I used to consider myself a Republican. Now I'm embarrassed to admit that. I however am not a Democrat either. I belong to the party of "The Screwed."
The current political party that would like to call itself "Republican" is a party of and for the wealthy elitist businessmen. They have NO interest in the well-being of the general population. Their only concern is for a double-digit profit at the end of the quarter and they don't care how many resources they have to destroy or consume to get it.
The robber barons are back and this time they openly want it all. They're not making any secret of their intentions.
And just like all the spin selling and PR that has been going on for coal, the natural gas guys are starting up their own story-telling machine to support fracking.
With fresh water shortages developing all over the world, how is a technology that uses fresh water that is loaded with all sorts of nasty stuff (and thus rendered useless to any life form) and can destroy fresh water sources be a sensible solution?
And BTW, several fresh water wells have been contaminated by this WE Energies coal plant. WE Energies has bought the properties after the people have signed agreements to not sue them.
I agree. Also, this is a "comet." Wouldn't a comet develop a "coma" (aka, tail) as it approaches the sun? They are visible for several days just before sunrise or after sunset. With all those pieces out there and being so close to earth, some of them had to be large enough to develop a coma and consequently put on quite a display.
When has a merger ever created more jobs? IIRC there was a leaked memo that mentioned they were planning on laying off about 20,000 employees after the merger. I can't remember the source at this time, but will post again once I find it.
I've been through mergers. It's always the same. There is always a duplication of services within the newly formed larger business entity so in order to create more efficiency they will remove those duplicate positions from the payroll.
The police feel that they've been insulted. They should expect that AND be prepared to deal with it. It's a result of being an authoritarian figure. But the prosecutor is ignorant. The prosecutor should know better. I suspect that they collectively are simply trying to frighten the cartoonist in an attempt to make a public example of him/her or because they're just a bunch of immature people who are insecure in their roles as authority figures. Either way, it's too late for them to reconsider because now they've confirmed there is something wrong in their department.
I have a friend that would consistently give the people at Best Buy, Sears, etc, bogus info re his address, etc. And it's fun trying to be as imaginative as possible like including that a person has just purchased 10 bovine insemination kits or 5 Bradley M2 fighting vehicles.
This could become a whole new form of social discourse and entertainment.
I'd be curious if it simply works with water... 6+ cups of coffee sounds awfully close to the 8 cups minimum daily recommended servings of water daily. I'd suspect the people at risk of developing prostate cancer simply don't drink enough, period. (eww, there's a gross non-sequitur)
The abstract says...
Background Coffee contains many biologically active compounds, including caffeine and phenolic acids, that have potent antioxidant activity and can affect glucose metabolism and sex hormone levels. Because of these biological activities, coffee may be associated with a reduced risk of prostate cancer.
So it appears as if coffee has more going for it. I would suspect the same would be true for certain teas.
We can't change the Democrats or Republicans so we need to work on the American people. They need to learn that the only way change will occur is if they elect people who don't ascribe to the party line of either the D or R side. Trouble is, far too many are interested in getting everything handed to them while at the same time decrying its cost. The American people need to change before their government will.
Well said. People need to do their research. The government is owned, but not by us. We the People have been relegated to the roll of 'consumer.' Our job is to consume; not to think.
What about the recent campaign by MoveOn.org to "save public broadcasting" because of Republicans moving to cut off funding to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, despite the fact that public broadcasting as a whole gets only a small portion of its financing from the government?
I just exchanged a couple of emails with my Congressman Paul Ryan, the chairman of the House Budget Committee. He is proposing that NPR and PBS be cut.
From his response...
"You may be interested to know that the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which provides some funding for NPR and PBS, has received $4 billion in taxpayer money since 2001, including $430 million in Fiscal Year 2011 alone. In an age when consumers are able to choose from a wide variety of radio stations and other entertainment options, I believe that taxpayer-subsidized radio and television is unnecessary. With our national debt greater than $14 trillion and our budget deficit for 2011 at $1.6 trillion, we cannot afford to continue subsidizing radio and television with borrowed money. In the past, I have voted against using taxpayers' money to subsidize these activities, and will continue to do so, as I do not believe it is a core function of the federal government."
In his role as chairman of the House Budget Committee, I think it's a fact that they plan to cut NPR/PBS funding.
It's important to note his perception of NPR/PBS as "entertainment options." He is clearly either ignorant or naive (no good choices there).
Apparently he is not aware of the variety of educational programs offered by PBS that are viewed by children every day. My family and I watch almost every NOVA, NOVA Science NOW, and Nature because of the excellent educational content. These PBS programs help keep me informed re innovations and research results that have been valuable to me in my job.
In addition to those programs, there are others like POV and Frontline that have helped me understand more about a variety of social, cultural, political, and economic issues.
And I haven't even mentioned any "entertainment options" yet.
Also, IMHO there is no better source of unbiased news available than NPR/PBS. I admit that biases are presented occasionally via the various journalists that appear. But if a person listens and thinks and questions, those biases are easily spotted and can be ignored. Don't forget that biases go both ways, right and left.
I know that last comment will be challenged by some so let me clarify that I am an independent conservative, not a Republican. I don't ignore a news source just because "someone" considers a news source to be biased. I listen and do my research and decide for myself.
I have to say that I'm very curious why some Republicans consider NPR/PBS to be liberally biased and don't want NPR/PBS to be funded any longer. It certainly makes them look as if they are afraid of something.
I too, like countless others, have been complaining for quite some time.
I too, like countless others, receive bland, non-commital, pablum-like responses that are essentially meaningless.
The only conclusion that one can reach is that the gov't does NOT want to hear our opinions nor do they care about our opinions. They want to continue to create an illusion of being a caring gov't that is really interested in what the citizens think.
All the execs that have been leaving MS lately are probably courting other companies to become their new CEO. Once they are the CEO (like Elop), they will suddenly decide to "partner" with MS.
1. Execs leave MS
2. Become CEOs of other companies
3. Those companies decide to partner with MS
4. Bypass any monopoly investigation
5. Profit
I have to agree with both of you. I USED to consider myself a Republican. I don't any longer. I started to get uneasy when Reagan pushed the horribly flawed "trickle down" theory. I became more uneasy as I watched businesses starting to exploit their employees by stopping benefits, started shipping jobs overseas and still gave outrageous bonuses to executives. When a Republican congress moved to repeal the Glass-Steagall Act (which set the stage for our financial meltdown) and a Democrat President signed off on it, I stopped believing in this political system. And when "we the people" were referred to as "consumers" I knew it was over for us as a country.
I still hold to conservative values, but when someone can't get a job that pays enough to support a family, my conservative values tell me that's wrong. When an employee can't afford to get health insurance while executives get huge bonuses, that's wrong. Doesn't anyone remember how the "Robber Barons" operated? We're right back to the late 19th century.
We, as a nation, are in serious trouble because neither political party will do anything to correct any of the problems we have now.
I predicted this violent behavior over six years ago as I became aware of how extreme the distribution of wealth has become in our country. If anyone remembers any of their sociology or political science, it's obvious that we are on the path to anarchy. It's the age-old conflict between the "haves" and the "have nots." As a result, you get horrible acts of violence like today.
I grieve for all those that have suffered the loss of a loved one in today's tragic events. And I grieve for the loss of a once-great socio-political ideal that was called America.
And this isn't about banning guns. The perpetrator could just as easily used home-made explosives like Timothy McVeigh or like the Wall Street bombing that occurred on September 16, 1920.
Think about giving credit for the quote you use in your sig to the ever-famous Alfred E. Neuman of MAD Magazine fame. MAD had been my go-to source for commentary re politics and culture (go figure) for quite a while.
He's also been known to be a write-in candidate for various political offices.
Not with more Republican influence entering the Washington mix.
BTW, I used to consider myself a Republican. Now I refer to myself as an independent conservative. Both the Republicans and the Democrats are owned. They will do whatever their corporate masters tell them to do. That's how the Glass-Steagall Act was repealed and that worked out really well (eg, banks merging with insurance companies and investment houses).
We can forget about any chance of any anti-trust action ever happening again.
I can't tell you how encouraged I am by hearing these opinions. My wife and I have been telling our Republican friends that there is NO true Republican party any longer just as there is NO true Democratic party. Both political parties are owned. And we have no choice and no representation.
I personally would like to see a third choice on ballots; ie, ABSTAIN. Since it is impossible to have a third party in this country, we still need a way to tell the politicos whether or not we actually approve of them. I don't want to vote for the lesser of two evils. If I go to the polls, I want it known that I was there to vote; that I value my vote and took the time to travel to use it. But I think that both candidates suck. Therefore, I abstain.
I would hope that if there are more people that feel like the game is rigged, they also would abstain. So when they tally the vote, they have to show what percentage of the population actually believes in the puppet that has been put in place.
IOW, the abstain option would more clearly define a vote of "no confidence."
Every decision is made by a human being. I am tired of "corporations" getting a pass for immoral decisions because they are not people, but imaginary entities. Every corporation is run by people who sit behind a desk and decide what to do.
Every clerk who kills someone by denying them medical coverage is committing an immoral act.
The Microsoft exec who decided he could make his quarterly numbers by assisting in mafia-style protection and harassment cons against Russian companies is committing an immoral act.
Never forget that. Don't let it slide. When evil is done, someone made the decision to do it.
Hoggoth, thank you so much for very specifically identifying the failure of the present day financial markets.
I too am fed up with the phenomenally weak excuse that corporations have an "obligation to their stockholders" to increase their earnings. As if this is the all purpose excuse to do anything they (ie, the corporations) want no matter how immoral or unethical. This excuse combined with insatiable greed was at the heart of the derivatives disaster and the housing bubble.
What really annoys me is how this behavior is considered to be "rational choice." That is a phenomenal euphemism. It so neatly hides all the greed and self-serving desires of a financial institution's behavior. And it does nothing to reveal the lack of concern by these institutions re the outcomes that will affect everyone and everything else.
Slashdot Mirror
YA!!! Coal is safer and cleaner than anything.
Bluff collapse at power plant sends dirt, coal ash into lake
Containing the damage at We Energies site
Collapsed bluff got pass from state regulators
Bluff collapse came weeks after Congress rebuffed EPA on coal ash rule
I used to consider myself a Republican. Now I'm embarrassed to admit that. I however am not a Democrat either. I belong to the party of "The Screwed."
The current political party that would like to call itself "Republican" is a party of and for the wealthy elitist businessmen. They have NO interest in the well-being of the general population. Their only concern is for a double-digit profit at the end of the quarter and they don't care how many resources they have to destroy or consume to get it.
The robber barons are back and this time they openly want it all. They're not making any secret of their intentions.
And just like all the spin selling and PR that has been going on for coal, the natural gas guys are starting up their own story-telling machine to support fracking.
With fresh water shortages developing all over the world, how is a technology that uses fresh water that is loaded with all sorts of nasty stuff (and thus rendered useless to any life form) and can destroy fresh water sources be a sensible solution?
And BTW, several fresh water wells have been contaminated by this WE Energies coal plant. WE Energies has bought the properties after the people have signed agreements to not sue them.
I'd rather take my chances with nuclear.
@Baloroth: thanks for "the facts" link.
I agree. Also, this is a "comet." Wouldn't a comet develop a "coma" (aka, tail) as it approaches the sun? They are visible for several days just before sunrise or after sunset. With all those pieces out there and being so close to earth, some of them had to be large enough to develop a coma and consequently put on quite a display.
Re the 20,000 employees laid off... It's actually a bit of speculation.
Pretending That T-Mobile Job Losses Will Actually be Job Gains
When has a merger ever created more jobs? IIRC there was a leaked memo that mentioned they were planning on laying off about 20,000 employees after the merger. I can't remember the source at this time, but will post again once I find it.
I've been through mergers. It's always the same. There is always a duplication of services within the newly formed larger business entity so in order to create more efficiency they will remove those duplicate positions from the payroll.
The police feel that they've been insulted. They should expect that AND be prepared to deal with it. It's a result of being an authoritarian figure. But the prosecutor is ignorant. The prosecutor should know better. I suspect that they collectively are simply trying to frighten the cartoonist in an attempt to make a public example of him/her or because they're just a bunch of immature people who are insecure in their roles as authority figures. Either way, it's too late for them to reconsider because now they've confirmed there is something wrong in their department.
You got that right.
That sounds like a great idea to me.
I have a friend that would consistently give the people at Best Buy, Sears, etc, bogus info re his address, etc. And it's fun trying to be as imaginative as possible like including that a person has just purchased 10 bovine insemination kits or 5 Bradley M2 fighting vehicles.
This could become a whole new form of social discourse and entertainment.
Everyone should send this message to Best Buy.
"I refuse to shop at Best Buy even though I consider myself to be a 'GEEK.' So sue me."
No.
Next question.
I'd be curious if it simply works with water... 6+ cups of coffee sounds awfully close to the 8 cups minimum daily recommended servings of water daily. I'd suspect the people at risk of developing prostate cancer simply don't drink enough, period. (eww, there's a gross non-sequitur)
The abstract says...
Background Coffee contains many biologically active compounds, including caffeine and phenolic acids, that have potent antioxidant activity and can affect glucose metabolism and sex hormone levels. Because of these biological activities, coffee may be associated with a reduced risk of prostate cancer.
So it appears as if coffee has more going for it. I would suspect the same would be true for certain teas.
...sometimes even a layman has insight to offer.
Someone should share your insight with our politicians.
We can't change the Democrats or Republicans so we need to work on the American people. They need to learn that the only way change will occur is if they elect people who don't ascribe to the party line of either the D or R side. Trouble is, far too many are interested in getting everything handed to them while at the same time decrying its cost. The American people need to change before their government will.
Well said. People need to do their research. The government is owned, but not by us. We the People have been relegated to the roll of 'consumer.' Our job is to consume; not to think.
What about the recent campaign by MoveOn.org to "save public broadcasting" because of Republicans moving to cut off funding to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, despite the fact that public broadcasting as a whole gets only a small portion of its financing from the government?
I just exchanged a couple of emails with my Congressman Paul Ryan, the chairman of the House Budget Committee. He is proposing that NPR and PBS be cut.
From his response...
"You may be interested to know that the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which provides some funding for NPR and PBS, has received $4 billion in taxpayer money since 2001, including $430 million in Fiscal Year 2011 alone. In an age when consumers are able to choose from a wide variety of radio stations and other entertainment options, I believe that taxpayer-subsidized radio and television is unnecessary. With our national debt greater than $14 trillion and our budget deficit for 2011 at $1.6 trillion, we cannot afford to continue subsidizing radio and television with borrowed money. In the past, I have voted against using taxpayers' money to subsidize these activities, and will continue to do so, as I do not believe it is a core function of the federal government."
In his role as chairman of the House Budget Committee, I think it's a fact that they plan to cut NPR/PBS funding.
It's important to note his perception of NPR/PBS as "entertainment options." He is clearly either ignorant or naive (no good choices there).
Apparently he is not aware of the variety of educational programs offered by PBS that are viewed by children every day. My family and I watch almost every NOVA, NOVA Science NOW, and Nature because of the excellent educational content. These PBS programs help keep me informed re innovations and research results that have been valuable to me in my job.
In addition to those programs, there are others like POV and Frontline that have helped me understand more about a variety of social, cultural, political, and economic issues.
And I haven't even mentioned any "entertainment options" yet.
Also, IMHO there is no better source of unbiased news available than NPR/PBS. I admit that biases are presented occasionally via the various journalists that appear. But if a person listens and thinks and questions, those biases are easily spotted and can be ignored. Don't forget that biases go both ways, right and left.
I know that last comment will be challenged by some so let me clarify that I am an independent conservative, not a Republican. I don't ignore a news source just because "someone" considers a news source to be biased. I listen and do my research and decide for myself.
I have to say that I'm very curious why some Republicans consider NPR/PBS to be liberally biased and don't want NPR/PBS to be funded any longer. It certainly makes them look as if they are afraid of something.
I too, like countless others, have been complaining for quite some time.
I too, like countless others, receive bland, non-commital, pablum-like responses that are essentially meaningless.
The only conclusion that one can reach is that the gov't does NOT want to hear our opinions nor do they care about our opinions. They want to continue to create an illusion of being a caring gov't that is really interested in what the citizens think.
Hence the sig below...
All the execs that have been leaving MS lately are probably courting other companies to become their new CEO. Once they are the CEO (like Elop), they will suddenly decide to "partner" with MS.
1. Execs leave MS
2. Become CEOs of other companies
3. Those companies decide to partner with MS
4. Bypass any monopoly investigation
5. Profit
Glad to see that I wasn't the only one to notice that. That was my impression as well; ie, fake.
I have to agree with both of you. I USED to consider myself a Republican. I don't any longer. I started to get uneasy when Reagan pushed the horribly flawed "trickle down" theory. I became more uneasy as I watched businesses starting to exploit their employees by stopping benefits, started shipping jobs overseas and still gave outrageous bonuses to executives. When a Republican congress moved to repeal the Glass-Steagall Act (which set the stage for our financial meltdown) and a Democrat President signed off on it, I stopped believing in this political system. And when "we the people" were referred to as "consumers" I knew it was over for us as a country.
I still hold to conservative values, but when someone can't get a job that pays enough to support a family, my conservative values tell me that's wrong. When an employee can't afford to get health insurance while executives get huge bonuses, that's wrong. Doesn't anyone remember how the "Robber Barons" operated? We're right back to the late 19th century.
We, as a nation, are in serious trouble because neither political party will do anything to correct any of the problems we have now.
I predicted this violent behavior over six years ago as I became aware of how extreme the distribution of wealth has become in our country. If anyone remembers any of their sociology or political science, it's obvious that we are on the path to anarchy. It's the age-old conflict between the "haves" and the "have nots." As a result, you get horrible acts of violence like today.
I grieve for all those that have suffered the loss of a loved one in today's tragic events. And I grieve for the loss of a once-great socio-political ideal that was called America.
And this isn't about banning guns. The perpetrator could just as easily used home-made explosives like Timothy McVeigh or like the Wall Street bombing that occurred on September 16, 1920.
Think about giving credit for the quote you use in your sig to the ever-famous Alfred E. Neuman of MAD Magazine fame. MAD had been my go-to source for commentary re politics and culture (go figure) for quite a while.
He's also been known to be a write-in candidate for various political offices.
Not with more Republican influence entering the Washington mix.
BTW, I used to consider myself a Republican. Now I refer to myself as an independent conservative. Both the Republicans and the Democrats are owned. They will do whatever their corporate masters tell them to do. That's how the Glass-Steagall Act was repealed and that worked out really well (eg, banks merging with insurance companies and investment houses).
We can forget about any chance of any anti-trust action ever happening again.
I can't tell you how encouraged I am by hearing these opinions. My wife and I have been telling our Republican friends that there is NO true Republican party any longer just as there is NO true Democratic party. Both political parties are owned. And we have no choice and no representation.
I personally would like to see a third choice on ballots; ie, ABSTAIN. Since it is impossible to have a third party in this country, we still need a way to tell the politicos whether or not we actually approve of them. I don't want to vote for the lesser of two evils. If I go to the polls, I want it known that I was there to vote; that I value my vote and took the time to travel to use it. But I think that both candidates suck. Therefore, I abstain.
I would hope that if there are more people that feel like the game is rigged, they also would abstain. So when they tally the vote, they have to show what percentage of the population actually believes in the puppet that has been put in place.
IOW, the abstain option would more clearly define a vote of "no confidence."
Accept No Substitute for Real Net Neutrality
Sign the petition.
Every decision is made by a human being. I am tired of "corporations" getting a pass for immoral decisions because they are not people, but imaginary entities. Every corporation is run by people who sit behind a desk and decide what to do.
Every clerk who kills someone by denying them medical coverage is committing an immoral act. The Microsoft exec who decided he could make his quarterly numbers by assisting in mafia-style protection and harassment cons against Russian companies is committing an immoral act.
Never forget that. Don't let it slide. When evil is done, someone made the decision to do it.
Hoggoth, thank you so much for very specifically identifying the failure of the present day financial markets.
I too am fed up with the phenomenally weak excuse that corporations have an "obligation to their stockholders" to increase their earnings. As if this is the all purpose excuse to do anything they (ie, the corporations) want no matter how immoral or unethical. This excuse combined with insatiable greed was at the heart of the derivatives disaster and the housing bubble.
What really annoys me is how this behavior is considered to be "rational choice." That is a phenomenal euphemism. It so neatly hides all the greed and self-serving desires of a financial institution's behavior. And it does nothing to reveal the lack of concern by these institutions re the outcomes that will affect everyone and everything else.
Is it because he barks loudly or does he have a serious digestive disorder?
This strikes me like something someone would say about a perfectly prepared cheeseburger just before they consume it.
And now to find a dating method that is actually accurate.
The last time I commented about the inconsistencies of current dating methods I was modded down as a troll.
But the dating inconsistencies remain. And I thank you for pointing that out.