Americans are increasingly aware that the ideal of equal opportunity is a false promise, but neither party really seems to get it.

Republicans barely admit the problem exists, or if they do, they think tax cuts are the answer. All facts point in the opposite direction. Despite various tax cuts over the past 30 years, not only have income and wealth inequality dramatically increased, but the ability of individuals to rise out of their own class has declined. Social stagnation is increasingly the norm, with poverty rates the highest in 15 years, real wage gains worse even than during the decade of the Great Depression, average earnings barely above what they were 50 years ago, and more than 80 percent of the income growth of the past 25 years going to the top 1 percent. In fact, since 1983, the bottom 40 percent of households have seen real declines in their income and the same goes for the bottom 60 percent when it comes to wealth. We know what the economic status quo does: It redistributes upwards.

I can imagine good results coming from electoral campaigns voluntarily funded by private donations, as long as everyone had about the same amount of money. So if the important thing to conservatives is that electoral campaigns be voluntarily funded by private donations, then I am willing to meet them half way, so long as they accept my demand that we make everyone have about the same amount of money.

Those are the two philosophies in competition here, and it would be really good for everyone to figure out which side they are on. As we see demonstrated before us, it is unworkable to have both expansive economic freedom *and* privately funded political campaigns. The result is necessarily the rapid acceleration of a) extreme amounts of wealth in the hands of minute few and b) very meager means on a widespread basis.

The movement for publicly funded elections really had better get its ass in gear, because I somehow don’t see conservatives relenting on the economic equality question.

theamericanbear:

What follows (from an anonymous unnamed super secret top intelligence official) is an example of what is sometimes called weak induction.

Greenwald:

The New York Times‘ Scott Shane reported this morning on the Bureau of Investigative Journalism study I wrote about yesterday, detailing that the U.S. drone program, as the NYT put it, “repeatedly targeted rescuers who responded to the scene of a strike, as well as mourners at subsequent funerals.” Shane’s article contains this paragraph:

A senior American counterterrorism official, speaking on the condition of anonymity, questioned the report’s findings, saying “targeting decisions are the product of intensive intelligence collection and observation.” The official added: “One must wonder why an effort that has so carefully gone after terrorists who plot to kill civilians has been subjected to so much misinformation. Let’s be under no illusions — there are a number of elements who would like nothing more than to malign these efforts and help Al Qaeda succeed.”

Note that the “senior counterrorism official” did not deny the findings, at least not in the quotes provided, but there are two lessons to take from this paragraph. First, at least according to some “senior” Obama official, those who report critically on the civilian-killing, rescuer-and-funeral-targeting American drone attacks (i.e., those who “malign these efforts”) are either supporters of or useful idiots for Al Qaeda; it sure is a good thing the Bush era is over when those who questioned the President’s national security policies were accused of helping the Terrorists. Second, if you’re a cowardly senior government official who wants to smear critics as Al Qaeda enablers or supporters, The New York Times will grant you anonymity to do it, all while violating multiple provisions of its own policy on anonymity adopted after its historically shameful performance in the run-up to the Iraq War. […]

Sounds like someone wants the terrorists to win.

Obama kills babies. They’re brown babies, and they’re over on the other side of the world, and they talk kinda funny, and they’re killed with missiles, but they’re still babies.

What a fucked up world.

The lesson of the Great Crash was that unequal enrichment provokes asset bubbles, excessive demand for debt and, finally, economic failure. Now we are painfully learning that again

theatlantic:

theatlanticvideo:

A Short Animation About the How the NFL Is Like Socialism

Fraser Davidson, a London-based animator, created this video inspired by Bill Maher’s comparison of the economics of pro football and baseball. He brings a two-minute excerpt from the audio version of Maher’s book, The New New Rules, to life with a blend of 1950s-style sports imagery and Soviet-era graphics.

So, Bill Maher won’t be watching the Super Bowl on Sunday?

(Also, a warning: NSFW language.)

inothernews:

laughterkey:

Make it so.

There’s a reason why SOPA, PIPA and Dodd are all four-letter words.

theeconomist:

Daily chart: global abortion rates. Having fallen precipitously during the 1990s, the global abortion rate has now stalled, according to a new paper. In some parts of the world, the number of abortions termed as “unsafe” is on the rise. Laws that restrict abortion did not seem to lower the number of procedures—on the contrary, restrictive laws were associated with higher abortion rates.