Willie Colon, Bronx-born of Puerto Rican grandparents, has fused his musical talent, his passion for humanity, and his community and political activism into an extraordinary, multifaceted career.
His achievements in all his activities are widely recognized. As musician, composer, arranger, singer, and trombonist, as well as producer and director, Colon still holds the all time record for sales, he has created 40 productions that have sold more than thirty million records worldwide.
Editor-in-Chief at NY Analysis of Policy & Government
The United States has dropped in the ratings of economically free nations, losing a half point since last year’s survey.
According to a Wall Street Journal/Heritage Foundation survey, America lost ground due to deterioration in property rights, fiscal freedom, and business freedom. The U.S. doesn’t even score as the top nation in North America—that rank went to Canada.
Overall, America comes in at a dismal 12th place, behind Hong Kong (although that may soon change due to Beijing’s increased involvement in political affairs), Singapore, Australia, Switzerland, New Zealand, Canada, Chile, Mauritius, Ireland, Denmark, and Estonia. According to the survey the United States has experienced a dramatic decline since 2006. The principle reasons for the drop are diminished property rights, increased corruption, and higher government spending. The authors note that America is “The only country to have recorded a loss of economic freedom each of the past seven years. The overall U.S. score decline from 1995 to 2014 is 1.2 points, the fourth worst drop among advanced economies.”
In terms of economic performance, the survey notes that “Substantial expansion in the size and scope of government, along with new and costly regulations in areas like finance and health care, has contributed significantly to the erosion of U.S. freedom. The growth of government has been accompanied by increasing cronyism that has undermined the rule of law and perception of fairness.”
A particular burden that is worrisome is not just the high rates of taxation, but the increasingly vast array of regulations and the cost of compliance with them. Since 2009, more than 130 new regulations have been imposed, imposing an additional $60 billion expense.
ELECTED OFFICIALS: YOU MUST MAKE *SPICE* (SYNTHETIC MARIHUANA) ILLEGAL NOW.
IT’S ADDICTING YOUNG KIDS!
IT’S AVAILABLE OVER THE COUNTER
IT’S MORE ADDICTIVE THAN CRACK
NOBODY KNOWS WHAT’S IN IT
IT’S DIRT CHEAP
3 deaths may be tied to synthetic marijuana in Colorado
By Jacque Wilson, CNN
updated 11:50 AM EDT, Sat September 7, 2013
Outbreak linked to synthetic pot
75 people in Colorado may have become sickened after smoking synthetic marijuana
Health officials are looking into whether these are linked to one product or several
Fake pot is a blend of plant and herbal materials that have been sprayed with chemicals
(CNN) — Three people in Colorado may have died after smoking synthetic marijuana, state health officials fear. The Colorado Department of Public Health has launched an investigation into an outbreak of illnesses at hospitals that may be tied to the dangerous substance.
“Initial reports show approximately 75 people who reported smoking a form of synthetic marijuana may have been seen at hospitals in the Denver metro area and Colorado Springs beginning in late August,” said Dr. Tista Ghosh, interim chief medical officer for the state, in a written statement. “Several individuals were in intensive care and three deaths are being investigated as possibly associated.”
The Colorado Department of Health, with help from local health officials and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, will attempt to figure out if the synthetic marijuana is to blame, and if so, whether all the patients were sickened by the same product or different ones.
But “don’t wait for the results of this investigation,” Ghosh urged. “If you have synthetic marijuana, stop using it and destroy it.”
Known as K2, Spice, Black Mamba, Mr. Smiley and Blaze, among other things, synthetic marijuana can have more serious consequences than regular marijuana, which is legal in Colorado. These synthetic cannabinoids are a blend of plant and herbal materials that have been sprayed with chemicals, producing an extra toxicity, according to the National Institute on Drug Abuse.
Teen nearly dies smoking fake pot
Sold most often on the Internet, synthetic marijuana produces euphoric and psychoactive effects similar to those associated with marijuana. But doctors say there are additional side effects that may be particularly dangerous. The drug can leave patients catatonic and listless. And what makes matters worse, very little is known about synthetic marijuana or how to treat an adverse reaction or overdose.
According to the Drug Enforcement Administration, the number of calls to poison centers related to synthetic drugs soared from about 3,200 in 2010 to more than 13,000 in 2011.
“Easy access and the misperception that Spice products are ‘natural’ and therefore harmless have likely contributed to their popularity,” the NIDA website states. “Another selling point is that the chemicals used in Spice are not easily detected in standard drug tests.”
Because the chemicals used in these products have a high potential for abuse and no medical benefit, the DEA has designated five of the most common active chemicals frequently found in synthetic marijuana as Schedule I controlled substances, making it illegal to sell, buy, or possess them. But manufacturers seem to be changing the chemical compounds as fast as lawmakers enact legislation to ban them.
The CDC was sending a team of four to assist the investigation.
NY Comic Con 2014 comes to an end today, but you can relive all the Jacob Javits Center magic from the comfort of your apartment with the photo bonanza above. The costumes were fantastic as ever, and included everyone from No Face from Spirited Away to Napolean Dynamite, from groups of Robins to Kiss aficionados, from Barbie to The Hound & Arya. Check out 120 (or so) of our favorite costumes above—you can peruse some other galleriesfrom the weekend as well.
When Cuomo talks about Astorino cutting Medicaid he knows that Congressional investigators have urged the Obama administration to block Gov. Cuomo’s request to reallocate $10 billion in federal Medicaid funds until New York pledges to pay back billions of dollars it over-billed in prior years.
The investigations panel issued a report last year that claimed New York overcharged the feds $15 billion in Medicaid reimbursements be…tween 1991 and 2011. “However, New York’s Medicaid program has fostered a system that over the past two decades has wasted vast sums of our nation’s limited resources. Powerful special interest groups, cronyism and political corruption in the state have largely contributed to the New York Medicaid program’s unchecked growth and have made program reform exceedingly difficult.” The feds reduced Medicaid payments to New York by $1.2 billion last year to begin addressing the issue.
Three years before his own name is likely to appear on the ballot again, Mayor Bill de Blasio had returned to full campaign mode, gesticulating in a church basement, sleeves rolled up slightly, imploring about 1,000 people to turn out in November.
“We are so close to victory I can taste it,” Mr. de Blasio said of the bid to return a Democratic majority to the State Senate, rousing an audience from the Working Families Party, which hosted the event on Wednesday night. “I can taste it.”
But the man perhaps best positioned to effect that change, Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo, was not in the room. In fact, through a lineup of speakers including politicians, union leaders, a poet and a McDonald’s worker, Mr. Cuomo’s name was barely mentioned.
The top priority was an effort to tilt the balance of power in the State Senate, where Republicans currently share leadership with a group of breakaway Democrats.
Less than a month before Election Day, with polls showing some key Senate races leaning in Republicans’ favor, the arrangement with the governor appears increasingly fraught. Despite his pledge to push for Democratic control of the Senate, Mr. Cuomo has at times seemed not to have a strong opinion about the outcome of the November elections.
“You can’t say, ‘Well, I can work well if they elect this party,’ ” he told reporters last month. “They elect a legislature: Democratic, Republican, whatever they elect. I think the job of the governor is to figure out how to make it work.”
Some of the governor’s grudging supporters say he has already faltered on his promise: Mr. Cuomo has not ruled out endorsing a Republican incumbent from Buffalo, Mark J. Grisanti, calling the decision “personally difficult.” Mr. Grisanti, who lost the Republican primary to a right-leaning challenger but is staying in the race as the candidate of the Independence Party, backed the governor’s push to legalize same-sex marriage.
The race in Buffalo is of particular interest to women’s groups because Mr. Grisanti opposes a proposal from the governor regarding abortion rights. His Democratic opponent, Marc C. Panepinto, supports it.
“Clearly this race isn’t complicated for us or for the women of New York,” said Andrea Miller, the president of Naral Pro-Choice New York. “We would hope that it would not be complicated for the governor.”
Democrats hoped that with the support of Mr. de Blasio and Mr. Cuomo, they would be able to win enough seats this year to take control of the Senate. But those efforts are not going so well. A promising candidate running on Long Island ended his candidacy in September after his former law firm accused him of fraud, and a series of polls conducted last week offered a bleak outlook in several other contests.
The polls, by Siena College, found three incumbent Democrats trailing Republican challengers by double-digit margins. And in two Republican-controlled districts on Long Island that Democrats had hoped to capture, the polls showed the Republican candidates holding wide leads.
City officials have framed the fate of the State Senate as crucial to their agenda. A shift in the balance of power, they say, could help advance legislation related to the minimum wage, campaign-finance reform and immigration, among other issues.
Mr. de Blasio has dispatched a top political aide, Emma Wolfe, to help the Democrats. And the mayor’s wife, Chirlane McCray, is headlining a fund-raiser for two Senate candidates next week.
Mr. Cuomo’s role has been less evident. He has done little publicly beyond promising to campaign for some Senate candidates as the Nov. 4 election approaches.
Matt Wing, a spokesman for the governor’s re-election campaign, said the state Democratic Party — which Mr. Cuomo controls — had spent about $1 million helping Democratic Senate candidates.
Members of the Working Families Party, a fusion of liberal activism and union muscle, have long been suspicious of Mr. Cuomo, who is promoting an alternate ballot line, the Women’s Equality Party, that seems likely to compete for votes.
But leaders of the Working Families Party, who recruited but then declined to endorse Mr. Cuomo’s eventual challenger in the Democratic primary, Zephyr Teachout, have cast their endorsement of the governor as a farsighted, pragmatic choice.
“The W.F.P. gets stuff done,” the group’s state director, Bill Lipton, said from the stage during the event on Wednesday, at St. Vartan Armenian Cathedral in Manhattan. “We make it real.”
Other politicians at the event, including Senator Charles E. Schumer and Melissa Mark-Viverito, the City Council speaker, trumpeted their progressive credentials while exhorting voters to cast ballots on the party’s line.
And Mr. de Blasio reminded the audience that he was their “poster child.” As he left the stage, New York’s public advocate, Letitia James, who served as the M.C. for much of the night, urged the crowd to cheer louder.“A round of applause for Mayor Bill de Blasio!” she said. “Come on, you can do better than that! Promises made, promises kept!”
Amid the roars for the mayor, some in the crowd said that Mr. Cuomo still had much to prove.
As Mr. de Blasio left the stage, Stan Williams, 32, offered a pithy review: “He didn’t say Cuomo’s name once.”
To Mayor Bill de Blasio, the recent commotion over Rachel Noerdlinger, his wife’s top aide — who failed to disclose during a background check that she lives with a boyfriend who has a serious criminal history — is a tabloid-fueled personal attack that merits no further discussion.
“Case closed,” the mayor said this week, adopting the move-it-along-folks attitude that has quickly become a de Blasio signature during his first nine months in office.
It is not unusual for mayors to want irritating story lines to go away. But the Noerdlinger episode has fueled a broader question about Mr. de Blasio and the values of his young administration: how a onetime champion of transparency and accountability can square those ideals with the newfound power — and frustrations — of his office.
As a candidate, Mr. de Blasio pledged an ask-me-anything era at City Hall, promoting himself as a different, friendlier breed of political leader. And as public advocate, he frequently assailed former Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg for standing by senior aides, such as the former schools chief Cathleen P. Black, who had found themselves under fire.
Now, experiencing some of the same difficulties faced by his predecessors, Mr. de Blasio is responding with the same sort of peevishness and obfuscation he once bemoaned.
The mayor has shut down questions about why he phoned a high-ranking police official after the arrest of a campaign supporter, telling reporters, “That’s the end of the story.” Told by a television reporter that New Yorkers wanted to know why his police-issued S.U.V. was speeding on residential streets in Queens, the mayor replied, “I’m not interested in the construct of what you as an individual think many New Yorkers think.”
Even lighthearted queries can prompt a stony response. Last month, Mr. de Blasio refused to say how he felt after learning of the death of Staten Island Chuck, the groundhog who fell from his arms in a ceremonial mishap. “Talk to the Staten Island Zoo,” the mayor said, mirthlessly.
Determined not to let critics or news coverage set their agenda, Mr. de Blasio and his City Hall advisers have taken to ignoring inquiries on matters that displease them. His communications team believes strongly that most negative stories will disappear, or at least be forgotten by the time Mr. de Blasio’s re-election effort rolls around in 2017.
That approach is being tested again by the episode involving Ms. Noerdlinger, a former adviser to the Rev. Al Sharpton, who is paid $170,000 a year predominantly to shape the image of the mayor’s wife, Chirlane McCray.
The facts of the matter are not in dispute. Ms. Noerdlinger lives with a boyfriend, Hassaun McFarlan, who went to prison for manslaughter as a teenager and has been arrested several times since, including last fall when he nearly struck a New Jersey police officer while driving Ms. Noerdlinger’s car.
When she applied for her job, Ms. Noerdlinger informed the mayor’s team about her relationship. But she did not list Mr. McFarlan as a resident of her home on a formal background questionnaire used by the city’s Department of Investigation to vet candidates for high-ranking city positions
If there is a simple explanation for the discrepancy, Mr. de Blasio and his team are not providing it. For a week, the mayor’s office has not answered questions about why Ms. Noerdlinger left out her boyfriend’s name, an omission that can be punished by dismissal.
Mr. de Blasio’s aides have also declined to release or discuss the contents of a letter sent to the mayor last week by Mark G. Peters, the commissioner of the Investigation Department, which conducted an inquiry into Ms. Noerdlinger’s actions.
The letter summarizes the findings of the inquiry, but Phil Walzak, the mayor’s press secretary, said in an email that he could not discuss those findings “because this document is subject to privacy protections.” The mayor’s office has not provided a legal basis for those protections.
Instead, the mayor’s office issued a statement saying simply that the Investigation Department had found no “intent to deceive the mayor or City Hall” on the part of Ms. Noerdlinger, whom Mr. de Blasio chose not to discipline beyond a note in her personnel file.
Ms. Noerdlinger’s actions, by themselves, do not amount to a Watergate-size scandal. But the mayor’s response has troubled some who believe she is being afforded special protection.
“I would have expected at the very least a slap on the wrist,” said Kenneth Sherrill, who taught political science at Hunter College for 41 years. “I find it hard to believe that a rank-and-file public employee who even mistakenly filled out a form like that would not be punished.”
“I enthusiastically support the right of anyone to have a personal life,” Mr. Sherrill added. “The disclosure thing, obviously, is troubling.”
For the mayor, the political dynamics at play are complex.
Ms. Noerdlinger is black, and Mr. de Blasio’s team believes privately that the criticism of her has been racially charged. Police unions, angered by the influential role given to Mr. Sharpton in the de Blasio administration, have seized on reports about Ms. Noerdlinger’s boyfriend — including claims that he referred to law enforcement officers as “pigs” in online postings — to say she should not occupy a high-ranking place in City Hall.
Mr. de Blasio is also reluctant to acquiesce to pressure, believing that to punish Ms. Noerdlinger would amount to ceding personnel decisions to outsiders, advisers who are familiar with his thinking say.
“She is a good public servant, and that’s what I respect,” Mr. de Blasio said at a news conference on Staten Island this week, where he was repeatedly questioned about Ms. Noerdlinger’s omission (and where he made his “case closed” remarks).
To combat questions of transparency, the mayor’s press office often notes that it distributes a near-verbatim transcript of every mayoral news conference just hours after it has occurred.
But this week brought an unusual exception. Mr. de Blasio made his comments about Ms. Noerdlinger on Monday afternoon. By Thursday evening, the transcript from that event had still not been sent.
The simple answer is because charter school operators and their supporters are big campaign contributors.
In March 2014, Cuomo spoke at a charter school rally in Albany that attacked plans by New York City Mayor de Blasio to charge charters for space in New York City public schools. The charter schools were backed by wealthy and powerful Wall Street hedge fund brokers who paid $5 million for television advertisements supporting their positions. Cuomo responded by forcing New York City to provide charter schools with some of the most sweeping benefits in the country. They include free space in public school buildings or else the city must contribute to the cost of renting private buildings, increased per-pupil funding for charter schools, and allowing charters to operate prekindergarten programs.
Coincidently, Cuomo’s re-election campaign received hundreds of thousands of dollars from charter school supporters, including William A. Ackman, Carl C. Icahn, Bruce Kovner and Daniel Nir. Kenneth G. Langone, a founder of Home Depot who is on the Board of Directors of a charter school gave Cuomo’s campaign $50,000 last year. According to an article in the New York Times, Langone claimed Cuomo asked him to lead a group of Republicans supporting his re-election. Just before the Democratic primary on September , 2014, Cuomo received $41,000 from Daniel Loeb, a hedge-fund manager who is chairman of Success Academy charter schools as well as $10,000 from a political action committee controlled by Tom Gulotta, a former Republican Nassau County Executive.
Cuomo’s reelection bid has received hundreds of thousands of dollars from wealthy supporters of Eva Moskowitz’s Success Academy Charter School network, although as a not-for-profit organization the network itself is barred from making political donations. At least ten Success board members and two of their two spouses donated to Cuomo’s reelection campaign fund. In addition, Cuomo received about $65,000 from Moskowitz’s own political action committee.
By one estimate based on 2014 campaign filings, Cuomo received at least $800,000 in donations from “27 bankers, real estate executives, business executives, philanthropists and advocacy groups who have flocked to charter schools and other education causes in recent years.” According to Chalkbeat New York, this far exceeds “what the same group gave him for his first run in 2010: $136,000.”
The Cuomo reelection campaign has also received major contributions from Charter school advocates with ties to the board of JerseyCan, Say Yes to Education, Democrats for Education Reform, Turnaround for Children chair, Speyer Legacy School, KIPP, RELAY, ConnCan, New Schools Leadership Council, Harlem Children’s Zone, Achievement First, NewSchools Venture Fund, Civic Builders, Bronx Preparatory Charter School, Icahn Charter Schools, StudentsFirstNY, National Alliance for Public Charter Schools, Public Prep, and Coalition for Public Charter Schools.
Back when Gov. Andrew Cuomo was running for the 2010 gubernatorial election, he promised us he would clean up government. He said he would reform campaign finance so the people of New York would know who their government is representing.
He pledged to close a loophole that allowed large donations from corporations and businesses.
Then, he took millions of dollars in campaign donations from corporations and businesses.
He said he was doing it to get into the position to make change. Well, he got the position and, now, four years later, there’s been no change in campaign finance.
Mr. Cuomo even interfered with and canceled the Moreland Commission to Investigate Public Corruption that was supposed to look into campaign financing.
And Mr. Cuomo is taking even more money from corporations and businesses in his re-election bid. He had the position to make the change, and he only dirtied things up more. Clearly, Mr. Cuomo does not represent us, and we can’t trust that he ever will. Now you can all see why it is wise to vote for Republican candidate Rob Astorino, the Westchester County executive, and he can make the changes we need.
TODAY, October 9, 2014, Senator Reverend Ruben Diaz (D-Bronx) and the New York Hispanic Clergy Organization will welcome New York State Gubernatorial Candidate Rob Astorino to a morning breakfast at Maestro’s Restaurant located at 1703 Bronxdale Avenue, Bronx, New York. This breakfast meeting will start at 9:00 AM and it is expected that Mr. Astorino will arrive at approximately 10:00 AM.
Senator Rev. Diaz stated: “My fellow ministers and I are honored that Rob Astorino will join us at this breakfast to break bread together and share the various concerns that face our community with him. These issues include help for senior citizens, affordable housing, job opportunities, education, and family values. In our rich tradition, my fellow pastors and I will continue to welcome candidates to the Bronx to hear how they intend to serve us when they are elected to public office.”
The New York Hispanic Clergy Organization was created in 1988 and since then, it conducts a weekly meeting every Thursday, and has a membership of close to 150 Evangelical pastors and ministers in the City of New York. Senator Rev. Diaz serves as President. Candidates are welcome to come to anyone of our meetings and should be willing to answer all the questions with which the ministers are concerned.
The press is welcome.
For more information please contact Senator Rev. Diaz at (718) 991-3161.
Our opinion: The supposed independence of a new enforcement counsel at the state Board of Elections is compromised by her communications with the Cuomo administration.
Gov. Andrew Cuomo may think he has good reasons to be kept in the loop about what’s going on with the new, supposedly independent, counsel that he fought to install at the state Board of Elections. He should take a step back, though, and consider how much damage he is doing with this kind of meddling.
Just as his interference with the Moreland Commission on Public Corruption cast a pall over his ethics agenda – and drew a federal investigation – the revelations of a pipeline from the Board of Elections to the governor’s office creates suspicion that the only thing that’s changed is who is pulling the political strings.
There’s a disturbing thread that runs through both the Moreland scandal and the latest flap at the Board of Elections.
First came the governor’s creation of the Moreland Commission on Public Corruption, Mr. Cuomo’s answer to the Legislature’s failure to pass stronger campaign finance laws. Mr. Cuomo publicly stated the commission would be independent and could investigate even him. But as The New York Times painstakingly detailed in July, the governor’s office was kept constantly apprised of the commission’s work by its executive director, and the Executive Chamber forced the commission to back off when it issued subpoenas or otherwise got too close to Mr. Cuomo’s own political allies – including a firm he uses for political ads, a powerful group of real estate agents, an advocacy group promoting the governor’s agenda and a retailer that benefited from a tax credit Mr. Cuomo proposed.
The governor abruptly shut down the commission when the Legislature agreed to a so-called reform package that didn’t qualify as even half-baked.
The centerpiece of it was an “enforcement counsel” at the state Board of Elections, who could initiate investigations of campaign finance abuses and other matters without the partisan election board’s consent.
Now it turns out that the attorney, Risa Sugarman, a former aide to Mr. Cuomo, was copying one of the governor’s press aides on correspondence about board business, the Daily News reports. The official explanation is that Ms. Sugarman doesn’t have her own press operation and needs a little help.
True enough on both points, clearly, but this relationship fosters the perception that Mr. Cuomo’s office is calling the shots on who Ms. Sugarman investigates. It’s fear of such selective enforcement in the hands of one politician or political party that brought New York the ineffective Board of Elections, hobbled by its partisan split, that Mr. Cuomo and the Legislature supposedly fixed.
The governor’s response? “I
haven’t looked into the matter, and I don’t see any reason why I should.”
Well, of course he doesn’t. If Mr. Cuomo’s track record with Moreland is any indication, it’s a safe bet he already knows what’s going on, and that it’s exactly the way he wants it.
What he needs to do is stop this meddling, and push for true reform, as he promised four years ago.
Long Island’s Newsday is a strong supporter of Andrew Cuomo. It endorsed him for reelection in the recent Democratic Party primary calling a challenge from the left “folly” and praising his stance against “big-government and “big spending.”
But Newsday is fed up with the Cuomo school tax cap: “Three years after the State Legislature and Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo enacted a tax cap, school districts are running out of ways to soften the blow. Pressure to control spending is rising, and the state hasn’t done enough to help.” The Cuomo tax cap limits school districts to annual tax hikes of two percent or the rate of inflation – whichever is lower. Overriding the Cuomo cap requires a 60% approval rate, something so difficult to achieve that only five of 124 Long Island school districts did it successfully in 2014. Meanwhile, pension and health care costs have dramatically increased, teachers move up the salary steps, forcing districts to make significant cuts and drain financial reserves.
One district, North Shore in Nassau County, is in a particular bind because the local power company, LIPA, is closing an antiquated plant that was a major source of the school district’s tax revenue. The district’s school budget is millions of dollars a year in the red, but this affluent community is hard pressed to make up the difference because of Cuomo tax cap restrictions.
According to Newsday, the state keeps mandating requirements without providing resources and blocking the ability of localities to raise the money that they need. Older voters, especially older White voters, may not want to pay to educate the children of minority and immigrant families that are moving into their towns, but New York State has the responsibility to educate its children. So the answer is “NO,” the tax cap does not work for the people, especially the children, of New York State.
The number of people behind bars in the United States continued to climb in 2007 with more than one in every 100 adults either in jail or prison for the first time, according to a study by the Pew Public Safety Performance Project.
Use the map below to find your state’s prison population, how much corrections cost your state, and the ratio of corrections to higher education spending. Information about each state selected is located beneath the map.
THIS STUFF SHOULD BE ILLEGAL – ANY STORE SELLING THIS
SHOULD BE PROSECUTED
I URGE LEGISLATORS TO MAKE THIS ONE A CONTROLLED ILLEGAL SUBSTANCE
You see iBlownat some smoke shops and bodegas. It’s got a cute package that mimics an iPhone. Spice isn’t illegal (Because nobody knows what the hell it is) the packages usually warn that it’s “not for human consumption” (winkety wink wink).
But iBlown is no joke. We have seen smokers who have tried to stop using this withdraw for 3 or 4 days. iBlown can cause brain damage, iBlown smokers lose the ability to think or respond in a timely or even logical manner.
At $25 a bag you’re buying what could be you’re total downfall. We’ve seen people lose their jobs and family and not give a damn about it. Instant addiction is what we have here. Make marijuana legal, we have to stop people from smoking this poison. ISIS couldn’t have come up with a better weapon against our youth.
We have become so brainwashed in the USA that we are willing to trash and insult people because of their political party. It can be Black vs. Black or Latino vs. Latino; once it’s about party lines all bets are off.
It’s pretty sick that we turn against our people for the sake of “The Party”. Today people don’t bother to examine the persons motives, history, background or body of work. The mere fact that they express support for the ENEMY party, they become toast.
Take a look at Venezuela where the wealthiest country in Latin America has crumbled into the stone by a government that has used Partyism to remain in power. And so it is here in the states; Partyism is the meat and potatoes of politicians here. They don’t need to say anything else. Lets not discuss the facts, just attack without debate without listening, without thinking. That keeps everything locked up tight the way it is, the way both parties love it.
The only way we will regain control of our government is by voting smart. Let’s pick the best individuals and not become partisan zombies.
Partisan anger at the polls. Photographer: Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images
If you are a Democrat, would you marry a Republican? Would you be upset if your sister did? Researchers have long asked such questions about race, and have found that along important dimensions, racial prejudice is decreasing. At the same time, party prejudice in the U.S. has jumped, infecting not only politics but also decisions about dating, marriage and hiring. By some measures, “partyism” now exceeds racial prejudice — which helps explain the intensity of some midterm election campaigns.
In 1960, 5 percent of Republicans and 4 percent of Democrats said that they would feel “displeased” if their son or daughter married outside their political party. By 2010, those numbers had reached 49 percent and 33 percent. Republicans have been found to like Democrats less than they like people on welfare or gays and lesbians. Democrats dislike Republicans more than they dislike big business.
Consider one of the most influential measures of prejudice: the implicit-association test, which is simple to take. You see words on the upper corners of a screen — for example, “white” paired with either “good” or “bad” in the upper left corner, and “black” paired with one of those same adjectives in the upper right. Then you see a picture or a word in the middle of the screen — for example, a white face, an African-American face, or the word “joy” or “terrible.” Your task is to click on the upper corner that matches either the picture or the word in the middle.
Many white people quickly associate “joy” with the upper left corner when it says “white” and “good” — but have a harder time associating “joy” with the left corner when the words there are “black” and “good.” So too, many white people quickly associate “terrible” with the left corner when it says “black” and “bad,” but go a lot more slowly when the left corner says “white” and “bad.”
To test for political prejudice, Shanto Iyengar and Sean Westwood, political scientists at Stanford University, conducted a large-scale implicit association test with 2,000 adults. They found people’s political bias to be much larger than their racial bias. When Democrats see “joy,” it’s much easier for them to click on a corner that says “Democratic” and “good” than on one that says “Republican” and “good.”
To find out whether such attitudes predict behavior, Iyengar and Westwood undertook a follow-up study. They asked more than 1,000 people to look at the resumes of several high-school seniors and say which ones should be awarded a scholarship. Some of these resumes contained racial cues (“president of the African American Student Association”) while others had political ones (“president of the Young Republicans”).
Race mattered. African-American participants preferred the African-American candidates 73 percent to 27 percent. Whites showed a modest preference for African-American candidates, as well, though by a significantly smaller margin. But partisanship made a much bigger difference. Both Democrats and Republicans selected their in-party candidate about 80 percent of the time.
Even when a candidate from the opposing party had better credentials, most people chose the candidate from their own party. With respect to race, in contrast, merit prevailed.
In a further test of political prejudice, Iyengar and Westwood asked 800 people to play the trust game, well known among behavioral scientists: Player 1 is given some money (say, $10) and told that she can give some, all or none of it to Player 2. Player 1 is then told that the researcher will triple the amount she allocates to Player 2 — and that Player 2 can give some of that back to Player 1. When Player 1 decides how much money to give Player 2, a central question is how well she trusts him to return an equivalent or greater amount.
Are people less willing to trust people of a different race or party affiliation? The researchers found that race didn’t matter — but party did. People are significantly more trusting of others who share their party affiliation.
What accounts for the explosive growth of political prejudice? Modern campaigns deserve some of the blame. Iyengar and his colleagues show that when people are exposed to messages that attack members of the opposing party, their biases increase. But the destructive power of partyism is extending well beyond politics into people’s behavior in daily life.
To contact the writer of this article: Cass R. Sunstein at firstname.lastname@example.org. To contact the editor responsible for this article: Mary Duenwald at email@example.com.
Soy demócrata… Mi gente, esto sucede todo el tiempo; votamos y trabajamos para que nuestro candidato democrático sea elegido y después de que ganen se olvidan de sus promesas.Hay poco o ningún acceso. Tratando de de tener un vista es como tener una audiencia con el Papa.Probablemente más fácil con su santidad.
¿Por qué? Es que el voto latino es un chiste. Los demócratas saben que ni siquiera pensamos en girar hacia el otro candidato. Esto queda fuera de la cuestión, porque es el malo; porque eres un traidor si votas por el republicano.
Así que, no importa lo malo que el demócrata sea, hasta si va a la cárcel; todavía tenemos que votar por ellos.
¿Qué tan inteligente es eso?Una vez elegidos cambian totalmente y nos tratan con desprecio y gobiernan con impunidad porque: 1) ya votaste por él2.) La próxima vez volverá hacer exactamente lo mismo.
Las elecciones se tratan de nuestras necesidades y no las necesidades del partido. Queremos que TODOS los funcionarios y candidatos de TODOS los partidos nos acudan y codicien nuestro voto.
Para que esto suceda, tenemos que votar más inteligente; tenemos que votar por el candidato que cumpla con nuestras necesidades. Los latinos tienen que convertirse en un voto decisivo.
En este caso, personalmente, me gusta el hombre; él es un hombre decente que sería un excelente gobernador.Él es el ejecutivo del condado de Westchester que no es picadillo de hígado, 450 millas cuadradas y alrededor de un millón de habitantes de cual aproximadamente 17% son latinos.
Rob Astorino no viene de una familia real o dinastía política. Él no cree que su familia nació para gobernar.
Fue a la escuela en la Universidad de Fordham en el Bronx. Él tiene una licenciatura en Comunicaciones y antes de entrar en la política, se convirtió en uno de los fundadores de la radio ESPN. Él pertenece a AFTRA -American FEDERACIÓN DE RADIO Y TV ARTISTA, como yo. Él tiene religión; ha sido titular en el Canal Católico en Sirius Radio.
Lo conocí el año pasado y me impresionó como un hombre cuerdo, humilde, confiado.Él no se dio cuenta hace de un par de meses atrás que tenía que hablar español para conseguir votos. Estudió el Español desde joven porque quería; porque él admira y respeta nuestra cultura.Rob Astorino, en este momento, tiene una de las más diversas administraciones en el estado. Eso dice mucho acerca de cómo funcionaría nuestro gobierno estatal.
No necesitamos a alguien con mucho dinero y bolsillos profundos, que se esconde, lanzando una andanada de anuncios negativos y ni siquiera molestarse en aparecer para un debate. No queremos a alguien que comienza una comisión sobre crimen y la obstruye cuando comienza a dirigirse hacia él.
En esta elección, en este momento, voy a votar por Rob Astorino para el próximo gobernador del gran estado de Nueva York e insto a todos los demócratas y los latinos a unirse a mí.
A South Carolina state trooper has been arrested and charged with assault and battery for shooting an unarmed Black man during a traffic stop earlier this month. Lance Corporal Sean Groubert was also fired from his job with the South Carolina Highway Patrol. On Sept. 4, Groubert stopped 35-year-old Levar Edward Jones for a seatbelt violation in the parking lot of a gas station/convenience store in Columbia. On dash-cam video from Groubert’s cruiser, Jones is seen getting out of his car, seemingly surprised to see the officer pull in behind him. “Can I see your license, please?” Groubert asked. When Jones reached into his car to retrieve his license, Groubert started shouting for Jones to get out of the car and drew his weapon. As Jones obeyed and leaned back out of his car, Groubert started shooting. At least four rounds were fired, with one hitting Jones in the hip. Jones put his hands in the air and fell to the ground, as Groubert ordered him to get down and put his hands behind his back. “I just got my license, you said get my license,” Jones can be heard saying. “I grabbed my license, right here. That’s my license, right there.” “What did I do, sir?” Jones asked as he was put into handcuffs. Groubert asked Jones if he was hit. “I think so, I can’t feel my leg,” Jones replied. “I don’t know what happened. I just grabbed my license.” When Jones asked why Groubert opened fire, the trooper said, “Well, you dove headfirst back into your car. Then you jump back out, I’m telling you to get out of your car.” Jones can be heard apologizing. Warning: The dash-cam video below includes the actual shooting.
Groubert “did without justification unlawfully shoot Levar Jones, which produced great bodily injury or was likely to cause great bodily injury. Audio and visual recordings, as well as written statements, obtained are further evidence to indicate the shooting incident was without justification,” according to the arrest warrant. The charge of assault and battery of a high and aggravated nature carries a possible 20-year prison sentence. Groubert entered a not-guilty plea and posted $75,000 bond Wednesday night. He is due in court again on Oct. 24. Groubert’s attorney says there is more than one way to interpret the dash-cam video and claims that Jones reaches for his license in an “aggressive” manner. While he awaits trial, Groubert will not be returning to work. South Carolina Department of Public Safety Director Leroy Smith announced in a statement late last week that Groubert had been fired from the Highway Patrol.
After my review of the facts surrounding this matter, I have determined that Mr. Groubert’s actions rose to such an extent that his employment with us must be terminated. The facts of this case are disturbing to me, but I believe this case was an isolated incident in which Mr. Groubert reacted to a perceived threat where there was none. The department’s Use of Force Policy makes clear that officers shall use “only the level of force necessary to accomplish lawful objectives” and that “the use of force must be discontinued when it becomes apparent to the officer that the force is no longer needed.” That protocol was not followed in this case. Further, this incident occurred in broad daylight. Mr. Groubert had a clear and unobstructed view of Mr. Jones. While Mr. Groubert was within the law to stop Mr. Jones for a safety belt violation, the force administered in this case was unwarranted, inconsistent with how our troopers are trained, and clearly in violation of Department policies. These violations demonstrate behavior that deviates from SCDPS standards and cannot be tolerated. The Highway Patrol professionally makes around 750,000 traffic contacts per year. Our troopers are trained to protect the public we serve, and motorists’ safety is paramount to us. Groubert’s actions in this situation were contradictory to the outstanding training our troopers receive. This case has been thoroughly investigated by the State Law Enforcement Division and has been turned over to the Fifth Circuit Solicitor’s Office for review and determination of any subsequent criminal charges. The SCDPS Office of Professional Responsibility’s internal investigation of this case continues. Additionally, the trooper’s in-car video is part of an ongoing criminal prosecution review and, therefore, will be released in coordination with Solicitor’s Office. I want to thank the community for its patience as we continue our administrative investigation into this matter.
Jones, who was treated and released from a local hospital, hopes the shooting can spur change nationwide. “I know that the community has questions and people are interested in what and why this happened to me,” Jones said in a statement to WIS-TV. “I thank God every day that I am here with a story to tell and hope my situation can make a change. My recovery is coming [along] well, and hope this situation can make a change, not just here at home in South Carolina, but coast-to-coast.”