2016: The Supreme Court Election

Just thinking a bit about the context of the upcoming Presidential election. For those that don’t know, I tend to write a good bit about such events, largely doing such writing as an (unpaid) job for the last 3 of them.

Certain themes arise around them, and a friend of mine, I think, struck the bass chord of this one….it’s about the SCOTUS.

For those unfamiliar with the term, let’s get introduced. SCOTUS stands for Supreme Court of the United States. SCotUS, if you are a stickler for capitalization, but that looks weird and is also hard to type, so SCOTUS, is often used as an abbreviation.

Here are the current Supreme Court Justices and their ages…

John G. Roberts: January 27, 1955 : 60 yrs.
Antonin Scalia: March 11, 1936: 79 yrs.
Anthony M. Kennedy: July 23, 1936: 78 yrs.
Clarence Thomas: June 23, 1948: 66 yrs.
Ruth Bader Ginsburg: March 15, 1933: 82 yrs.
Stephen G. Breyer: August 15, 1938: 76 yrs.
Samuel Anthony Alito: April 1, 1950: 65 yrs.
Sonia Sotomayor: June 25, 1954: 60 yrs.
Elena Kagan: April 28, 1960: 54 yrs.

Now comes the kicker….via google (and it’s one of those common answers)…


78.7 yrs. According to a 2006 study conducted by the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy, Supreme Court justices are retiring later and later. Before 1971, the average age of retiring Supreme Court justices was 68.3.

Even at 79 years…that puts three justices over that range *at the start* of the next President’s term (and one right on the cusp). Scalia and Ginsburg are on opposite ends of the spectrum, Kennedy is often a swing vote.

So it’s a 2-1 or 1-2 split on the “old guard” judges, if you will, pushing the limits of what the human mind can endure. The next President is likely to shift that to a 3-0 split, one way or the other, in finding their replacements.

This turns a court that has been on the 5-4, 4-5 knife’s edge for the last 20 years into a 6-3 machine that can decide some law….one way or the other.

There is, to my eyes as a consistent watcher, a MASSIVE DIFFERENCE in the ideologies that drive the important decision making in our political parties. From voting rights to access to healthcare to women’s rights to foreign wars to regulating Wall Street to accepting established science to…seriously…freaking science…to many other things…there are just soo many differences.

And these differences show up in legal theory. The SCOTUS is one-third of our government, it’s a BIG DEAL. It’s not very often that we get such a clear and straightforward VOTE in which direction it goes.

This Presidential election we do. We get to decide the Supreme Court.

I’ll be coming back to this theme, again and again and again, one would assume, but I do think it is terribly important. That’s what this election is about, to me.

The personalities are somewhat secondary, although endlessly entertaining/frustrating. It’s just important to keep sight of what is important in the chaos, and in this election, what’s important is the Supreme Court.

Advertisements

United States Total Employment By President 1977-2012 (Misleading Statistics Lesson)

I was recently going about my daily business when I was confronted on the Facebook with the following chart…

"Reason" Magazine Net Jobs Analysis...From the Mercatus Project of George Mason University*

Taking these raw numbers without any context leaves a bit to be desired on the “providing insight” part of statistical analysis.

During the ensuing discussion, I noted a couple of things…first that 5 months remain in Obama’s first term. At the current roughly 200K-job/mo pace we are gaining, that’s another 1M on his tally.  As we’ll see in a moment, looking at *how* these numbers came about can be quite enlightening.

As noted in the charts, all raw data is provided from here.

We’re going to start with Jimmy Carter.  In the following analysis, we are calling the inaugural month the first one they are responsible for, going through December of their last year.   A quick comparison shows this to be very close to how Veronique de Rugy of the Mercatus Center* did the original chart.

Non Farm Employment under Carter, Seasonally Adjusted

Non Farm Employment under Carter, Seasonally Adjusted, 1977-1980

From here you can see something that will be a consistent theme in the following analysis…a stagnant job market causing issues for a sitting President.  Employment peaked in March, 1980, having moving little since the previous summer.  The long, hot year and rising unemployment was too much for voters, and a change was made.

Enter the Reagan…

Total Employment Reagan, Seasonally Adjusted, 1981-1988

Total Employment Reagan, Seasonally Adjusted, 1981-1988. One can see how Reagan faced initial skepticism, but has gained long-term respect.

Here we see Carter’s “malaise” lasting well into 1983.  The lowpoint in unemployment, to Reagan’s great fortune, came late in 1982.  By the time the election rolled around in 1984, everything appeared to be on track.  Employment continued to expand throughout the rest of his term.  Then we had to pay for it, and the business cycle shifted again.

Total Employment, Bush the Elder, Seasonally Adjusted, 1989-1992

Total Employment, Bush the Elder, Seasonally Adjusted, 1989-1992. Here we see Bush the elder’s problem, employment peaking two and half years prior to the election.

Bush the Elder saw the peak of the Reagan “what’s debt?” economic expansion, and watched as nearly 2M jobs evaporated after peaking in Jun of ’90. Economic recovery in job form came only in the last few months before the 1992 election, not nearly enough to stop the new kid on the block from stealing heart and minds and electoral votes.

Next we get to *see* what the longest and largest and most stable economic expansion in U.S. history like…in bar graph form.

Total Employment, Clinton, Seasonally Adjusted, 1993-2000

Total Employment, Clinton, Seasonally Adjusted, 1993-2000. It really is pretty impressive, standing there all big and growing like that, Mr. President.

Like all the other graphs, I’ve marked the low and high point in employment during Clinton’s term. That’s how it’s done, folks.  Really can’t ask for more.  Well…maybe a bit less disgracing the Office of the President.  He did, however, get impeached for that.  Not sure if it was the peace and prosperity or the blowjob that got him impeached, but something sure made the Republicans mad.  It didn’t stick in the Senate, but did doom his VP.

Regardless, after so much peace and prosperity, we decided it was time for a change.   And oh what a change it was.

Total Employment, Bush the Lesser, Seasonally Adjusted, 2001-2008

Total Employment, Bush the Lesser, Seasonally Adjusted, 2001-2008. Bush was all over the map. First losing 3M jobs, then finding 9M building houses, then losing 4M in a year after the bust.

Oh George.  What can we do about this one.  If you want to see what a bursting real estate bubble looks like?  Click on that one.  First we see the extended era of peace end on 9/11.  Then we see the prosperity depart as we marched to war, hitting the  low employment point just as the mission in Iraq was “accomplished.”    Then we went on an easy-credit mortgage-fueled home-building binge, topping out with the greatest number of working Americans ever reported, 138,023,000 in January 2008.

By the end of 2008, 4M of those jobs had disappeared, and the Great Recession wasn’t nearly done.

Total Employment, Obama, Seasonally Adjusted, 2009-2012

Total Employment, Obama, Seasonally Adjusted, 2009-2012. Here we see the second half the Great Recession, with 4M more jobs going away in Obama’s first year. Since then there’s been a steady grind upwards, as we work to recover lost ground.

And this brings us up to the present data (Jul 2012).  Here we see the graphic and dramatic employment results of the Great Recession.  Four Million Jobs gone in the first year, reaching Obama’s lowpoint in February of 2010.  Since then (as the “failed” Stimulus package was implemented) we’ve seen steady employment gains over the intervening two years, finally within grasping distance of where from we started.

To wrap the whole thing together…here’s the whole thing together…

Total_Employment_1977_2012

Total_Employment_1977_2012. All of it. Together.

Here we see each and every year laid out side by side.  Now longer term business cycles become more apparent, and we see the huge dip created by the crash of 2008.

All in all I wanted to provide this analysis because I found the original chart to be so incredibly lacking in context as to be misleading.

* the Mercatus Project is funded (to a noticeable degree) by the Koch Bros, who have used some of the $100M they pledged to unseat the current President producing graphs like this…which don’t tell the whole story.  Often telling so little of the story, they might as well be lying.

"Reason" Magazine Net Jobs Analysis...From the Mercatus Project of George Mason University*

Taking these raw numbers without any context leaves a bit to be desired on the “providing insight” part of statistical analysis.

The Silly Season of Political Paranoia (and a dose of something else)

It seems as if a certain political sentiment has fully metastasized into the form it will take for the next 7 months.  It goes something like this…as Krugman notes on point..

And it’s not just gas prices, of course. In fact, the conspiracy theories are proliferating so fast it’s hard to keep up. Thus, large numbers of Republicans — and we’re talking about important political figures, not random supporters — firmly believe that global warming is a gigantic hoax perpetrated by a global conspiracy involving thousands of scientists, not one of whom has broken the code of omertà. Meanwhile, others are attributing the recent improvement in economic news to a dastardly plot to withhold stimulus funds, releasing them just before the 2012 election. And let’s not even get into health reform.

Why is this happening? At least part of the answer must lie in the way right-wing media create an alternate reality. For example, did you hear about how the cost of Obamacare just doubled? It didn’t, but millions of Fox-viewers and Rush-listeners believe that it did. Naturally, people who constantly hear about the evil that liberals do are ready and willing to believe that everything bad is the result of a dastardly liberal plot. And these are the people who vote in Republican primaries.

But what about the broader electorate?

Now before you think any of this (or the many, many other examples) are hyperbolic statements about what is passing for “policy discussion” among the dedicated Republican primary voters…here’s an update on what they think is going on…

Seriously…that’s an official Santorum ad.  Wild stuff….BTW…DID YOU NOTICE HOW CRAZY THIS IS?

About :40 seconds in…with the Iranian Boogeyman on the screen…they cut in a shot of the President of the United Stated.

Headshot of Obama interspersed into video of Iranian President

That’s how craaaazy these folks are.  Don’t believe me yet?  Here’s another one, of a thousand, of other examples.

And one that more directly affects real people…

On Monday, the Republican dominated Tennessee Senate passed an anti-evolution bill by a vote of 24-8. The bill, known as HB 368, is sponsored by Republican Senator Bo Watson and “provides guidelines for teachers answering students’ questions about evolution, global warming and other scientific subjects,” according to Knox News,  ”The measure also guarantees that teachers will not be subject to discipline for engaging students in discussion of questions they raise, though Watson said the idea is to provide guidelines so that teachers will bring the discussion back to the subjects authorized for teaching in the curriculum approved by the state Board of Education.” The bill basically encourages teachers to present scientific weaknesses of “controversial” topics.

[full story]

It’s come to the point of people just flat out not believing what is happening….which while not completely abnormal in political season…has gotten so bad that basic math has become partisan politics.

Thus making rational cost benefit analysis of said policies (while factually true) completely irrelevant.

Beginning in January 2011, the payroll tax withheld from employee paychecks was temporarily reduced to 4.2 percentage points from 6.2 percentage points. The cut was scheduled to expire at the end of 2011, but Congress has continued it through the end of 2012.

My calculationslast year, based on the proposed cut of 3.1 percentage points, suggested that the payroll tax cut “could raise employment by at least a million, albeit the duration of job creation is related to how long the tax cut lasts.”

On a seasonally adjusted basis, payroll employment was 130.2 million at the end of 2010, just before the payroll tax cuts took effect. As of last month, payroll employment was up 2 percent, or 2.5 million, to 132.7 million.

[full story]

And dealing with a growing and more well understood problem that much more difficult…

One of the main changes is the inclusion of more data from the Arctic region, which has experienced one of the greatest levels of warming.

The amendments do not change the long-term trend, but the data now lists 2010, rather than 1998, as the warmest year on record.

The update is reported in the published in the Journal of Geophysical Research.

[full story]

And leading to some absolutely tragic decision making abilities…

It seems that this old lady believed many of the deliberate lies which were being put forward by the Fox News anchor, lies directed at President Obama and at his health care policy. She appears to have thought that if she had accepted medical care, following her fall, her medical information and her money would have been sent to Islamic extremists. This is of course completely false, but a reasonable deduction from the lies told by Fox News.

[full story]

Which happens while the system keeps chuggin’ along…

National income gained overall in 2010, but all of the gains were among the top 10 percent. Even within those 15.6 million households, the gains were extraordinarily concentrated among the super-rich, the top one percent of the top one percent.

[full story]

And paying the low inegrity-bright smile types to say whatever it takes to keep it coming…

In February, Common Cause wrote to House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, asking for an explanation about an apparently unreported $1,350 gift from the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) in 2009. Cantor’s office immediately responded, claiming our inquiry was without foundation, but last week his office quietly amended his financial disclosures to include the gift from ALEC.

At that time, I wrote about Cantor’s failure to disclose:

‘ALEC, the so-called “free market, small government” lobby group underwritten by some of the nation’s largest corporations, reported in its tax filings for 2008 and 2009, making “cash grants” to the recipients of several annual awards. Common Cause has identified 22 legislators who received ALEC awards in those two years, including Rep. Cantor, who ALEC records indicate received $1,350 in 2009 as part of their Thomas Jefferson Freedom Award.’

Cantor responded within hours, saying no cash changed hands, but that he received a bust of Thomas Jefferson from ALEC, pictured above. But, under House Ethics Rules this type of award can only be received by a Member of Congress if it is disclosed, which Cantor did not do. This appears to be a clear ethics violation, and we have asked the Office of Congressional Ethics to investigate. Prompted by Common Cause, Cantor has now very quietly amended his 2009 Financial Disclosure Report to include the ALEC gift. He also amended his 2010 report to include another bust given to him by the Associated Builders and Contractors trade group. We had no idea about this second award, but now we do.

[full story]

Even as another does the math, and realizes that we simply cannot go on like this…

However, Dodd–Frank does not eradi- cate TBTF. Indeed, it is our view at the Dallas Fed that it may actually perpetuate an already dangerous trend of increasing banking industry concentration. More than half of banking industry assets are on the books of just five institutions. The top 10 banks now account for 61 percent of commercial banking assets, substantially more than the 26 percent of only 20 years ago; their combined assets equate to half of our nation’s GDP. Further, as Rosenblum argues in his essay, there are signs that Dodd– Frank’s complexity and opaqueness may evenbe working against the economic recovery. In addition to remaining a lingering threat to financial stability, these megabanks signifi- cantly hamper the Federal Reserve’s ability to properly conduct monetary policy.

They were a primary culprit in magnifying the financial crisis, and their presence continues to play an impor- tant role in prolonging our economic malaise.There are good reasons why this recovery has remained frustratingly slow compared with periods following previous recessions, and I believe it has very little to do with the Federal Reserve. Since the onset of the Great Recession, we have undertaken a number of initiatives— some orthodox, some not—to revive and kick-start the economy. As I like to say, we’ve filled the tank with plenty of cheap, high-octane gasoline. But as any mechanic can tell you, it takes more than just gas to propel a car.

It is imperative that we end TBTF. In my view, downsizing the behemoths over time into institutions that can be prudently managed and regulated across borders is the appropriate policy response. Only thencantheprocessof “creativedestruction”— which America has perfected and practiced with such effectiveness that it led our country to unprecedented economic achievement— work its wonders in the financial sector, just as it does elsewhere in our economy. Only then will we have a financial system fit and proper for serving as the lubricant for an economy as dynamic as that of the United States.

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/dallas-fed-calls-for-breakup-of-big-banks-2012-3#ixzz1qF2hXi7T

And so the desktop is clear…to watch the world for another couple weeks.

Top Ten Myths about the Arab Spring of 2011

1. The upheavals of 2011 were provoked by the Bush administration’s overthrow of Saddam Hussein in Iraq

2. President Obama was wrong to ask Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak to step down.

3. Muslim radicalism benefited from the revolutions in the Arab world. 

4. Muslim religious groups spear-headed the revolutions.

5. The uprising in Bahrain was merely a manifestation of sectarian tensions between Sunni and Shiite

6. Iran was behind the uprising in Bahrain.

7. The Arab Spring is a Western plot.

8. The intervention of NATO in Libya was driven primarily by oil.

9. The Arab dictatorships now overthrown or tottering were better for women than their likely Islamist successors

10. The Arab upheavals are an unmitigated disaster for Israel.

Top Ten Myths about the Arab Spring of 2011 | Informed Comment.

Juan Cole, as per, offers sound reasoning for why each of these is considered a myth.   The Arab Spring has been an amazing thing to watch, and brought tears to my eyes on more than one occasion for more than one reason.   Overall, we here at RPN consider it a *VERY GOOD* thing, and believe a (more) free and (more) open society is the best way to inoculate against violent radicals.

The more people feel a part of their country/community/culture the more likely they are to work to make it better.  Only those who feel apart from everything feel justified in destroying it.

 

Paul Ryan and Class Mobility in 21st Century America

U.S. vs Europe contemporary comparison

U.S. vs Europe contemporary comparison of likelihood of social mobility

Paul Ryan is stuck in the last century

Paul Ryan is stuck in the last century, things have changed in the last 50 years

The Inflation Adjusted version of income gains over the last 30 years

The Inflation Adjusted version of income gains over the last 30 years

Original TPM link.

And there ya go.

Another Election Season, Another Crazy Republican Lady to Make Fun Of

Seriously, y’all, there are ACTUALLY a number of women in the Republican party that are not walking jokes.   To be sure, many of them wouldn’t win any beauty pageants, but that’s not any reason to pick a…oh…right…  

Anyway, here’s the latest from this election season’s gaffe machine.

Rep. Michele Bachmann kicked off her presidential campaign on Monday in Waterloo, Iowa, and in one interview surrounding the official event she promised to mimic the spirit of Waterloo’s own John Wayne.

The only problem, as one eagle-eyed reader notes: Waterloo’s John Wayne was not the beloved movie star, but rather John Wayne Gacy, the serial killer.

Mrs. Bachmann grew up in Waterloo, and used the town as the backdrop for her campaign announcement, where she told Fox News: “Well what I want them to know is just like, John Wayne was from Waterloo, Iowa. That’s the kind of spirit that I have, too.” (Someone has already posted the clip to YouTube under the name BachmannLovesGacy)

[full post…on the WashTimes…which tells you that this is game-on for the  Republican Primary]

I mean, it’s on honest mistake to make while pandering.  Oh, this isn’t the first one either...so it’s more of a MO than anything else.

And yes, this is the same reason I made so much fun of Palin [1].  She was a hoot. 

Bachmann’s pandering is *extremely* well done it turns out, and she’s currently running neck and neck with Nominee Romney in Iowa.

It will be even funnier to watch if the WSJ keeps propping her up for even longer.   They’ve been puffing her for a while.

By STEPHEN MOORE

That’s something good to know before you read the Bachmann puff piece.  Stephen Moore will *always* pimp anyone who says the best way to deal with the deficit is bigger and deeper tax cuts.   Michelle Bachmann happens to be good enough at math to believe this….

“In my perfect world,” she explains, “we’d take the 35% corporate tax rate down to nine so that we’re the most competitive in the industrialized world. Zero out capital gains. Zero out the alternative minimum tax. Zero out the death tax.”

And that’s how she’d pay down the debt.  Really, you couldn’t make up people like this if you started with banal, spliced in stupid, mixed in some political instinct, poured on the hot sauce, and then convinced the resulting concoction it was actually God’s gift to the world.

“I am a Christian as is my husband. I became a Christian at 16 years old, I gave my heart to Jesus Christ and since that time I’ve been a person of prayer.

When I pray, I pray believing that God will speak to me and give me an answer to that prayer, and so that’s what a calling is. If I pray, a calling means that I have a sense from God which direction I’m supposed to go.

It means I have a sense of assurance about the direction I think that God is speaking into my heart that I should go.”

There you have it, Michelle Bachmann says that God tells Michelle Bachmann she should run for President.  BTW, for those that didn’t get that from the quoted context…well…you can’t.  That’s one of the fun things about saying you are doing what God wants, no matter what you do.   The same exact speech can be used for the alternative. (it’s a bit  like Huckabee’s “Aww, shucks I know where this ride ends (New Hampshire)” bow out speech…the difference…Huckabee has learned to blame his own heart for his own choices).

This whole God wants me to do it (and so should you subtext) is not a new phenomenon either.   We currently have two candidates (Romney and Huntsman) who would testify if pressed that God currently talks to the Prophet that runs their Church, and who will no doubt decline to even subtlely suggest that perhaps supporting a Member is what God wants.  Heck, there are two other candidates that have also revealed that God revealed to them “he” wants them to run, and win.  

So we’ll see who God wants to be President when the world ends in 2012 in 2012.  Unless Obama wins again, then, according to some of Bachmann’s most avid fans, Satan will have won again (yes, they are this crazy).

[1] Crazy, attractive (to 50-60 year old males mind you), conservative lady somehow pushed to the forefront of the Repbulicans who constantly embarasses the country with a disconcerting lack of basic knowledge about stuff and things and crazy ideas and constant pitch-perfect right-wing talking points.

Why Bush’s Tax Cuts Didn’t Work, and Why Pawlenty, Bachmann, Gingrich’s Won’t Either : Simple Math

So here’s the Republican mantra: “Lower taxes will lead to higher economic output and ultimately increase government revenue.”

It sounds like it might work.   You think, well, if I take a smaller piece of a larger pie, I’ll get more pie, right?

Let’s a take a few simple assumptions, and see how they work out:

  1. Assumption #1 : We have a Ten Trillion Dollar Economy ($10,000,000,000,000)
  2. Assumption #2:  If we cut tax rates by 5%, we can see an increase of economic growth of 2% (over what we would have had anyway). 
  3. Assumption #3:  A “normal” rate of growth is about 3%. 

Remember, what we are testing here is whether or not tax cuts pay for themselves and/or increase government revenue (relative to higher tax rates) by stimulating economic activity.  

Now let’s run the numbers. 

Scenario A.  20% tax rate, 3% growth rate.

   GPD  Tax Rate Growth Rate Gov’t Revenue
Year 1  10,000,000,000,000 20% 3%  2,000,000,000,000
Year 2  10,300,000,000,000 20% 3%  2,060,000,000,000
Year 3   10,609,000,000,000 20% 3%  2,121,800,000,000
Year 4  10,927,270,000,000 20% 3%  2,185,454,000,000
Year 5  11,255,088,100,000 20% 3%  2,251,017,620,000
Year 6  11,592,740,743,000 20% 3%  2,318,548,148,600
Year 7  11,940,522,965,290 20% 3%  2,388,104,593,058
Year 8  2,298,738,654,249 20% 3%  2,459,747,730,850
Year 9  12,667,700,813,876 20% 3%  2,533,540,162,775
Year 10  13,047,731,838,292 20% 3%  2,609,546,367,658

 Scenario A: Cumulative Government Revenue : $22,927,758,622,942 

Scenario B. 15% tax rate, 5% growth rate.

   GPD  Tax Rate Growth Rate Gov’t Revenue
Year 1  10,000,000,000,000 15% 5%  1,500,000,000,000
Year 2  10,500,000,000,000 15% 5%  1,575,000,000,000
Year 3   11,025,000,000,000 15% 5%  1,653,750,000,000
Year 4  11,576,250,000,000 15% 5%  1,736,437,500,000
Year 5  12,155,062,500,000 15% 5%  1,823,259,375,000
Year 6  12,762,815,625,000 15% 5%  1,914,422,343,750
Year 7  13,400,956,406,250 15% 5%  2,010,143,460,938
Year 8  14,071,004,226,563 15% 5%  2,110,650,633,984
Year 9  14,774,554,437,891 15% 5%  2,216,183,165,684
Year 10  15,513,282,159,785 15% 5%  2,326,992,323,968

Scenario B: Cumulative Government Revenue : $18,866,838,803,323

 

Difference between Scenario A and Scenario B :  $4,060,919,819,618

Conclusion: Cutting tax rates to increase government revenue doesn’t work.  It can’t work.  Even with favorable assumptions and unprecedented continued economic growth, we can never recover the lost revenue without raising taxes.(and I haven’t even factored in the cumulative interest based on a balanced budget in year 0).

———–

My numbers here are pretty straightforward, and although they could be tweaked a bit, they match up pretty well with  the amount of debt added since we had a balanced budget in 2000 and then cut taxes in 2001.   According to mainstream Republican thought, and their predictions at the time, we should be debt free by now, not facing a debt-driven disaster.

Of course this is all assuming those assumptions I mentioned above.  When we look at the real world, what we actually saw was closer to 5% growth with the higher tax rate, and a lower growth rates under the lower tax rate*.   There are a number of factors for this, not the least of which is underlying technology gains which allow smaller entities to leverage assets to act like big ones, and increase growth rates.    If you wonder how “spreading the wealth” can make it grow, watch this simple explanation.

One of the big factors that Republicans never mention is the drag that huge accumulated debt (from the tax cuts) does to our economy (well, never when they are talking about more and bigger tax cuts).   The uncertainty created by the current political shenanigans re: the debt ceiling continues to exacerbate the issue and undercut our recovery.  

Republicans are now (again) claiming that what we really need to fix the debt is more tax cuts.   As you can see from history, math, and what should now be common sense, that doesn’t work. 

It can’t work. 

Math won’t let it.

*

The evolution of a Common nontroversy

So this one started here…note the picture…date…etc…

Note how Fox is the one stirred the controversy

link to full story

So Fox gets the controversy juices flowing…tying Lonnie Lynn, Jr. (a thuggish name if I’ve ever heard one) to the controversial  Rev. Wright, then spends all day talking about it…parsing the relationship…googling the internets…hoping to find that one tasty nugget of juicy innuendo to repeat over and over.  Then Hannity finds the nut, like a blind squirrel leading a million blind squirrels.

He does so leveraging the fatal flaw of many outraged conservatives, their inability to think poeticly.

Should Controversial Rapper Have Been Invited to White House?

[Sean Hannity]  It seems this administration will never learn its lesson. Tomorrow, Michelle Obama is set to host an evening of poetry and will welcome a slew of poets, musicians, students from all across the country to the White House.

Among them is a controversial rapper and poet, Lonnie Rashid Lynn Jr., better known as Common. Now, he’s a staunch supporter of the president and has a running list of controversial comments.

Two thousand and seven, during an HBO’s “Def Poetry” appearance, Common called for the burning of President George W. Bush. Now the poem reads — I’m not the best at this — “Burn a Bush cos’ for peace he no push no button, killing over oil and grease, no weapons of mass destruction, how can we follow a leader when this is a corrupt one?”

Quick note: I’m not sure what “lesson” Hannity was going for here, my guess it’s that Fox can make a controversy out of anything by making a controversy out of anything, and that no matter what Obama does, Fox will make a controversy out of it.

So that’s the context.  Hannity is declaring how Common (or “Lonnie” as I like to think of him) threatened to “burn George W. Bush” and promotes cop killing.

PETERSON: I’m not saying it is not a critique of President Bush, it is. But it’s much more complex than him to say burn Bush. Listen, he’s a poet. Let me finish, he is a poet, he has a right to figure and be creative and he’s doing so in this particular…

[crosstalk] … [later]…

HANNITY: Excuse me, he’s talking about popping guns and “I got the black strap to make the cops run. They watching me. I’m watching them.” Then he uses a couple of —

PETERSON: The context —

HANNITY: Whoa! “When we roll together with a strapped gun, we’re going to be rocking them to sleep.” That sounds like killing cops to me.

PETERSON: Sure, listen —

HANNITY: Whoa, that sounds like killing cops to me. Sounds like killing cops to you?

WEBB: Sound like killing cops.

So that’s why Common is controversial, Hannity has decided he is talking about killing cops for fun and burning George W. Bush.   Explanations to the contrary ARE NOT TO BE TOLERATED!!

“Poetry always literally means what it says, that’s what poetry is.” -Sean Hannity

That, of course, is an insanely ridiculous reading…yet somehow that is what makes into Fox’s next story on the nontroversy…note the same picture, new date…but now…the Rapper himself has become controversial…and the White House is defending the Controversial Rapper.

Controversy Stirred, err, Mission Accomplished! "backlack over some of his lyric that critics (MAINLY FOX NEWS) say promote violence (ANYONE WHO HAS LISTENED TO COMMON KNOWS HOW SILLY THIS IS)"

White House Defends Invite of Political Rapper to Poetry Event – FoxNews.com http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/05/11/white-house-defends-invite-political-rapper-poetry-event/?test=latestnews

Common, whose real name is Lonnie Rashid Lynn, Jr., is not considered a gangsta rapper, but some of his songs and poems feature violent imagery.

In one poem, he called for the metaphorical burning of President George W. Bush — a “burning Bush.” And in a song, he praised convicted cop-killer and former Black Panther Assata Shakur.

“While the president doesn’t support the kind of lyrics raised here, we do think some of the reports distort what Mr. Lynn stands for more broadly in order to stoke controversy,” White House spokesman Jay Carney said Wednesday.

Note in the photograph how the “critics say” has now made it into the first paragraph.  Those “critics” are named Sean Hannity and whoever else was on Fox the day previous.  That Fox is the one making the news is not considered, by Fox, to be part of the news.

So the White House then properly calls out that this is a nontroversy based on a very selective reading.

And I further point out that this entire narrative is built for some people who are VERY SCARED of gansta rappers from the Chicago ghetto who like to kill cops and LOVE OBAMA…and now Fox has gotten the White House to respond and has officially CREATED a story it can run with and avoid pointing out how Obama is the only U.S. citizen (long form and everything) in history to kill Osama Bin Laden for another week.

The next version of their long-running dog whistle series. (If you don't believe this to be true, go read the comments on the two linked stories, I dare you).

BTW…his real name is “Lonnie”…

Lonnie.

UPDATE: Karl Rove goes all the way to the hyper dog-whistle land, and repeatedly labels Lonnie a “thug”.  And after all, why not..he’s black..he’s a rapper…obvioulsy he’s a thug by definition.   Note also how Karl accepts Hannity’s nuanced reading of Lonnie’s poetry as absolute fact.

KARL ROVE, FOX NEWS CONTRIBUTOR: Thank you, Sean. Thanks for having me.

HANNITY: All right. Well, you know, this is a poetry event. And the evening of poetry at the White House. And, you know, as we look into the background, the lyrics, the statements about cops, and President Bush and some of the other controversial things. Do you think this was an appropriate invite?

ROVE: Yes, let’s invite a misogynist to the White House, a guy who’s called for violence against police officer, and called for killing the former president of the United States George W. Bush. This will set a good tone for the country. President Obama last week said he wanted to recapture that special moment we had after 9/11. And here week later, we have an example of how this White House can recapture that moment by inviting a thug to the White House. A man who call for the death of Mr. Obama’s predecessor in office.

HANNITY: Well, I’m trying to understand this, and you know, Secret Service guys, if you make a threat like that, being in a song or in poetry, wouldn’t the secret service take a little visit to your house?

ROVE: Well, no, not necessarily.

A few things to note so far…Rove has gone off the rhetorical deep end, and now Lonnie turns out to be the real Bin Laden.    Second.. this last bit is a full on lie.  You write a song about assassinating the President in no uncertain terms, YOU WILL get a visit.  Lonnie didn’t, meaning the Secret Service is about a thousand times more hip than Rove.

Rove keeps repeating these lies, knowing that repetition of the lie is necessary for it to become “common wisdom”.

ROVE: [continues] But vetting these people, certainly somebody inside the White House had an ounce of sense and looked at his lyrics and could have said, you know, what, this is going to be offensive to the American people. It’s going to be offensive in the moment that the president is trying to establish here. Maybe we ought to think about somebody else to invite. But no, they are inviting a guy who called, I repeat, for the previous president to be assassinated for violence to be committed against police officers. And whose lyrics are sexually explicit and misogynist. This guy is a thug. And why they are inviting him to poetry night at the White House, speaks volumes about President Obama and this White House staff.

….

[Rove] : President Obama does not believe the things that he says. If he believed last week that he wanted to reestablish the great tone in the country after 9/11, why would he invite a thug to the White House who said, he wanted to kill President Bush for having taken the country to war in Iraq.

Now they just sit back, and watch the derp spread.

The derp about Lonnie Lynn, the thug ganstah poet from the streets of Chi-town.

UPDATE2:  Looks like I beat the Daily Show to the punch on this by virture of not having an 11:30 timeslot.  I think they did a better job, though.

Texas governor calls for prayers for rain, Obama asks him to just call

(Reuters) – Texas Governor Rick Perry called for three days of prayer for rain as a wave of moisture and cooler temperatures on Thursday helped firefighters contain wildfires that have charred more than 1.5 million acres across the state this year.

Perry sought increased federal help in combating the blazes last weekend and urged Texans to ask the same from a higher power over the Easter holiday weekend.

via Texas governor calls for prayers for rain | Reuters.

“Throughout our history, both as a state and as individuals, Texans have been strengthened, assured and lifted up through prayer,” Perry said in a statement on Thursday.

“It is fitting that Texans should join together in prayer to humbly seek an end to this ongoing drought and these devastating wildfires.”

While we’re at it, why not go ahead and add a prayer to end global warming, which is driving this drought (as predicted*).  If you do that and petition your reps for policy help on the issue, we might actually make some progress here.   Well, the praying is more for you (so you’ll feel better), the policy changes are what addresses the actual issue.

BTW, for those of you hoping the vaunted brains in the GOP would expose global climate change as a liberal myth, you might be as disappointed as they were.

Context:

*

A top climate scientist warned Wednesday that Texas faces a dual threat from floods and drought if global warming is left unchecked.

James Hansen, in Houston to speak before the Progressive Forum on Wednesday night, said predictions made two decades ago about the effects of a warming world are now beginning to come true.

“Texas is in the line of fire for double-barreled climate impacts,” said Hansen, who heads the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies. “What we said in the 1980s, and is beginning to come true now, is that both ends of the hydrological cycle get intensified by global warming.”

A warmer climate increases evaporation, he said. It both sucks moisture from the ground, intensifying drought, and increases atmospheric humidity, which causes more rain to fall during extreme events.

UPDATE: It should be noted quickly that two things happened subsequent to this post.

Obama came to Texas (and told a bunch of truths).

May 10, 2011 5:48 PM

President Obama in El Paso today tried to make the case that his administration is doing everything immigration reform opponents have said needed to be done before immigration reform could be tackled.

And so did the rain.

Published : Thursday, 12 May 2011, 8:57 AM CDT

Austin, TX – Much needed rain hit Central Texas Wednesday evening and continued into Thursday morning.

It was the biggest rain event in eight months.

CEOs tell Arizona; “Your constant derp is hurting business”

Dozens of major Arizona employers are urging state lawmakers to not pass additional legislation targeting illegal immigration, saying it would damage the economy and tourism industry.

document The CEOs’ letter to Russell Pearce

A letter signed by CEOs of major employers and several business and civic groups says Arizona should be pushing for federal action on immigration and border issues.

via CEOs urge Arizona to forgo immigration measures.

This is pretty much exactly what I predicted would happen. When you have a bunch of old white people (the Tea Party) pushing for harsher and harsher legislation against young brown people, folks who actually run the numbers realize something….old people don’t contribute much to the economy (although they do take quite a bit) …

Federal spending on the average person 65 or older will rise from nearly $17,700 in 2000 to more than $21,100 in 2010 (in constant dollars, which exclude the effects of inflation).

Federal spending per child will increase from about $2,100 in 2000 to about $2,500 in 2010 (or $2,500 and $3,000, respectively, if spending on parents that is solely attributable to having children is included).

[s0urce pdf]

The sad thing about this (for those who thought it was nice to see more pushback against the idiocy) is that the Chamber of Commerce is only asking Arizona to step back because the race-based wing of the Republican party is already stepping up to the plate and, literally, re-defining what makes a human an American.

We agree with you that our borders must be protected first, and now. We also believe that market-driven immigration policies can and should be developed by the federal government that will sustain America’s status as a magnet for the world’s most talented and hard-working people and preserve our ability to compete in the global economy.

If the Legislature believes it is worthwhile to debate the question of citizenship, we believe that debate is best held in the U.S. Congress. Already, Senators David Vitter of Louisiana and Rand Paul of Kentucky have introduced legislation aimed at amending the 14th Amendment to deny “birthright citizenship” to those born to individuals living in the U.S. illegally. Iowa Rep. Steve King has introduced similar legislation in the U.S. House.

[full letter from the CEOs]

Ultimately though, young brown people are cute, cuddly, the future, and people don’t like to see them tread upon (especially old rich brown people).  I see this ending pretty much one way, it’s just a matter of how much kicking and screaming goes along with it.

What Anonymous Wants (Get: What Anonymous Wants)

I was going to post this earlier, then I waited until version 1.1 came out.

This name, capitalized..Anonymous…has come to mean certain things.  This is what Anonymous wants, in case anyone asks.

Also, I’m going to try and make this exhaustive, as Anonymous has, in case the google picks up on the answer to this very simple question.  And the obvious follow-ups.

Open Letter To The World With Fixed Typo And Grammar

Open Letter To The WorldWe stand at a unique time in our history. The rise of the Internet and computing technology have contributed to an unparalleled rate of prosperity for the First World.

We have created for ourselves an empire unlike any other, a global network of constant trade and communication, a new age of technological advancement. We have come a long way from our humble roots in the Industrial Revolution and the days of Manifest Destiny. We are now pioneers on new digital frontiers expanding our domain from the quantum world to the far reaches of space.

And yet, the empire faces a crisis, a global recession, growing poverty, rampant violence, corruption in politics, and threats to personal freedom. As it was before in other times of crisis, the old stories have begun to repeat themselves. The half truths, this time repeated nightly on cable news and echoed through a series of tubes onto the internet: the empire is strong, change is unwise, business as usual is the answer. In times of uncertainty there are those who seek to add to the confusion, to prey on our insecurities and fears. Those who would seek to keep us divided for their own gain. The pervasive strategy takes many very convincing forms: Liberals and Conservatives, Christians and Muslims, Black and White, Saved and sinner.

But something unexpected is happening. We have begun telling each other our own stories. Sharing our lives, our hopes, our dreams, our demons. Every second, day in day out, into all hours of the night the gritty details of life on this earth are streaming around the world. As we see the lives of others played out in our living rooms we are beginning to understand the consequences of our actions and the error of the old ways. We are questioning the old assumptions that we are made to consume not to create, that the world was made for our taking, that wars are inevitable, that poverty is unavoidable. As we learn more about our global community a fundamental truth has been rediscovered: We are not so different as we may seem. Every human has strengths, weaknesses, and deep emotions. We crave love, love laughter, fear being alone and dream for a better life.

You must create a better life.

You cannot sit on the couch watching television or playing video games, waiting for a revolution. You are the revolution. Every time you decide not to exercise your rights, every time you refuse to hear another point of view, every time you ignore the world around you, every time you spend a dollar at a business that doesn’t pay a fair wage you are contributing to the oppression of the human body and the repression of the human mind. You have a choice, a choice to take the easy path, the familiar path, to walk willingly into your own submission. Or a choice get up, to go outside and talk to your neighbor, to come together in new forums to create lasting, meaningful change for the human race.

This is our challenge:

A peaceful revolution, a revolution of ideas, a revolution of creation. The twenty-first century enlightenment. A global movement to create a new age of tolerance and understanding, empathy and respect. An age of unfettered technological development. An age of sharing ideas and cooperation. An age of artistic and personal expression. We can choose to use new technology for radical positive change or let it be used against us. We can choose to keep the internet free, keep channels of communication open and dig new tunnels into those places where information is still guarded. Or we can let it all close in around us. As we move in to new digital worlds, we must acknowledge the need for honest information and free expression. We must fight to keep the internet open as a marketplace of ideas where all are seated as equals. We must defend our freedoms from those who would seek to control us. We must fight for those who do not yet have a voice. Keep telling your story. All must be heard.

Creative Commons Attribution
All content on this website is automatically licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution license. You are free to redistribute and/or remix it, but you have to credit the author, or, if the author is unknown (“Anonymous”), place a backlink to the corresponding page on AnonNews and attribute it to “Anonymous”.

Please note the copyleft linkage.  It’s a reference to that site, not this one.

Also note, I bolded the stuff that’s bolded.  Personal note: I kinda teared up when I did so.  BTW, and one of the things I love about Anonymous is that the speak pretty much exactly like I do.   My internet experience is long and deep in the hive-mind, and the solutions it sees for the future.  I wish I had typed that, I didn’t.   I did, however, copy and paste it and link back and re-mix it more to my like.  I encourage you do so, as well.

That whole thing is a solid encapsulation of why I, Robot Pirate…well, Roy…fight.   For that stuff up there.  I’m not Anonymous.  I can’t be, and vote.  I can’t be, and speak out as myself with the all rights and responsibilities one like myself is both born with.   So I fight in the light, and keep an ear out for the whispers of the invisible.  I love this shit.  This is worth a lot to me, that stuff in bold up there.  A lot.

So enough about that…Anonymous has nailed down the ideal of the 21st century, a challenge, a gauntlet, if you will, and it’s up to YOU to pick it up.  I’m already doing my thing….now, on that.

While I agree with this, so whole-heartedly it hurts, there’s a fuzzy and circuitous route between what Anonymous wants, and what a lot of people say Anonymous wants.  Myself included.  That’s why I just bolded it, and didn’t edit it much.  As this activity, this battle, this, frankly, war for all that is good and proper and such, goes on; expect to see the name Anonymous again, and again, attached to more brilliance and b.s than Banksy.   So keep the following in mind…

On Posting In The Name of Anonymous

To My Fellow Anons, Members of the Press, and Random Passers-by,

I am an individual. I am writing this statement. I do not represent Anonymous. In fact, no one does; the operative word there being “one.” No statement or action made by a single individual can be claimed as a statement or action of Anonymous.

So, two things:

First, if you feel like writing a personal manifesto about what Anonymous is, don’t. You’re wrong. Stop trying to portray a collective in terms of your own beliefs.

Second, statements or actions undertaken collaboratively by a group of Anons can take up the banner of Anonymous…if they so choose. Why? Plurality. “I am anonymous.” “We are Anonymous.” Note the distinct (and intentional) lack of capitalization in the first example. The first is an adjective, the second is a name. This is why we have an IRC channel. Collaborate there, announce group consensus here. Result: less raeg, more lulz.

If you can follow those guidelines, then carry on.

If not, do us all a favor: Shut. The Hell. Up.

Thank you.

I am anonymous.

I am one.

I do forgive.

I have an eidetic memory.*

Expecto Patronum.

Creative Commons Attribution
All content on this website is automatically licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution license. You are free to redistribute and/or remix it, but you have to credit the author, or, if the author is unknown (“Anonymous”), place a backlink to the corresponding page on AnonNews and attribute it to “Anonymous”.

* too funny.   The internet never forgets, because no one never forgets and no one is Anonymous.  Or some such.  Really…nowadays…it’s all out there.  So forgiveness is necessary, as forgetfulness is a lie.

Looks like this is a steady issue to address, as this “I am anonymous, we are Anonymous, wait, who’s on first?”…and speaking of issues…Anonymous on them.

Anonymous || Note to journalists

Attention Journalists: If you are writing a story, and have come to this website to do research, or pull a quote — stop. slow down. read.

Read the big blue highlighted section at the top of the screen:


AnonNews uses an open-posting concept. Anyone can post to the site, and moderators will approve relevant posts. No censorship takes place!
For information, edits, moderator applications, and everything else join the IRC channel or visit info@anonnews.org. Press can contact press@anonnews.org. We are not an official press platform, but we’d gladly answer questions about AnonNews, or, more broadly, get you in touch with other Anons. Apologies if it takes a while before you get a response, someone felt the urge to send an e-mail bomb.
AnonNews will very soon be updated. There will be a cleaner interface, an improved comment system, and a voting system for press releases. The guidelines will also become easier to read and clearer.


There have been several news articles recently suggesting that Anonymous is taking a very specific political stance regarding the events in Wisconsin. While some Anons are undoubtedly passionate about this issue, it would be a mistake to report that Anonymous is targeting the Koch brothers, or are even uniform in their opinion of collective bargaining rights of public employees at the state level.

Perhaps it might make more sense to you if you simply add a press release here at AnonNews, and see how easy it is to make a pronouncement on behalf of Anonymous?

Please recognize that as Anonymous’ brand has aquired legitimacy, opportunists have and will continue to try to tie their personal political agendas to the movement.

A handy bullet list guide for visiting journalists

  • Anonymous has no official position on abortion
  • Anonymous has no official position on tax policy
  • Anonymous has no official position on health care
  • Anonymous has no official position on collective bargaining agreements
  • Anonymous has no official position on campaign finance reform
  • Anonymous has no official position on the Tea Party
  • Anonymous has no official position on the Democratic Party
  • Anonymous has no official position on the Republican Party
  • Anonymous has no official position on the Green Party
  • Anonymous has no official position on global warming
  • Anonymous has no official position on off-shore drilling
  • Anonymous has no official position on budget deficits
  • Anonymous has no official position on George Soros
  • Anonymous has no official position on the Koch brothers
  • Anonymous has no official position on Fox News
  • Anonymous has no official position on MSNBC
  • Anonymous has no official position on CNN
  • Anonymous has no official position on NAFTA
  • Anonymous has no official position on the IMF or World Bank
  • Anonymous has no official position on Wall Street
  • Anonymous has no official position on entitlement programs
  • Anonymous has no official position on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan
  • Anonymous has a very fucking official position on LULZ

Creative Commons Attribution
All content on this website is automatically licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution license. You are free to redistribute and/or remix it, but you have to credit the author, or, if the author is unknown (“Anonymous”), place a backlink to the corresponding page on AnonNews and attribute it to “Anonymous”.

Now with cool logo.

Here’s the thing about this…on everything Anonymous actually gives a shit about, I’m with them 100%.  Without the lulz, there is little point to some things.

As to other issues, who cares what I think, this is about being anonymous.

As to the final clue…let’s make it clear…

Clarification of Anonymous

A final clarification of Anonymous to demonstrate our lack of definition:

We are an anonymous collective, there are two parts to this and everyone needs to remember that.

As an anonymous collective our group has an array of properties that must be understood:

  1. We cannot be attacked.
    1. It is literally impossible to attack Anonymous. Any attack upon an individual is not an attack upon the whole. Any attack upon any Anonymous related site is not an attack upon the whole. All attacks upon individuals receive respite. All individuals who fall in attacks upon individuals will be replaced by more than who stood before. Attacking individuals is made at minimum difficult and at best impossible by our application of anonymity.
    2. “Beneath this mask there is an idea, and ideas are bullet-proof”
  2. We have no leader.
    1. There is no hierarchical structure. In terms of physical metaphors for structure we can reference states of physical matter. A solid would be a representation of a definite structure such as a dictatorship in terms of government. A liquid would demonstrate cases in which structure is freely manipulated such as a democracy in terms of government. A gas would demonstrate cases in which there is zero structure, and all individuals merely drift.
    2. Anonymous is none of these. We are plasma. We are given unique life through our lack of connection, we have no structure, and through drive and energy of our members we are given life beyond the controlling forces around us. We are the state which cannot be contained.
  3. Anonymous is merely a name.
    1. We are a named group. That is it. We do not keep a membership list for the obvious reason of being anonymous. Anyone can participate in our actions. We are not responsible for the actions of any individual, there is no one to take that responsibility but that individual himself. Anonymous is the mask, and our actions speak for themselves.

This is everything that Anonymous is. Nothing more. The actions of the group come to characterize the group itself. We will allow those actions to speak for themselves. Stop calling us a hacktivist group, stop calling us vigilantes. We are Anonymous. Stop trying to define it.

A final definition of a MEMBER OF Anonymous:

  1. We wear masks not invisibility cloaks.
    1. There’s a difference.
  2. Our actions characterize the whole.
    1. While Anonymous is not responsible for the actions taken by individuals, it is still characterized by those actions.

Evolution. We have become mock-absorbed into America’s culture and we need to properly define ourselves so that there is no confusion about what we are (who we are does not matter whatsoever). As we do so we need to build systems which allow what we’ve created to work effectively. Below is a list of systems we should develop in order to scale our group effectively:

To construct:

  1. In the name of Anonymous
    1. We need a system which allows all individuals to post actions they have taken in the name of group. It must not display any type of identity, only what each individual did and the time at which it was done. We can merge similar actions at similar times (DDoS participation) into singular log sections. Just need a table for it. Addition of an up/down vote allows for demonstration of how much the collective supports the action any individual takes.
    2. Reason: Demonstration of what actions Anonymous is taking, and demonstration of what all of the individuals within the group are doing while maintaining our anonymonity. This way there can be no debate on what actions are our actions. Everything anyone does under the name of Anonymous is action we have taken. The population and magnitude of the actions weight the amount they characterize the group.
  2. Unification
    1. Either organize or merge the array of Anonymous related sites. Create some sort of hub or clear network out of them. We are currently in a constant state of disarray.
  3. Openness
    1. We are not trying to be some private club, this would completely defeat our purpose. We need to publicly state how to join and participate in the actions we are taking.

Summary: We are a decentralized anonymous collective, and above is how this characterizes us. All members need to understand what they are a part of. Every action that is taken under the name of Anonymous is an action by Anonymous and we have hit the point where we are taking action on a global scale and every time someone pulls stupid shit and we make a big deal out of it makes the whole group look like a huge joke**. The strength of any voice is merely that which we give it.

We are Anonymous

We do not forgive.

We do not forget.

We are everywhere

We are nowhere

doesn’t need to

Additional Statement:

Magnanimous and your statement about a joint operation between your group and Anonymous: Anonymous cannot participate in joint operations; with anyone. We are everyone. You are a portion of Anonymous. We act as one. Cease using a separate title. The only possible implementation of a different title is in order to take claim for your actions; making you a disgusting little group that requires credit for the actions you take. Sit down, but continue to speak up.

Creative Commons Attribution
All content on this website is automatically licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution license. You are free to redistribute and/or remix it, but you have to credit the author, or, if the author is unknown (“Anonymous”), place a backlink to the corresponding page on AnonNews and attribute it to “Anonymous”.

So, there ya go.   Forgiveness now negotiable, you know how it is for Anonymous.  ** (for the lulz, catz).

Curious world we live in, shame if something happened to it.  Let’s make sure that doesn’t happen, shall we?