Cleo's Mom

Owned by right wing hack Murdoch: Film Twentieth Century Fox Twentieth Century Fox Español Twentieth Century Fox International Twentieth Century Fox Television Fox Searchlight Pictures Fox Studios Australia Fox Studios Baja Fox Studios Los Angeles Fox Television Studios Television Broadcast/Production assets 20th Century Fox Television 20th Television bTV Foxtel Fox Broadcasting Company Fox International Channels Italy Fox Kids (1990-2002) Fox Sports Australia Fox Telecolombia Fox Television Stations Fox Television Studios Imedi TV Latvijas Neatkarīgā Televīzija MyNetworkTV STAR TV TV5 Rīga Cable Assets Big Ten Network (49%) Fox Business Network Fox College Sports Fox Movie Channel Fox News Channel Fox Soccer Channel Fox Sports Enterprises Fox Sports en Español Fox Sports Net FUEL TV FX Networks Fox Reality National Geographic Channel SPEED Channel SportSouth LAPTV (Latin America — co-owned with Paramount Pictures/Viacom, Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer/MGM Holdings and Universal Studios/NBC Universal) Telecine (Brazil — co-owned with Globosat Canais, Paramount Pictures, MGM, Universal Studios and DreamWorks); Direct broadcast satellite Assets BSkyB (39.1%) Sky Deutschland (30.5%) SKY Italia SKY Network Television (43.65%) Tata Sky (20%) Internet Fox Interactive Media AmericanIdol.com AskMen.com Fox.com Foxsports.com GameSpy Hulu.com kSolo IGN Drownedinsound.com MySpace MyNetworktv.com NewRoo.com Strategicdatacorp.com Photobucket.com Rotten Tomatoes Scout.com SpringWidgets WhatIfSports Beliefnet News Digital Media Slingshot Labs Magazines and Inserts InsideOut donna hay News America Marketing SmartSource The Weekly Standard Gemstar Newspapers News International United Kingdom The Sun News of the World The Times Sunday Times thelondonpaper (a free newspaper) News Corporation Ltd. Australia The Daily Telegraph (Sydney) The Sunday Telegraph (Sydney) The Australian (national) The Weekend Australian (national) The Advertiser (Adelaide) Sunday Mail (Adelaide) The Sunday Times (Perth) Herald Sun (Melbourne) Sunday Herald Sun (Melbourne) mX (Melbourne, Sydney and Brisbane) The Courier-Mail (Brisbane) The Cairns Post (Cairns, Queensland) Geelong Advertiser Gold Coast Bulletin The Mercury and Sunday Tasmanian (Hobart) Northern Territory News (Darwin) The Sunday Territorian (Darwin) Australian Associated Press (45%) New Zealand Sunday Star-Times Papua New Guinea Papua New Guinea Post-Courier Fiji The Fiji Times United States New York Post The Wall Street Journal Times Herald Record The Brooklyn Paper Dow Jones & Company Consumer Media Group The Wall Street Journal - the leading US financial newspaper. Wall Street Journal Europe Wall Street Journal Asia Barron's — weekly financial markets magazine. Marketwatch - Financial news and information website. Far Eastern Economic Review Enterprise Media Group Dow Jones Newswires - global, real-time news and information provider. Factiva - provides business news and information together with content delivery tools and services. Dow Jones Indexes - stock market indexes and indicators, including the Dow Jones Industrial Average. Dow Jones Financial Information Services — produces databases, electronic media, newsletters, conferences, directories, and other information services on specialised markets and industry sectors. Betten Financial News — leading Dutch language financial and economic news service. Local Media Group Ottaway Community Newspapers - 8 daily and 15 weekly regional newspapers. STOXX (33%) - joint venture with Deutsche Boerse and SWG Group for the development and distribution of Dow Jones STOXX indices. Vedomosti (33%) - Russia's leading financial newspaper (joint venture with Financial Times and Independent Media). SmartMoney (50%) books HarperCollins HarperCollins India (40%) joint venture with India Today Group Zondervan Publishing Youth Specialties — organisation helping youth workers worldwide through training seminars and conventions, resources and the internet. Inspirio — religious gift production. Miscellaneous National Rugby League (NRL) (50%) Ansett Australia, Until 2000 (50%) Jamba! - Mobile Entertainment/Mobile Handsets Personalisation/Games. News Outdoor Group - Largest outdoor advertising company in Eastern Europe with over 70,000 ads including billboards and bus shelters, operating in Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Hungary, India, Israel, Poland, Romania, Russia (96 cities), Turkey & Ukraine. Maximedia Israel (67%) Mosgorreklama (50%) - Russia sign and marketing material manufacturer Kamera Acikhava Reklamclik (?) - leading outdoor advertising company in Turkey NDS Group (49%) - DRM and conditional access company. Left wing media is just another lie from the right.

I don't just think it - the facts prove it: “The Structural Imbalance of Political Talk Radio”, a new report was released by The Center for American Progress and Free Press. – In the spring of 2007, of the 257 news/talk stations owned by the top five commercial station owners, 91 percent of the total weekday talk radio programming was conservative, and only 9 percent was progressive. – Each weekday, 2,570 hours and 15 minutes of conservative talk are broadcast on these stations compared to 254 hours of progressive talk — 10 times as much conservative talk as progressive talk. – 76 percent of the news/talk programming in the top 10 radio markets is conservative, while 24 percent is progressive.

Poll: Americans oppose weaker unions By Dennis Cauchon, USA TODAY Updateddocument.write(niceDate('02/22/2011 11:05:05 PM')); 1h 2m ago | MADISON, Wis. — Americans strongly oppose laws taking away the collective bargaining power of public employee unions, according to a new USA TODAY/Gallup Poll. The poll found 61% would oppose a law in their state similar to such a proposal in Wisconsin, compared with 33% who would favor such a law.

Wisconsin's pension fund is among the nation's strongest. From Zach Carter: "Despite GOP hype over super-generous retirement funding for Wisconsin public employees, the state's pension fund is actually among the strongest in the nation. If it had to liquidate today, the pension fund has enough money right now to fund decades worth of pension benefits to every eligible state worker. Nevertheless, Republican Governor Scott Walker is asking public employees to shoulder an enormous portion of the load in reducing the state's $137 million budget deficit. In addition to killing collective bargaining rights over pensions for public employees, Walker wants to raise about $30 million this year by hiking taxes on public employees for their pension fund. There's simply no need. The pension plan's 'funding ratio' is 99.8 percent, meaning the plan's current assets will cover 99.8 percent of all future expenses, without any adjustments. The Government Accountability Office says an 80 percent ratio is considered healthy, while Fitch Ratings targets 70 percent." [HuffPost] But the unions still made the concession in good faith. The democrats will return when Walker is serious about negotiating in good faith.

Apparently we're both half right according to this article: Donna Brazile says that unions that supported Scott Walker are exempt from restrictions on collective bargaining The ongoing budget crisis in Wisconsin got pundits George Will and Donna Brazile debating on This Week with Christiane Amanpour. Will said that changes proposed by Gov. Scott Walker were reasonable and necessary given budget constraints. Brazile countered that the governor was using the excuse of a budget battle to destroy collective bargaining rights for public employee unions. "And, look, what we're talking about is that the governor has cherry-picked what public workers he will subject to this so-called removal of their collective bargaining rights," Brazile said. "The firefighters, the policemen and others who supported him in his election bid, well, guess what? They don't have to worry about their collective bargaining rights." Brazile implied that this was political payback, and we want to be clear that we’re not checking Walker’s motivations. We’re looking only at whether "the firefighters, the policemen and others who supported him in his election bid ... don't have to worry about their collective bargaining rights." Our first stop was checking Walker’s proposal. It asks state workers to pay more for their pensions and health insurance, which reduces take-home pay. But it also sets limits on collective bargaining power for the public sector unions. In a letter to public workers, Walker explained that his proposal would limit bargaining only to base pay, which means unions could not bargain for improved health insurance, working conditions or pension benefits. Pay increases would be limited to increases in the cost of living, using the Consumer Price Index, unless voters approved other pay increases via a referendum. Union members would have to vote to stay unionized each year, and contracts could only last only a year, among other limitations. Walker concluded the list of changes by noting, "Local police and fire employees and State Patrol Troopers and Inspectors are exempted from these changes." So Brazile is right that police, firefighters and others are exempt. Our next question was, are these the groups "who supported him in his election bid"? During the campaign last November, leaders of the Milwaukee Professional Firefighters Association and Milwaukee Police Association appeared in an ad supporting Walker and blasting his opponent, Democrat Tom Barrett. Walker also won endorsements from the West Allis Professional Police Association and the Wisconsin Troopers Association Walker didn’t get the endorsements of two statewide unions, the Wisconsin Professional Police Association and the Professional Fire Fighters of Wisconsin, which both backed Barrett. For the record, the governor told the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel that the charge that he was exempting police and firefighters was "ridiculous." He said he didn't recommend changing the rules for police officers and firefighters because he didn’t want public safety work disrupted. We then contacted the Wisconsin Professional Police Association, the statewide union that endorsed Walker's opponent last year. Executive director Jim Palmer said the statewide organization is much larger than the local Milwaukee police union that endorsed Walker. The state group has approximately 11,000 members versus Milwaukee’s roughly 1,400, he said. Similarly, the state firefighters association has more than 3,000, compared with the Milwaukee union’s 875. The state police union is opposed to the changes Walker is proposing for other public sector workers, which include county jailers and police dispatchers, Palmer said. The statewide firefighters' union also opposes the proposal. Palmer said he believes that Walker exempted police and firefighters not for political payback, but because they are the public workers who are most popular with the public. "And in that way, it’s very political," he said. Brazile said, "The firefighters, the policemen and others who supported (Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker) in his election bid ... don't have to worry about their collective bargaining rights." It’s true that Walker won the endorsement of Milwaukee police and firefighter organizations, and they won’t lose collective bargaining rights if Walker’s proposal succeeds. But not all unions supported Walker. In fact, the two significant statewide organizations endorsed his opponent, and they too would be exempt from restrictions on collective bargaining. Because the statement leaves out the fact that the police and fire unions broke ranks on whether or not to support Walker, we rate this statement Half True. George Will (right wing hack) interviewed Walker and he said he said that if you get control of collective bargaining and stop things like auto deduct of union dues, etc. you can get union workers to question if they need unions. This is an admission then that he just wants to bust unions. Since the unions have already agreed to all the concession concerning cuts and increases in their contributions, then this collective bargaining assault is just bullshit and anyone who has above a double digit IQ knows it. All that being said - if the democrats in the U.S. Senate needed republican votes for a quorum and let's say they were proposing a bill that would: -increase the corporate tax rate to 50% -increase the taxes on those over $250,000 to 40% -increase the estate taxes on estates over $1 million at 50% -increase the minimum wage to $10/hour -eliminate all corporate welfare -eliminate all tax loopholes for corporations. And the republicans walked out and left for and undisclosed location to prevent a vote (let's just assume they couldn't filibuster which they do every time) - I think the right wing media that dominates our landscape would nominate them for sainthood up there with ronnie. Oh, and one more thing. Walker didn't run on a campaign that he would strip away collective bargaining rights for some public workers. So the voters did not vote for this. He, like so many phoney republicans, have used the economic crisis to promote their sinister agenda that they've wanted to promote for years - reduce social programs while cutting taxes for the rich, bust unions and restrict women's access to reproductive health. But when they run - it's Oh, we've got to tighten our belts and be more fiscally responsible, blah, blah, blah, until you read the fine print like we are with Walker. Another republican phoney. They must clone themselves there are so many.

If the union lobbying power is so great, then why did most of the money in the 2010 mid-term come from corporate america and go to republicans and why wouldn't the public teacher's union have had the power in Wisconsin to stop this and get their people in office as opposed to the Koch brothers? And you have side-stepped the issue as to why the police, firefighters and State Trooper's unions aren't affected by this bill? BECAUSE THEY SUPPORTED WALKER. So this bill is nothing more than punishment to the unions who opposed Walker. Since the unions have already said that they will make the concessions about the ECONOMIC issues - pensions and health care - how in the world does stripping collective bargaining help balance the budget? IT DOESN'T. It's just another blatant republican attempt to bust unions. And I'm sick of businesses, who have gotten 17 tax cuts under Obama, whining. They are crying with a loaf of bread under each arm. Paying taxes is the cost of doing business and they have to pay their share. If all states made businesses pay their fair share, where are they going to go? And why should the workers and middle class have to make up for the taxes the businesses don't pay? I mean it's not like with all the tax breaks they get they are hiring. In our state the gas drilling companies are salavating to drill the Marcellus shale and make them richer. There is a lot of controversy about the environmental impact of this drilling - but the fact remains that there is tons of money to be made off of this. Every other state - every one - that has marcellus shale drilling imposes a tax on these companies - and they pay it because they know that is fair. And they can't go somewhere else because the gas is here. However, in my state, our newly elected republican governor has said that he will not impose any tax on the drillers. NONE. It is like a free, all you can drill buffet for the gas companies. But will it create a lot of jobs? Probably some, but most of those jobs have been given to out of staters so far. And who do you think will be paying for the damage to the roads, wells, creeks and rivers? The local taxpayer, that's who. Now, since this governor said he will not raise taxes, and that pesky unsuccessful stimulus will be ending (the one that created and saved 400,000 jobs in my state) our state is broke. So this governor will give the gas companies free reign and money and make the predictable budget cuts to the poor and middle class. Typical republican thinking. Oh, and here's the best part - I almost forgot. This governor was our attorney general and he filed suit against the federal healthcare bill. We had a state healthcare called Adult Basic under our previous democratic governor. It was for the working poor who made a little too much for medicaid but couldn't afford insurance. The waiting list was long. The premiums were about $36/month. It was subsidized by the tobacco money (lawsuits) and an arrangement with one of our biggest insurers who contributed X amount until Dec. 31, 2010. So the money is gone and 40,000 just got their notice that they have to find other insurance. They could do the high risk pool at a rate increase of 800%. NOW GET THIS - THIS IS THE GOOD PART. This republican governor wants the federal government to subsidize this insurance. Yep, the same federal government he is suing. It gets better. Because he won't tax the gas drillers and won't raise taxes and public education has a bullseye on it - he won't be able to fund it at the currrent level because, again, that pesky stimulus is over - so ONCE AGAIN HE IS ASKING THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO STEP UP AND INCREASE FUNDING TO MAKE UP THE DIFFERENCE. Really - this guy has balls, I will say that. But that is so typical of hypocritical republicans - bash the federal government out of one side of your mouth and out of the other ask how it can help me (and my district, state, etc..)

These columnists were also offering some tweaking of SS to help it with some of its problems, like I offered, too. But republicans want to keep saying it is going broke so that they can cut benefits. I'm not buying it.

Tell me that you did not just post this crap. You want to raise the taxes on the poor and middle class and lower them on the rich (from 35.6% to 20%). The poor and middle class depend on deductions which help spur the economy. Being able to deduct mortgage interest helps middle class buy homes. You want some poor guy making $40,000 trying to support his family have to pay $8000 in taxes with no deductions. And btw - when I said hardly a dent I was referring to a millionaires income going from $1 million to $900,000 in my example which would hardly dent his purchasing power. We do have a spending problem with bloated defense budgets and corporate welfare but we have an even bigger revenue collection problem with too low of taxes on the rich. It has long been the goal of the republicans (and they are succeeding) to take money from the poor and middle class and give it to the rich. BUT HERE IS THE MOST INSULTING PART OF YOUR PLAN: You want the rich to get richer and the poor to scavange for food in dumpsters. PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE, send this idea into the RNC and ask that all republicans running for office run on this platform. I would love them to. That way we could get rid of those extremists known as republicans once and for all. If they dared to suggest such a despicable and insulting plan the riots in Cairo would pale in comparison and I would be out there with them. SO YOU READ IT FIRST HERE, FOLKS, THE REPUBLICAN ECONOMIC PLAN: THE RICH PAY LESS TAXES, THE MIDDLE CLASS AND POOR MORE AND LET THEM SCAVANGE DUMPSTERS FOR FOOD.

It's all about what the right wing media can get people to believe - the bigger the lie, the more it's repeated, the more it is believed: Like giving tax cuts to the rich creates jobs. The states' deficit are due to public employee unions Social Security is broke None of them is true but the right wing media and the hypocritical republicans repeat them over and over again. Social Security is not going broke February 17th, 2011 1:09 am ETConventional wisdom says that Social Security is a "pyramid scheme" teetering on the edge of collapse, and that anyone unlucky enough to be paying into the system today is unlikely to see a penny of their money after they retire. A piece in the Economist magazine makes this very point. Writer Erica Grieder says she views all communications from the Social Security Administration as "fiction" and actually collecting Social Security benefits someday is "something I obviously do not expect to ever be able to do." But the conventional wisdom --and Ms Grieder-- are wrong. President Obama made this point in his press conference Tuesday, reminding a reporter who referenced "the long-term crushing costs of Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid" that "Social Security is not the huge contributor to the deficit that the other two entitlements are." The Washington Post's Greg Sargent thinks the president may have meant that Social Security is only a marginal problem and not a huge contributor to the deficit, and that Social Security doesn't belong in the same camp as Medicare and Medicaid, which do have more serious problems because of the rising cost of health care itself. At Mother Jones magazine, Kevin Drum agrees. "Medicare is a problem," he says. "But unless you believe that the United States is literally going to collapse in the near future, Social Security isn't. Period." Drum explains that if payroll taxes never go up, then by 2040 Social Security benefits will have to be trimmed by about 25 percent. But "one way or another, at some level between 75% and 100% of what we've promised, Social Security benefits will always be there. This is not a Ponzi scheme. It's not unsustainable." Cynics will argue that Social Security gets lumped in with Medicare and Medicaid because many politicians don't want to have to pay back the loans they took out of the Social Security Trust fund to pay for other projects (like tax cuts). A few tweaks to the payroll tax could keep Social Security solvent in perpetuity. Drum points out that Social Security costs about 4.5% of GDP. As more boomers retire, that cost will rise, eventually to about six percent of GDP by 2030. The simple answer it to slowly increase payroll taxes by 1.5 percent of GDP. One suggestion often mentioned is to raise the cap on payroll tax, presently at $106,000, which seems far more practical [and fair] than Paul Ryan and Rand Paul wailing that we are "all going to die" unless we raise the retirement age to 70. Or eliminate the cap altogether. That way, people who get multimillion-dollar annual bonuses would pay full Social Security taxes on them, and their employers (the ones that pay them the bonuses) would have to pay the full match. Currently they pay nothing beyond the $106,000. For the person making $105,000, critics argue that's disproportionate and unfair. Why, for example, should someone making less than $106,000 pay the 6 percent of their total gross salary, but when it comes to millionaires and up, it works out to a far, far smaller percentage of gross income? The president said he's confident he'll be able to get those "minor adjustments" made in the next few years. But even if he's wrong, Social Security isn't going broke. Continue reading on Examiner.com: Social Security is not going broke - National populist | Examiner.com http://www.examiner.com/populist-in-national/social-security-is-not-going-broke#ixzz1EjOdy91q

Just another left wing conspiracy theorist? Actually, a nobel prize winning economist who once again, nails it.: Paul Krugman: Wisconsin power playWhat is happening is not about the state budgetTuesday, February 22, 2011The New York TimesLast week, in the face of protest demonstrations against Wisconsin's new union-busting governor, Scott Walker -- demonstrations that continued through the weekend, with huge crowds on Saturday -- Rep. Paul Ryan made an unintentionally apt comparison: "It's like Cairo has moved to Madison." It wasn't the smartest thing for Mr. Ryan to say, since he probably didn't mean to compare Gov. Walker, a fellow Republican, to Hosni Mubarak. Or maybe he did -- after all, quite a few prominent conservatives, including Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh and Rick Santorum, denounced the uprising in Egypt and insist that President Barack Obama should have helped the Mubarak regime suppress it. In any case, however, Mr. Ryan was more right than he knew. For what's happening in Wisconsin isn't about the state budget, despite Mr. Walker's pretense that he's just trying to be fiscally responsible. It is, instead, about power. What Mr. Walker and his backers are trying to do is to make Wisconsin -- and eventually, America -- less of a functioning democracy and more of a third-world-style oligarchy. And that's why anyone who believes that we need some counterweight to the political power of big money should be on the demonstrators' side. Some background: Wisconsin is indeed facing a budget crunch, although its difficulties are less severe than those facing many other states. Revenue has fallen in the face of a weak economy, while stimulus funds, which helped close the gap in 2009 and 2010, have faded away. In this situation, it makes sense to call for shared sacrifice, including monetary concessions from state workers. And union leaders have signaled that they are, in fact, willing to make such concessions. But Mr. Walker isn't interested in making a deal. Partly that's because he doesn't want to share the sacrifice: even as he proclaims that Wisconsin faces a terrible fiscal crisis, he has been pushing through tax cuts that make the deficit worse. Mainly, however, he has made it clear that rather than bargaining with workers, he wants to end workers' ability to bargain. The bill that has inspired the demonstrations would strip away collective bargaining rights for many of the state's workers, in effect busting public-employee unions. Tellingly, some workers -- namely, those who tend to be Republican-leaning -- are exempted from the ban; it's as if Mr. Walker were flaunting the political nature of his actions. Why bust the unions? As I said, it has nothing to do with helping Wisconsin deal with its current fiscal crisis. Nor is it likely to help the state's budget prospects even in the long run: contrary to what you may have heard, public-sector workers in Wisconsin and elsewhere are paid somewhat less than private-sector workers with comparable qualifications, so there's not much room for further pay squeezes. (news you won't hear on fox) So it's not about the budget; it's about the power. In principle, every U.S. citizen has an equal say in our political process. In practice, of course, some of us are more equal than others. Billionaires can field armies of lobbyists; they can finance think tanks that put the desired spin on policy issues; they can funnel cash to politicians with sympathetic views (as the Koch brothers did in the case of Mr. Walker). On paper, we're a one-person-one-vote nation; in reality, we're more than a bit of an oligarchy, in which a handful of wealthy people dominate. Given this reality, it's important to have institutions that can act as counterweights to the power of big money. And unions are among the most important of these institutions. You don't have to love unions, you don't have to believe that their policy positions are always right, to recognize that they're among the few influential players in our political system representing the interests of middle- and working-class Americans, as opposed to the wealthy. Indeed, if America has become more oligarchic and less democratic over the last 30 years -- which it has -- that's to an important extent due to the decline of private-sector unions. And now Mr. Walker and his backers are trying to get rid of public-sector unions, too. There's a bitter irony here. The fiscal crisis in Wisconsin, as in other states, was largely caused by the increasing power of America's oligarchy. After all, it was super-wealthy players, not the general public, who pushed for financial deregulation and thereby set the stage for the economic crisis of 2008-9, a crisis whose aftermath is the main reason for the current budget crunch. And now the political right is trying to exploit that very crisis, using it to remove one of the few remaining checks on oligarchic influence. (Gee, weren't they just taking risks?) So will the attack on unions succeed? I don't know. But anyone who cares about retaining government of the people by the people should hope that it doesn't. Paul Krugman is a syndicated columnist for The New York Times.<BR clear=all>

I think what patience john said sounds rational to me. You made it sound like he started some movement to teach arabic in texas schools. And as far as any bet - well I'm still waiting for you to make good on your promise to vote for Obama if I could prove that the republicans said they wanted Obama's agenda (and thus him) to fail before he was sworn in - which I did prove with the NY Times article about their meeting on January 11, 2009. Seriously, you have been drinking to much of the kool aid. Corporate America is "worried". That is so laughable. Have you not been reading about how well they are doing? Profits are up. Even if the democrats returned taxes to the Clinton age level they would still be doing well. They want it all - no regulations, no taxes, and a bailout when they f**k up. Is that what you call the economic collapse - taking a risk? OMG, could you possible be that naive?? It was out and out fraud, lies, gambling and deceit - from the worthless mortgage bundles knowingly sold as profitable, then insuring them with AIG. It's like selling a car with bad brakes as in tip top shape and then taking out insurance on it. And the insurance company doesn't have enough money to cover the loss, but then they didn't think they'd need to (because after all it was in great shape) and then the car crashes and payment due -except the payment came from us taxpayers because the companies were broke. I am glad you have so much faith in the polluting, corporate Koch brothers. It will be quid pro quo for them in Wisconsin. Let's see if faux news reports on that when it happens. Yeah, the unions fight for money. Wow. Who would think people would like to make more money? Shocking. How dare they. We all know that non-union employees don't want, ask for or get more money. They have a right to collective bargaining - that means both sides agree. That is what bargaining is all about and it's what Walker wants to strip away. It's what made our country great - we even have the word in our country's beginnings ...in order to form a more perfect union. It doesn't say in order to form a more perfect corporation (the right wing supreme court activist judges are the only ones saying that.). And again I will point out that Walker doesn't want to strip the collective bargaining rights of the unions who supported him. I guess those unions aren't greedy or never ask for more money. The public employees have agreed to pay more for their pensions and health care but not to have their collective bargaining rights stripped away - and that is what it's about. If the state budget needs balanced then it should be on everyone - all the unions, all the businesses and all the taxpayers sharing the burden - not the political bullying Walker is doing. As for the doctors supposedly writing bogus sick day excuses. If this can be proved, then do it. But I suspect the proof is just a dream of those on the right. Let me know how that investigation goes. Something tell me nowhere. Just another distraction for the real issue: UNION BUSTING WALKER. And I wish the U.S. republicans senators would go hide out somewhere. All of them. Then we might get something done. I wish they would have done it two years ago. Texas would be a good place. I'd even help pay for airfare.

Actually the republicans are on the wrong side of many of the things people want. 1) The vast majority supported tax cuts for those making under $250,000 and opposed them for those making over $250,000 - opposed by the majority of republicans 2) The majority of people supported repeal of DADT - opposed by majority of republicans 3) The majority of people supported the START treaty -opposed by majority of republicans. 4) The majority of people also support funding for our schools 5) Only 13% support any cuts to SS So the republicans aren't really supporting what people want. People think they want cuts in spending until they find out that the cuts impact them. What they mean is that they want cuts that impacts the other guy, not them. And as far as the robin hood theory of yours - well if the wealthy are so savvy then they will have plenty of tax sheltered income to protect them in retirement. Also, you pay into SS independent of your marital status, but your marital status is used to calculate your SS benefits so I guess we can call that the "screw marriage" tax. And a flat tax is more punitive the lower the income is. 10% of those making $50,000 is $5000 - which means a lot to a family making that much. But 10% of $1 million is $100,000 leaving the millionaire with $900,000. Hardly a dent.

Here is an article about the arabic in texas schools: The Foreign Language Assistance Program (FLAP) grant was awarded to Mansfield ISD last summer by the U.S. Department of Education. As part of the five-year $1.3 million grant, Arabic classes would be mandatory at Cross Timbers Intermediate School and Kenneth Davis Elementary School. The program would also be optional for students at T. A. Howard Middle School and Summit High School. Parents at Cross Timbers say they were caught off-guard by the program, and were surprised the district only told them about it in a meeting Monday night between parents and Mansfield ISD Superintendent Bob Morrison. The DOE has identified Arabic as a 'language of the future.' But parent Joseph Balson was frustrated by the past. "Why are we just now finding out about it?" asked Balson. "It's them (Mansfield ISD) applying for the grant, getting it approved and them now saying they'll go back and change it only when they were caught trying to implement this plan without parents knowing about it." So, big deal - patience john supports this. It didn't originate with him. I think it's a good idea so that our future leaders can say in arabic: Hi, we're from the United States and we're here to take your oil. But I also think Chinese should be mandated so that our future leaders can say in Chinese: Hi, I'm from the United States and I need a loan to pay for the tax cuts for the rich and two unfunded wars. And can we still keep importing your cheap goods in exchange?

I already told you what: raise the taxes on those making over $250,000 to the Clinton levels when 22 million jobs were created. They can afford it, they're not creating jobs and boo hoo they might just have to give up that 3rd home. It will bring in tons of money. Also - collect the SS payroll tax on 100% of wages not just the first $106,000. And then when the millionaires come of retirement age, make payments tied to wealth, assets, etc.. because they won't need it. Close all the corporate tax loopholes. Do a better job of overseeing defense contract abuses and fraud. So, those are very doable solutions that the republicans would never go for - and no jobs or benefits would have to be cut.

What about the above article are you talking about or dispute? If you have info to dispute it do so, otherwise don't kill the messenger. Also, to answer your previous questions about the solutions to wall street greed and bush's f**k up. Well, for starters, corporate america can get their rich, lazy a$$es off the 2 trillion in assets (thanks to us taxpayers) that they are sitting on, cut or eliminate bonuses - and combine it with the billions in tax cuts the republicans threw at them - and hire additional workers instead of overworking their current staff or shipping jobs overseas. That will do more to reduce the deficit than any cuts to SS. And back to the issue of unions. Our streets in this country are stained with the blood of those who lost their lives fighting to improve working conditions for the rest of us. From coal miners, to railroad workers, steel worker and factory workers - they battled, lost lives, lost wages, lost homes so that YOU could enjoy: -the minimum wage -40 hr. work week -overtime -unemployment compensation -worker's comp -vacation and sick leave -better and safer working conditions You are more than happy to be the recipient of all the benefits won by those who have fought before you but then turn around and bash unions and their right to collective bargaining that won these rights for you. What a huge hypocrite. Just like so many others.

Let's not forget that we pay into Social Security (trust fund) with the promise of payout when our time comes. Not true for the bloated military spending which is significant: Spending Categories Budget by Functional Category

Wrong again, as usual. Several things could reduce the deficit, but cutting SS, medicare, medicaid is not the solution: 1) Return the tax rate for those making over $250,000 to the Clinton era (wow, from 35.6% to 38% - the wealthy might have to sign up for food stamps). This would bring in tons of money and the wealthy wouldn't miss it (it's not like they are creating jobs with it as promised). 2) The DOD budget is huge - our budget is bigger than every other country combined and even Gates supports cuts. 3) Get people back to work - and cutting spending is exactly the wrong thing to do with a fragile economic recovery like we are having. (It makes no difference if the employees are public or private - it all impacts the economy) 4) This one isn't likey to happen - but bring our troops home from Afghanistan. The middle class, unions, public employees and senior citizens did not cause the economic crisis or the deficit - but now suddenly they are the targets of the cuts. How can anyone support the tax cuts for the rich that the republicans just fought for and then turn around and say to reduce or eliminate the most successful social program in our country's history. And why isn't Wall Street on the chopping block. How much support from those who want to cut SS do you think we'll get to end tax loopholes for corporate america or stop subsidies for oil companies? NONE. Because corporate america are their donors and have well paid lobbyists. But I want to hear those hypocritical republicans say they want to continue the tax cut for the rich when it runs out in 2012 while at the same time proposing big cuts in SS.

Here's the real corruption in Wisconsin politics: The Koch Brothers' End Game in Wisconsin Oh my, we got ourselves quite a tail-wagging going on in Wisconsin. You are thinking, what? This is about collective bargaining and workers' rights! Bullshit. You are being wagged. As always this has to do with money, and the union "compromise" coming down the pipe was set up to be the "booby" prize while the Koch Brothers get their "booty" prize. This is all being well-orchestrated with an end game that has absolutely nothing to do with unions. As I said in comments before, to much bewilderment, this is about power plants and a vertical monopoly the Kock Brothers have their eye on in Wisconsin. So in short: 1) Koch Brothers get their puppet Governor Walker in power 2) Governor Walker gins up a crisis 3) Democrats and Progressives take the bait and counter-protest on collective bargaining 4) Governor Walker will compromise on collective bargaining if the rest of the budget is passed as is 5) Bill passes, with trojan horse give-a-way to the Koch Brothers nested in 6) Koch Brothers will buy Wisconsin state-owned power plants for pennies on the dollar in closed unsolicitated bids for which there will be no oversight 7) Koch Brothers get the best vertical monopoly in a generation First off, before we talk about how this going to play out, because I have seen this same game tape, let's talk about why the Koch Brothers would have made Governor Walker their Manchurian Candidate. When you are calling bullshit on such a grand scale as I, it takes extraordinary evidence. So let's first state that the Koch Brothers placed their puppet Walker into power. Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker: Funded by the Koch Bros. By Andy Kroll, Mother Jones http://motherjones.com/... According to Wisconsin campaign finance filings, Walker's gubernatorial campaign received $43,000 from the Koch Industries PAC during the 2010 election. That donation was his campaign's second-highest, behind $43,125 in contributions from housing and realtor groups in Wisconsin. The Koch's PAC also helped Walker via a familiar and much-used politicial maneuver designed to allow donors to skirt campaign finance limits. The PAC gave $1 million to the Republican Governors Association, which in turn spent $65,000 on independent expenditures to support Walker. The RGA also spent a whopping $3.4 million on TV ads and mailers attacking Walker's opponent, Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett. Walker ended up beating Barrett by 5 points. The Koch money, no doubt, helped greatly. Thanks to Kochs' poodles on the Supreme Court, this sort of activity is now legal. Poor Tom DeLay, bet he feels stupid for bribing the wrong people. Anyway, through the use of propaganda and corporate influence, the Kochs' money got their pigeon into the Governor's office. Now here is where it gets tricky. Right now everyone thinks this is about collective bargaining and the rights of the worker, especially to assemble. This is what these two Kochs want you to think. See, they are ginning up a great big whole controversy to hide something deep in the bill that they think no one will notice. See, Governor Walker is going to back down on collective bargaining at the end of the day, if the Democrats will just "compromise" and pass the rest of the budget as is. The Democratic Party will view it as a success in policy and Progressives the land over will be doing a victory dance. The Kochs will be laughing at you all, because they just played y'all like a fiddle. See, when you think you won, this will get passed: State of Wisconsin SENATE BILL 11 Bottom of Page 23: SECTION 44. 16.896 of the statutes is created to read: 16.896 Sale or contractual operation of state−owned heating, cooling, and power plants. (1) Notwithstanding ss. 13.48 (14) (am) and 16.705 (1), the department may sell any state−owned heating, cooling, and power plant or may contract with a private entity for the operation of any such plant, with or without solicitation of bids, for any amount that the department determines to be in the best interest of the state. Notwithstanding ss. 196.49 and 196.80, no approval or certification of the public service commission is necessary for a public utility to purchase, or contract for the operation of, such a plant, and any such purchase is considered to be in the public interest and to comply with the criteria for certification of a project under s. 196.49 (3) (. There are two big whoppers in this section, which is passing through the zeitgeist like ships in the night. It will allow the Koch Brothers to buy or contract to operate state−owned heating, cooling, and power plants in Wisconsin without a solicitation of bids. This is what it is about at the end of the day, and their puppet, Governor Walker, is ready to sell the Koch Brothers the state-owned utility system of Wisconsin for pennies on the dollar for his paymasters. Governor Walker has intentionally muddied the waters concerning unions to muddy waters hoping no one will see the wholescale give-a-way of the state-owned public infrastructure to private interests. Not only that, they are trying to redefine "public interest"! Who gets to decide? Not the public, Governor Walker by fiat! Now combine that with the Koch Brothers' existing operations in Wisconsin: http://www.kochind.com/... # Flint Hills Resources, LLC, through its subsidiaries, is a leading refining and chemicals company. Its subsidiaries market products such as gasoline, diesel, jet fuel, ethanol, olefins, polymers and intermediate chemicals, as well as base oils and asphalt. A subsidiary distributes refined fuel through its strategically located pipelines and terminals in Junction City, Waupun, Madison and Milwaukee. Another subsidiary manufactures asphalt that is distributed to terminals in Green Bay and Stevens Point. # Koch Pipeline Company, L.P. operates a pipeline system that crosses Wisconsin, part of the nearly 4,000 miles of pipelines owned or operated by the company. # The C. Reiss Coal Company is a leading supplier of coal used to generate power. The company has locations in Green Bay, Manitowoc, Ashland and Sheboygan. With an ownership of resources, distribution and generation of energy, the Koch Brothers will have a vertical monopoly that would make even Rockefeller blush! And just imagine the profits! They investment in Walker is gonna pay out big time. Which was the plan all along. Now we know the end game, who is going to block it? And of course we know that the Koch brothers are part of the corporate money behind the tea party phonies.

There isn't a pension crisis for public employees - Walker is just using that as an excuse to bust unions. Unions got collective bargaining rights in the 1970's in Wisconsin and for 4 decades it has been working fine. If Walker claims that eliminating collective bargaining rights is an economic issue, then why are the State Trooper, police and firefighter unions exempt. Hmmm. Could it be because they supporter Walker and the teacher's union didn't. Talk about corruption (more on that later). And BTW, the president of the police union said it was a mistake to back Walker. The democrats are preventing the union bashing republicans from pushing this through without debate. When Walker agrees to compromise about this bill with the democrats then they will return. I wish that people like you and your wife could opt out of unions and all the benefits they bargain for and instead negotiate your own salary and working conditions. Now, that's change that I could support. Because while you bash unions you are more than happy to be recipients not only of your particular benefits but the long history of benefits that resulted from their efforts.

While there are those in both parties who are to blame, it is the republicans who enjoy taxpayer funded healthcare but want to deny it to 35 million uninsured americans. It is the republicans who want to eliminate the minimun wage (yeah, like all those overpaid Walmart workers are the cause of our economic problems). It is the republicans who demonize the federal government and blame it for everything and then say "but hey, elect me to a cushy job in it". It is the republicans who want to deregulate corporate america (that worked out so well for us under bush, didn't it?). They want to take money from the poor and middle class and give it to the rich. It is the republicans who promised that the tax cuts for the rich that they fought so hard for would produce jobs. So where are they? How many jobs did Palin, limbaugh, beck, et al create with the millions in tax cuts they just got? It is Boehner and the republicans who threaten to shut down the government if they don't get their way. They have no problems giving money to the rich but they want to cut funding for home heating oil for the poor and will shut down the government if their plan is not passed. They have until March 4th to decide what to do. I will not get my social security check if the government shuts down, but these republicans will still get paid. LET THEM LOSE PAY FOR EVERYDAY THE GOVERNMENT IS SHUT DOWN AND LOSE THEIR HEALTHCARE TO BOOT. The democrats have generally been on the side of the middle class, the working class and the least among us. While the deficit is important now is not the time to cut spending - just as the fragile economy is recovering. Cutting spending will cost jobs and that will put us into a further recession. Getting people to work is the best way to cut the deficit. And yes, I do think that some politicians care about people. And I think that is largely the democratic party. Who cared about senior to get them social security and out of poverty? Who got us the minimum wage, the 40 hour work week, unemployment compensation, sick leave, overtime, safe work places and the FMLA? That came from unions and the democrats. Who championed for civil rights and women's right? The democrats. Who got us FDIC and government backed mortgages and student loans? The democrats. The republicans have not done one thing - not one thing - for middle class America. But if we must cut spending then start with the defense budget. And then raise the tax on the wealthy to Clinton levels. And the deficit problem will be almost totally solved.

As long as you are losing and your hunger is controlled you do not need a fill. And as far as doing weight training - well the goal is to be healthy and toned not a slave to the number on the scale but I know that for some doctors that is a validation of THEIR success.

The band does not work for everyone but this is true for RNY, too. I think much of the problem is that the patient and the surgery are not matched correctly. If you are a junk, sweet eater or grazer then you can certainly eat around the band. A lot of high calorie foods are slider foods while a lot of healthy foods are difficult to eat. That being said, the band has not worked for me as promised. All it had to do was control my hunger. That has always been my biggest problem. And I would do the rest. Make good food choices, chew, not drink with meals and exercise. But it hasn't at any fill level. I have a 4cc band and was overfilled at 3cc's. It caused many problems but never reduced my hunger or provided satiety. In addition, I had a severe stuck episode that resulted in my going to the ER and an over night stay. It is hard to explain to people the pain I was in. I felt like I was shot. I couldn't speak. As a result, I am totally unfilled and don't think I could live emotionally with the fear of a fill and being stuck like that again. I am breaking out in a cold sweat just thinking about it. I blame my inexperienced former doctor who didn't know how to do fills in a 4cc band that requires finesse. But now I am unfilled and I require a lot of willpower to keep from gaining weight. This is what I've been doing all my adult life and not how I wanted my band experience to be. I have said this before - the band does not work as promoted for everyone - even when they follow the rules, like I do. I am glad you have made the revision. I do think the band is losing favor with surgeons in place of the sleeve, though, and when insurance starts to cover the sleeve you are going to see far fewer bandings. Good luck.

Well, I guess I'll just have to be the bad guy for the other side: Whether or not an employee is remarkable or not is not the criteria by which an employer should allow time off for surgery. This is why I strongly support unions. In a negotiated contract the terms of taking sick leave would be spelled out and in some cases it would require advanced notice for scheduled sugeries and care but not for unexpected, sudden illnesses. This is a win-win for both employers and employees as each knows what the rules are. The employer should never be the one to capriciously "grant" medical leave. Without a negotatied contract it is seldom a win situation for the employee as the employer has all the rights and it isn't a level playing field. Employees who negotiate a contract are better employees because they have had some say in their salary, benefits and working conditions and don't feel exploited.