Finally, a legitimate news source that will be crusading for the American people instead of mainstream media which protects the likes of status quo, the elites, the big corps and certainly our disgusting politicians. While there are plenty of unbalanced sites out there that see the destruction and path of this country as inevitable(like myself), it’s both useful and necessary to find sources that provide balance and independence as you shape your own view. I hope you enjoy reading the editorial below from David Talbot, who is the CEO and found The Salon 16 years ago and I hope you take the opportunity to bookmark this site and check in frequently. This is the kind of journalism this country needs. We need our AMERICAN SPRING. More and more I am getting excited that people are waking up and realizing what is happening around them….
“Salon is initiating a call for an American spring,” Talbot said, “a national conversation to profoundly renew this country in the same spirit as people in Europe in the streets and throughout the Arab World.”
In an interview with The Huffington Post, Talbot said he wants Salon to be a populist voice that can “help initiate a conversation about what the country needs to do.” He said he plans on putting more resources into reporting around the country, likening Salon’s mission in covering the Great Recession to writers and photographers during the Great Depression. He said Salon will also increase original video and plans to have “a series of public events around the country to engage a broad selection of Americans in this conversation.”
America needs its own “Spring”
By David Talbot
I founded Salon 16 years ago because I thought the country needed a strong, independent news operation. The Web gave my collaborators and me a platform for free and spirited journalism, and we took full advantage of it. For the first time in my life as a journalist, we — editors, reporters, critics and designers — were in sole control of our work, not managers and corporate sponsors. As a result, Salon became known for its fearless independence, breaking stories on the Clinton impeachment machine, the dark side of the Bush-Cheney war juggernaut, and the continued abuses of our freedoms under the Obama administration.
Now, six years after leaving Salon, I’ve decided to return as CEO, because I think the country needs a fighting, independent media more than ever.
Americans are deeply worried and dispirited. Three years ago, as the country slid into a bottomless recession, we rallied around a presidential candidate who promised real change, only to see him fall captive to the same forces of greed and endless war that have brought us to ruin. The alternatives presented by the Republican Party would only accelerate this national decline. We’re faced on the one side by a well-meaning but ineffectual leader who has waited far too late in his presidency to rally the people around the powerful themes of jobs and economic justice — and on the other side by GOP leaders who are competing to see how quickly they can dismantle the last decent vestiges of public life in America.
We can no longer wait for the country’s corporate-dominated political system to solve our problems. All of us know friends and family members who are in dire straits; many of us are barely clinging on, struggling to pay the bills and raise our children, while trying to give them a sense of hope for the future. The richest get even richer, the rest of us get poorer. The gap between the powerful and the powerless in America grows wider than ever.
In these increasingly hard times, Salon is dedicating itself to an American revival. Our editorial mission will become more explicitly and aggressively populist. We will be publishing more investigative pieces, exposing the shadow dance of power. And both Democratic and Republican targets will be fair game, since both parties are increasingly under the control of the same corporate forces.
Americans are in desperate need of a true crusader for their interests — not a phony Tea Party. Salon will fight tooth and claw for the beleaguered majority, exposing the machinations of oligarchy with rigorously reported, deep journalism.
For just two examples of this renewed Salon commitment to essential, original journalism, please see Mark Hertsgaard’s “Hellfire!” — on Rick Perry’s faith-based reaction to the inferno that is sweeping his state – and Brad Friedman’s “The $10.50 Voting Machine Hack” – on the frightening security gaps that could corrupt our electoral process.
Salon’s coverage will not be all gloom and doom. We will cover the people who are rebuilding America from the ground up — taking over their local schools, creating community gardens and food barter networks, launching green start-ups.
We’re inspired by Robert Kennedy, who — after failing to convince President Johnson to end the war in Vietnam — came back to his Senate office in a mood of dark despair about the fate of America. “Oh, to hell with it,” RFK told his young staff, with a new fire in his voice. “Let’s start our own country.”
It’s time to start our own country.
Last week I visited the young people who were camped out near the New York Stock Exchange, in protest against Wall Street’s reign of greed. They told me they had little to look forward to in today’s America. No jobs, a crushing load of student debt, and a political system that seems completely rigged against people like themselves. But they had not given up hope. Inspired by the social upheavals in the Arab world and the protests in Europe against rapacious financial elites, these young Americans are calling for their own “American Spring.”
Salon wholeheartedly embraces this process of national renewal. In coming months, we plan to hold a series of American Spring public events in cities near you, to discuss the future of our country. Our goal is nothing less than changing the conversation in America, which is now stuck in endless replay mode between cautious Democrats and zealous Republicans. There is nothing for us in the droning presidential debates and pre-packaged political chatter on TV. Real life is elsewhere. By changing the channel, Salon hopes to finally begin moving the country forward.
We can’t do this without you. To accomplish our mission, we need you to join our revived membership program. We know that the Salon community is the core of our strength. That’s why we will soon be relaunching our membership program as Salon Core.
In coming days, we will announce a compelling package of benefits for our new Salon Core members — as well as our loyal Salon Premium members. You can show your support right now by signing up here to get more information about Salon Core as soon as it’s available.
With your support, Salon will expand its hard-hitting coverage. We will also introduce new creative dimensions like Salon Studio, featuring original video portraits of life in America that you can’t see anywhere else. And next week, Salon E-Books will publish its first offering, the hilarious “A Tea People’s History,” by our own Alex Pareene. By the end of the year, Salon will look and feel like a much more dynamic creature, with a new burst of enterprising journalism as well as an exciting schedule of video and music programs — all offered on the Web and on various mobile platforms.
I look forward to working with you in the weeks and months to come. I know that together we can make a difference.
So this is who is in charge of fixing our economy? I mean I knew we had a bunch of monkeys and puppets in Washington BUT are you telling me that a country facing its worst financial crisis since the great depression is relying on a bunch of idealistic political science experts to make the right decision to get us back on track. FCCCKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK. So really what we have here is a two pronged problem. Current Economic status quo in Washington is based on Keynesian based economics…for those who don’t it’s the most common economic theory applied by most western governments because its foundation is formed by the belief that creating aggregate demand even if artificial, creates economic activity. SO basically, give a politician a blank check and let them go to work has been our policy for just about ever. As you can see this is a politician’s wet dream. Tell your constituents you’ll do this, this, this and voila!! THEY WILL LOVE YOU and VOTE for you. Be forced to restrain spending and VOILA!!! They will hate and replace you….anyone see the flaw here given our precarious times? From wiki:
According to Keynesian theory, some microeconomic-level actions — if taken collectively by a large proportion of individuals and firms — can lead to inefficient aggregate macroeconomic outcomes, wherein the economy operates below its potential output and growth rate. Such a situation had previously been referred to by classical economists as a general glut. There was disagreement among classical economists (some of whom believed in Say’s Law—that “supply creates its own demand“), on whether a general glut was possible. Keynes contended that a general glut would occur when aggregate demand for goods was insufficient, leading to an economic downturn resulting in losses of potential output due to unnecessarily high unemployment, which results from the defensive (or reactive) decisions of the producers. In such a situation, government policies could be used to increase aggregate demand, thus increasing economic activity and reducing unemployment and deflation. Most Keynesians advocate an activist stabilization policy to reduce the amplitude of the business cycle, which they rank among the most serious of economic problems. For example, when the unemployment rate is very high, a government can use a dose of expansionary monetary policy.
On the direct opposite side of the equation is the Austrian School of Economics which I have been following for the past 8 years or so and is the foundation from which I form my collective opinion on economics and which should be no shock to the readers of this blog, is the economic principle followed by Ron Paul and why I support him. Our government is incapable of spending and incapable of making hard choices. The idea behind the Austrian is take those choices away from the government and let the private sector and allow people decide what they want and what is best for society. Austrians argue against centrally planned societies which is what our country and Europe has become.
Austrian economist Friedrich Hayek criticized Keynesian economic policies for what he called their fundamentally collectivist approach, arguing that such theories encourage centralized planning, which leads to malinvestment of capital, which is the cause of business cycles. Hayek also argued that Keynes’ study of the aggregate relations in an economy is fallacious, as recessions are caused by micro-economic factors. Hayek claimed that what starts as temporary governmental fixes usually become permanent and expanding government programs, which stifle the private sector and civil society.
Austrian economists reject empirical statistical methods, natural experiments and constructed experiments as tools applicable to economics, saying that while it is appropriate in the natural sciences where factors can be isolated in laboratory conditions, the actions of human beings are too complex for this “numerical” treatment as passive non-adaptive subjects. Instead one should isolate the logical processes of human action. Mises called this discipline “praxeology” – a term he adapted from Alfred Espinas (but which had been in use by others
Other Austrian school economists have also attacked Keynesian economics. Henry Hazlitt criticized, paragraph by paragraph, Keynes’ General Theory in The Failure of the New Economics.
Murray Rothbard accuses Keynesianism of having “its roots deep in medieval and mercantilist thought.”
Having no business background, no understanding on economic theories and principles it makes sense as to what the de facto school of thought all the sharks in the capitol hill fish tank would swarm to. Having a blank checks for years to make promises and rain gifts on everyone regardless of societal benefit, the ability to grab more and more power and the hubris to believe that one knows what is best for all makes it easy to pray on the weak and powerless. When you are a politician, as long as you spend and hop of board the spend and extend train makes it easy to be well liked and re-elected…but folks that era is coming to an end as this country is broke. Shaping a government that is formed by the right leaders is going to be hard and most likely impossible….but there are leaders out there who can get the job done…and I believe in one. And I think you all know by now who that is.
From The Hill:
Almost 80 percent of lawmakers have no academic background in business or economics, even as Congress grapples with deficits, unemployment and other economic issues of tremendous complexity, according to an independent analysis released Tuesday.
The Employment Policies Institute (EPI) found that only 8.4 percent of lawmakers majored in economics or a related field, while just 13.7 percent studied topics related to business or accounting.
“This research suggests that our elected Representatives may want to dust off their Econ 101 textbook (if they have one) before trying to tackle weighty questions about the impact of taxes, spending, and debt on our economy and the labor market,” EPI’s release warns.
Most Capitol Hill lawmakers (55.7 percent) focused their studies on government, law or the humanities, EPI found, while 11.5 percent majored in science- or technology-related fields.
The report arrives as Congress continues to joust over deficit reduction, spending cuts, tax reform, and the role of the federal government in pulling the country out of a prolonged jobs crisis.
Republicans argue that the size of government – combined with enormous levels of federal spending – have contributed both to the recent recession and the slow pace in pulling out of it. They want to cut taxes, slash spending and scale back regulations they say are strangling private sector job creators.
Democrats, on the other hand, see the government playing an active role in bolstering the economy. They’re pushing proposals designed to create jobs by increasing infrastructure spending, lending a lifeline to states and hiking taxes on corporations that outsource jobs.
Michael Saltsman, a researcher at EPI, was quick to concede that the lack a formal background in economics or business does not automatically preclude lawmakers from making informed choices about economic policy.
“There are plenty of people who have done it well,” Saltsman said.
But given the intricacy of the economic issues lawmakers are tackling this year, a formal introduction to those topics “would certainly help them to evaluate these things better,” Saltsman added.
In crunching its figures, EPI excluded nonvoting members, such as those representing Guam and the District of Columbia. The group also did not take into account those lawmakers without business or economic degrees who nonetheless launched business careers.
Thanks to MK for sending this my way….
Fascinating article below…. A point MK made in his email to me is that a key to this distribution of wealth is the fact much of this concentrated wealth occurred in the financial services area, a lot of which was achieved via dubious method and financial alchemy at the expense of everyone else and then secured by taxpayer bailouts when their ponzi scheme blew up. Nothing short of a banana republic.
Central Planning and The Fall of the US Empire.
By: John Robb
One of the most interesting underlying reasons for the decline of the Soviet Union, and soon the US, is
misallocation of resources due to a reliance on central planning.
Misallocation in this context means that year after year, decade after decade, the wealth of a nation is spent on the wrong things. The wrong projects are funded. The wrong infrastructure is built (or not built — the US is 38th in the world in Internet connectivity and falling). The wrong things were bought and so on. Eventually, the accumulation of bad investment made the USSR so fragile that even the smallest shock could topple them.
The reason for this failure was that the Soviets relied on central planning. A system of economic governance where small group of people — in the Soviet Unions case bureaucrats — had all the decision making power. They decided what was spent and where. Even with copious amount of information, they decided badly.
Why did they decide badly? The massive economy of a modern superstate is too complex for a small group of people to manage. Too much data. Too many uncertainties. Too many moving parts.
The only way to manage an economy as complex as this is to allow massively parallel decision making. A huge number of economically empowered people making small decisions, that in aggregate, are able to process more data, get better data (by being closer to the problem), and apply more brainpower to weighing alternatives than any centralized decision making group.
Of course, the misallocation due to centralized decision making wasn’t supposed to be a vulnerability of the West. To allocate resources in our economy, we had a conceptually more efficient mechanism: markets. Markets are supposed to be a mechanism that allows massively parallel decision making.
Those assumptions are proving false. The succession of market bubbles, the global financial collpse of 2008, and the recent US debt problem is prima facie evidence that gross misallocation has occurred for decades. The wealth of the West, particularly the US, is being spent on the wrong things year after year, decade after decade. We are now as fragile as the Soviet Union in the late 80’s.
Central planning took over the decision making process in the US, both through the growth of government and through an unparalleled concentration of wealth.
The parallels between the rapid growth of US government bureaucracy and the Soviet bureaucracy is straight forward. As more and more of US economy was controlled by a narrow group of decision makers allocating government resources, the more sluggish the entire economy became (most of this was due to massive growth and mis-allocation in entitlements and defense).
Further, the ability of government bureaucracies to extend their decision making to remaining majority of the economy through regulatory action, is also a form of centralization. However, even with all of this government growth, it’s is still not enough to account for the level of misallocation we are seeing.
There’s is something else at work.
The answer is that an extreme concentration of wealth at the center of our market economy has led to a form of central planning. The concentration of wealth is now in so few hands and is so extreme in degree, that the combined liquid financial power of all of those not in this small group is inconsequential to determining the direction of the economy. As a result, we now have the equivalent of centralized planning in global marketplaces. A few thousand extremely wealthy people making decisions on the allocation of our collective wealth. The result was inevitable: gross misallocation across all facets of the private economy.
To see what this extreme wealth concentration looks like as a distribution, we don’t have to look further than income distribution in the US (classic power law). The liquid wealth of those on the extreme left of the curve completely outweighs the 99.5% of the population to the right (the distribution is FAR more skewed than most people even imagine — Republican or Democrat). This graph would also be a good way to demonstrate how decision making in a bureaucratic dictatorship in a country like the Soviet Union looked like before it collapsed.
The result of central planning in the US has finally hit the wall. The list of problems is endless. The misallocations range from the dangerous $600 trillion derivatives market to the destruction of the US middle class (by exporting jobs and the substitution of income with debt).
The end result is that our economic and political system has become very fragile. All it will take is is one extremely bad decision and the cascade of failure that follows will catch everyone off guard.
Why does the media on both the right and the left go to such great extremes to pretend this man doesn’t even exist? You can’t tell me he is not a viable candidate for the election. He lost by less then 1% point to Bachman in the straw poll. He has been the most consistent member of congress for the past 30yrs yet, never gets caught up in using popular talking points as campaign rhetoric yet as Jon Stewart put it, “”How did libertarian Ron Paul become the 13th floor in a hotel?”
When asked by Piers Morgan of CNN this exact question during an interview earlier this week, Paul responded;
they’re afraid of me, they don’t want my views out there, they’re too dangerous, we want freedom and we’re challenging the status quo, we want to end the war, we want a gold standard, and their view is that people just can’t handle all this freedom, they want dependency, they want socialism and welfarism, so I think they don’t like to hear our views, but I think we’ll make the best of it and we’ll do very well.
Well as ironic as it may seem, Mass Media’s obvious and sheepish behavior towards Ron appears to have completely backfired where there is no more evident then a story run in Huff Post, ‘Late Returns: Ron Paul Gets His Best Coverage From All The Coverage Covering His Lack Of Coverage’ and across the internet where searching for “Ron Paul” in Google continues to heat up as has traffic has jumped to 3x its normal volume….and let us not forget, the wonderful and cynical Jon Stewart, who spends about 10 minutes in a very funny but very necessary scolding of Mass Media on the issue. Take a moment if you can to scroll down to the story from PEW RESEARCH which shows some pretty scary stats as to how far Mass Media has gone to truly make it appear as if this guy simply does not exist.
STAY TUNED AND LOOK FOR A POST IN THE NEXT FEW DAYS AS I HAVE HAD NUMEROUS REQUESTS BY FOLLOWERS TO SEND INFORMATION, VIDEOS, LINKS etc TO HELP THEM GET AN UNDERSTANDING OF EXACT WHO THIS FELLA IS.
Pew Research: Evidence Corporate Media Connived to Ignore Ron Paul
Pew Research has added fuel to the argument that the corporate media has ignored Ron Paul in favor of other candidates and non-candidates. Pew’s analysis reveals that story-wise, Paul trails far behind all other candidates, including non-candidate Donald Trump and Rick Perry, who became a candidate last weekend. Ron Paul officially announced his candidacy on May 13, weeks ahead of most of the other GOP hopefuls.
Here is a chart breaking down campaign stories: (or see above)
Ron Paul’s message of liberty and restoration of the republic is so unpopular with the corporate media, they decided to spend more time and effort covering Donald Trump, who is not even a candidate. He also trails far behind Sarah Palin, who is not a candidate.
“Paul’s coverage also lags far behind Trump (94 stories), who dallied with a run before opting out in mid-May and Palin (85 stories), who has given no indication to date that she will enter the race. In addition, Paul trails long-shot candidate and former Utah governor Jon Huntsman (44 stories) and Texas Governor, Rick Perry (33 stories) who only announced his candidacy on August 13,”
The corporate media serves as a barometer for the establishment. “In a further attempt to gauge the post-straw poll attention to Paul’s campaign, PEJ also used the Snapstream server’s closed captioning capability to assess the candidates’ television coverage in the first few days after that balloting,” Journalism.org continues. “According to that analysis, Paul was mentioned just 29 times. By comparison, Perry was mentioned 371 times, Bachmann was mentioned 274 times, and Romney was mentioned 183 times.”
In other words, the establishment will run Perry with Bachmann as his vice president against Obama who is already being portrayed as a one-term president. Perry, will now ramp up his fake Tea Party rhetoric and try to undermine Paul’s base. He launched his faux liberty campaign earlier this week when he took a timid swipe at bankster minion Ben Bernanke and the privately owned Federal Reserve.
Ron Paul Speaks Out: Media Blackout, Economic Freedom, Intellectual Revolution
Obviously this is not the exact reason but its a indirect causal effect of the SOON TO BE COMING TO A THEATER near you effects of Austerity measures pushed through by a government on its people. This time it happens to be reaching dangerous levels in London as it enters its 3rd day side by side with the global rout on risk assets. While you may open your broker statement and notice that your holdings are down a whopping 20%, paper losses while temporary painful are nothing compared to slashing promised pension benefits, increased retirement ages, tax increases both on income, bonuses, corporations, sales and luxury goods, the selling off of state assets on the cheap which only means the imminent firing of hundreds of thousands of government workers…Sound like a familiar problem? If not it should. While we grandstand for the next year so everyone can get elected, I assure you right after the 2012 general election, if not forced sooner you will be seeing the same painful measures implemented here. Until then, pay attention to the growing police state across america as the goverment, well aware of the impending public disapproval and reaction will be ramping up efforts and preparing for the day that is so inevitable to come.
Looters found ways to justify their actions, Pitts added. “They feel they can rationalise it by targeting big corporations. There is a sense that the companies have lots of money, while they have very little.” Combined with a lack of intervention from police and increasing lawlessness, the combination was explosive: ” [Looters] quickly see that police cannot control the situation, which leads to a sort of adrenalin-fuelled euphoria – suddenly you are in control and there is nothing anyone can do.”
A generation bred on a diet of excessive consumerism and bombarded by advertising had been unleashed, he added. “Where we used to be defined by what we did, now we are defined by what we buy. These big stores are in the business of tempting [the consumer] and then suddenly these people find they can just walk into the shop and have it all.”
Just some of the headlines I have caught:
Oh and for all you Philly people. THIS IS A TEST RUN:
obv satire but you get the point……or do you??????
SEWARD, NE—Claiming he wasn’t afraid to let everyone in attendance know about “the real mess we’re in,” Federal Reserve chairman Ben Bernanke reportedly got drunk Tuesday and told everyone at Elwood’s Corner Tavern about how absolutely fucked the U.S. economy actually is.
Bernanke, who sources confirmed was “totally sloshed,” arrived at the drinking establishment at approximately 5:30 p.m., ensconced himself upon a bar stool, and consumed several bottles of Miller High Life and a half-dozen shots of whiskey while loudly proclaiming to any patron who would listen that the economic outlook was “pretty goddamned awful if you want the God’s honest truth.”
“Look, they don’t want anyone except for the Washington, D.C. bigwigs to know how bad shit really is,” said Bernanke, slurring his words as he spoke. “Mounting debt exacerbated—and not relieved—by unchecked consumption, spiraling interest rates, and the grim realities of an inevitable worldwide energy crisis are projected to leave our entire economy in the shitter for, like, a generation, man, I’m telling you.”
“And hell, as long as we’re being honest, I might as well tell you that a truer estimate of the U.S. unemployment rate is actually up around 16 percent, with a 0.7 percent annual rate of economic growth if we’re lucky—if we’re lucky,” continued Bernanke, nearly knocking a full beer over while gesturing with his hands. “Of course, if everybody knew that, it would likely cripple financial markets across the entire fucking globe, even in various emerging economies with self- sustaining growth.”
After launching into an extended 45-minute diatribe about shortsighted moves by “those bastards in Congress” that could potentially exacerbate the nation’s already deeply troublesome budget imbalance, the Federal Reserve chairman reportedly bought a round of tequila shots for two customers he had just met who were seated on either side of him, announcing, “I love these guys.”
Numerous bar patrons slowly nodded in agreement as Bernanke went on to suggest the United States could pass three or four more stimulus packages and “it wouldn’t even matter.”
“You think that’s going to create long-term economic growth, let alone promote job creation?” Bernanke said. “We’re way beyond that, my friend. There are no jobs, okay? There’s nothing. I think that calls for another drink, don’t you?”