Measles is back. It had help.

Read it here.

How Big Finance Crushes Innovation and Holds Back Our Economy

Whatever happened to innovation in America? President Obama told us that our future depends on it [3]. Across the political spectrum, everyone pretty much agrees that innovation is vital to prosperity.

So why aren’t we getting the job done? Clearly, we’re in desperate need of clean technology that won’t poison us. Our information and communications systems are not up to snuff. Our infrastructure is outdated and crumbling before our eyes. We’re not investing enough in these areas, and it shows. Yet they’re necessary not only for America’s economic health, but for stability and prosperity around the globe.

The U.S. used to be the envy of the world when it came to innovation, making things that dazzled the world and enhanced the lives of millions. But the Information Technology & Innovation Foundation, a bipartisan think-tank that ranks 36 countries according to innovation-based competitiveness [4], tells us we’re getting pushed aside on the global innovation stage. In 2009, to the surprise of those conducting the study, the U.S. ranked #4 in innovation, behind Finland, Sweden and Singapore. In 2011, the U.S. ranking was unchanged [5]. Worse, the U.S. ranked second to last in terms of progress over the last decade.

Research by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) also shows [6] that the U.S. is not making as many cutting-edge products as it used to, and that other countries with strong investment in the foundations of innovation, like education and research and development, and fewer of the things that hinder it, like income inequality, are making greater strides than we are.

Moar here.

Sabotaging Healthcare

Read it here.

Banksters Behaving Badly... Again.

Ohio bank steals woman's possessions by 'mistake,' then refuses to pay up

An Ohio woman returned from vacation to find that all of her belongings had been stolen, taken right out of her house. She knows who did it, but the local police aren't helping her. That's because Katie Barnett's stuff was stolen not by a burglar who slipped in under cover of darkness or a family member who felt it rightly belonged to them, but by a bank.

First National Bank got the wrong house, changing the locks and removing everything from Barnett's home rather than the house across the street. And no one is trying to make things right. When Barnett gave the bank president an estimate of $18,000 for her lost possessions:

“He got very firm with me and said, ‘We’re not paying you retail here, that’s just the way it is,’” Barnett said. “I did not tell them to come in my house and make me an offer. They took my stuff and I want it back.”

The shock of having her house broken into and belongings taken by mistake has now turned into anger.

“Now, I’m just angry,” Barnett said. “It wouldn’t be a big deal if they would step up and say ‘I’m sorry, we will replace your stuff.’ Instead, I’m getting attitude from them. They’re sarcastic when they talk to me. They make it sound like I’m trying to rip the bank off. All I want is my stuff back.”

Right Wing Agenda Exposed

A recent commentary by Cal Thomas exposes the agenda behind Republican obstructionism in the House and Senate. In just a few columns, the elder statesman of hyper-conservatism confirms a suspicion that most progressive observers possess regarding Republicans' behavior in government. The right wing believes that government is bad, and Republicans in government have been busily working to ensure that this is true.

"... a public loss of faith in politics and politicians increases the possibility of government becoming smaller. That could mean less spending, a smaller deficit and ultimately, one hopes, lower taxes."

This is the goal of modern-day Republicanism: small government. The right wing believes that the achievement of this goal would allow their benefactors, the richest of the rich in America, to attain wealth beyond the fabulous levels they have already achieved. 

But one has to question the assumptions in that quote from Thomas's article. 

Just what spending would be less? Republicans always push for higher military spending (which unsurprisingly helps enrich stockholders in the military/industrial complex) while legislating for decreased welfare spending for such things as food stamps (feeding poor children), education spending (ensuring that children grow up with the tools to be successful in life and NOT dependent upon the government), infrastructure spending (to prevent bridge collapses and the like), and unemployment compensation (so families who have been harmed by Republican policies can at least continue to eat). It is quite apparent that government would become smaller by limiting spending beneficial to the majority of Americans while continuing spending on projects that increase the wealth of the richest Americans.

A smaller deficit? Puhlease! Deficit spending has already decreased dramatically under the O'Bama presidency, although you never hear about it in the media. “The CBO projects a $642 billion budget deficit for fiscal year 2013, down more than $200 billion from its February estimate and the smallest annual shortfall since 2008. It is the lowest level of deficit spending to date under President Obama, who faced $1 trillion or more in annual deficits during his first term.” (link) Deficits rose because of massive, unfunded spending on two wars on terrah and the public assistance spending necessitated by the economic crash that started under GWB. Deficit spending is going down and would go down quicker if Republicans would stop obstructing in Congress.

Lower taxes? Indeed. Tax rates are already lower than in decades past. Many corporations pay virtually nothing in taxes. The wealthiest Americans pay a lower tax rate than do middle class Americans. Yet that is not enough lessening of the tax burden on wealthy Republican donors! This lower tax mantra does not benefit the average American for the simple reason that in order to get even bigger tax cuts, Republicans would cut programs that help most Americans, such as Medicare, Social Security, unemployment compensation, road and bridge construction and renovation, education, etc. etc. 

I would like to thank Cal Thomas for hinting at the true reason behind the right wing's desire to kill effective, excuse me, big government: the wealthy can do without it, and that's all that matters.

Hey Mom and Dad, what is in that burger?

Hamburger chef Jamie Oliver has just won a battle against one of the largest fast food chains in the world. After Oliver showed how McDonald’s hamburgers are made, the franchise announced it will change its recipe.
According to Oliver, the fatty parts of beef are “washed” in ammonium hydroxide and used in the filling of the burger. Before this process, according to the presenter, the food is deemed unfit for human consumption.

According to the chef and presenter, Jamie Oliver, who has undertaken a war against the fast food industry: “Basically, we’re taking a product that would be sold in the cheapest way for dogs, and after this process, is being given to human beings.”

Besides the low quality of the meat, the ammonium hydroxide is harmful to health. Oliver calls it “the pink slime process.”

“Why would any sensible human being put meat filled with ammonia in the mouths of their children?” asked the chef, who wages a war against the fast food industry.

More.

My Thoughts On Zimmy vs. Trayvon

Florida's "Stand Your Ground Law, states in part: "A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if: He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony..."

Definition of stalking, in part: pertaining to the act of pursuing or harassing .

Many people believe that Florida's "Stand Your Ground" statute gave George Zimmermann the right to lawfully kill Trayvon Martin. They believe the assertion that Zimmy reasonably felt in fear for his life. However, couldn't the same be said for Trayvon?

Parents and minor kiddoes are taught by law enforcement entities that if confronted by a stalker, they should run or fight. I'm a relatively intelligent person, and my intelligence tells me that Trayvon's "creepy-ass cracker" comment to his much-maligned friend, Rachel Jeantel, indicate his fear of the guy who appeared to be stalking him. If Trayvon had survived his senseless shooting, I have no doubt he would have stated his fear of Zimmy as the reason for his fighting. Thus my belief that Trayvon was doing exactly what many, if not most, parents tell their kids to do if approached by an unwanted stranger. Why didn't Trayvon run? Youth perhaps. Does that matter? Considering Zimmy's "These assholes always get away" comment, is it not likely that the outcome would have been the same even if Trayvon had run (and looked totally guilty in Zimmy's mind)?

The weird thing about this trial was that Zimmy claimed the privileges of a defendant under the Florida "Stand Your Ground" law while claiming not to do so, and the court quoted parts of the law in the Jury Charge even as it claimed this case didn't revolve around the law.

Of course, Trayvon could also have claimed that he was utilizing the same law to defend himself against a perceived stalker, except, of course, he did not survive the incident in order to put forth his claim. Zimmy did survive. To the winner goes the spoils, I guess.

I do not consider it beyond reasonable doubt that Trayvon felt harassed and endangered by this stranger following him in the dark, in his vehicle. I can imagine the fear Trayvon felt when this unknown person got out of his car and approached him in the dark. I can imagine that Trayvon perceived anger in the approaching stranger, a stranger whose bad attitude was given away by his muttering only a few minutes earlier, "These assholes always get away." And Trayvon's fear of Zimmy lead to his own senseless death.

Zimmy's minor bump on the head and sore nose and Trayvon's death would have been avoided if Zimmy had used his brains and had waited in his auto for the police to arrive. That is what actual neighborhood watch members, as opposed to wannabe cops, are supposed to do. Not only did Zimmy endanger his own thoughtless self,  but he ensured the death of an innocent kid by disregarding the instructions of the authorities.

I can't imaging what parents are going to tell their kids to do if approached by an unknown stranger. Thanks a lot, Zimmy.

Pack your bags, ☭OBAMA卐 --- NO THIRD TERM!

And we'll welcome President Hillary Clinton in 2016! Heh heh...!

'murica!

McConnell Admits to Disappointed Conservatives That Obama Did NOT Order IRS Tea Party Probes

Addressing the conservative think tank American Enterprise Institute this Friday, Mitch McConnell delivered a substantively different speech than he did a year ago, when he railed against the supposed anti-free speech administration of Barack Obama.

To a room of undoubtedly disappointed conservatives, McConnell acknowledged that the recent much-ballyhooed actions of the IRS did not have any connections to the White House.

Here.

Masturbation is only a sin after you're born.

Ann Coulter HAS to be a man...

‘Spanking for Jesus’ movement lets God-fearing husbands feel good about punishing their wives

The right wing crazy continues....

What happens when you combine Fifty Shades of Grey with fundamentalist Christianity? “Spanking for Jesus” — or a movement known as Christian Domestic Discipline. The alternative lifestyle fell into the media spotlight on Wednesday thanks to The Daily Beast and Jezebel.

Both publications detailed the household arrangement, in which men dominate women using divinely-approved spankings. It sounds like a crude parody, but The Daily Beast estimates that thousands of couples have actually embraced the Christian Domestic Discipline way of life.

Two websites devoted to Christian Domestic Discipline both emphasize the absolute power of a husband over his wife, a situation that is purportedly supported by biblical teachings.

Read it here.

Darrell Issa: Witch-Hunting FAILURE!

A self-described conservative Republican at the IRS was the first person to single out a Tea Party-affiliated group’s non-profit status application for extra scrutiny. No wonder Issa refused to release them transcripts!

OOPS.

GOP Rep. Says Schools Should Have Classes That Teach Kids ‘Traditional’ Gender Roles

In a speech delivered on the floor of the US House of Representatives, Rep. Phil Gringrey (R-GA) insulted American women, LGBT, and single parents by claiming that America should return to traditional values by mandating that boys and girls take classes on traditional gender roles in a marriage because there are some things fathers do “maybe a little bit different” than mothers.

“You know, maybe part of the problem is we need to go back into the schools at a very early age, maybe at the grade school level, and have a class for the young girls and have a class for the young boys and say, you know, this is what’s important,” Gingrey said in a speech supporting the Defense of Marriage Act.

Read it here.

Perhaps they can show old "I Love Lucy" videos in "Health Class"?

Oh noes, a vicious "mob" descends upon home of Kansas Secretary of State

To hear Michelle Malkin and other fear mongers explain it, the nice Kansas Secretary of State was besieged - BESIEGED I tell you - by shrieking, zombie-like HORDES of evil brown terrorists. The writer of the story decries the "thug-style tactics" of this... this... MOB. OMG!!

I'ma thinking the right wing is experiencing the meltdown that I've been expecting for a while now.

This is what a skeery "MOB" looks like to peeps fulla fear. Looks like a party to me!

OOOOO, skeery!!!

A random economic post.

The auto industry bailout saved two American car manufacturers, as well as tons of jobs: http://prospect.org/article/unpopular-successful-auto-bailout

Rmoney said we should just let the auto companies go bankrupt and then let them rebuild. What that fellah failed to explain is where the money would come from to rebuild bankrupt GM and Chrysler. There wasn't enough dough available, outside of government dough, to do that. Rmoney's argument is moot anyhoo, as now, both GM and Chrysler have returned to profitability. We can debate why, but what's done is done.

And of course TARP saved the economy, even if most of us feel that it would have been "justice" for greedy bankers to have failed (which of course, would have cost jobs of regular working stiffs and hastened our economic collapse):http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704324304575307071188294124.html

To have allowed banks to simply fail would have cost us a fortune. You haven't seen economic collapse like you would if the US banking system ever totally cratered. We were on the verge of a total US financial collapse and I will defer to the large numbers of economists who feel that TARP was the right thing to do. Some economists argue that if TARP had been bigger, we'd have recovered faster than we are now. Be that as it may, TARP is a done deal.

The biggest goal we should have now is to enact stronger banking safeguards to prevent the greed that nearly killed the US economy, (even tho' members of a certain political party whose name I won't mention beyotche all the time about too many regulations on bidness) and work to create jobs.

Many argue that eliminating the restraints of regulation on bidnesses will create jobs. That's not exactly right. See, bidnesses don't need to create jobs unless there are customers lining up to buy more of their products than they can produce using existing employees. Until consumers are able to buy stuff, employers will not hire additional workers. Ask yourself, why would employers hire additional workers if they were not needed? The question is, how do you get consumers to spend on new stuff? Well, they need more dough. And they need to know they have secure jobs so they can spend that additional dough on new stuff without worrying that they'll need that dough to get themselves through a period of unemployment. 

I've said for a long time that we need to have a consumer stimulus. Somehow we have to get more dough to consumers so they'll buy the stuff they have been putting off buying, which **should** cause employers to hire more workers to meet the increased demand. It is reported that American workers have maxed-out on productivity, so if employers want to make dough by meeting the increased demand of more peeps wanting to buy their stuff, then they'd pretty much have no choice but to hire more workers. 

My idea of a consumer stimulus is to defer taxes on everyones' first $60K of income. Rich or not rich, all would get that tax break. Taxes would resume at current levels for income over $60K. This would be a temporary tax break, say a couple years. Unlike the Bush tax cut, which was weighted to the wealthy, this tax break would most greatly benefit the middle class, who are the real consumers in our society. And, unlike the Bush tax cut, I would recommend that this tax break be evaluated every 6 months to see if consumer spending and employment were actually going up. If it works, great. If it don't work, end the program after one year.

I doubt if Our Betters™ would like my plan, because they make out like bandits whether our economy is good or bad. They benefit with cheep labor under our current system. The rest of us suffer. And that's a real crock a shytte.

Debunking Almost Every Republican Lie Against President Obama

http://www.forwardprogressives.com/debunking-almost-every-republican-lie-against-president-obama/

Old White Guys Focus on Militarizing Border, While Real Americans Descend on DC Looking for Reform

http://adf.ly/Mu2EG