Thursday, September 23, 2010

Making Money Online Scams


Wild <b>News</b>

Over 500 Tourists Visit Gorillas in the DRC - Great news coming out of the Virunga National Park, they hit a record 500 tourists who came to visit this past August -- Read more. Rhino Poachers Arrested - South African police arrest 11 ...

Official Google Blog: Google <b>News</b> turns eight

Today we celebrate the eighth birthday of Google News. Not long after the tragic events of September 11, 2001, we started building and testing Google News with the aim of helping you find current events from a wide variety of global and ...

United Nations general assembly – live | <b>News</b> | guardian.co.uk

Barack Obama, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Nick Clegg are among the world leaders in New York for the United Nations general assembly. Follow live updates here.


robert shumake

Wild <b>News</b>

Over 500 Tourists Visit Gorillas in the DRC - Great news coming out of the Virunga National Park, they hit a record 500 tourists who came to visit this past August -- Read more. Rhino Poachers Arrested - South African police arrest 11 ...

Official Google Blog: Google <b>News</b> turns eight

Today we celebrate the eighth birthday of Google News. Not long after the tragic events of September 11, 2001, we started building and testing Google News with the aim of helping you find current events from a wide variety of global and ...

United Nations general assembly – live | <b>News</b> | guardian.co.uk

Barack Obama, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Nick Clegg are among the world leaders in New York for the United Nations general assembly. Follow live updates here.




WealthyAffiliate Scam? by keny luger


robert shumake

Wild <b>News</b>

Over 500 Tourists Visit Gorillas in the DRC - Great news coming out of the Virunga National Park, they hit a record 500 tourists who came to visit this past August -- Read more. Rhino Poachers Arrested - South African police arrest 11 ...

Official Google Blog: Google <b>News</b> turns eight

Today we celebrate the eighth birthday of Google News. Not long after the tragic events of September 11, 2001, we started building and testing Google News with the aim of helping you find current events from a wide variety of global and ...

United Nations general assembly – live | <b>News</b> | guardian.co.uk

Barack Obama, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Nick Clegg are among the world leaders in New York for the United Nations general assembly. Follow live updates here.


robert shumake

Wild <b>News</b>

Over 500 Tourists Visit Gorillas in the DRC - Great news coming out of the Virunga National Park, they hit a record 500 tourists who came to visit this past August -- Read more. Rhino Poachers Arrested - South African police arrest 11 ...

Official Google Blog: Google <b>News</b> turns eight

Today we celebrate the eighth birthday of Google News. Not long after the tragic events of September 11, 2001, we started building and testing Google News with the aim of helping you find current events from a wide variety of global and ...

United Nations general assembly – live | <b>News</b> | guardian.co.uk

Barack Obama, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Nick Clegg are among the world leaders in New York for the United Nations general assembly. Follow live updates here.

















Wednesday, September 22, 2010

Making Money With a Website


I'm thrilled at the response to my previous blog post on America's need for 401(k) reform. The bad news is that big business has already developed a strategy to kill reform -- by intimidating the rank and file into lobbying against it. And it's perfectly legal.



While President Obama justifiably criticized the Supreme Court's Citizen United ruling that pretty much removes the limits from campaign spending in advertising, the real scandal on Capitol Hill isn't bankrolling corrupt candidates but creating a "fake citizens lobby" that convinces elected officials to vote the wrong way. It's perfectly legal for big business to pressure employees to lobby against reform that would help employees -- presumably employing the "spin" that reform is a job killer.



The group that's behind this tactic is one you've probably never heard of, BIPAC, a coalition of business owners and associations. When it comes to corporate skulduggery, you can't get much more lowlife than the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM), one of BIPAC's leading members. NAM has fought against regulating derivatives because doing so "could hinder job creation for manufacturing" -- gee, which factories manufacture derivatives? NAM has also demanded the overhaul of the Family and Medical Leave Act because employees abuse it, and argued that employees who suffer from repetitive stress injuries such as carpal tunnel syndrome aren't really disabled.



There's a good chance that a "fake grass-roots effort" orchestrated by NAM helped convince members of Congress to drop their support for the Employee Free Choice Act, which lets workers opt for unionization simply by signing cards rather than through secret ballot elections. When I went to the page on a website that BIPAC created displaying sample campaigns, I saw a link where employees of NAM's member companies are encouraged to "Tell Members of Congress to Oppose the 'Employee FORCED Choice Act." Technically speaking, businesses can't punish employees who refuse to go along with this effort but in these tough economic times, I wouldn't be surprised if employees are likely to do what they're told rather than risk their job security.



Not surprisingly, NAM is a member of an employer group whose purpose is to fight any reform of 401(k) plans called The Coalition on Employee Retirement Benefits (CERB). Remember Enron? One of its most despicable practices was matching employees 401(k) contributions with company stock, which turns into "play money" if the company goes under. It's very likely that CERB's lobbying efforts watered down the Pension Security Act, which merely allows workers to sell company stock within three years of receiving it rather than limiting it in 401(k) accounts or prohibiting it altogether. As I pointed out in my book, "America, Welcome to the Poorhouse," in a letter to members of the Senate Finance Committee, CERB hints that if Congress is too hard on employers they might stop making 401(k) contributions altogether: " employers are not allowed to meet the legitimate business of encouraging employee ownership...they are likely to reduce or eliminate matching contributions."



How do we get members of Congress to work for the taxpayers who pay their salaries, as opposed to the business lobby? My thinking is that the chance of passing genuine campaign reform legislation is slim -- especially since Congress would have to vote for it. Instead we should create a citizens lobby, comprised of blue and white collar Americans who are watching their American dream turn into a nightmare, whether we're talking about higher medical co-pays, or unaffordable mortgages. Even when it comes to job shortages, most of us are "all in this financial stress together" -- whether we're affected by blue-collar factory jobs that have been outsourced to China or radiology/engineering jobs that have been off-shored to India.



As former SEIU President Andy Stern told me, "Team USA is in trouble. We don't have a plan. Let's grow up, people. This is a global economic war. We need to shake off complacency and get out of our self-analytical malaise." Forget about this Tea Party nonsense, we need a genuine new American revolution against the business lobby and those in Washington who do its bidding.










[Editor's note: Please welcome kyledeb, one of our favorite Latino bloggers from the great Citizen Orange, to the C&L team. kyle will be posting irregularly on immigration and Latino matters for us. -- DN]


The nativist noise machine is gearing up for a vote on the DREAM Act after Senate Majority Harry Reid (D-NV) announced he would introduce it as an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act as early as next week.


Right now, the nativist growls are just grumbles. The media is too focused on the Republican implosion in Delaware to provide much of an echo chamber. That will change, though, as the DREAM Act comes closer to a vote. (For more on the DREAM Act and the implications of this vote, read this).


As soon as Reid announced that he would introduce the DREAM Act, Sen. David Vittor (R-LA) took to the Senate floor to denounce Reid's ploy "to use our hard-earned money to pay for in-state college tuition for illegal aliens." This, of course, is a false characterization of the DREAM Act.


Rep. Brian Bilbray (R-CA) took to FOX News to try and tie talented undocumented youth to the tragic massacre of 72 migrants in Mexico. Bilbray of course, is the board member of a hate group, as identified by the Southern Poverty Law Center.


But at this point, no one has seized on this opportunity to spread nativist ugliness like Michelle Malkin, who has spread her false and dehumanizing rhetoric through multiple blog posts and an appearance on FOX News. There's not much I can say about Michelle Malkin that hasn't been said already. The truth is I debated even discussing nativists like her. For the purposes of the DREAM Act, they have no real political power.


As much as nativists like to cite misleading polls, the public doesn't want demagoguery or sound bites on immigration, they want solutions. The DREAM Act, specifically, is supported by 70% of the U.S. public. That's not to diminish the real human cost of nativists' hateful rhetoric. It is no doubt related to rising hate crimes against migrants and Latinos, and I can attest to the fact that it shrouds migrant communities in terror. But for the purposes of the passing the DREAM Act, they mean nothing.


As read about Michelle Malkin making false statements about the DREAM Act on Fox & Friends, only to elaborate on those statements on a white supremacist website, an idea came to me. Here's my idea: after this post I will not devote a single iota of thought to nativists like Michelle Malkin unless they are willing to sit down and have a conversation with Gaby Pacheco.



Gaby Pacheco, for those who don't know, is an inspiration. Gaby's dream is to become a teacher for children with special needs. Despite all the obstacles she faced as an undocumented student, she has already graduated from Miami Dade College with a bachelor's degree in special education, and two associate's degrees. However, she can't use her degrees for the betterment of this country because she's not allowed to work.


A few years ago, when Gaby became one of the few undocumented youth to come out and publicly declare their immigration status, she suffered through what is every public undocumented youth's worst nightmare: Immigration and Customs Enforcement went after her family. She fought through it. While she and her family are still at risk of deportation and have no path to legal status, she continues to fight.


You would think that an experience like that would make someone more bitter and hateful than Michelle Malkin, if you will, but not Gaby. Instead she embarked on a 1,500-mile trek to Washington D.C., the Trail of DREAMs it was called, to fight for her right to exist in the only country she knows as her home.


I'm told that Gaby gets mad sometimes, but I haven't seen it. She's bursting with love. In fact, she often refers to the people around her as "my love." If you don't believe it just consider what she did when she met the notorious nativist Arizona sheriff: Joe Arpaio. She hugged him. She had pro-migrant people like myself vomiting at the thought she'd hug a a leading advocate and practitioner of violence and terror against our communities.


So, again, I challenge Michelle Malkin, and any other nativists who spread hate and lies about the DREAM Act in the next week, to have a conversation with Gaby Pacheco. This is not a media stunt. I haven't even cleared this with Gaby, yet. She might very well think this is a stupid idea. Even more likely, she might not have the time as she pushes for the DREAM Act.


I want to be clear, I'm not challenging Michelle Malkin to a debate with Gaby Pacheco. This is not about two talking heads going on television to attack each other. I'm challenging Malkin to a conversation with Gaby, preferably in person. I want her to personally meet the people she dehumanizes on television. It doesn't even have to be public if Malkin can't stomach that. I would settle for having them sit down at a couch like they do on Fox & Friends.


Why should Michelle Malkin listen to me? She probably shouldn't, just as I shouldn't listen to her. Gaby probably shouldn't listen to both of us. This Gaby Pacheco challenge is just a simple way for me to mentally block out the whimpering of a small claque of nativists who are likely to get louder as the fight for the DREAM Act heats up. It's also a way to expose just how cowardly and meaningless these people really are.




Arrowheadlines: Chiefs <b>News</b> 9/22 - Arrowhead Pride

Good morning Chiefs fans. Another day means more Kansas City Chiefs news. Let's be sure to play nice in the comment sections today. We're all Chiefs fans even if we might have different (though no less passionate) visions of what this ...

Chemical industry <b>news</b>

Previously you would have found the latest Chemical Industry News from our news server site. Acquisitions, mergers, share prices, new chemical industry trading…

Real-Time <b>News</b> Curation - The Complete Guide Part 3: Types And <b>...</b>

What's more important? To save editors time and abilities in finding and reporting the most relevant stories so that they can dwell more on content production, or to leverage to-the-max the power of new media technologies such as.


robert shumake

Arrowheadlines: Chiefs <b>News</b> 9/22 - Arrowhead Pride

Good morning Chiefs fans. Another day means more Kansas City Chiefs news. Let's be sure to play nice in the comment sections today. We're all Chiefs fans even if we might have different (though no less passionate) visions of what this ...

Chemical industry <b>news</b>

Previously you would have found the latest Chemical Industry News from our news server site. Acquisitions, mergers, share prices, new chemical industry trading…

Real-Time <b>News</b> Curation - The Complete Guide Part 3: Types And <b>...</b>

What's more important? To save editors time and abilities in finding and reporting the most relevant stories so that they can dwell more on content production, or to leverage to-the-max the power of new media technologies such as.



I'm thrilled at the response to my previous blog post on America's need for 401(k) reform. The bad news is that big business has already developed a strategy to kill reform -- by intimidating the rank and file into lobbying against it. And it's perfectly legal.



While President Obama justifiably criticized the Supreme Court's Citizen United ruling that pretty much removes the limits from campaign spending in advertising, the real scandal on Capitol Hill isn't bankrolling corrupt candidates but creating a "fake citizens lobby" that convinces elected officials to vote the wrong way. It's perfectly legal for big business to pressure employees to lobby against reform that would help employees -- presumably employing the "spin" that reform is a job killer.



The group that's behind this tactic is one you've probably never heard of, BIPAC, a coalition of business owners and associations. When it comes to corporate skulduggery, you can't get much more lowlife than the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM), one of BIPAC's leading members. NAM has fought against regulating derivatives because doing so "could hinder job creation for manufacturing" -- gee, which factories manufacture derivatives? NAM has also demanded the overhaul of the Family and Medical Leave Act because employees abuse it, and argued that employees who suffer from repetitive stress injuries such as carpal tunnel syndrome aren't really disabled.



There's a good chance that a "fake grass-roots effort" orchestrated by NAM helped convince members of Congress to drop their support for the Employee Free Choice Act, which lets workers opt for unionization simply by signing cards rather than through secret ballot elections. When I went to the page on a website that BIPAC created displaying sample campaigns, I saw a link where employees of NAM's member companies are encouraged to "Tell Members of Congress to Oppose the 'Employee FORCED Choice Act." Technically speaking, businesses can't punish employees who refuse to go along with this effort but in these tough economic times, I wouldn't be surprised if employees are likely to do what they're told rather than risk their job security.



Not surprisingly, NAM is a member of an employer group whose purpose is to fight any reform of 401(k) plans called The Coalition on Employee Retirement Benefits (CERB). Remember Enron? One of its most despicable practices was matching employees 401(k) contributions with company stock, which turns into "play money" if the company goes under. It's very likely that CERB's lobbying efforts watered down the Pension Security Act, which merely allows workers to sell company stock within three years of receiving it rather than limiting it in 401(k) accounts or prohibiting it altogether. As I pointed out in my book, "America, Welcome to the Poorhouse," in a letter to members of the Senate Finance Committee, CERB hints that if Congress is too hard on employers they might stop making 401(k) contributions altogether: " employers are not allowed to meet the legitimate business of encouraging employee ownership...they are likely to reduce or eliminate matching contributions."



How do we get members of Congress to work for the taxpayers who pay their salaries, as opposed to the business lobby? My thinking is that the chance of passing genuine campaign reform legislation is slim -- especially since Congress would have to vote for it. Instead we should create a citizens lobby, comprised of blue and white collar Americans who are watching their American dream turn into a nightmare, whether we're talking about higher medical co-pays, or unaffordable mortgages. Even when it comes to job shortages, most of us are "all in this financial stress together" -- whether we're affected by blue-collar factory jobs that have been outsourced to China or radiology/engineering jobs that have been off-shored to India.



As former SEIU President Andy Stern told me, "Team USA is in trouble. We don't have a plan. Let's grow up, people. This is a global economic war. We need to shake off complacency and get out of our self-analytical malaise." Forget about this Tea Party nonsense, we need a genuine new American revolution against the business lobby and those in Washington who do its bidding.










[Editor's note: Please welcome kyledeb, one of our favorite Latino bloggers from the great Citizen Orange, to the C&L team. kyle will be posting irregularly on immigration and Latino matters for us. -- DN]


The nativist noise machine is gearing up for a vote on the DREAM Act after Senate Majority Harry Reid (D-NV) announced he would introduce it as an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act as early as next week.


Right now, the nativist growls are just grumbles. The media is too focused on the Republican implosion in Delaware to provide much of an echo chamber. That will change, though, as the DREAM Act comes closer to a vote. (For more on the DREAM Act and the implications of this vote, read this).


As soon as Reid announced that he would introduce the DREAM Act, Sen. David Vittor (R-LA) took to the Senate floor to denounce Reid's ploy "to use our hard-earned money to pay for in-state college tuition for illegal aliens." This, of course, is a false characterization of the DREAM Act.


Rep. Brian Bilbray (R-CA) took to FOX News to try and tie talented undocumented youth to the tragic massacre of 72 migrants in Mexico. Bilbray of course, is the board member of a hate group, as identified by the Southern Poverty Law Center.


But at this point, no one has seized on this opportunity to spread nativist ugliness like Michelle Malkin, who has spread her false and dehumanizing rhetoric through multiple blog posts and an appearance on FOX News. There's not much I can say about Michelle Malkin that hasn't been said already. The truth is I debated even discussing nativists like her. For the purposes of the DREAM Act, they have no real political power.


As much as nativists like to cite misleading polls, the public doesn't want demagoguery or sound bites on immigration, they want solutions. The DREAM Act, specifically, is supported by 70% of the U.S. public. That's not to diminish the real human cost of nativists' hateful rhetoric. It is no doubt related to rising hate crimes against migrants and Latinos, and I can attest to the fact that it shrouds migrant communities in terror. But for the purposes of the passing the DREAM Act, they mean nothing.


As read about Michelle Malkin making false statements about the DREAM Act on Fox & Friends, only to elaborate on those statements on a white supremacist website, an idea came to me. Here's my idea: after this post I will not devote a single iota of thought to nativists like Michelle Malkin unless they are willing to sit down and have a conversation with Gaby Pacheco.



Gaby Pacheco, for those who don't know, is an inspiration. Gaby's dream is to become a teacher for children with special needs. Despite all the obstacles she faced as an undocumented student, she has already graduated from Miami Dade College with a bachelor's degree in special education, and two associate's degrees. However, she can't use her degrees for the betterment of this country because she's not allowed to work.


A few years ago, when Gaby became one of the few undocumented youth to come out and publicly declare their immigration status, she suffered through what is every public undocumented youth's worst nightmare: Immigration and Customs Enforcement went after her family. She fought through it. While she and her family are still at risk of deportation and have no path to legal status, she continues to fight.


You would think that an experience like that would make someone more bitter and hateful than Michelle Malkin, if you will, but not Gaby. Instead she embarked on a 1,500-mile trek to Washington D.C., the Trail of DREAMs it was called, to fight for her right to exist in the only country she knows as her home.


I'm told that Gaby gets mad sometimes, but I haven't seen it. She's bursting with love. In fact, she often refers to the people around her as "my love." If you don't believe it just consider what she did when she met the notorious nativist Arizona sheriff: Joe Arpaio. She hugged him. She had pro-migrant people like myself vomiting at the thought she'd hug a a leading advocate and practitioner of violence and terror against our communities.


So, again, I challenge Michelle Malkin, and any other nativists who spread hate and lies about the DREAM Act in the next week, to have a conversation with Gaby Pacheco. This is not a media stunt. I haven't even cleared this with Gaby, yet. She might very well think this is a stupid idea. Even more likely, she might not have the time as she pushes for the DREAM Act.


I want to be clear, I'm not challenging Michelle Malkin to a debate with Gaby Pacheco. This is not about two talking heads going on television to attack each other. I'm challenging Malkin to a conversation with Gaby, preferably in person. I want her to personally meet the people she dehumanizes on television. It doesn't even have to be public if Malkin can't stomach that. I would settle for having them sit down at a couch like they do on Fox & Friends.


Why should Michelle Malkin listen to me? She probably shouldn't, just as I shouldn't listen to her. Gaby probably shouldn't listen to both of us. This Gaby Pacheco challenge is just a simple way for me to mentally block out the whimpering of a small claque of nativists who are likely to get louder as the fight for the DREAM Act heats up. It's also a way to expose just how cowardly and meaningless these people really are.





Website tester by Join my success!


robert shumake

Arrowheadlines: Chiefs <b>News</b> 9/22 - Arrowhead Pride

Good morning Chiefs fans. Another day means more Kansas City Chiefs news. Let's be sure to play nice in the comment sections today. We're all Chiefs fans even if we might have different (though no less passionate) visions of what this ...

Chemical industry <b>news</b>

Previously you would have found the latest Chemical Industry News from our news server site. Acquisitions, mergers, share prices, new chemical industry trading…

Real-Time <b>News</b> Curation - The Complete Guide Part 3: Types And <b>...</b>

What's more important? To save editors time and abilities in finding and reporting the most relevant stories so that they can dwell more on content production, or to leverage to-the-max the power of new media technologies such as.


robert shumake

Arrowheadlines: Chiefs <b>News</b> 9/22 - Arrowhead Pride

Good morning Chiefs fans. Another day means more Kansas City Chiefs news. Let's be sure to play nice in the comment sections today. We're all Chiefs fans even if we might have different (though no less passionate) visions of what this ...

Chemical industry <b>news</b>

Previously you would have found the latest Chemical Industry News from our news server site. Acquisitions, mergers, share prices, new chemical industry trading…

Real-Time <b>News</b> Curation - The Complete Guide Part 3: Types And <b>...</b>

What's more important? To save editors time and abilities in finding and reporting the most relevant stories so that they can dwell more on content production, or to leverage to-the-max the power of new media technologies such as.

















Tuesday, September 21, 2010

personal financeonline personal finance


A Compass That Lights The Way - Science <b>News</b>

Instrument senses magnetic field direction optically.

More Fallout Online art dribbles out MMO <b>News</b> - Page 1 | Eurogamer.net

Read our MMO news of More Fallout Online art dribbles out.

Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH2 announced and previewed: Digital <b>...</b>

Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH2 announced and previewed: Photokina 2010: Panasonic has announced the DMC-GH2 Micro Four Thirds camera. The successor to the GH1 continues with its 'hybrid' stills/video philosophy but adds a host of tweaks and ...


robert shumake

A Compass That Lights The Way - Science <b>News</b>

Instrument senses magnetic field direction optically.

More Fallout Online art dribbles out MMO <b>News</b> - Page 1 | Eurogamer.net

Read our MMO news of More Fallout Online art dribbles out.

Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH2 announced and previewed: Digital <b>...</b>

Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH2 announced and previewed: Photokina 2010: Panasonic has announced the DMC-GH2 Micro Four Thirds camera. The successor to the GH1 continues with its 'hybrid' stills/video philosophy but adds a host of tweaks and ...




robert shumake

A Compass That Lights The Way - Science <b>News</b>

Instrument senses magnetic field direction optically.

More Fallout Online art dribbles out MMO <b>News</b> - Page 1 | Eurogamer.net

Read our MMO news of More Fallout Online art dribbles out.

Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH2 announced and previewed: Digital <b>...</b>

Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH2 announced and previewed: Photokina 2010: Panasonic has announced the DMC-GH2 Micro Four Thirds camera. The successor to the GH1 continues with its 'hybrid' stills/video philosophy but adds a host of tweaks and ...


robert shumake

A Compass That Lights The Way - Science <b>News</b>

Instrument senses magnetic field direction optically.

More Fallout Online art dribbles out MMO <b>News</b> - Page 1 | Eurogamer.net

Read our MMO news of More Fallout Online art dribbles out.

Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH2 announced and previewed: Digital <b>...</b>

Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH2 announced and previewed: Photokina 2010: Panasonic has announced the DMC-GH2 Micro Four Thirds camera. The successor to the GH1 continues with its 'hybrid' stills/video philosophy but adds a host of tweaks and ...

















Saturday, September 18, 2010

personal financeonline personal finance


eric seiger dermatology how to lose weight fast penis extender

Pope visits Britain: protests and Hyde Park vigil | <b>News</b> <b>...</b>

Pope expresses 'deep sorrow and shame' over abuse • Benedict met five victims of clerical sex abuse • Pontiff meets party leaders ahead of a Hyde Park vigil • Thousands attend march by the Protest the…

The Hockey <b>News</b>: Edward Fraser&#39;s blog: THN.com Blog: Flyers “way <b>...</b>

Philadelphia's senior vice president explains why this year's team will be even tougher and why their goaltending situation is where they want it to be.

Capcom&#39;s profits plummet <b>News</b> - Page 1 | Eurogamer.net

Read our news of Capcom's profits plummet. ... Bionic Commando faceoff comparison video 18 June, 2009. Bionic Commando - Trailer 18 May, 2009. Latest News. Ex-GRIN devs open new studio . Capcom unveils BC: Rearmed 2 ...





































Tuesday, September 14, 2010

personal finance budgets


Behold: the most profoundly pessimistic attack ad of 2010. Meg Whitman has delivered unto us a masterpiece of dirty politics.



What is most striking about this already-infamous ad isn't the boldness of its mendacity--though it certainly has that--but the cynicism of its timing. It's the sort of unabashedly nasty hit that one would expect just days before an election, and even then only from an outside interest group. Yet here it is, delivered to us in early September with Meg Whitman's name right there on the card. By not only producing so brazen a piece of misinformation but also airing it with more than enough time to effectively rebut, Whitman is betting the house on the politics of personal animosity.



If you live in California or happen to be a political junkie, you've no doubt seen it already and can skip the next paragraph. But for those of you who have avoided it (probably due to a weak stomach or some lingering, endangered shred of personal or political optimism) here's a recap:



Bill Clinton, in a 1992 debate, sits face-to-face with Jerry Brown. Brown looks at Clinton like a kid called to the principal's office. Clinton blasts Brown as a tax-raising liar: "CNN, not me, CNN says his assertion about his tax record was, quote, 'just plain wrong.' He raised taxes as Governor of California. He doesn't tell the people the truth." That's two levels of surrogate Whitman is hiding behind, for those of you keeping track. On its own, the ad is devastating.



There's just one little problem: That CNN report turned out to be "just plain wrong," and Whitman's campaign--like all interested parties--has been fully aware of that for some time. From what the San Jose Mercury-News has been able to piece together, the CNN report used the wrong years both in determining the base of comparison and in identifying the budgets Brown had control over. This made it seem Brown was responsible for a sizable tax increase during Reagan's last year in office and failed to give him credit for tax cuts later in his tenure. The LA Times and California Department of Finance also revisited the numbers and found them to be outright wrong, for the same reasons, in the same ways. Brown was telling the truth. He had cut taxes as Governor of California.



Whitman knew full well that the story was a lie, but she wanted to repeat it all the same. The excuse her communications director offered the Mercury-News: "Bill Clinton, not me, said Jerry Brown 'doesn't tell people the truth.'" Sound familiar?



But this ad is so much more perverse than any simple repetition of untruths. It practically baits a popular former president into entering the fray on the side of Whitman's opponent, yet rests comfortably on the belief that personal grievances and misgivings will trump ethics and ideology to prevent any serious intervention by Clinton or one of the nation's most popular fact checkers.



Yes, in case you missed it, there is yet another personality being ironically misused by this ad. Brooks Jackson, the reporter responsible for this particular "oopsie," now heads FactCheck.org. If you didn't already know that, give yourself a moment to let it sink in: The man whose erroneous report is still fueling factually-incorrect campaign advertisements nearly two decades later is also the guy we all run to when we question the veracity of claims in a political advertisement.



For his part, Jackson acknowledged the error on FactCheck.org in a manner only slightly more embarrassing than admirable. Unlike other political ads targeted by FactCheck, the correction has yet to warrant an actual article on the site. Jackson did, however, post a blog entry on the topic on one of the site's secondary pages. It fails to even mention the Clinton ad and generally reads more like a lengthy rationalization than a correction. He even works in the astonishing insinuation that Prop 13 was a reaction to Brown's high taxes. (Prop 13, patently a reaction to soaring property values and their impact on property tax rates, was not included in the figures used to correct Jackson's report.) After muddying the waters for seven paragraphs, he concludes that state taxes "increased during four of Brown's eight years, and during six of those years they were higher than before he took office. But they were lower during his final two years."



The Mercury-News, State Department of Finance and Associated Press see things a little differently. By about $16 billion in tax cuts during Brown's first seven years in office, and $4 billion in savings per year between 1978 and 1982. Not counting the savings from Prop 13. So much for a gentleman admitting he was wrong.



Not that Jackson matters much to Brown's campaign. Both Brown and Whitman know that only one man can make this ad backfire on Whitman: former president Clinton. Whitman is betting (perhaps unwisely, given Clinton's general election campaigning for Barack Obama,) that 18 years after their bitter battle for the Democratic nomination, Clinton still hates Brown so much that he will refuse defend him with any real conviction.



Exactly how acrimonious was the Clinton-Brown contest? The clip in Whitman's ad might be called one of its more friendly exchanges.



In what was widely taken as an allusion to Brown's onslaught of attacks on Clinton's character, Jesse Jackson opened one debate by chastising the candidates for getting too caught up in "attacks and counterattacks." It didn't slow Brown down. Later that evening, he accused Clinton of racial insensitivity for playing golf at a whites-only country club and using black prisoners as campaign props.



At the final debate, when Brown (not without his own, similar conflicts of interest,) accused Clinton of "funneling money to his wife's law firm," Clinton shot back, "You're not worth being on the same platform as my wife."



The highlight (or low point) of that debate was when Clinton said, "I feel sorry for Jerry Brown... He asked me to support him for President once." When a moderator asked if he did, Clinton didn't miss a beat before shooting back, "Of course not." Footage circulated from the night appears to show gathered reporters roaring with laughter. Whitman probably has that ad already in the can.



In an email blast from Brown's campaign the morning the ad came out, Brown was quick to let Clinton off the hook. The former president had "later learned" that the numbers were incorrect, according to the letter to supporters. But it's a lot easier for Jerry Brown to play nice for the sake of his own campaign than it will be for Bill Clinton, who doesn't need any favors, to come riding to Brown's rescue.



Is Clinton still unable to put the past behind him?



Pundits have pointed to his early support for Gavin Newsom over Brown as proof that he still holds a grudge. But was Clinton's support of Newsom the result of his decades-old feud with Brown, or of a more recently developed loyalty? Newsom was a very vocal, enthusiastic supporter of Hillary Clinton during the 2008 primaries.



Ironically, that support might have been born out of the former San Francisco Mayor's own feud with another Democratic president. In 2007, Newsom implied to Reuters that Obama, "As God is my witness, will not be photographed with me, will not be in the same room with me." At issue was Newsom's having granted marriage licenses to same-sex couples.



The Obama-Newsom feud was verified in early 2008, when Willie Brown (backed by several Newsom staffers) gave a much more detailed account of the disputed incident to the San Francisco Chronicle. Obama's campaign denied the accusation, telling Politico that the incoming president was so "pissed" over the stories that the new administration "may give San Francisco to Canada."



Newsom might well have supported Hillary Clinton just as enthusiastically regardless of his personal feelings about Obama. Still, it's tempting to imagine that his feud with the current president might have, just as much as Bill Clinton's animosity toward Jerry Brown, circuitously earned him the former president's support. In politics, there is seldom a single reason for anything, and with so many personal feuds and vendettas driving the nation's politics, it's more than a little difficult to keep straight which one is motivating whom and when.



Will Clinton step in? If he wants to keep that "team player" image he so carefully rebuilt during the 2008 general election, he'll have to. But will he do so looking like an angry, misused Brown supporter or a fellow Democrat forced by party allegiance to go through the motions? I don't know.



What I can say with certainty is that Meg Whitman doesn't even take seriously the possibility that Bill Clinton would rather campaign for Jerry Brown than be seen as the man responsible for costing Democrats the California governor's mansion.



Update: Around the time that this posted, stories about Brown's remarks about Clinton at a campaign event Sunday were beginning to spread. So it seems that Whitman was probably right. "No matter how cynical you become, it's never enough to keep up." - Lily Tomlin.







Behold: the most profoundly pessimistic attack ad of 2010. Meg Whitman has delivered unto us a masterpiece of dirty politics.



What is most striking about this already-infamous ad isn't the boldness of its mendacity--though it certainly has that--but the cynicism of its timing. It's the sort of unabashedly nasty hit that one would expect just days before an election, and even then only from an outside interest group. Yet here it is, delivered to us in early September with Meg Whitman's name right there on the card. By not only producing so brazen a piece of misinformation but also airing it with more than enough time to effectively rebut, Whitman is betting the house on the politics of personal animosity.



If you live in California or happen to be a political junkie, you've no doubt seen it already and can skip the next paragraph. But for those of you who have avoided it (probably due to a weak stomach or some lingering, endangered shred of personal or political optimism) here's a recap:



Bill Clinton, in a 1992 debate, sits face-to-face with Jerry Brown. Brown looks at Clinton like a kid called to the principal's office. Clinton blasts Brown as a tax-raising liar: "CNN, not me, CNN says his assertion about his tax record was, quote, 'just plain wrong.' He raised taxes as Governor of California. He doesn't tell the people the truth." That's two levels of surrogate Whitman is hiding behind, for those of you keeping track. On its own, the ad is devastating.



There's just one little problem: That CNN report turned out to be "just plain wrong," and Whitman's campaign--like all interested parties--has been fully aware of that for some time. From what the San Jose Mercury-News has been able to piece together, the CNN report used the wrong years both in determining the base of comparison and in identifying the budgets Brown had control over. This made it seem Brown was responsible for a sizable tax increase during Reagan's last year in office and failed to give him credit for tax cuts later in his tenure. The LA Times and California Department of Finance also revisited the numbers and found them to be outright wrong, for the same reasons, in the same ways. Brown was telling the truth. He had cut taxes as Governor of California.



Whitman knew full well that the story was a lie, but she wanted to repeat it all the same. The excuse her communications director offered the Mercury-News: "Bill Clinton, not me, said Jerry Brown 'doesn't tell people the truth.'" Sound familiar?



But this ad is so much more perverse than any simple repetition of untruths. It practically baits a popular former president into entering the fray on the side of Whitman's opponent, yet rests comfortably on the belief that personal grievances and misgivings will trump ethics and ideology to prevent any serious intervention by Clinton or one of the nation's most popular fact checkers.



Yes, in case you missed it, there is yet another personality being ironically misused by this ad. Brooks Jackson, the reporter responsible for this particular "oopsie," now heads FactCheck.org. If you didn't already know that, give yourself a moment to let it sink in: The man whose erroneous report is still fueling factually-incorrect campaign advertisements nearly two decades later is also the guy we all run to when we question the veracity of claims in a political advertisement.



For his part, Jackson acknowledged the error on FactCheck.org in a manner only slightly more embarrassing than admirable. Unlike other political ads targeted by FactCheck, the correction has yet to warrant an actual article on the site. Jackson did, however, post a blog entry on the topic on one of the site's secondary pages. It fails to even mention the Clinton ad and generally reads more like a lengthy rationalization than a correction. He even works in the astonishing insinuation that Prop 13 was a reaction to Brown's high taxes. (Prop 13, patently a reaction to soaring property values and their impact on property tax rates, was not included in the figures used to correct Jackson's report.) After muddying the waters for seven paragraphs, he concludes that state taxes "increased during four of Brown's eight years, and during six of those years they were higher than before he took office. But they were lower during his final two years."



The Mercury-News, State Department of Finance and Associated Press see things a little differently. By about $16 billion in tax cuts during Brown's first seven years in office, and $4 billion in savings per year between 1978 and 1982. Not counting the savings from Prop 13. So much for a gentleman admitting he was wrong.



Not that Jackson matters much to Brown's campaign. Both Brown and Whitman know that only one man can make this ad backfire on Whitman: former president Clinton. Whitman is betting (perhaps unwisely, given Clinton's general election campaigning for Barack Obama,) that 18 years after their bitter battle for the Democratic nomination, Clinton still hates Brown so much that he will refuse defend him with any real conviction.



Exactly how acrimonious was the Clinton-Brown contest? The clip in Whitman's ad might be called one of its more friendly exchanges.



In what was widely taken as an allusion to Brown's onslaught of attacks on Clinton's character, Jesse Jackson opened one debate by chastising the candidates for getting too caught up in "attacks and counterattacks." It didn't slow Brown down. Later that evening, he accused Clinton of racial insensitivity for playing golf at a whites-only country club and using black prisoners as campaign props.



At the final debate, when Brown (not without his own, similar conflicts of interest,) accused Clinton of "funneling money to his wife's law firm," Clinton shot back, "You're not worth being on the same platform as my wife."



The highlight (or low point) of that debate was when Clinton said, "I feel sorry for Jerry Brown... He asked me to support him for President once." When a moderator asked if he did, Clinton didn't miss a beat before shooting back, "Of course not." Footage circulated from the night appears to show gathered reporters roaring with laughter. Whitman probably has that ad already in the can.



In an email blast from Brown's campaign the morning the ad came out, Brown was quick to let Clinton off the hook. The former president had "later learned" that the numbers were incorrect, according to the letter to supporters. But it's a lot easier for Jerry Brown to play nice for the sake of his own campaign than it will be for Bill Clinton, who doesn't need any favors, to come riding to Brown's rescue.



Is Clinton still unable to put the past behind him?



Pundits have pointed to his early support for Gavin Newsom over Brown as proof that he still holds a grudge. But was Clinton's support of Newsom the result of his decades-old feud with Brown, or of a more recently developed loyalty? Newsom was a very vocal, enthusiastic supporter of Hillary Clinton during the 2008 primaries.



Ironically, that support might have been born out of the former San Francisco Mayor's own feud with another Democratic president. In 2007, Newsom implied to Reuters that Obama, "As God is my witness, will not be photographed with me, will not be in the same room with me." At issue was Newsom's having granted marriage licenses to same-sex couples.



The Obama-Newsom feud was verified in early 2008, when Willie Brown (backed by several Newsom staffers) gave a much more detailed account of the disputed incident to the San Francisco Chronicle. Obama's campaign denied the accusation, telling Politico that the incoming president was so "pissed" over the stories that the new administration "may give San Francisco to Canada."



Newsom might well have supported Hillary Clinton just as enthusiastically regardless of his personal feelings about Obama. Still, it's tempting to imagine that his feud with the current president might have, just as much as Bill Clinton's animosity toward Jerry Brown, circuitously earned him the former president's support. In politics, there is seldom a single reason for anything, and with so many personal feuds and vendettas driving the nation's politics, it's more than a little difficult to keep straight which one is motivating whom and when.



Will Clinton step in? If he wants to keep that "team player" image he so carefully rebuilt during the 2008 general election, he'll have to. But will he do so looking like an angry, misused Brown supporter or a fellow Democrat forced by party allegiance to go through the motions? I don't know.



What I can say with certainty is that Meg Whitman doesn't even take seriously the possibility that Bill Clinton would rather campaign for Jerry Brown than be seen as the man responsible for costing Democrats the California governor's mansion.



Update: Around the time that this posted, stories about Brown's remarks about Clinton at a campaign event Sunday were beginning to spread. So it seems that Whitman was probably right. "No matter how cynical you become, it's never enough to keep up." - Lily Tomlin.







penis extender

New Children&#39;s Book Coming from President Obama - Political Punch

As part of the book deal then-Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., inked in 2004, Random House today announced the publication of a children's book by the president, “Of Thee I Sing: A Letter to My Daughters.” Political Punch Blog.

The Hockey <b>News</b>: Rumor Roundup: Rumor Roundup: Teams still over <b>...</b>

In a recent interview with Mike Heika of the Dallas Morning News Richards acknowledged he won't be able to talk contract with the Stars until they have new ownership, but said he understood the situation and wasn't bothered by it. ...

Famed Civil Rights Photographer Ernest Withers Exposed as FBI <b>...</b>

(Sept. 14) -- Civil rights photographer Ernest Withers did double duty as an FBI informant, divulging the most intimate and potentially damaging secrets of his confidants to a government agency then dedicated to discrediting the ...



budget excel by turkifaisal2003


internet marketing course

New Children&#39;s Book Coming from President Obama - Political Punch

As part of the book deal then-Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., inked in 2004, Random House today announced the publication of a children's book by the president, “Of Thee I Sing: A Letter to My Daughters.” Political Punch Blog.

The Hockey <b>News</b>: Rumor Roundup: Rumor Roundup: Teams still over <b>...</b>

In a recent interview with Mike Heika of the Dallas Morning News Richards acknowledged he won't be able to talk contract with the Stars until they have new ownership, but said he understood the situation and wasn't bothered by it. ...

Famed Civil Rights Photographer Ernest Withers Exposed as FBI <b>...</b>

(Sept. 14) -- Civil rights photographer Ernest Withers did double duty as an FBI informant, divulging the most intimate and potentially damaging secrets of his confidants to a government agency then dedicated to discrediting the ...


big white booty

budget excel by turkifaisal2003































Monday, September 13, 2010

Making Money


















Comments


Subscribe to comments for this post OR Subscribe to comments for all ReadWriteWeb posts










  1. One thing you're missing here: Craigslist started charging for the Adult Services section at the request of previous Attorneys General with the idea that adding a charge that required a credit card would curtail the use of the section for illegal activities.



    http://www.scattorneygeneral.com/newsroom/pdf/2009/craigslist.pdf



    Posted by: Collin |
    September 8, 2010 6:04 PM




















  2. Ah! Makes sense. Updating the post. Thanks for bringing that to my attention.



     Posted by: Adrianne Jeffries |
    September 8, 2010 6:14 PM




















  3. I'm baffled as to why craigslist didn't see the profit issue ahead of time. I'm 100% behind them, but raking in millions just doesn't look good, and makes them an easy target. From day one of charging for Adult Services, they should have been giving 100% of that money to organizations that work to prevent sex trafficking and child prostitution, to make it 100% clear that the money was for filtering, not for profit.



     Posted by: Brad Weikel |
    September 8, 2010 6:17 PM




















  4. I think this is a good thing to do for Craiglist. But I bet that some thousands or maybe millions of dollars will be taken out from earnings in the industry with Craiglist ready to censor. LOL. Thanks for the info.



    Posted by: WebHosting Guru |
    September 8, 2010 7:09 PM




















  5. I'm baffled how an article on ReadWriteWeb could miss the obvious question of free speech on the internet.



    What you have here is public officials (facing re-election) using their office as a pulpit, making legal threats they know to be unenforceable, and lying to the media in order to prohibit speech which they know to be legal. State AGs are literally using a public relations campaign to circumvent an Act of Congress intended to curtail their power against just *this* kind of electioneering. That the AGs happen to be exploiting victimized children in their media campaign is almost incidental to the larger attack on the law and Constitution.



    The Communications Decency Act protects electronic publishers from liability for content produced by users of the system. Absent that immunity there could be no Google, no Blogspot, no Facebook, no WordPress.com, no Digg or Reddit, no Twitter and no comments (like this one) on ReadWriteWeb.



    The moralistic campaigns against 4chan and craigslist all lead to one inevitable conclusion: the publishers of ReadWriteWeb will be criminally and civilly liable for the comments of this community.



    Here's a concept that's new: Has anyone ever substantiated the claims that Craigslist has ever been used for child or human trafficking? Is there even one demonstrable case of this occurring? If not, then the site may have just established millions of dollars in damages for a defamation suit against it's detractors. Yes, Craigslist is a public person, that doesn't mean they can't be defamed: they just have to prove damages.



    Posted by: Baffled |
    September 8, 2010 10:04 PM




















  6. Mobile phone carriers should be banned to provide a phone number to prostitutes as they are also making tons of money from an illegale activity.



    Same thing for people selling cloth, sex toys, etc.



    Posted by: idont |
    September 9, 2010 9:21 AM























  7. eric seiger

    Monday, Sept. 13, 2010 Headlines | Albuquerque, New Mexico | KRQE <b>...</b>

    Latest Albuquerque news. Local news from Santa Fe, Durango, Farmington, Roswell, New Mexico from KRQE News 13.,

    Arrowheadlines: Chiefs <b>News</b> 9/13 - Arrowhead Pride

    Are you ready for some football? The Kansas City Chiefs finally get this thing started tonight. I know a lot of you will be at the game, I also know most of us can't make it. We will be there in spirit. Keep us in mind as you roar on ...

    Lady Gaga&#39;s MTV triumph – Entertainment <b>News</b> Bloginity.com

    Lady Gaga was the big winner at last night's (12.09.10) MTV Video Music Awards. The eccentric singer - who was nominated for a record 13 awards - took home an impressive eight trophies at the prestigious ceremony, including Video of the ...





















Sunday, September 12, 2010

Making Money Program

Gaming enthusiasts nationwide now have more reasons to shop Best Buy as their gaming destination. Launching in close to 600 Best Buy stores this week, with additional stores to soon follow, the new Best Buy Trade-In program offers customers an opportunity to sell pre-owned video games. To celebrate the new offering, customers who trade in their games beginning this Sunday, August 29, will receive an additional $20 Best Buy Gift Card on top of the trade-in value on more than 100 popular titles.


“The expansion of our trade-in program reaffirms our commitment to consistently pursue new ways to bring a better gaming experience to consumers,” said Chris Homeister, senior vice president and general manager for the home entertainment group at Best Buy. “Fall marks the launch of several highly-anticipated gaming titles and new technology, and we’re thrilled to provide gamers with innovative ways to connect with the games they love.”


Consumers can now bring their previously played video games into Best Buy and trade them for an instant Best Buy gift card to use for purchasing anything in the store, including any game or gaming accessory. Soon, they will be able to purchase a pre-owned game as well.


Those who take advantage of the new Trade-In program in store can visit the Customer Service desk, or in select locations a dedicated Trade-In desk within the gaming department, to turn in their games. Best Buy will continue to offer a similar program online at BestBuy.com that enables customers to get estimates for their games, mail them in for free and receive a Best Buy gift card 7-14 days later. Trade-In prices in-store will match the prices shown online.


For more information on Trade-In at Best Buy and to locate a store currently participating in the program, visit www.bestbuy.com/gametradein. Stay connected to Best Buy Gaming via Twitter and Facebook at Twitter.com/RZGamersClub and Facebook.com/BestBuyGaming.

Ezra Klein:




Making Social Security less generous isn't the answer, by Ezra Klein,
Commentary, Washington Post: ...Raising the Social Security retirement age
has become as close to a consensus position as exists in American politics. ...
And for a while, I agreed... People live longer today, and so they should work
later into life. But as I've looked at the issue, I've decided that I was wrong.
... We should leave the retirement age alone. In fact, we should leave Social
Security alone...


Start with the basic rationale for raising the retirement age. As Rep. Paul D.
Ryan (R-Wis.) has argued, when Social Security was signed into law, the
retirement age was 65 and life expectancy was 63. "The numbers added up pretty
well back then," he said on Fox News. But that's misleading. That figure was
driven by high infant mortality. ...


Moreover,... averages conceal a lot of inequality. In 1972, a 60-year-old male
worker who made less than the median income had a life expectancy of 78 years.
By 2001, he had a life expectancy of 80 years. Meanwhile, workers in the top
half of the income distribution shot to 85 years from 79. ...


Lurking beneath this conversation is an unquestioned assumption: We live longer,
so we should work longer. That's pretty intuitive to members of Congress, who
seem to like their jobs and don't seem to like the idea of retiring. It's also
pretty intuitive to blogger/columnists, who spend their time in air-conditioned
rooms opining about pension programs. But most people don't work in Congress or
in the media. They work on their feet. They strain their backs. They're bored
silly at the end of the day. By the time they're in their 60s, they want to
retire.


You see that reflected in Social Security. Age 66 is when you get full benefits.
But most people begin taking Social Security at age 62. They get less, but they
can retire earlier. To them, the trade-off is worth it. ...


An August survey ... tested reactions to a variety of Social Security fixes. One
of the options was raising the retirement age to 70. Two-thirds of respondents
opposed it. Another option was eliminating the cap on payroll taxes so that
well-off workers pay the tax on their full income, just as middle-income workers
do now. A solid 61 percent supported it.


That's almost the reverse of the conversation in Washington, where affluent
people who like their jobs propose cutting benefits for the poor (which is,
after all, what raising the retirement age would do) rather than lowering
benefits or increasing the payroll tax on, well, themselves. ...


The universally unpleasant options for reform are a testament to Social
Security's efficiency. It's a simple transfer program, with administrative costs
that amount to less than 0.9 percent of total spending. There's not much fat to
cut.


That can't be said for much else in American public policy. Our health-care
system costs twice as much as the German system and doesn't deliver better
results. Our defense sector is wasteful and bloated. Our tax code could raise
more money and do less to harm growth if we cleaned it out. Our home prices are
driven upward by the mortgage interest tax deduction. Our health insurance
premiums are goosed by the exclusion of employer-sponsored insurance from
taxable income.


Reforming any of those sectors ... would be politically difficult, but would
mean better policy. Reforming Social Security will be politically difficult and
result in worse policy. ...

Here's what I

argued in May of 2005:


1. An increase in life expectancy does not necessarily imply that people are
healthier at age 65 or 70 than before. Suppose, for example, that medical
advances are discovered that extend the end of life by several years, but have
no effect on health prior to the last few years of life. In such a case there
would be an increase in life expectancy, but no increase in the health of
workers at the age of retirement. If people aren’t healthier, then increasing
the retirement age imposes a hardship over and above that faced by current
retirees.


2. It’s already difficult for elderly workers to find employment, and when
they do they are often underemployed relative to their skill levels. Raising the
retirement age will make this worse.


3. What about workers employed in physically demanding occupations? Is it
reasonable to ask them to work until, say, age 72? If not, how equitable is it
to have some workers work until 72, and others allowed to retire at a younger
age depending on their occupation?


4. Will this distort occupational choice decisions? ... How will we decide
when a worker is unable to work due to reasons associated with age?


5. The life expectancy of some groups of workers is lower than for others. If
poorer workers die younger than richer workers on average, then raising the
retirement age will have a larger impact on low income workers and thus, in
essence, be regressive.



eric seiger

<b>News</b> - Spencer Pratt Arrested in Costa Rica - Celebrity <b>News</b> <b>...</b>

The reality star is busted for felony possession of a firearm Saturday.

<b>News</b> - Mario Lopez Welcomes a Baby Girl, Gia Francesca - Moms <b>...</b>

The Extra host's girlfriend gives birth Saturday in Burbank, Calif.

AMERICAblog <b>News</b>: Microsoft helping Russians stifle progressive <b>...</b>

News and opinion about US politics from a liberal perspective.