truth-has-a-liberal-bias
truth-has-a-liberal-bias:

ARE THEY READING WHAT WE BLOG?
~~~
They are just relentless. Corporations and government agencies are trying to use their influence to get carte-blanche access to our private data. And if we let CISPA — the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act — become law, that’s exactly what they’ll get — nearly complete access to everything we do online. Urge your senators to vote NO on CISPA and any other legislation that would let the military collect our private internet records. CISPA already passed the House. But if we don’t take a stand in the Senate, companies could soon have access to share our sensitive and private information with military agencies, including the National Security Agency. CISPA effectively allows them to gain access to our personal information without a warrant, without oversight, and without limits, and the Senate may soon vote on proposals that go just as far.Those are rules we can’t live by. We deserve better privacy laws. And we demand a better bill than CISPA. We need to make our voices heard: Tell your senators that you oppose any legislation that would allow the military to use personal information to spy on Americans.
Thanks for taking action,
Laura W. MurphyDirector, ACLU Washington Office

truth-has-a-liberal-bias:

ARE THEY READING WHAT WE BLOG?

~~~

They are just relentless.

Corporations and government agencies are trying to use their influence to get carte-blanche access to our private data.

And if we let CISPA — the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act — become law, that’s exactly what they’ll get — nearly complete access to everything we do online.

Urge your senators to vote NO on CISPA and any other legislation that would let the military collect our private internet records.

CISPA already passed the House. But if we don’t take a stand in the Senate, companies could soon have access to share our sensitive and private information with military agencies, including the National Security Agency.

CISPA effectively allows them to gain access to our personal information without a warrant, without oversight, and without limits, and the Senate may soon vote on proposals that go just as far.

Those are rules we can’t live by. We deserve better privacy laws. And we demand a better bill than CISPA.

We need to make our voices heard: Tell your senators that you oppose any legislation that would allow the military to use personal information to spy on Americans.

Thanks for taking action,

Laura W. Murphy
Director, ACLU Washington Office

kileyrae
latimes:

Atheists in U.S. military seek official recognition: A small but growing movement complains of religious bias and seeks the same status as Christians, Jews and Muslims.

Capt. Ryan Jean wanted to perform well on the Army’s psychological evaluation. But he also wanted to answer the questions honestly. So when he was asked whether he believed his life had a lasting purpose, Jean, an atheist, saw no choice but to say no.
Those and other responses, Jean says, won him a trip to see the post chaplain, who berated him for his lack of faith.

Photo:   Army Capt. Ryan Jean, an intelligence officer at Ft. Meade, Md., is an atheist who seeks official recognition for nonbelievers on par with that of Christians, Jews and Muslims. Credit: Algerina Perna / Baltimore Sun

latimes:

Atheists in U.S. military seek official recognition: A small but growing movement complains of religious bias and seeks the same status as Christians, Jews and Muslims.

Capt. Ryan Jean wanted to perform well on the Army’s psychological evaluation. But he also wanted to answer the questions honestly. So when he was asked whether he believed his life had a lasting purpose, Jean, an atheist, saw no choice but to say no.

Those and other responses, Jean says, won him a trip to see the post chaplain, who berated him for his lack of faith.

Photo: Army Capt. Ryan Jean, an intelligence officer at Ft. Meade, Md., is an atheist who seeks official recognition for nonbelievers on par with that of Christians, Jews and Muslims. Credit: Algerina Perna / Baltimore Sun

abokononist-deactivated20120714
“I haven’t made it my practice to listen to the cheers and the boos and try to correct the people on their expressions of their view,” Romney said in a video clip from Think Progress, seeming to issue a new personal policy on what he will and won’t do during debates.

Romney on Booing: Audience Was Expressing Its View | News | The Advocate

What a jackal. He is beneath.
(via golden-notebook)

Make that two members of the GOP who have not responded to this issue in a manner befitting a decent human being. At least Herman Cain pretended, in my opinion, that he was sorry for not sticking up for the soldier. So Romney’s defense is he shouldn’t condemn them their actions because they were expressing their views?

Well how about you condemn their fucking bigoted views then.

(via manicchill)

inothernews

dodgemedlin:

inothernews:

VALOR   President Obama applauded after awarding Dakota Meyer, a former active duty Marine Corps Corporal, the Medal of Honor.  In September, 2009, Meyer ignored orders to stay put and fought his way five times into an ambush in an Afghan ravine, helping to rescue three dozen comrades and to recover the remains of four dead American servicemen.  He is now a sergeant in the inactive service.   (Photo: Doug Mills / The New York Times)

My colleague Gretel C. Kovach of The San Diego Union-Tribune wrote a gripping story about Cpl. Meyer’s actions that day.

pantslessprogressive

pantslessprogressive:

“It seems ironic — but actually it’s perfectly logical — that it was President Dwight Eisenhower, a former five-star general, who cautioned Americans about the “military-industrial complex” and mandated the deepest military cuts in postwar history, lopping 31 percent off the defense budget in his first two years in office.

Indeed, a series of charts in “A Return to Responsibility,” a report by the Center for American Progress, shows that it is Republican presidents, not Democrats, who have mandated significant cuts in defense spending. Eisenhower cut 27 percent overall, Nixon 29 percent, and President Bush H.W. Bush, who served only one term, 17 percent. Even Ronald Reagan, who lavished money on the Pentagon with the express purpose of bankrupting the Soviets, cut the budget by 10 percent during his second term. The great exception to the rule is George W. Bush, who increased spending by an astonishing 70 percent during his tenure. If we include the cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the United States now spends $700 billion a year on defense, a figure that, translated into constant dollars, was last reached in World War II.

Of course, the 9/11 attacks constituted a new threat to which the United States had to respond with new military capacities; but so did World War II, the Korea War, the Vietnam War, and the Cold War, generally. And it has been nearly 10 years since 9/11. Americans shun a Prussian culture of permanent militarism, and as each threat has waned, each president — each Republican president — has reduced both military forces and spending. None of them operated under the desperate fiscal situation we find ourselves in today. They pared back the Pentagon because, unlike the current generation of Republican leaders, they believed deeply in the state’s capacity and obligation to provide citizens the foundation of a good life. Eisenhower wanted to build a national highway system; Nixon wanted to provide national health care. Every dollar spent on defense was a dollar lost to national well-being.

Defense spending now absorbs roughly a quarter of the national budget, and over half of discretionary spending. The current debt-ceiling deal reached by Congress and the White House would essentially eliminate increases over the next two years in a broad category that includes defense as well as homeland security, diplomacy, and foreign aid, and would then limit growth thereafter to 2 percent. If Congress chooses to apportion future cuts equally between security and non-security accounts, reductions in the former would amount to $420 billion — the figure the Obama administration uses to demonstrate the depth of its commitment to reducing defense spending. But the deal permits Congress to find cuts anywhere it chooses beyond the next two years, passing over the Pentagon and going after anything from the State Department to student loans. The $420 billion may be a chimera.” - James Traub

Can Obama Be Just Like Ike?