Liberal Youth: Archive

“

Hundreds of US legal scholars have signed an open letter to the Obama administration, arguing that the conditions of confinement endured by Mr Manning at Quantico may have amounted to torture. Following worldwide calls for an end to the abusive treatment, Manning was moved to a facility in Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, where his conditions are said to have improved. The US military conducted an internal investigation into the allegations of mistreatment at Quantico. The preliminary results of this investigation found that Mr Manning was improperly placed on “prevention of injury” status, against the recommendations of qualified medical personnel. However, these findings were ultimately overturned by a military prison official who was implicated by the report. Therefore, the US military’s internal investigation has been compromised by clear conflicts of interest. This so-called “prevention of injury” status was the justification for a number of extraordinary measures, such as denying Mr Manning comfortable bedding and not allowing him to exercise.

By preventing UN officials from carrying out their duties, the United States government risks undermining support for the work of the United Nations elsewhere, particularly its mandate to investigate allegations of torture and human rights abuses. In order to uphold the rights guaranteed to Bradley Manning under international human rights law and the US constitution, it is imperative that the United Nations special rapporteur be allowed to properly investigate evidence of rights abuses. PFC Manning has a right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment. People accused of crimes must not be subjected to any form of punishment before being brought to trial.

Finally, we in the European Union are totally opposed to the death penalty. And we certainly do not understand why an alleged whistleblower is being threatened with the death penalty, or the possibility of life in prison. We also question whether Bradley Manning’s right to due process has been upheld, as he has now spent over 17 months in pre-trial confinement.

Furthermore, Bradley Manning should not be forced to waive his right against self-incrimination in order to speak with anyone who seeks to investigate evidence of abuse in their official capacity.

” —

Open Letter to the U.S. Government From 54 European Parliament Members (via manicchill)

This. Once again, a must read.

Nov 30, 201111 notes

The Nigerian senate has passed a bill banning same-sex marriages, defying a threat from Britain to withhold aid from nations violating gay rights.

The bill by Africa’s most populous nation calls for a 14-year sentence for anyone convicted of homosexuality. Anyone who aids or “abets” same-sex unions faces 10 years in prison, a provision that could target rights groups.

It goes to the nation’s House of Representatives for a vote before President Goodluck Jonathan can sign it into law.

“It would place a wide range of people at risk of criminal sanctions, including human rights defenders and anyone else — including friends, families and colleagues — who stands up for the rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender people in Nigeria,” Amnesty International said in a statement.

Nov 30, 20111 note

#LGBT #gay rights #Nigeria #Global Affairs

“

Furthermore, Bradley Manning should not be forced to waive his right against self-incrimination in order to speak with anyone who seeks to investigate evidence of abuse in their official capacity.

” —Open Letter to the U.S. Government From 54 European Parliament Members (via manicchill)

Nov 30, 201111 notes

“I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations which dare already to challenge our government to a trial by strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country.” —Thomas Jefferson

Nov 29, 201154 notes

Nov 28, 201124 notes

Nov 28, 201158 notes

Nov 27, 20111,437 notes

seriouslyamerica:

truth-has-a-liberal-bias:

Senator Bernie Sanders recently introduced a bill to save the U.S. Postal Service.

“In the midst of this terrible rececession, it makes no sense to lay off 100,000 postal workers - many of whom are veterans. While the Postal Service does face financial problems because of the decline of first class mail and the general impact of the recession, its major financial issue has to do with unfair accounting practices which require them to put huge amonts of money into future retiree health benefits. Further, we must allow the Postal Service to compete effectively in the digital age by being able to expand the services they provide.”

Watch a short video from a Vermont town meeting »

Bernie Sanders is such a champ.

Nov 27, 2011235 notes

Do you even understand what liberal means? Whatever you think it means is a lie sold to you. You're either misinformed or a future Democrat who believes they're a liberal. If anything, you're a neo-liberal with blind allegiance to politicians that suit you. For example: Newt Gingrich is a neo-liberal. You may not agree with everything he says but, for the most part, you share many views with him.

It depends what kind of “liberal” we’re talking about. Newt is a neo-liberal when it comes to international relations. However, he is not a liberal when one looks at the modern political spectrum.

Nov 25, 2011

alexholzbach:

Calling taxes “stealing” is a bit of an exaggeration, wouldn’t you say? Actually, I take that back. It’s more of a lie.

-liberalyouth.

You may be trolling me, sir, and if you are then I applaud you. But I’m going to assume you’re serious when you say this.

Do you like logic? I love looking at true premises and following them to their true conclusion. Let’s look at one real fast:

Theft is the illegal taking of another person’s property without that person’s permission or consent.

Taxation is not voluntary and therefore I have no choice to consent or refuse.

Because I cannot refuse, the government takes from me.

Read #1 again: the government takes my property without my consent (i.e., theft).

Taxation is theft. If is not an exaggeration and it is not a lie. When someone - including the government - takes from you without consent, it is theft.

And this isn’t even considering the fact that government threatens you with violence for trying to protect your own private property.

I can assure you, I’m no troll.

But if you think that a government taxing its people constitutes theft, then you, my friend, are no fan of this democracy.

When the Constitution was ratified, the people gave Congress the power to tax the people. To quote Section 8 of the Constitution:

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes.

I’m afraid it’s not theft when the people have allotted the government this power. If you don’t like it, work to change it (Which I’m sure you’re doing)!

Elect Ron Paul. Get an entirely libertarian Congress. Pass an amendment banning taxation.

Really, go for it.

But until that happens, taxation is, in no way, theft.

Nov 25, 20116 notes

#Taxes

alexholzbach:

liberalyouth:

68% of millionaires polled want taxes to be raised on millionaires.

64% of Americans want taxes to be raised on millionaires.

Just fucking do it already.

If these “patriotic” millionaires would like higher taxes, they can donate to the United States Treasury! Unfortunately, though, each and every one of them asked to do so refused.

So, they aren’t willing to give up their money unless everyone else does - and that’s exactly what they want to do. “No, I won’t donate my money, I want the government to force everyone like me to pay!”

These people refuse to be gracious donors and instead want the state to use aggressive force and violence to steal money from people. How noble.

It is noble. They are making a statement. To simply donate their own money would not solve the problem of the incredibly low tax rate on people such as themselves. One even said, “Taxes are not charity… . They’re not voluntary. They are something that society commits to do together.”

Exactly. The whole point of this movement was to illustrate that not all millionaires want lower taxes, which is what much on the right have portrayed.

If they donated their money right there, the movement would probably be over. Everyone would just be like, “Well, they paid what they wanted to, we can all go home now.” But the idea is to make it so that there will be a continuous solution to the problem of our debt by raising the tax rate for all millionaires. Plus, a few thousand dollars from each of them would not have done much to the deficit, while raising the tax rate would.

Nov 25, 20116 notes

#Taxes #original

alexholzbach:

confessionsofateenagepundit:

RAISING TAXES RAISES REVENUE AND LOWERS DEFICIT.

How hard is that to understand? Really, people!

You’re most certainly correct in this statement. On the flip side:

CUTTING SPENDING REDUCES EXPENSES AND LOWERS DEFICIT.

Here we have two deficit-cutting ideas, which we can both agree cut the deficit. If we make more money, we have more money. If we spend less of our money, we have more money. This is basic.

Now, here’s the difference. In your scenario, the government proposes lowering the deficit by stealing from its citizens; literally threatening them with violent force to give them money. My idea, on the other hand, proposes the government spending less money (and therefore stealing much less from the people).

Why is it that the left generally prefers stealing more from the people than simply cutting back on what they spend?

Calling taxes “stealing” is a bit of an exaggeration, wouldn’t you say? Actually, I take that back. It’s more of a lie.

The idea of the social contract is that the government fulfills its goals (in this case, the preamble of the Constitution), and in return, the people give up some of their rights (the right to keep all of their money). If we had no taxes, the government would not be able to function; We saw this under the Articles of Confederation.

Going back to the original point of contention: Yes, us on the left do tend to propose increasing government spending and, in turn, taxes. This is because we do not spend enough money on the right causes, and this results in the citizens not being truly protected by their government. The federal government has a responsibility to ensure the “general welfare”, but how can it claim to be doing so when we have people going bankrupt and dying in this country all because they were unlucky enough to come down with a serious illness. Better yet, it probably had nothing to do with luck. Maybe the person grew up poor and couldn’t afford preventative care from childhood onwards?

Actually though, us on the left do like to propose cuts as well as tax increases. We should cut defense spending. We’ve built engines and planes that the military doesn’t even want, just so that the defense contractors can remain rich. But, being a Ron Paul fan, I’m sure you agree with me there.

You have to understand though, the reason that tax increases are okay right now is because of the historically low effective tax rate in America. The top income bracket is currently paying less than 40% as a baseline, and most pay much less than that due to capital gains only being taxed at 15%.

Warren Buffet pays less of his income in taxes than his secretary does.

GE got a $3+ billion tax rebate last year.

Those are problems.

Hopefully, in my ranting, my point got across.

Nov 25, 201110 notes

#Taxes #original

“Why are liberals who want the government to regulate their health care upset that the government wants to regulate their internet?” —

Judge Andrew Napolitano (via good-gollymissmolly)

Because the internet is not the healthcare system. With health care, government intervention is necessary if we are to ensure that all people can have access to it. With the internet, extreme government regulation only hinders freedom of speech within the internet.

Using this example is like saying, “Conservatives want the government to regulate their lives with the police, so why don’t they want the government to regulate their guns?”

(via liberalyouth)

Government regulation does not ensure that everyone has access to it. Just ask the people in Canada and the UK and so many other nationalized health care systems that can’t get specialized surgeries because of the nationalized system.

That’s like the Soviet Union or Communist China saying, “We regulate the food supply so everyone can have bread.”

(via good-gollymissmolly)

My premise was that without government intervention, there would be no chance of everyone being able to get the healthcare that they need. Also, if we’re looking at specific examples, take France. France has the #1 health care system in the world, and it’s because of government working in conjunction with the private sector, which is what we need.

Nov 25, 2011194 notes

Play

Nov 25, 20119 notes

“Why are liberals who want the government to regulate their health care upset that the government wants to regulate their internet?” —

Judge Andrew Napolitano (via good-gollymissmolly)

Using this example is like saying, “Conservatives want the government to regulate their lives with the police, so why don’t they want the government to regulate their guns?”

Nov 25, 2011194 notes

#Conservatives #Conservative Brew

And, already there are indications that companies are interested in bringing broad actions for infringement against organizations that most people would consider perfectly legal. Advertising giant GroupM recently asked its entertainment industry customers to compile a list of “sites dedicated to infringement,” not unlike what’s found under PROTECT IP. Universal Music, Warner Bros. and Paramount were three key providers to that list, which ended up covering a large number of perfectly legitimate sites including the famed Internet Archive (widely recognized as the library for the internet). It also included numerous innovative startups that are frequently used by content creators to get their works out, such as SoundCloud and Vimeo. Even more worrisome, it included a variety of publications and blogs, including Vibe Magazine, the quintessential hip hop and R&B magazine founded by Quincy Jones, as well as Complex, a popular lifestyle magazine recently recognized as one of the most valuable startups in New York.

Even worse, it appears that Universal Music also included the personal website of one of its own top artists, 50Cent. The hiphop star has a personal website as well as a website owned by Universal Music. The personal website is much more popular… and it appeared on the infringement list. Suddenly, you can see how letting companies declare what sites are dedicated to infringement can lead to them looking to stifle speech and competition.

Similarly, Monster Cable, who has stated its support for PROTECT IP, has put together its own list of “rogue sites” and it, rather stunningly, includes sites like eBay, Craigslist, Costco and Sears. It even includes consumer rights groups like Which? in the UK, and various popular shopping search engines like PriceGrabber.

These companies clearly take an expansive view of what constitutes “dedicated to infringement,” and have no problem suggesting they would like to stop these sites. Internet companies and site owners have every right to be extremely afraid of what laws like PIPA and SOPA would do when they give much more power to these private companies to take actions that could shut down these sites, tie them up in court or merely cut off their funding and advertising.

Read this article.

The whole thing.

Just do it.

I don’t care if you don’t think you have time, because you do.

Nov 25, 2011184 notes

Nov 25, 2011716 notes

Bow before your new robot overlords.

South Korea Uses Robots to Patrol Jail

U.S. Team Pursues Army of Cyborg Beetles

Nov 25, 2011

#Robots #Science

Nov 25, 2011623 notes