Facebook founder’s philanthropy pledge angers Ayn Rand Center

 | Raw Story

Facebook founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg has irritated the Ayn Rand Center with his individual decision to donate most of his fortune to charity.

Zuckerberg, the world's youngest billionaire who was named Time magazine's Person of the Year on Wednesday, last week joined a group of wealthy titans such as Warren Buffett and Bill Gates in signing a philanthropy pledge.

This upset the Ayn Rand Center, an advocacy outfit modeled after the idiosyncratic libertarian views of the Russian-American who authored Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead.

The Center blasted out a press release -- which was first noted and mocked by Nick Baumann of Mother Jones -- accusing Zuckerberg of "going guilt," or trying to make other businessmen feel inadequate and guilty for choosing to keep their money.

"Other businessmen, however, have decided to 'Go Guilt,' i.e., to sign Bill Gates and Warren Buffett's 'Giving Pledge,' vowing to give away most of the wealth they have earned," the Center's Don Watkins stammered. "The recent news that Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg has signed the Pledge is making headlines."

Invoking a column he co-authored for Forbes, Watkins declared that the pledge "treats your wealth, not as a justly earned reward, but as a gift from society–one that came with plenty of strings attached. The message is: Fulfill the obligation that came with your riches, give your wealth away–or hide your face in shame."

The pledge, he claimed, was crafted as emotional blackmail for rich people and is the reason why businessmen "feel unearned guilt for their success."

The controversial writings of Rand, the Center's icon, included fierce and unabashed defenses of wealth and a deep dislike of taxes, social programs, and altruism. In modern society, however, altruism is widely considered a virtue, and few, if any, extrapolate malicious intentions from it.

"But your wealth was not an undeserved gift," Watkins said. "Every dollar in your bank account came from some individual who voluntarily gave it to you–who gave it to you in exchange for a product he judged to be more valuable than his dollar.

"You have no moral obligation to 'give back,' because you didn’t take anything in the first place."

Why does the US have to do this censorship?

US air force blocks staff from websites carrying WikiLeaks cables | World news | The Guardian

The US air force has blocked employees from accessing the websites of the Guardian, the New York Times and other news organisations carrying the WikiLeaks US embassy cables.

At least 25 sites that have posted WikiLeaks files had been barred, said Major Toni Tones of the US air force's space command in Colorado. Tones said the action was taken in accordance with a policy that "routinely blocks air force network access to websites hosting inappropriate materials".

According to the Wall Street Journal, staff who attempt to access the blocked sites instead see an on-screen message saying: "Access denied. Internet usage is logged and monitored."

While the US defence department has issued orders against visiting WikiLeaks or downloading classified documents from the site, it has not ordered a blanket ban on visiting news organisations reporting on the contents of the classified cables. The army, navy and marines have not sought to block access to any websites.

The air force's move follows instructions by the government that staff should not access the cables, with the Library of Congress instituting a bar on accessing WikiLeaks's website.

One member of the US armed forces could be celebrated for his part in the WikiLeaks drama. Berkeley city council is considering a resolution in support Bradley Manning, the army private accused of releasing the documents.

Why isn't Julian Assange free?

Q&A: Julian Assange's legal battle | World news | The Guardian

Why isn't Julian Assange free?

Although Westminster magistrates court overturned its decision of last week and granted Assange bail, he is still in custody after the Swedish government said it would appeal. The appeal process could take 48 hours.

Sweden will have 48 hours to appeal, and is thought to be preparing to argue that releasing Assange on bail poses an unacceptable risk that he will abscond. In the meantime, Assange will remain in custody in what his lawyer has described as "Dickensian conditions".

Why did the court change its previous decision to deny Assange bail?

Everyone in the UK is entitled to a "presumption of bail", which means they have the right to remain at liberty unless or until they have been convicted by a court. But prosecutors can deny that presumption if they show a defendant is at risk of absconding. Assange's lawyers and supporters were able to offer the judge sufficient conditions to overcome those fears. If he is freed after the appeal, his supporters will have had to have provided a security of £200,000 – which would be forfeited if he absconds – and two sureties, each of £20,000. Assange's passport has been confiscated and he would have to abide by a curfew and be subject to an electronic tag. He would have to report to a police station every evening.

Are these bail conditions common?

It is not uncommon for defendants who do not permanently reside in the UK to have to offer conditions to ensure they are allowed out on bail. Curfews and tags are often required to grant bail in serious cases, but the amounts of money involved in Assange's case are unusual. The requirement that Assange's supporters find £200,000 before he can be released is unusually onerous, indicating that the court perceives a high risk of flight.

So why has he been treated this way?

Some critics say Assange's lawyers should have been better prepared to anticipate the court's concerns at the hearing last week. Although his legal team were visibly shocked that Assange was remanded into custody last week, experienced criminal lawyers said that possibility should have been foreseen.

Many lawyers have raised eyebrows that Assange is being represented by Mark Stephens and Geoffrey Robertson, whose expertise is in media law and human rights, rather than the specific proceedings surrounding extradition and European arrest warrants.

What happens next?

Assange will be back in court for Sweden's appeal within 48 hours. A further hearing is scheduled for 11 January, when the detail of Sweden's extradition request will be heard. The full hearing is likely to include detailed arguments that the warrant issued by Sweden is invalid. Although there has been speculation that the extradition request is politically motivated, and could facilitate Assange's onward extradition to the US on charges of espionage, the next hearing will focus on the European arrest warrant and the issues raised by Sweden's allegations of rape.

Silvio Berlusconi's thick skin

Riots break out in Rome after Silvio Berlusconi survives confidence votes | World news | The Guardian

Against an alarming background of violence inside and outside parliament, Silvio Berlusconi today scraped through confidence votes in both houses of the Italian parliament.

The survival of his rightwing government was greeted by widespread disturbances in Rome where hooded and helmeted protesters set up flaming barricades, attacked police with sticks and bars, smashed the windows of shops and banks, and set alight cars, police vans and local authority vehicles. Police responded with baton charges, teargas and, in some cases reported by witnesses, indiscriminate beatings.

Ninety people, including 50 police, were reported injured. According to police, there were 41 arrests.

Inside parliament politicians almost came to blows and had to be separated by ushers as uproar broke out after one deputy who had been expected to back the opposition switched her vote at the last minute. According to one contested account, Catia Polidori was called a "whore" by another politician, who was then attacked by a deputy loyal to the government.

Polidori and two other former rebels secured for the prime minister a 314-311 vote in the chamber of deputies, the lower house. Berlusconi also won a confidence vote in the senate, by 162-135.

His path through the upper house was smoothed by the tactical abstention of a rebel group loyal to his former deputy, Gianfranco Fini, whose revolt first pitched Italy into crisis in July. For Fini, the result of the day's ballots was a stinging rebuff and one that is bound to raise doubts about his tactics and judgment.

Questions will also be asked about how, in several parts of Rome, police were apparently caught unawares by demonstrators who split away from a march involving tens of thousands of people protesting against the government and the effects of the recession.

Opponents of the government, including trade unionists and revolutionary socialists carrying red flags, were joined by students demonstrating against a recently approved university reform bill and people left homeless by the L'Aquila earthquake last year. The marchers filled the broad, long avenue that runs from the Colosseum through Rome's ancient forums.

But as they approached the labyrinthine historic centre, where both houses of parliament are located, there were already warnings of the violence to come. Several explosions rocked the city as groups of demonstrators broke away from the march to detonate homemade firecracker bombs.

One was thrown at a government politician as he left parliament. Police and protesters soon clashed in several parts of Rome, leaving several areas of the city strewn with burned-out cars, shattered glass, paving stones and rubble from barricades that had been thrown up by demonstrators and broken down by police.

In the broad Piazza del Popolo, the scene of some of the most violent clashes, two thick pillars of smoke rose from the remains of a barricade and mingled with teargas fired to disperse the protesters. Student demonstrations were also held in several other cities, including Milan where they briefly occupied the stock exchange.

Berlusconi's opponents in parliament failed to unseat the prime minister despite the efforts of three women deputies in the last stages of pregnancy who turned up to cast votes against the government. One, Giulia Cosenza, arrived in an ambulance. Another, Giulia Bongiorno, was helped into the chamber in a wheelchair.

The third, Federica Mogherini of the Democratic party, Italy's biggest opposition group, who is nine months pregnant, won a round of applause from her colleagues after fulfilling a promise to get to parliament "unless my water breaks".

Adding to the tension on a day of high drama, the prime minister and most of his followers walked out of the lower house in the final stages of the debate in protest at the heated rhetoric of Berlusconi's most implacable enemy, the leader of the Italy of Principles party, Antonio Di Pietro.

"We have a prime minister derided and ridiculed abroad," said Di Pietro, who went on to allege that Berlusconi had "bought opposition deputies to assure himself of a majority". Two politicians from his party switched their votes in the runup to the ballot.

Pier Luigi Bersani, the leader of the Democratic party, said after the result was known that the prime minister had won a "pyrrhic victory" by resort to "totally scandalous vote trading". Several commentators noted that the governing coalition's tally fell short of an absolute majority and that, with Fini's group now firmly in the opposition, faced serious difficulties in passing legislation.

But Berlusconi said tonight: "There is no alternative majority, so one must carry on." He added that he would try to broaden his majority, citing as one target the conservative Christian Democrat Union of the Centre (UDC). Since Fini's revolt he has depended exclusively on his own party, the Freedom People (PdL) and the Northern League.

"There are parliamentarians who after today could come back into the PdL's parliamentary groups or, at any rate, into our broader coalition", Berlusconi said. "I am thinking of the UDC and other parties that do not want to stay in a corner."

The Northern League, which has argued for an early election, had been thought likely to object to the Christian Democrats' inclusion. But its leader, Umberto Bossi, said: "There is no veto on the UDC."

The key votes

A bitterly disappointed Gianfranco Fini said his defeat was made "even more painful" by the last-minute decisions of three of his deputies to support the government. One unexpectedly left the chamber. Two voted with Berlusconi.

Without their changes of heart, the vote would have gone the other way. Fini knew some supporters were queasy about bringing down the government, but thought he had persuaded them with an appeal to Berlusconi to resign and form a new administration with a different programme.

The vote stirred claims of corruption by Italy's embattled billionaire prime minister. A deputy for the centre-left Democratic party (PD), the biggest opposition group, opted to support the government in the runup to the vote, as did two from the Italy of Principles party, whose party leader, Antonio Di Pietro, has asked prosecutors in Rome to investigate.

In the senate one of four members who unexpectedly switched votes at the last minute was expelled by his party, the Sicilian-based Movement for Autonomies. His whip said: "This buying and selling [of votes]

Snaptu: Aspirin: the world's humble true wonder drug

Costing less than a penny, an everyday small white pill has been shown by researchers to offer real defence against many forms of cancer

Health reporting has its own lexicon of hyperbole. We get a dizzying number of apparent breakthroughs, advances...

Click here to read the full story

--
This email was sent to you from Snaptu mobile application.