Although the Urban Dictionary claims that the etymology of 'politician' is from 'poly' meaning 'many' and 'tics' meaning 'blood-sucking parasites', the actual meaning of politician is, of course, someone who practices politics. In turn, 'politics' derives from a Greek word meaning "of, for, or relating to citizens" and refers to any process by which decisions are made for the collective of all affected individuals.
We have come to expect so little of our public leaders that even Merriam-Webster includes a derogatory meaning as a second definition, namely, "a person primarily interested in political office for selfish ... reasons."
Suppose a person were interested in the office of CEO of a major MNC for selfish reasons! Would that not be totally shocking? But, of course, if a person aspires to become the POTUS, that person is expected to be free of all selfish motivation!
Anyway, the primary Merriam-Webster definition of 'politician' is along these lines: "one actively engaged in conducting the business of a government."
The difficulty is with the word 'government'. People often refer to 'the government' -- even Robert Oak sometimes uses that term as though it had an unambiguous meaning in the U.S.. In reality, there are many governments, some democratic and some not. The meaning of 'government' is the same as 'management', and the word derives from an ancient Greek word for "steering, pilotage, guiding."
Thorough-going anarchists are opposed not only to government but to management. Wannabe anarchists (such as self-styled 'libertarians') generally think of themselves as pro-management but anti-government, ignoring the obvious contradiction. What such pseudo-liberatarians mean is that they are anti-democratic, and some of them will even admit to that prejudice.
Generally, anarchists and wannabe anarchists must be reminded that if you are part of a power grid, that implies a government, whether subject to democratic control or not. If you access public roads, that implies that you are subject to a government, whether subject to democratic control or not. If you are subject to the laws of the United States of America, that implies that you are subject to the interpretation of those laws by a government called 'Supreme Court of the United States', whether subject to democratic control or not.
Pseudo-libertarians often get around the necessity for much more government than they like by pretending that expanding the scope of power of courts in equity, and related enforcement mechanisms, somehow amounts to less government! Well, at least that is better than the Morality Party posing as part of the Money Party, which seeks to get around the necessity for bigger government than they like by pretending that expanding the scope of power of the criminal courts somehow amounts to less government!
Corporations, of course, are governments, although they are generally plutocratic or autocratic rather than democratic.
Since we have a federal system and separation of powers, we have many governments. The federal judiciary is a government. Each district of the federal judiciary is a government. Each state is a set of governments, down to the precinct level.
Government is a part of the natural state of humanity and can hardly be thought of as inherently evil, except in that the natural state of humanity may be thought of as evil. In any case, the multiplicity of governments should never be considered a bad thing. From a fundamental libertarian point of view, an essential goal of any free people is to prevent or break up concentrations of power.
In the UK there is a specific meaning to the term "the government," but in the US, there is no such thing as "the government." It's a myth.
Look at the humungous salaries, personal jet planes and other perks, enjoyed by media personalities such as Rush Limbaugh. These media celebrities ... what is the proper word for them? ... I wouldn't insult 'working girls' ... I'll just call these darlings of corporate media what they are ... POLITICIANS ... politicians who are spared the rigors of ever actually running for office ...
... these never-elected media POLITICIANS ... how they love to make sure that the word 'politician' is a bad name!
Meanwhile, justices of the Supreme Court -- who are also POLITICIANS -- continue largely above criticism except as either 'liberals' or as 'conservatives', according to which tendency is portrayed as the source of all evil as explained by one or another of the darlings of corporate media.
Corporate CEOs are generally protected from real criticism on corporate media, although they too are actually POLITICIANS.
General officers (top generals and admirals of the military) are invariably treated with great deference, although they too are POLITICIANS.
Although somewhat tarnished in the public's view, it is understood by all the talking heads (politicians!) of corporate media that the Chair of the Federal Reserve Board is, of course, a very wise man possessed of a degree of understanding far beyond the grasp of us mere mortals ... and, of course, the Fed Chair would never be called a 'POLITICIAN'.
The entire legislative endeavor is held hostage to the game of Republicans versus Democrats, 'liberals' versus 'conservatives', while elected members of legislative bodies are honestly called 'POLITICIANS' -- even as they themselves often use the word in a derogatory sense!
In this case, "friend of the devil is a friend of mine."
The devil here, btw, is regulatory law.
We do know, of course, that all regulatory law is inherently evil
Of course, corporate policies of Google and Amazon and TransUnion and Equifax -- since these are profit-driven entities -- are inherently GOOD
Don't worry. The market will take care it or, in extreme cases, we can count on our courts to correct any excesses. See your local attorney! (Bring $$$)
Nice call out on this insanity on how if the U.S. defaults all will be fine.
Also, the slam on Thomas, ya know, I've seen economic insanity based on philosophy over there, which is why I don't link to them, but Angry Bear has done this as well.
Screaming bloody murder how E-verify will just crash the system. Very typical when topic "immigration" pops up that all reason flies out the window.
The problem is that technological changes in how information is disseminated have allowed private governments (media empires) to subvert intent of the First Amendment guarantee of freedom of the press. Has anyone considered the possibility that the United States Post Office at one time was a bulwark of freedom of the press by way of ensuring equal access and preventing over-concentration of ownership of print media?
Proof is in the pudding.
Either in the last congress or the present congress, how much play do committee investigations into corporate wrong-doing get in corporate media? If there are any real investigations, and if these are allowed any teevee news time, how much of it is reported as 'Republicans versus Democrats' and how much is reported on the substance of the investigation? I can recall back in the 1950s when Senator Kefauver's hearings into, for example, Big Pharma, were widely aired and reported. Does that happen today?
Of course, there is C-Span, but how many people watch it? Probably more than Murdoch would like.
Why is it phone hacking is a major crime and a violation of privacy yet Google and Amazon can profile and track my every movement and thought, as can AT&T and Verizon and use that data not only to try to sell me stuff, but also limit what I see online? Why is it legal for credit ratings agencies and banks to profile me, literally lowering my credit score if I use my credit card at Walmart or for food purchases in groceries?
Think about geotargeting, that means these companies are not just profiling you, they know where you physically are, so why is one such a crime yet another considered the new business model?
Although NPR News is 99% seamlessly of the same stinking cloth as privately owned corporate news media, NPR programming does include two NPR-sponsored news shows worthy of the term "jouranalism" -- Fresh Air and This American Life. In interview 13 July 2011, Fresh Air interviewed Louise Story of the New York Times, about why there are so few prosecutions of Wall Street corrupt practices that greatly contributed to the current economic problems coming to be known as 'The Great Recession".
Louise Story is building a reputation as a financial reporter. She appears to be one of that vanishing breed of 'investigative reporters' capable of doing the whole thing -- from initiating an investigation to the 'leg work' involved, to writing it up and even presenting it in-person on television and radio.
Here's my take on the main points made by Louise Story:
1. Department of Justice prosecutions continue few and minimal in scope because referrals to DoJ by regulators are few and minimal in scope. Louise Story relates what regulators tell her, namely that back in the 1990s Congress signaled intent of Congress to rely on banks to police themselves!
2. Guidelines issued by the Justice Department in 2008 (Bush's post-Gonzales Micheal Mukasey) have promoted a softer approach to corporate crimes. For example, no high-level executive has been charged in a case related to the 2008 financial crisis, and this situation continues to the present day.
3. Back in 2008 Fed intervened on behalf of banks with SEC lawyers and auditors to go easy on the banks, and part of that Fed intervention involved Timothy Geithner, now Secretary of the Treasury and then President of the New York Federal Reserve Bank.
I know everybody likes to blame Attorney General Holder, and no doubt that is justified to some extent although Holder, in my opinion, has done a better overall job than any AG since the Carter administration. However, it appears to me that Congress and the federal courts (up to and including the SCOTUS) are also implicated and seldom called to account. What we really have is an entrenched culture of corruption, centered in Washington, D.C.. (Thank you, Hilary Clinton for airing that insight, whatever your reasons may have been!)
Along with the three branches of government and the lobbyists, another major component of the culture of corruption is the "Fourth Estate" -- corporate media.
Video project for anyone to put up a video with Bernanke, Fed, FOMC and economic advisers singing this, intermixed with graphs of current economic reports, our new 3rd world nation with it's corresponding poverty and homelessness.
Earlier this year, I would have taken Obama if I could get $3 for my $2, but now I would need $4 for my $2, at least.
Mandate of Heaven
Looks like Obama is losing what in the old days was known in China as the "Mandate of Heaven." When an emperor lost the Mandate of Heaven, that reflected failing crops and natural disasters as well as increasing corruption and thievery. It was always the Mandate of Heaven that pulled the Emperor, or at least the Dynasty, through tough times. Or it was loss of the Mandate of Heaven that sunk the Emperor and, often, the Dynasty.
Of course, the Mandate of Heaven is all a matter of perception. It's like putting a sales value on Facebook -- almost entirely intangibles. Analysis based on fundamentals is impossible. It's all about perceived value.
Clinton, in 1996, survived because he held onto the Mandate of Heaven, even as he sacrificed whatever support he may once have had among progressives. Similarly, Bush in 2004 survived with the appearance of the Mandate of Heaven, even though trends could be projected toward loss of the Mandate. Reagan clearly retained the Mandate of Heaven in 1984. Nixon managed it in 1972 ... but then the Mandate evaporated on him.
It's bigger than just Obama, and no one knows how big. When the last emperor of China lost the Mandate of Heaven, it spelled the end of the entire imperial system that had ruled in China for millennia. There had always been transitional times, of course, but the imperial system -- renewed rather than reformed -- was always the objective throughout any transitional period.
A lot depends on whether Obama has any real opposition in 2012. But a lot also depends on developments that cannot be foreseen -- the Mandate of Heaven.
We also must take into account the influence of millennialism or, more accurately, of the many millennialisms that circulate in the American public mind today. If decline is seen as a symptom of some predestined global time-table, then Obama is off the hook ... unless enough people can be convinced that the evil times are caused by homosexuality in the U.S. military.
If a Republican wins by default in 2012, and decline continues to accelerate ... that might pose a threat to established international interests that could only be rated by those interests as much riskier than if Obama wins by default in 2012. "You don't change horses in the middle of a raging stream."
As Michael Collins notes, about the only sure thing is that the Mayan calendar runs out in 2012.
Dean Baker articulates the lunacy of raising the Medicare age. If anything, people over 60 should have the opportunity to buy into Medicare. How many people are going to die before they ever have a chance to get Medicare?
"Many struggle through their early and mid-60s, just hanging on until they reach age 65 and have the government pick up most of their health care costs through Medicare. Insurance for someone in their 60s with any moderately serious medical condition can easily be $20,000 or $30,000 a year."
The people of the UK benefit substantially by a more open press than we have here. The Guardian and the Independent seem to take on power more aggressively than lets say, oh, any press organization here. There are more than the two papers I mentioned, I suspect.
The fascinating and encouraging feature of all this is that the ground swell of popular outrage, well directed, is forcing this forward. I've never seen anything like the compressed timeline from Davies on the 4th to today's indication that MPs of all parties will pass a bill effectively telling Murdoch to go packing.
Really good post. It's amazing how Osellout has shown he's no different than the plutocratic driven extreme Right..... cut spending, cut Social Security, cut Medicare - - - have to create Economic "Confidence" for those wealthy "job creators" is the storyline. He must sense that cushy, well-funded retirement is almost in his grasp if he plays ball and especially if he manages to get re-elected.
The outright cynicism and spin from these clowns would be hilarious if it weren't so harmful
and noticed the percentages are wrong in that summary, sorry. I use Excel to calculate out percentages and made a typo in the spreadsheet, thus using the wrong month on percentage changes. Should be correct now.
Also, bear in mind country data is not seasonally adjusted, so giving a monthly percentage increase on China, isn't exactly fair. But regardless, I show further down in the post that China for the year is heading to a new record and year to year comparisons of country data are valid statistically.
While I know the left hates FAUX, I was so glad when MSNBC fired Olbermann. MSNBC still has pure 100% spin doctors, in particular that Lawrence ODonnell pushing for unlimited migration. MSNBC is owned by G.E., heavily influenced by Microsoft too and that is their agenda....unlimited migration so they can control the globe's cheap labor.
Seeing that pop up as "news", to me is about as bad as FAUX with their "Weapons of Mass Destruction" war cheer leading.
Least we leave out CNN, Ali Velshi is the most inane, mealy mouthed repeat "talking points" crap I've seen in a while. Worse than CNBC, which likes to shut down anyone who doesn't push corporate agendas on their "interview" shows.
So, they are all corporate controlled. Maybe I should have a running tally of how many corporate lobbyist plants I've seen on the Huffington Post, paraded as "news". It's obscene, what a sell out these corporate lobbyist agenda items touted as "advocacy" or "news articles".
Same can be said of many other "news" sources.
Here, at least we're all doing this because we have something to say. We're not getting rich over it but at least people know we're not writing some crap because someone paid us to write some crap.
Ads are clearly marked ads and that is EP's policy, in spite of the many attempts to get me to allow some "article" with a "link in it" for a "fee" to be published here.
Bottom line, real Journalism of any kind doesn't pay.
89,000- PhDs are now in temporary employment postdoctoral positions with no health benefits, etc, according to the National Postdoctoral Association (many of theses are H1Bs receiving PhDs in foreign countries, but need jobs here).
27,000- PhDs- the number of Science and Engineering postdocs (Physics and Engineering) with temporary visas at US universities, as given by the National Science Foundation, tripling from 1985 to 2005.
It's been around for a very long time and except for some conspiracy theorists isn't too controversial, when the capital requirements and regulation are used in conjunction, which, financial deregulation removed (another Congressional act)
Try derivatives and evaluations of them if you want to get into some CT. Seriously, it doesn't help to focus on where the problems are when people are getting their panties all in a bunch over something that is pretty stable.
Yes Bush pushed for it, but Bush wasn't setting the interest rates, Greenspan/Bernanke were. Nor did Bush institute fractional reserve lending.
Through several administrations the one constant in this whole mess has been the Federal Reserve. A private banking cartel disguised as a government agency, doing everything in it's power to transfer a nation's wealth into the pockets of it's friends.
And nothing Bush said or did gets it off the hook for that.
Although the Urban Dictionary claims that the etymology of 'politician' is from 'poly' meaning 'many' and 'tics' meaning 'blood-sucking parasites', the actual meaning of politician is, of course, someone who practices politics. In turn, 'politics' derives from a Greek word meaning "of, for, or relating to citizens" and refers to any process by which decisions are made for the collective of all affected individuals.
We have come to expect so little of our public leaders that even Merriam-Webster includes a derogatory meaning as a second definition, namely, "a person primarily interested in political office for selfish ... reasons."
Suppose a person were interested in the office of CEO of a major MNC for selfish reasons! Would that not be totally shocking? But, of course, if a person aspires to become the POTUS, that person is expected to be free of all selfish motivation!
Anyway, the primary Merriam-Webster definition of 'politician' is along these lines: "one actively engaged in conducting the business of a government."
The difficulty is with the word 'government'. People often refer to 'the government' -- even Robert Oak sometimes uses that term as though it had an unambiguous meaning in the U.S.. In reality, there are many governments, some democratic and some not. The meaning of 'government' is the same as 'management', and the word derives from an ancient Greek word for "steering, pilotage, guiding."
Thorough-going anarchists are opposed not only to government but to management. Wannabe anarchists (such as self-styled 'libertarians') generally think of themselves as pro-management but anti-government, ignoring the obvious contradiction. What such pseudo-liberatarians mean is that they are anti-democratic, and some of them will even admit to that prejudice.
Generally, anarchists and wannabe anarchists must be reminded that if you are part of a power grid, that implies a government, whether subject to democratic control or not. If you access public roads, that implies that you are subject to a government, whether subject to democratic control or not. If you are subject to the laws of the United States of America, that implies that you are subject to the interpretation of those laws by a government called 'Supreme Court of the United States', whether subject to democratic control or not.
Pseudo-libertarians often get around the necessity for much more government than they like by pretending that expanding the scope of power of courts in equity, and related enforcement mechanisms, somehow amounts to less government! Well, at least that is better than the Morality Party posing as part of the Money Party, which seeks to get around the necessity for bigger government than they like by pretending that expanding the scope of power of the criminal courts somehow amounts to less government!
Corporations, of course, are governments, although they are generally plutocratic or autocratic rather than democratic.
Since we have a federal system and separation of powers, we have many governments. The federal judiciary is a government. Each district of the federal judiciary is a government. Each state is a set of governments, down to the precinct level.
Government is a part of the natural state of humanity and can hardly be thought of as inherently evil, except in that the natural state of humanity may be thought of as evil. In any case, the multiplicity of governments should never be considered a bad thing. From a fundamental libertarian point of view, an essential goal of any free people is to prevent or break up concentrations of power.
In the UK there is a specific meaning to the term "the government," but in the US, there is no such thing as "the government." It's a myth.
Look at the humungous salaries, personal jet planes and other perks, enjoyed by media personalities such as Rush Limbaugh. These media celebrities ... what is the proper word for them? ... I wouldn't insult 'working girls' ... I'll just call these darlings of corporate media what they are ... POLITICIANS ... politicians who are spared the rigors of ever actually running for office ...
... these never-elected media POLITICIANS ... how they love to make sure that the word 'politician' is a bad name!
Meanwhile, justices of the Supreme Court -- who are also POLITICIANS -- continue largely above criticism except as either 'liberals' or as 'conservatives', according to which tendency is portrayed as the source of all evil as explained by one or another of the darlings of corporate media.
Corporate CEOs are generally protected from real criticism on corporate media, although they too are actually POLITICIANS.
General officers (top generals and admirals of the military) are invariably treated with great deference, although they too are POLITICIANS.
Although somewhat tarnished in the public's view, it is understood by all the talking heads (politicians!) of corporate media that the Chair of the Federal Reserve Board is, of course, a very wise man possessed of a degree of understanding far beyond the grasp of us mere mortals ... and, of course, the Fed Chair would never be called a 'POLITICIAN'.
The entire legislative endeavor is held hostage to the game of Republicans versus Democrats, 'liberals' versus 'conservatives', while elected members of legislative bodies are honestly called 'POLITICIANS' -- even as they themselves often use the word in a derogatory sense!
In this case, "friend of the devil is a friend of mine."
The devil here, btw, is regulatory law.
We do know, of course, that all regulatory law is inherently evil
Of course, corporate policies of Google and Amazon and TransUnion and Equifax -- since these are profit-driven entities -- are inherently GOOD
Don't worry. The market will take care it or, in extreme cases, we can count on our courts to correct any excesses. See your local attorney! (Bring $$$)
Nice call out on this insanity on how if the U.S. defaults all will be fine.
Also, the slam on Thomas, ya know, I've seen economic insanity based on philosophy over there, which is why I don't link to them, but Angry Bear has done this as well.
Screaming bloody murder how E-verify will just crash the system. Very typical when topic "immigration" pops up that all reason flies out the window.
The problem is that technological changes in how information is disseminated have allowed private governments (media empires) to subvert intent of the First Amendment guarantee of freedom of the press. Has anyone considered the possibility that the United States Post Office at one time was a bulwark of freedom of the press by way of ensuring equal access and preventing over-concentration of ownership of print media?
Proof is in the pudding.
Either in the last congress or the present congress, how much play do committee investigations into corporate wrong-doing get in corporate media? If there are any real investigations, and if these are allowed any teevee news time, how much of it is reported as 'Republicans versus Democrats' and how much is reported on the substance of the investigation? I can recall back in the 1950s when Senator Kefauver's hearings into, for example, Big Pharma, were widely aired and reported. Does that happen today?
Of course, there is C-Span, but how many people watch it? Probably more than Murdoch would like.
Why is it phone hacking is a major crime and a violation of privacy yet Google and Amazon can profile and track my every movement and thought, as can AT&T and Verizon and use that data not only to try to sell me stuff, but also limit what I see online? Why is it legal for credit ratings agencies and banks to profile me, literally lowering my credit score if I use my credit card at Walmart or for food purchases in groceries?
Think about geotargeting, that means these companies are not just profiling you, they know where you physically are, so why is one such a crime yet another considered the new business model?
Although NPR News is 99% seamlessly of the same stinking cloth as privately owned corporate news media, NPR programming does include two NPR-sponsored news shows worthy of the term "jouranalism" -- Fresh Air and This American Life. In interview 13 July 2011, Fresh Air interviewed Louise Story of the New York Times, about why there are so few prosecutions of Wall Street corrupt practices that greatly contributed to the current economic problems coming to be known as 'The Great Recession".
Louise Story is building a reputation as a financial reporter. She appears to be one of that vanishing breed of 'investigative reporters' capable of doing the whole thing -- from initiating an investigation to the 'leg work' involved, to writing it up and even presenting it in-person on television and radio.
Here's my take on the main points made by Louise Story:
1. Department of Justice prosecutions continue few and minimal in scope because referrals to DoJ by regulators are few and minimal in scope. Louise Story relates what regulators tell her, namely that back in the 1990s Congress signaled intent of Congress to rely on banks to police themselves!
2. Guidelines issued by the Justice Department in 2008 (Bush's post-Gonzales Micheal Mukasey) have promoted a softer approach to corporate crimes. For example, no high-level executive has been charged in a case related to the 2008 financial crisis, and this situation continues to the present day.
3. Back in 2008 Fed intervened on behalf of banks with SEC lawyers and auditors to go easy on the banks, and part of that Fed intervention involved Timothy Geithner, now Secretary of the Treasury and then President of the New York Federal Reserve Bank.
I know everybody likes to blame Attorney General Holder, and no doubt that is justified to some extent although Holder, in my opinion, has done a better overall job than any AG since the Carter administration. However, it appears to me that Congress and the federal courts (up to and including the SCOTUS) are also implicated and seldom called to account. What we really have is an entrenched culture of corruption, centered in Washington, D.C.. (Thank you, Hilary Clinton for airing that insight, whatever your reasons may have been!)
Along with the three branches of government and the lobbyists, another major component of the culture of corruption is the "Fourth Estate" -- corporate media.
Video project for anyone to put up a video with Bernanke, Fed, FOMC and economic advisers singing this, intermixed with graphs of current economic reports, our new 3rd world nation with it's corresponding poverty and homelessness.
Earlier this year, I would have taken Obama if I could get $3 for my $2, but now I would need $4 for my $2, at least.
Mandate of Heaven
Looks like Obama is losing what in the old days was known in China as the "Mandate of Heaven." When an emperor lost the Mandate of Heaven, that reflected failing crops and natural disasters as well as increasing corruption and thievery. It was always the Mandate of Heaven that pulled the Emperor, or at least the Dynasty, through tough times. Or it was loss of the Mandate of Heaven that sunk the Emperor and, often, the Dynasty.
Of course, the Mandate of Heaven is all a matter of perception. It's like putting a sales value on Facebook -- almost entirely intangibles. Analysis based on fundamentals is impossible. It's all about perceived value.
Clinton, in 1996, survived because he held onto the Mandate of Heaven, even as he sacrificed whatever support he may once have had among progressives. Similarly, Bush in 2004 survived with the appearance of the Mandate of Heaven, even though trends could be projected toward loss of the Mandate. Reagan clearly retained the Mandate of Heaven in 1984. Nixon managed it in 1972 ... but then the Mandate evaporated on him.
It's bigger than just Obama, and no one knows how big. When the last emperor of China lost the Mandate of Heaven, it spelled the end of the entire imperial system that had ruled in China for millennia. There had always been transitional times, of course, but the imperial system -- renewed rather than reformed -- was always the objective throughout any transitional period.
A lot depends on whether Obama has any real opposition in 2012. But a lot also depends on developments that cannot be foreseen -- the Mandate of Heaven.
We also must take into account the influence of millennialism or, more accurately, of the many millennialisms that circulate in the American public mind today. If decline is seen as a symptom of some predestined global time-table, then Obama is off the hook ... unless enough people can be convinced that the evil times are caused by homosexuality in the U.S. military.
If a Republican wins by default in 2012, and decline continues to accelerate ... that might pose a threat to established international interests that could only be rated by those interests as much riskier than if Obama wins by default in 2012. "You don't change horses in the middle of a raging stream."
As Michael Collins notes, about the only sure thing is that the Mayan calendar runs out in 2012.
Check out this video with a new protest song on the subject - it hits home:
Globalize
Dean Baker articulates the lunacy of raising the Medicare age. If anything, people over 60 should have the opportunity to buy into Medicare. How many people are going to die before they ever have a chance to get Medicare?
"Many struggle through their early and mid-60s, just hanging on until they reach age 65 and have the government pick up most of their health care costs through Medicare. Insurance for someone in their 60s with any moderately serious medical condition can easily be $20,000 or $30,000 a year."
The people of the UK benefit substantially by a more open press than we have here. The Guardian and the Independent seem to take on power more aggressively than lets say, oh, any press organization here. There are more than the two papers I mentioned, I suspect.
The fascinating and encouraging feature of all this is that the ground swell of popular outrage, well directed, is forcing this forward. I've never seen anything like the compressed timeline from Davies on the 4th to today's indication that MPs of all parties will pass a bill effectively telling Murdoch to go packing.
Fine work and much admired.
DOT would use money from the Highway Trust Fund to pay for electronic on-board recorders for Mexican trucks.
Please be advised they WILL NOT be paying for recordersfor U.S. trucks. That will be the carriers responsibility.
Really good post. It's amazing how Osellout has shown he's no different than the plutocratic driven extreme Right..... cut spending, cut Social Security, cut Medicare - - - have to create Economic "Confidence" for those wealthy "job creators" is the storyline. He must sense that cushy, well-funded retirement is almost in his grasp if he plays ball and especially if he manages to get re-elected.
The outright cynicism and spin from these clowns would be hilarious if it weren't so harmful
and noticed the percentages are wrong in that summary, sorry. I use Excel to calculate out percentages and made a typo in the spreadsheet, thus using the wrong month on percentage changes. Should be correct now.
Also, bear in mind country data is not seasonally adjusted, so giving a monthly percentage increase on China, isn't exactly fair. But regardless, I show further down in the post that China for the year is heading to a new record and year to year comparisons of country data are valid statistically.
While I know the left hates FAUX, I was so glad when MSNBC fired Olbermann. MSNBC still has pure 100% spin doctors, in particular that Lawrence ODonnell pushing for unlimited migration. MSNBC is owned by G.E., heavily influenced by Microsoft too and that is their agenda....unlimited migration so they can control the globe's cheap labor.
Seeing that pop up as "news", to me is about as bad as FAUX with their "Weapons of Mass Destruction" war cheer leading.
Least we leave out CNN, Ali Velshi is the most inane, mealy mouthed repeat "talking points" crap I've seen in a while. Worse than CNBC, which likes to shut down anyone who doesn't push corporate agendas on their "interview" shows.
So, they are all corporate controlled. Maybe I should have a running tally of how many corporate lobbyist plants I've seen on the Huffington Post, paraded as "news". It's obscene, what a sell out these corporate lobbyist agenda items touted as "advocacy" or "news articles".
Same can be said of many other "news" sources.
Here, at least we're all doing this because we have something to say. We're not getting rich over it but at least people know we're not writing some crap because someone paid us to write some crap.
Ads are clearly marked ads and that is EP's policy, in spite of the many attempts to get me to allow some "article" with a "link in it" for a "fee" to be published here.
Bottom line, real Journalism of any kind doesn't pay.
Oh, who cares if the nation is in crisis, any crisis, we're not doing anything until Obama is gone. Mitch McConnell, Senate Minority Leader.
This typifies what is wrong with D.C.. either political agendas or corporate lobbyists wish lists.
Pathetic.
89,000- PhDs are now in temporary employment postdoctoral positions with no health benefits, etc, according to the National Postdoctoral Association (many of theses are H1Bs receiving PhDs in foreign countries, but need jobs here).
27,000- PhDs- the number of Science and Engineering postdocs (Physics and Engineering) with temporary visas at US universities, as given by the National Science Foundation, tripling from 1985 to 2005.
It's been around for a very long time and except for some conspiracy theorists isn't too controversial, when the capital requirements and regulation are used in conjunction, which, financial deregulation removed (another Congressional act)
Try derivatives and evaluations of them if you want to get into some CT. Seriously, it doesn't help to focus on where the problems are when people are getting their panties all in a bunch over something that is pretty stable.
Yes Bush pushed for it, but Bush wasn't setting the interest rates, Greenspan/Bernanke were. Nor did Bush institute fractional reserve lending.
Through several administrations the one constant in this whole mess has been the Federal Reserve. A private banking cartel disguised as a government agency, doing everything in it's power to transfer a nation's wealth into the pockets of it's friends.
And nothing Bush said or did gets it off the hook for that.
Pages