Dog Brothers Public Forum

HOME | PUBLIC FORUM | MEMBERS FORUM | INSTRUCTORS FORUM | TRIBE FORUM

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
October 17, 2017, 08:19:06 AM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
Welcome to the Dog Brothers Public Forum.
105313 Posts in 2392 Topics by 1093 Members
Latest Member: Cruces
* Home Help Search Login Register
  Show Posts
Pages: 1 ... 73 74 [75] 76 77 ... 150
3701  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / From the Huffington post; Trickle down never worked. 80's were a fluke. on: April 25, 2014, 07:47:50 PM
It is high taxation and transfer of wealth that built America.  Folks I can't believe we are still debating this.   Socialism is relentless:

Elizabeth Warren Simplifies Thomas Piketty: 'Trickle Down Doesn't Work. Never Did'
 
 Posted:  04/25/2014 2:52 pm EDT    Updated:  04/25/2014 3:59 pm EDT   
   
The No. 2 author on Amazon's best-seller list, Sen. Elizabeth Warren, weighed in Thursday night on the No. 1 book, identifying overlapping themes.

At a reading at the Harvard Book Store, the Massachusetts Democrat, author of A Fighting Chance, was asked about Thomas Piketty's new book, Capital in the Twenty-First Century, and specifically about its contention that trickle-down economics "definitively do not work."

Warren cut in. "Can we say that part again? 'Definitely do not work,'" she repeated. "Not as in that's somebody else's opinion or this comes out of a long-held political opinion. The data don't lie on this. He's got good historical data, and boy, what it shows is trickle down doesn't work. Never did, doesn't work. Just so we're all clear on the baseline. I just saved you 1,100 pages of reading." (The book is shorter than that; Warren may have assumed the audience would also read the online technical index.)

Warren, whose own book was going to be titled Rigged but ultimately went out with a more hopeful title, said that while Piketty's book could elicit despair, she found a hopeful note in it, too.

"You can read his book and you just wanna say, 'Ugh.' Because it says over and over -- look, I'll tell you the basic theme: The rich get richer," Warren said.

Piketty argues that the 200-plus years of income and wealth data complied by him and a team of researchers demonstrates that returns on capital (r) significantly outstrip growth in the real economy (g), which relentlessly drives up inequality. His basic equation -- r>g -- has upended the way economists understand wealth and income distribution.

"Here's the hopeful part in Piketty's book: Piketty makes the point that although the data keep documenting this happening, it's not like an act of nature. It's not like gravity and you can't fix it," Warren said. "Piketty's book makes the point that how much equality there is ... is a matter of the policies you choose to follow and that, for example, progressive taxation and investment in everyone's education helps to level the playing field."

Warren pointed to the period from the Great Depression up through the deregulatory era that began in the 1980s as reason for hope -- a period that she noted Piketty found to be an aberration in many ways.

"It is a time when we made those investments that built America's great middle class and we made those decisions -- not we in this room, but our parents, our grandparents, they made those decisions. They said, 'You put a cop on the beat so nobody steals your pension, you do that on Wall Street.' But they also said, 'You tax progressively and then you make those investments.' For those who made it big, God bless 'em, that's great, but they've gotta pay a piece of that forward so the next kid has a chance to make it big and the kid after that and the kid after that. That's what defines America."

Piketty indeed credits high marginal tax rates on wealth in the middle of the 20th century as a driver of flattening U.S. inequality during that period, although he also cites the destruction of capital from the world wars and the anomalously high economic growth rates that carried into the late 1960s and, in some countries, into the 1970s. He describes that high growth as "catch up" and suggests it will be difficult to repeat such a phenomenon in the 21st century.

Piketty proposes a steeply progressive wealth tax, which Warren referenced favorably on Thursday. The suggestion was widely panned by the political class, but it is already earning dividends. On Friday, New York Times columnist David Brooks suggested that conservatives respond by embracing a "beefed up inheritance tax" and "progressive consumption taxes."

Warren also joked with the audience that they may find her book a bit more digestible. "Have you seen Piketty's new book?" she asked. "His book has tables and graphs; this book doesn't. It's one of my first books with no graphs in it, just pictures."

Watch HuffPost's interview with Piketty below.
3702  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Breakthrough in cardiovascular disease? on: April 25, 2014, 06:34:26 PM

Scientists alter fat metabolism in animals to prevent most common type of heart disease

Working with mice and rabbits, Johns Hopkins scientists have found a way to block abnormal cholesterol production, transport and breakdown, successfully preventing the development of atherosclerosis, the main cause of heart attacks and strokes and the number-one cause of death among humans. The condition develops when fat builds inside blood vessels over time and renders them stiff, narrowed and hardened, greatly reducing their ability to feed oxygen-rich blood to the heart muscle and the brain.

In a series of experiments, described April 7 in the journal Circulation, the Johns Hopkins team says it identified and halted the action of a single molecular culprit responsible for a range of biological glitches that affect the body's ability to properly use, transport and purge itself of cholesterol葉he fatty substance that accumulates inside vessels and fuels heart disease.

The offender, the researchers say, is a fat-and-sugar molecule called glycosphingolipid, or GSL, which resides in the membranes of all cells, and is mostly known for regulating cell growth. Results of the experiments, the scientists say, reveal that this very same molecule also regulates the way the body handles cholesterol.

The Johns Hopkins team used an existing man-made compound called D-PDMP to block the synthesis of the GSL molecule, and by doing so, prevented the development of heart disease in mice and rabbits fed a high-fat, cholesterol-laden diet. The findings reveal that D-PDMP appears to work by interfering with a constellation of genetic pathways that regulate fat metabolism on multiple fronts庸rom the way cells derive and absorb cholesterol from food, to the way cholesterol is transported to tissues and organs and is then broken down by the liver and excreted from the body.

"Current cholesterol-lowering medications tackle the problem on a single front容ither by blocking cholesterol synthesis or by preventing the body from absorbing too much of it," says lead investigator Subroto Chatterjee, Ph.D., a cardio-metabolic expert at the Johns Hopkins Children's Center. "But atherosclerosis is a multi-factorial problem that requires hitting the abnormal cholesterol cycle at many points. By inhibiting the synthesis of GSL, we believe we have achieved exactly that."

Specifically, the experiments showed that treatment with D-PDMP led to:
病 drop in the animals' levels of so-called bad cholesterol or low-density lipoprotein, LDL;
病 drop in oxidized LDL, a particularly virulent form of fat that forms when LDL encounters free radicals. Oxidized LDL easily sticks to the walls of blood vessels, where it ignites inflammation, damaging the vessel walls and promoting the growth of fatty plaque;
病 surge in good cholesterol or high-density lipoprotein, HDL, known to counteract the effects of LDL by mopping it up; and
病 significant drop in triglycerides, another type of plaque-building fat.
 

     

The treatment also prevented fatty plaque and calcium deposits from building up inside the animals' vessels. These effects were observed in animals on a daily D-PDMP treatment even though they ate a diet made up of 20 percent triglycerides葉he human equivalent of eating a greasy burger for breakfast, lunch and dinner. In addition, the researchers say, D-PDMP appears to precision-target the worst byproducts of aberrant cell growth signaling, such as oxidized LDL and the activity of certain chemicals that fuel vessel inflammation, without altering cell growth itself.

D-PDMP, which is already widely used in basic research to experimentally block and study cell growth and other basic cell functions, is deemed safe in animals, the investigators say. For example, animals in the current study had no side effects even when given D-PDMP doses 10 times higher than the minimum effective dose, the study found. The research team is currently designing a compound drug with D-PDMP, which they soon plan to test in other animals and, eventually, in humans.

Mice used in the experiments were genetically engineered to lack a protein essential in the breakdown of fats and thus were predisposed to atherosclerosis. The researchers fed the animals a high-fat diet over the course of several months, but also gave a third of the animals a low-dose of D-PDMP. They gave a double dose of the same inhibitor to another third and placebo to the rest.

When scientists measured the thickness of the animals' aortas葉he body's largest vessel and one that carries blood from the heart to the rest of the body葉hey found striking differences among the groups. As expected, the aortas of mice that got placebo had grown thicker from the accumulation of fat and calcium deposits inside them. The aortas of mice on low-dose D-PDMP, however, were significantly thinner with little to no obstruction. To the researchers' surprise, Chatterjee says, mice eating high-fat foods and treated with high-dose D-PDMP had nearly pristine arteries free of obstruction, indistinguishable from those of healthy mice.

Next, the researchers measured how well and how fast blood traveled through the animals' blood vessels. Slower blood flow signals clogging of the vessel and is a marker of atherosclerosis. The vessels of mice fed a high-fat diet plus D-PDMP had normal blood flow. Mice receiving a high-fat diet without D-PDMP predictably had compromised blood flow.

When researchers examined cells from the animals' livers葉he main site of fat synthesis and breakdown葉hey noticed marked differences in the expression of several genes that regulate cholesterol metabolism. The activity of these genes is heralded by the levels of enzymes they produce, Chatterjee says. Mice treated with D-PDMP had notably higher levels of two enzymes responsible for maintaining the body's delicate fat homeostasis by regulating the way cells take in and break down cholesterol. Specifically, the scientists say, the inhibitor appeared to stimulate the action and efficacy of a class of protein pumps in the cell responsible for maintaining healthy cholesterol levels by transporting cholesterol in and out of the bloodstream. In addition, mice treated that way had higher levels of lipoprotein lipase, an enzyme responsible for the breakdown of triglycerides. A deficiency in this enzyme causes dangerous buildup of blood triglycerides.

Treatment with a D-PDMP also boosted the activity of an enzyme responsible for purging the body of fats by converting these fats into bile, the fat-dissolving substance secreted by the liver.

In a final set of experiments, researchers compared the effects of treatment with D-PDMP in two groups of healthy rabbits, both fed high-fat diets, with half of them receiving treatment. Rabbits that ate high-fat food alone developed all the classic signs of atherosclerosis庸atty plaque buildup in the arteries and stiff, narrowed blood vessels. Their cholesterol levels shot up 17-fold. By contrast, rabbits treated with D-PDMP never developed atherosclerosis. Their cholesterol levels also remained normal or near-normal.

The World Health Organizations estimates that high cholesterol claims 2.6 million lives worldwide each year. More than 70 million Americans have high cholesterol, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Current cholesterol-lowering drugs, such as statins, do not work in about one-third of people who take them, experts say.
3703  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Faster than Nolan Ryan!!! Wow!!! on: April 25, 2014, 03:34:17 PM

102.9 mph and rising? Royals' Yordano Ventura brings heat like no other starting pitcher

Jeff Passan
By Jeff Passan 13 hours ago Yahoo Sports
 
The hardest-throwing starting pitcher ever stands 6-foot on a really tall day, weighs 180 pounds if he's got a Costanza wallet in his back pocket and remembers vividly the first time he threw a baseball 100 mph. It was only 1 mph more than the 99 mph his arm generated hundreds of times before, but in that 1 mph a pitcher crosses the baseball Rubicon. For those who reach triple digits never, ever want to come back.

"It was in Arizona, my first time throwing 100," Yordano Ventura said. He's working on his English these days, getting better and better, and talking about that magical binary number extracts the best in him. "No scoreboard. Radar gun only. One of my teammates hold it. He told me, 'Hey. You throw 100 today.' "

Yordano Ventura has thrown 14 pitches in the 100 mph range this season. (USA TODAY Sports)

Ventura was 19. Two years earlier, Kansas City Royals scouts and executives looked past his slight frame and at his right arm, which birthed some of the smoothest, easiest fastballs any of them had seen. They offered him $28,000 to sign, a small bonus even by the deflated standards in the Dominican Republic. He accepted. They saw his potential. His fastball leaped from the mid-80s to mid-90s within months. They marveled. He crept up to 98, 99. They refined his mechanics. He hit 100. They pushed him. He went to 101, then 102. They gave him a rotation spot. And in his first start this season, Ventura threw the fastest fastball ever clocked from a starter, 102.9 mph, a number that boggles the mind because it's only April, and almost every pitcher throws harder as the season progresses.

With 14 fastballs at 100-plus mph already this season, Ventura owns the record for triple-digit heaters from a starter in April, according to calculations from the invaluable Dan Brooks, who uses PITCHf/x data to give the greatest insight yet into the fascinating speeds at which pitchers today throw. It's not just Ventura, now 22, either. Since 2008, when Brooks began running his website brooksbaseball.net, 77 pitchers have thrown 4,354 pitches at 100 mph or more.

The King of 100 is, not surprisingly, Cincinnati closer Aroldis Chapman, generally regarded as the hardest thrower in baseball history. He owns the two biggest 100-mph-pitch seasons with 356 last year and 332 the year before, and his 998 triple-digit pitches account for nearly 23 percent of the 100-plus pitches in the major leagues since 2008.

After a horrific line drive to the skull sidelined Chapman for the first month, Ventura ascended to the throne for the time being, accounting for nearly half of the 31 triple-digit pitches thrown by 11 pitchers this season. His average fastball sizzles at 97.8 mph. He's among the league leaders in swings and misses on fastballs. And as he makes his fourth start Friday night in Baltimore, the Camden Yards scoreboard will get to flex a muscle it rarely does. Even Tommy Hunter, the hard-throwing Orioles closer, has hit 100 just once this season.

Reaching 100 isn't the chore it used to be, not with the shoulder-strengthening exercises required of pitchers today helping generate excess velocity. Ryan Tucker, Tom Wilhelmsen, Al Alburquerque, Wily Peralta and Jake McGee all have touched 100 exactly once in their careers. Doing so consistently takes far more work. Just 31 players have hit 100 at least 10 times in one season. Just six have gotten to triple digits with triple digits. Ventura looks like a safe bet to beat the record for a starter: 61, by Justin Verlander in 2012.

The limited history of PITCHf/x does not allow the inclusion of Nolan Ryan, who hit 100-plus on radar guns, and Bob Feller, who used military equipment to register a fastball at 98.6 mph and swore he threw harder. It does ensure never again will we need to guess whether one pitcher threw harder than another. The cameras in the system will tell us, and scientists can do with the data what they please. Brooks, for example, sets his release point at 55 feet (more realistic than PITCHf/x's 50) and adjusts the numbers by park, because the system does have noticeable errors in certain stadiums.

Unquestionable is the power of the 100-mph fastball, the lore that comes with it and the number of pitchers who do everything they can in hopes some day they, too, can trigger the third digit to flicker.

"Mark McGwire used to always say, 'Anybody can throw double digits,' " Cardinals reliever Jason Motte said last spring, with 32 triple-digit notches on his belt. "What'd you hit? Ten? Ninety-nine? Still double digits. Only a few can throw three digits. So it's pretty cool if you can do that. Might as well try to do it every now and again."

Next to him sat Trevor Rosenthal, who took over as St. Louis closer after Motte blew out his right elbow. The previous fall, as the Cardinals romped to a World Series title, Rosenthal lit up radar guns, sitting in the high 90s and tickling 100 with scary regularity.

"I don't think God reached down and put a lightning bolt in my right arm " Rosenthal said, trailing off, incapable of explaining why he can throw so much harder than most. Though he's onto something. It is a gift. Even as 90 mph is a necessity and 95 something of a requisite and 100 increasingly common, velocity remains romanticized by pitchers and executives alike.

Velocity with control, which Ventura flashed in his first two starts, is the sign of a star and the reason that after years of inapt comparisons to Pedro Martinez Ramon Ortiz, Edinson Volquez, Jose Dominguez Ventura might be the most reasonable facsimile yet. His changeup isn't Pedro quality yet, even though it decelerates through the strike zone at 90 mph. His breaking ball isn't as crisp, though it has better tilt than Pedro's hammer curveball.

While Ventura's secondary pitches will make him a star, his fastball is his meal ticket into the conversation, a legitimate game changer. The first time Royals center fielder Jarrod Dyson saw it, during an instructional-league intrasquad game, he couldn't fathom how someone so slight propelled a projectile with such force.

"He was about my size," said the 5-foot-9, 160-pound Dyson. "I was not expecting 100. The first fastball kind of jumped at me, and I'm like, OK, we got a gunslinger in here."

Now comes the toughest part: steadying the gun. Ventura's biggest issue, catcher Salvador Perez said, is that "he gets too excited and tries to throw 200 miles an hour." Which, if it were anatomically possible, Ventura might do. Being that 106 mph or so is a generally accepted ceiling before an arm goes kablooey, he does have room left to add a couple miles and challenge Chapman's record 105.1-mph pitch.

"I'd rather throw strikes and keep the ball down than throw 100," Ventura said.

Which is only partially true. Throwing strikes is nice. It helps. He will win lots of games because of it. But come on. No pitcher wants to be Jonathan Papelbon, hitting 100 mph three times in 2009 and sometimes struggling to crack 90 this year. Shoving a baseball at 100 mph connotes strength and power and animalism, the sort of thing that defines a pitcher.

"Sometimes you throw easy and it's 100," Ventura said. "I'd rather throw easy."

That's more like it. That's a man embracing who he is: the hardest-throwing starting pitcher ever, the one who crossed the Rubicon three years ago, hasn't come back since and has no plans to do so anytime
3704  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Racist on Supreme Court on: April 24, 2014, 10:40:32 AM
Have we had such an obvious racist on the Supreme Court besides Justice Taney?:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/17/dogs-meet-sister_n_3455235.html
3705  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / "Dogbrothers" on Huffington Post on: April 24, 2014, 09:11:29 AM
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/17/dogs-meet-sister_n_3455235.html
3706  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / NYT polls: Dems are ok; don't worry socialists all is ok. on: April 24, 2014, 09:09:13 AM


By Scott Conroy - April 23, 2014

A new round of polls released on Wednesday offered generally upbeat news for Democrats in four U.S. Senate contests in Southern states considered key to the party's hopes of retaining its majority in November.  

According to the New York Times/Kaiser Family Foundation surveys, vulnerable incumbent Democrats are holding on to leads in Louisiana and Arkansas and effectively tied in North Carolina. Upstart challenger Alison Lundergan Grimes, meanwhile, is trailing Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell by just a single point in Kentucky.

All four races are critical to Republicans hopes of netting the six seats they need to regain control of the upper chamber.

Though he narrowly lost North Carolina in 2012, President Obama was blown out by margins ranging from 17 to 24 percentage points in the other three states, suggesting that the Democratic Senate candidates are running strong campaigns in a region that has grown increasingly hostile to their party in federal elections.  

In North Carolina, Sen. Kay Hagan leads state House Speaker Thom Tillis -- the frontrunner in the Republican primary -- 42 percent to 40 percent, according to the new poll.

In Louisiana痴 still largely unsettled contest, in which there are no primaries, Democratic Sen. Mary Landrieu leads the Republican frontrunner, Rep. Bill Cassidy, by a 42 percent to 18 percent margin, with 20 percent of respondents having no opinion.

The most surprising result of the new surveys comes in Arkansas, where incumbent Democratic Sen. Mark Pryor enjoys a 10-point advantage over Republican Rep. Tom Cotton. Pryor has long been considered the most vulnerable Senate Democrat this November, but he leads Cotton by 2.2 percentage points in the latest RealClearPolitics polling average.  

National Democratic operatives moved quickly to highlight the Arkansas poll, in particular, on Wednesday morning. 泥C convention wisdom is flat out wrong in Arkansas and there痴 mounting evidence of Mark Pryor痴 strength, Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee spokesman Justin Barasky said in an emailed statement.

Meanwhile, Republicans were eager to cast doubt on the polls methodology, noting, among other concerns, that the head-to-head surveys measured support among registered voters rather than likely voters. They also questioned the validity of the samplings.

The Weekly Standard noted that the percentage of respondents in each of the four Southern states who said they had voted for Obama was much higher than the actual 2012 results.

Scott Conroy is a national political reporter for RealClearPolitics. He can be reached at sconroy@realclearpolitics.com. Follow him on Twitter @RealClearScott.

Read more: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2014/04/23/senate_polls_buoy_southern_dems_gop_is_skeptical_122387.html#ixzz2zoRfkrK8
Follow us: @RCP_Articles on Twitter
3707  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Justice Stevens: Make 6 Changes to the C. on: April 22, 2014, 09:12:01 AM
Didn't he vote against OBAMA CARE.  How come THAT is not mentioned.  Only the darn liberal issues are even mentioned:

*****Justice Stevens: Make 6 changes to Constitution

Associated Press
By MARK SHERMAN 10 hours ago

FILE - In this May 30, 2012, file photo, former U.S. Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens speaks at a lecture presented by the Clinton School of Public Service in Little Rock, Ark. In the aftermath of the Connecticut school shootings that left 20 first-graders and six educators dead, retired Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens began thinking about ways to prevent a repeat. The result is Stevens' new book, his second since retiring from the court at age 90, in which he calls for no fewer than six changes to the Constitution, of which two are directly related to guns. (AP Photo/Danny Johnston, File)

In this May 30, 2012, file photo, former U.S. Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens speaks at a lecture presented by the Clinton School of Public Service in Little Rock, Ark. In the aftermath of the Connecticut school shootings that left 20 first-graders and six educators dead, retired Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens began thinking about ways to prevent a repeat. The result is Stevens' new book, his second since retiring from the court at age 90, in which he calls for no fewer than six changes to the Constitution, of which two are directly related to guns. (AP Photo/Danny Johnston, File)

WASHINGTON (AP) In the aftermath of the Connecticut school shootings that left 20 first-graders and six educators dead, retired Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens began thinking about ways to prevent a repeat.

The result is Stevens' new book his second since retiring from the court at age 90 in which he calls for no fewer than six changes to the Constitution, of which two are directly related to guns. Others would abolish the death penalty, make it easier to limit spending on elections and rein in partisan drawing of electoral districts.

His proposed amendments generally would overrule major Supreme Court decisions with which he disagrees, including ones on guns and campaign finance in which he dissented.

The book, "Six Amendments: How and Why We Should Change the Constitution," is being published Tuesday by Little, Brown and Co., two days after Stevens' 94th birthday.

Stevens said in an interview with The Associated Press that the Newtown, Conn., shootings in December 2012 made him think about doing "whatever we could to prevent such a thing from happening again."

He said he was bothered by press reports about gaps in the federal government database for checking the background of prospective gun buyers. Those gaps exist because the Supreme Court ruled in 1997 that states could not be forced to participate in the background check system. Stevens dissented from the court's 5-4 ruling in Printz v. United States.

One amendment would allow Congress to force state participation in gun checks, while a second would change the Second Amendment to permit gun control. Stevens was on the losing end of another 5-4 decision in 2008 in District of Columbia v. Heller, in which the court declared for the first time that Americans have a right to own a gun for self-defense.

He acknowledged that his proposed change would allow Congress to do something unthinkable in today's environment: ban gun ownership altogether.

"I'd think the chance of changing the Second Amendment is pretty remote," Stevens said. "The purpose is to cause further reflection over a period of time because it seems to me with ample time and ample reflection, people in the United States would come to the same conclusion that people in other countries have."

Justices often say that their dissenting opinions are written with the hope that today's dissent might attract a majority on some future court.

But Stevens has gone a step beyond by proposing the constitutional changes. Asked whether the book could in part be seen as "sour grapes," he readily agreed.

"To a certain extent, it's no doubt true, because I do think the court made some serious mistakes, as I did point out in my dissents," he said. "But I've been criticized for making speeches since I retired. Writing the book is not much different from continuing to speak about things I find interesting."

A recent example is the court's decision, again by a 5-4 vote, to strike down limits in federal law on the total contributions wealthy individuals can make to candidates for Congress and president, political parties and political action committees. Stevens said the decision follows from the 2010 ruling in Citizens United that lifted limits on political spending by corporations and labor unions. Again, he was in the dissent in another 5-4 ruling.

Those cases, he said, talk about the importance of public participation in the electoral process. But this month's decision on the overall limits is "not about electing your representative," Stevens said. "It's about financing the election of representatives of other people. It's about the influence of out-of-state voters on the election in your district. It sort of exposes a basic flaw in the recent cases."

Stevens marked his 94th birthday Sunday, still in excellent health, but lately feeling his age. Speaking to AP a few days before his birthday, he said, "It's going to come and pass. I'm not sure it's something to celebrate."*****
3708  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Political Rants & interesting thought pieces on: April 21, 2014, 07:05:19 AM
Well this is something Americans can be proud of.  The immigrants are coming here and working past a lot of our own and what do we do?  Get stoned.

I can only hope that the lure of marijuana will wear itself out and people will realize they are wasting the lives smoking this shit:

http://news.yahoo.com/colorado-pot-holiday-tries-mainstream-074215765.html

But think of the good the tax income will do???   Using GMs phrase:  bahaha.
3709  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / The left's new rock star economist on: April 19, 2014, 06:16:04 PM





 
 
The left's new rock star economist
 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thomas Piketty:   A new favorite of Obama and his economic council, Jack Lew Treasury Secretary and the rest of the globalist progressive crowd. 

*********Economist Receives Rock Star Treatment

By JENNIFER SCHUESSLERAPRIL 18, 2014

French economists who boldly question the dominance of capital over labor and call for a progressive global tax on wealth visit the American halls of power about as often as French rock stars headline Madison Square Garden.

But those halls of power are where Thomas Piketty, a 42-year-old professor at the Paris School of Economics, has been singing his song of late.

Since touching down in Washington this week to promote his new book, 鼎apital in the 21st Century, Mr. Piketty has met with Treasury Secretary Jacob Lew, given a talk to President Obama痴 Council of Economic Advisers and lectured at the International Monetary Fund, before flying to New York for an appearance at the United Nations, a sold-out public discussion with the Nobel laureates Joseph Stiglitz and Paul Krugman, and meetings with media outlets ranging from The Harvard Business Review to New York Magazine to The Nation.

The response from  fellow economists, so far mainly from the liberal side of the spectrum, has verged on the rapturous. Mr. Krugman,  a columnist for The New York Times,  predicted  in The New York Review of Books that Mr. Piketty痴 book would 田hange both the way we think about society and the way we do economics.

   Thomas Piketty at one of his New York talks this week. Credit Karsten Moran for The New York Times 
But through all the accolades, Mr. Piketty seems to be maintaining a most un-rock-star-like modesty, brushing away comparisons to Tocqueville and Marx with an embarrassed grimace and a Gallic puff of the lips.

的t makes very little sense: How can you compare? he said on Thursday between gulps of yogurt during a break in his packed schedule before going on to list the 19th-century data sets that Marx neglected to draw on in 泥as Kapital, his 1867 magnum opus.

的f Marx had looked at them, it would have made him think a bit more, he said. 展hen I started collecting data, I had no idea where it would go.

Mr. Piketty痴 dedication to data has long made him a star among economists, who credit his work on income inequality (with Emmanuel Saez and others) for diving deep into seemingly dull tax archives to bring an unprecedented historical perspective to the subject.

But 鼎apital in the 21st Century, which analyzes more than two centuries of data on the even murkier topic of accumulated wealth, has elicited a response of an entirely different order. Months before its originally scheduled April publication, it was generating intense discussion on blogs, prompting Harvard University Press to push the release forward to mid-February.

Since then, it has hit the New York Times best-seller list, and sold some 46,000 copies (hardback and e-book) a stratospheric number for a nearly 700-page scholarly tome dotted with charts and graphs (as well as references to Balzac, Jane Austen and 典itanic).

And not all those readers are economists. Six years after the financial crisis, 菟eople are looking for a bible of sorts, said Julia Ott, an assistant professor of the history of capitalism at the New School, who appeared on a panel with Mr. Piketty at New York University on Thursday. 滴e痴 speaking to a real feeling out there that things haven稚 been fixed, that we need to take stock, that we need big ideas, big proposals, big global solutions.
Photo

Mr. Piketty's book on sale after he spoke Wednesday at the Graduate Center at the City University of New York. Credit Karsten Moran for The New York Times 
Those big ideas, and the hunger for them, were on ample display at N.Y.U., where the standing-room crowd was treated to Mr. Piketty痴 apology for having written such a long book, followed by a breakneck PowerPoint presentation of its main arguments, illustrated with striking charts.

At the book痴 center is Mr. Piketty痴 contention contrary to the influential theory developed by Simon Kuznets in the 1950s and 60s that mature capitalist economies do not inevitably evolve toward greater economic equality. Instead, Mr. Piketty contends, the data reveals a deeper historical tendency for the rate of return on capital to outstrip the overall rate of economic growth, leading to greater and greater concentrations of wealth at the very top.

Despite this inevitable-seeming drift toward 菟atrimonial capitalism that his charts seemed to show, Mr. Piketty rejected any economic determinism. 的t all depends on what the political system decides, he said.

Such statements, along with Mr. Piketty痴 proposal for a progressive wealth tax and income tax rates up to 80 percent, have aroused strong interest among those eager to recapture the momentum of the Occupy movement. The Nation ran a nearly 10,000-word cover article  placing his book within a rising tide of neo-Marxist thought, while National Review Online dismissed it as confirmation of the left痴 電earest 船as Kapital fantasies.

But Mr. Piketty, who writes in the book that the collapse of Communism in 1989 left him 砺accinated for life against the 斗azy rhetoric of anticapitalism, is no Marxian revolutionary. 的 believe in private property, he said in the interview. 釘ut capitalism and markets should be the slave of democracy and not the opposite.

Even if he doesn稚 expect his policy proposals to find favor in Washington anytime soon, Mr. Piketty called his meetings there gratifying. Mr. Lew, he said, seemed to have read parts of the book carefully. A member of the Council on Economic Advisers corrected a small error concerning Balzac痴 novel 鏑e P鑽e Goriot, which includes a discussion of getting ahead through advantageous marriage rather than hard work. 的 was impressed, Mr. Piketty said.

His book, however, ends not with an appeal to policy makers, but with a call for all citizens to 鍍ake a serious interest in money, its measurement, the facts surrounding it and its history.

的t痴 too easy for ordinary people to just say, 選 don稚 know anything about economics, he said, before rushing to his next appearance. 釘ut economics is not just for economists.
 

A version of this article appears in print on April 19, 2014, on page C1 of the New York edition with the headline: Economist Receives Rock Star Treatment.********

 

 
 
 
3710  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / The left's new rock star economist on: April 19, 2014, 05:08:32 AM
Thomas Piketty:   A new favorite of Obama and his economic council, Jack Lew Treasury Secretary and the rest of the globalist progressive crowd. 

*********Economist Receives Rock Star Treatment

By JENNIFER SCHUESSLERAPRIL 18, 2014

French economists who boldly question the dominance of capital over labor and call for a progressive global tax on wealth visit the American halls of power about as often as French rock stars headline Madison Square Garden.

But those halls of power are where Thomas Piketty, a 42-year-old professor at the Paris School of Economics, has been singing his song of late.

Since touching down in Washington this week to promote his new book, 鼎apital in the 21st Century, Mr. Piketty has met with Treasury Secretary Jacob Lew, given a talk to President Obama痴 Council of Economic Advisers and lectured at the International Monetary Fund, before flying to New York for an appearance at the United Nations, a sold-out public discussion with the Nobel laureates Joseph Stiglitz and Paul Krugman, and meetings with media outlets ranging from The Harvard Business Review to New York Magazine to The Nation.

The response from  fellow economists, so far mainly from the liberal side of the spectrum, has verged on the rapturous. Mr. Krugman,  a columnist for The New York Times,  predicted  in The New York Review of Books that Mr. Piketty痴 book would 田hange both the way we think about society and the way we do economics.

   Thomas Piketty at one of his New York talks this week. Credit Karsten Moran for The New York Times 
But through all the accolades, Mr. Piketty seems to be maintaining a most un-rock-star-like modesty, brushing away comparisons to Tocqueville and Marx with an embarrassed grimace and a Gallic puff of the lips.

的t makes very little sense: How can you compare? he said on Thursday between gulps of yogurt during a break in his packed schedule before going on to list the 19th-century data sets that Marx neglected to draw on in 泥as Kapital, his 1867 magnum opus.

的f Marx had looked at them, it would have made him think a bit more, he said. 展hen I started collecting data, I had no idea where it would go.

Mr. Piketty痴 dedication to data has long made him a star among economists, who credit his work on income inequality (with Emmanuel Saez and others) for diving deep into seemingly dull tax archives to bring an unprecedented historical perspective to the subject.

But 鼎apital in the 21st Century, which analyzes more than two centuries of data on the even murkier topic of accumulated wealth, has elicited a response of an entirely different order. Months before its originally scheduled April publication, it was generating intense discussion on blogs, prompting Harvard University Press to push the release forward to mid-February.

Since then, it has hit the New York Times best-seller list, and sold some 46,000 copies (hardback and e-book) a stratospheric number for a nearly 700-page scholarly tome dotted with charts and graphs (as well as references to Balzac, Jane Austen and 典itanic).

And not all those readers are economists. Six years after the financial crisis, 菟eople are looking for a bible of sorts, said Julia Ott, an assistant professor of the history of capitalism at the New School, who appeared on a panel with Mr. Piketty at New York University on Thursday. 滴e痴 speaking to a real feeling out there that things haven稚 been fixed, that we need to take stock, that we need big ideas, big proposals, big global solutions.
Photo

Mr. Piketty's book on sale after he spoke Wednesday at the Graduate Center at the City University of New York. Credit Karsten Moran for The New York Times 
Those big ideas, and the hunger for them, were on ample display at N.Y.U., where the standing-room crowd was treated to Mr. Piketty痴 apology for having written such a long book, followed by a breakneck PowerPoint presentation of its main arguments, illustrated with striking charts.

At the book痴 center is Mr. Piketty痴 contention contrary to the influential theory developed by Simon Kuznets in the 1950s and 60s that mature capitalist economies do not inevitably evolve toward greater economic equality. Instead, Mr. Piketty contends, the data reveals a deeper historical tendency for the rate of return on capital to outstrip the overall rate of economic growth, leading to greater and greater concentrations of wealth at the very top.

Despite this inevitable-seeming drift toward 菟atrimonial capitalism that his charts seemed to show, Mr. Piketty rejected any economic determinism. 的t all depends on what the political system decides, he said.

Such statements, along with Mr. Piketty痴 proposal for a progressive wealth tax and income tax rates up to 80 percent, have aroused strong interest among those eager to recapture the momentum of the Occupy movement. The Nation ran a nearly 10,000-word cover article  placing his book within a rising tide of neo-Marxist thought, while National Review Online dismissed it as confirmation of the left痴 電earest 船as Kapital fantasies.

But Mr. Piketty, who writes in the book that the collapse of Communism in 1989 left him 砺accinated for life against the 斗azy rhetoric of anticapitalism, is no Marxian revolutionary. 的 believe in private property, he said in the interview. 釘ut capitalism and markets should be the slave of democracy and not the opposite.

Even if he doesn稚 expect his policy proposals to find favor in Washington anytime soon, Mr. Piketty called his meetings there gratifying. Mr. Lew, he said, seemed to have read parts of the book carefully. A member of the Council on Economic Advisers corrected a small error concerning Balzac痴 novel 鏑e P鑽e Goriot, which includes a discussion of getting ahead through advantageous marriage rather than hard work. 的 was impressed, Mr. Piketty said.

His book, however, ends not with an appeal to policy makers, but with a call for all citizens to 鍍ake a serious interest in money, its measurement, the facts surrounding it and its history.

的t痴 too easy for ordinary people to just say, 選 don稚 know anything about economics, he said, before rushing to his next appearance. 釘ut economics is not just for economists.
 

A version of this article appears in print on April 19, 2014, on page C1 of the New York edition with the headline: Economist Receives Rock Star Treatment.********
3711  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The war on the rule of law on: April 17, 2014, 09:27:56 AM
And what does the administration do?  Reduce funding to law enforcement on corruption and white collar crime and divert more to terrorism.

3712  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: Health Thread (nutrition, medical, longevity, etc) on: April 17, 2014, 09:25:39 AM
I have to ask my surgeon friends as usually they get a quick path report back that should have told this trainee it was not the appendix.  Or with in
a day.  Sometimes surgeons now treat appendicitis with antibiotics alone and do not perform surgery.  I am not clear which is best in pregnancy.
There is risk to many antibiotics and pregnancy too.

https://en-maktoob.entertainment.yahoo.com/blogs/parenting/pregnant-woman-dies-horrifying-medical-mixup-200700512.html
3713  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / The right to flash headlights on: April 16, 2014, 08:02:28 PM
Constitutional right to flash your head lights gains momentum

National Constitution Center
By Scott Bomboy 14 hours ago
       
Should a driver have the legal ability to flash their head lights as an alert to a police presence on the road? That knotty legal question is gaining momentum after a legal decision in Missouri, an Oregon ruling, and a new effort in New Jersey.

New Jersey Assemblyman Ronald S. Dancer introduced a bill in March that would make the use of flashing high-beams at motorists legal under state law.

Proponents of the measure are citing a legal victory for the pro-high beam crowd in a federal court in Missouri from February, which was reaffirmed last week.

U.S. District Judge Henry E. Autrey had issued a preliminary injunction in February prohibiting the town of Ellisville from prosecuting drivers who allegedly flashed their vehicles head lights to warn of radar and speed traps. The city didn稚 appeal the decision.

Last week, Judge Autrey expanded that decision to a permanent injunction.

The American Civil Liberties Union championed the case of Elli v. Ellisville. Last April, the ACLU of Missouri sued on behalf of Michael Elli, who was pulled over in 2012 by a police officer and issued a citation for flashing lights to warn of radar use ahead. Elli faced a $1,000 fine for flashing the lights.

摘xpressive conduct is protected whenever a particular message is present and the likelihood is great that the message would be understood by those who viewed it, said Tony Rothert, legal director of the ACLU of Missouri in a statement issued about the case. 摘ven new drivers understand that an oncoming car with flashing headlights means they should either slow down, turn on their headlights, or otherwise use caution.

The Asbury Park Press reported on the New Jersey story on Tuesday and it interviewed attorneys familiar with the proposal. They seemed to agree on the constitutional point but were skeptical if a New Jersey motorist would mount a constitutional challenge to protest a $54 fine.

But it did bring up a case from the 1990s where a motorist went to court and won a verdict that threw out a fine for illegal headlight flashing. However, that court痴 decision wasn稚 binding or applicable to other cases.

And there have been other instances where head light flashers have won in court.

Last week, an Oregon man, Chris Hill, fought a $260 ticket for improperly using his head lights while driving a truck full of logs. Hill won his legal fight, and Hill acted as his own attorney in the proceeding.

典he citation was clearly given to punish the Defendant for that expression, the judge said in the case. 典he government certainly can and should enforce the traffic laws for the safety of all drivers on the road. However, the government cannot enforce the traffic laws, or any other laws, to punish drivers for their expressive conduct.

In May 2012, Ryan Kintner from Lake Mary, Florida, successfully fought a citation for violating a state traffic law by using head lights as a warning signal. The judge said the flashing was protected under the First Amendment.

的 felt an injustice was being done. I have nothing against officers keeping speeding down, but when you cross a line and get into free speech, I feel it痴 gone too far, Kintner told the Orlando Sentinel during the lawsuit.

Back in New Jersey, the Newark Star-Ledger痴 editorial board has endorsed Dancer痴 measure, in opposition to the New Jersey Police Chiefs Association.

鄭t its core, this is a free speech issue, the board said. 撤olice can稚 prevent you from stopping at every gas station to sound the alarm about a speed radar, or starting your own blog about the locations of hidden cruisers. Look it exists already on Twitter. They shouldn稚 be able to prevent an altruistic citizen from flicking headlights, either.

The importance of the free speech issue isn稚 likely to go way, as people facing relatively small fines are willing to take their cases to court.

As we profiled last month, a Pennsylvania man spent thousands of dollars in legal costs to protest a $150 fine for evading questions asked to him by a game warden. He won a legal victory over his Fifth Amendment rights, which apparently conflicted with a Pennsylvania deer hunting statute.

Scott Bomboy is the editor in chief of the National Constitution Center.
3714  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Coulter on: April 16, 2014, 07:12:38 PM
BACK ANY CANDIDATE YOU WANT AS LONG AS IT'S ONE OF THESE THREE

April 16, 2014
 
As those of you who follow my hate mail know, I am opposed to running untested candidates against perfectly good incumbent Republican senators this election cycle. It will be a long time before Republicans have as good a year as this to win a Senate majority.

 Unfortunately, we have idiots doing the idiot thing, pretending to be "tea partiers," while challenging sitting Republican senators over fairly minor ideological differences.

 Anyone opposing an incumbent Republican for any reason other than amnesty is a fraud or an idiot. Right now, immigration and Obamacare are the only things that matter. Since every Republican voted against Obamacare, that leaves only immigration.

 Conservatives who ignore amnesty while carping about the debt ceiling, TARP (Troubled Asset Relief Program), the Internet tax bill or Benghazi are too stupid to help their country.

 Suppose the Senate had passed a bill that would cut Texas out of the Union? Would that get your attention, fake tea partiers? Without Texas, Republicans would immediately lose 38 electoral votes, two senators and 24 members of Congress. (Democrats would lose only 12 House members.)

 How would you rate the prospect of repealing Obamacare if Republicans could: never win another presidential election; never win another majority in the House; and never again win a Senate majority? Oh, and how does the expression "President Nancy Pelosi" grab you?

 Would that bill be slightly more important to you than the Internet tax bill?

 Well, guess what? Amnesty will produce the exact same result as losing the entire state of Texas. In fact, merely continuing our current immigration policies will achieve the same result; it will just take a little longer. (But wow, I'm sure glad we got "Octomom"! What a boon she's been to our American way of life.)

 The population of Texas is about 27 million. With amnestied illegal aliens allowed to bring in their cousins and brothers-in-law under our insane "family reunification" policies, the 12 million illegal immigrants already here will quickly balloon to 30 million new voters -- who happen to break 8-to-2 for the Democrats.

Consequently, before running off and staging a primary fight against a sitting Republican, anyone who truly loved his country would ask himself the following three questions:

 (1) Does the incumbent Republican support amnesty? And by the way, "Supports amnesty" includes anyone who says one of the following:

 -- "We already have de facto amnesty"

 -- "What are you going to do -- round up 12 million illegals?"

 -- "They're doing jobs American just won't do," or

 -- "Our housekeeper, Lupe, is like family."

 (2) Is a primary challenge unlikely to flip a Republican seat to the Democrats?

 (3) Am I fairly certain the challenger is smart enough to avoid the (apparently) rocky shoals of being asked about abortion in the case of rape?

 There are at least three Republican primary candidates who pass this test with flying colors. They're smart, attractive, articulate and unlikely to ever use the phrase "legitimate rape."

 No incumbent Republican senators are in jeopardy -- the one Senate race is for a seat currently held by a Democrat, and the other two races are for House seats in reasonably safe Republican districts.

 Finally, all three races represent the battle at the heart of the Republican Party: Are we the party of soulless businessmen who care nothing about the country but only want higher profits for themselves? Or are we the party of middle-class and working-class Americans?

 If you don't think the Republican Party should speak exclusively for Wall Street, Silicon Valley and the Chamber of Commerce, then you have to support:

 -- Dr. Greg Brannon, running in the Republican primary against foreign-labor cheerleader Thom Tillis, to challenge the Democratic senator from North Carolina, Kay Hagan. (Primary: May 6)

 -- Frank Roche, running against the lying, amnesty-supporting Renee Ellmers in North Carolina's 2nd Congressional District. (Primary: May 6)

 -- Dave Brat, economics professor, challenging the amnesty-addled Eric Cantor in Virginia's 7th Congressional District. (Primary: June 10)

 State legislator Tillis championed a bill making it easier for North Carolina employers to hire foreign workers. Instead of temporary guest workers coming in for a few months a year to do farm work, Tillis' bill expanded "farm labor" to "all industries," and expanded "seasonal" to "nine months."

 This wasn't an idle vote cast thoughtlessly: After the Republican governor vetoed Tillis' job-killing bill, Tillis led the legislature to override his veto.

 Tillis has been well repaid by business interests. North Carolinians can repay him for driving down their wages on May 6.

 Frank Roche, who is challenging two-term incumbent Renee Ellmers, speaks more knowledgeably about immigration than almost any sitting member of Congress. (After two decades in international banking in New York, he moved to North Carolina and became an economics professor and talk-radio host -- so he can talk.)

 Roche has this crazy idea that a nation's immigration policies should be good for the citizens of that country. (Somebody get this guy in leather restraints!)

 By contrast, his opponent, Rep. Ellmers, has dedicated herself to supporting the needs of her rich donors by being strident, rude and utterly cliched on the subject of immigration.

 Naturally, she is supported by Facebook billionaire Mark Zuckerberg -- because who cares about the needs of North Carolina workers more than a Silicon Valley one-hit wonder seeking cheap foreign labor? (I'm sure Zuckerberg has the very best interests of the country at heart.)

 Every exchange Ellmers has about immigration seems to end in a blizzard of shouts and insults. After failing to tear at the heartstrings of talk radio's Laura Ingraham with tales of rich farmers who need cheap foreign labor, Ellmers shouted that Ingraham was "ignorant" and "emotional."

 About a week later, Ellmers denounced a constituent who criticized her on immigration, telling him that he didn't have "any damn facts" and was full of "hatred and vitriol."

 (Zuckerberg apparently pays his politicians better than he pays his computer programmers.)

 For the cherry on top, both Ellmers and Tillis go around claiming they're opposed to amnesty -- while doing everything they can to sneak foreign workers into North Carolina.

 So at least they know amnesty is not popular with voters. Here's an idea! Instead of running candidates who have to lie about their position on immigration, let's run Republicans who actually agree with the voters!

 Sucking up to businessmen may have brought Tillis and Ellmers a lot of campaign cash, but it's unlikely to help them with North Carolina's population, which, by the way, is 22 percent black. Recall that Mitt Romney won an astounding 20 percent of the young black male vote by being the toughest presidential candidate on immigration in 50 years. (I guess they do want the jobs "Americans just won't do.")

 Dave Brat, an economics professor like Roche, is challenging Rep. Eric Cantor: Maniacal Amnesty Supporter. Cantor says "immigration reform could be an economic boon to this country."

 You don't have to be an economics professor to know that bringing in millions of workers is not "an economic boon" to the workers already here. (If only we could bring in millions of workers to compete for Cantor's job.)

 Brat responded to Cantor's baby-talk, saying immigration "lowers wages, adds to unemployment, and the taxpayer pays the tab for any benefits to folks coming in."

 Republicans aren't at much risk of losing any of these seats, with or without primary fights. But we'll lose them all within a decade if Republicans like Tillis, Ellmers and Cantor aren't stopped.

Brannon, Roche and Brat are the candidates true patriots should support with everything they have.

 COPYRIGHT 2014 ANN COULTER
 DISTRIBUTED BY UNIVERSAL UCLICK


3715  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Hank Aaron on: April 16, 2014, 07:43:52 AM
Response to Doug's post from the race thread on Hand Aaron's recent comparison of GOP and KKK.

Yes I too was Very disappointed to see him say this in an interview.   I recall when a friend and I were sitting a AA spring training Atlanta Braves game in Florida (West Palm Beach?) in the early 90's some guy walked across the other side of the bleachers and everyone started clapping.   The word was it was Hank Aaron.

Great player and always came across as a gentlemen.  Performed under extreme pressure and surely was a victim of segregation and racism.

Yet I don't quite get the comparison of the GOP to the KKK.  Perhaps someone should email him the post of the history of racism and the two major American parties on the racism board. 
3716  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / A good reply on History of Democrats, Republicans, and Racism off of Yahoo board on: April 15, 2014, 03:02:12 AM
David H 44 minutes ago

A Short History of Democrats, Republicans, and Racism

 The following are a few basic historical facts that every American should know.

 Fact: The Republican Party was founded primarily to oppose slavery, and Republicans eventually abolished slavery. The Democratic Party fought them and tried to maintain and expand slavery.

 Why is this indisputable fact so rarely mentioned? PBS documentaries about slavery and the Civil War barely mention it, for example. One can certainly argue that the parties have changed dramatically in 150 years, but that does not change the historical fact that it was the Democrats who supported slavery and the Republicans who opposed it. And that indisputable fact should not be airbrushed out for fear that it will tarnish the modern Democratic Party.

 Had the positions of the parties been the opposite, and the Democrats had fought the Republicans to end slavery, the historical party roles would no doubt be repeated incessantly in these documentaries. Funny how that works.

 Fact: During the Civil War era, the "Radical Republicans" were given that name because they wanted to not only end slavery but also to endow the freed slaves with full citizenship, equality, and rights.

 Yes, that was indeed a radical idea at the time!

 Fact: Lincoln's Vice President, Andrew Johnson, was a strongly pro-Union (but also pro-slavery) Democrat who had been chosen as a compromise running mate to attract Democrats. After Lincoln was assassinated, Johnson thwarted Republican efforts in Congress to recognize the civil rights of the freed slaves, and Southern Democrats continued to thwart any such efforts for nearly a century.

 Fact: The Ku Klux Klan was originally and primarily an arm of the Southern Democratic Party, and its mission was to terrorize freed slaves and Republicans who sympathized with them.

 Why is this fact conveniently omitted in so many popular histories and depictions of the KKK, including PBS documentaries? Had the KKK been founded by Republicans, that fact would no doubt be repeated constantly on those shows.

 Fact: In the 1950s, President Eisenhower, a Republican, integrated the US military and promoted civil rights for minorities. Eisenhower pushed through the Civil Rights Act of 1957. One of Eisenhower's primary political opponents on civil rights prior to 1957 was none other than Lyndon Johnson, then the Democratic Senate Majority Leader. LBJ had voted the straight segregationist line until he changed his position and supported the 1957 Act.

 Fact: The historic Civil Rights Act of 1964 was supported by a higher percentage of Republicans than Democrats in both houses of Congress. In the House, 80 percent of the Republicans and 63 percent of the Democrats voted in favor. In the Senate, 82 percent of the Republicans and 69 percent of the Democrats voted for it.

 Fact: Contrary to popular misconception, the parties never "switched" on racism.

 Following the epic civil rights struggles of the 1960s, the South began a major demographic shift from Democratic to Republican dominance. Many believe that this shift was motivated mainly by racism. While it is certainly true that many Southern racists abandoned the Democratic Party over its new support for racial equality and integration, the notion that they would flock to the Republican Party -- which was a century ahead of the Democrats on those issues -- makes no sense whatsoever.

 Yet virtually every liberal, when pressed on the matter, will inevitably claim that the parties "switched," and most racist Democrats became Republicans! In their minds, this historical ju jitsu maneuver apparently transfers all the past sins of the Democrats (slavery, the KKK, Jim Crow laws, etc.) onto the Republicans and all the past virtues of the Republicans (e.g., ending slavery) onto the Democrats! That's quite a feat!

 It is true that Barry Goldwater's opposition to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 probably attracted some racist Democrats to the Republican Party. However, Goldwater was not a racist -- at least not an overt racist like so many Southern Democrats of the time, such as George Wallace and Bull Connor. He publicly professed racial equality, and his opposition to the 1964 Act was based on principled grounds of states rights. In any case, his libertarian views were out of step with the mainstream of the Republican Party, and he lost the 1964 Presidential election to LBJ in a landslide.

 But Goldwater's opposition to the 1964 Civil Rights Act provided liberals an opening to tar the Republican Party as racist, and they have tenaciously repeated that label so often over the years that it is now the conventional wisdom among liberals. But it is really nothing more than an unsubstantiated myth -- a convenient political lie. If the Republican Party was any more racist than the Democratic Party even in 1964, why did a higher percentage of Republicans than Democrats in both houses of Congress vote for the 1964 Civil Rights Act? The idea that Goldwater's vote on the 1964 Civil Rights Act trumps a century of history of the Republican Party is ridiculous, to say the least.

 Every political party has its racists, but the notion that Republicans are more racist than Democrats or any other party is based on nothing more than a constant drumbeat of unsubstantiated innuendo and assertions by Leftists, constantly echoed by the liberal media. It is a classic example of a Big Lie that becomes "true" simply by virtue of being repeated so many times.

 A more likely explanation for the long-term shift from Democratic to Republican dominance in the South was the perception, fair or not, that the Democratic Party had rejected traditional Christian religious values and embraced radical secularism. That includes its hardline support for abortion, its rejection of prayer in public schools, its promotion of the gay agenda, and many other issues.

 In the 1960s the Democratic Party essentially changed its strategy for dealing with African Americans. Thanks largely to earlier Republican initiatives on civil rights, blatant racial oppression was no longer a viable political option. Whereas before that time Southern Democrats had overtly and proudly segregated and terrorized blacks, the national Democratic Party decided instead to be more subtle and get them as dependent on government as possible. As LBJ so elegantly put it (in a famous moment of candor that was recorded for posterity), "I'll have those niggers voting Democratic for the next 200 years." At the same time, the Democrats started a persistent campaign of lies and innuendo, falsely equating any opposition to their welfare state with racism.

 From a purely cynical political perspective, the Democratic strategy of black dependence has been extremely effective. LBJ knew exactly what he was doing. African Americans routinely vote well over 90 percent Democratic for fear that Republicans will cut their government benefits and welfare programs. And what is the result? Before LBJ's Great Society welfare programs, the black illegitimacy rate was as low as 23 percent, but now it has more than tripled to 72 percent.

 Most major American city governments have been run by liberal Democrats for decades, and most of those cities have large black sections that are essentially dysfunctional anarchies. Cities like Detroit are overrun by gangs and drug dealers, with burned out homes on every block in some areas. The land values are so low due to crime, blight, and lack of economic opportunity that condemned homes are not even worth rebuilding. Who wants to build a home in an urban war zone? Yet they keep electing liberal Democrats -- and blaming "racist" Republicans for their problems!

 Washington DC is another city that has been dominated by liberal Democrats for decades. It spends more per capita on students than almost any other city in the world, yet it has some of the worst academic achievement anywhere and is a drug-infested hellhole. Barack Obama would not dream of sending his own precious daughters to the DC public schools, of course -- but he assures us that those schools are good enough for everyone else. In fact, Obama was instrumental in killing a popular and effective school voucher program in DC, effectively killing hopes for many poor black families trapped in those dysfunctional public schools. His allegiance to the teachers unions apparently trumps his concern for poor black families.

 A strong argument could also be made that Democratic support for perpetual affirmative action is racist. It is, after all, the antithesis of Martin Luther King's vision of a color-blind society. Not only is it "reverse racism," but it is based on the premise that African Americans are incapable of competing in the free market on a level playing field. In other words, it is based on the notion of white supremacy, albeit "benevolent" white supremacy rather than the openly hostile white supremacy of the pre-1960s Democratic Party.

 The next time someone claims that Republicans are racist and Democrats are not, don't fall for it.
3717  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / second post today - NYT on: April 15, 2014, 02:44:48 AM


The Opinion Pages|Op-Ed Contributors 

Global Warming Scare Tactics


By TED NORDHAUS and MICHAEL SHELLENBERGERAPRIL 8, 2014

OAKLAND, Calif. IF you were looking for ways to increase public skepticism about global warming, you could hardly do better than the forthcoming nine-part series on climate change and natural disasters, starting this Sunday on Showtime. A trailer for 添ears of Living Dangerously is terrifying, replete with images of melting glaciers, raging wildfires and rampaging floods. 的 don稚 think scary is the right word, intones one voice. 泥angerous, definitely.

Showtime痴 producers undoubtedly have the best of intentions. There are serious long-term risks associated with rising greenhouse gas emissions, ranging from ocean acidification to sea-level rise to decreasing agricultural output.

But there is every reason to believe that efforts to raise public concern about climate change by linking it to natural disasters will backfire. More than a decade痴 worth of research suggests that fear-based appeals about climate change inspire denial, fatalism and polarization.

For instance, Al Gore痴 2006 documentary, 鄭n Inconvenient Truth, popularized the idea that today痴 natural disasters are increasing in severity and frequency because of human-caused global warming. It also contributed to public backlash and division. Since 2006, the number of Americans telling Gallup that the media was exaggerating global warming grew to 42 percent today from about 34 percent. Meanwhile, the gap between Democrats and Republicans on whether global warming is caused by humans rose to 42 percent last year from 26 percent in 2006, according to the Pew Research Center.

Other factors contributed. Some conservatives and fossil-fuel interests questioned the link between carbon emissions and global warming. And beginning in 2007, as the country was falling into recession, public support for environmental protection declined.

Still, environmental groups have known since 2000 that efforts to link climate change to natural disasters could backfire, after researchers at the Frameworks Institute studied public attitudes for its report 滴ow to Talk About Global Warming. Messages focused on extreme weather events, they found, made many Americans more likely to view climate change as an act of God something to be weathered, not prevented.

Some people, the report noted, 殿re likely to buy an SUV to help them through the erratic weather to come for example, rather than support fuel-efficiency standards.

Since then, evidence that a fear-based approach backfires has grown stronger. A frequently cited 2009 study in the journal Science Communication summed up the scholarly consensus. 鄭lthough shocking, catastrophic, and large-scale representations of the impacts of climate change may well act as an initial hook for people痴 attention and concern, the researchers wrote, 鍍hey clearly do not motivate a sense of personal engagement with the issue and indeed may act to trigger barriers to engagement such as denial. In a controlled laboratory experiment published in Psychological Science in 2010, researchers were able to use 電ire messages about global warming to increase skepticism about the problem.

Many climate advocates ignore these findings, arguing that they have an obligation to convey the alarming facts.

But claims linking the latest blizzard, drought or hurricane to global warming simply can稚 be supported by the science. Our warming world is, according to the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, increasing heat waves and intense precipitation in some places, and is likely to bring more extreme weather in the future. But the panel also said there is little evidence that this warming is increasing the loss of life or the economic costs of natural disasters. 摘conomic growth, including greater concentrations of people and wealth in periled areas and rising insurance penetration, the climate panel noted, 妬s the most important driver of increasing losses.
2013 has shown the true colors of the left痴 false narrative on global warming. Both poles have expanding ice, with the Antarctic breaking...
 
Claims that current disasters are connected to climate change do seem to motivate many liberals to support action. But they alienate conservatives in roughly equal measure.

What works, say environmental pollsters and researchers, is focusing on popular solutions. Climate advocates often do this, arguing that solar and wind can reduce emissions while strengthening the economy. But when renewable energy technologies are offered as solutions to the exclusion of other low-carbon alternatives, they polarize rather than unite.

One recent study, published by Yale Law School痴 Cultural Cognition Project, found that conservatives become less skeptical about global warming if they first read articles suggesting nuclear energy or geoengineering as solutions. Another study, in the journal Nature Climate Change in 2012, concluded that 田ommunication should focus on how mitigation efforts can promote a better society rather than 登n the reality of climate change and averting its risks.

Nonetheless, virtually every major national environmental organization continues to reject nuclear energy, even after four leading climate scientists wrote them an open letter last fall, imploring them to embrace the technology as a key climate solution. Together with catastrophic rhetoric, the rejection of technologies like nuclear and natural gas by environmental groups is most likely feeding the perception among many that climate change is being exaggerated. After all, if climate change is a planetary emergency, why take nuclear and natural gas off the table?

While the urgency that motivates exaggerated claims is understandable, turning down the rhetoric and embracing solutions like nuclear energy will better serve efforts to slow global warming.
 

Ted Nordhaus is the chairman and Michael Shellenberger is the president of the Breakthrough Institute, an environmental research organization.
3718  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Phelps underwater on: April 15, 2014, 02:41:11 AM
https://search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt=AlSxVU7WnQMxIqs7fuohHzCbvZx4?p=phelps+swim+underwater&toggle=1&cop=mss&ei=UTF-8&fr=yfp-t-745
3719  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: Pathological Science on: April 15, 2014, 02:27:12 AM
http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
3720  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / yup ; this is it. At least a tad of sympathy here. on: April 14, 2014, 06:50:23 PM
By Daniela Drake 16 hours ago The Daily Beast

Why Your Doctor Hates His Job

By the end of this year, it痴 estimated that 300 physicians will commit suicide. While depression amongst physicians is not new預 few years back, it was named the second most suicidal occupation葉he level of sheer unhappiness amongst physicians is on the rise.

Simply put, being a doctor has become a miserable and humiliating undertaking. Indeed, many doctors feel that America has declared war on physicians預nd both physicians and patients are the losers.

Not surprisingly, many doctors want out. Medical students opt for high-paying specialties so they can retire as quickly as possible. Physician MBA programs葉hat promise doctors a way into management預re flourishing. The website known as the Drop-Out-Club謡hich hooks doctors up with jobs at hedge funds and venture capital firms揺as a solid following. In fact, physicians are so bummed out that 9 out of 10 doctors would discourage anyone from entering the profession.

It痴 hard for anyone outside the profession to understand just how rotten the job has become預nd what bad news that is for America痴 healthcare system. Perhaps that痴 why author Malcolm Gladwell recently implied that to fix the healthcare crisis, the public needs to understand what it痴 like to be a physician. Imagine, for things to get better for patients, they need to empathize with physicians葉hat痴 a tall order in our noxious and decidedly un-empathetic times.

After all, the public sees ophthalmologists and radiologists making out like bandits and wonder why they should feel anything but scorn for such doctors容specially when Americans haven稚 gotten a raise in decades. But being a primary care physician is not like being, say, a plastic surgeon預 profession that garners both respect and retirement savings. Given that primary care doctors do the work that no one else is willing to do, being a primary care physician is more like being a janitor傭ut without the social status or union protections.

Unfortunately, things are only getting worse for most doctors, especially those who still accept health insurance. Just processing the insurance forms costs $58 dollars for every patient encounter, according to Dr. Stephen Schimpff, an internist and former CEO of University of Maryland Medical Center who is writing a book about the crisis in primary care. To make ends meet, physicians have had to increase the number of patients they see. The end result is that the average face-to-face clinic visit lasts about 12 minutes.

Neither patients nor doctors are happy about that. What worries many doctors, however, is that the Affordable Care Act has codified this broken system into law. While forcing everyone to buy health insurance, ACA might have mandated a uniform or streamlined claims procedure that would have gone a long way to improving access to care. As Malcolm Gladwell noted, 添ou don稚 train someone for all of those years in [medicine] and then have them run a claims processing operation for insurance companies.

In fact, difficulty dealing with insurers has caused many physicians to close their practices and become employees. But for patients, seeing an employed doctor doesn稚 give them more time with the doctor耀ince employed physicians also have high patient loads. 鄭 panel size of 2,000 to 2,500 patients is too many, says Dr. Schimpff. That痴 the number of patients primary care doctors typically are forced to carry預nd that means seeing 24 or more patients a day, and often these patients have 10 or more medical problems. As any seasoned physician knows, this is do-able, but it痴 certainly not optimal.

Most patients have experienced the rushed clinic visit預nd that痴 where the breakdown in good medical care starts. 泥octors who are in a rush, don稚 have the time to listen, says Dr. Schimpff. 徹ften, patients get referred to specialists when the problem can be solved in the office visit. It痴 true that specialist referrals are on the rise, but the time crunch also causes doctors to rely on guidelines instead of personally tailoring medical care. Unfortunately, mindlessly following guidelines can result in bad outcomes.

Yet physicians have to go along, constantly trying to improve their 菟roductivity and patient satisfaction scores熔r risk losing their jobs. Industry leaders are fixated on patient satisfaction, despite the fact that high scores are correlated with worse outcomes and higher costs. Indeed, trying to please whatever patient comes along destroys the integrity of our work. It痴 a fact that doctors acquiesce to patient demands庸or narcotics, x-rays, doctor痴 notes妖espite what survey advocates claim. And now that Medicare payments will be tied to patient satisfaction葉his problem will get worse. Doctors need to have the ability to say no. If not, when patients go to see the doctor, they won稚 actually have a physician葉hey値l have a hostage.

But the primary care doctor doesn稚 have the political power to say no to anything耀o the 鍍o-do list continues to lengthen. A stunning and unmanageable number of forms熔ften illegible耀how up daily on a physician痴 desk needing to be signed. Reams of lab results, refill requests, emails, and callbacks pop up continually on the computer screen. Calls to plead with insurance companies are peppered throughout the day. Every decision carries with it an implied threat of malpractice litigation. Failing to attend to these things brings prompt disciplining or patient complaint. And mercilessly, all of these tasks have to be done on the exhausted doctor痴 personal time.

Almost comically, the response of medical leadership葉heir solution is to call for more physician testing. In fact, the American Board of Internal Medicine (ABIM)擁n its own act of hostage-taking揺as just decided that doctors should be tested not every ten years, but every two years. If a physician doesn稚 comply by the end of this month, the ABIM will strip away the doctor痴 board certification status.

In an era when nurse practitioners and physician assistants have shown that they can provide excellent primary care, it痴 nonsensical to raise the barriers for physicians to participate. In an era when you can call up guidelines on your smartphone, demanding more physician testing is a ludicrous and self-serving response.

It is tone deaf. It is punitive. It is wrong. And practicing doctors can稚 do a damn thing about it. No wonder doctors are suicidal. No wonder young doctors want nothing to do with primary care.

But what is a bit of a wonder is how things got this bad. 

Certainly, the relentlessly negative press coverage of physicians sets the tone. 典here痴 a media narrative that blames physicians for things the doctor has no control over, says Kevin Pho, MD, an internist with a popular blog where physicians often vent their frustrations. Indeed, in the popular press recently doctors have been held responsible for everything from the wheelchair-unfriendly furniture to lab fees for pap smears.

The meme is that doctors are getting away with something and need constant training, watching and regulating. With this in mind, it痴 almost a reflex for policy makers to pile on the regulations. Regulating the physician is an easy sell because it is a fantasy預 Freudian fever dream葉he wish to diminish, punish and control a disappointing parent, give him a report card, and tell him to wash his hands.

To be sure many people with good intentions are working toward solving the healthcare crisis. But the answers they致e come up with are driving up costs and driving out doctors.  Maybe it痴 too much to ask for empathy, and maybe physician lives don稚 matter to most people.

But for America痴 health to be safeguarded, the wellbeing of America痴 caretakers is going to have to start mattering to someone. 



 









3721  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Immigration issues on: April 11, 2014, 08:24:24 PM
This title is remarkable.

""Immigration is a "GOP" problem.""

No its not!  It is a problem for the entire country!

******Jeb Bush remarks expose GOP's immigration problem

Associated Press
By MICHAEL J. MISHAK 22 hours ago

MIAMI (AP) With three little words, former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush set off a fury this week that served as a potent reminder of how difficult the immigration issue remains for his possible presidential ambitions and the Republican Party.


Jeb Bush Remark Could Be 2016 Problem CBS Dallas Fort Worth (RSS)
Immigration reform 'love': Did Jeb Bush comment change shape of 2016 race? Christian Science Monitor
Jeb Bush says illegal immigration often 'an act of love' Reuters
Jeb Bush: Is GOP elite drafting him for 2016? Christian Science Monitor
[$$] William Galston: The Jeb Bush and Tea Party Divide The Wall Street Journal

An early GOP establishment favorite, Bush has long urged his fellow Republicans to show more compassion for those who enter the country illegally. But when he described illegal immigration in an interview as an "act of love" by people hoping to provide for their families, the backlash from his own party was swift and stinging.

Rep. Raul Labrador of Idaho accused Bush of "pandering." Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas and House Speaker John Boehner said the country should enforce the "rule of law." And conservative commentator Michelle Malkin created a new Twitter hashtag: #CancelJebBush.

In a speech Thursday night to an annual gathering of Connecticut Republicans, Bush noted the negative response to his remarks but said he sees no conflict between enforcing the law and "having some sensitivity to the immigrant experience."

Some of the party's most powerful insiders and financiers are concerned immigration could define the coming nominating contest in the way it did in 2012. Like Bush, Texas Gov. Rick Perry was jeered when he implied that his rivals were heartless if they opposed a law that lets some children of undocumented immigrants pay in-state tuition at public colleges.

The 2012 GOP nominee, Mitt Romney, took a hard line and advocated "self-deportation" for those here illegally. He won just 27 percent of the Hispanic vote, the lowest portion for a Republican in 16 years.

"The worst thing that can happen to a political party is not for voters to decide they don't like you," said Alex Castellanos, a GOP consultant and former Romney adviser. "It's for voters to decide you don't like them, and that's where the Republican Party is right now."

The Republican National Committee has urged the GOP to embrace an immigration overhaul, but comprehensive legislation remains stalled in Congress. Action is unlikely in an election year with high stakes. All 435 House seats, and 36 in the Senate, are on state ballots. Republicans need to gain only six Senate seats to win majority control from Democrats. The political calculus makes the GOP's core base of voters critical, so House Republicans want to avoid an immigration fight that could alienate them. But some establishment Republicans say the delay threatens the long-term future of the GOP.

"It's going to kill the Republican Party," said Al Hoffman, a Republican megadonor who chaired George W. Bush's presidential campaigns.

He and others argue the GOP needs a nominee with a "Nixon-goes-to-China mentality" in which the party leader takes an audacious, if not popular, step on issues such as immigration. They suggest that's necessary in part to peel away some Hispanic voters from Democrats in 2016.

For Bush, the debate is personal. His wife, Columba, was born and grew up in Mexico. The two met while Bush was an exchange student there; she is now an American citizen.

On Sunday, in an interview with Fox News before an audience at the George Bush Presidential Library in Texas, Bush said immigrants who enter the country illegally should, in fact, pay a penalty. But he added that he viewed such a violation as "a different kind of crime."

"Yes, they broke the law, but it's not a felony," he said. "It's an act of love."

Hispanics are a crucial voting bloc in an increasing number of swing-voting states, from Florida to Colorado to Nevada.

Some see a new opportunity for the GOP to appeal to Latinos, many of whom have soured on President Barack Obama because of his administration's record-setting number of deportations.

"Hispanics are eager to hear from a leader in the Republican Party talk about immigration in the way that Jeb Bush talked about it," said Janet Murguia, president of the National Council of La Raza, the country's largest Hispanic civil rights organization. "Some may argue that a bold country-first stance on immigration cannot win the nomination, but what is certain is that a divisive, anti-immigration stance does not win the presidency in a nation of immigrants."

In contrast to the 2012 nomination fight, most of the potential 2016 presidential contenders have signaled support for some kind of immigration overhaul. But they remain deeply divided over whether legislation should offer a pathway to citizenship for those living here illegally. After the Senate passed a bipartisan measure last year that would do just that, the barrage of conservative criticism virtually silenced the GOP's most outspoken immigration advocates, including Florida Sen. Marco Rubio.

The furor over Bush's remarks shows the potential perils of picking up the issue, especially in the early voting states that play an outsized role in choosing party nominees. Bush's "act of love" comment was pithy and provocative enough to stir deep discomfort in a party still searching for a single message on the subject. And it challenged GOP officials to disagree without further alienating a voter group they're trying to attract.

"We appreciate the compassion in the statement, but the best compassion you can show a people is to uphold justice," said Tamara Scott, a RNC committeewoman and prominent Christian conservative in Iowa.

Bush, the two-term, Spanish-speaking former governor of a state with a booming Hispanic population, has struggled to articulate his views in a party that has changed dramatically since the last time he ran for office in 2002.

Last year, Bush released a book that championed legal status but not citizenship for illegal immigrants, seemingly contradicting his past statements. But in recent months, he has been giving speeches around the country that often include a full-throated defense of an immigration overhaul. Speaking at a recent financial advisers' conference in Florida, Bush lauded immigrants as "the risk takers," arguing that they embody the entrepreneurial spirit of America and invigorate the country's economy.

Katon Dawson, a South Carolina Republican strategist and Perry adviser, said Bush is wise to detail his nuanced positions so that potential rivals can't easily define his immigration stance if he decides to run.

"Look, the word 'amnesty' is a killer" in a Republican primary, Dawson said. "So you've got to take every chance you get to explain yourself ahead of the campaign."

___

Associated Press writers Bill Barrow in Atlanta and Susan Haigh in Stamford, Conn., contributed to this report*****
3722  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Politically (In)correct on: April 11, 2014, 07:14:41 PM
Just think if this student had claimed he was bullied because he is gay.   The news would be front page of all the major MSM outlets around the Western World.

Anderson Cooper would spend a week going over this.
3723  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Murdoch & Fox on: April 11, 2014, 07:50:48 AM
"Murdoch was defiant when asked if the right-leaning Fox News Channel痴 editorial content has hurt the political discussion or even the Republican Party itself. "It has absolutely saved it, he said."

I agree.  Without Fox or talk radio one half of the nation would have No voice.

*********
Rupert Murdoch speaks: politics, divorce and how Fox News 'saved' the political debate

Eric Pfeiffer
By Eric Pfeiffer 17 hours ago Yahoo News
 
Rupert Murdoch arrives at the 2014 Academy Awards in February (Reuters)
 
Media mogul and News Corp. Executive Chairman Rupert Murdoch sat down for his first interview in nearly five years.

The still very active and opinionated 83-year-old opened up to Fortune about a number of personal and political details during the interview, including his current favorite potential Republican candidates for 2016.

Murdoch told Forbes the 2016 presidential election 妬s between four or five people," and he places Jeb Bush and Paul Ryan atop his personal rankings. He called Ryan 鍍he straightest arrow I've ever met.

Some other highlights (Fortune subscribers can read the full Q&A):

Fox News Channel's slant

Murdoch was defiant when asked if the right-leaning Fox News Channel痴 editorial content has hurt the political discussion or even the Republican Party itself. "It has absolutely saved it, he said.

On how he's aging

He says, "My mother just died at 103, so that's a start. You should live 20 years longer than your parents. That may not be realistic, but I'm in good physical shape, according to the doctors. And don't worry my children will be the first to tell me if I start losing some mental ability. That will be the time to step back.

His biggest (professional) mistake

Primarily, buying MySpace for $580 million: 的t was one of our great screwups of all time."

He also opened up about his 2013 divorce from Wendi Deng. 摘verything has sort of come at once," he said. "But I was in an unhappy situation, and all I'm worried about ... is two beautiful little girls from that marriage. And they come and stay with me a great deal. I feel like I've turned over a new page in my life.

On two of his most famous newspaper properties

Murdoch says the New York Post may go to an all-digital version within 10 years but that the Wall Street Journal will likely exist in both print and digital form for a longer period of time.

What he thinks people don稚 understand about him

典hey perhaps tend to think I've not got as thick a skin as I have. You know, I don't mind what people say about me. I've never read a book about myself," he said.

How he brought his son Lachlan back into the fold at News Corp.

"Lachlan and [younger son] James and I had a very serious talk about how we can work as a team. We had two or three hours together. Lachlan was not not going to come back. It was a question of how we would work together."

Follow Eric Pfeiffer on Twitter (@ericpfeiffer).
3724  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Hillary pyschoanalyzes Putin on: April 10, 2014, 04:51:44 AM
*****Hillary Clinton Psychoanalyzes Vladimir Putin

 By Liz Kreutz
@Liz_Kreutz
Follow on Twitter
   
Apr 8, 2014 9:24pm

AP Hillary Clinton ml 140409 16x9 608 Hillary Clinton Psychoanalyzes Vladimir Putin
Credit: Timothy J. Gonzalez/Statesman Journal/AP Photo

Russian President Vladimir Putin may have a buff physique, but former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton sees right through it.

During a Q&A at a marketing summit in California today, Clinton gave a deep read on Putin痴 personality, and compared the encounters she痴 had with him to those she痴 experienced on an elementary school playground.

的 have had my personal experiences with him, she said, when answering a question about Putin and the recent situation in Crimea. 滴e痴 a fascinating guy. Obviously he is determined.

Clinton then proceeded to dissect his psyche.

滴e is very difficult to read personally, she said. 滴e is always looking for advantage. So he will try to put you ill at ease. He will even throw an insult your way. He will look bored and dismissive. He値l do all of that.

But Clinton said she was never fazed.

的 have a lot of experience with people acting like that, she quipped. 敵o back to elementary school. I致e seen all of that, so I知 not impressed by it.

Clinton made the comments during her first leg of a jam-packed, four-day long speaking tour through the West Coast at Marketo痴 Marketing Nation Summit in San Francisco.

During her speech and the following Q&A, with Marketo CEO Phil Fernandez, Clinton spoke on issues including technology, immigration, income inequality, and advancement for women in the workplace.

The event wrapped up with the inevitable question about 2016. But when asked if she plans to run for president, Clinton gave no more of an indication that she had made a decision either way. She said that she is still thinking about it, and that she is 堵oing to continue to think about it for a while.

Even Clinton, however, admitted she痴 become an expert at dodging the question.

的 danced around that pretty well, don稚 you think? she remarked with a smile.*****

Hillary knows not to let Putin's "buff" physique fool her.   I wonder if he knows not to let her hideous physique fool him.  Using HER school yard metaphor she sound like the ugly duckling who can't get the popular athlete so she simply has to insult him.

Low information voters will swoon over her nonsense.

 
3725  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / governements kill on: April 10, 2014, 04:40:38 AM
http://townhall.com/columnists/walterewilliams/2014/04/09/how-to-assist-evil-n1819754

The 20th century turned out to be mankind's most barbaric. Roughly 50 million to 60 million people died in international and civil wars. As tragic as that number is, it pales in comparison with the number of people who were killed at the hands of their own government. Recently deceased Rudolph J. Rummel, professor of political science at the University of Hawaii and author of "Death by Government," estimated that since the beginning of the 20th century, governments have killed 170 million of their own citizens. Top government killers were the Soviet Union, which, between 1917 and 1987, killed 62 million of its own citizens, and the People's Republic of China, which, between 1949 and 1987, was responsible for the deaths of 35 million to 40 million of its citizens. In a distant third place were the Nazis, who murdered about 16 million Jews, Slavs, Serbs, Czechs, Poles, Ukrainians and others deemed misfits, such as homosexuals and the mentally ill
[/color]
3726  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / dog and lion at play on: April 08, 2014, 08:03:01 PM
The famous dogs and lion pals in Oklahoma zoo:

https://search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt=AjoD3Cvs23s9NSCYFLiw8VGbvZx4?p=dog+and+lion+oklahoma+zoo&toggle=1&cop=mss&ei=UTF-8&fr=yfp-t-301
3727  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Brazilian wandering spider - on: April 08, 2014, 07:46:22 PM
erectile dysfunction - hang out with a Brazilian wandering spider.  It also has the most toxic spider venom:



****Brazilian Wandering Spider: Bites & Other Facts

By Jessie Szalay,

Brazilian wandering spider, spiders

  The Brazilian wandering spider belongs to the genus Phoneutria, which means 杜urderess in Greek. And it痴 no wonder why it痴 one of the most venomous spiders on earth. Its bite can be deadly to humans, although antivenom makes death unlikely. The Guinness Book of World Records has named it the world痴 Most Venomous Spider in multiple years.

There are eight species of Brazilian wandering spiders, which can all be found in Brazil. Some of the species can also be found throughout Latin America, from Costa Rica to Argentina. These powerful arachnids have been known to hitch rides internationally in banana shipments, for which they致e been given the nickname 澱anana spider.

In 2007, scientists discovered that in addition to intense pain and possible medical complications, the bite of a Brazilian wandering spider also deliver a long, painful erection to human males. The venom boosts nitric oxide, a chemical that increases blood flow. There has since been talk of incorporating the venom into drugs for erectile dysfunction.
3728  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Venezuela on: April 06, 2014, 03:09:48 AM
Health Care "policy" is all about the elites as well.
3729  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: Education on: April 05, 2014, 10:14:50 AM
What a marvelous story ( or beginning of a story).   Truly the American dream.   I recall posting about my Indian friend and colleague who commented how he sees American Blacks simply not seeing the advantages they have because they are in America.   I don't want to sound cold or indifferent or that I don't recognize the sort of holocaust Blacks went through over centuries as slaves and in segregated America etc.   

But this son of parents from Africa seem to have been taught and learned to embrace the gift of America that exists no where else.  I have many African patients and some colleagues.   I also have many from the Caribbean and American.  Culture and nation/regional  roots certainly does influence them (as it does us all).

Yet there is something special in this child's parents.  And there is something special in him.   

It seems like they just wanted the chance.   You don't hear anything about entitlements or the rest.  Just to be in America where one has a chance.

To blame discrimination was believable in the past.  It is not anymore.   In fact most of the Black Doctors I run into these days seem to be of African descent.
3730  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Venezuela on: April 05, 2014, 07:47:36 AM
Thanks Denny.

With regards to the New Age World Government it does seem Obama is a true believer.

Wikipedia's One World Government history:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_government

3731  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Cardiomyopathy due to climate change on: April 05, 2014, 06:31:51 AM
Where does the liberal slant end?   Even Takotsubo syndrome is due to global climate change -  and all "natural disasters" are due to climate change.  They never existed before.  Now they are all man made angry

*****By Rachel Hochhauser April 3, 2014 5:45 AM The Daily Beast
 
Broken Hearts Can Kill You

Day-to-day heartache doesn稚 hold a candle to scientifically proven heartbreak預 real thing called Takotsubo cardiomyopathy. Turns out, your cardiac muscle can temporarily enlarge and weaken, and what痴 more, the number of diagnoses is growing, leading a team of researchers to examine the cause. They found a surprising correlation that has the power to impact each and every one of us, even if you think you致e got heart health on lock.

First described in Japan, broken heart syndrome got its name because a diagnosed patient痴 left ventricle balloons to resemble the shape of an octopus trap. In non-doctor speak, the condition is essentially an impermanent weakening of the heart, often triggered by extreme emotional or physical stress預nything from losing a job to surviving a tsunami. Some physicians postulate a similarity to the fight-or-flight response; stress hormones paralyze the heart, affecting muscle tissues and blood vessels, and impede proper contraction of the left ventricle.

Patients with the condition may experience chest pain, shortness of breath, and other false evidence, such as biomarkers and electrocardiogram changes, bearing the markers of a cardiac arrest.

Though some studies have been conducted internationally, the latest research from the University of Arkansas謡hich explores a synergy between natural disasters and cases of cardiomyopathy擁s unlike any other stateside. Dr. Sadip Pant, an internist at the university and the lead investigator of the report, explains, 典his is the first study of its kind in the country.  We have so many hurricanes and stormsbut not one has described the spiking of the cases after natural disasters.

His team used a nationwide hospital discharge database to identify a group of more than 20,000 diagnosed cases. When they mapped them out geographically, the results indicated 田lusters of broken heart syndrome patients around sites of recent tragedies. Essentially, the data illustrates a notably larger number of reported cases in areas that had seen a natural disaster.

Missouri and Vermont possessed the highest number of reported cases, and the latter, with 380 cases per million residents, had more than double most other states. The data came from the same year Hurricane Irene wreaked the worst havoc Vermont had seen in decades. Similarly, the 田luster in Missouri occurred near the site of 2011痴 massive Joplin tornado. And while there might have been a number of other factors affecting these results, the general research takeaway suggests natural disasters can strongly contribute to cardiomyopathy.

The correlation was first noticed after the 2004 earthquake in Japan, and since then plenty of other global examples have popped up on the radar. Dr. Pant says, 典here have been cases reported from Australia after the great flooding. Similarly, people from France described increasing cases after a village burned down.

Looking at the bigger picture, the study痴 implications are significant when viewed in light of the increasing number of natural disasters on the whole.  According to a 2013 report from the New England Journal of Medicine, the scale of these events is expanding, with three times as many from 2000 through 2009 versus those recorded from 1980 through 1989. Climate-related events account for nearly 80% of the increase, indicating that climate change may affect our health in more ways than we anticipated. The journal also notes that since 1990, 渡atural disasters have affected about 217 million people every year, which just goes to show the importance of furthering our understanding of medical heartbreak.

As if you needed another reason to worry about global warming.

Climate changes aside, there are smaller immediate shifts we can make today, namely prepping response teams for future catastrophic incidents. Dr. Pant痴 most important takeaway is the need for further education amongst physicians. Emergency room staff熔ften the first to see patients affected by natural disasters預nd cardiologists need the background knowledge required to properly diagnose the syndrome, because its symptoms usually resemble those of a heart attack. Misidentification of the problem means a delayed legitimate diagnosis溶o small thing when it comes to matters of the heart. While the syndrome is largely reversible, Takotsubo also requires careful attention during its acute phase.

Dr. Pant says, 的t痴 really important to have widespread knowledge of this disease, not just among cardiologists, but among the other medical specialties, so they can detect in time and diagnose accurately after.

A properly diagnosed cardiomyopathy patient usually mends様ike most romantic heartbreak謡ithin a month or two.*****
3732  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The Politics of Health Care on: April 05, 2014, 05:54:42 AM
Is she serious?  She claims she does not understand the opposition to the ACA!   Why would anyone be so upset about all the free or cheap benefits it brings she wonders?

Totally absent from her argument is who is paying for this stuff and loss of freedom.  Not one iota mentioned of that.   She completely blocks it all out.   Most people I see have higher deductibles and copays, higher rates, more restricted formularies and other tests.  This aspect is totally ignored by the left.   

******IRRATIONAL HATRED OF OBAMACARE IS HARD TO FATHOM
Cynthia Tucker
By Cynthia Tucker 5 hours ago

My friend Isatou has just received an invoice from Kaiser Permanente, testament to her new coverage through the Affordable Care Act -- usually called "Obamacare." She's thrilled to finally have health insurance so she can get regular checkups, including dental care.

A reasonably healthy middle-aged woman, she knows she needs routine mammograms and screenings for maladies such as hypertension. But before Obamacare, she struggled to pay for those things. She once had to resort to the emergency room, which left her with a bill for nearly $20,000. (She settled the bill for far less, but it still left her deeply in debt.)

She is one of more than 7 million people who have signed up for health insurance through the ACA, stark evidence of the overwhelming market demand. Despite a badly bungled initial roll-out, a multimillion dollar conservative media campaign designed to discourage sign-ups, and a years-long Republican crusade against it (50 votes to change the law), millions got health insurance.

That hardly means Obamacare is a raging success. It's much too early to know how it will affect health outcomes for the previously uninsured. But it's abundantly clear that the ACA has already made great strides in improving access to health care. And that alone is quite an accomplishment.

Now, young adults can stay on their parents' health insurance policies until they are 26 years old -- a boon in an economy where many young folks are struggling to find decent jobs. Now, patients with previously diagnosed illnesses ("pre-existing conditions," in insurance lingo) can't be denied coverage. Now, the chronically ill don't have to worry about hitting a lifetime cap that would deny them essential procedures or pharmaceuticals. Now, working folks who don't get insurance through their employers can purchase affordable policies.

Factoring in the Medicaid expansion, the ACA has extended health care coverage to an additional 9.5 million people, according to the Los Angeles Times, which gathered data from national surveys. Needless to say, millions more would have been covered if so many Republican governors, mostly located in Southern states, had not callously refused to accept the Medicaid expansion despite the fact that it is largely paid through federal government funds.

The GOP's relentless opposition has been puzzling. Republicans have resorted to extreme measures to try to derail Obamacare, including an implicit threat to prevent the National Football League from participating in a marketing campaign to encourage people to sign up.

Oh, did I mention 50 votes to repeal or alter the law?

Even acknowledging that our politics have become bitterly polarized, I don't understand this one. Even taking into account the GOP's irrational hatred for President Obama, I don't get it. Even though I know that Republicans believe in less government, I don't understand their approach to Obamacare.

First off, the ACA adheres to market-based ideas, many of which were first suggested by conservatives. Instead of a single-payer system like, say, Medicare, the ACA relies on private insurance companies. It adopts the individual mandate that was supported by many Republicans, including Newt Gingrich, back in the 1990s and later adopted by Mitt Romney in Massachusetts.

Second, Republicans are free to offer up a health care scheme that is more in keeping with conservative principles. But the "repeal and replace" mantra is rarely heard anymore since it has become increasingly clear that the GOP has no intention of coming up with a plan to replace Obamacare. While there are various counter-proposals floating about, none has garnered the support of a majority of Republicans in Congress.

Is the ACA perfect? Absolutely not. There is much in the law that needs to be worked on, refined, improved. But the GOP doesn't seem interested in that. Instead, its members have taken to engaging in increasingly ridiculous criticisms, including the charge that the White House has made up the number of successful enrollees.

It's strange. Could it be that Republicans are simply furious that millions of Americans like Isatou finally have health insurance?

(Cynthia Tucker, winner of the 2007 Pulitzer Prize for commentary, is a visiting professor at the University of Georgia. She can be reached at cynthia@cynthiatucker.com.)
3733  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / If everyone were treated 227 billion dollars on: April 03, 2014, 06:04:10 AM
I think some competing drugs are on the way:

*****Insurers Are Really Mad at Sovaldi, the $1,000-a-Day Miracle Drug

The Atlantic Wire
By Polly Mosendz 23 hours ago
 
In December 2013, the FDA approved Sovaldi a drug developed by Gilead Sciences that promises to do wonders for patients with hepatitis C. Since then, insurers and the government have grown incredibly angry and frustrated with the company.

Sovaldi is a revolutionary advance that promises to cure 90% of targeted patients. Without this treatment, patients could develop liver cancer or require liver transplants. The FDA has said "it is the first drug that has demonstrated safety and efficacy to treat certain types of HCV infection without the need for co-administration of interferon." It was granted the FDA's coveted Breakthrough Therapy Designation, becoming approved in under a year. Director of the Office of Antimicrobial Products at the FDA's Center of Drug Evaluation and Research, Edward Cox, M.D., believes Sovaldi is life changing: 甜Sovaldi's] approval represents a significant shift in the treatment paradigm for some patients with chronic hepatitis C.

Yet, insurers cannot stand this life saving, revolutionary medication. That's because it runs $1,000 a day and the average patient requires a 12-week treatment of Sovaldi. That's $84,000 for one cycle. For patients with a strain that is more difficult to treat, the regiment is 24 weeks. That comes in at $168,000. It is projected to rake it between $5 billion and $9 billion in profits in the United States this year alone. There are an estimated 4 million Americans with Hepatitis C, and 15,000 are killed each year by untreated chronic infections.

Unfortunately, there is not much insurers can do about the price. A comparable drug is not yet on the market. The most similar medication, Incivek, runs $68,000 for  12-week course, but it is much less effective. Comparatively, Sovaldi is still much cheaper than the next-best alternative: a liver transplant. Transplant surgery runs at least $175,000 per patient, not including complications and other associated costs. Additionally, the risks of surgery are far greater than the drug: the body can reject a transplant, it is major surgery, and the recovery time is much longer. There is also a wait list, and a hepatitis C patient may not be eligible for a liver in time.

Gilead Sciences believes the focus is in all the wrong places. "[Critics] have focused on the per-pill cost or per-bottle cost, but that is really not relevant here. It's how much it costs to cure your patient," said Gregg Alton, Gilead's executive vice president of corporate and medical affairs.

Regardless, insurers are battling to lower the cost of the drug. Molina Healthcare, which is set to see earnings decline by 18 percent if (though more realistically, when) the drug reaches $6 billion in sales, is trying to limit which patients have access to the treatment. Mario J. Molina, chief executive of Molina Healthcare gave this statement: 的f you致e got a patient who is advanced and has liver disease and is about to get a liver transplant, it makes sense to give treatment. [W]hat do we do about everybody else? If everyone in the U.S. with hepatitis C were treated with Sovaldi at its list price, it would cost $227 billion compared with the estimated $260 billion spent a year in the country for all drugs.

Express Scripts is working with doctors to determine which customers can be put on a wait list until a rival, and presumably less expensive, drug is available.

Representative Henry Waxman has taken direct aim at Gilead Sciences as well. In a public letter sent March, 20th, Waxman questioned the pricing: "Our concern is that a treatment will not cure patients if they cannot afford it. [...] According to a recent Reuters report, 'many doctors are requesting a $150,000 combination of Sovaldi ... and Olysio. These costs are likely to be too high for many patients, both those with public insurance and those with private insurance." ********
3734  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The electoral process, vote fraud, SEIU/ACORN et al, corruption etc. on: April 03, 2014, 05:44:08 AM
"Bid to cut voter roles" is of course the way the NYT describes this.

It wouldn't surprise me if 1,000,000 voters nationwide are fraudulent.

It can't even be measured.

3735  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: baseball on: April 02, 2014, 09:18:34 PM
The article about the called shot ;

http://www.thepostgame.com/blog/throwback/201403/babe-ruth-called-shot-home-run-myth-mystery-ed-sherman-book
3736  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: baseball on: April 02, 2014, 09:13:53 PM
The myth about Ruth's famed called shot into the bleachers.  Took a life of its own.   Early on Ruth himself said he was simply pointing out it only takes "one"   He said that if did actually pointing a location in field to hit one would invited getting beaned.  And it was ridiculous to think anyone could know where the ball is going in advance.

But legends live on when there are living and loving admirers still alive who can verify what they are "sure" he did.

His living 96 yr. old daughter says her did do it.  He pointed to a bleacher and hit a colossal shot right into that same bleacher.


My take is he was ordering a hotdog from a vendor when he lifted his finger. cheesy
 
3737  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Venezuela on: April 02, 2014, 08:11:59 PM
Denny says,

"the tyranny in Venezuela has global roots, global backers"

Besides Sean Penn who are these global roots and backs?
3738  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The electoral process, vote fraud, SEIU/ACORN et al, corruption etc. on: April 02, 2014, 08:06:27 PM
Anyone care to guess which party these frauds voted for?

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/374882/nc-state-board-finds-more-35k-incidents-double-voting-2012-andrew-johnson
3739  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: US Economics, the stock market , and other investment/savings strategies on: April 01, 2014, 06:52:29 AM
"he has been a FAR better market prognosticator over the last several years (and that is one of the themes for this thread) than any of us"

In retrospect - yup.
3740  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Common Core on: March 30, 2014, 04:22:18 PM
I really don't know much about it - off my radar:::

*****Get to know the Common Core marketing overlords
 by Michelle Malkin

Copyright 2014

They池e everywhere. Turn on Fox News, local news, Animal Planet, HGTV, The Family Channel or talk radio. Pro-Common Core commercials have been airing ad nauseam in a desperate attempt to persuade American families to support the beleaguered federal education standards/testing/technology racket. Who痴 funding these public relations pushes? D.C. lobbyists, entrenched politicians and Big Business interests.

The foundational myth of Common Core is that it痴 a 都tate-led initiative with grassroots support that was crafted by local educators for the good of all of our children. But the cash and power behind the new ad campaign tell you all you need to know. For parents in the know, this will be a refresher course. But repeated lies must be countered with redoubled truths.

The Bipartisan Policy Center is one of the leading Common Core ad sponsors. It痴 a self-described nonprofit 鍍hink tank founded by a pantheon of Beltway barnacles: former Senate Majority Leaders Howard Baker, Tom Daschle, Bob Dole and George Mitchell.

鏑obbying tank would be more accurate. The BPC痴 都enior fellows include K Street influence peddlers such as liberal Republican Robert Bennett, the big-spending Utah senator-turned-lobbyist booted from office by tea party conservatives; former Democratic Agriculture Secretary and House member-turned-lobbyist Dan Glickman; and liberal Democrat Byron Dorgan, the former North Dakota senator who crusaded as an anti-D.C. lobbying populist before retiring from office to work as, you guessed it, a D.C. lobbyist.

Jeb Bush痴 擢oundation for Excellence in Education is also saturating the airwaves with ads trying to salvage Common Core in the face of truly bipartisan, truly grassroots opposition in his own home state of Florida. As I致e reported previously, the former GOP governor痴 foundation is tied at the hip to the federally funded testing consortium called PARCC (Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers), which pulled in $186 million through the Obama administration痴 Race to the Top program to develop Common Core tests.

One of the Bush foundation痴 top corporate sponsors is Pearson, the multibillion-dollar educational publishing and testing conglomerate. Pearson snagged $23 million in contracts to design the first wave of PARCC test items and $1 billion for overpriced, insecure Common Core iPads purchased by the Los Angeles Unified School District, and is leading the $13.4 billion edutech cash-in catalyzed by Common Core痴 technology mandates.

In December, you should know, the state of New York determined that Pearson痴 nonprofit foundation had abused the law by siphoning charitable assets to benefit its for-profit arm in order to curry favor with the Common Core-peddling Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. Pearson paid a $7.7 million settlement after the attorney general concluded that the company痴 charitable arm was marketing Common Core course material it believed could be sold by the for-profit side for 鍍ens of millions of dollars. After being smoked out, the Pearson Foundation sold the courses to its corporate sibling for $15.1 million.

Then there痴 the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which has joined the Clintonite-stocked Center for American Progress to promote Common Core and has earmarked more than $52 million on D.C. lobbying efforts.

Two D.C. trade associations, the National Governors Association and the Council of Chief State School Officers, continue to rubber-stamp Common Core propaganda. They are both recipients of tens of millions of dollars in Gates Foundation money. NGA employed Democratic education wonk Dane Linn to help shepherd through the standards; Linn now flacks for Common Core at the D.C.-based Business Roundtable lobbying shop, another leading sponsor of the ads now bombarding your TVs and radios.

Despite its misleading name, the NGA does not represent all of the nation痴 governors, holds only nonbinding resolution votes, and serves primarily as an 砥nelected, unrepresentative networking forum, as Heartland Institute scholar Joy Pullmann put it, with funding from both taxpayers and private corporations. NGA痴 Common Core standards writing meetings were convened in secret and are protected by confidentiality agreements.

Direct public input was nil. Of the 25 people in the NGA and CCSSO痴 two Common Core standards-writing 努orking groups, EdWeek blogger Anthony Cody reported in 2009, six were associated with the test-makers from the College Board, five were with fellow test-publishers ACT, and four were with Achieve Inc. Several had zero experience in standards writing.

Achieve Inc., you may recall from my previous work, is a Washington, D.C., nonprofit stocked with education lobbyists who致e been working on federal standards schemes since the Clinton years. In fact, Achieve痴 president, Michael Cohen, is a veteran Clinton-era educrat who also used to direct education policy for the NGA. In addition to staffing the standards writing committee and acting as lead Common Core coordinating mouthpiece, Achieve Inc. is the 菟roject management partner of the Common Core-aligned, tax-subsidized PARCC testing conglomerate.

Who痴 behind Achieve? Reminder: The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation has dumped $37 million into the group since 1999 to promote Common Core. According to a new analysis by former Georgia State University professor Jack Hassard, the Gates Foundation has now doled out an estimated total of $2.3 billion on Common Core-related grants to thousands of recipients in addition to NGA, CCSSO, the Foundation for Excellence in Education and Achieve.

As they prop up astroturfed front groups and agitprop, D.C.痴 Common Core p.r. blitzers scoff at their critics as 澱lack helicopter theorists. Don稚 read their lips. Just follow the money. This bipartisan power grab is Washington-led and Washington-fed. It痴 not a conspiracy. It痴 elementary: All Common Core roads lead to K Street.*****

                 
3741  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Demographics on: March 29, 2014, 04:15:34 PM
"Voting against their own interests will not last"

Wait till they have to pay the nation's bills.  The government should do more and more.   Until they realize they are the ones who will have to help foot the bill.

Yep.   The world is one big happy family.  Keep giving it all away.  Open the borders wide.   See how well that goes.

----------

Did you see the street survey of American University students who were asked how many Senators from each state are there?  Or name one Senator?

One girl even stated, " I am not into the America 'thing'".

We can thank liberal education for this.

3742  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Corruption on: March 28, 2014, 07:15:58 AM
Rush was trying to explain how the FBI was coming up with all these stings against Democrats, especially Mayors now.

A year ahead of an election.  Dems cleaning house now?   He wondered how Obama would permit this.

Not clear.  It is just as hard to believe the FBI is independently non political during this Administration.  We know the DOJ is not.  I would like to think the FBI is but it is so hard not to be cynical these days.

 undecided
3743  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Why Thomas Sowell never won a Pulitzer? on: March 26, 2014, 07:38:31 PM
Well, of course we know why......

Doug's point that Thomas Freidman won the Pulitzer three times made me wonder how many who hail from the right have won.   Bret Stephens was the first one in a decade according to this piece.  Gotta love this though:

"A January 2012 column on the latter topic helped contribute to his win. Entitled 典he GOP Deserves to Lose, Stephens eviscerated the GOP presidential candidates then..."

****************************

Conservative Columnist Bret Stephens Wins Pulitzer

By Matthew Sheffield | April 16, 2013 | 12:25
 
In a comparatively rare feat, a conservative writer has won a Pulitzer Prize, the most prestigious award in journalism. Bret Stephens, who writes a column for the Wall Street Journal primarily about world affairs is the first conservative to win the award in more than a decade.

Congratulations are certainly in order to Stephens for pulling off the win, especially since the very liberal Columbia University is in charge of the award.

While Stephens痴 views on some social issues like gay marriage have not won him fans among devout conservatives, he certainly deserves the award. I致e long been a fan of his prose, his independence, and his willingness to take on the conventional wisdom on topics like global warming and the complete disaster otherwise known as the Republican presidential nominating process.

A January 2012 column on the latter topic helped contribute to his win. Entitled 典he GOP Deserves to Lose, Stephens eviscerated the GOP presidential candidates then in the race and then condemned Republicans like Mitch Daniels, Chris Christie, and Haley Barbour for refusing to run.

典his was the GOP A-Team, the guys who should have showed up to the first debate but didn稚 because running for president is hard and the spouses were reluctant. Nothing commends them for it. If this election is as important as they all say it is, they had a duty to step up. Abraham Lincoln did not shy from the contest of 1860 because of Mary Todd. If Mr. Obama wins in November or, rather, when he does the failure will lie as heavily on their shoulders as it will with the nominee.

Stephens is the first conservative to win the commentary award since his Journal colleague Dorothy Rabinowitz won it in 2001*. That year was a rare one in Pulitzer history as it marked the second consecutive year that a conservative had won the award, something which had not happened since the 1970s. In 2000, Paul Gigot, also with the Journal, won the prize.

In recent decades, the Journal has been the home to all of the few conservative writers who have been awarded a Pulitzer. Washington Post columnist Charles Krauthammer was the last non-Journal conservative to win the award in 1987.

For a full list of Pulitzer commentary winners going back to 1970, click here. You can find samples of Stephens's work here.

In less laudible Pulitzer news, the committee continued its tradition of ignoring conservative editorial cartoonists by honoring Steve Sack of the Minneapolis Star Tribune.

* Note: I am not counting Washington Post columnist Kathleen Parker, the 2010 award winner, as a conservative. She is a right-leaning moderate.

Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/matthew-sheffield/2013/04/16/conservative-columnist-bret-stephens-wins-pulitzer#ixzz2x7QJPh9m
3744  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Tea Party, Glen Beck and related matters on: March 26, 2014, 07:20:23 PM
I heard this on Michael Savage.  Interesting how political operatives from both sides of the political spectrum use the same "agents":

******Glenn Beck痴 Agent is Liberal Operative Matt Hiltzik

Posted on Oct 28, 2009 in Glenn Beck

Glenn Beck and his agent, Matthew Hiltzik, seem put ideological differences aside for the money

Hiltzik is a Democratic PR operative that works for Beck, but also worked on Hillary Clinton痴 2000 Senate campaign, Eliot Spitzer痴 1998 attorney general campaign, and for studio head Harvey Weinstein. He also represents Katie Couric, Alec Baldwin, Annie Leibovitz and Don Imus. Matthew痴 father, George Hiltzik, brokered the radio gigs of blogger Matt Drudge and Fox News host Bill O坦eilly.

The close friendship and lucrative business relationship that has developed between the 45-year-old conservative firebrand and the 37-year-old former Democratic operative shows how partisan media personalities get discovered, promoted and catapulted into the political stratosphere, even when the talent and the talent broker have opposing ideologies. But for Hiltzik痴 former Democratic allies, the alliance is still mostly shocking.

It was also interesting that Matt Hiltzik considers 泥emocratic activist and public relations powerbroker Ken Sunshine a mentor. Sunshine advises Color of Change and Green for All, two groups founded by Van Jones, who was repeatedly attacked by Beck.

And it痴 not just Sunshine痴 clients who are subject to Beck痴 drubbings, it痴 also his onetime mentor. The current secretary of state, for example, did not respond to calls about Hiltzik and his top client痴 tirades against the Obama administration. Asked if he thought Hillary Clinton approved of his current promotion of Beck, who has called her, among other things, 鍍he antichrist, Hiltzik said, 鉄he has a lot more important things to worry about.

溺att Hiltzik is a top professional who can稚 save Glenn Beck from his vulgar, hateful ignorance, said Robert Zimmerman, a public relations executive in New York, Democratic National Committee member and close friend of Hiltzik痴. 釘ut he can get him extensive publicity while he goes down in flames.*********
3745  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Combating bad science on: March 26, 2014, 07:41:34 AM
THis maybe deserves new thread.  Remember I noted that most medical research publications are not much more than worthless.  So is research in many fields.   This address that.  Yet research is taking off.  Everything is data.  Everything is being measured for tiny small percentage of percentage gains.  There is no end to this.  Problem is "science" is used by whomever for whatever.  Sorting out the invalid from the truly informative or new discovery is not always easy:

Combating bad science

Metaphysicians

Sloppy researchers beware. A new institute has you in its sights
 Mar 15th 2014  | From the print edition

展HY most published research findings are false is not, as the title of an academic paper, likely to win friends in the ivory tower. But it has certainly influenced people (including journalists at The Economist). The paper it introduced was published in 2005 by John Ioannidis, an epidemiologist who was then at the University of Ioannina, in Greece, and is now at Stanford. It exposed the ways, most notably the overinterpreting of statistical significance in studies with small sample sizes, that scientific findings can end up being irreproducible熔r, as a layman might put it, wrong.

Dr Ioannidis has been waging war on sloppy science ever since, helping to develop a discipline called meta-research (ie, research about research). Later this month that battle will be institutionalised, with the launch of the Meta-Research Innovation Centre at Stanford.


METRICS, as the new laboratory is to be known for short, will connect enthusiasts of the nascent field in such corners of academia as medicine, statistics and epidemiology, with the aim of solidifying the young discipline. Dr Ioannidis and the lab痴 co-founder, Steven Goodman, will (for this is, after all, science) organise conferences at which acolytes can meet in the world of atoms, rather than just online. They will create a 屠ournal watch to monitor scientific publishers work and to shame laggards into better behaviour. And they will spread the message to policymakers, governments and other interested parties, in an effort to stop them making decisions on the basis of flaky studies. All this in the name of the centre痴 nerdishly valiant mission statement: 的dentifying and minimising persistent threats to medical-research quality.

The METRICS system

Irreproducibility is one such threat耀o much so that there is an (admittedly tongue-in-cheek) publication called the Journal of Irreproducible Results. Some fields are making progress, though. In psychology, the Many Labs Replication Project, supported by the Centre for Open Science, an institute of the University of Virginia, has re-run 13 experiments about widely accepted theories. Only ten were validated. The centre has also launched what it calls the Cancer Biology Reproducibility Project, to look at 50 recent oncology studies.

Until now, however, according to Dr Ioannidis, no one has tried to find out whether such attempts at revalidation have actually had any impact on the credibility of research. METRICS will try to do this, and will make recommendations about how future work might be improved and better co-ordinated庸or the study of reproducibility should, like any branch of science, be based on evidence of what works and what does not.

Wasted effort is another scourge of science that the lab will look into. A recent series of articles in the Lancet noted that, in 2010, about $200 billion (an astonishing 85% of the world痴 spending on medical research) was squandered on studies that were flawed in their design, redundant, never published or poorly reported. METRICS will support efforts to tackle this extraordinary inefficiency, and will itself update research about the extent to which randomised-controlled trials acknowledge the existence of previous investigations of the same subject. If the situation has not improved, METRICS and its collaborators will try to design new publishing practices that discourage bad behaviour among scientists.

There is also Dr Ioannidis痴 pet offender: publication bias. Not all studies that are conducted get published, and the ones which do tend to be those that have significant results. That leaves a skewed impression of the evidence.

Researchers have been studying publication bias for years, using various statistical tests. Again, though, there has been little reflection on these methods and their comparative effectiveness. They may, according to Dr Ioannidis, be giving both false negatives and false positives about whether or not publication bias exists in a particular body of studies.

Dr Ioannidis plans to run tests on the methods of meta-research itself, to make sure he and his colleagues do not fall foul of the very criticisms they make of others. 的 don稚 want, he says, 鍍o take for granted any type of meta-research is ideal and efficient and nice. I don稚 want to promise that we can change the world, although this is probably what everybody has to promise to get funded nowadays.

From the print edition: Science and technology
3746  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The Fed, Banking, Monetary Policy, Dollar & other currencies, Gold/Silver on: March 26, 2014, 07:32:35 AM
Doug,

So how long can we go on with this charade?
3747  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Sessions calls out immigration enforcement on: March 26, 2014, 07:31:17 AM
Again the news media does nothing.  Just turns their head.

I think the Feds should have a website that lists the jobs of every American and offers them to anyone else in the world who is capable to bid on doing that job for less.  Why not?   As long as they promise to vote Democrat:


*****by Matthew Boyle  25 Mar 2014

Fully 98 percent of individuals deported from the United States in 2013 were either criminals, apprehended while illegally crossing the border, or had been previously deported, according to a new analysis from Senate Budget Committee ranking member Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL).

The three-page document, labeled a 鼎ritical Alert by the senator痴 office, found three executive actions by President Barack Obama providing amnesty to groups of illegal aliens meant that virtually no one who did not meet other criteria beyond simply being in the country illegal was deported.

典he evidence reveals that the Administration has carried out a dramatic nullification of federal law, Sessions said in a statement to Breitbart News. 填nder the guise of setting 叢riorities, the Administration has determined that almost anyone in the world who can enter the United States is free to illegally live, work and claim benefits here as long as they are not caught committing a felony or other serious crime.

Obama's well-known executive action granted virtual amnesty to so-called DREAMers individuals who claim to have entered the country as minors under their parents' guidance.

Two are lesser known executive actions include an Aug. 23, 2013, DHS directive 兎xpanding that [summer 2012 executive DREAM Act] amnesty to illegal immigrant relatives of DREAM Act beneficiaries and a Dec. 21, 2012, DHS directive 途einforcing that almost all immigration offenses were unenforceable absent a separate criminal conviction.

In 2013, Sessions staff found, 98 percent of ICE痴 removals of illegal aliens fit the agency痴 兎nforcement criteria. There are four such criteria for illegal aliens to be considered deportation-worthy by ICE: a conviction of committing a serious criminal offense, an apprehension made while an individual is crossing the border, the resurfacing of someone previously deported, or someone having been a fugitive from the law. 迭emarkably, the first two categories傭order apprehensions (which are not deportations as commonly understood) and convicted criminals預ccount for 94% of the 368,000 removals (235,000 and 110,000, respectively), Sessions staff wrote in the memo.

Only 0.2 percent of an estimated 12 million illegal aliens in the U.S. who were actually placed into removal proceedings in 2013 in 2013 did not have a violent or otherwise serious criminal conviction on their record. Only .08 percent of the total number of illegal aliens placed into removal proceedings were neither repeat or serial immigration law violators nor convicted of a serious crime. Even with that .08 percent of removals who were not caught crossing the border or being a serial immigration law violator or being convicted of serious crimes, Sessions staff notes that ICE officers who communicate with his office say that there is likely some other serious security risk for allowing them to stay in the country that is cause for their removal.

The findings stand in stark contrast to liberal calls on Obama to reduce deportations. Top Hispanic Democrats recently met with Obama at the White House recently about the issue, prompting an announcement about a review at the Department of Homeland Security about how to deport illegal aliens in a more 塗umane fashion.

The report was enough to prompt a chorus of outrage from Sessions' like-minded colleagues in the House, who slammed the Obama administration for enacting amnesty by fiat.

典his is another clear warning to anyone who thinks immigration reform is possible under President Obama, said Rep. John Fleming (R-LA). 滴e has repeatedly shown a willingness to enforce the law selectively, while looking the other way when it doesn't fit his agenda.

展e can add immigration enforcement to the long list of areas where President Obama is selectively enforcing the law, Rep. John Culberson (R-TX) told Breitbart News in response to Sessions new report. 典his is part of a repeated pattern of overreach on the part of the Administration and shows their unwillingness to follow the law as it is written溶ot the law as they want it to be. It痴 impossible for Congress to have an open and honest debate on border security when we can稚 trust the President to do his job.

鄭t least 99.92% of illegal immigrants and visa overstays without known crimes on their records did not face removal, Sessions staff wrote. 典hose who do not facially meet the Administration痴 select 叢riorities are free to illegally work in the United States and to receive taxpayer benefits, regardless of whether or not they come into contact with immigration enforcement.

Sessions staff cites August 2013 reports from an ICE raid at Danny痴 Car Wash in Phoenix, Arizona, where many workers suspected of being in the country illegally were taken into custody but released shortly thereafter. 展orkers suspected of being in the country illegally were taken into custody, but [ICE spokeswoman Amber] Cargile said they would be released within a matter of hours as long as they had no outstanding criminal records, the Associated Press wrote then.

In another incident in Brownsville, Texas, a dozen illegal aliens were set free at a bus station after being taken into ICE custody because the federal immigration law agency said it 電oesn稚 consider the group a major threat to our safety.

Sessions staff also cites a 2011 instance where authorities at ICE warned one of their officers he would be subject to disciplinary action if he followed through with his intent to enforce the law  by issuing a Notice to Appear in court to an illegal alien 電riving the vehicle of a known fugitive without a license.

典he suspect, who had multiple misdemeanor offenses on his record, was released while the ICE officer was threatened with suspension, Sessions staff wrote.

典he Obama administration痴 subversion of the Constitution and the rule of law make enforcement of our immigration laws virtually impossible, Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) said in an email. 典he law-abiding and taxpaying Americans who oppose this executive amnesty policy are paying the price with lower wages and fewer job opportunities.

鄭t the same time President Obama hypocritically tells people he is for income equality, he violates federal immigration law, floods the labor market with wage-suppressing illegal aliens, and destroys the chance millions of hard-working Americans have of attaining self-sufficiency and the American dream, Rep. Mo Brooks (R-AL) said. 的t is clear that President Obama believes it is more important to pander to voters based on race than it is to enforce immigration laws that protect American workers ability to earn a living wage.

Brooks and Arizona Republican Rep. Paul Gosar said the findings raise grave questions of constitutional law.

捻erhaps the most important role of the President is defined in Article II, Section 3 of the United States Constitution, which states that the President 壮hall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed,樗 Gosar said in reaction to Sessions new report. 擢rom President Obama痴 capricious ObamaCare delays to his arbitrary refusal to enforce current immigration laws, his transgressions against the Constitution are egregious and must stop. The first step in restoring the rule of law is holding Attorney General Eric Holder our nation痴 chief law enforcement officer accountable for allowing and participating in the Administration痴 blatant disregard for the Constitution.

典he President should be ashamed of himself for violating his oath of office, violating his Constitutional duty to enforce America痴 laws, and making illegal aliens a higher priority than the livelihoods of hard-working Americans, Brooks said.

3748  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Anti-semitism & Jews on: March 25, 2014, 07:28:36 PM
One can add a prominent individual to the list of anti-Semites:

Barack Hussain Obama

If it isn't obvious by now.....
3749  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Politically (In)correct on: March 20, 2014, 10:11:22 AM
Agreed.

They just don't get it.  They really don't.  It is about the money.  Women vote Democrat for government benefits.  Some may be do for abortion etc but for most it is the money.

Latinos vote Democrat for the government benefits.  I really doubt that it is about immigration for most.

How do we challenge this?

With ceaseless compromise?  With compassionate conservatism?  What a joke is right.
3750  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The Cognitive Dissonance of the left on: March 20, 2014, 05:24:43 AM
Typical Bloomberg News item.  Don't worry Democrats ; Bush approval rating even lower than Brock's.   

Barack Obama
Obama Beats Bush

Jonathan Bernstein
Mar 19, 2014 9:31 AM ET
By Jonathan Bernstein


In February, I asked whether Barack Obama's approval ratings had pulled ahead of those of George W. Bush at a similar juncture in his presidency, ending a long period where they were basically tied. We now have evidence they have.

Today, Gallup has Obama at 41 percent approval, which is probably a bit lower than his true Gallup score from the last few weeks. HuffPollster痴 polling average estimates the president's approval at 43.7 percent and slowly rising. A month ago, the trend was less clear, and results varied depending on whether one looked at regular polls or those that were more sensitive to recent changes. Now the two methods are showing essentially the same thing: Obama bottomed out in November or December and has been improving gradually since.

(Yes, that means the New York Times was wrong to refer to Obama痴 都inking approval ratings. I wouldn稚 quibble with low and stable ratings. But sinking? Not in the last several months).
At a similar point in Bush's second term, in 2006, a March 13-16 Gallup reading gave him a 37 percent approval rating. He remained at that level or below until a late-summer rally, which pushed him above 40 percent for the final time of his presidency. So Obama痴 lead over Bush, which I estimated at around 3 points last month, is up to around 5 points now, and the two men are headed in opposite directions.

This is not to say Obama is doing well. Unless his recent improvement gathers steam, he痴 going to be a drag on Democrats in November, though he won't be as big a drag as Bush was for his party in the 2006 midterms. And even if Obama rebounds, it probably wouldn't be enough to help the Democrats hang on to some tough Senate seats. Ronald Reagan was very popular until the 1986 election, when Democrats took a number of Senate races, in large part by unseating Republican incumbents who had benefited from having Reagan at the top of the ticket in 1980.

But at least for now, Obama isn't as unpopular as Bush was in 2006. This suggests a good year for Republicans (especially in the Senate), but not a landslide.
Pages: 1 ... 73 74 [75] 76 77 ... 150
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!