“I’m really not worried about the president’s birth certificate. It’s fun to poke at him a little bit and say, how ‘bout let’s see your grades and your birth certificate.”—Texas Gov. Rick Perry, telling CNBC why he thought President Obama’s birth certificate was “a good issue to keep alive” even though he wasn’t worried about the president being born elsewhere. (via officialssay)
“The Congressional Research Service found that 200,000 millionaires — almost two-thirds of taxpayers with taxable income above $1 million — paid a lower tax rate (combining income and payroll taxes) than the typical taxpayer making less than $100,000.”— NY Times, We Thought They Wanted to Be Like Buffett (via underpaidgenius)
How far removed from the real world do you have to be to think publishing, with no warning, a graphic image of a dead or dieing dying person covered in blood is fine? Newsweek’s Tumblr even calls the posting of the grotesque image “a necessity in an age of media-driven rumors”. [more]
A few things: Newsweek and The Atlantic are fighting two different schools of thought on this specific issue. There are groups of people that won’t be convinced unless they see this image or a similar one, and there are people who won’t ever be OK with showing an image like this, ever. You can’t — and won’t — please both.
As Wardrox writes: “I can only assume the people in charge of the Tumblr feeds for both Newsweek and The Atlantic live in some corner of an office, detached from the real world in some kind of bubble. The kind of bubble where reason and logic, common sense and common decency become warped by deadlines, hits, spin and hype.”
No, they’re not. They’re journalists. They’re people who dread these decisions. They have to make tough decisions like this all the time. (This was one of the tougher ones.) Ultimately, though, they decided they would rather be honest with their readers than to hide an important issue from view. And a lot of people liked that they presented it. And a lot of people didn’t. That’s the nature of journalism — not everyone’s going to like everything you do. When presented with the issue ourselves, we went with posting it. We dreaded it. One of our regular readers made a comment about this. We didn’t back down from the decision, but we did start a dialogue.
The news is the news. Newsweek and The Atlantic have no interest in running gruesome pictures like that all the time. They did it because the news value was extremely high. WIll everyone like it? No. But when you have a photo like that and mere moments to decide on whether something is the right choice, you have to go with your gut. That’s how journalism works. Sometimes it, unfortunately, isn’t pretty. We try to limit those moments to when it really matters.
Up until now, Goldman Sachs has been silent on the subject of the protest movement known as Occupy Wall Street. That does not mean, however, that it has not been very much on our minds. As thousands have gathered in Lower Manhattan, passionately expressing their deep discontent with the status quo, we have taken note of these protests. And we have asked ourselves this question:
How can we make money off them?
The answer is the newly launched Goldman Sachs Global Rage Fund, whose investment objective is to monetize the Occupy Wall Street protests as they spread around the world. At Goldman, we recognize that the capitalist system as we know it is circling the drain – but there’s plenty of money to be made on the way down.
The Rage Fund will seek out opportunities to invest in products that are poised to benefit from the spreading protests, from police batons and barricades to stun guns and forehead bandages. Furthermore, as clashes between police and protesters turn ever more violent, we are making significant bets on companies that manufacture replacements for broken windows and overturned cars, as well as the raw materials necessary for the construction and incineration of effigies.
It would be tempting, at a time like this, to say “Let them eat cake.” But at Goldman, we are actively seeking to corner the market in cake futures. We project that through our aggressive market manipulation, the price of a piece of cake will quadruple by the end of 2011.
Please contact your Goldman representative for a full prospectus. As the world descends into a Darwinian free-for-all, the Goldman Sachs Rage Fund is a great way to tell the protesters, “Occupy this.” We haven’t felt so good about something we’ve sold since our souls.
Britain’s Prime Minister, David Cameron, is taking a stand for ladies everywhere. See, current law states that male heirs take precedence in the royal line of succession, even if they have older, more competent sisters. Cameron is hoping to modernize the monarchy by making the throne go to the…
“[Occupy Wall Street] will have no realistic proposal to reduce the debt or sustain the welfare state. Even if you tax away 50 percent of the income of those making between $1 million and $10 million, you only reduce the national debt by 1 percent, according to the Tax Foundation. If you confiscate all the income of those making more than $10 million, you reduce the debt by 2 percent. You would still be nibbling only meekly around the edges.”—
“Yes, but then I’ll go to hell! Which is a bad thing.”—Mark Shullman (via slcteacherisms)
From someone in the class where it was said: “There was no exclamation point. That man does not speak with enough emotion in his life to merit an exclamation point. And Schulman has one L. Don’t type that! There’s no C! Exclamation point!”
“'I'm increasingly concerned about the growing mobs occupying Wall Street and other cities around the country. … Believe it or not, some in this town have actually condoned the pitting of Americans against other Americans.'”—Eric Cantor, who didn’t seem to mind the Tea Party mobs
“Some snakes can climb trees - and those are the scary ones. Then they drop on you and poison you and strangle you. It hasn’t happened to me yet, but that’s how I’m going to die. I know it.”—Susan Kart (via slcteacherisms)
“People felt betrayed! I mean, someone actually said to me that I had betrayed them.”—Sean Akerman, on students getting bumped after being put on teachers’ preferred lists during interviews. (via slcteacherisms)
"Sarah Palin Says She Will Not Seek the Presidency
Sarah Palin told a radio talk show host on Wednesday that she would not seek the presidency in 2012, but said that she would still be involved in trying to oust President Obama from the White House.
“Not being a candidate, you are unshackled and able to be even more active,” she said on the Mark Levin show. “I look forward to using all the tools at my disposal to get the right people in there who have a servant’s heart.””
“October 1, 2011 - TAMPA, FL - The Occupy Wall Street movement may have just received an unexpected surprise – United States Army and Marine troops are reportedly on their way to various protest locations to support the movement and to protect the protesters. Army serviceman Ward Reilly posted the following on Facebook: “I’m heading up there tonight in my dress blues. So far, 15 of my fellow marine buddies are meeting me there, also in Uniform. I want to send the following message to Wall St and Congress: I didn’t fight for Wall St. I fought for America.”—
“Uncritically endorsing the administration’s authority to kill Awlaki on the basis that he was likely guilty, or an obviously terrible human being, is short-sighted. Because what we’re talking about here is not whether Awlaki in particular deserved to die. What we’re talking about is trusting the president with the authority to decide, with the minor bureaucratic burden of asking “specific permission,” whether an American citizen is or isn’t a terrorist and then quietly rendering a lethal sanction against them. The question is not whether or not you trust that President Obama made the right decision here. It’s whether or not you trust him, and all future presidents, to do so—and to do so in complete secrecy.”
There’s a good point made here, and it’s a complicated issue. Is saying “no president can ever do this” shortsighted and a threat to national security? Probably. Is saying they can a threat to the ethos of a democratic society with a judicial system? Probably. There are no easy answers. The most important question to me, which I haven’t seen brought up, is does it matter that he was a US citizen? Should the President be allowed to kill foreign nationals with impunity, and if so, why not his or her own constituents?