Contact: Kathleen Hall Jamieson. 215 898 9400 or kjamieson@asc.upenn.edu Jamieson is director of the Annenber...]]> For Immediate Release: February 21, 2012

Contact: Kathleen Hall Jamieson. 215 898 9400 or kjamieson@asc.upenn.edu Jamieson is director of the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania.

Penn's Annenberg Public Policy Center's FlackCheck.org Launches "Stand by Your Ad" to Fight Deception in Super PAC and Other Third Party Political Advertising

TV and radio stations are required to air political ads by candidates for such federal offices as the presidency even if their content is blatantly deceptive. Not so the messages of outside groups. Instead, broadcasters have the right to bar so called "third party"' ads or insist on the accuracy of those they decide to air. Ohio stations did just that when a group called "Building a Better Ohio" offered Ohio TV stations a deceptive ad last October (To see the ad they rejected, go to
the FlackCheck.org website.).*

In the hope that local broadcasters around the country will follow the lead of these Ohio stations, APPC's FlackCheck.org, the sister-site of the award-winning FactCheck.org, is calling on them to insist on the accuracy of ads by super PACs, the political parties and all of the other outside groups that arrive at their doorsteps with cash in hand. In service of this goal, the project urges those in local markets to applaud responsible station action and decry business- as -usual.

To assist station managers and viewers, FlackCheck.org's "Media Watch" page is both flagging deceptive presidential ads in primary and caucus states and identifying the stations airing them. To make it easier for viewers to send words of encouragement or dismay to station managers, the FlackCheck.org "Stand By Your Ads" initiative provides them with the names of station managers, the e-mail addresses of stations and a sample letter that can be amended and
sent directly from the viewer's account.

"We urge broadcasters to insist on the accuracy of the third party ads, not just for the presidency, but across the board," said Kathleen Hall Jamieson, director of the Annenberg Public Policy Center. "We hope that stations will take the same care in screening out deceptions in the political ads of outside groups that they take in protecting their viewers from misleading product ads."

To locate the FlackCheck.org "Stand By Your Ad" page click, http://www.flackcheck.org/stand-by-your-ad/ and then click on "Stations."

Facebook will begin the process of becoming a publicly-listed company this week, valuing the soci...]]> 29 January 2012 Last updated at 06:08 ET (BBC News)

Facebook will begin the process of becoming a publicly-listed company this week, valuing the social networking site at between $75bn (£48bn) and $100bn, reports suggest.

The company plans to file papers with the US financial watchdog on Wednesday, according to the Financial Times and the Wall Street Journal.

The flotation later this year would raise about $10bn, they reported.

This would be one of the biggest share sales seen on Wall Street.

READ FULL ARTICLE AT LINK:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-16779779

I ran across the following whilst browsing through ...]]> (copied from www.democraticunderground.com, poster: enlightenment; no copyright regarding content)

I ran across the following whilst browsing through some old cookbooks and pamphlets. This pamphlet, entitled The Purveyor Cook Book (Jul 1 to Jan 1, 1896; no. 2), appears to be a gigantic advert for Crown Baking Powder (and other, odd, late 19th century products - like Root Beer, "made from real Roots!") . . . but within the mish-mash of baking powder propaganda was this rather interesting take on "Millionaires". Historically, this was the Populist period in US history, so the sentiment is no real surprise, and while the math is a little suspicious it is fun to read, and I think offers a nice point of perspective on the issues of today. Keep in mind that the entire pamphlet is an advert, so the company that published it is going to insert itself often and positively into the discussion.

Note:
This publication is no longer in copyright
Original formatting - bold, italics, etc. - is maintained as much as possible

Millionaires

How the Wealth of One Person Detracts from the Wealth of Another

The "value" or "money" in circulation in the United States is now about 70,000,000,000 dollars. The population is about 70,000,000 people. The average wealth of each man, woman and child is about 1,000 dollars.

In the United States there are 4,047 millionaires. The average wealth of these millionaires is very great, being 3,000,000, instead of but 1,000,000 dollars. There are so many people who earn so little, and so many people who own so much, that, to say the least, one-third part of the population own and control nine-tenths of all "value" in the country.

By subtracting the wealth of the 4,000 millionaires and the aggregate wealth controlled by those own from 10,000 to 999,000 dollars, the average per capita of nine-tenths of the people is less than 133 dollars ! It has taken 200 dollars each from 63,000,000 people to create these millionaires. That is to say, should these millionaires divide up their wealth with the masses, among the people who own less than a million, the average per capita would be 333 dollars. But these millionaires will not share "value" with the people, unlike the J. P. Dieter Company, who divide profits with consumers of their specialties, so your average remains 133 dollars.

As a simple matter of fact, if you were to give away your 133 dollars to some person no better off than yourself, the average would remain the same. But if you purchase an article from some person better off than yourself, which you do in purchasing a cream of tartar baking powder at from 40 to 50 cents per pound; unless you obtain value for value the average is reduced, whether by one cent or one-millionth part of a cent profit - just that much, in proportion, is this average reduced, small and insignificant as it is.

Money is a representative of value, and need not be in itself of "worth" or "value." When you place a value on money, as itself, you place a fictitious value on money. There is yet another way of creating a "fictitious value"; it is brought about in this way: a certain article, baking powder, for example, or coffee, or anything else, is valued at so much money. For instance, CROWN Baking Powder is "valued" at 20 cents per pound can; another brand, worth no more, is valued at from 40 to 50 cents per pound can. That is to say, in this way a "depreciative value" is place on money and a "fictitious value" is placed on the cream of tartar; something of no value comes between the "exchange" and the "commodity." This "something" represents, between the selling price of CROWN and the selling price of a cream of tartar baking powder, a fictitious value of from 200 to 300 per cent of "false" profit, without an adequate "exchange" on your part. To give, or to throw away, is to reduce the average per capita below 133 dollars, and to so reduce is to make "real value" scarce. Where money is scarce, "commodity" is cheap.

Forty years ago we had no millionaires in America; money in the hands of the people was plenty. To day we have thousands of millionaires; money is scarce; the price of "commodity" should be correspondingly cheap. If the market value of any and all articles are not lower than in the past, rest assured that you are paying a "false value," and catering to selfish greed, without due recognition or recompense.

You can be forgiven if you didn't. Greg Kaufmann of The Nati...]]> Did you catch the reference in President Obama's State of the Union address to "poverty"?

You can be forgiven if you didn't. Greg Kaufmann of The Nation, who recently launched a weekly column, "This Week in Poverty," on thenation.com, warns in his column today that if you review the video or the transcript of Obama's speech, "don't blink, you'll miss it."

Here’s what he had to say about poverty...:

“A great teacher can offer an escape from poverty to the child who dreams beyond his circumstance.”

Got that? Great teacher, poverty, child who dreams. We good?

People living below the poverty line, 46 million Americans, represent 15 percent of the country, including more than one in five of the nation's youth. And yet, as Kaufmann writes today, "in a 65-minute address describing the state of the union, President Obama decided it merited barely a mention."

Kaufmann, who you can hear above in an interview I conducted earlier this month, is on a crusade to get progressives to start saying "the p word" again. So each week Kaufmann writes a column that highlights the facts, statistics and perspectives that he believes should drive our discussion about poverty, its causes and solutions.

READ FULL ARTICLE AT LINK:

http://www.alternet.org/newsandviews/article/767199/46_million_americans_live_in_poverty_--_so_why_isn%27t_anybody_saying_the_p_word/

When President Obama announced his latest vision for the...]]> Analysis: Buffett Rule Will Raise $50 Billion Per Year, Affect Just 0.08 Percent Of Taxpayers

When President Obama announced his latest vision for the so called “Buffett rule” — a 30 percent minimum tax on millionaires — during his State of the Union address this week, Republicans were quick to criticize it. For instance, Speaker of the House John Boehner (R-OH) derided the proposal as a “political gimmick.” “It’s a smokescreen,” added Rep. Steve Scalise (R-LA).

However, as a new analysis from Citizens for Tax Justice pointed out, the Buffett rule as laid out in the speech could raise up to $50 billion per year to pay down the deficit, while affecting just 0.08 percent of taxpayers:

READ FULL ARTICLE AT LINK BELOW:

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/01/27/413625/buffett-rule-50-billon/