From Global Warming to Goldman Sachs - It's all about the Money

From Global Warming to Goldman Sachs - It's all about the Money

From Global Warming to Goldman Sachs - It's all about the money. Flooding from extreme rains has killed at least 313 people in Pakistan and killed 29 people and displaced more than 254,000 in northeast China. Forest fires due to Russia’s most intensive heatwave in history killed 18 people, and Japan’s worst heat wave has killed 66 people. But wait, there's more....the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has smacked down petitions by conspiracy theorists who argue global warming is a hoax. But wait, there's still more....Republicans, with the potential support of Democrats dependent on oil money, are gearing up to block oil disaster reform bills in the House and Senate. But wait, there's even more...Public Campaign reports that House Minority Whip Eric Cantor took in more than $460,000 in the second quarter from the financial industry, including Goldman Sachs and Bank of America, and he was in the top ten recipients for oil and gas contributions. Without campaign finance reform that works...expect more floods, fires, oil spill disasters and Republican Great Depressions.

Comments

oneworldatpeace
oneworldatpeace's picture
I read in the Nation (or

I read in the Nation (or Mother Jones ) that the cops in Arizona are going into Bars and arresting Brown people for being drunk and then deporting them! This dragnet has struck Native Americans and US born citizens who were on 12 step visits and not drinking, and in the reported piece one Hispanic-American  had a license and his birth certificate and was arrested anyway and was facing deportment. He was given his phone call and he called his wife and asked her to bring his  AMERICAN PASSPORT down to get him out of jail and to be sure she had hers when she showed up. She showed up and was told he wasn't there, and they challenged her immigration status. Her Grandfather served in the Army in FREAKING KOREA! She started raising hell and talking lawsuit when they accepted his passport and said they would "investigate" Three days later he was released. He had blown a .03 (.08 is legal DRIVING IMPAIRMENT!) and I guess they couldn't prove he was actually "drunk". I'm sorry, but I'm a Viet Nam Vet and I think it's clear that the conservative conspiracy has ruined the promise that Americas ideals have meant to the world and right now this country sucks!

Zero G
Zero G's picture
It's all about the

It's all about the Money...

And recently, we have been provided with a poll showing that most Americans believe that Obama was responsible for the TARP bailouts which took place under Bush and Paulson.  It happened under Bush, OK....

But, remember that fall campaign?  Remember both Obama and McCain going to the White House?  Was Obama arguing against the TARP bailout?  Was he? 

In a brief moment of comity, the two [Obama and McCain] issued a joint statement recognizing that the country was facing ''a moment of economic crisis'' in which ''the jobs, savings and prosperity of the American people are at stake.'' They called the legislation flawed but also said it must not fail.

''Now is a time to come together -- Democrats and Republicans -- in a spirit of cooperation for the sake of the American people,'' they said. ''This is a time to rise above politics for the good of the country.'' 

Obama, McCain to attend White House meeting September 25, 2008
BY ASSOCIATED PRESS

No.  He switched Paulson out for Geithner and kept Bernanke at the helm...

It's all about the money.   We needed a "Jailout not a Bailout"   Danny Schecter

MugsysRapSheet
MugsysRapSheet's picture
Thom, I become incenced when

Thom, I become incenced when I hear Global Warming deniers dismiss "a 2 degree rise in temperature".

First, ignoring for a moment the fact they are ADMITTING temperatures are rising (if only 2 degrees), "two degrees" is a HUGE deal. Just a ONE degree rise is considered a disaster!

To a human-being, 2 degrees may not seem like much.

Ask a baby bird that hatches at the same time the bugs are emerging in the Spring what the difference is between being born two weeks after temperatures hatch their food.

Ask people in the North that have never seen fire ants, termites, or dozens of other insect species because the temperatures used to be too cold for them, what "2 degrees" means.

Ask an ice cube what the difference is between 32' and 34'.

William Klein
Thom, You said a few weeks

Thom,

You said a few weeks ago that, " Progressives are mad at the Obama because they didn't get what they want." Correction: No, we got what we didn't want:

Did Net Neutrality Just Get Knifed in The Back?

By Om Malik Aug. 4, 2010, 6:00pm PDT

" A long time ago, I offered to make a bet with a friend that when commercial interests would collide with the broader interests such as network neutrality, Mountain View, Calif.-based Google would do what any large company does: do what is right for its commercial interests. I should have made that bet. I would have won.

Today, news emerged that Google has reached an agreement with Verizon over Internet traffic management. It is the first step in what would amount to the slow asphyxiation of network neutrality. While Verizon and Google are keeping mum, in response to the news, Federal Communication Commission said: “The broad stakeholder discussions continue to actively include Google and Verizon.” The FCC is in closed-door conversations with different players — from Internet companies like Google to carriers such as Verizon and AT&T.

According to the Washington Post:

Google and Verizon’s agreement would prevent Verizon from offering paid prioritization to the biggest bidders of capacity on its DSL and fiber networks, according to the sources. But any promises over open-Internet access wouldn’t apply to mobile phones, the sources said, speaking on the condition of anonymity because the companies have not officially made their announcement. According to the sources, Verizon and Google have met separately to come to an agreement they will tout as an example of successful self-regulation.

Politico offers more details:

Sources familiar with the agreement tell Politico it would prevent Verizon from blocking traffic, but would allow it to prioritize certain traffic—such as premium services that would speed up movie downloads, for example – as long as doing so does not harm consumers.

This agreement shouldn’t come as a surprise. The two companies are becoming increasingly close of late. Google is trying to make Android a major player in the mobile world. One of the company’s closest partners in this effort, in the U.S., is Verizon Wireless. It would therefore make sense that the two will come to some sort of an agreement. The news has clearly riled up a lot of folks in Washington, D.C. Free Press President and CEO Josh Silver said:

“Two of the largest companies – Google and Verizon – have reportedly agreed to abandon consumer protections, filter content and limit choice and free speech on the mobile Internet. If true, the deal is a bold grab for market power by two monopolistic players. Such abuse of the open Internet would put to final rest the Google mandate to ‘do no evil.’ The financial interests of Google appear to have finally trumped its belief in policies to preserve the open Internet. A deal with Verizon cements its market power, and could make it more difficult for new app developers and software entrepreneurs to reach consumers.”

A coalition of public interest groups that included Public Knowledge, New America Foundation, Media Access Project and Free Press issued this statement:

As the major public interest groups in Washington involved in the struggle to protect an open Internet, we are united in our dismay about an agreement reportedly reached by Verizon and Google.   It is unseemly and inappropriate for two giant companies to decide the future of the Internet and how Internet will work for millions of users.  It would be inappropriate for Congress and the FCC policy makers to use this agreement as the basis for public policy.

“The public and policymakers should not be fooled.  This agreement cannot be enforced by any governmental agency and will provide no protection against the types of abuse we seen from large Internet Service Providers.  The Internet belongs to all of us, not to Verizon and Google.  There is widespread public support for an open Internet.

“We call on the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to abandon its ‘negotiations’ with Google, Verizon and other large companies. Instead, the Commission should move ahead with legally enforceable, binding rulemaking that would govern not only the open Internet, but also ensure the Commission’s authority to reform Universal Service, and to make policy in cybersecurity, privacy, device compatibility and other critical issues involving broadband services.”

 

"Corrupted by wealth and power, your government is like a restaurant with only one dish. They've got a set of Republican waiters on one side and a set of Democratic waiters on the other side. But no matter which set of waiters brings you the dish, the legislative grub is all prepared in the same Wall Street kitchen." - Huey Long

 

nancygm
nancygm's picture
Thom, OMG!  my head is

Thom, OMG!  my head is spinning!!!!

How does a man like that (your last guest) ever get thru life??  What is wrong w/people? 

btw, do any progressive hosts ever listen to each other?  I get you don't want to be like the lock-step cons but I never hear any of the liberal talk show hosts using facts from any of their peers. 

When I watch Ed Schultz, he never uses any of your very intelligent facts to debate cons & you're guilty of doing the exact same thing just now w/your last guest.  When he said 52% of Californians voted for prop 8, your argument should have been "You can't vote down rights, that's why they're called 'rights'", no matter how many ignoramuses vote for it. 

And where did I hear this...on Stephanie Miller's show.  She's the one progressive who will use other hosts talking points. 

As for Jeff Sessions, that poor excuse for a human being, he must have pix on everyone!  and as for his being elected by the people of his state, 2 ideas:  voting machines & (I think this probably is the answer) proof our educational system is VERY broken!!

William Klein
White House Could Abet

White House Could Abet Google's Anti-Neutrality Moves Written by Joseph Torres 8/9/2010 8 comments

DISCUSS   // Digg   Del.icio.us   Reddit   Email This   TWEET THIS

Don’t Be Evil.

It was a great slogan for a transformative company that was telling the world that it could make lots of money while still being an honest broker.

But as it turns out, Google (Nasdaq: GOOG) may not be different from any other large corporation that cares only about its bottom line. Like other corporate giants, Google does not have a problem with pressuring the government to pass policies that reward big business at the expense of the public.

According to news stories, Google has reached an agreement with Verizon Communications Inc. (NYSE: VZ) that would allow the companies to orchestrate a corporate takeover of the Internet. They want to create a tiered Internet with fast lanes for content produced by big companies and slow lanes for content produced by everyone else.

The deal would effectively spell the end of network neutrality, the principle that enabled Google to exist in the first place.

Now that Google has benefited from policies that allowed a startup to become one of the most successful companies in the country, it is now seeking to protect its online dominance by shutting the door on the open Internet to prevent competition and to maximize profits.

The irony is that, while Google is colluding with Verizon on a deal that would allow for corporate censorship on the Internet, it is also working the State Department to pressure foreign countries to open up their markets to prevent government censorship abroad.

What makes this deal so problematic is that a federal court ruled in April that the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) did not have the authority to regulate the broadband industry. The decision threw out the legal framework adopted by the Bush administration to deregulate the broadband industry, a framework that has resulted in a broadband market dominated by companies like Verizon, Comcast Corp. (Nasdaq: CMCSA, CMCSK), and AT&T Inc. (NYSE: T).

At this moment, the FCC does not have the authority to prevent companies like Verizon from engaging in online corporate censorship by blocking or discriminating against certain content online. The FCC, however, can reestablish its authority to reregulate the broadband industry and protect the public from discriminatory business practices.

FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski has faced relentless pressure from the phone and cable companies to stop the FCC from moving forward. Instead of standing up for the public, his office has held closed-door meetings with Google, AT&T, Comcast, and Verizon, allowing these companies the opportunity to write their own rules that would restrict our free speech rights online.

The chairman announced last week that his office will end the backroom negotiations. But no matter how the chairman tries to put a positive spin on what went on at these meetings, we all know nothing good comes from federal agencies allowing themselves to be captured by industry.

If we are witnessing the beginning of the end of the open Internet as we know it, Chairman Genachowski wouldn’t be the only one who deserves blame.

While the news media have been obsessed by the lack of bipartisanship in Washington, one story they have missed is how corporate campaign contributions have united both Democrats and Republicans to work together to kill an open Internet. Close to 80 Democrats have formed an alliance with House Republicans to kill net neutrality. They have written to the FCC, urging the Commission not to move forward with protecting an open Internet.

Rep. Gene Green (D-Texas), who has led the effort among Democrats in the House to undermine the FCC, and Rep. Fred Upton (R-Mich.) just introduced bipartisan legislation that would prevent the commission from acting to protect the public.

President Obama campaigned on a promise to take a “back seat to no one” in his support of network neutrality, a position he restated earlier this year. There’s worry the White House now might retreat from that position since it wants the phone and cable companies to continue writing checks to Democrats during this midterm election.

So while many Americans were angered last week by the actions of a company that tried to sell the public that it was honest about its “Don’t Be Evil” corporate philosophy, many are also losing confidence in the promises made by the FCC chairman and President Obama to protect an open Internet by passing strong net neutrality rules that would prevent discrimination online.

Don’t Be Evil? Change We Can Believe In?

Actions still speak louder than words.

— Joseph Torres is the Senior Advisor, Government and External Affairs, for Free Press.