Legend:

Nope, none will be built. The fossil fuel Industry and you washed up lefties will see to that. The fossil fuel industry is keenly aware of the limitations of solar and wind electricity generation. They know it doesn't have the capacity nor the production consistency to survive without the electrical grid. The fossil fuel folks want to be be the supplier of the electrical grid. They are also aware that nuclear is more than capable of meeting the growing electricity demands. There answer is to use the washed up lefties to protest nuclear and stop it at every opportunity. Check out any fossil fuel industry web site, you'll see something that is championing "green energy".

As much as I would love to see Trump gone from Twitter that would be cencorship. If Trump starts threatening the life (lives) of a specific person or group. He's come close but no more than that.

article that made me so much to know, very interesting, thanks

obat perangsang wanita

p.p1 {margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 18.0px Helvetica}

{We rhymers have license to mess with words,

thereby showing that down-deep we’re nerds:}

TRUMP-FANS TEND OBLIVIOUS {a limerick}

The Donald’s fans tend oblivious

that their Donald is {ignominious} ignominivous

in a yuuge array

of many a way.

Their value to us is quite {minimal} minivous.

===================================

p.p1 {margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 18.0px Helvetica}
p.p2 {margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 18.0px Helvetica; color: #4787ff}
span.s1 {text-decoration: underline}

WHO IS THIS “CUI”? {a rhyme and an image}

In the Latin’s “cui bono”, who is the “cui”?

{In the phrase, “who benefits”, is the who “we”?} …

… Is our -ocracy “dem-”? or “pluto-”?

Is it us {regular folks} Popeyes? or is it the Bluto

who courts {Big Oil} Miss Olive Oyl

while seeking us Popeyes to foil?

… Image:

http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/02960/popeye5_2960147b.jpg

==================================

Yes, it's true! I keep telling that outsourcing and all this idea of globalization is the worst idea ever. Our own employers choose the lower quality of services and present our work places to developing countries - China, India, Phillipines, Ukraine. Speaking about the latter, I found some statistics in the blog of https://qubit-labs.com/ the USA outsources 70% of its IT services to this country. So they not only hire foreigners, they also avoid paying taxes to the government to develop their own country.

How government at all levels has come to raise revenue to pay for public goods and serivces is both inequitable and highly destructive. As economists such as Michael Hudson, Mason Gaffney and Joseph Stiglitz have argued, the rent of land and land-like assets (e.g., the broadcast spectrum or even take-off and landing slots at airports) is unearned by individuals or entities; rent is societally-created by a combination of aggregate demand and locational advantages (whether natural or by investment in public infrastructure).

The taxation of land (and, by extension, land rent) is in the United States a responsibility of local government. And, quite frankly, local governments have done a terrible job of keeping assessments up-to-date. The result is an almost-universally low effective rate of taxation on land values, causing a reliance on the taxation of property improvements, income from wages and commerce. Michael Hudson estimates that rent-derived income accounts for one-third of GDP. Another economist, Fred Foldvary, calculates that restructuring taxation to collect rents would result in at least a 10 percent increase in real GDP.

Getting all of the towns, cities, school districts, townships, boroughs, and counties to move to a land-only property tax base would require a degree of civic and political enlightenment not likely to occur. More practical is to capture rents via the state and federal individual income tax systems. This would require restructuring of the tax system to combine tax simplification with real progressivity. What might this look like?

The starting point would be for states and the federal government to exempt all individual incomes up to some level, say, the federal median income level. All other deductions and exemptions would be eliminated. Above this level, an increasing rate of taxation would be applied to higher and higher ranges of income.

"We dont need no ....; ejucashun" ?

Thom, you've hit a home run with this installment. Now if you could only get the conservative rural crowd (who seem to be the backbone of the Republican Party) to read it! The problem, of course, is that a) most of them are too busy sucking up bread and circus (in today's terms, pizza, beer and football) to read anything, and b) that very soon none of them will be able to read at all. So what now .... ?

I don't agree that people should stay in their own countries, the world is getting smaller, if every segment of population remained segregated, how will this planet exist in peace. I think that it's pretty much God's Idea to get all of us mixed together so we can learn to respect each others diversity - only that will lead to peace on this planet.

Diane, why do you listen to Thom. Do you enjoy being angry?

Don Rosenberg,

I am so sorry that you lost your son. As a parent myself, it is unimaginable to even begin to understand the pain of that, what you must feel every day. I offer my deepest and sincere sympathy.

Your website articles and letter to Obama were heartfelt and make very convincing points that elevate awareness of a very serious problem, which absolutely needs to be addressed by authorities on the local, state, and national levels.

Also, your "Los Angeles Traffic" study is a real eye-opener, chock full of statistics, well organized, and evidently well researched. Thank you for such a tremendous effort in putting it all together.

(Here's the link to the PDF if others want to peruse it.)http://cbsla.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/los-angeles-traffic-whitepaper-ver-3.pdf

You are obviously the expert in this area, so it is not my place to question your sources or conclusions. I will only offer my take-away opinion on a few, more general points, for what it's worth.

It certainly would be prudent and wise to initiate very aggressive programs to properly license every driver, documented or not, and crack down hard on all other causes of accidents, especially drinking and drugs, as well as every possible distraction, such as cell phones, fiddling with knobs and buttons, eating, fatigue, etc.

Yet, these are issues for the entire population of 350 million, not just one fraction. To condemn an entire minority group of eleven million for the actions of an even smaller minority of reprobates within that group, albeit totally understandable in your case, still seems biased and unfair when one steps back a little. By all means, deport the bad criminals who commit felonies and cause death and destruction, but let's not criminalize all the good people, if their only crime is lack of paperwork.

Sure, it's wrong to enter the country illegally. Nobody is condoning that. But it should be put into proper perspective. We are a nation of immigrants (or the descendants). If people are already here, want to stay, are well established, are working hard, and are trying to be productive members of society, then give them a fighting chance, give them the documents and a path to citizenship.That's the humane thing to do. Society is much better off when there is more empathy and compassion than fear and hate, isn't it?

As far as utilizing the social safety net (if they're not being paid in cash under the table), taxes are taken out of their paychecks just like any other worker in a large company, so they are not "stealing" benefits. In fact, there have been many in-depth studies conducted, both public and private, that show a net positive for the system. Undocumented workers pay more into the system than they take out, for the very reason that they lack the documentation to become eligible for benefits.

Besides, as Thom always reminds us, we don't have an illegal immigrant problem; we have and illegal employer problem. Congress should pass stringent laws to discourage immigrants from crossing the border illegally in the first place. Notwithstanding drug dealers, the primary reason most ordinary people sneak across the frontier -- often times, a very deadly undertaking -- is simply to find work to support their families. Therefore, employers who knowingly hire undocumented workers should be heavily fined. If they persist, it should be considered a felony, and they should lose their business license and be thrown into prison for an appropriate length of time.

Ultimately, to solve the problem on a more fundamental level, the United States should end all corporate, so-called "free" trade agreements, which are responsible for the growth of huge conglomerate factory farms that dump subsidized corn and produce or other such products on Central and South American countries, resulting in millions upon millions of small-time farmers and breadwinners losing their livelihoods, which has created a massive vacuum filled by ruthless drug cartels and predatory corporate operations that are modeled after our own rapacious monopolies.

Like most everyone everywhere, these innocent victims of big-business predation and international economic pressure, which is out of their control, normally would prefer to live in their home countries. But when they're thrown out of work and persecuted by murderous gangs of criminals and corrupted governments ruled by large landowners (another sad story of American culpability and crony capitalism), where do you think they will flee? South? No, they'll migrate north to the richest country on Earth. Wouldn't you? Wouldn't anyone?

That's the history. It's our own greedy policies that have created the problem. Therein, lies the solution.