Michelangelo Signorile smacks down the same-sex scandal-ridden Florida Lt. Governor Jennifer Carroll, who thinks she "knows what a lesbian looks like."[...]
Read The Full Article:
From ThinkProgress.org: As we discussed recently, Republicans are holding middle class tax cuts hostage in order to give the wealthiest 2 percent of Americans yet another extra tax cut. If that wasn?t bad enough, the Republicans are now affirmatively proposing to raise taxes on tens of millions of poor and middle class Americans ? even as they slash them on the wealthy.Here?s the rundown.If you want to know how Republicans really feel about the middle class, you need look no further than a doozy of a floor speech that Sen. Jon Kyl (AZ) ? a member of the Senate Republican leadership ? gave yesterday. Kyl attacked President Obama for ?incessantly? talking about the middle class.And it?s not just their rhetoric that shows disdain for the middle class, it?s their actual proposals.TAX CUTS REPUBLICANS ARE HOLDING HOSTAGE:
?Republicans will head into tomorrow?s vote guided by a simple principle: do no harm. In our view, the best approach to taxes right now is to let every American and every American business know they won?t have a higher income tax bill at the end of the year. We think everybody in America should have that certainty.?Unfortunately, the only people Republicans are really interested in letting know that they won?t see a tax increase are the wealthiest 2 percent of Americans. Republicans claim to care about the middle class, but they are holding middle class tax cuts hostage. And even as they promise more tax giveaways to the wealthy, Republicans want to raise taxes on 25 MILLION families ? including some of the poorest Americans.Tomorrow, Senate Democrats will try and move forward with their plan to preserve middle class tax cuts while asking the wealthiest Americans to give up the extra tax cuts that they simply do not need and that we cannot afford.IN ONE SENTENCE: Just like Mitt Romney, Republicans in Congress want to raise taxes on the middle class in order to give the wealthiest Americans yet another handout that they don?t need.
23 year old doofus Todd Canady, who has a concealed carry permit, reaches for his wallet to pay at the local Walmart. He accidentally discharges his handgun into his buttocks. He also injuries a woman and child behind him in line. When confronted by[...]
Read The Full Article:
Jack Elliot, Jr.'s opinion piece in the Clarion-Ledger gives us some interesting numbers concerning the cost of the Legislature. Some excerpts:
From April 12, 2011 to May 3 of this year, it took $22,056 of coffee and $13,406 of bottled water to wet the whistles of legislators, staff members and just about any member of the public who wandered through the Capitol.It's a good read, and I recommend it. It's always a good thing to be informed about the cost of the government.
Overall, it cost taxpayers $20.6 million to run the Legislature for the 13-month period ending May 3, according to the annual report released by the state auditor's office. The previous 13 months, it was $18.5 million.
Kiss by Shutterstock.There's a great blog post up today about something I was just talking with some French friends about on Sunday. How do you know when (and how) to kiss a French person hello?It's a problem many a foreign visitor has had in France. You arrive at a brunch, as I did on Sunday, and suddenly the women are allow jumping up and approaching you, and you have no idea...
Black teenagers are using condoms less frequently than they were 10 years ago. A new study conducted by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention shows that condom use for black teenagers increased by 22 percent between 1991 and 1999, then fell back by 4.7 percent from ’99 to 2011. Still, at 65 percent, black teens are using condoms more frequently than their peers of other races. White and Latino students’ condom use has stagnated just below 60 percent.
Verizon stopped selling standalone DSL back in April, so they could force you to buy a landline. That change is part of a strategic plan that will ultimately screw consumers - and the FCC seems just fine with that.
I've thought for a long time that a broad-based consumer movement that went after the phone and cable companies for anti-trust activity would be unstoppable:
Verizon is consciously making DSL less attractive just as they've signed a new co-marketing arrangement with cable -- driving unwanted DSL users into the arms of cable operators, with the understanding they can sell these users more expensive LTE connections later.
There's numerous reasons for wanting their DSL services to die off, including the fact that newer LTE technology is cheaper to deploy in rural areas and easier to keep upgraded. But one of the larger driving forces is that Verizon is eager to eliminate unions from their equation, given that Verizon Wireless is non union. None of this is theory; in fact it has been made very clear by Verizon executives.
[...] In other words, Verizon will cut off copper in FiOS markets first (which makes sense given the lower maintenance costs of fiber). They'll then leave users in DSL-only markets un-upgraded, forcing them to buy a costly landline so that remaining on Verizon DSL becomes less attractive. Those customers will flee to the same cable companies Verizon just signed a massive new partnership with, with Verizon planning to sell those users more expensive LTE connection later. Verizon will continue to "compete" in FiOS areas for now, if you call winking and nodding when it's time to raise prices competition.
Rural areas could see the biggest impact from the shift, as Verizon pulls DSL and instead sells those users LTE services with at a high price point ($15 per gigabyte overages). Verizon then hopes to sell those users cap-gobbling video services via their upcoming Redbox streaming video joint venture. Expect there to be plenty of gaps where rural users suddenly lose landline and DSL connectivity but can't get LTE. With Verizon and AT&T having killed off regulatory oversight in most states -- you can expect nothing to be done about it, despite both companies having been given billions in subsidies over the years to get those users online.
The entire amazing transition becomes clearer still when looking at Verizon's quarterly earnings posted yesterday. The company added a whopping 3.2 million LTE users during the second quarter, a record for the telco. In contrast, thanks to a frozen FiOS expansion (with the exception of franchise obligations in urban markets) and their disdain for DSL, Verizon managed to add just a net 2,000 broadband users in the quarter, despite adding 134,000 FiOS users. Verizon CFO Fran Shammo gave several excuses during yesterday's conference call ranging from the economy to aardvarks -- but the reality is that DSL users are fleeing in droves, and Verizon wants them to.
It's all a very ingenious play by Verizon, though it will have a massive competitive and connectivity impact on the U.S. broadband market that will be studied for decades. What's most amazing is that nobody (analysts, regulators or the press) seems to have really noticed what Verizon's up to: turning a massive swath of the country from a marginally-competitive duopoly with union labor, into an even less competitive and more expensive cable and telco un-unionized cooperative monopoly.
The FCC is rumored to be ready to approve the deal, suggesting they're either completely and painfully oblivious to what Verizon's actually up to, or just fine with Verizon's plan. Whether or not you like what Verizon's up to, you have to acknowledge that it's a massive power shift in the industry. Unfortunately for you, if you're a Verizon DSL user -- particularly a more rural one -- you're going to find you're an expendable part of the equation.
I'll let my wife do my talking for me.
Then you can't criticize me.Oh, this is just too good to be true:
[T]he Romney campaign could begin using the candidate's sympathetic wife as a shield.There's no way this story could be true, though, because if it were true, it would look as if Mitt Romney has run out of lies and retroactive explanations to avoid answering those nagging questions about his finances?you know, the very reason he says he should be president, on account of how super-awesome he is at, like, finances. (Except at Bain, where he had nothing to do with anything. Or at the Olympics where he had nothing to do with anything. Or as governor of Massachusetts, where he had nothing to do with anything.)
In an interview with BuzzFeed about the Obama campaign's recent assault on Romney's personal finances, a Romney adviser repeatedly brought up Ann Romney's name unprompted, arguing that the attacks were aimed at her as well.
This story could not possibly be true because if it were true, the Romney campaign would be admitting they've got no real answers and are going for the ultimate Hail Mary. If it were true, it would be the most despicably cynical attempt to hide behind a spouse since Rick Santorum blamed his wife for writing that stuff in his book people didn't like.
After insisting that spouses are off limits, after claiming that St. Ann is beyond reproach, after Ann herself said she just loves being "attacked" as long as she can milk it?the Romney team is going to outright admit they're all out of ideas so they're just going to use Ann as a shield.
How in the world is that going to work?
"I think when they refer to Mitt, suggesting there was something illegal or untoward about how they managed their financial affairs, they're talking about Ann by extension, because she signed those tax returns." the adviser said.Ohhhhhhhh. Right. When "they" say Mitt should just release his damn tax returns already so we can see the evidence of his financial super-awesomeness, "they" are actually attacking Ann. Which you're not allowed to do because you're never allowed to ever say anything ever about a candidate's spouse, even when the candidate says his spouse is his foremost expert on lady issues; even when his spouse is an official surrogate of the campaign; even when his spouse ... Well, you get the idea.
Maybe the Mitt team is right. After all, it's only those dirty commie Obama-loving, Kool-Aid drinking liberals who want a look at Mitt's finances. Like George Will. And Matthew Dowd. And Bill Kristol. Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour. And Texas Gov. Rick Perry. And Rep. Ron Paul. And those radical Marxists at The National Review. They're the only ones who think Mitt could just clear up all the questions right now if he released his tax returns. Like his dad did.
But no. Apparently, those tax returns are just far too dangerous for public consumption. So as the speculation grows about what Mitt's hiding, don't expect the Mitt team to actually answer that question. He'll be too busy hiding behind his wife to answer.
A congressional subcommittee heard statements from investigators and members of the US military who had observed shocking conditions at the Dawood military hospital in Afghanistan. The story involves corruption and a coverup by senior commanders in[...]
Read The Full Article:
Back in April, when natural gas prices jumped from a multi-year low of $1.98 per MMBtu to May's high of $2.82, a lot of traders chalked the 42% gain up as a temporary . . . → Read More: The Best Stock to Play the Natural Gas Rebound
Read The Full Article: