Tuesday, March 8, 2011

Alice in Chains Bassist Mike Starr Dead

Mike Starr

'Celeb Rehab' Rocker Mike Starr Dead

Starr appeared on the third season of "Celebrity Rehab" back in 2009 -- and was arrested last month for felony possession of a controlled substance. Salt Lake City cops say he had 6 Xanax pills and 6 Opana (painkiller) pills when he was busted.

Starr was 44 years old.

Mike's dad tells TMZ, "It's a terrible shock and tragedy."

UPDATE: Police tell us Starr's body was found in a Salt Lake City home today. Cops say they were called to the house at 1:42PM.
Mike StarrMike StarrMike Starr

Alice in Chains Bassist Mike Starr Dead | TMZ.com

Man Of Constant Sorrow- Dan Tyminski

Dan Tyminski is a bluegrass composer, vocalist, and instrumentalist. He is a member of the band Alison Krauss and Union Station and has released two solo albums, Carry Me Across the Mountain (2000), on the Doobie Shea Records label, and Wheels (2008), on the Rounder Records label.

He is best known for his updated version of the song "Man of Constant Sorrow," which was featured in the movie O Brother, Where Art Thou? and won the 2001 CMA award for best single as well as a Grammy Award for best Country Collaboration with Vocals (along with Harley Allen and Pat Enright, filling out the vocals for the movie's Soggy Bottom Boys). In total, he has won 10 Grammy awards for solo and collaborative projects.

Winning - a Song by Charlie Sheen

The entire concert of Jimi Hendrix performing at the Woodstock festival in 1969.

Seven Styles of Overtone Singing (Tuvan Throat Singing)

Thankyou but nonsense just the same

Georgia GOP Raising Taxes On Girl Scout Cookies While Cutting Taxes On Foreign Corporations

100_4715 Claire with Girl Scout cookies

Georgia GOP Raising Taxes On Girl Scout Cookies While Cutting Taxes On Foreign Corporations
By Alex Seitz-Wald

Like many states, Georgia is facing a budget shortfall. To address the problem, the legislature is considering a bill that would expand the tax base by doing things like reinstating a sales tax on food and raising the tax on gasoline.

Many Georgians would be adversely affected by the tax hikes on basic commodities, including the Girl Scouts, who are worried about the “significant financial impact” the bill would have on the revenue they raise through cookie sales, which would now be subject to sales tax. Over the weekend, Marilyn Midyette, the CEO of Girl Scouts of Greater Atlanta, sent an email to supporters warning them that the new tax on their cookies “would take money away from Girl Scout programs“:

This significant financial impact would take money away from Girl Scout programs, camp support, financial aid and proceeds from the sale that support troop activities and community service projects.

…[P]lease contact your State House Representative and State Senator TODAY and express your concern in a courteous, Scout-like manner about our Scouts being taxed. Please reference House Bill 385. Sample letters have been provided on the left to make it easy to copy and paste into your own email. There are sample letters for girls as well as for parents and volunteers.

But while Girl Scouts and anyone who buys groceries and gasoline is forced to sacrifice, domestic and foreign corporations in Geogia are being lavished with a tax break. The same bill that raises taxes on Girl Scouts Cookies lowers tax rates on corporate income, from 6 percent this year to just 4 percent in 2014:

(a)(1)(A) For any taxable year beginning prior to January 1, 2012, every Every
967 domestic corporation and every foreign corporation shall pay annually an income tax
968 equivalent to 6 percent of its Georgia taxable net income. [...]

975 (D) For any taxable year beginning on or after January 1, 2014, every domestic
976 corporation and every foreign corporation shall pay annually an income tax equivalent
977 to 4 percent of its Georgia taxable net income

Beyond Girl Scout cookies, taxes on food and gasoline are highly regressive disproportionately affecting lower and middle class consumers, who spend a larger share of their limited income on necessities like groceries than do people with higher disposable incomes.

ThinkProgress » Georgia GOP Raising Taxes On Girl Scout Cookies While Cutting Taxes On Foreign Corporations

James O'Keefe, the political activist who created the infamous ACORN pimp videos, has now turned his attention to NPR.

In Video: NPR Exec Slams Tea Party, Questions Need For Federal Funds
by Mark Memmott

NPR's soon-to-be-departing senior vice president for fundraising Ron Schiller is seen and heard on a videotape released this morning telling two men who were posing as members of a fictitious Muslim Action Education Center that:

— "The Tea Party is fanatically involved in people's personal lives and very fundamental Christian — I wouldn't even call it Christian. It's this weird evangelical kind of move."

— "Tea Party people" aren't "just Islamaphobic, but really xenophobic, I mean basically they are, they believe in sort of white, middle-America gun-toting. I mean, it's scary. They're seriously racist, racist people."

— "I think what we all believe is if we don't have Muslim voices in our schools, on the air ... it's the same thing we faced as a nation when we didn't have female voices." In the heavily edited tape, that comment followed Schiller being told by one of the men that their organization "was originally founded by a few members of the Muslim Brotherhood in America." There's no sign in the edited tape that Schiller reacted in any way after being told of the group's alleged connection to an Islamic group that appeared to be connected with Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood.

— That NPR "would be better off in the long run without federal funding," a position in direct conflict with the organization's official position.

Schiller is also heard laughing when one of the men jokes that NPR should be known as "National Palestinian Radio."

NPR, as you'll see below, has called Schiller's comments appalling.

The video comes from Project Veritas, and is another in political activist James O'Keefe's undercover exposes (he most prominently took on ACORN — the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now). In the video, Schiller and NPR institutional giving director Betsy Liley are at lunch in Washington with two Project Veritas "investigative reporters" identified as Shaughn Adeleye and Simon Templar, who posed as "Ibrahim Kasaam and Amir Malik." They were allegedly interested in having their organization donate $5 million to NPR. O'Keefe's organization says the recording was made on Feb. 22.

The edited video is a little more than 11 minutes long. Project Veritas has posted the two-hour uncut version here (update at 11:50 a.m. ET: you no longer need a Vimeo Plus account to view it).

Schiller (no relation to NPR CEO Vivian Schiller), announced last week that he is leaving NPR to become director of the Aspen Institute Arts Program. In his position at NPR, Schiller has not been involved in editorial decisions.

Dana Davis Rehm, NPR's senior vice president of marketing, communications and external relations, has released this statement:

"The fraudulent organization represented in this video repeatedly pressed us to accept a $5 million check, with no strings attached, which we repeatedly refused to accept.

"We are appalled by the comments made by Ron Schiller in the video, which are contrary to what NPR stands for.

"Mr. Schiller announced last week that he is leaving NPR for another job."

Our colleague David Folkenflik is pursuing comments from Schiller, O'Keefe and other parties to the story. We will be updating as the story develops.

Daily Caller was among the first to report on this.



Update at 4:10 p.m. ET: NPR's Larry Abramson reports that "some members of Congress are revving up their campaign" to cut the federal funding that goes to NPR. He says that "House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA) said the video made it clear that taxpayer dollars should no longer go to NPR."

NPR receives about 2 percent of its budget each year from the federally funded Corporation for Public Broadcasting and federal agencies — but public radio stations that purchase NPR's programming receive more federal dollars and send some of that money back to NPR in fees. In fiscal 2008, for example, grants from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting accounted for about 10 percent of public radio stations' revenue. The stations got about 6 percent of their revenue from other federal, state and local government sources.

Update at 2:40 p.m. ET: Earlier, on first reference we called Schiller the "then-senior vice president." To be more precise, we've changed it to "soon-to-be-departing." As we said earlier, he announced last week that he's leaving NPR (a decision that NPR says was not related to today's news).

Update at 1:55 p.m. ET. Byron York writes at the Washington Examiner's Beltway Confidential blog that:

"Republican Rep. Doug Lamborn is leading the GOP effort in the House to defund National Public Radio (and, in a separate bill, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting). I spoke with him a short time ago about the sting video ... 'I am amazed at the condescension and arrogance that we saw in the sting video," Lamborn told me. 'They seem to be viewing themselves as elites living in an ivory tower, and they are obviously out of touch with ordinary Americans.' "
"NPR's chief fundraising executive, Ron Schiller, was caught on tape criticizing conservatives and saying NPR would be better off without federal financial support. As NPR's David Folkenflik reports, his remarks were captured as part of a video sting at a time when NPR is under public assault."

Then David followed with this (and you can listen below):

"Today's tapes, produced by the conservative political activist James O'Keefe, show Schiller and NPR fundraiser Betsy Liley talking with two men over lunch in late February at an upscale Washington cafe.

"Schiller said the federal funding was vital for local member stations.

"The men present themselves as representing a Muslim organization and appear to be critical of what they said was Zionist influence in the media.

"NPR called Schiller's remarks appalling, but in a statement said, quote, 'The fraudulent organization represented in this video repeatedly pressed us to accept a $5 million check, with no strings attached, which we repeatedly refused to accept.'

"Ron Schiller announced just last week that he was leaving NPR after 18 months for a job with the Aspen Institute close to his Colorado home."

Update at 11:12 a.m. ET: NPR's Dana Davis Rehm has told members stations that "there is no connection between the video and [Ron Schiller's] decision to leave NPR."


In Video: NPR Exec Slams Tea Party, Questions Need For Federal Funds : The Two-Way : NPR

Tax Cuts for the Wealthy DO NOT Create Jobs



Tax Cuts for the Wealthy DO NOT Create Jobs
by jocava

After 30 years of re-engineering our nation’s economy and tax code to deliver huge benefits, free of charge, to the wealthy, the most massive transfer of wealth in the history of the world —a transfer of wealth that has led to now catastrophically failed wealth disparities between the wealthiest and the poorest—, we have not seen the wildly prolific job-creation that was promised. Indeed, we have seen our manufacturing base stripped away piece by piece and our middle class society systematically eroded.

Now, after 10 years of massive tax breaks for the wealthiest people in the history of humanity, we have seen a further concentration of wealth and a further erosion of the open market for employment and innovation. The 400 wealthiest people in the United States now control more wealth than 155 million people at the other end of the socio-economic spectrum combined. The tax cuts that were supposed to be given to the “supply side” were never given to the supply side at all, only to those that seek to own it.
To distill the complicated economics down to simple terms: Why should the rich “create jobs”, why should they put money into wages in order to build businesses to make profits, when it’s being handed to them in unprecedented amounts, for free? That’s the real problem. When the government takes money from everyone, then hands it out to the wealthiest among us, it has the direct effect of disincentivizing investment by those individuals and interests in the creation of new businesses and new jobs.

It is economic incentive that drives enterprise, not the supposed nobility of spirit of the wealthy. That idea is aristocracy: that the ruling class is there because they deserve to be, because they are uniquely noble, because they have arete —excellence and a commitment to justice and humane values, to the better interests of society at large. Our nation is founded on the self-evident truth that medieval aristocracy is a lie, and that powerful elites do not tend to give their power and privilege back to the people.

It makes no sense to be fostering a new aristocracy, to be transferring literally trillions of dollars in wealth, as a matter of national policy, to the wealthiest people in our society. There is no economic reason for doing so. There is nothing about that process which upholds or defends democracy. Much to the contrary, the massive and unprecedented transfer of wealth from ordinary, working Americans to the already wealthy —which began with Ronald Reagan and accelerated to warp speed with George W. Bush’s 2001 and 2003 tax cuts—, has crippled our economy and removed any incentive major financial interests have to invest in widespread job creation.

If you believe a vibrant middle class is essential to fostering generalized citizen participation and real elective democracy, then the collapse of that middle class, the decline in household wages, the rapid escalation in bankruptcies and home foreclosures, should worry you. Even if you are a billionaire, it should worry you, because the erosion of our middle class, the gutting of funds from our educational system, the prioritization of billionaires and multinational corporations, is eroding our democracy itself.

When Vice President Joe Biden left the Senate to join the Obama administration, he was the only member of the United States Senate who was not a millionaire. He had not used his office to enrich himself or his family, and he had not played the game of Washington insider. He was not a celebrity and he did not view politics as a battle for cold, hard cash. He made policy based on how it would affect ordinary citizens, local communities, the real human freedom of people he knows and understands.

As the Senate became the world’s most powerful millionaire’s club, it became harder and harder for ordinary people to break into politics. The power of the two-party system had made it risky for anyone not to support the one of the two parties most friendly to their views, because even the slightest erosion of support for one of the two parties is now translated, through furious and misleading reporting of public opinion poll numbers as a “gain” for the other party.

As the concentration of wealth in the hands of the few has accelerated, and the concentration of political power in the hands of the wealthy has followed along, the outright lie that tax cuts for the wealthy are the best, indeed the only, way to create jobs continues to have widespread support. Though real people living in the real world can see with their own eyes that fundamental pillars of our democracy are being eroded, or even eliminated, while parents across the country know what it would mean for the House of Representatives to strip funding for Head Start, for public education and for college financial aid, the transfer of wealth goes ahead, and the job creation boom to which innovative, hard-working, democratic Americans are entitled, continues to stall.

There should be an indefinite, blanket moratorium on wasteful wealth spending.

Since we know that spending trillions of dollars on tax cuts for the wealthy is counterproductive, does not create jobs and is undermining our democracy, every independent voter, every Democratic and every Republican voter, should demand of every elected official that they cease to prioritize the giveaway of taxpayer money to those who have no use for it and will not use it to invest in rebuilding the middle class.

Tax cuts for the wealthy do not create jobs. Tax cuts for the wealthy are not a constructive way to build democracy. Tax cuts for the wealthy are not a sound investment for the already embattled middle class. Every proposed cut to social spending, every proposed tax break for millionaires and billionaires, is part of the same process of eroding our middle class and shoring up the long-term power interest of the already powerful.

It should not be the economic policy of a middle class democratic republic to prioritize the protection of millionaires and billionaires against economic hardship, when the economic hardship of the moment was created specifically and through many years of coordinated effort, by the mismanagement and bad practice of that very “investor class” that seeks to give the real power in our society to banks, hedge funds and offshore interests.

Whether by incompetence, ignorance or malice, the financial industry was hijacked by a logic of might makes right: anything that can be done to expand wealth, any “instrument” that can be devised that will make the digital, ethereal wealth of our times appear to increase, was to be cultivated, protected and propagated, regardless of the risk to the wider society or to the health of our people and our democracy.

The financial collapse of 2007 and 2008 was not brought about by working people’s mortgages; it was brought about by major financial interests that had agreed, implicitly and explicitly, it was no longer of any importance whether major national investment strategies represented real wealth or spurious wealth claims; what mattered was that those at the top could benefit from implementing the strategies.

That is what was done with our trillions of dollars in wealth subsidies: while the American people were told that tax breaks for the wealthiest of the wealthy would lead to widespread job creation, the money was devoted to creating entirely new markets where only money would be needed to make more money. Gone were the heady old days when earning millions was supposed to represent investment in an actual enterprise doing actual business, building a better society.

There should be an indefinite, blanket moratorium on wasteful wealth spending, because the work of our age needs to be the reinvention of our economy, the reversal of this egregious and undemocratic transfer of wealth from the tens of millios to the 400, and the restoration the principle that if it’s good for America, it’s because it’s good for building a vibrant, free and educated middle class that actually has the power to govern its own future and to steer the ship of state.

SOME DATA: The top 20% of the socio-economic pyramid in our country control well more than 80% of all the wealth. Just the top 1% control 40% of all financial investment assets.

In 2001, George W. Bush inherited a 10-year budget surplus of $1.7 trillion. His 2001 and 2003 tax cuts plunged the government into deficit spending, immediately. By 2002, the surplus was already erased, after just one year of the long-term tax cut plan.

By 2009, when Bush left office, he had doubled Defense spending, pledged over $1 trillion to banks, and average household incomes had FALLEN by more than $2,000 per year.

The result of these policies was: 25% of all American children living in poverty, near 10% unemployment (officially), as high as 25% among young people and well over 30% among some minority communities.

In 2008 and 2009, the nation saw record bankruptcies, record rates of home foreclosures, and despite massive investment in recovery efforts, in 2009 and 2010 job recovery has been slow to non-existent. The reason: even as banks and wealthy investors began to see their economic engine revving up again, they saw no economic incentive at all to invest in job creation.

The wrong kind of tax policy was giving them cash for nothing, and incentivizing them to invest it in money-for-the-wealthy financial schemes that don't support small business, manufacturing, entrepreneurship or job-creation.


Daily Kos: Tax Cuts for the Wealthy DO NOT Create Jobs

9 TRILLION Dollars Missing from Federal Reserve, Fed Inspector General Can't Explain.

AUDIT THE FED!
This should be a non-partisan issue between both left and right... the entire working population (which is by far the majority of us) should care about what is been done with our money.
Cost of living, fuel, food, etc all going up due to inflated currency! The poor suffer the most!

K-Swiss's commercial "Get Championy" with Kenny f@&%ing Powers!

Ceelo's "Fuck you" in Sign language

That is all kinds of awesome!

Johnny Cash vs. Cypress Hill

Johnny cash was a gangsta

Obama EXTRA JUICY

No it's not Zombie Obama

Bach and a Glass of Water

Giant Ant Hill Excavated

"I felt a great disturbance in the Force, as if millions of voices suddenly cried out in terror, and were suddenly silenced"

285,935,702 ants were harmed during the making of this video.

George Mason University plays Rage Against The Machine

Future band teachers of America - are you paying attention? This is what kids want to play. If all music instructors were like this you woudn't have a room big enough to accommodate all the music students. This teacher ROCKS.

9/11 Experiments: The Great Thermate Debate

What's wrong with mainstream experts?

Johnny Cash and The Dancing Seat Girls

The Dancing Seat Girls bustin moves to "God's Gonna Cut You Down" by Johny Cash

Seat girls - RJ41 Productions from RJ41 on Vimeo.

I'll Never Smoke Weed With Willie Again




Toby Keith & Scott Emerik sing this tune ..

Why Is Exposing a War Crime More Dangerous Than Committing One?

bradley-manning-46_1685908c

AlterNet / By Medea Benjamin and Charles Davis

Bradley Manning Humiliated and Abused: Why Is Exposing a War Crime More Dangerous Than Committing One?

Bradley Manning leaked cables showing officials covering up U.S. tax dollars funding child rape in Afghanistan, illegal bombings in Yemen and more -- and he's the one in jail?

Bradley Manning is accused of humiliating the political establishment by revealing the complicity of top U.S. officials in carrying out and covering up war crimes. In return for his act of conscience, the U.S. government is holding him in abusive solitary confinement, humiliating him and trying to keep him behind bars for life.

The lesson is clear, and soldiers take note: You're better off committing a war crime than exposing one.

An Army intelligence officer stationed in Kuwait, the 23-year-old Manning - outraged at what he saw - allegedly leaked tens of thousands of State Department cables to the whistle-blowing website WikiLeaks. These cables show U.S. officials covering up everything from U.S. tax dollars funding child rape in Afghanistan to illegal, unauthorized bombings in Yemen. Manning is also accused of leaking video evidence of U.S. pilots gunning down more than a dozen Iraqis in Baghdad, including two journalists for Reuters, and then killing a father of two who stopped to help them. The father's two young children were also severely wounded.

"Well, it's their fault for bringing kids into a battle," a not-terribly-remorseful U.S. pilot can be heard remarking in the July 2007 "Collateral Murder" video.

None of the soldiers who carried out that war crime have been punished, nor have any of the high-ranking officials who authorized it. Indeed, committing war crimes is more likely to get a solider a medal than a prison term. And authorizing them? Well, that'll get you a book deal and a six-digit speaking fee. Just ask George W. Bush. Or Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld or Condoleezza Rice. Or the inexplicably "respectable" Colin Powell.

In fact, the record indicates Manning would be far better off today - possibly on the lecture circuit rather than in solitary confinement - if he'd killed those men in Baghdad himself.

Hyperbole? Consider what happened to the U.S. soldiers who, over a period of hours - not minutes - went house to house in the Iraqi town of Haditha and executed 24 men, women and children in retaliation for a roadside bombing.

"I watched them shoot my grandfather, first in the chest and then in the head," said one of the two surviving eyewitnesses to the massacre, nine-year-old Eman Waleed. "Then they killed my granny." Almost five years later, not one of the men involved in the incident is behind bars. And despite an Army investigation revealing that statements made by the chain of command "suggest that Iraqi civilian lives are not as important as U.S. lives," with the murder of brown-skinned innocents considered "just the cost of doing business," none of their superiors are behind bars either.

Now consider the treatment of Bradley Manning. On March 1, the military charged Manning with 22 additional offenses - on top of the original charges of improperly leaking classified information, disobeying an order and general misconduct. One of the new charges, "aiding the enemy," is punishable by death. That means Manning faces the prospect of being executed or spending his life in prison for exposing the ugly truth about the U.S. empire.

Meanwhile, the Obama administration has decided to make Manning's pre-trial existence as torturous as possible, holding him in solitary confinement 23 hours a day since his arrest 10 months ago - treatment that the group Psychologists for Social Responsibility notes is, "at the very least, a form of cruel, unusual and inhumane treatment in violation of U.S. law."

In addition to the horror of long-term solitary confinement, Manning is barred from exercising in his cell and is denied bed sheets and a pillow. And every five minutes, he must respond in the affirmative when asked by a guard if he's "okay."

Presumably he lies.

And it gets worse. On his blog, Manning's military lawyer, Lt. Col. David Coombs, reveals that his client is now being stripped of his clothing at night, left naked under careful surveillance for seven hours. When the 5:00 am wake-up call comes, he's then "forced to stand naked at the front of the cell."

If you point out that the emperor has no clothes, it seems the empire will make sure you have none either.

Officials at the Quantico Marine Base where Manning is being held claim the move is "not punitive" but rather a "precautionary measure" intended to prevent him from harming himself. Do they really think Manning is going to strangle himself with his underwear - and that he could do so while under 24-hour surveillance?

"Is this Quantico or Abu Ghraib?" asked Rep. Dennis Kucinich in a press release. Good question, congressman. Like the men imprisoned in former President Bush's Iraqi torture chamber, Manning is being abused and humiliated despite having not so much as been tried in a military tribunal, much less convicted of an actual crime.

So much for the constitutional lawyer who ran as the candidate of hope and change.

Remember back when Obama campaigned against such Bush-league torture tactics? Recall when candidate Obama said "government whistleblowers are part of a healthy democracy and must be protected from reprisal"? It appears his opposition to torture and support for whistleblowers was only so much rhetoric. And then he took office.

Indeed, despite the grand promises and soaring rhetoric, Obama's treatment of Manning is starkly reminiscent of none other than Richard Nixon. Like Obama - who has prosecuted more whistleblowers than any president in history - Nixon had no sympathy for "snitches," and no interest in the American public learning the truth about their government. And he likewise argued that Daniel Ellsberg, the leaker of the Pentagon Papers, had given "aid and comfort to the enemy" for revealing the facts about the war in Vietnam.

But there's a difference: Richard Nixon never had the heroic whistleblower of his day thrown in solitary confinement and tortured. If only the same could be said for Barack Obama.

http://www.alternet.org/news/150157/under_obama,_you%27re_safer_off_committing_a_war_crime_than_exposing_one?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter