Showing posts with label obama. Show all posts
Showing posts with label obama. Show all posts

December 16, 2013

Killing Two Birds With One Drone


Originally posted at AcronymTV



15 innocent people in Yemen were killed Thursday by a Drone attack.



According to a Reuters report:

“An air strike missed its target and hit a wedding car convoy, ten people were killed immediately and another five who were injured died after being admitted to the hospital," one security official said.



Five more people were injured, the officials said.



The United States has stepped up drone strikes as part of a campaign against Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP), regarded by Washington as the most active wing of the militant network.



Yemen, AQAP's main stronghold, is among a handful of countries where the United States acknowledges using drones, although it does not comment on the practice.
Human Rights Watch said in a detailed report in August that U.S. missile strikes, including armed drone attacks, have killed dozens of civilians in Yemen.”

The 15 homicide victims will be called collateral damage, and yet we are not at war with Yemen. It is a country, that, like Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Somalia pose no threat to us and certainly have not declared war on us and yet, who contain within their borders members of an organization- Al-Qaeda- whose ranks will surely swell with each innocent victims whose bodies are pulverized at the click of a button from an Air Force pilot half a world away.




November 20, 2013

Climate Change Fail

Originally posted at AcronymTV

http://youtu.be/FJI6NWjQIkA





In what should be another colossal embarrassment for the United States- recently leaked internal documents show how little our government is prepared to take responsibility for the damage done by climate change, the negative effects of which are caused by our hyper capitalist culture of consumption without consequence.



Nithin Sethi, writing at the Hindu.com reports:



“In an internal briefing paper prepared for its diplomats across the world ahead of the Warsaw climate negotiations, which The Hindu has accessed, the U.S. has opposed the setting up of a separate process on ‘loss and damage’, pushed primarily for the role of private investments and finance in providing the promised money to the poor countries to adapt to climate change and have a 2015 climate agreement where no country is forced to take higher emission reduction pledges than the ones they initially volunteer. It also informed its diplomats to keep pushing the line with other countries that the U.S. was doing enough domestically on the climate change front and these were priorities for President Barack Obama and John Kerry.”



There are two things at play here. One is setting limits and playing a chess game over who will pay for the climate change damage that will come – and disproportionally affect less developed countries that have not the means to defend themselves from human induced climate change or contribute to the conditions that will harm or kill them The other thing at play, the Giant Pink Elephant in the room that our world leaders can’t seem to deal with is the reality, as outlined in a study by the Global Carbon Project, of a 4 or 6 degree Celsius increase in global temperatures that could mark a significant and perhaps final chapter in the story of our species.




Get this image on a shirt, yo!

November 19, 2013

MSNBC “Leaning Forward” To Promote Fracking

Originally Posted at AcronymTV
http://youtu.be/BkW9KO0sjJU



With the knowledge that the day is coming when the digital side of media consumption will outpace the cable television side of the business, Cable news stations are scrambling to carve out space in the digital realm. MSNBC, for example, recently unveiled a completely redesigned website. The site prioritizes focused user interaction over exposure to a wide range of topics- with only 10 stories on the main page at any given time. MSNBC executive editor Phil Griffin said “We are the platform for the Lean Forward, progressive community. We hope it benefits television, but it will be in and of itself its own medium.”

The Lean Forward Brand for cable TV was pushed on us with a series of 30 second spots wherein the MSNBC personalities would speak to us from the heart about what makes them progressive, the ultimate objective of coarse, was to increase our trust in those personalities, and in turn, what they say.

Joining me today to discuss the implications of Native advertising is Steve Horn. Steve is a Madison, WI-based Research Fellow for DeSmogBlog and a freelance investigative journalist. His writing has appeared in multiple publications, including The Guardian (UK), AlterNet, The Nation, Truth-Out, CounterPunch, and many other publications.



tags
Fracking, MSNBC, Rachel Maddow, Chris Hayes, Lawrence O’Donnell, Native Ads Natural Gas, Steve Horn, Rachel Maddow Fracking, Chris Hayes Fracking, Lawrence O’Donnell Fracking, All of the above, Obama, Lean Forward, MSNBC Native Ads Fracking, Fracking, Offshore Drilling, Oil Sands, Tar Sands, 350.org,

October 18, 2012

September 19, 2012

See it yourself, the Romney video causing all the hubbub

So here's the one that everybody was talking about yesterday:

BUT WAIT! THERE'S MORE!

On how he'll lie to poor people to make them like him


On Consultants:


On how to win elections:


On the Economy:


On Iran and Nuclear Weapons:


On Obama's foreign Policy:


On the Israeli/Palestinian conflict:




Here's the entire video, unedited, from start to finish:

Part one:




Part two:



August 21, 2012

Throwing Your Vote Away?

'Why Voting for a Third Party is NOT Throwing Your Vote Away' by Jason Marianna



You hear them every election year, those five little words, strung together to make up the biggest lie in politics: "You're throwing your vote away." The media even has a name for the candidates who get the "throwaway" votes: "spoilers." Why? "Spoilers" ruin the whole two-party myth. They evince that there are more choices than Tweedledee and Tweedledum.


Tweedle D and Tweedle R

The two major parties are beginning to realize this, too. No longer can they sit back as the Greens, Libertarians, and independents take a percentage of the votes. The major parties can't rely on people to automatically disregard third parties anymore as "fringe groups," because the "fringe" is getting awfully big. Instead, each major party tries to scare you into believing that a vote for a third party is a vote for the opposition.

Unfortunately, in the effort to score as many votes as possible, the two major parties often forget one thing: principle. How much do they really believe in their principles if they are willing to sacrifice them so freely for a vote? For years, the major parties have followed the same model of getting elected. They run to the left or right during the primaries, and run to the center in the general election campaign. What we are left with are two candidates essentially saying the same thing, but disagreeing in name only, and occasionally on implementation of the same policies. This year is no different.

When you ask people why they vote for a candidate, they give you a few basic answers. For one, they may actually truly believe in the candidate and his policies. This is rare in the two-party system. Another reason many people give is that the candidate is the lesser of two evils. Some say that although they disagree with the candidate on some things, "At least he's not the other guy." With this thinking, they imply there are no other choices, despite the emergence of viable third parties for both the left and the right.

Since when is voting for evil a good thing? Does it matter if you drive a car off a cliff at 55 MPH or 80 MPH? Either way, you're driving off a cliff. How many Americans grumble every year that all politicians are only in it for their own interests? Yet, these same Americans who complain about the hole we're in get out their two-party shovels on Election Day and dig us further into the hole by perpetuating the heart of the problem: The two-party system itself. If you want to change government, change how you vote.

Recently, I spent a week campaigning for my candidate to my circle of friends and acquaintances. I got the same response over and over again: "I would vote for him if I thought he had a chance of winning. However, even though I agree with nearly everything he says, he can't win, so I'd be throwing my vote away." What they don't realize is that if they all vote for him, we would be that much closer to having someone we actually want in office, instead of someone we barely tolerate.

Why do we base our votes on what polls show? You wouldn't let anyone look over your shoulder and tell you what to do when you fill out your ballot, so why let pollsters tell you how to vote? Look at the big picture. If all people actually voted for who they wanted, we would have a four-horse race for the presidency. How hard would it be for any of those candidates to get 25% of the vote if everyone voted for who they wanted, instead of who they were scared or manipulated into voting for?

The two major parties don't care about you. They care about power. They care about winning elections, no matter the cost. They've abandoned the American people and our needs. The major parties have forgotten that the rights Americans enjoy are to be protected. The major parties don't care to hold to the Constitution's limitations. This must change, but won't if we continue to give the major parties our support. If you want for our government to reflect your principles, vote for candidates who reflect those principles, without exception.

The only result of holding to principle is government changing for the better, one ballot at a time. Changing government for the better is not throwing your vote away. Quite the contrary, it is using it properly.

August 15, 2012

Lee Camp: Your Vote WILL be stolen in 2012

And the Democrats don't give a shit. They'll probably just blame Nader, instead of blaming the rigging of our Democracy.

September 22, 2011

Actual Class Warfare




I realize after watching the final edit that I didn't make it as clear as I'd have liked, that I do not support violent revolution. My point is that if we do not make our economy more equitable, hungry people may start doing terrible things.

To further clarify my position, my video on nonviolence:

June 26, 2011

Netroots Nation: Panel on Dirty Energy

Part 1:


Part 2:


Netroots Nation Panel on Dirty Energy includes:

Bruce Baizel of Earth Works
Michele Boyd of Physicians for Social Responsibility
Tim DeChristopher of Peaceful Uprising
Mary Anne Hilt of Sierra Club