w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r

Ahhh... WRONG!!
Once again... WRONG!!

Racism (defined as racial prejudice or discrimination) is injustice.
I don't think you heard me.........IT IS A FACT. You cannot rationalize it! IT IS HARMFUL. It is distructive.

By Mary Elizabeth Williams

Thank you, page 1239! Deep within the new health care bill, right before the part where the Rostovs flee Moscow, there's a neat provision that will thrill working mothers. CNN notes this week that companies with 50 or more employees are now required to provide "a place, other than a bathroom, that is shielded from view and free from intrusion from co-workers and the public, which may be used by an employee to express breast milk."
Why is this a big deal? Well, if you've ever been in a public bathroom, it should come as no surprise that nursing moms rarely respond with a big whoop when anybody suggests they just hustle their breasts to the nearest toilet.
The idea that nursing mothers need to be "shielded from view" may strike breastfeeding advocates as unnecessarily modest. But the win here isn't for prudishness; it's for simple comfort. Nursing a baby at the local latte joint or on a bench at the playground is easy peasy, because those are friendly, relaxed environments. Strapping on the Medela Freestyle while you're at your desk on a conference call or under the harsh restroom lights making small talk with Julie from accounting – that's no picnic. Is it any wonder that breastfeeding rates drop off when women return to work?
Coming close to the release of yet another study showing the life- and money-saving benefits of breastfeeding, the provision is a welcome one. It'd be nice, then, if CNN didn't feel the need to give lip service to the notion that "some view the enthusiasm for breastfeeding as hysteria" because "the pressure to breastfeed is still tremendous."
Only half of all American businesses already offer some space for nursing mothers -- and it's doubtful the new law will get the rest scrambling to provide them ASAP. Less than three quarters of all babies in the United States are ever breastfeed, and only 22.7 percent of them are still nursing after one year. Page 1239 likely won't create a mania for lactation. But it may encourage more working women to keep nursing and keep doing it longer. And that's healthcare reform we can all get behind.
link

Racism (defined as racial prejudice or discrimination) is injustice. THAT IS A FACT not reliant on your rationalism.

I haven't seen this all over the media as you put it. Take your tinfoil hat off for a minute paul and think. If you really think that the "gubmint" as you like to put it is really fabricating this about toyota and their subsidiaries, then you really have been missing something, probably your dosage of haldol.

NEW YORK — Consumer Reports has given the Lexus GX 460 SUV a rare "Don't Buy" warning, saying a problem that occurred during routine handling tests could lead to a rollover accident in real-world driving.
In the latest blow to Toyota's reputation, the magazine said that during a test of the vehicle's performance during unusual turns, the rear of the vehicle slid until it was nearly sideways before the electronic stability control system kicked in.
Consumer Reports said in real-world driving, such a scenario could cause a rollover accident. As a result, the magazine has given the seven-seat SUV a "Don't Buy: Safety Risk" label until the problem is fixed.
http://www.mycentraljersey.com/article/20100413/BUSINESS/100413011/Consumer+Reports+calls+Lexus+GX+460+unsafe

You doubt Steve Jobs brilliance? NO SOUP FOR YOU!

No, it does not sound fishy to me, nor does it sound like a Ponzi scheme. It also apparently seems perfectly legitimate to themember firms of the CCX who are trading in a currently voluntary (yet legally binding) exchange . You know - some little no-name companies you've probably never heard of like Ford Motor, DuPont, Dow Corning, Sony Electronics, Cargill and Monsanto. The concept is to efficiently exchange what you want with what the other guy has, or vice versa. It's the same basic dynamic that works in any market. It works for things as diverse as interest rate spreads and index future options, and it works for emissions too. This isn't theory - this is practice. These firms are active participants along with the traders, speculators and hedgers every single day. What C/T legislation would do is to make the system mandatory rather than voluntary. That will deepen the liquidity, no doubt, but it's not needed to justify the basic concept that an emissions exchange can work.

I'm not a politician or an economist either. I think you're right about one thing - Keynesian policies are far from ideal, and many real families throughout America are feeling the pain of joblessness as a result. Where I diverge from you, is what is the alternative? Is the alternative to do nothing (or less)? To stimulate less? To increase unemployment benefits less than we are? To provide fewer tax credits to small business? Again -- you seem to want to have government DO SOMETHING. ANYTHING. Understandable. But then when they do it, you criticize and say "It's not working. Do something different." Also understandable. The problem is - what else would you have them do? The alternative to something , at least according to the official Opposition, aka the "Party of No", is to do nothing. What we need are targeted smart stimulus programs that make efficient use of our (borrowed!) dollars to get people working. And we also need the understanding and patience of the people to understand that there are no miracle cures, and there's no way we're going to add the 8million jobs we lost in the next year or two. That's a fact, no matter which political party is in charge, or which policies they pursue. The choice is not between good and bad. It's been terrible and godawful-we-cant-even-bear-to-think-of-it. Right now, we're on track with terrible.
As to your comments regarding Wall St. and your healthy fear of it. Also very understandable. When it comes to the big banks - I completely agree. Morgan, Goldman, UBS, Citi -- they all ought to be ashamed of themselves.
As to the markets - I believe in markets. I believe in our equity markets, in our fixed income markets, and in our futures and options markets. I believe that given a chance, we can have a successful and vibrant emissions trading market too. Forty years ago if you had asked if we could electronically trade a cash-settled index futures product, very few would have said yes. Today - it's the bedrock of our capitalism. I believe in regulated, centrally-cleared markets and I think they can be an important (partial) remedy to the over-the-counter unregulated exchange in CDS derivatives that caused so much harm.
In short - when you say "Wall St." I think you mean the banks. Not the markets. There's a tendency by many to obscure the two. They're very different creatures.

#2 - I hear lots of words, but it seems you want it both ways. Which is it: Government should take an active role in the marketplace to foster employment, or should it stay out of the way and let the private sector do its thing? It seems like you want them to do something, but then when they do it (Stimulus bill, tax cuts, etc.) you have the usual ill defined complaints of "So far I have seen very little...". If they do much - they get attacked for being activist and "wasteful". If they do little, they "just don't care". Damned if you do, damned if you don't. Thank goodness they're not listening to you for advice.
#3. Those paper pushers as you put it are breadwinners and taxpayers and homeowners too, propping up their local economies with retail sales, property taxes, etc. (I'm one of them). America's capital markets are a key driver of our prosperity and standard of living. You can rail against Wall St. all you like, but without efficient markets this country would look like Afghanistan. Besides - I beg to differ about what an Energy bill could mean for blue collar Main St jobs. You don't have to even go to the "Green technology" jobs, if you're not into that. Obama is proposing opening up drilling off the Atlantic coast and Gulf of Mexico, that's potentially thousands of jobs in the neighboring states.
#4 With expectations like that, you can't help but be impressed by what your Congressman is doing for you lately. Cynicism is easy. Doing something is harder.

1. From the OP: The chief piece of legislation will be a jobs bill, a priority that many Democrats want to pass with unemployment and the economy remaining top concerns of voters. In fact, the jobs push will be a series of bills consisting of small business tax incentives and loan and access-to-capitol programs.
2. I thought all the free market critics are all about "government doesn't create jobs, only the private sector creates jobs". Now you do want to government to legislate and spend our way to employment gains? How wonderfully Keynesian of you. Welcome aboard.
3. Who's to say that an Energy bill isn't job-stimulative? I know of a bunch of market makers on the CCX who are thrilled at the thought of increased trading volumes and the clerks and traders that will be hired if c/t becomes law. Those are real honest to goodness jobs being created.
4. Since when are our expectations of government reduced to getting a single thing done at a time? Surely with 500+ House members and 100 Senators plus aides on the payroll, we can manage to get some multitasking out of DC?

April 12. Today marks 65 years since the death of FDR at Warm Springs GA
http://www.politicalcortex.com/story/2010/4/12/144238/387
The Rich Progressive Legacy of FDR
By Bill Hare
04/12/2010 02:42:38 PM EST
April 12, 2010 marks the 65th anniversary of the death of the leader who spearheaded the twentieth century progressive movement, righting the economic ship during perilous times, giving Americans hope at a time when it was desperately needed while changing the face of the Democratic Party in the process.
Perhaps the key personal ingredient that propelled Franklin Delano Roosevelt into the ranks of the nation's and world's great leaders was his handling of adversity. Overcoming adversity is a hallmark of so many great achievers. In the political sphere it can serve as both an instructive and motivational shaping tool.
The Roosevelts were a Dutch aristocratic family that settled in New York's affluent Hudson Valley region. FDR had earned a law degree from Harvard. He followed along the same lines as his cousin President Theodore Roosevelt by securing as a young lawyer a position of Assistant Secretary of the Navy under Josephus Daniels in the Woodrow Wilson Administration.
A handsome, articulate, highly ambitious young aristocrat such as Roosevelt, a young man in a hurry in sprinting toward success, is bound to garner notice. With such notice comes opportunity.
While it was a campaign that appeared destined for inevitable defeat, which occurred, Franklin Delano Roosevelt enhanced his national visibility and party credentials when he was selected as vice presidential running mate to Democratic Party presidential nominee Governor James M. Cox at the 1920 convention in San Francisco.
Roosevelt was not blamed for a seemingly pre-ordained Republican landslide which swept Warren G. Harding into office. Indeed, as an energetic young man of 38 he undertook a robust campaign schedule and introduced himself to Democratic Party stalwarts throughout America who would later prove beneficial when he ran for and became president.
Just when Roosevelt appeared to have everything going his way there was that moment of tragedy. It was depicted movingly on stage and later adapted to the screen in the work "Sunrise at Campobello," which was written by Hollywood studio chieftain and Roosevelt admirer Dore Schary.
Roosevelt suffered an attack of infantile paralysis that thereafter deprived him of the ability to walk. In place of allowing defeat to set in he became more determined than ever to overcome adversity with his ultimate achievement becoming the only figure in American history to be elected president four times.
When Roosevelt would visit Warm Springs, Georgia, taking advantage of its soothing waters along with others similarly afflicted, he would happily refer to them as "my people." Tragedy had molded Roosevelt, enhancing his perspective, making him more readily able to relate to Depression hard times and people seeking to overcome adversity.
The same element occurred in the case of Roosevelt admirer and grassroots liberal John F. Kennedy. Reporters covering then Senator Kennedy's successful presidential campaign of 1960 noted that the young Bostonian of privilege was profoundly moved by images of poverty he observed in West Virginia.
Kennedy achieved victory in West Virginia, knocking liberal rival Senator Hubert Humphrey out of the presidential race. He pledged to do all he could for West Virginians once he became president.
Roosevelt was an inspiration to Kennedy and numerous other American progressives who followed him. He gave America hope during a dark period of history and exercised resourceful pragmatism to bring the nation back to a solider economic foundation.

Broadly speaking, visas are issued based on either work or family. If he's not married to you or otherwise related, he isn't family. He'd have to get his own work visa.
Of course, since he's a UK citizen he could come here as a visitor and simply overstay. It wouldn't be legal but it's done all the time.

Gee. I guess there really is no difference between the bigots on the left, that insist that certain racial groups can't compete on an even playing field without an affirmative action, and those bigots on the right, that find comfort in a mostly white party, knowing that they are superior to those that are different from them, and don't want to give those inferior folks, even a chance to compete. A pox on both sides!

I don't know what PM discussions you have going on with Steve.
My beef with you is public. For my tastes, you've gone over the line several times of late with Nazi references. Yesterday was the last straw. I don't know what your problem is, and I frankly don't care if you're just baiting or being earnest. Either way, I've come to my own conclusions about you - neither explanation is acceptable to me. I don't report threads or cry out about TOS violations. I'll pick my fight with you in my own way, right out here in the open.

Yes, we know Bill. Subversive books like this should be burned. We'll get right on it.
We in the Obama-Fascist League (OFL) take our responsibilities seriously.

Try reading a book for a change.

I think Mama Bear would be wise to keep her children away from Chuck E. Cheese's.

I call BS. Junk science fed to a bunch of Ivy League law students. So many errors in Darbyshire's argument, that it vitiates the whole package. At least he didn't mention that in his discussion.

I'm glad you feel that way Nagi.
My intent here is not to offend you in any way.
Bill, on the other hand, ...

And the rounding up of white people into labor camps. Except for Jews, they voted for Obama so they're cool.

An Interview With Ron Paul
...
Q: Most people consider Abe Lincoln to be one of our greatest presidents, if not the greatest president we've ever had. Would you agree with that sentiment and why or why not?
A: No, I don't think he was one of our greatest presidents. I mean, he was determined to fight a bloody civil war, which many have argued could have been avoided. For 1/100 the cost of the war, plus 600 thousand lives, enough money would have been available to buy up all the slaves and free them. So, I don't see that is a good part of our history. Besides, the Civil War was to prove that we had a very, very strong centralized federal government and that's what it did. It rejected the notion that states were a sovereign nation.
The people who disagree want to turn around and say, "Oh, yes, those guys just wanted to protect slavery." But that's just a cop-out if you look at this whole idea of what happened in our country because Lincoln really believed in the centralized state. He was a Hamiltonian type and objected to everything Jefferson wanted.
http://rightwingnews.com/2010/03/an-interview-with-ron-paul/

An Interview With Ron Paul
...
Q: Most people consider Abe Lincoln to be one of our greatest presidents, if not the greatest president we've ever had. Would you agree with that sentiment and why or why not?
A: No, I don't think he was one of our greatest presidents. I mean, he was determined to fight a bloody civil war, which many have argued could have been avoided. For 1/100 the cost of the war, plus 600 thousand lives, enough money would have been available to buy up all the slaves and free them. So, I don't see that is a good part of our history. Besides, the Civil War was to prove that we had a very, very strong centralized federal government and that's what it did. It rejected the notion that states were a sovereign nation.
The people who disagree want to turn around and say, "Oh, yes, those guys just wanted to protect slavery." But that's just a cop-out if you look at this whole idea of what happened in our country because Lincoln really believed in the centralized state. He was a Hamiltonian type and objected to everything Jefferson wanted.
http://rightwingnews.com/2010/03/an-interview-with-ron-paul/

Even as prospects for the American economy brighten, consumers are about to face a new financial burden: a sustained period of rising interest rates.
That, economists say, is the inevitable outcome of the nation’s ballooning debt and the renewed prospect of inflation as the economy recovers from the depths of the recent recession.
The shift is sure to come as a shock to consumers whose spending habits were shaped by a historic 30-year decline in the cost of borrowing.
“Americans have assumed the roller coaster goes one way,” said Bill Gross, whose investment firm, Pimco, has taken part in a broad sell-off of government debt, which has pushed up interest rates. “It’s been a great thrill as rates descended, but now we face an extended climb.”
The impact of higher rates is likely to be felt first in the housing market, which has only recently begun to rebound from a deep slump. The rate for a 30-year fixed rate mortgage has risen half a point since December, hitting 5.31 last week, the highest level since last summer.
Along with the sell-off in bonds, the Federal Reserve has halted its emergency $1.25 trillion program to buy mortgage debt, placing even more upward pressure on rates.
“Mortgage rates are unlikely to go lower than they are now, and if they go higher, we’re likely to see a reversal of the gains in the housing market,” said Christopher J. Mayer, a professor of finance and economics at Columbia Business School. “It’s a really big risk.”
Each increase of 1 percentage point in rates adds as much as 19 percent to the total cost of a home, according to Mr. Mayer.
The Mortgage Bankers Association expects the rise to continue, with the 30-year mortgage rate going to 5.5 percent by late summer and as high as 6 percent by the end of the year.
Another area in which higher rates are likely to affect consumers is credit card use. And last week, the Federal Reserve reported that the average interest rate on credit cards reached 14.26 percent in February, the highest since 2001. That is up from 12.03 percent when rates bottomed in the fourth quarter of 2008 — a jump that amounts to about $200 a year in additional interest payments for the typical American household.
With losses from credit card defaults rising and with capital to back credit cards harder to come by, issuers are likely to increase rates to 16 or 17 percent by the fall, according to Dennis Moroney, a research director at the TowerGroup, a financial research company.
“The banks don’t have a lot of pricing options,” Mr. Moroney said. “They’re targeting people who carry a balance from month to month.”
Similarly, many car loans have already become significantly more expensive, with rates at auto finance companies rising to 4.72 percent in February from 3.26 percent in December, according to the Federal Reserve.
Washington, too, is expecting to have to pay more to borrow the money it needs for programs. The Office of Management and Budget expects the rate on the benchmark 10-year United States Treasury note to remain close to 3.9 percent for the rest of the year, but then rise to 4.5 percent in 2011 and 5 percent in 2012.
Nine months ago, United States government debt accounted for half of the assets in Mr. Gross’s flagship fund, Pimco Total Return. That has shrunk to 30 percent now — the lowest ever in the fund’s 23-year history — as Mr. Gross has sold American bonds in favor of debt from Europe, particularly Germany, as well as from developing countries like Brazil.
Though still very low by historical standards, the rise of bond yields since then is reversing a decline that began in 1981, when 10-year note yields reached nearly 16 percent.
Indeed, total household debt is now nine times what it was in 1981 — rising twice as fast as disposable income over the same period — yet the portion of disposable income that goes toward covering that debt has budged only slightly, increasing to 12.6 percent from 10.7 percent.
Household debt has been dropping for the last two years as recession-battered consumers cut back on borrowing, but at $13.5 trillion, it still exceeds disposable income by $2.5 trillion.
The long decline in rates also helped prop up the stock market; lower rates for investments like bonds make stocks more attractive.
For young home buyers today considering 30-year mortgages with a rate of just over 5 percent, it might be hard to conceive of a time like October 1981, when mortgage rates peaked at 18.2 percent. That meant monthly payments of $1,523 then compared with $556 now for a $100,000 loan.
Some firms, like Morgan Stanley, are predicting that rates could rise by a percentage point and a half by the end of the year. Others, like JPMorgan Chase are forecasting a more modest half-point jump.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/11/business/economy/11rates.html