Enabling Cookies in Firefox

ALAN SIMPSON: Paul Krugman is a great economist, but let me tell you, he ain’t [...]]]> AMY GOODMAN: Earlier this week, former Republican Senator Alan Simpson—you know, the Simpson-Bowles commission, of course—criticized your arguments, Paul, that U.S. government spending would help lift the economy. Simpson co-chaired President Obama’s bipartisan deficit commission. He appeared on Bloomberg Television.

ALAN SIMPSON: Paul Krugman is a great economist, but let me tell you, he ain’t the best in the world, nor am I the best legislator or the best senator. I mean, this is nuts to have one guy, or me or him, being the total focus here. But you don’t have to have a brain to know that if you owe $16 trillion, when Italy has gone down the slope and their debt is $2.6 trillion, and ours is 16, and when you have—spend a buck and borrow 42 cents, and when every penny of revenue that came into this country last year, with income tax, excise taxes and tariffs, went to only three programs—three programs: Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security—and we borrowed for all the rest of it, ask Paul how the hell you get through that. This is totally predictable, totally unsustainable. I love to read his stuff, because it borders on hysteria about some—he talks about the lost souls of the past, and he’s in there, too.

AMY GOODMAN: So there you have it, the former Republican Senator Alan Simpson about Paul Krugman.

PAUL KRUGMAN: OK. The really interesting thing to say about all this is that things I’m saying—it’s not just me; actually, a large part of the economics profession is saying—but the things that people like me are saying, that is actually standard, textbook economics. It is saying that when you are in a depression, that’s the time to spend. As John Maynard Keynes said, the boom, not the slump, is the time for austerity. Now is not the time. So we’re not saying ignore the debt forever, but we’re saying it’s actually counterproductive to be slashing spending right now. Even in purely fiscal terms, it’s counterproductive, because it depresses the economy, it depresses long-term growth, it hurts long-term revenues. It’s actually going to make you worse off, even in purely budget terms.

So, and then people, like Simpson, make up their own version. They make up their own story, which suits their prejudices but is not borne out either by history or by what we know about how the economy works. And look, we’ve just seen—we’re witnessing a gigantic experiment in the kinds of policies that people like Simpson want. The Europeans have gone whole hog for it. Catastrophic results. And they have not even reassured the bond markets, right? All this was supposedly so that people would say, “Oh, well, those Spaniards, those Italians, they’re doing austerity, so that’s OK. We’ll lend to them.” The Irish—the Irish have done everything that was asked of them: extremely harsh austerity, enormous efforts to cut back. Fifteen percent unemployment now, for years running. They still can’t borrow on the private markets. So, you know, we’ve just—we have some evidence here, and it does not support his view, and it does support mine.

AMY GOODMAN: So, finally, Paul Krugman, how do you shift the politics? You said, if you were president, that’s what would get in the way.

PAUL KRUGMAN: Right. Partly just by making the case. The harshest criticism I’ll have of President Obama is that much of his time he has tried, he has not made the contrary case. He has basically adopted the Republican arguments, but less so. Sort of, “I’ll do just what they did, but not as much of it. And I’ll be” — you know, and he needs to make a case. And last fall, he finally started pushing back. And it turns out that although the American public may say, “We’re against deficits,” they are for job creation, they are for doing stuff, and it works politically.

AMY GOODMAN: And the comparison that the politicians continually make—we know that at home, when we have to balance our checkbook, what we have today—what we have to do—what is wrong with that analogy?

PAUL KRUGMAN: What’s wrong is that we are an economy, not a family, or we are a nation and not a family. And your spending is my income, and my spending is your income. And if we all try to slash spending at the same time, the result is that all of our income falls. The result is that we go into a depression, and we end up worse off. So, think of your—as we’re not an individual family, we are a whole nation. And what we are doing maybe individually sounds sensible, but collectively it’s very destructive.

AMY GOODMAN: Paul Krugman, I want to thank you for being with us. We’re going to continue this conversation online at democracynow.org. Lots of questions are coming in on Twitter and Facebook. We’ll continue with the Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman. His latest book is called End This Depression Now!

Article source: http://www.democracynow.org/2012/5/17/paul_krugman_debt_commission_chair_alan

Article source: http://www.democracynow.org/2012/5/18/headlines

GMO labeling movements, the U.S. war on hemp, and why they refuse to sell out. [includes rush transcript]

Article source: http://www.democracynow.org/2012/5/18/headlines

Anonymous news sources, while providing even the substance of a story, tend to also increase the level of speculation and slant often to benefit the source or his patron at the expense of balanced reporting. Can a whole footprint be left on a matron’s thigh by an unprovoked aggressor who is standing [...]]]>

Anonymous news sources, while providing even the substance of a story, tend to also increase the level of speculation and slant often to benefit the source or his patron at the expense of balanced reporting. Can a whole footprint be left on a matron’s thigh by an unprovoked aggressor who is standing or even fleeing, or is the mark best explained by one being beaten up by a gang, and already on the floor flailing about and hitting attackers willy-nilly as shown on the video footage?

News sources request anonymity either because they are not supposed to publicly say what they are saying, or are likely to have their motives questioned if their identities are revealed. This journalistic device (akin to a witness protection program for accusers) does not specify real persons but “sources,” “witness on the scene,” or “strategically located passengers who saw the first part of the altercation.”

Off-the-record disclosures cover matters too sensitive to be publicly revealed, or still needing further verification. Informal sources, sometimes even when named, may turn out to be unrecognizable anyway, just happening to be on the scene. Such random witnesses can provide angles on the two differing narratives, maybe to even belie what the video is clearly showing. Sir, there is a reason why several persons are beating that nasty old man to a pulp. He called her a matron.

Some columns, especially on movie personalities whether looking like the “before” in a diet program, or still svelte, are the result of off-the-record, even off-the-cuff, remarks, gleaned from eavesdropping on neighboring tables or trolling anonymous sources.

Blind items have also become accepted fare in corporate gossip. It does not take much guesswork sometimes to identify an individual in the columns if the details are specific enough: a former cabinet member of the dictatorial regime who does not dye his hair and has mansions all over the world and who manages to get a government loan processed in 30 minutes. Unlike movie personalities who do the rounds of talk shows to press their denials (she only raised her voice but spoke lovingly to the counter clerk using terms of endearment accompanied by cooing sounds), corporate types simply go abroad and hide from interviews.

Demolition jobs are becoming occupational hazards in politics, entertainment, and now business as well. It is good then for news subjects to be adept at dodging splatter from brown stuff flying off the fans. They can learn from politicians who draw on a full range of answers: This is clearly politically motivated. These are old charges that are being resurrected. I have already been cleared of this particular allegation. Isn’t this a different woman?

The newest wrinkle in the game of non-attribution is a local innovation, just like karaoke lap dancing. A news source can give an opinion on the need to review airport security, what with the lack of functioning CCTV in a particular terminal. It is possible to be cited for saying this, and still be technically off the record because the opinion is expressed in private, intended only for friends having a drink. (I didn’t realize there were reporters around.) Such personal pronouncements can still take on an official tone when reported, even when not for attribution.

The line between private and public manners, between statements for attribution and opinions that are off the record blur in our media-heavy environment where everything is exposed and discussed, and all public behavior is reported immediately in the social media of blogs and tweets. With the mobile device, everybody has become a reporter and the freedom of the press is extended to those who wish to remain anonymous after uploading an incriminating visual record on YouTube with no need for music or interpretation.

Now news items even feature quick polls on whose version seems more credible, as in the case of the airport fracas. The old man wins over the matron and her gallant defender (81%-19%). The video of being beaten up by a gang while seated on the floor is certain to swing the sympathy votes to the one with the still puffy eyes one week after the incident.

Article source: http://www.bworldonline.com/content.php?section=Opinion&title=Anonymous-sources&id=52060

Anonymous has gone after and taken down Indian government websites over the country’s Internet censorship plan, which has resulted in the blocking of websites like The Pirate Bay and Vimeo.

“Namaste #India, your time has come to trash the current government and install a new one. Good luck,” the @Anon_Central Twitter feed tweeted earlier [...]]]>

Anonymous has gone after and taken down Indian government websites over the country’s Internet censorship plan, which has resulted in the blocking of websites like The Pirate Bay and Vimeo.

“Namaste #India, your time has come to trash the current government and install a new one. Good luck,” the @Anon_Central Twitter feed tweeted earlier today.

Hackers have since targeted the websites of the Indian Supreme Court, the All India Congress Committee, Copyrightlabs.in, the country’s Department of Telecommunications, the Ministry of Information Technology, and the Jammu Kashmir Police, according to @Anon_Central.

Anonymous is tagging its Twitter posts with calls to end censorship and save The Pirate Bay.

As the Electronic Frontier Foundation noted in February, “India has been known to censor online content, typically under the guise of national security or obscenity.” That same month, Google and Facebook were required to remove from their websites content the Indian government had deemed offensive. They were among 21 companies forced to take down photographs, videos, text, and other items officials consider anti-religious or anti-social.

The Anonymous attacks started amidst reports that Internet crackdowns were blocking sites like The Pirate Bay, Vimeo, Daily Motion, and Pastebin in India.

Leading the charge is @opindia_revenge, under the #OpIndia tag on Twitter. The feed encouraged Web users to “use tor or VPNs to access torrent sites. #DEFY #government. Tell them they cannot stop you.”

The @opindia_revenge feed promised continued attacks. “#India its a DDOS attack. We do not assure for how long we can keep down sites. But we are firing at them. They will face lags,” it said earlier in the day.

The move comes after The Pirate Bay was hit with a DDoS. It has not been revealed who carried out the attack, but The Pirate Bay said it was not Anonymous.

Wikileaks.org has also been under attack for several days.

For more from Chloe, follow her on Twitter @ChloeAlbanesius.

For the top stories in tech, follow us on Twitter at @PCMag.

Article source: http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2404554,00.asp

The distributed denial of services (DDoS) attacks were in retaliation for an injunction, obtained [...]]]> Websites belonging to India’s Supreme Court, the Ministry of Communications and Information Technology, the Department of Telecommunications, and both of the nation’s political parties were targets of an Anonymous-led hacking attack, BBC News and SecurityNewsDaily reported Friday.

The distributed denial of services (DDoS) attacks were in retaliation for an injunction, obtained March 29 by an Indian court, forcing ISPs throughout the country to block video-sharing websites including Dailymotion, isoHunt, The Pirate Bay, Vimeo, and others, Matt Liebowitz of SecurityNews Daily explained.

The injunction resulted from Copyright Labs’ complaints related to illegal sharing of the Bollywood movies ’3′ and ‘Dhammu,’ the British news organization added. The website of that Chennai-based company was also “down for maintenance” during the attacks, the BBC added.

Liebowitz noted that all of the targeted pages were up and running as of Friday afternoon, but the Copyright Labs website included a “down for maintenance” notice as of 4:36am Eastern Sunday.

According to Liebowitz, Anonymous first threatened this action in a YouTube video posted May 9, in which they said that they had been “noticing the actions of Indian government from past many years… We have come to a conclusion that the Indian government has failed. It is time that we all rise and stand against the corrupt government.” In a digitized voice, the video’s narrator said that Anonymous “cannot let this happen … We must fight against censorship” and dubbing the campaign “OpIndia.”

In a Thursday article, PCMag‘s Chloe Albanesius wrote that the hacking collective was promising to continue attacking the targeted websites, writing on Twitter that they were not sure how long that they could keep sites down, but that they were “firing at them” and that the Internet sites receiving the DDoS attacks would “face lags.”

As previously reported here at RedOrbit, The Pirate Bay itself was recently the victim of a cyberattack. The DDoS attacks against the torrent site lasted at least 24 hours before the site was knocked out of commission.

On Wednesday a hacker named ‘Nyre’ claimed responsibility for the electronic assault, Liebowitz said. Nyre said that he is not affiliated with Anonymous and is, in fact, opposed to the group, calling himself “a one-man army” and stating that Pirate Bay was targeted because it “was a press-release website for Anonymous.”

Article source: http://www.redorbit.com/news/technology/1112538563/anonymous-launches-cyberattacks-against-india/

On Wednesday, about 750 protesters rallied outside the bank’s annual meetings in Charlotte, N.C., brilliantly rebranding the event “Bank vs. America.” The [...]]]> This spring is a season of confrontation at the shareholders’ meetings of U.S. banks and other major corporations. And this week, Bank of America has been in the spotlight.

On Wednesday, about 750 protesters rallied outside the bank’s annual meetings in Charlotte, N.C., brilliantly rebranding the event “Bank vs. America.” The demonstration was remarkable in uniting people across a wide range of issues. As Laura Gottesdiener wrote at Waging Nonviolence, protesters are targeting the bank for

funding mountaintop coal removal, perpetuating student debt that has now surpassed $1 trillion nationally, laying off more than 100,000 workers in the last few years and, of course, foreclosing on millions of homeowners across the country. In anticipation, the Charlotte City Council has already passed laws criminalizing protest, as well as camping and carrying permanent markers.

The latter part of the quote, about the great lengths officials have gone to truncate rights to free speech and assembly, is unfortunately less remarkable than the activists’ coalition-building. There is no doubt more to come, since Charlotte will host the Democratic National Convention in September — and Occupy activists have promised to target that event.

In addition to outside marches, there were also critics of BoA inside the annual meeting, with dissidents introducing shareholders’ resolutions challenging the bank’s overseas tax havens and its support of environmentally destructive mining practices. As Zach Carter of The Huffington Post reported, Bank of America CEO and public enemy No. 1 Brian Moynihan

defended the company’s operation of subsidiaries in nations identified as international tax havens by saying, “We’re a global business,” suggesting that Bank of America needs its sub-companies in other nations because that’s where the business is.

“I don’t think there’s a whole lot of Bank of America operations in the Cayman Islands,” one disgruntled shareholder responded.

Later Bob Kincaid, president of Coal River Mountain Watch, spoke out:

“You are part of the poisoning of Appalachia and so is every one of your directors and so is every one of your shareholders,” Kincaid said. “You are part of the destruction of an entire region of the country.”

“Sir, our environmental team will take a look at it. We look at it all the time,” Moynihan said. The crowd responded with jeers.

The move to target corporate shareholders meetings is the outgrowth of an ad hoc coalition that is calling itself 99% Power. This umbrella campaign includes participation from community groups (National People’s Action, the New Bottom Line, the Unity Alliance), environmental organizations (Rainforest Action Network), and major unions (UNITE HERE, SEIU, USW) — and it overlaps very substantially with the groups that organized the 99% Spring trainings last month. Those trainings — an effort to provide 100,000 people will skills in nonviolent direct action — drew some over-the-top criticism. Adbusters magazine led the way with frantic cries of cooptation. It characterized the trainings as a scheme to make the Occupy movement a “re-election campaign for President Obama” and encouraged its readers to “Jump, jump, jump over the dead body of the old left!”

This was more paranoia than it was an actual effort to look at the 99% Spring agenda or to assess the range of groups involved in it. As I wrote in April, the trainings ended up getting some mixed reviews, but, on the whole, they could hardly be characterized as Camp Obama cheer sessions. Moreover, what some frame negatively as cooptation could easily — and more accurately — be framed positively as Occupy gathering needed allies and successfully setting the agenda for a far-reaching progressive movement.

In my view, the Bank vs. America protests provide more evidence for the baselessness of cooptation complaints. While the decision to focus attention on the spring meetings of major corporations did come out of a coalition of institutional left groups, you’d be hard-pressed to argue that the actions we saw last week do not fit comfortably within the established ethos of Occupy. And even if joining those confronting Moynihan was not your cup of tea, it’s hard to see how the Charlotte protests were mutually exclusive with other Occupy-related organizing. If anything, they helped to keep the movement in the press and generate a continuing sense that activists are coming back strong after a winter of semi-hibernation.

The more valid criticism is that it does not appear that 99% Spring, despite trying to ready tens of thousands of people for escalating civil disobedience, resulted in particularly disruptive actions in Charlotte. The reports I’ve seen suggest that there were six anti-BoA protesters arrested there — with a handful of other arrests occurring at solidarity events in places like New York City. That’s hardly an avalanche of civil resistance.

On the plus side, there’s still more than a month of spring opportunities left, and there are upcoming protests at Sallie Mae, Chevron, Target, and WalMart — not to mention the NATO summit in Chicago. Worthy targets all, I’d say!

Cross-posted from the “Arguing the World” blog at Dissent magazine.

‘);
jQuery(‘#c_text_121′).append(“”);
if (Campaign_121.campaign_info.campaign.picture_url !=null Campaign_121.campaign_info.campaign.picture_url !=”"){
jQuery(‘#moment_right_121′).append(“”);
}else{
jQuery(‘#moment_right_121′).append(“”);
}
jQuery(‘#moment_right_121′).append(“”);
jQuery(‘#c_text_121′).append(“”);
jQuery(‘#moment_left_121′).append(”);
jQuery(‘#campaign_name_121′).addClass(‘moment_campaign_title’);
jQuery(‘#moment_left_121′).append(”);
jQuery(‘#campaign_text_121′).addClass(‘m_campaign_text’);

},
otb_design:function(data){
jQuery(‘#campaign_participate_btn_container_121′).remove();
jQuery(‘#campaign_name_121′).addClass(‘otb_campaign_title’);
jQuery(‘#campaign_text_121′).addClass(‘otb_campaign_text’);
jQuery(‘#campaign_121′).addClass(‘otb_campaign_container’);
jQuery(‘#campaign_title_container_121′).append(“”);
jQuery(‘#campaign_title_container_121′).append(” “);
jQuery(‘#campaign_title_container_121′).append(“”);
},
defaul_design:function(){
jQuery(‘#campaign_name_121′).addClass(‘campaign_title’);
jQuery(‘#campaign_title_121′).html(Campaign_121.campaign_info.campaign.campaign_title);
jQuery(‘#campaign_bottom_121′).remove();
jQuery(‘#campaign_121′).addClass(‘campaign_container’);
},

CampaignLogin : function(){
HuffConnect.Login.onLoginSuccess = function()
{
window.location.hash = ‘join_campaign’;
window.location.reload();
}
if (Campaign_121.campaign_info.campaign.style ==2){
window.location.hash = ‘join_campaign’;
window.location.reload();
}else{
QuickLogin.pop();
}
},

CampaignJoin : function (join_control, campaign_id) {
join_control.style.display = ‘none’;
jQuery(‘#btn_take_part_in_survey_121′).css(“display”, ”);
jQuery(‘#campaign_name_121′).html(Campaign_121.campaign_info.campaign.thank_you_email_subject);
jQuery(‘#campaign_text_121′).html(Campaign_121.campaign_info.campaign.thank_you_email_body);
Campaign_121.CallPostJoinAction();
},

GetFormFail:function(){
alert(‘Sorry, unable to procees your request’);
HuffConnect.hideModal();
},

CallPostJoinAction:function(){
jQuery.ajax({
url: Campaign_121.post_join_actions_url
, success: function(data){
huff.use(‘modal’, function(m){
m.show({
content: data,
width: 750,
height: 550
})
});
//HPUtil.EvalScript(data);
}
, cache: false
});
}

};

Article source: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mark-engler/the-bank-vs-america-showdown_b_1509443.html

It’s a threat that will become very real on the streets of Chicago this weekend, as a [...]]]> World Press Freedom Day came and went earlier this month. While it’s important to take a day to recognize our right to speak and share information, threats to our First Amendment freedoms happen all the time, everywhere.

It’s a threat that will become very real on the streets of Chicago this weekend, as a new breed of journalists and onlookers attempt to cover the protests surrounding the NATO summit.

Just ask Carlos Miller. The photojournalist has been arrested three times. His “crime?” Photographing the police. Most recently, in January, Miller was filming the eviction of Occupy Wall Street activists from a park in downtown Miami.

In twist that’s become too familiar to many, the journalist became the story as police focused their crackdown on the scrum of reporters there to cover the eviction. Miller came face to face with Officer Nancy Perez, who confiscated his camera and placed him under arrest.

And Miller is not alone. Since Occupy Wall Street began last September, more than 75 journalists have been arrested. My colleague Josh Stearns has chronicled these arrests since the movement’s earliest days. Stearns expects to see an uptick in arrests as thousands of protesters and reporters converge on Chicago.

Radical Transparency and the Police

Journalists record many of these arrests themselves as they’re shoved to the ground, shackled and hauled off to jail. Onlookers have documented many of these arrests as well.

The ubiquity of camera-ready smartphones has spawned legions of “live-streamers” who can be found at every large-scale protest streaming a close-up account of almost every arrest. It’s a new form of journalism that’s open to anyone with a mobile phone and the resolve to get between police and protesters.

In the chaos of these events, many live-streamers have been snared in mass arrests. Others are deliberately targeted by officers who aren’t accustomed to the radical transparency of the smartphone era.

Tim Pool has seen the live-streaming phenomenon grow exponentially since he first started streaming Occupy Wall Street protests using a live-linked Galaxy S2 phone. “Most of the people are live-streaming because they think the mainstream media isn’t telling the story that needs to be told,” he says.

The audience for Pool’s smartphone stream peaked above 30,000 simultaneous viewers during last year’s Occupy evictions, making Pool’s raw and unedited reporting a model hundreds of other live-streamers have followed.

Pool plans to organize a global collective of live-streamers to create an alternative news network that gets the story live on the streets before the traditional news vans arrive. “There are not enough streamers for breaking 24-hour global news coverage,” he says, “but we’re getting pretty close.”

The First Amendment a ‘Nuisance’

The ubiquity of smartphones has contributed to America’s decline as a champion of free speech and freedom of the press. The U.S. dropped to 22nd place on Freedom House’s annual ranking of press freedoms. We’re now tied with Estonia and Jamaica. Our flagging status is due to the “detentions, rough police tactics, and other difficulties encountered [by those] covering protests associated with the Occupy movement,” according to Freedom House.

Many arrests result from snap judgments officers make when encountering a swarm of smartphone-carrying citizen reporters.

People, and even police officers, often don’t understand our rights with regard to public photography. At the local level the newsgathering rights of every individual, whether credentialed as a journalist or not, become even murkier.

But that’s changing:

• In January, the Justice Department filed a statement urging the U.S. District Court of Maryland to uphold an individual’s “First Amendment right to record police officers in the public discharge of their duties” and to find that “officers violate citizens’ Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights when they seize and destroy such recordings without warrant or due process.”

• In late March, Simon Glik won a civil suit against the City of Boston, after the First Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously ruled against his arrest for attempting to record police brutality. The court found that Glik had a “constitutionally protected right to videotape police carrying out their duties in public.”
• In early May, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit ordered a preliminary injunction against the Illinois Eavesdropping Act, which made the recording of police officers without their consent a felony, punishable by four to 15 years in prison.
• Earlier this week the Justice Department again intervened in the Maryland case, with a unequivocal statement supporting the right to record police officers, urging the Baltimore Police Department to instruct its officers to protect this First Amendment freedom.

Police departments like having a degree of flexibility in interpreting the law as it gives their officers loose rein to arrest anyone they deem a nuisance, even when they know their case will collapse before the courts.

“When I have been confronted by officers the implicit threat is that if I continued to videotape, they would take away my liberty,” says advocacy journalist Bill Huston. Police have harassed Huston as he’s attempted to record public events related to the fracking controversy in Pennsylvania and New York.

“Even though this is constitutionally protected behavior, the police will intimidate you and demand that you follow their orders,” he said. “Even though we may get a legal remedy in the courts we are still prevented from videotaping on the scene. Our rights are still violated. This is not how the system is supposed to work.”

Your Phone Is Political

Though cases involving our right to record have not yet reached the Supreme Court, it may only be a matter of time. Thus far most of the lower courts have found a rock-solid First Amendment argument for taking photos and video of law enforcement officers in public.

The nation’s leading free speech and civil rights groups agree. Earlier this month, we wrote U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder urging him to address ongoing abuse of our First Amendment freedoms and protect everyone’s right to record.

While the media landscape has changed, our First Amendment rights haven’t. Freedom of the press is more important, not less, when anyone with a mobile phone and an Internet connection can act as a journalist.

‘);
jQuery(‘#c_text_121′).append(“”);
if (Campaign_121.campaign_info.campaign.picture_url !=null Campaign_121.campaign_info.campaign.picture_url !=”"){
jQuery(‘#moment_right_121′).append(“”);
}else{
jQuery(‘#moment_right_121′).append(“”);
}
jQuery(‘#moment_right_121′).append(“”);
jQuery(‘#c_text_121′).append(“”);
jQuery(‘#moment_left_121′).append(”);
jQuery(‘#campaign_name_121′).addClass(‘moment_campaign_title’);
jQuery(‘#moment_left_121′).append(”);
jQuery(‘#campaign_text_121′).addClass(‘m_campaign_text’);

},
otb_design:function(data){
jQuery(‘#campaign_participate_btn_container_121′).remove();
jQuery(‘#campaign_name_121′).addClass(‘otb_campaign_title’);
jQuery(‘#campaign_text_121′).addClass(‘otb_campaign_text’);
jQuery(‘#campaign_121′).addClass(‘otb_campaign_container’);
jQuery(‘#campaign_title_container_121′).append(“”);
jQuery(‘#campaign_title_container_121′).append(” “);
jQuery(‘#campaign_title_container_121′).append(“”);
},
defaul_design:function(){
jQuery(‘#campaign_name_121′).addClass(‘campaign_title’);
jQuery(‘#campaign_title_121′).html(Campaign_121.campaign_info.campaign.campaign_title);
jQuery(‘#campaign_bottom_121′).remove();
jQuery(‘#campaign_121′).addClass(‘campaign_container’);
},

CampaignLogin : function(){
HuffConnect.Login.onLoginSuccess = function()
{
window.location.hash = ‘join_campaign’;
window.location.reload();
}
if (Campaign_121.campaign_info.campaign.style ==2){
window.location.hash = ‘join_campaign’;
window.location.reload();
}else{
QuickLogin.pop();
}
},

CampaignJoin : function (join_control, campaign_id) {
join_control.style.display = ‘none’;
jQuery(‘#btn_take_part_in_survey_121′).css(“display”, ”);
jQuery(‘#campaign_name_121′).html(Campaign_121.campaign_info.campaign.thank_you_email_subject);
jQuery(‘#campaign_text_121′).html(Campaign_121.campaign_info.campaign.thank_you_email_body);
Campaign_121.CallPostJoinAction();
},

GetFormFail:function(){
alert(‘Sorry, unable to procees your request’);
HuffConnect.hideModal();
},

CallPostJoinAction:function(){
jQuery.ajax({
url: Campaign_121.post_join_actions_url
, success: function(data){
huff.use(‘modal’, function(m){
m.show({
content: data,
width: 750,
height: 550
})
});
//HPUtil.EvalScript(data);
}
, cache: false
});
}

};

Article source: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/timothy-karr/the-police-the-iphone-and_b_1526701.html