New definition of anti-Semite announced by AIPAC

Glenn Greenwald latest:

Look at what Josh Block told Politico about what makes someone an anti-Semite:
As a progressive Democrat, I am convinced that on issues as important as the US-Israel alliance and the threat posed by Iran’s nuclear program, there is no room for uncivil discourse or name calling, like ‘Israel Firster or ‘Likudnik’, and policy or political rhetoric that is hostile to Israel, or suggests that Iran has no nuclear weapons program, has no place in the mainstream Democratic party discourse. I also believe that when it occurs, progressive institutions, have a responsibility not to tolerate such speech or arguments.
So according to Block, you are not allowed (unless you want to be found guilty of anti-Semitism) to use “policy rhetoric that is hostile to Israel” or — more amazingly — even to “suggest that Iran has no nuclear weapons program.” Those ideas are strictly off limits, declares the former AIPAC spokesman.

Continue ReadingNew definition of anti-Semite announced by AIPAC

Proposed Massachusetts law would require corporate responsibility

A new law affecting Massachusetts corporations has been proposed to require corporations to be more than money-makers:

The Code for Corporate Citizenship (the "Code") would amend Section 8,30 (a)(3) of the Massachusetts Business Corporations Act which now requires corporate directors only to act "in a manner the director reasonably believes to be in the best interests of the corporation." The Code will change this duty to add 28 words, "but not at the expense of the environment, human rights, public health and safety, dignity of employees and the welfare of the communities in which the coproration operates."

Continue ReadingProposed Massachusetts law would require corporate responsibility

Conservative Fantasy Role Playing

I wonder sometimes how a modern conservative maintains. Romney has won the New Hampshire primary.  All the buzz now is how he’s going to have a much tougher fight in South Carolina, primarily because of the religious and social conservatives who will see him as “not conservative enough.”  There is a consortium of social conservatives meeting this week in Texas to discuss ways to stop him, to elevate someone more to their liking to the nomination.  And right there I have to wonder at what it means anymore to be a conservative. I grew up, probably as many people my age did, thinking of conservatism as essentially penurious and a bit militaristic.  Stodgy, stuffy, proper.  But mainly pennypinching.  A tendency to not do something rather than go forward with something that might not be a sure thing. I suppose some of the social aspect was there, too, but in politics that didn’t seem important.  I came of age with an idea of fiscal conservatism as the primary trait. That doesn’t square with the recent past.  The current GOP—say since Ronny Reagan came to power—has been anything but fiscally conservative, although what they have spent money on has lent them an aura of responsible, hardnosed governance.   Mainly the military, but also subsidies for businesses.  But something has distorted them since 1981 and has turned them into bigger government spenders than the Democrats ever were.  (This is not open to dispute, at least not when broken down by administrations.  Republican presidents have overseen massive increases in the deficit as opposed to Democratic administrations that have as often overseen sizable decreases in the deficit, even to the point of balancing the federal budget.  You may interpret or spin this any way you like, but voting trends seem to support that the choices Republican presidents have made in this regard have been supported by Republican congressmen even after said presidents have left office.) [More . . . ]

Continue ReadingConservative Fantasy Role Playing

Name the largest city in North America prior to 1790.

Name the largest city in North America prior to 1790. I'm betting that you named one of the biggest cities list on this result from the 1790 U.S. census, which indicates that New York only had 33,000 people and Boston only had 18,000 people. You probably didn't mention the settlement of Cahokia, Illinois, located just east of St. Louis, Missouri.   An article titled "America's Lost City" in the December 25, 2011 issue of Science indicates that Cahokia was a "large urban complex," perhaps home to as many as 50,000 people.  Cahokia was "in its heyday" in the 12th century, and it was "by far the largest concentration of people north of Mexico until the late 18th century."  Although this excellent article in Science is available online only to subscribers, you can access this recent article on Cahokia by National Geographic.

Continue ReadingName the largest city in North America prior to 1790.