pepper.

“Is your suite satisfactory?” President Sarkozy was saying.

Before President Romney could reply, Special Agent Harrington dropped an olive pit into the French President’s glass and said, as if it had been an accident, “Oh, sorry.”

“I saw that,” German Chancellor Angela Merkel said, approaching the group. “You did that on purpose.”

Special Agent Harrington, startled, seemed to be at a loss for words. Finally, he said, “Butt out, lady.”

“You can’t talk to her like that, you rotter!” said David Cameron, the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. The Prime Minister assumed what appeared to be a nineteenth-century prize-fighting pose.

“No, you can’t,” said Chancellor Merkel, whacking Harrington with a large briefing book prepared for the next day’s session on the future of the euro. Harrington tried to shove Prime Minister Cameron, but instead knocked down Prime Minister Noda, who had appeared suddenly, shouting, “THEM Red Sox! THEM Red Sox!” Special Agent Newton knelt behind Chancellor Merkel so Special Agent Bainbridge could push her over (a standard M.P.P. martial-arts tactic), but she swivelled away, got Harrington in a headlock, and led him off the terrace. As the security detail and the press pool swarmed in, they heard Special Agent Harrington, still in the headlock, say quite clearly, “President Romney has no comment.”

Illustration by Tom Bachtell.

Kanak TV Swatantra Sakhyatkaar With Subhashri Panda 12 Apr 2012 2 - YouTube

Kanak TV Swatantra Sakhyatkaar With Subhashri Panda 12 Apr 2012 2 - YouTube: "Subhashri Panda"

Subhashri Panda 's interview part 2 - 5:30 min

'via Blog this'

Will not free all hostages till all our demands are met: Maoist leader to NDTV - YouTube

Will not free all hostages till all our demands are met: Maoist leader to NDTV - YouTube:
Sabyasachi Panda's live interview on NDTV.
'via Blog this'

Daily Kos: Please Share the Image That Made Walker Supporters’ Heads Explode

Daily Kos: Please Share the Image That Made Walker Supporters’ Heads Explode:

MON APR 23, 2012 AT 07:08 PM PDT

Please Share the Image That Made Walker Supporters’ Heads Explode

byGiles Goat Boy Follow

6361

PERMALINK	173 COMMENTS

Last week I posted a simple chart from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) showing that between March, 2011 and March, 2012, Wisconsin was the only state in the nation to have a statistically significant decline in the total number of jobs. Here it is…

I didn’t make up the numbers. I just copied the image and posted it here on DailyKos, on bluecheddar.net, and on facebook. Please share it with others. I'll explain why below the croissant d'orange.

The chart didn’t get a lot of attention on the blogs, but the facebook reactions were fascinating. Before I discuss those reactions, here is my understanding of the table. It counts jobs in the state, not the number of people working. It is an estimate based mostly on surveys that measure non-farm payroll. Every instance of someone on somebody’s payroll in that month is counted as a job. If someone in Milwaukee works at a Milwaukee McDonalds during the day and a Milwaukee Burger King at night, two jobs are counted for Wisconsin. If a person lives in Racine, Wisconsin but commutes to Chicago to work, that is not counted as a Wisconsin job. Again, the report measures jobs, not people.

There is another report put out monthly by the BLS at the same time that estimates the unemployment rate by state. It is based on different surveys from the ones described above. It is a ratio of the number of residents in a state who are working compared to the size of the state’s workforce. Those numbers are not related one to one. If the number of people working stays the same in a month but the size of the labor force goes down because people moved, died, or retired, the unemployment rate can go down even though the same number of people are working. If our imaginary worker from the previous paragraph is laid off from his night job at Burger King, he is not considered unemployed because he still works at McDonalds during the day. If the Racine worker loses her job in Chicago, she counts as one of Wisconsin’s unemployed because she lives in Wisconsin. The report measures people, not jobs.

In summary, the two reports are significantly different. Among other differences, one report is based on where the jobs are, the other is based on where the person resides. Neither is inherently better than the other, but they are not two ways of measuring the same thing, which is the way many lazy journalists describe them.

I’m not a statistician or an economist, but if you are either of those, please correct me in the comments if my understanding of these reports is way off base.

The image of the chart on facebook was shared a few hundred times, and here are my general descriptions of the most common reactions.

1. F&%$ Walker! (This is found often among the early comments, which were posted by my circle of friends and by friends of my friends.)

2. Wow! This needs to be shared.

3. Where are the other 22 states? (I explained a couple times that the chart shows statistically significant changes only.)

4. This only has 28 states, therefore it is obviously faked, you liberal leech. (I tried to explain statistical significance again, but the reaction to that was usually something like “Oh yeah? F&%$ the unions!!”)

5. The same press release shows that the unemployment rate for Wisconsin went down, so you suck, Giles, and you’re a liar. (See my explanation above of how both can be true. The reaction to the clarifications was “You still suck, Giles”)

6. So what? Scott Walker balanced the budget without raising taxes. (Both of these are false. The budget came up 143 million dollars short, mostly from unrealized tax revenues because of the lack of job growth, and Wisconsin still has a structural deficit. Walker also raised taxes on the poor and on senior citizens.)

7. Yee haw! Look at Texas!

8. F$%* the unions!

10. You liberals twist everything. I don’t believe it.

11. That’s not true. (No reason given. No evidence. They simply don’t accept it.)

12. You liberals are desperate. Just wait until we kick your ass in the recall! (Nobody’s ass is getting kicked in the recall elections. We are a severely divided state. The election will be close no matter who wins.)

The numbers come from a reputable source with a long track record. The job loss in Wisconsin is a cold, hard fact that anyone can see in this chart that is devastatingly simple. That’s why it causes brain cramps and cognitive dissonance among the Walker faithful. Scott Walker promised that Wisconsin would create 250,000 private sector jobs by 2015 if he were elected. He is taking Wisconsin backward while every other state in the nation is gaining jobs or staying statistically even.

Please copy this image and share it wherever you think it might catch the eye of a Walker backer or any other Tea Party zombie. It’s very effective. You don’t even have to comment much about it. It speaks for itself.

'via Blog this'