The USA Oligarchy-Austerity-Schadenfreude Thread

[eyeno]

^^^The oligarchs must be slapping their sides and laughing hysterically and saying, "maybe we should raise their taxes and see what they desperately do next for a buck and a meal, this donkey semen is killin me, maybe next they will eat each other on live television."

That's been done already. Or at least simulated.

[82_28]

Wow.

Definitely deep sadness.

I'm not cut out for this place.

And, Joe Rogan, I thought you were a cool motherfucker. Turns out you'd rather observe someone literally fucking their own mother, I presume on a "Fear Factor" I hoped was long, long gone. Note, Fear Factor came out at about the same time the "wars" started. I noted as much on my blog of the day. People up in arms about torture!?!?!? Are you kidding me, was my point. You go to Fear Factor's fucking ideas for new stunt forums and people were just letting it fly.

This peeps, is a double bind made for us. It's a sifting bowl for people who pay attention. It's meant give a small wedge of the population the creeps, when you couple in a virally memed 9/11 questioner known as, Joe Rogan.

People want to see people utterly ridicule their very humanity, destroy all that is good, belittle honest people and then walk home with 50k. Hey, got 50 grand for it! W00T.

This is utterly disgusting. But more, it is deeply saddening.

[justdrew]

Man held in solitary two years without trial cannot remember ordeal
By David Edwards | Monday, January 30, 2012 10:57 EST

A New Mexico man, who expects to suffer from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) for the rest of his life, was awarded $22 million last week after he was tossed in solitary confinement for two years and never given a trial, but he remembers very little of the ordeal, Raw Story has learned.

In August of 2005, Stephen Slevin was arrested for driving while intoxicated (DWI). He spent most of the next two years in the Dona Ana County Detention Center without his case ever going before a judge.

Slevin was rarely allowed to go outside, fungus grew underneath his skin and his toenails curled around his foot because they were so long. At one point, he even had to pull his own tooth.

“He can’t really remember any of it,” Dart Society Reports’ Susan Greene, who interviewed Slevin, told Raw Story. “It’s all sort of lost in his mind, which is a typical trauma response, a pretty extreme though not unheard of trauma response.”

Attorney Matt Coyte explained to MSNBC.com that police had mistakenly believed that Slevin had stolen the car he was driving when police pulled him over and arrested him for a DWI. Slevin informed authorities that he had been depressed, but instead of getting mental help, he found himself on suicide watch in a padded cell. Three days later, he was transferred to solitary confinement.

“Their policy is to then just put [detainees with mental health issues] in solitary,” Coyte said. “He disappeared into delirium, and his mental illness was made worse by being isolated from human contact and a lack of medical care.”

“Your insanity builds. Some people holler or throw feces out their cell doors,” he continued. “Others rock back and forth under a blanket for a year or more, which is what my client did.”

Greene told Raw Story that Slevin had “about 18 months of time that he just doesn’t really remember.”

“At one point, he sort of snapped out of it. … It was like Rip Van Winkle. He just sort of woke up and realized, ‘Oh my God, I’ve been in here a long time.’”

“When you speak with him it’s like that he knows that he’s gone through this whole lawsuit,” she added. “He obviously knows that this has all happened. A lot of my reporting around solitary is to get people to explain the tedium of it, how boring it is. With Mr. Slevin, it’s the exact opposite. He has no recollection of it.”

In a short interview with KOB, Slevin said the lawsuit was “never about the money.”

“We made a statement about what happened to me,” he explained. “Prison officials were walking by me every day, watching me deteriorate. … Day after day after day, they did nothing, nothing at all, to get me any help.”

Dona Ana County officials have had little to say about the case publicly, refusing to even divulge whether any employee had been reprimanded for Slevin’s treatment. “We do not discuss personnel issues,” Dona Ana County public information director Jess Williams said.

On Friday, Williams pushed back against criticism over conditions at the jail by offering media a 45-minute tour to prove “that this is not the rat hole it has been portrayed to be.”

“The conditions in this facility are safe,” he insisted. “We work very hard to make sure the conditions in this facility are safe.”

The county has promised to appeal the verdict.

[crikkett]

http://www.nbc40.net/news/20834/

INMATE HIDES PIG IN VERMONT STATE POLICE LOGO
NBC News ( news@nbc40.net) - 2/3/12 01:11 pm


MIDDLESEX, VT (NBC) -- A cow's spot shaped in the form of a pig is plastered on about 30 Vermont State Troopers' cars.

The cow itself is part of the Vermont State Police emblem, a scene complete with mountains and a pasture.

While the image is offensive enough to have all the decals removed, many people -- including high-up elected officials -- are finding humor in it.

For Vermont state Senator John Campbell, the jokes were flying.

"It's just like 'Where's Waldo?' People say, 'where's the pig?" he said Thursday evening. "Some say, 'Give him more time,' or others say, 'Give him the artist of the year award. I think it shows a little bit of creativity."

A former police officer, Campbell said the term "pig" used to be very degrading in the force, but over the years, it has softened.

"It became more of a kind of funny thing. In fact, we used to have our football games where the state police used to play the local police and we used to call it the 'Pig Bowl,'" Campbell said.

Vermont State Police are working to identify the individual responsible for the "artistry."

Out of the force's 220 marked cruisers, 30 fell victim.

The emblems were printed at the Vermont Correctional Industries Print Shop.

"It was not anything offensive," said Campbell. "I haven't spoken to any other troops on the ground, but I would hope they would not take it as an insult."

Still, VSP said they've destroyed any remaining pig stickers.

"Now it becomes a collecter's item. I'm looking to get mine," said Campbell.

Wisecracks aside, the serious part to this story is who is going to pay to replace those decals.

"The joke unfortunately comes at the expense of the taxpayers," said Maj. William Sheets of the Vermont State Police in a press release Thursday.

"I don't think there's going to be a significant cost. From what I understand, there's not," said Campbell.

Officials from the Department of Corrections said they're working to correct the mistake and print new door stickers.

VSP said they will remove the "inappropriately modified" decals soon.

[url="http://www.disinfo.com/"][/url]

[Bruce Dazzling]

Alternate title as suggested by a friend on Facebook:

"Getting Bullish on Love: Erase Your Personality and Score the Egomaniacal Workaholic Guy of Some Article's Dreams."

How to Date a Wall Street Man
By: Samantha Daniels
Professional Matchmaker and Dating Expert, Founder and President of Samantha’s Table Matchmaking
Tuesday, 7 Feb 2012
CNBC

As a professional matchmaker with an office in New York City, many of my clients are very successful, high profile Wall Street men.

I have spent the better part of 12 years learning all of their habits, their likes and dislikes when it comes to dating, women and relationships and what they want specifically from me, when I am matching them with women.

Hence, I know, better than anyone, what makes Wall Street men tick.

Here are a few tips for the women out there who are dating or would like to be dating a man on Wall Street:

1. Be prepared to charm him out of talking about work when he first arrives to the date. Unfortunately, a lot of guys on Wall Street have a hard time leaving work at the office; it’s your job to get his mind on you and off the S & P.

2. Learn a little something about the financial markets and notice if something huge happens on a given day, negative or positive. Things like the fact that Facebook is going public is not just financial news, it’s world news and you don’t want to seem clueless if you completely missed something like that. You don’t have to become an expert but at least if you know something you can participate in a conversation with your guy. Additionally, you need to be prepared that the volatility of the markets might make your guy’s mood unpredictable, especially on a day that his personal portfolio went down dramatically.

3. While a Wall Street man tends to like a little bit of a challenge when it comes to dating, he still likes things to be convenient and easy for him. A lot of women think that if they play hard to get, they will land a Wall Street man. This is NOT the case. Yes, you should be confident and avoid being a pushover but, at the same time, you shouldn’t be difficult. You need to be accommodating or his schedule and time constraints or he will get frustrated and find another woman.

4. Tell stories that are short and sweet because the mind of a Wall Street man is always moving so rapidly and focusing on so many different things that his attention span for social stories is very short; don’t be insulted by this, just tell your stories in a way that he can listen. Save your long, draw-out stories for chit-chatting with your girlfriends.

5. Be sexy. Wall Street men tend to like women who are attractive and that other men notice when they walk in the room. This does not mean that you should look sleazy or inappropriate, this just means that you should bring your “A game” when you go out with him, whatever that is. Every man is attracted to a different look and a different type of woman so if he’s interested in you, he’s attracted to you but you need to maintain his interest by continuing to look your best.

6. Don’t get upset if he checks his BlackBerry or takes a call during a date; this is very common of a Wall Street man and has nothing to do with whether or not he likes you. The advice that I give Wall Street men about their need to bring business onto the date is that they should forewarn you when they first sit down that a call or a message is coming and apologize in advance. Albeit the fact that this would be an easy thing to do, they won’t always remember to do it, so don’t get offended.

7. Don’t get upset if your Wall Street guy isn’t as romantic as you would like him to be. Men, by nature are never as romantic as women want them to be, but Wall Street men especially are very business-like and think practically not romantically. If you want him to be more romantic, you are probably going to have to lead the way, and teach him what you want.

8. Wall Street men tend to be attracted to women who are in industries other than Wall Street. This does not mean that if you work on Wall Street, you won’t end up with a Wall Street man, however his eye tends to be looking towards non-Wall Street women. Hence, if you are a Wall Street woman and you are interested in dating a Wall Street man, you need to make sure that you let him and others see that you are not all business all the time, that you have a soft, feminine, family-oriented and fun side when you are not in the office.

9. When it comes to getting you a gift, a lot of Wall Street men are all about extravagance over thoughtfulness. If you are a decadent woman, this will work well for you, but if you are a woman who prefers a man to be thoughtful over spending lavishly on something you don’t really want, you might be disappointed. This does not mean that a Wall Street man can’t be thoughtful, many are. However, a lot of Wall Street men are so busy making lots of money, that when they think to buy you something, they don’t care about the cost as long as it’s easy to get for you.

10. Don’t get upset if your plans get scheduled by his assistant. Even though, it is dating 101 for a man to pick up the phone and call you for a date or in this day and age to text you for one, many Wall Street men are so reliant on their assistants that they prefer to have you on their schedule just like a business meeting. Do not take offense to this; this does not mean that he likes you all the less, it just means that he likes to be organized and efficient and his assistant helps him accomplish this.

Edited to fix the link.

[JackRiddler]

1. Hot outfit. Tits. Thrust your sex at him.

2. Listen to business spot on radio news so you don't look surprised when he yammers some shit about the S&P.

3. Tits. Thrust your sex. Make dinner. Clean up. Be available.

4. Treat him and yourself like you are both worthless morons, because you are. Shut up. Shut the fuck up, already.

5. Tits. Thrust your sex. Duh.

6. In bed, be a spitfire. Everywhere else, be an utter sub. No, even more than that.

7. Take all his shit and remember, money. Money money money.

8. Be a sub. Don't challenge him by knowing too much, or being good at anything he knows something about. Accommodate in all ways. Make dinner. Clean up. Cater to his completely unfounded belief that he is a god among the sub-sub losers.

9. Remember, money. Money money money.

10. He thinks you're a tool for his pleasure, just as his secretary is a tool for work. You should return the favor. Instrumentalize. He's a thoughtless, worthless moron with a dick and a lot of money. Remember, money. Money money money.

11. First good chance you get: murder him. Then yourself. Take it slow, do it smart. Observe for a few nights so you know how well he sleeps and what his habits are, what would be the right time to do it. Give no warning. Choose the right tools. Fatten him up, let him drink, fuck him beforehand. When it's time, show no mercy. Murder him. Then yourself. If you have access and facility with explosives, strap these to yourself and murder him in his office, along with as many of his colleagues you can get.

12. Oops. Just a daydream. But here comes the next crash! And voila: He was bullshitting you, as he was bullshitting himself. Turns out he's not as liquid as either of you thought. Tough world.

13. Under no circumstances may you kill yourself without murdering him first.

[justdrew]

Louisiana Dem’s bill would rename Gulf of Mexico the ‘Gulf of America’
A Democratic state Representative from Louisiana has put forward an unusual proposal: renaming the Gulf of Mexico to “Gulf of America.”

House Bill 150 (PDF), put forward by Rep. Steve Holland (D), was first spotted by the Best of New Orleans blog. It’s being considered by the House Marine Resources Committee, and would take effect on July 1 if it is passed.

“For all official purposes within the State of Mississippi, the body of water that is located directly south of Hancock, Harrison and Jackson Counties shall be known as the ‘Gulf of America,’” it reads.

The odd proposal led the blog to wonder whether whether the idea came from Holland. Comedy Central host Stephen Colbert, they noted, proposed in 2010 the Gulf be renamed, saying, “We broke it, we bought it.”

"Gulf of America" bill's author says it's "nothing but a spamalot bill" | Blog of New Orleans | Republicans ... and all the hell they want to talk about is running illegal immigrants out, and drug testing welfare and Medicaid recipients — all superfluous crap as far as I'm concerned. So I thought I'd just join them with a bill to chew on, saying the Gulf of America instead of the Gulf of Mexico, since everything Mexican and Hispanic is 'so bad.' Nothing but a 'spamalot' bill is all it is. Tongue-in-cheek."

http://www.bestofneworleans.com/blogofneworleans/archives/2012/02/09/gulf-of-america-bills-author-says-is-its-nothing-but-a-spamalot-bill

[Bruce Dazzling]

1. Hot outfit. Tits. Thrust your sex at him.

2. Listen to business spot on radio news so you don't look surprised when he yammers some shit about the S&P.

3. Tits. Thrust your sex. Make dinner. Clean up. Be available.

4. Treat him and yourself like you are both worthless morons, because you are. Shut up. Shut the fuck up, already.

5. Tits. Thrust your sex. Duh.

6. In bed, be a spitfire. Everywhere else, be an utter sub. No, even more than that.

7. Take all his shit and remember, money. Money money money.

8. Be a sub. Don't challenge him by knowing too much, or being good at anything he knows something about. Accommodate in all ways. Make dinner. Clean up. Cater to his completely unfounded belief that he is a god among the sub-sub losers.

9. Remember, money. Money money money.

10. He thinks you're a tool for his pleasure, just as his secretary is a tool for work. You should return the favor. Instrumentalize. He's a thoughtless, worthless moron with a dick and a lot of money. Remember, money. Money money money.

11. First good chance you get: murder him. Then yourself. Take it slow, do it smart. Observe for a few nights so you know how well he sleeps and what his habits are, what would be the right time to do it. Give no warning. Choose the right tools. Fatten him up, let him drink, fuck him beforehand. When it's time, show no mercy. Murder him. Then yourself. If you have access and facility with explosives, strap these to yourself and murder him in his office, along with as many of his colleagues you can get.

12. Oops. Just a daydream. But here comes the next crash! And voila: He was bullshitting you, as he was bullshitting himself. Turns out he's not as liquid as either of you thought. Tough world.

13. Under no circumstances may you kill yourself without murdering him first.

[thurnundtaxis]

Vigilanteism and Private Security Forces are trending now in Detroit:

911 IS A JOKE
Detroit citizens no longer rely on police as self-defense killings skyrocket


The people of Detroit are taking no prisoners.

Justifiable homicide in the city shot up 79 percent in 2011 from the previous year, as citizens in the long-suffering city armed themselves and took matters into their own hands. The local rate of self-defense killings now stands 2,200 percent above the national average. Residents, unable to rely on a dwindling police force to keep them safe, are fighting back against the criminal scourge on their own. And they’re offering no apologies.

“We got to have a little Old West up here in Detroit. That’s what it’s gonna take,” Detroit resident Julia Brown told The Daily.

The last time Brown, 73, called the Detroit police, they didn’t show up until the next day. So she applied for a permit to carry a handgun and says she’s prepared to use it against the young thugs who have taken over her neighborhood, burglarizing entire blocks, opening fire at will and terrorizing the elderly with impunity.

“I don’t intend to be one of their victims,” said Brown, who has lived in Detroit since the late 1950s. “I’m planning on taking one out.”

How it got this bad in Detroit has become a point of national discussion. Violent crime settled into the city’s bones decades ago, but recently, as the numbers of police officers have plummeted and police response times have remained distressingly high, citizens have taken to dealing with things themselves.

In this city of about 700,000 people, the number of cops has steadily fallen, from about 5,000 a decade ago to fewer than 3,000 today. Detroit homicides — the second-highest per capita in the country last year, according to the FBI — rose by 10 percent in 2011 to 344 people.

On a bleak day in January, a group of funeral directors wearied by the violence drove a motorcade of hearses through the city streets in protest.

Average police response time for priority calls in the city, according to the latest data available, is 24 minutes. In comparable cities across the country, it is well under 10 minutes.

Citizens like Brown feel they have been left with little choice but to take the law into their own hands.

The number of justifiable homicides, in which residents use deadly force in self-defense, jumped from 19 in 2010 to 34 last year — a 79 percent rise — according to newly released city data.

Signs that vigilantism was taking hold in the city came earlier, around Memorial Day 2009, when former federal agent Alvin Davis decided he’d had enough of the break-ins at his mother’s home on the east side. She called the police again and again, but the brazen robberies continued. Davis, then a 32-year-old Immigration and Customs Enforcement officer, snapped.

Prosecutors said he spent days chasing and harassing the teenagers who were allegedly robbing his mother, even shoving his federally issued firearm into one of their mouths. No one was killed, but by the time he was done, Davis had racked up charges of unlawful imprisonment and assault. In August 2010, he was convicted and sentenced to four years in prison.

But many residents in his mother’s Jefferson-Chalmers neighborhood are sympathetic to Davis, whose case is on appeal.

“He basically did what a lot of us wished we could do,” said Ken Gray, 58, who lives down the street from Davis’ mother.

One high-ranking official in the county legal system, speaking to The Daily, said the rise in justifiable homicides mirrors a local court system that’s increasingly lenient of the practice.

“It’s a lot more acceptable now to get your own retribution,” the official said. “And the justice system in the city is a lot more understanding if people do that. It‘s becoming a part of the culture.”

Detroiters are arming themselves with shotguns and handguns and buying guard dogs. Anything to take care of their own. And privately, residents say neighborhood watch groups in Detroit are widely armed.

“It’s like the militiamen who stepped up way back when. That’s where the neighborhood folks are," said James “Jackrabbit” Jackson, a 63-year-old retired Detroit cop who has patrolled the Jefferson-Chalmers neighborhood for years.

“They’re ready to fight,” Jackson said. “We don’t hardly see police anymore.”

The city’s wealthier enclaves have hired private security firms. Intimidating men in armored trucks patrol streets lined with gracious old homes in a scene more likely seen in Mexico City than the United States.

That kind of paid protection can run residents anywhere from $10 to $200 per month, and companies say business is good.

“We’re booming,” said Dale Brown, the owner of Threat Management Group, which along with Recon Security patrols neighborhoods like Palmer Woods in black Hummers.

“We’re paramilitary, but we’re positive. I’m not a vigilante. I’m an agent of change.”

The Detroit Police Department, grappling with deep funding cuts in a city with a spiraling budget crisis, acknowledges that response times are high and says it is working on a plan to lower them. But a spokeswoman for the department insists the rise in justifiable homicides is unrelated.

“It’s not about police response time because often the act has already taken place by the time the police are called,” said Sgt. Eren Stephens. She said citizens have a right to defend themselves.

“Anytime a life is lost, we’re concerned,” she said. “But we can‘t be on every corner in front of every home. And we know that there are citizens who will do what they have to do to protect themselves.”

That’s the terrifying position in which Kevin Early found himself in November when he was held up at gunpoint outside his home in the upper-middle-class Rosedale Park area. Neighbors called the police, but it was 25 minutes before an officer arrived.

Early, the director of the criminal justice studies program at the University of Michigan’s Dearborn campus, reasoned with the men for more than 20 minutes before he sensed they were about to shoot him in the head — then he ran. As his attackers fled in the opposite direction, neighbors emerged from the street’s stately homes with shotguns.

“All I could think of was my daughter coming home,” Early said. “I didn’t want her to see me shot dead.”

Weeks later, Early packed up his home and left Detroit. He hired Threat Management to supervise the move.

“Where else do the police come to your house after you’ve been robbed and ask you, ‘Why did you call us?’ ”

http://www.thedaily.com/page/2012/02/05 ... antes-1-5/

[Allegro]

.
Meet the Shameless Plutocrats Choking What’s Left of Our Democracy
By Bill Moyers | AlterNet | Feb 14, 2012

The race for the White House may cost more than two billion dollars. What’s getting trampled into dust are the voices of people who aren't rich.

Watching what’s happening to our democracy is like watching the cruise ship Costa Concordia founder and sink slowly into the sea off the coast of Italy, as the passengers, shorn of life vests, scramble for safety as best they can, while the captain trips and falls conveniently into a waiting life boat.

We are drowning here, with gaping holes torn into the hull of the ship of state from charges detonated by the owners and manipulators of capital. Their wealth has become a demonic force in politics. Nothing can stop them. Not the law, which has been written to accommodate them. Not scrutiny -- they have no shame. Not a decent respect for the welfare of others -- the people without means, their safety net shredded, left helpless before events beyond their control.

The obstacles facing the millennial generation didn’t just happen. Take an economy skewed to the top, low wages and missing jobs, predatory interest rates on college loans: these are politically engineered consequences of government of, by, and for the one percent. So, too, is our tax code the product of money and politics, influence and favoritism, lobbyists and the laws they draft for rented politicians to enact.

Here’s what we’re up against. Read it and weep: “America’s Plutocrats Play the Political Ponies.” That’s a headline in “Too Much,” an Internet publication from the Institute for Policy Studies that describes itself as “an online weekly on excess and inequality.”

Yes, the results are in and our elections have replaced horse racing as the sport of kings. Only these kings aren’t your everyday poobahs and potentates. These kings are multi-billionaire, corporate moguls who by the divine right, not of God, but the United States Supreme Court and its Citizens United decision, are now buying politicians like so much pricey horseflesh. All that money pouring into super PACs, much of it from secret sources: merely an investment, should their horse pay off in November, in the best government money can buy.

They’re shelling out fortunes' worth of contributions. Look at just a few of them: Mitt Romney’s hedge fund pals Robert Mercer, John Paulson, Julian Robertson and Paul Singer – each of whom has ponied up a million or more for the super PAC called “Restore Our Future” -- as in, "Give us back the go-go days, when predators ruled Wall Street like it was Jurassic Park.”

Then there's casino boss Sheldon Adelson and his wife Miriam, fiercely pro-Israel and anti-President Obama's Mideast policy. Initially, they placed their bets on Newt Gingrich, who says on his first day in office he’d move the American Embassy in Israel to Jerusalem, a decision that would thrill the Adelsons but infuriate Palestinians and the rest of the Muslim world. Together, the Adelsons have contributed ten million to Newt's “Winning Our Future” super PAC.

Cowboy billionaire Foster Friess, a born-again Christian who made his fortune herding mutual funds instead of cattle, has been bankrolling the “Red White and Blue Fund” super PAC of Rick Santorum, with whom he shares a social right-wing agenda. Dark horse Ron Paul has relied on the kindness of PayPal founder Peter Thiel, a like-minded libertarian in favor of the smallest government possible, who gave $900,000 to Paul’s “Endorse Liberty” super PAC. Hollywood’s Jeffrey Katzenberg has so far emptied his wallet to the tune of a cool two million for the pro-Obama super PAC, “Priorities USA Action.”

President Obama -- who kept his distance from Priorities USA Action and used to call the money unleashed by Citizens United a “threat to democracy” -- has declared if you can't beat 'em, join 'em. He urges his wealthy supporters to please go ahead and back the super PAC. "Our campaign has to face the reality of the law as it stands," his campaign manager Jim Messina said. To do otherwise, he added, would be to "unilaterally disarm" in the face of all those Republican super PAC millions. So much for Obama’s stand on campaign finance reform – everybody else is doing it, he seems to say, so why don’t you show me the money, too?

When all is said and done, this race for the White House may cost more than two billion dollars. What’s getting trampled into dust are the voices of people who aren't rich, not to mention what's left of our democracy. As Democratic pollster Peter Hart told The New Yorker magazine’s Jane Mayer, “It’s become a situation where the contest is how much you can destroy the system, rather than how much you can make it work. It makes no difference if you have a ‘D’ or an ‘R’ after your name. There’s no sense that this is about democracy, and after the election you have to work together, and knit the country together.”

These gargantuan super PAC contributions are not an end in themselves. They are the means to gain control of government – and the nation state -- for a reason. The French writer and economist Frederic Bastiat said it plainly: "When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men living in society, they create for themselves, in the course of time, a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it." That’s what the super PACs are bidding on. For the rest of us, the ship may already have sailed.

Veteran journalist Bill Moyers is the host of the upcoming show “Moyers & Company,” premiering January 2012. More at http://www.billmoyers.com.

Michael Winship, senior writing fellow at Demos and president of the Writers Guild of America, East, is senior writer of the new public television series "Moyers & Company," premiering in January 2012.

[thurnundtaxis]

Also trending in Detroit, op-ed pieces promoting eugenics. Via The Detroit News:

Michigan Is Breeding Poverty
Nolan Finley

Since the national attention is on birth control, here's my idea: If we want to fight poverty, reduce violent crime and bring down our embarrassing drop-out rate, we should swap contraceptives for fluoride in Michigan's drinking water.

We've got a baby problem in Michigan. Too many babies are born to immature parents who don't have the skills to raise them, too many are delivered by poor women who can't afford them, and too many are fathered by sorry layabouts who spread their seed like dandelions and then wander away from the consequences.

Michigan's social problems and the huge costs attached to them won't recede until we embrace reproductive responsibility.

Last year, 43 percent of the babies born in Michigan were to single mothers. And even though Medicaid pays for birth control, half of the babies born here were to mothers on welfare. Eighteen percent were born to teenagers who already had at least one child. And nearly 1-in-5 new babies had mothers with no high school diploma.

In Michigan, poverty is as much a cultural problem as it is an economic one.

I spoke with an educator who is dealing with a single mother, mid-30s, with 12 children and a 13th on the way. The kids have an assortment of fathers with one thing in common — none married their mother. This woman's womb is a poverty factory.

It wouldn't matter if Michigan's economy were bursting with jobs, the woman and her children would still be poor.

Who's supporting these kids? If you're a taxpayer, you are. The roughly 45,000 children a year born onto the welfare rolls is a major reason Medicaid will consume 25 percent of next year's budget.

Those kids are more likely to grow up to be a strain on Corrections spending or welfare recipients themselves. And they'll drain money from the schools and universities that could help break this cycle.

In the 1990s, Michigan considered penalizing women who had more babies while on welfare, but pro-life groups killed the idea out of fear it would lead to more abortions.

Now, says state Human Services Director Maura Corrigan, the state is trying other measures, including attacking school truancy and the new four-year limit on welfare benefits, which she says is already increasing participation in work training programs.

"We are trying to get at generational poverty," she says. "We're studying positive incentives to change."

But she says the cultural breakdown is a strong tide to row against.

"We're watching marriage move from being part of the social fabric to being merely optional," says Corrigan, who devotes her personal time to working with disadvantaged children. "The kids I mentor don't know people who are married."

They do know people whose irresponsible behavior is being subsidized by their neighbors.

And as long as the taxpayers of Michigan keep paying for them, those babies will keep on coming.

http://www.detroitnews.com/article/2012 ... ng-poverty

[Allegro]

.
Many links in original. My random highlights
are not that important compared to the whole of the essay.

_________________
More on Citizens United recently mentioned here and here.

The hard truth about Citizens United
— AlterNet | by Steven Rosenfeld | Saturday, Jan 21, 2012

On the second anniversary of a terrible decision, every proposed solution has a downside.

The movement to overturn the Supreme Court’s controversial Citizens United ruling and confront the doctrine of “corporate personhood” stands at a perilous crossroads.

Across the country, two distinct strategies are converging on Congress. More than a million people have signed online petitions. State legislators, city and township governments, Democratic Party groups and unions have sponsored and passed measures in 23 states demanding that Congress pass a constitutional amendment to reassert and elevate the political speech of individual citizens and roll back the growing legal privileges of corporations.

The two approaches can be seen in the protest signs and sound bites proclaiming, “Money is Not Speech” and “Overturn Corporate Personhood.” But these slogans are not calling for the same remedy, especially when transformed into legal language in 10 proposals that have been introduced in the current Congress.

The first would address campaign finance setbacks in a 35-year line of Supreme Court rulings, including the Citizens United ruling in 2010, which deregulated campaign spending by corporations and unions. The second would go further and seek to revoke the status of corporations as persons under the Constitution, rolling back more than a century of Supreme Court rulings.

These two approaches expose an emerging split among progressives with deeper problems that go beyond the steep if not improbable political climb required to adopt any constitutional amendment: passage by two-thirds of Congress followed by ratification by three-quarters of state legislatures.

With a few exceptions, the growing movement to overturn Citizens United and revoke corporate personhood is not being taken seriously beyond America’s liberal communities. The guardians of American capitalism—the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and Republican National Committee—do not even feel a need to attack it, unlike recent barbs aimed at the National Popular Vote campaign to reform the Electoral College.

Corporate America’s assessment that this activity is not yet a serious threat to their power is also shared by another key sector of the progressive spectrum. Many of the country’s top liberal constitutional scholars have been silent, as this bandwagon has gathered momentum. They sympathize with its goals but think its champions are not only overpromising to grassroots supporters but have not thought out what they want Congress to do. Nor do they think the frontline voices have done a good job explaining what is at stake beyond hurling bumper sticker slogans. In other words, they reach the same conclusion as America’s corporate titans: this clamor is not yet poised to upend the law behind America’s political system.

“I am really excited about the fact that there is so much public interest in this stuff and on the right side—the visceral sense that the Supreme Court has got it wrong,” said Dan Tokaji, co-editor of Election Law Journal and an Ohio State University professor of law. “But at the same time I’m uncomfortable with the bumper sticker-like critiques. It’s not like there’s a magic bullet. Every solution has a downside. It’s a matter of weighing costs and benefits. And that is especially true in campaign finance reform.”

“I do think the body of law from Buckley through Citizens United to Bennett needs readjustment, and I helped Rep. Donna Edwards draft one potential constitutional amendment,” said Harvard Law School’s Laurence Tribe, one of the country’s leading constitutional scholars and a man liberals lobbied President Clinton to appoint to the Supreme Court. “But most of the constitutional amendments floating around seem to be seriously misguided; they would do both too much and too little.”

Such skepticism is not what amendment proponents, particularly those favoring the most sweeping ideas, believe or want to hear. They say there is a danger in doing too little; that a populist campaign is needed and working; and that an amendment reserving constitutional rights only for natural persons is on par with the post-Civil War amendments ending slavery and protecting former slaves as citizens.

“We are doing movement building in order to win a constitutional amendment within a decade,” said David Cobb, the 2004 Green Party presidential candidate and board member of the Move To Amend coalition, which has led much of grassroots organizing. “We have a meta-perspective about what is going on, but we also have a sense of movement history; in recognizing what it takes to actually get a lot of people in motion demanding systemic change. Our call is no more radical or will be no more difficult than the abolitionist movement, the women’s suffrage movement, trade union movement or the Civil Rights movement.”

But liberal skeptics also include groups that have been helping local governments adopt laws subordinating corporate rights to community and individual rights in a range of environmental fights. These ordinances are below-the-radar equivalents to the recent Montana Supreme Court decision that upheld its century-old ban on corporate electoral spending. They all make a “compelling” claim, the highest standard in constitutional law, to affirm democratic rights.

“They’re good people and their heart is in the right place, but they’re not being helpful—as a matter of fact, they are doing damage,” said Ben Price, project director of the Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund (CELDF), which has helped 130 municipalities in a half-dozen east-central states—including the city of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania–local anti-corporate ordinances in environmental fights. “They won’t bring the outcomes that are needed.”

“We don’t think that is the right strategic move at this time because it will be overturned,” Cobb said, when asked why his coalition’s members do not pursue CELDF-style changes in law, citing his own experience in Humboldt County, California, where a county ordinance was reversed in federal court. “And why will it be overturned; because corporations have constitutional rights, according to the federal district courts and U.S. Supreme Court. The ultimate win has to result in a constitutional amendment.”

This debate—to go narrow or to go big; to focus in Washington or in the states; or what is the relationship between divergent strategies—has not been heard on the airwaves as Americans see the big-spending excesses in the first 2012 presidential contests and as many liberal public interest groups focus on the anniversary of the Citizens United ruling. But it is a vast middle ground that is not esoteric or fruitless.

It is not difficult to understand the substance of the law or the choices before Congress. Do people want to see candidates like Newt Gingrich knocked from the lead in Iowa with millions of dollars in largely negative TV ads from super PACs, which Gingrich decried until a billionaire friend gave $5 million to a pro-Newt super PAC before the upcoming South Carolina primary? Do they want to see public financing as a way that non-wealthy candidates can run for federal office? Do they want to see corporations banned from spending money on ballot measures in states like California? Do they want to see limits imposed on all political donations and expenditures to prevent corruption? Do they want to see all money—above the smallest donations—flowing in and out of campaigns and electioneering reported in a timely way?

And what loopholes do people want to let slip into the latest reform proposals in Congress—since every amendment proposed thus far contains exceptions giving a way for people with the means to monopolize the microphone? Does it matter that groups representing communities of color, like the NAACP, could lose their rights to run as a non-profit corporation which includes the right of assembly and to speak on behalf of its members? Should property owners lose a constitutional due process right to sue if the government seizes their property?

These are some of the questions that are not being clearly discussed as many progressive groups are increasingly promoting punishing corporate America by revoking all their constitutional rights. But raising these very questions, elevating the public discussion around them, and getting to specifics is precisely what is needed before any prospect for reform will be taken more seriously.

Democracy’s Nemesis: The Supreme Court

“Rarely have so few imposed so much damage on so many,” is how Bill Moyers refers to the Supreme Court’s deregulation of money in politics, in a forward to a new book on how decades of Court doctrine have increased political speech for corporations while leaving individuals’ rights unchanged and in some cases diminished. These rulings are not hard to understand. But they must be understood to coherently discuss what reforms and choices are available to Americans in 2012.

Today’s rules for raising and spending campaign cash go back to the post-Watergate era when Congress decreed that campaign donations and political spending could be regulated. With a few temporary exceptions, since 1976 the Court has been rolling back that proposition. In 1976, the Court held in Buckley v. Valeo that spending money was a form of political speech—not conduct—entitled to the highest First Amendment protection. Buckley ended congressional and state limits, and enabled wealthy individuals to spend unlimited sums from their own pockets in their runs for office.

But that was just the beginning. In 1978, in Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, a case involving a Massachusetts ballot referendum, the Court held that corporations could spend money in non-candidate elections. No candidate meant nobody could be corrupted by donations, it held. Bellotti invalidated laws in 30 states, prompting a subsequent explosion of corporate-financed ballot measures in states with that option, a significant factor in undermining the legislative process in those state capitals.

This campaign finance landscape essentially held until John Roberts became Chief Justice. In the intervening years, however, the Supreme Court continued to expand corporate speech rights—repeatedly ruling that commercial speech, including advertising and product labeling, was more deserving of First Amendment protection than public-interest efforts by local, state and federal governments.

The Supreme Court blocked efforts to include energy conservation notices in utility bills. Lower federal courts followed and subsequently rejected pro-consumer labels and health warnings on milk, tobacco and cellphones. Another ruling upheld pharmaceutical companies’ right to use medical records for commercial purposes, diminishing personal privacy. And another ruling held that corporations have constitutional protection against searches by federal agencies. Thus in a range of rulings beyond elections, the federal judiciary expanded corporate constitutional rights and eroded legislated public protections.

“In the last few years, the Supreme Court and lower federal courts have shown a new hostility toward laws that regulate the economy and try to limit the effects of economic power,” wrote Jedediah Purdy in Democracy Journal’s Winter 2012 issue. “The First Amendment has helped the Supreme Court do for the consumer capitalism of the Information Age what freedoms of contract did for the Industrial Age: constitutionally protect certain transactions that lie at the core of the economy.”

The Court is not unable to distinguish corporations from people as many activists assume. The Roberts Court ruled in 2011, without dissent, that corporations are not entitled to a personal privacy right exemption to block Freedom of Information Act requests. Chief Justice Roberts, who wrote the opinion, concluded by saying the justices “trust that AT&T will not take it personally.” But this was not a constitutional decision. And in elections, the Court has blurred the distinctions between corporate and individual participants.

In Citizens United, the Court turned a relatively narrow case into a giant leap forward for corporate electioneering. The ruling did a handful of things. It first struck down a prohibition that barred broadcasting a certain type of political ad—almost always negative and from sponsors who barely identified themselves—in the 60 days before an election. That provision in a 2002 campaign reform law tried to elevate political debate. It then overturned parts of prior Supreme Court rulings that said independent corporate spending could be regulated. Thus it undermined a century-old regime barring direct corporate participation in elections, elevating corporate political rights to the same level as those of citizens.

The Court’s ideological conservative majority did not stop with Citizens United. Last June, it chipped away at public financing laws by siding with Buckley’s protection of independently wealthy candidates. In Arizona Free Enterprise Club v. Bennett, it struck down a matching funds formula in Arizona’s public financing law that gave additional funds to publicly financed candidates if a rival personally spent more than a stated amount. The ruling gutted the law but said public financing was still permissible.

Too Little, Too Much

The amendment proposals fall into two categories with some overlap in between. The first group takes a legislative empowerment approach. They seek to return the campaign finance landscape to pre-Buckley days, stating that Congress and the states have power to regulate the raising and spending of money in elections. Proposals by Rep. Donna Edwards, D-Maryland, on the House side, and Sen. Tom Udall, D-New Mexico, on the Senate side, take this route. In other words, they seek to reclaim the power to regulate campaign spending away from the Supreme Court.

The opening clause in Edwards’s proposal, “Nothing in this Constitution shall prohibit Congress and the States,” is very important, Tribe said, because it specifically tells the Supreme Court how the Constitution is not to be read. “Proposals that merely affirm legislative power to enact spending caps on corporations or individuals,” Tribe pointed out, “could well fail to achieve their objectives because they don’t directly address how the Supreme Court has read the First Amendment’s restrictions on such legislative power.”

However, Edwards’s language does not necessarily address some recent political trends that did not exist when Buckley was issued. Supposedly “independent” spending by very rich individuals, such as Sheldon Adelson’s recent $5 million gift to a super PAC supporting Newt Gingrich, would not be limited by her proposal because it would only limit “funds for political activity by any corporation.”

Tribe said Congress had to be more precise to not leave any room for the Court to meddle. Slightly more specific wording that addresses both wealthy individuals and corporations was in Udall’s proposal, which seeks broader authority to regulate donations and spending “of money and in-kind equivalents with respect to Federal elections.”

Neither the Edwards nor Udall resolutions mention public financing, however. Edwards’ proposal would stop corporate spending in ballot initiatives, which would reverse the Court’s Bellotti decision. That could significantly change political dynamics in initiative states like California, where big business routinely spend millions on these campaigns. Udall’s proposal, in contrast, only focuses on candidate elections.

Another legislative empowerment approach is a bipartisan proposal from Rep. Walter Jones, R-SC, and Rep. John Yarmouth, D-KY. It would allow limits on people or groups who might seek to monopolize political microphones and also would revive public financing. It seeks to close a loophole that emerged after Buckley where political groups evaded regulation by raising issues associated with the candidates, instead of specific words urging their election or defeat. It also says Congress can create a “mandatory public financing system” and it would make Election Day a holiday.

The second type of amendment proposals—most notably identical measures from Rep. Ted Deutch, D-FL, and Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-VT, a like-minded measure from Rep. Jim McGovern, D-MA, and another from Rep. Keith Ellison, D-MI—seek to address the distinct issue of corporate personhood by declaring, as in the McGovern proposal, “the rights protected by this Constitution to be the rights of natural persons.”

These measures, in varying ways, would strip corporations and other business and possibly charitable entities of their constitutional rights—and not just those pertaining to election spending or even under the First Amendment, although most of them make exceptions for “freedom of the press.” The most detailed language is in the Deutch-Sanders proposal. It has been won the support of most progressive groups.

The Deutch-Sanders proposal goes on to ban “corporate and other private entities” from contributing or spending money “in any election.” Like the first group of proposals, it also grants Congress and states “power to regulate and set limits” on campaign donations and spending. By explicitly targeting profit-seeking corporations and their promoters, it carves out an exception for non-profits—a distinction not made in McGovern’s proposal and most of the grassroots advocacy.

Details are important. The Deutch-Sanders amendment would not stop groups like Citizens United, the non-profit group whose anti-Hillary Clinton video was at issue in the Supreme Court case, or some super PACs that are also organized as non-profits because it carves out an exception for non-profits. Robert Weissman, the President of Public Citizen, which supports this amendment, said that its authors discussed what rights corporations should have and concluded that none should be granted to for-profit entities under the Constitution. Congressional legislation could address those rights as needed, he said.

That is a consequential decision and not a widely explained one. It enlarges the focus on tackling the distortions brought by big money in politics to a wider strike at the legal form used for much of the country’s business transactions. The Deutch-Sanders proposals would strip businesses of any size—not just big corporations—of the due process right to sue if property were seized. Liberal scholars point to the way President Truman sought to seize corporate assets—steel mills after World War Two—before being stopped by the Supreme Court in a famous 1952 decision.

Proposals from two leading grassroots groups, Move To Amend and Free Speech For People—reflected in the McGovern proposal—would strip constitutional rights from all corporations, for-profit and non-profit. That provision, were it in effect during the Civil Rights movement, could have stopped the NAACP from operating. That very issue—did the NAACP, as a non-profit corporation, have First Amendment rights to assemble and speak for members—arose in the famous 1963 Supreme Court case and ruling, NAACP v. Button, a where the affirmed the NAACP’s First Amendment freedom to assemble and speak.

These kinds of consequences and issues are not too complicated to discuss or understand. They should be the staple of progressive talk radio shows, but mostly they are not. Instead, progressives driving the anti-Citizens United and corporate personhood bandwagon are not being specific enough to threaten the big money forces in America. Instead, they risk alienating supporters by overpromising—like Obama.

“To focus on the fact that corporations are not technically people seems to be missing the point,” said Tokaji, Election Law Journal’s co-editor. “It’s really less focused on who’s a person and who’s not, than on the fact that certain big money interests are able to drown out other voices in the political conversation.” To Tokaji, the most promising avenue is exploring how public financing can be revived under the current Court—especially since it did not reject it in wholesale fashion in the Arizona case. “If we want to talk about what meaningful reform can be accomplished given the constitutional doctrine we’ve really got, I think we are talking about public financing.”

There is one other key piece of this discussion getting lost in the growing momentum behind proposals in Washington. That is what action can be taken in the states beyond sending e-mail blasts and resolutions to Congress telling them to act. It is incorrect to suggest that nothing short of a constitutional amendment, reconstituting the current Supreme Court, and electing a new congressional majority will have any meaningful impact—and isn’t worth trying.

Actions at the state level could be taken, said Erwin Chemerinsky, founding dean of University of California Irvine School of Law and a respected constitutional scholar. Beyond passing more disclosure laws that report political spending, states could require shareholders to approve corporate political expenditures. “These kinds of laws have been adopted for unions. It’s time to do it with regard to corporations,” he said.

Another idea is legislation barring a state contractor from spending money for partisan election activities, much like the federal Hatch Act of 1939 limiting federal civil servants from a range of partisan activities. “There are a number of legislative things that can be done to lessen the ill effects of Citizens United,” Chemerinsky said. “The legislative changes are a lot more realistic than a constitutional change.”

The Montana Supreme Court’s recent ruling that their state had a compelling interest to regulate how corporations can raise and spend money in elections, and can establish that interest within Supreme Court doctrine, is an example of a state taking this stance. The ruling raises questions that may end up before the U.S. Supreme Court. Similarly, the City of San Diego, California, is in court defending local corporate contribution limits after being sued by the Republican activist attorney who brought the Citizens United suit. And the New York state Legislature is poised to adopt a public financing regime, Weissman said.

Neither constitutional scholars nor movement activists view these stances as insignificant.

But these steps involve moving beyond bumper sticker sloganeering and rhetoric beating up corporations. This growing movement needs to speak more clearly, elevate the discussion and educate Americans, who know very well what is wrong with American politics and want to hear about solutions that work.

The Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund’s Price said today is a rare historic moment and worries that too much oxygen is being consumed by the focus on a federal amendment in Washington and not on changing local and state laws—or even state constitutions. After a half-hour interview, he offered a personal plea that deserves to be heeded by all in this progressive movement.

“The liberal progressive line—and I have been there most of my life—sees a victory as being on the side of the angels, whether or not you actually create outcomes. I am tired of moral victories. I want some real ones.”

[Bruce Dazzling]

FFS

Police in riot gear break up shoe melee at Florida Mall
By Susan Jacobson, Orlando Sentinel
3:16 a.m. EST, February 24, 2012



The launch of an expensive new basketball shoe — timed to Orlando's hosting of the NBA All-Star Game— triggered a melee Thursday night at Florida Mall that was quelled by deputies in riot gear.

The wild scene erupted about 9:45 p.m. as hundreds of people packed the mall's parking lot, hoping to buy the new shoe at midnight. As the crowd grew, a large contingent of Orange County deputy sheriffs arrived, braced for problems.

Similar shoe releases have caused violence at shoe stores across the country, but no one was hurt or arrested at Florida Mall, the Sheriff's Office said.

Witnesses told the Orlando Sentinel that the crowd was asked to wait across the street when the mall closed at 9 p.m., but one person made a mad dash toward the Foot Locker where the shoes were to go on sale, and hundreds followed.

"I saw hundreds of people running toward me. I thought I was going to get trampled," said Amanda Charles, 20, who was among a group of a half-dozen friends who drove from Jacksonville to try to buy the glow-in-the-dark Nikes.

Witnesses said more deputies quickly arrived, decked out in riot gear and fortified by still more deputies on horseback, on motorcycles and in patrol cars. A helicopter with a spotlight hovered overhead.

"We were afraid of the cops and the horses," said Mario Torres, 22, of Orlando.

The deputies formed a line and used shields to push back the crowd, witnesses said. They said the deputies threatened to use pepper spray but did not.

"It was pandemonium," said Rico Gomez, 23, who flew to Orlando to New Haven with friends just to buy the new Nikes.

More than 100 law-enforcement officers from the Sheriff's Office, the Orlando Police Department and Florida Highway Patrol responded to the mall and were continuing to disperse the crowd as of midnight. People continued to mill about, and some cars remained in the lot after the free-for-all as many people were hoping the sale would go on as planned.

"Florida Mall is closed," a deputy driving around the perimeter of the mall announced on a loudspeaker. "Please leave the premises. This is an unlawful gathering. There is no shoe release tonight."

The shoe release was to cap a day of events at House of Hoops by Foot Locker, where a makeshift basketball court was set up and NBA players are signing autographs through the weekend. Boston Celtics forward Paul Pierce and the Orlando Magic AirTran Flight Crew were on Thursday's schedule.

Nike's website says the shoes that were to go on sale were part of the Nike All-Star collection, with a galactic theme inspired by space exploration. Their release is designed as a nod to Orlando and Florida's space industry.

Several people said they coveted the $220, limited-edition shoes for their resale value, which some estimated at up to 10 times or more than the retail price.

"It's all about the swag," Gomez said.

According to the website: "The Nike Foamposite One, showcasing an out-of-this-world galactic print upper, includes a Polyurethane midsole and a Nike Zoom unit in heel for low-profile, responsive cushioning. Made popular in its debut on the college hardwood in 1998, the Foamposite breaks the mold of conventional footwear design."

It was unknown early Friday when the shoe will be released.

Meanwhile, Russell Westbrook, guard for the Oklahoma City Thunder, is scheduled to appear Friday at Foot Locker at Florida Mall. New York Knicks phenom Jeremy Lin and Minnesota Timberwolves forward Derrick Williams are on the schedule for Saturday. Chicago Bulls guard Derrick Rose caps the "Fan Jam" Sunday.

Just before Christmas, the re-release of the Nike Air Jordan XI caused a ruckus at stores across the country, with crowds fighting and, in Lithonia, Ga., breaking down the doors.

In Jersey City, N.J., a 20-year-old man was stabbed seven times amid a crowd of about 300 people waiting to buy the shoes, a local newspaper reported.

In Richmond, Calif., police said one person fired a shot at a mall as about 1,000 people lined up for their chance at the shoes; a suspect was arrested.

Near Seattle, police used pepper spray to control fighting among would-be Air Jordan owners.

Unruly shoppers also were reported in Indianapolis, San Antonio, Charlotte, N.C., and Richmond, Va., resulting in several arrests and injuries.

[Nordic]

Stories like that make me think that there really is no hope for humanity.

[justdrew]

maybe paid to take the fall, but probably true I guess...

Florida woman admits she burned down a tree ‘older than Jesus’
A 26-year-old Floridian woman admitted to burning down one of the oldest trees in the world Tuesday afternoon.

According to WFTV, Sara Barnes was arrested after admitting she set The Senator, a 3,500 year old bald cypress tree, on fire on a mid-January night in Longwood, Florida.

Barnes, a regular drug user who was smoking meth with a friend at the time, lit the tree on fire so that she could see in the dark but could not stop it from spreading.

“I can’t believe I burned down a tree older then Jesus,” Barnes told authorities before taken into custody by police.

The Senator, which became a landmark in Longwood, was the fifth oldest tree in the world.