A Gallup Poll  on May 29 strikingly titled “U.S. Support for Euthanasia Hinges on How It’s Described” contains unambiguous new evidence that Republicans are more manipulable than Democrats—at least when the question concerns the important issue of whether or not a terminal patient’s request for assistance to die should be carried out by the person’s doctor. It reported that, “A May 2-7 Gallup survey finds 70% of Americans in favor of allowing doctors to hasten a terminally ill patient’s death when the matter is described as allowing doctors to ‘end the patient’s life by some painless means.’ At the same time, far fewer – 51% – support it when the process is described as doctors helping a patient ‘commit suicide.’”

The precise question in the latter instance was “When a person has a disease that cannot be cured and is living in severe pain, do you think doctors should or should not be allowed by law to assist the patient to commit suicide if the patient requests it?”

The remarkable finding was that 71% of Democrats, and 68% of Republicans, support a doctor’s ending a patient’s life by some painless means if the patient requests it and has a terminal illness, but only 60% of Democrats, and 41% of Republicans do when the question it phrased as “to assist the patient to commit suicide.”

That’s a fall-off from 71% down to 60% for Democrats – or a reduction of 15% – of Democrats, who can be manipulated by using different terminology; but it’s a fall-off from 68% down to 41% for Republicans – or a reduction of 40% – of Republicans, who can be manipulated by a mere synonymous rephrasing of the same question.

Or, to put that in the other way, based upon this poll, 85% of Democrats, versus only 60% of Republicans, were  not manipulable on this issue – they responded to the issue itself, and not to the wording of it.

There is a vast amount of other empirical evidence showing that conservatives, and Republicans in particular, are more manipulable than non-conservatives.

A famous study by Jost, Glaser, Kruglansky and Sulloway, “Political Conservatism as Motivated Social Cognition,” in the May 2003  Psychological Bulletin , found that prejudices were even stronger among conservatives than among the general population.

An October 2003 survey, “Misperceptions, the Media and the Iraq War,” from  worldpublicopinion.org (formerly “PIPA,” or Program on International Policy Attitudes) found that the audience of Fox News is highly Republican, but failed to provide any detailed breakdown. A more detailed study of this question, issued by  rasmussenreports.com in June 2004, was headlined “Fox Fans Favor Bush 65% to 28%,” and noted, by way of contrast, that “CNN Fans Favor Kerry 63% to 26%.”

Furthermore, this survey found that, “In the race for Congress, Fox fans will vote for GOP candidates by a 56% to 25% margin. The CNN audience will vote Democratic by a 54% to 27% margin.” The PIPA study of “Misperceptions” and “the Iraq War” found: “The extent of Americans’ misperceptions vary significantly depending on their source of news. Those who receive most of their news from Fox News are more likely than average to have misperceptions. Those who receive most of their news from NPR or PBS are less likely to have misperceptions. These variations cannot simply be explained as a result of differences in the demographic characteristics of each audience, because these variations can also be found when comparing the demographic subgroups of each audience.”

On November 22, 2011,  thinkprogress.org headlined “Fox News Viewers Are the Most Misinformed: A Seventh Study Arrives to Prove It,” and Chris Mooney linked to each of the seven different studies that had been done of this subject, all of which found the same thing. The latest study was titled “Climate on Cable: The Nature and Impact of Global Warming Coverage on Fox News [FNC], CNN, and MSNBC.” This latest study closed by saying: “In sum, the results overwhelmingly support Hypothesis 4 [that FNC viewers rejected the reality of global warming, whereas CNN/MSNBC viewers accepted its reality], demonstrating that Fox News viewing is associated with lower levels of global warming acceptance, with the reverse true for CNN/MSNBC viewing. … [Moreover, a separate finding was:] The views of Republicans seem to reflect the cable news outlet they watch, regardless of whether it is Fox or CNN/MSNBC. Democrats, on the other hand, do not vary significantly in their global warming beliefs as a function of cable news.”

Full article:

Are Conservatives Easier to Manipulate? | Alternet.

As a resident of New Jersey, it’s hard not to occasionally hear about something Chris Christie has done. For the most part, I disagree with his politics, but I also have a degree of respect for him. I feel he handled Hurricane Sandy very well, which is a pretty big deal to me. There’s still work to be done and homes to be rebuilt, but nonetheless I’m impressed with the progress.

I also respect the move he made to verbally attack the Republicans who obstructed the relief to New Jersey. Sadly, in the current state of American politics, that’s a “brave” move. It’s very depressing how if a Republican accepts help from a Democratic president, it’s some sort of taboo. But, regardless, I respected how he handled the situation.

Now, about this special election…

I happened to be watching the news live when he announced that there would be a special election to fill the seat of the late Frank Lautenberg. My initial reaction was actually a positive one. If I heard correctly and have my facts right, there didn’t need to be an election at all. He could have just appointed a senator to finish the term (Which Christie also got heat for doing, how dare he let the people elect a representative?).

I didn’t think Christie would have gone in the direction of having an election if he didn’t need to. I mean, for what? If he was purely playing politics, he could have just put in some Republican that he liked or whomever.

So, for that, he gets a few points from me. Then there’s the stupid detail of having an election a few weeks before the gubernatorial election.

I’ve read a few articles and seen a few news outlets cover the story and a lot have used the statistic that it would cost New Jersey $24 million for this election. That’s not only misleading, but completely false. There’s been estimates that it costs $12 million to hold a single statewide election in New Jersey.

The gubernatorial election is happening regardless, so it’s expense shouldn’t be in the equation at all. Misleading people using bigger numbers makes you just as wrong. You’re not reporting the truth.

And I have another reference to dispute that number as well. It cost the state of Wisconsin $5.8-$10 to hold a statewide election. Now I’m sure there are more variables than population, but to give context into the difference of size between the two states: New Jersey is ranked 11th in the country in population with 8.8 million people. Wisconsin places in 20th with 5.7 million. These are estimates for July 2012.

Again, I’m sure there’s more to the logistics for the cost of a state election then population, but that’s just to give a small idea.

In regards to those costs of statewide elections in Wisconsin, I’m not even sure a lot of them are really necessary. For example, the ballots, memory devices, programming equipment, and training that are all listed as costs. I don’t think those are things that necessarily have to be bought for each election.

So, that’s where I feel the media is wrong in their coverage of this special election. Now, back to where Christie is at fault.

The cost of the election itself is actually irrelevant. I believe the special election is going to be held on October 16th, or somewhere around that. The gubernatorial election is on November 4th.

The reason Christie is having the election on separate days is because the Mayor of Newark, Cory Booker is the favorite to win the seat. He’s a Democrat. And a popular one at that.

So, what does that mean? More Democrats would turn up and likely vote against Christie. Let’s keep in mind, Christie is projected to win by well over 30 points against Barbara Buono.

That’s why I claim the price of the statewide election is irrelevant. It doesn’t matter how much it is when it’s only taking place so Christie can have an easier win. Regardless, he presumably would have won anyway. I can’t imagine him losing such a huge lead, especially when the people of New Jersey remember that he handled the Sandy situation relatively well.

While I respect Christie’s defiance towards other Republicans, this is just a stupid move. And some of the media’s coverage makes a stupid move look worse, but they’re lying. All in all, a very stupid situation.

State Population Ranking - 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territories_by_population

Wisconsin Statewide Election Costs - 
http://gab.wi.gov/sites/default/files/news/65/2012_election_costs_summary_pdf_95895.pdf

He has been honing his lying and hypocrisy for a long, long time.

~

~~~~~~~~~~~~

I notice that  Lyin’ Ryan never mentions that he collected social security after his dad died, as did his hero Rand when she got old and sick.

Those dickhead, hypocrite bastards.

THEY GOT THEIRS!!!!

FUCK EVERYONE ELSE!!!!!

This is the event where Ryan stated that Rand was the “one thinker” who is the “reason I got involved in public service;” and that Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead are “required reading in my office for all my interns and my staff.”  Statements he would latter dismiss as “urban legends.”
The speech has been hidden in plain sight on the Atlas Society website, which offers only a partial transcript.  This omits several revealing passages that illuminate Ryan’s philosophy as it relates to policy priorities.

It is impossible to summarize these statements without sounding like a breathless conspiracy theorist.  Here’s what Ryan says.  Don’t trust my bullets.  Read the transcript.  Don’t trust my transcript, listen to the audio on the Atlas Society site.
http://www.atlassociety.org/ele/blog/2012/04/30/paul-ryan-and-ayn-rands-ideas-hot-seat-again

(Just scroll to the bottom of the text about Ryan (above), and you’ll see a grey icon of a speaker and an arrow. Click on the arrow and the audio will play. The grey audio player is located directly above the golden star rating.)

• Ryan describes Social Security and Medicare as “collectivist” and “socialistic.”
• Ryan’s strategic plan:  privatize Social Security and Medicare in order to convert people from “collectivism” to believers in a “individualist capitalist” philosophy.  So that there will be “more people on our team” who “won’t listen to” Democrats.
• Ryan’s acceptance of Pinochet’s Secretary of Social Security José Piñera’s similar program of Social Security privatization as a “moral revolution” that made Marxists into capitalists who started to read the Chilean equivalent of the Wall Street Journal.  Ryan is overheard, “Yeah”  “That’s right.”
• For Ryan “defined benefit” programs such as Social Security and Medicare are problems in themselves. This isn’t something he saves for gatherings of the Ayn Rand Society, such concerns about “dependency” are scattered throughout his Path to Prosperity—again hidden in plain sight. This transcript doesn’t so much reveal a secret, as highlight a clear theme in his policy rationale that is always present, but in more public settings subordinated to his prophecies of fiscal apocalypse. Thus, it is no surprise his budget cuts the safety net and radically reshapes Medicare first and addresses the deficit later.
• ………………………………..In the published transcript Ryan states that like Rand, he views all political and policy questions as battle between individualism and collectivism.
  (2:38) In almost every fight we are involved in here, on Capitol Hill, whether it’s an amendment vote that I’ll take later on this afternoon, or a big piece of policy we’re putting through our Ways and Means Committee, it is a fight that usually comes down to one conflict: individualism vs. collectivism.

  FULL TRANSCRIPT:
  
  http://www.americamagazine.org/blog/entry.cfm?blog_id=2&entry_id=5368
  
  
  http://www.alternet.org/hot-news-views/paul-ryan-social-security-collectivist-socialist-system-must-end
  

~~~~~~~~~~~

Thanks for visiting.

LINK

The poll by Gallup showed that by a solid majority Americans don’t think the president is handling the issue well. Only one-third approved, while 58 percent disapproved.

Independents had a similar view, but 83 percent of Republicans disapproved of the president’s handling of the situation. Fifty-six percent of Democrats approved of Obama’s handling of the issue.

Nearly six in 10 of those surveyed believe high-ranking officials were in the know, according to Gallup. Only a fourth believed that the knowledge was limited to officials in the Cincinnati office where the targeting actually took place.

Mediaite reports: Fox News host Neil Cavuto and Democratic strategist Julian Epstein erupted at each other on Saturday morning, when Cavuto demanded Epstein see the NSA subpoena as part of a larger pattern of oppressive behavior on the part of the Obama administration. (via…
Read more about:
Cavuto vs. Democratic Strategist On IRS Scandal: “Cut His Damn Mic”

Gary Varvel

“Louisiana has been a fairly solid Republican voting state since the 1980s. Louisiana did, however, brake rank with the other southern states such as Alabama and Mississippi and voted Democrat in 1992 and 1996. Bill Clinton was able to win Louisiana in in these years as a Democrat for a few reasons. Clinton’s win in the state in 1992 was largely due to the influence of Ross Perot. Clinton won 46% of the vote and Perot won 12% thus giving Clinton the plurality over George H. W Bush. Clinton’s win in Louisiana was also due in part to the fact that he and his running mate were Southerners (Saal, 1993). Clinton won in 1996 won for a number of other reasons. The economy prospering and Clinton’s adoption of some accepted republican policies on welfare, immigration and crime helped ensure him 53% of the vote in the state. As we entered into the twentieth century Louisiana came back to the Republican Party. Al Gore was not able to use his birth place of Tennessee to his advantage. He lost the southern states such as Louisiana because he was framed as a Washington Insider who was removed from his Southern roots. George W. Bush was governor of Texas at the time and used that to his advantage in the south. These reasons as well as the fact that Gore’s ideas were also ideologically to the left of Clinton ensured his loss in Louisiana (Perez-Pena, 2000). In 2004 presidential nominee John Kerry took heat for implying that he had conceded the south to President Bush (Tapper, 2004). President Bush was able to use his 2000 advantage in Louisiana and the idea of Kerry as a New England liberal on his way to an substantial win in the state. Barack Obama lost Louisiana in 2008 as well. This result came as no surprise to most scholars because of the Louisiana’s recent history of Republican voting.

When looking at exit polls from 2004 and 2008 we see a definitive advantage for republican in the white demographic. In fact, Louisiana became more republican as the nation as a whole shifted more towards the Democratic party.  The 75% Republican white voting rate of 2004 and 84% rate of 2008 are both well above the national average of Republican white voting of 58% and 55% in 2004 and 2008 respectively. A possible explanation for this shift in Louisiana is the phenomena of racial voting.  The next section of this paper will look at this phenomena and later we will look at what role racial politics played in Louisiana in the 2008 general presidential election.

Racial Voting

While we as a nation have come a long way in promoting equality and acceptance, racial discrimination still exists in America. This is especially true in states in the south including Louisiana. Traces of racism and white supremacy still find their way into main stream politics.

Courtesy of bossip.com

Perhaps the most startling example of this is David Duke. Duke served in the House of Representatives from 1990 to 1992 and nearly was elected to the US senate in 1992. Duke was strongly against affirmative action and campaigned for equality and against the discrimination of white people. As a former grand wizard of the Ku Klux Klan and founder of the Nation Association for the Advancement of White People (NAAWP) he was able to attract people who had these same types of feeling towards affirmative action and other programs they felt favored minority groups. Duke’s anti affirmative action stances seemed tame compared to his extreme anti-sematic views and celebration of Hitler.

Despite Duke’s obvious roots in anti-minority groups he was able to garner 57.9% of the white vote in the 1990 Louisiana Senate race (Palmpuist & Voss, 1996). If this number was not astounding enough there is also the fact that no fewer than 23.3 percent of registered democrats voted for Duke as well (Palmpuist & Voss, 1996). This number is especially significant given that the number of African-American democrats that voted for Duke was probably close to zero. Perhaps what is most telling about the example of David Duke is that when he was running for Senator of Louisiana he was already a member of Congress through special election. This example shows us that attitudes of racism and discrimination are still present in Louisiana. These sentiments have existed for hundreds of years and have translated into a republican advantage in the Deep South.

While Nixon’s “Southern Strategy” is often seen as the shift in partisanship of white voters in the south Bejarano and Segura (2007) argue that the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 both led to a strong shift in white partisanship in the south from the Democratic Party to the Republican Party. If either party is identified as willing to use government power to push for equality for blacks, white southerners would most likely vote against that party (Brewer & Stonecash, 2001). The Republican Party has consistently won the white vote in Louisiana dating back to the Nixon’s “Southern Strategy”. This shift or trend can even be seen in white voters who economic situation may be better suited with Democratic policies (Bejarano & Segura, 2007). Bejarano & Segura also point out that candidates of color in both parties have a much more difficult time support of white voters. The authors use the case of Republican Bobby Jindal in the 2003 gubernatorial race. Jindal, a nonwhite candidate, was seen as having lost because he, instead of convincing the white voters that he had there best interest in mind, tried to connect with minority voters (Bejarano & Segura, 2007). Jindal’s attempt to use his ethnicity to his advantage and steal some minority votes ended up losing him white votes. Jindal’s race being a factor in his gubernatorial run along with the fact that Republican David duke in 1990 garnered 23% of the overall democratic vote in 1990 may suggest is that race matters more in Louisiana politics than partisanship. Race and Party however are somewhat interchangeable in Louisiana given the partisan affiliations of the respective races.

2008 Presidential Election

Louisiana’s history of racial voting was also seen in the 21st century as well. The racial partisan split has ballooned to the current 84% white support for the Republican John McCain in 2008. 84% was up from the also incredibly high figure of 75% in 2004. This drop in white support for the Democratic candidate from 2004 to 2008 in Louisiana was the largest drop among all states (Tilove, 2008). This section of the paper will examine why the racial gap spread from 2004 to 2008 and whether or not it had a significant impact on the election.

The widening racial gap is also illustrated in figure 1 which shows the media market PVIs from 2004 and 2008.

Media Markets  Votes for Bush  2004  2004 PVI  Votes for McCain 2008  2008 PVI

Shreveport               127,064                           R+ 8                    129,400                R+ 12

Monroe                     100,889                           R+14                   101,622          R+16

Lake Charles             71,920                           R+10                    79,848          R+20

Lafayette                   147,064                          R+11                   165,357          R+18

Baton Rouge           208,773                           R+7                     227,268         R+11

Alexandria                73,325                            R+16                     80,446         R+22

Orleans                    372,945                           R+3                      364,924         R+11

Every media market in Louisiana shifted more towards the Republican side. The state PVI went up from R+7 in 2004 to R+13 in 2008. These figures run against the fact that Barack Obama did better amongst white voters nationwide than John Kerry or Al Gore. Obama’s performance amongst white voters in 2008 gave hope to the concept of post racial voting in America (Donovan, 2010). The post racial voting concept is ruined, however, when we look at Obama’s poor performance amongst white voters in the south (Tilove, 2008).

The major theory that is used to explain this very apparent lack of support for Barack Obama in the south is the “Racial Threat Theory”. Leading up to the 2008 election there was a lot of attention put on Obama’s race. Sen. Clinton made the initiative to point out the fact that a white president was able to get civil rights legislation passed (Donovan, 2010). Later in the campaign images surfaced on the internet of Obama in traditional Somali Robes, again drawing attention to Obama’s “differentness”. Rumors that Obama was a member of the nation of Islam also circulated around popular media. All of this translated to a discontent for Barack Obama amongst the most conservative voters in the country.
The “Racial Threat Theory” holds most ground in states with the highest percentage of African Americans. Research from Donovan (2010) shows that African American population correlates with how whites evaluate Democratic candidates. In areas of high African American populations whites evaluated candidates in a manner that depressed white support for an African American candidate. This was especially true in areas where the Voting Rights Act of 1965 has justified the use of majority-minority districts (Donovan, 2010). Obama did much better with white voters in relatively homogeneous states.”

This examination shows us that racial politics still exist in Louisiana and other southern states.  It is both interesting and sad that this still takes place.  We are not in a post racial democracy yet.  We still have much work to do.  

Bejarano, C., & Segura, G. (2007). What Goes Around Comes Around: Race, Blowback, and the Louisiana Elections of 2002 and 2003. Political Research Quarterly, 328-337.

Brewer, M., & Stonecash, J. (2001). Class, Race Issues, and Declining White Support for the Democratic Party in the South. Political Behavior, Vol. 23, No. 2, June , 131-155.

Donovan, T. (2010). Obmaa and the White Vote. Political Research Quarterly, 863-874.

Palmpuist, B., & Voss, D. S. (1996). Racial Polarization and Turnout in Louisiana: New insight from Aggregate Data Analysis. Political Science Association, 1-36.

Perez-Pena, R. (2000, November 9). THE 2000 ELECTIONS: TENNESSEE; Loss In Home State Leaves Gore Depending on Florida. The New York Times.

Saal, M. A. (1993, January 1). Bill Clinton’s Presidential Campaign. Washington Monthly.

Tilove, J. (2008, November 8). Obama made inroads with white voters except in Deep South. The Times-Picayune, p. 2008.

By Robert Mann

I like state Sen. Elbert Guillory. I spent a delightful 10 days with him in Turkey a few years ago. He’s a kind man, wonderful company, and is now among my favorite Republicans.

That’s because he recently bolted the Democratic Party to become the first black GOP member of the Louisiana Senate since Reconstruction. Guillory’s political affiliation is entirely his business, although he is a bit fickle about it. He was a Republican until 2007, when he became a Democrat just before capturing a House seat from Opelousas.

But now, he’s back in the arms of his first love.

GOP leaders crowed loudly about landing my friend, as well they should. They even timed his announcement to occur at the recent @large conference in Baton Rouge, described by a sponsor as a gathering “for black conservatives interested in engaging in the political process.” For two days, speakers discussed ways to lure more blacks to the conservative side and to encourage more of them to seek elected office.

 Continue reading

Related articles

• The GOP’s black ‘mad men’: Why the party can’t find its own Barack Obama (thegrio.com)
• Republicans continue to ignore black voters at their peril (washingtonpost.com)
• With 1.6m Floridians having voted, Dems cut GOP absentee vote-lead in half in 1st early vote day (miamiherald.typepad.com)
• In 2012 Election, African American Voters Surpassed White Turnout For The First Time Ever (kstreet607.com)
• 2012 Election A Historic Milestone For Black Voters (huffingtonpost.com)

 WASHINGTON (AP) — Two Democratic vice presidents are teaming up to head off a Republican victory in Massachusetts’ special Senate election.

The White House says Vice President Joe Biden and former Vice President Al Gore will attend a fundraiser in Washington on Tuesday for Rep. Ed Markey. He’s running to replace former Sen. John Kerry, who stepped down to become secretary of state.

Markey won’t be at the fundraiser. He’ll be participating in a debate in Massachusetts that night.

Democrats have been sending in their biggest players ahead of the June 25 election. President Barack Obama heads to Boston Wednesday; first lady Michelle Obama made the trip last month.

Democrats are hoping to avoid a repeat of 2010, when Republican Scott Brown won a special Senate election to replace the late Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, even though Massachusetts leans heavily Democratic.

Markey’s campaign says Vicki Kennedy, the senator’s widow, will also attend Tuesday’s fundraiser.

The Boston Globe first reported Gore and Biden’s appearances.

(© Copyright 2013 The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.)

http://preppersuniverse.com/democratic-senator-calls-for-holder-to-resign/

I want to live in a world where countries respect the democratic process and politicians work to ensure that our environment, the planet and its people are taken care of.  We must become more vigilant in the democratic process – we have a right to hold our politicians accountable for the policies they create.  These policies must be respectful to the people and our environment and not beneficial to BIG OIL, banks and corporations.

We must raise our voices – no more whispering, we must now ensure that corrupt governments and politicians here our roar.

Please watch this trailer for the political documentary by Ben Moss called, A Whisper to a Roar - hopefully it will inspire you to create positive change in our world.  You can watch it on Netflix.

Together, we can make the world a more positive one.

The right/republicans/tea party, don’t seem to realize the irony of almost all of their positions on almost everything. It’s also remarkable how they seem to embrace and revel in their obvious ignorance, racism and lack of understanding and only caring about themselves. No matter how much it hurts the perception of them.

The only good thing about that is it makes them an easy target for comedy and criticism.

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

Thanks for visiting.

Large forest fires are visible in a newly released image from NASA and NOAA, of the Earth at night. The bright regions in the western part of Australia that are largely uninhabited, and the light seen is almost entirely from forest fires.

“Away from the cities, much of the night light observed by the NASA-NOAA Suomi NPP satellite in these images comes from wildfires. In the bright areas of western Australia, there are no nearby cities or industrial sites but, scientists have confirmed, there were fires in the area when Suomi NPP made passes over the region. This has been confirmed by other data collected by the satellite.”

“Because different areas burned at different times when the satellite passed over, the cumulative result in the composite view gives the appearance of a massive blaze. These fires are temporary features, in contrast to cities which are always there.”

http://http://c1planetsavecom.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/files/2012/12/20121208-004641.jpg

This idea of new-hire verification is highly popular. With 85 percent support from the US public, it is the most strongly supported of five basic elements of immigration reform, according to a February Gallup poll.

But the system, known as “E-Verify,” has shown plenty of flaws as well as promise in its early years of being available (but not widely required).

The problems: Many illegal immigrants slip through the cracks and win employment, while many legal workers face significant bureaucratic challenges – sometimes even losing their jobs because government databases deliver an erroneous “nonconfirmation” of their status.

Is E-Verify ready for prime time?

The short answer may be that, ready or not, here it comes. If a comprehensive immigration law passes Congress this year, many policy analysts say, it will include a provision to take E-Verify nationwide for all employers. On Friday the Senate began debating a comprehensive reform package, including the measure, formulated by the bipartisan “Gang of Eight.”

To perfect E-Verify, the task ahead will be to keep improving and de-bugging the system, even as its use expands from about 7 percent of employers to all of them.

“Conservatives … have been pushing for a very, very long time” to implement E-Verify, says Philip Wolgin, an immigration policy expert at the liberal Center for American Progress. “Most people on the Democratic side, even if they aren’t thrilled with it, understand that this is a necessary part of reform.”

The reason E-Verify is widely considered necessary is because the US workplace is in many ways central to the immigration challenge.

Tightening borders, by itself, won’t stop the flow of unauthorized people into the US if they can readily find jobs. And many conservatives in Congress will balk at granting legal status to millions who now work illegally – a central goal for proponents of comprehensive immigration reform – without strong workplace-level enforcement.

Against that backdrop, E-Verify is as crucial for politics as it is controversial in practice.

Here’s how the program works:

E-Verify is an Internet-based system that compares the information from an employee’s Form I-9 (Employment Eligibility Verification) to data from the US Department of Homeland Security and Social Security Administration.

Many private sector employers voluntarily participate. All federal agencies have been required to use the program since 2007. Many states have laws mandating E-Verify for at least some employers. States that are implementing E-Verify for nearly all employers include Arizona, Georgia, Mississippi, and South Carolina.

When the databases for Social Security or immigration services (part of Homeland Security) don’t recognize a new employee, the employer gets a “tentative nonconfirmation,” or TNC notice. The employer is then legally obligated to tell the employee, who will have eight working days to contact the government to correct the record if possible.

If the worker fails to contest the TNC, or cannot correct the record, he or she gets a “final nonconfirmation.” By law, employers are then expected to fire that worker.

More than 99 percent of the time, the databases provide a quick confirmation that a newly hired person is eligible. But sometimes the people who get a confirmation really shouldn’t be eligible to work.

In February, Emily Tulli of the National Immigration Law Center told a congressional hearing that large numbers of illegal workers slip through E-Verify undetected. She cited 2008 research, finding that “54 percent of unauthorized workers for whom E-Verify checks were run were erroneously confirmed as being work-authorized.”

On the flip side, Ms. Tulli said, many legal workers find themselves flagged as potentially unauthorized.

One survey of 376 immigrant workers in Arizona, she said, found that more than 100 of them had been fired, apparently after the employer got TNC notices and failed to notify the workers about their opportunity to appeal.

“In fiscal year 2012, approximately 100,000 workers [nationwide] likely received erroneous findings from the system and may have lost their jobs as a result,” Tulli said in her prepared testimony. That number of people who lose their jobs in error could rise as high as 770,000 or more if E-Verify is mandated nationwide, she warned.

But Mr. Wolgin of the Center for American Progress says a worst-case outcome – with many people wrongly losing jobs even as hordes of unauthorized workers skate by undetected – is far from inevitable.

“This [Senate] bill actually has a lot of protections written into it,” he says.

To better catch illegal workers, the bill now being considered by the Senate cracks down on ID fraud – an important reason why many illegal workers can slip through E-Verify undetected. It seeks to match photos presented by newly hired workers with photos in federal (passport) or state (driver’s license) databases.

The Senate legislation pairs E-Verify with legalization for millions of immigrants who are currently not authorized to work.

Do you trust these folks with your interest rates?

It’s June, and with 23 days until the student loan interest rate doubles for subsidized federal student loans, with the House already having passed their (flawed) bill, the eyes of higher ed stake holders once again rest on the United States Senate.

Admittedly, the Senate has not been a particularly reliable body as of late, especially in terms of moving legislation with any urgency.  While the general public has settle on the House of Representatives as the symbol of  political backbiting and squabbling, the Senate has repeatedly been blamed for driving the glacial pace which grips Congress.  (There is one notable exception to this rule, as the deal that averted the fiscal cliff was brokered by two longtime Senators, McConnell and Biden; although, in the context of the sequester, this deal has lost its luster.)

The Senate took action to buttress this impression this past Thursday when it failed to get enough votes to consider the Democratic student loan proposal from Senators Jack Reed, Tom Harkin, and Harry Reid.

The Democrat’s bill, which would freeze the  interest rate at 3.4 percent for two years, with the intention of permanently fixing the problem with the looming Higher Education Act reauthorization, is admittedly a stop-gap bill.  In comparison, the House passed a bill that purports to fix the problem long-term by moving to a market based interest rate system, a proposal similar to one by President Obama, although the difference in execution is significant, and enough to warrant a veto threat from the White House.  (My breakdown on the major proposals here.)

The most fascinating thing about all of this is that the only ones that have anything to lose here (other than millions of students) are the Republicans in the Senate.  By filibustering the possible fix rather than allowing it to come to the floor and attempting to amend it there, the Republican caucus is reinforcing the perception of younger voters that it has little interest in them.

This further reinforces the qualms ennumerated by the recent report by the College Republicans, which emphasized that students feel out of touch with the mainstream Republican Party, if there is such a thing anymore.  While they too are struggling with this perception, House Republicans don’t stand to lose as much, simply because they already passed a proposal.  If the deadline comes to pass, House leadership can lean back and point to their bill as an indication of action, just as they did with the sequester and fiscal cliff.

The reality for Democrats on both ends of the Capitol is that even if the deadline comes to pass without a solution they will have at least failed to adopt the House Republican bill, which would, if interest rate projections hold up, cost students more than simply allowing the rates to double.  Additionally, if Congress fails to take action on this issue, and Democrats are able to show that it is a result of Republican obstruction, Democrats will widen the already wide margin of support among young voters.

The important take away for prospective borrowers watching the debate is that, even in spite of  failed cloture, a deal is still likely. If Republicans have any hope of making a return to power, they cannot continue to insult the very groups that they so desperately need to take back control of the Capitol and White House.  With this in mind, and with the stakes so high, it seems unlikely that they will allow themselves to become the sole bad guys by failing to act.

The most likely scenario involves closed door negotiations, which are almost certainly ongoing, even in the midst of the floor theatrics.  There are two likely outcomes of the deal, a market based rate, which will land somewhere between the President’s and House proposals, or the kind of deal in which this Congress specializes, kicking the can down the road with a short term extension.

Although, even in the absence of a deal, thanks to its annually variable interest rates, new borrowers will still likely be better off with a 6.8 interest rate than the House Republican proposal.

I came across a book called “Nudge” written by “Richard H. Thaler” and “Cass R. Sunstein” talking about decision making in different aspects of life “Freedom, Social life, Health, Money…”

For the ones of you who don’t know; nudge means “to push mildly or poke gently in the ribs, especially with the elbow” and as the writers acknowledged: one who nudges in that manner aims “to alert, remind, or mildly warn another”.

In my opinion a book with such a value was made to improve societies, or even to build ones! And two main ideas of the book were very attracting from my point of view, which are: Social Influences “or nudges” and Freedom.

I think that we “as Syrians” could hugely benefit from understanding such points since we are aiming for a better “democratic” future Syria, and especially that our country of Syria has been hugely damaged in its society like it has in its infrastructure. Thus, being the future leaders of Syria, students must have the widest understanding of such values knowing that they are now the people that should act to move forward with their country.

The main idea of social influences “from the authors’ point” is “libertarian paternalism”. In other words, they aimed to say that social leaders or as they called them “choice architects” can always find a way to get people into doing “or not doing” things in a creative, more effective way instead of permitting people from doing things or forcing them to do others. In that way, you can guarantee people’s freedom of will and at the same time lead them to do the right thing.

The book contains great and inspiring examples that would support the authors’ points, and I think that books, articles, or movies talking about values like the ones mentioned in the book could help us a lot in the process of rebuilding our beloved Syria. 

Ding, Dong, The Witch Is Dead.

How is that crazy proposal to cut Social Security benefits?

Food for worms. Kicked the bucket. Bought the farm. Six feet under. Dead dead dead.

What do I mean?

On April 5, the New York Times ran this disturbing headline:

“Obama Budget to Include Cuts to Programs in Hopes of Deal”

But here are some more recent headlines:

Red-State Democrats Buck Obama On Social Security Cuts, Huffington Post
Ryan Sees No ‘Grand Bargain’ on Budget, Wall Street Journal
Republicans Sean Duffy, Phil Gingrey Oppose Obama’s Social Security Cut, Huffington Post
Richard Trumka: The ‘grand bargain’ is a dead end, The Cap Times
Deficit Deal Even Less Likely, Wall Street Journal
No Push for a Grand Bargain on the Deficit? Fox Business News

And who led the charge? Moi, as John Kerry would say. Consider this quote from the lead article in the New York Times on April 10, just after Obama’s budget was released:

“The A.F.L.-C.I.O. president, Richard Trumka, in a blistering statement, called the proposed changes “wrong and indefensible.” An e-mail from Representative Alan Grayson, a liberal from Florida, was headlined “President’s Budget Breaks Promise to Seniors.”

We won.

But this proposal, like Dracula, will come back from the dead. Wall Street is always hungry for money, and the Social Security Trust Fund has a lot of it. For now, though, we’ve beaten them.

How did we do it?

We organized. We called. We e-mailed. We got an army of more than three million people together to say no. With one voice. We got more than 45 Democratic Members of Congress to commit that they would not vote for legislation that includes these cuts. Real Democrats, not squishy, sort of, kind of, Democrats. Then we began to peel off Republicans.

But we need more than a stop sign. We need a green light towards a better life for all Americans.

Over the course of the next month or so, I’m going to be laying out an agenda for real Democrats. Not half a loaf, but a loaf and a half.

Get excited. True Blue Democrats — we are coming.

Courage,

Congressman Alan Grayson

FIRST, they came for our Property Rights the Founding Fathers gave us. Guns and the Right To Bear Arms was the SECOND Right they came for. The Copyright Act of 1976 was a major Property Right grab. The is 2013. Technology outpaces legislation and Copyright laws on the books. Property Rights are up for an even bigger grab with the New Great Copyright Act seeking to overhaul TITLE 17. Copyright expert Jon Baumgarten testified that should not be done. 

Legislators pleaded at a recent Capitol Hearing “Where are the artists?”

We, the Arts Community, are not silent. I am here. I am speaking up educating Legislators the Real Loss and Value of losing our Images/ID is Commerce we make from our Property we own. Facilitating The New Great Copyright Act further erodes Arts Property Rights, further.

We, the Arts Community, are helplessly watching our IP,  Commerce & inheritance to our children, being stolen in Free Internet Initiatives like Safe ,  diminishing our livelihoods in the Free Internet world. Arts students cannot pay off college loans. Arts professionals watch their IP knocked off in seconds.

I am not a lobbyist or a wonk. 2D IP is my lifelong industry- writer, photographer, artist- an author, a renowned illustrator/designer, an award winning journalist and a news photographer with global impact. I filed eye opening comments with the Register of Copyrights. I achieved the first ever Congressional IP Hearing shout-out to ‘artists and photographers.’  I am a Pratt Institute alumnus. I have over thirty years in the Licensing World, starting from when I was in art school. We, the Arts Community,  believe Life +70 is not long enough to own what is our Property Right to hand down to our descendants- generation to generation. We believe Safe Harbor is being abused by Free Internet proponents who then squirrel profits made from Unauthorized Use of our IP.

While Internet Associations are advocating Congress for their membership some who circumvent Brick laws, domestically and internationally, that Brick stakeholders are bound to (Search Engines, ISPs utilizing Unauthorized Use of Arts Community Intellectual Property), I am reminding Legislators the Founding Fathers said I can keep my Intellectual Property Rights and ALL the profit I make from them. And I remind the Legislators to remember the Commandment, THOU SHALT NOT STEAL

http://www.copyright.gov/orphan/comments/noi_10222012/Devorah-Carrie.pdf
 
http://www.copyright.gov/docs/smallclaims/comments/noi_02263013/Devorah-Carrie.pdf
 

© Carrie Devorah . www.godinthetemplesofgovernment.com . 562 688 2883

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — A California state Senate official says the FBI raided a senator’s two offices but did not search the office of the 23-member Latino caucus.

Agents spent more than six hours Tuesday searching the main office of Sen. Ron Calderon, a Democrat from the Los Angeles area.

The Senate’s chief sergeant-at-arms, Tony Beard, said Wednesday agents also searched a separate office assigned to Calderon in the Legislative Office Building across the street from the Capitol.

Beard previously said the second site was home to the Latino caucus. He clarified Wednesday that the Latino caucus moved into new offices earlier this year.

The FBI isn’t giving details on the investigation, which originated in Southern California.

Calderon’s attorney, Mark Geragos, says his client has done nothing wrong.