Society's ChildS

Megaphone

What the 1% Don't Want You to Know - Bill Moyers interviews Paul Krugman

Economist Paul Krugman
© Moyers & CompanyEconomist Paul Krugman
Economist Paul Krugman explains how the United States is becoming an oligarchy - the very system our founders revolted against.

The median pay for the top 100 highest-paid CEOs at America's publicly traded companies was a handsome $13.9 million in 2013. That's a 9 percent increase from the previous year, according to a new Equilar pay study for The New York Times.

These types of jumps in executive compensation may have more of an effect on our widening income inequality than previously thought. A new book that's the talk of academia and the media, Capital in the Twenty-First Century by Thomas Piketty, a 42-year-old who teaches at the Paris School of Economics, shows that two-thirds of America's increase in income inequality over the past four decades is the result of steep raises given to the country's highest earners.

This week, Bill talks with Nobel Prize-winning economist and New York Times columnist Paul Krugman, about Piketty's "magnificent" new book.

"What Piketty's really done now is he said, 'Even those of you who talk about the 1 percent, you don't really get what's going on.' He's telling us that we are on the road not just to a highly unequal society, but to a society of an oligarchy. A society of inherited wealth."

Krugman adds: "We're seeing inequalities that will be transferred across generations. We are becoming very much the kind of society we imagined we're nothing like."


Transcript below.

Handcuffs

End of freedom: Police may stop drivers based only on an anonymous tip

police state 1
© AP/The Sacramento Bee, Randall Benton
Law enforcement officials may now stop US drivers based only on the information gleaned in an anonymous tip phoned in by a caller who dialed 911, the Supreme Court ruled in a tight decision Tuesday.

The high court ruled 5-4 that relying only on a comment from a 911 caller is reasonable because "a 911 call has some features that allow for identifying and tracking callers." In most cases the justices are split along ideological lines but Tuesday's decision was enough to split the two most conservative-minded justices, with Justice Clarence Thomas writing the majority opinion and Justice Antonin Scalia leading the dissent.

The case considered a 2008 California incident in which an anonymous 911 caller told the police that a pickup truck had forced her off the road, providing the location, as well as details such as the truck's make, model, and license plate number. Police soon stopped a vehicle matching the description and reported smelling the odor of marijuana as they approached driver Jose Prado Navarette.

Navarette was arrested because officers found 30 pounds of marijuana in his vehicle, although he argued that the initial stop was unconstitutional because police did not have reasonable suspicion to stop his truck. His legal team asserted that the police could not have determined with any accuracy the identity of the caller or challenged her credibility.

Book 2

People have the right to be bigots - Oz losing moral compass?

Senator George Brandis
© Andrew MearesAttorney-General Senator George Brandis: Australians have a right to be bigots.
Whether it's in their treatment of asylum seekers, their policy of secrecy or their intention to amend the Racial Discrimination Act, it seems that the Abbott government is intent on destroying Australia's moral compass.

Attorney-General, George Brandis, defending the Government's intention to repeal s18C of the Racial Discrimination Act, told the Senate Monday that "people have the right to be bigots". It appears that in George Brandis's world view, bigots are the persecuted minority whose rights need to be staunchly defended.

Section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act makes it unlawful to do an act that "is reasonably likely, in all the circumstances, to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate another person or a group of people" on racial or ethnic grounds." It is followed by s18D (which is conveniently ignored by many conservative commentators) which seeks to balance the objectives of s18C with the need to protect justifiable freedoms of speech and expression.

The provisions seek to offer legislative protection to the most vulnerable and marginalised members of our society - our indigenous population, culturally and ethnically diverse communities and religious minority groups.

Whilst in the past politicians, particularly in the lead up to an election, have sought to indirectly play on the public's fears, Senator Brandis's comments have taken it to a whole new level. This is the first time that I can recall, where a Senior Minister has directly endorsed (and thereby encouraged) having bigoted views. There's no reading between the lines here - Brandis has specifically said that "people have the right to be bigots, you know." This is somewhat unprecedented.

Question

When did the left renounce freedom of speech?

Free Speech Banned
© The Libertarian, UK
Remember the Sixties, when self-styled revolutionaries went to barricades and courtrooms in their crusade for absolutely unfettered free speech? Somewhere between then and now, the long march through the institutions all but complete, freedom lost its appeal

The outrage vented this past week by progressives against freedom of speech has left me wondering, "Where have all the flowers gone long time passing?/Where have all the flowers gone, long time ago?" I thought the whole point of the Sixties Revolution was to set the people free so they could express themselves without fear of being busted by "The Man".

Now all we hear is lefty talk along the lines of "freedom of speech needs qualifiers and social agreement". We have the laws of defamation, friends, and racial discrimination is still going to be unlawful. So how, exactly, will the amendment to the Racial Discrimination Act proposed by the Coalition government "open the floodgates" to vilification on the basis of race? Some leftist critics appear not to have even read the planned replacement of Section 18, which is astonishing, considering it totals less than 200 words. How - for heaven's sake - did they miss the bit about it being against the law "to vilify" or "to intimidate" people "because of the race, colour or national or ethnic origin"?

What is it with all those anti-bourgeois bohemians at The Age and the ABC and their trepidations about freedom of speech? Even the Baby Boomer contingent of the leftoid commentariat - that is, older folks who were actually around in the freedom-loving 1960s - have turned pro-censorship. What happened to peace, love and understanding? Why so keen to suppress liberty, choice, independence, free will, and - most sacred counterculture virtue of all - looseness?What about the dream, people? Maybe if Pete Seeger were still around he could pen us a new protest song - Where have all the left-wing libertarians gone?

Quenelle

Oklahoma militia joins Bundy ranch defenders against feds

Image
© George Frey / Getty Images / AFPRancher Cliven Bundy (L), and armed security guards leave his ranch house west of Mesquite, Nevada.
Members of the Oklahoma Militia have come out in support of Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy, who recently found himself in a standoff with hundreds of armed federal agents over land rights related to his cattle ranch.

Earlier this month, a weeklong confrontation between the two parties began when armed federal officials under the US Bureau of Land Management attempted to seize nearly 1,000 of Bundy's cattle, as authorized by a court order. As RT reported previously, the BLM claims Bundy owes the government about $1 million since he stopped paying the fees associated with allowing his cattle graze on federal land in the early 1990s.

Bundy, meanwhile, argues the land his cattle graze on has belonged to his family since the 1870s, and that he's not obligated to pay the government anything.

"I don't believe I owe one penny to the United States government," Bundy said earlier this month. "I don't have a contract with the United States government."

Cell Phone

Unconscious patient's cell phone captures doctors mocking him during colonoscopy

Image
A Virginia man is suing after his cell phone captured audio of doctors allegedly mocking him while he was under anesthesia for a colonoscopy.

The plaintiff, D.B., says doctors joked about firing a gun up his rectum and accused him of having STDs during his medical procedure.

"On April 18, 2013, during a colonoscopy, plaintiff was verbally brutalized and defamed by the very doctors to whom he entrusted his life while under anesthesia," the complaint says.

Attention

10-year-old boy raped male classmate in Welsh school, 'acting out online porn scene'

Image
© PA Archive/Press Association ImagesAllegations: A 10-year-old boy has been accused of raping a classmate, also aged 10, in the toilets of a school in Colwyn Bay. The boy has pleaded not guilty to two charges. The trial is being held at Mold Crown Court.
A boy of ten raped a classmate in the toilets of his primary school as he 'acted out' scenes from online pornography, a court was told.

The jury heard that he approached a fellow pupil during an English lesson and asked if he wanted to have sex with him. Thinking he was joking, the other boy replied: 'No way.'

But after the lesson the alleged victim went to the toilets and, as he went to leave, the defendant was said to have walked in and grabbed him.

The court heard the boy then pushed him over a sink and raped him.

The victim, also 10, told him to stop and after about 10 seconds the alleged attacker pulled away, and apparently said: 'Oh come on, the party's just starting.'

Yesterday Mold Crown Court in North Wales was told the schoolboy had carried out the rape after watching pornography online. Karl Scholz, prosecuting, said: 'It is almost certain that in this case what was being done was to act out what had been seen in pornographic material.'

Arrow Down

Epic Fail: Half of Georgia's Obamacare enrollees can't make monthly payments

obamacare failure
© unknown
The Obama administration has stated unequivocally that the debate concerning whether or not the Patient Affordable Care Act has been a success is over. They've won the argument and its evidenced by the tens of thousands of Americans who have signed up on exchanges across the country.

Here's a small glimpse into just how successful Obamacare has been.

In Georgia, where some 650,000 people are eligible for subsidies only about 220,000 applications have thus far been received. So, to start, we're about 70% short on the originally estimated sign up rate.

Even more successful than that, however, is that of those 220,000 received applications Georgia Health News reports that at least half of the applicants have failed to actually pay their monthly premiums even though most of those people are being subsidized by the government to some extent.

Wolf

X-Men's Bryan Singer accused in federal lawsuit of sexually assaulting a 15-year-old boy

Image
© The Source
Famous Hollywood director Bryan Singer has been accused in a new federal lawsuit of sexually abusing a 15-year-old boy.

The suit, filed Wednesday in federal court in Hawaii, accused the 48-year-old "X-Men" filmmaker of first preying on the 15-year-old aspiring actor at a party at a California mansion where underage boys were plied with drugs and alcohol and taken advantage of.

"The stories that I've heard of what went on at the estate are truly despicable," the accuser's lawyer, Miami attorney Jeff Herman, told the Daily News Wednesday night.

Herman identified the accuser as Michael Egan III. Egan, who is now in his 30s and will appear at a Thursday news conference at the Four Seasons Hotel in L.A., was forcibly sodomized by the director when he was 15 in the late-1990s, according to the suit. Singer had promised Egan a role in one of his movies and had numerous sexual encounters with the boy when he was 15 and 16, Herman told The News. Singer also allegedly brought Egan to Hawaii for multiple extended trips when he was 17.

Bullseye

Ft. Lauderdale proposes measure making it illegal for the homeless to have possessions in public

homeless miami
© APA homeless man in Miami is interviewed by a researcher

A backpack. Spare clothes. A notebook. Some keepsake photos. Crackers.

Though they may not have a home in which to secure their stuff, homeless people still have possessions like everyone else.

Yet the city of Ft. Lauderdale, Florida is on the cusp of passing a new regulation that would make it illegal for anyone to store their personal things on public property. Specifically, it would empower police to confiscate any personal possessions stored on public property, provided they have given the homeless person 24-hours notice. If the homeless people wish to retrieve their items, they must pay the city "reasonable charges for storage and removal of the items," though that fee is waived if the person is able to demonstrate he or she cannot afford to pay. The city may dispose of any possessions not retrieved within 30 days. One of the driving factors behind the measure, according to the legislation, is the city's "interest in aesthetics."

Last week, the City Commission gave unanimous preliminary approval to the measure, despite overwhelming opposition from local residents who testified.