think-progress:

There you go. 

This is why, after 43 years, I have cancelled my subscription to this magazine. Since Bloomberg bought it, its editorial position has moved increasingly Leftward. Sorry, you don’t run a cover like this on a business magazine unless you’re on the Left. 

life:

On Hillary Rodham Clinton’s 65th birthday, LIFE.com presents a series of photos from June 1969, shortly after she graduated from Wellesley and was the first student commencement speaker in the college’s history.

About ten years ago I had already seen all the pictures of this woman that I ever want to see. We forget how obnoxious the Clintons are. We think Bill is wise and cuddly. Blow jobs in the oval office. Massive attempt at HillaryCare. Enough. We’re lucky they’re fading into the sunset. The sooner the better.

So Steve Wynn, a genuine SUPER JOB CREATOR with 12,000 employees whose jobs didn’t exist ten years ago, makes an effort to let his employees know who he thinks will be the best candidates to protect those jobs, and some pussy claims he’s feeling pressured! Pressured by a booklet? Does Nevada still permit the secret ballot? I mean WTF??? And after our anti-business President took a dump on Las Vegas within a few months of being elected? Whiny Liberals!

  • Democrats: WE LIKE OBAMA BECAUSE OF REASONS.
  • Republicans: Can you explain your reasoni--
  • Democrats: NO HOW DARE YOU QUESTION THE GREAT OBAMA. YOU'RE RACIST AND STUPID.
  • Republicans: But --
  • Democrats: NO!
  • Republicans: We-
  • Democrats: RACISTS.
  • It is the LIberals' favorite blunt instrument. It has worked so long, they just haul it out when their backs are against the wall. But it's crap, and Conservatives just won't be intimidated by it anymore. Finally. Two more weeks!
"So “You didn’t build that” was taken out of context but “Binders Full of Women” is legitimate criticism of how Romney objectifies women?"

Jerry Jones (via nomosshere)

Exactly. This crap is just getting old. Plus, I don’t get why “binders full of women” is worth notice. When you’re trying to fill positions, you get “binders full” (or the equivalent) of candidates. Only nitwits put anything other than qualifications first. Sex/gender is almost never a relevant qualification.

paul-ryan-girl:

… then you can tell me he’s “just like the Taliban.”

When Mitt Romney throws acid on a woman, or calls for a woman to be stoned, or shoves a group of schoolgirls back into a burning building, then you can tell me he’s “as bad as the Taliban.”

Until then, take your ignorance back to the playground.

Thank you. But Liberals think this American Taliban shit is PROFOUND. Reality will not dissuade them. It’s here to stay.

[RIDLEY riosumt]John S. Dykes

In Rio next week, we’ll again be told the Earth is on the verge of collapse— but for new reasons.

Part of the preamble to Agenda 21, the action plan that came out of the Rio Earth Summit of 1992, reads: “We are confronted with a perpetuation of disparities between and within nations, a worsening of poverty, hunger, ill health and illiteracy, and the continuing deterioration of the ecosystems on which we depend for our well-being.”

In the 20 years since, something embarrassing has happened: a sharp decrease in poverty, hunger, ill health and illiteracy and a marked reduction in these global disparities. The conference that begins next week in Rio de Janeiro, on the 20th anniversary of the first Earth Summit, will nonetheless remain resolutely pessimistic about the planet’s ecosystems and their capacity to support human beings indefinitely if economic growth continues. The reasoning has changed over time, however.

The original claim, based on the influential 1972 best seller “The Limits to Growth,” by the Club of Rome, was that resources would have begun to run out by now. Instead supplies of minerals have increased, thanks to ingenuity, technology and demand.

Later the emphasis shifted to humankind’s “ecological footprint,” which, it was claimed, was exceeding the planet’s carrying capacity. But this, too, took a blow when the most thorough assessment of the world’s ecology, by Helmut Haberl of the University of Klagenfurt in Austria, found that people and their domestic animals were eating or damaging just 23.8% of the vegetation growing on land, and that in richer parts of the world they were enhancing the productivity of the remaining vegetation by almost as much through irrigation and fertilizer.

The Riocrats now have a new tack, which will dominate next week’s discussion: planetary boundaries. An influential paper in 2009 written by Johan Rockstrom of Stockholm University and 28 colleagues argued that there are nine thresholds, crossing any of which will trigger collapse of the Earth’s life support systems: land-use change, loss of biodiversity, nitrogen and phosphorus levels, water use, ocean acidification, climate change, ozone depletion, aerosol loading and chemical pollution.

The trouble with this approach, according to a new report by Linus Blomqvist, Ted Nordhaus and Michael Shellenberger of the Breakthrough Institute in San Francisco, is that, for six of these measures, “there are no global tipping points beyond which these ecological processes will begin to function in fundamentally different ways. Hence the setting of boundaries for these mechanisms is an arbitrary exercise.”

A good example is land-use change. The Rockstrom paper suggested that if human beings convert 15% of the land surface of the Earth to cropland, the world will pass a tipping point, because as marginal land gets exhausted, a small increment in food demand would produce an accelerating increase in cultivation. Currently we cultivate about 11.7% of the land. Yet there is no evidence that anything special happens at 15%. In the words of Steve Bass of the International Institute for Environment and Development in London, “If anything, the opposite has probably been more true: Converting land for farming and for industry has clearly delivered a great deal of well-being.”

Furthermore, the use of synthetic fertilizer has kept that percentage lower than it would otherwise have been. The independent scholar Indur Goklany argues that, “had global agricultural productivity been frozen at its 1961 level, then the world would have needed over 3,435 million hectares (Mha) of cropland rather than 1,541 Mha actually used to produce as much food as it did in 2002.” That saved an area about as large as is set aside for conservation.

The “boundaries” approach needs to incorporate the possibility that, thanks to technology, fossil fuels and minerals, people are already living more lightly on the land than we did in the past.

FFrom the Wall Street Journal, June 15, 2012.

"Let’s not kid ourselves about just how cheap offshore labor really is. We not only pay substantially less per hour, we also avoid the costs we would incur if these workers immigrated here. We don’t pay for their medical expenses when they show up in the emergency room without insurance. We don’t pay for their pension costs if they don’t save for retirement. We don’t pay for their children’s public education. Nor do we pay for their out-of-wedlock children, their unemployment benefits and workers’ compensation, their slip and fall torts, their wear and tear on our public infrastructure, and the cost of their drunk driving, drug use and other crimes. We outsource pollution, its adverse effects on our health, and its clean-up costs. Neither the employees nor their employers are here to vote and seek political handouts."

Former Bain Capital partner and Mitt Romney supporter Edward Conard extols the virtues of “cheap offshore labor” in his book “Unintended Consequences.” Conard was for a long time the head of the manufacturing practice at Bain Capital. As we speak, Sensata Technologies, which is owned by Bain Capital, is preparing to offshore 170 jobs from a manufacturing plant in Freeport, Illinois to China. (via upwithchris)

And the free trade agreements that our political elites love so much make all of this cost avoidance much easier.

(via dendroica)

Sounds smart to me. Meanwhile, people whose prior incomes are less than the average poor Amercan’s monthly cable TV bill get jobs that pay them much more, allowing them to afford better lives than they have had. And consumers worldwide pay less for an ever broader selection of goods and services. Who is losing here?

(Source: upwithsteve)

Would someone with a brain please explain this post? I’m aware of no policy advocated by Romney Ryan that will impose government control over anybody’s body. I could be wrong, but I’d appreciate some enlightenment here — something besides these moronic slogans.

(Source: mansplainingryan)

The Kaiser Family Foundation has taken a deep dive into world of premium support, modeling a plan pretty similar to Mitt Romney’s proposed Medicare reforms.

The bottom line: If implemented right now, most seniors would pay more under the current premium support proposals. It’s worth keeping in mind, though, that that’s a big “if.” The Romney-Ryan proposal would hold off a decade before transitioning to this system.

This is such bullshit. Would somebody else on Medicare please step up and explain how surprised and disillusioned they are to discover how many doctors simply won’t take new Medicare patients? Which means you have to pay in full to the doctor and submit your claim directly to Medicare. You get back this tiny amount — what the doctor would have gotten had he been foolish enough to take you through Medicare. But wait. It gets worse. Because of ObamaCare (at least that’s what one family friend ER doc has told me recently), Medicare is now denying any direct patient claims for services provided by doctors who have opted out of Medicare. Which means you have to find a Medicare doctor, which means a doctor operating on a shoe string — mass production medicine, 6 minutes with the doctor IF you get to see a doctor at all, instead of a nurse practitioner. In other words, government coercion and price controls create scarcity, reduced quality and/or increased costs. You Tumbler kids are mostly healthy and under your parents’ policies. Lucky you, for now. Re-electing the boy king will change healthcare in this country for the worse for a very long time.

policygal:

Hmmmm…let me think…blame all of this on his white half?

Wouldn’t have had a chance. I’m sure he always knew his race would be his greatest asset in realizing his extremely ambitious plans for himself. Even people who didn’t vote for him (like me) were proud to see this country elect a Black President. Of course, we hoped he’d also be a competent President, but you can’t have everything.

communismkills:

They’re directly insulting the average American.

Mainly, I think, it’s because the yappers on Fox are so much more popular than the yappers on MSNBC and other Liberal outlets. I can’t stand any of the yappers, but Bret Baer’s Special Report on Fox News is my daily dose of TV News. It is pretty fair and balanced.