The Senate Thursday adjourned until April 12 without extending unemployment insurance benefits — which expire for some jobless Americans at the end of the month — after Democrats rejected Republican Sen. Tom Coburn’s demand that they pay for the aid by redirecting federal funding or cutting spending.
The Senate voted 49-to-39 to adjourn without the extension of benefits, with four Democrats joining 35 Republicans in voting against. Another 12 senators, split evenly among Republicans and Democrats, did not vote.
Coburn, an Oklahoma Republican, blocked the Democrats’ bill from coming to the floor for a vote, after Democrats rejected a Republican effort to pay for the $10 billion in benefits with unspent money from the $787 billion stimulus bill.
Coburn said in a nearly hour-long speech on the Senate floor Thursday afternoon that to bypass the pay-as-you-go law signed by President Obama in February – which Democrats wanted to do for the fourth time since then by declaring the expenditure an emergency – would be “immoral.”
Friday, March 26, 2010
Dems Subsidize Prescription-Strength Sex-Enhancement Medication For Child Rapists
Last night, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid voted in favor of allowing the federal government to subsidize Viagra for child molesters.
So did fifty-six of Reid's Democratic colleagues, including Sens. Barbara Boxer (Calif.), Arlen Specter (Penn.) Blanche Lincoln (Ark.). and others facing tough re-election challenges this November.
In addition to supporting federal subsidies of Viagra for child molesters, Reid, Boxer, and the rest of the Democratic caucus also supported taxes on prosthetics for wounded veterans, childrens' orthopedic devices, and an exemption for senior leadership staff from being forced to purchase health insurance from health insurance exchanges, like Members of Congress must do. To Democrats, these things are all simply part of the price of imposing Obamacare on America.
So did fifty-six of Reid's Democratic colleagues, including Sens. Barbara Boxer (Calif.), Arlen Specter (Penn.) Blanche Lincoln (Ark.). and others facing tough re-election challenges this November.
In addition to supporting federal subsidies of Viagra for child molesters, Reid, Boxer, and the rest of the Democratic caucus also supported taxes on prosthetics for wounded veterans, childrens' orthopedic devices, and an exemption for senior leadership staff from being forced to purchase health insurance from health insurance exchanges, like Members of Congress must do. To Democrats, these things are all simply part of the price of imposing Obamacare on America.
Thursday, March 25, 2010
china in control
i was watching cnbc and they had an american businessman on talking from china. he said that china now believes that their system is better than ours and will be the one that dominates in the future. this all has happened since the financial meltdown of last year. when american businesses initially went into china they had to go in as joint ventures or partnerships and had to give the chinese the technology that was proprietary. this enebled the chinese o take 10 to 20 years of doing things themselves and enabled them to catch up to us very quickly. they understood that american companies mouths were watering to get into china with its huge population.expecting tremedous increases in profits.
now they see that we are stuggleing they have a law that new technologies must be shared with the state. they are now demanding that foreign companies use technologies that were developed in china . both manufacturing processing and software. american companies are getting worried that the ability to keep any secrets is becoming a major problem. china doesn't care if foreign companies move out because they have almost everything they need. they also know how desperate these companies are to keep profits up and they see which companies are deriving large amounts of sales and profits from china and know they can sqeeze them for anything they need. he thought that companies are worried about their future in china
THOUGHT THIS WAS VERY INTERESTING
now they see that we are stuggleing they have a law that new technologies must be shared with the state. they are now demanding that foreign companies use technologies that were developed in china . both manufacturing processing and software. american companies are getting worried that the ability to keep any secrets is becoming a major problem. china doesn't care if foreign companies move out because they have almost everything they need. they also know how desperate these companies are to keep profits up and they see which companies are deriving large amounts of sales and profits from china and know they can sqeeze them for anything they need. he thought that companies are worried about their future in china
THOUGHT THIS WAS VERY INTERESTING
Don't Buy '4G' Phones for 4G Features - Yet
There's no doubt that the HTC EVO 4G, Sprint's first 4G phone that will release this summer, is impressive. But how long will it take before the "4G" aspect really matters?
The EVo 4G's specifications are impressive: it runs Android 2.1 with HTC's Sense UI, has a beautiful 4.3-inch, 800-by-480 capacitive touch screen, a 1-GHz Snapdragon processor, and an 8-megapixel camera, among other neat features. With those specs alone, it already beats the Google Nexus One, which was just announced for the Sprint network.
But it's the promise of Sprint's 4G service, with the potential to get fast download speeds and browse the Web as fast as on a desktop PC, that really sets the HTC EVO 4G apart. There's a serious problem, though – hardly anyone in the U.S. has access to 4G coverage and most people won't be able to take advantage of it until 4G is deployed into many more markets.
Sprint's 4G network more or less mirrors Clear's offerings. It's currently available in 27 cities, including Baltimore, Chicago, Portland, Seattle, Las Vegas, and Philadelphia, covering about 30 million people. Sprint promises by the end of 2010 to quadruple that number with an expansion into many other metropolitan cities. On Tuesday, Sprint promised to cover Cincinnati, Cleveland, Los Angeles, Miami, Pittsburgh, Salt Lake City, and St. Louis by the end of 2010. And back in February, Sprint said that 4G would be accessible in Boston, Denver, Kansas City, Houston, Minneapolis, New York, San Francisco, and Washington, D.C. by the end of the year.
But given Sprint's spotty history with WiMAX, who knows if the company will deliver on those promises? Since we don't know for sure, we would strongly recommend prospective customers who don't already have 4G coverage to look at Sprint's data coverage map. Assume for a moment that your city won't get 4G, and the HTC EVO 4G becomes a less interesting prospect. Yes, the hardware still looks wonderful, but will you actually be able to use it to its full potential? Stay tuned to PCMag.com to find out if Sprint keeps its 4G promises.
It's also good to keep in mind what other carriers are beginning to offer in the next-generation data buildout. T-Mobile has HSPA+, which builds on 3G technology to deliver 4G-like speeds, and the company said it will be expanding the high-speed tech to 100 cities over the course of 2010.
Verizon Wireless has been testing out its LTE 4G services as well and said it could be in 25 to 30 major cities before 2010 ends, with 4G-enabled headsets by mid-2011. AT&T won't be releasing LTE services or phones into the market until 2011. And budget carrier MetroPCS said Wednesday that it planned to launch LTE 4G in Las Vegas by the end of the year.
The EVo 4G's specifications are impressive: it runs Android 2.1 with HTC's Sense UI, has a beautiful 4.3-inch, 800-by-480 capacitive touch screen, a 1-GHz Snapdragon processor, and an 8-megapixel camera, among other neat features. With those specs alone, it already beats the Google Nexus One, which was just announced for the Sprint network.
But it's the promise of Sprint's 4G service, with the potential to get fast download speeds and browse the Web as fast as on a desktop PC, that really sets the HTC EVO 4G apart. There's a serious problem, though – hardly anyone in the U.S. has access to 4G coverage and most people won't be able to take advantage of it until 4G is deployed into many more markets.
Sprint's 4G network more or less mirrors Clear's offerings. It's currently available in 27 cities, including Baltimore, Chicago, Portland, Seattle, Las Vegas, and Philadelphia, covering about 30 million people. Sprint promises by the end of 2010 to quadruple that number with an expansion into many other metropolitan cities. On Tuesday, Sprint promised to cover Cincinnati, Cleveland, Los Angeles, Miami, Pittsburgh, Salt Lake City, and St. Louis by the end of 2010. And back in February, Sprint said that 4G would be accessible in Boston, Denver, Kansas City, Houston, Minneapolis, New York, San Francisco, and Washington, D.C. by the end of the year.
But given Sprint's spotty history with WiMAX, who knows if the company will deliver on those promises? Since we don't know for sure, we would strongly recommend prospective customers who don't already have 4G coverage to look at Sprint's data coverage map. Assume for a moment that your city won't get 4G, and the HTC EVO 4G becomes a less interesting prospect. Yes, the hardware still looks wonderful, but will you actually be able to use it to its full potential? Stay tuned to PCMag.com to find out if Sprint keeps its 4G promises.
It's also good to keep in mind what other carriers are beginning to offer in the next-generation data buildout. T-Mobile has HSPA+, which builds on 3G technology to deliver 4G-like speeds, and the company said it will be expanding the high-speed tech to 100 cities over the course of 2010.
Verizon Wireless has been testing out its LTE 4G services as well and said it could be in 25 to 30 major cities before 2010 ends, with 4G-enabled headsets by mid-2011. AT&T won't be releasing LTE services or phones into the market until 2011. And budget carrier MetroPCS said Wednesday that it planned to launch LTE 4G in Las Vegas by the end of the year.
Wednesday, March 3, 2010
New charge on dinner tab is in bad taste
Nothing succeeds in the travel industry like a bad idea. The latest hidden mandatory add-on is a "health" charge added to restaurant bills. As far as I know, this scam cropped up first in San Francisco, but you can count on it to spread.
The rationale for this one is to cover the employers' mandatory contribution to the City's "Healthy San Francisco" health-coverage system. The charge actually is levied on employers, but at least some restaurants are adding a few dollars or percentage points to each customer's bill to cover this charge.
The restaurants' excuse for assessing this charge separately is to let customers know how much they're paying for employees' health coverage. That's the same excuse hotels use when they add "resort" or "housekeeping" fees to unsuspecting guests' room bills. It's the same excuse airlines would use to exclude fuel surcharges from their advertised fares if the Department of Transportation would allow them. And it's sheer nonsense. Employees' health insurance is no less of a cost of doing business than rent, property taxes, food costs, security services and all the other inputs businesses require to operate. To single out health care for a separate surcharge is unwarranted.
The restaurants adding this fee self-righteously proclaim, "It's not hidden; we print a notice on our menus." But that, too, is nonsense: Presumably, restaurants could apply that same rationale for extra fees to cover the cost of electricity, heat or linen service. I haven't seen any reports yet that San Francisco hotels are adding a similar charge. But hotels aren't shy about piling on other fees and charges.
So far, I haven't heard of "health" fees anywhere other than San Francisco. But, as noted, bad ideas travel fast, and I wouldn't be surprised to see it copied in one form or another by restaurants in other areas.
What can you do to avoid this fee? Presumably, not many of you would feel strongly enough about this minor scam to get up and walk out of a restaurant the minute you saw a notice about such a fee. And you probably wouldn't feel like making a fuss when you're paying your bill, either. But when you leave, you can certainly let the restaurant know that you resent this deception and that you won't be returning.
I've noted before — and you have undoubtedly found out firsthand — that hidden mandatory fees have become a bane of travelers and of consumers generally. The reason seems clear: As more and more of you use the Internet to compare prices, suppliers find it increasingly important to make their first-screen prices look as low as possible. As a result, they've taken to carving out part of what should be the true base price and instead adding it in only later — sometimes before you buy, sometimes not until later.
Currently, mandatory extra hotel fees are far more troublesome than restaurant fees. Trip-Advisor (tripadvisor.com) posts more than 72,000 traveler reports of unexpected hotel fees of various types. Although some of those reports obviously cover the same hotels, the number of hotels resorting to this deception has got to be in the thousands.
Normally I write about practical information travelers can use, and I avoid taking "there oughta be a law" soapbox positions. But it seems to me that hidden mandatory fees are becoming prevalent enough to warrant some sort of government action. The Federal Trade Commission has the authority to police deceptive advertising, but it moves at a glacially slow pace and even then gives wide latitude to miscreants. What consumers need is some sort of overall national "buyability" standard for advertised prices, along with robust enforcement authority. Certainly, such a requirement is workable; it works pretty well right now for airfares.
The rationale for this one is to cover the employers' mandatory contribution to the City's "Healthy San Francisco" health-coverage system. The charge actually is levied on employers, but at least some restaurants are adding a few dollars or percentage points to each customer's bill to cover this charge.
The restaurants' excuse for assessing this charge separately is to let customers know how much they're paying for employees' health coverage. That's the same excuse hotels use when they add "resort" or "housekeeping" fees to unsuspecting guests' room bills. It's the same excuse airlines would use to exclude fuel surcharges from their advertised fares if the Department of Transportation would allow them. And it's sheer nonsense. Employees' health insurance is no less of a cost of doing business than rent, property taxes, food costs, security services and all the other inputs businesses require to operate. To single out health care for a separate surcharge is unwarranted.
The restaurants adding this fee self-righteously proclaim, "It's not hidden; we print a notice on our menus." But that, too, is nonsense: Presumably, restaurants could apply that same rationale for extra fees to cover the cost of electricity, heat or linen service. I haven't seen any reports yet that San Francisco hotels are adding a similar charge. But hotels aren't shy about piling on other fees and charges.
So far, I haven't heard of "health" fees anywhere other than San Francisco. But, as noted, bad ideas travel fast, and I wouldn't be surprised to see it copied in one form or another by restaurants in other areas.
What can you do to avoid this fee? Presumably, not many of you would feel strongly enough about this minor scam to get up and walk out of a restaurant the minute you saw a notice about such a fee. And you probably wouldn't feel like making a fuss when you're paying your bill, either. But when you leave, you can certainly let the restaurant know that you resent this deception and that you won't be returning.
I've noted before — and you have undoubtedly found out firsthand — that hidden mandatory fees have become a bane of travelers and of consumers generally. The reason seems clear: As more and more of you use the Internet to compare prices, suppliers find it increasingly important to make their first-screen prices look as low as possible. As a result, they've taken to carving out part of what should be the true base price and instead adding it in only later — sometimes before you buy, sometimes not until later.
Currently, mandatory extra hotel fees are far more troublesome than restaurant fees. Trip-Advisor (tripadvisor.com) posts more than 72,000 traveler reports of unexpected hotel fees of various types. Although some of those reports obviously cover the same hotels, the number of hotels resorting to this deception has got to be in the thousands.
Normally I write about practical information travelers can use, and I avoid taking "there oughta be a law" soapbox positions. But it seems to me that hidden mandatory fees are becoming prevalent enough to warrant some sort of government action. The Federal Trade Commission has the authority to police deceptive advertising, but it moves at a glacially slow pace and even then gives wide latitude to miscreants. What consumers need is some sort of overall national "buyability" standard for advertised prices, along with robust enforcement authority. Certainly, such a requirement is workable; it works pretty well right now for airfares.
Tuesday, March 2, 2010
US backs off speedy Iran sanctions promised Israel
Washington eased the threat of harsh sanctions hanging over Iran's head over its nuclear program at the very moment that it was beginning to take effect and Tehran was showing signs of stress. Tuesday March 2, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton told reporters on her plane to Buenos Aires: "We are moving expeditiously and thoroughly in the Security Council, I can't give you an exact date, but I would assume some time in the next several months."
This abrupt reversal of US tactics on Iran's nuclear activities took place when Israeli defense minister Ehud Barak was hardly out the door from Washington after receiving assurances from administration officials that a new round of tough sanctions would be in place by the end of March, with or without the Security Council. Clinton herself assured a Senate panel last week that stiff sanctions would be clamped down on Iran "in the next 30 to 60 days."
Clinton and defense secretary Robert Gates, when they talked to Barak last Thursday, Feb. 25, were so sure of that timeline that they fixed a date for the defense minister to return got Washington for the second time in a month after sanctions were in place.
debkafile's Iranian sources add that the Islamic Republic's leaders were also convinced last week that the US and likeminded European governments had finally made up their minds to new sanctions in the space of a month. They read the reports leaked to the US media by administration sources about plans to freeze Iran's external banking connections and cripple Revolutionary Guards businesses, and heard that the White House and a number of staunch European Union governments was ready to go ahead and sidestep the slow-moving, hamstrung Security Council.
Tehran's anxiety brought Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad running to Damascus on Feb. 25 to pull his alliance together. Brandishing his fist, he warned that Iran would not knuckle under to sanctions and the Middle East stood at the threshold of a new war.
Iran's war preparations hinged on the assignment of operational tasks to its allies and proxies, including the leaders of eleven Palestinian terrorist organizations based in Syria and Lebanon, who were summoned to Tehran Saturday, Feb. 27. They were given their instructions and treated to the most vicious anti-Israel, anti-Semitic invective from Ahmadinejad heard anywhere since World War II.
In another threat, the deputy Revolutionary Guards commander Hossein Salami stressed Sunday, Feb. 28 that Iran controlled 50 percent of the world's fuel reserves and if sanctions were imposed, Europe would be very cold next winter.
The Obama administrations response to these threats has been to buckle.
Suddenly, Secretary Clinton announced sanctions would take a leisurely "several months," so easing Tehran's concerns and enabling its rulers to carry on its dash for a nuclear bomb, even after the new International Atomic Energy Agency director in Vienna Yukiya Amano noted that its peaceful nature could not be confirmed.
The American U-turn has left Israel high and dry with the Iranian nuclear threat looming ever closer.
Month after month, the Obama administration was able to hold Israel back from attacking its nuclear facilities only by a guarantee of tough sanctions, first promised for the end of last year and latterly by the end of March. Israeli prime minister Binyamin Netanyahu believed he was in tune with Washington when he visited Moscow two weeks ago to discuss sanctions in the immediate term and arms sales to Tehran, and sent minister for strategy affairs Moshe Yaalon to Beijing to persuade the Chinese not to stall urgent sanctions at the Security Council.
Israeli government officials now feel they have been strung along and, moreover, that their diplomatic efforts in Moscow and Beijing were irrelevant.
To mark Washington's change of face, John Kerry, chairman of the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee landed in Jerusalem this week, to be followed March 8 by Vice President Joe Biden. They are on hand to bulldoze the Obama administration's bid to keep Israel in what Kerry called "alignment" with Washington on the Iranian nuclear threat. They will first have to explain to prime minister Netanyahu and Barak how their previous "alignment "on speedy sanctions suddenly broke down and no effective international action is any longer in play to delay Iran's ambitions.
This abrupt reversal of US tactics on Iran's nuclear activities took place when Israeli defense minister Ehud Barak was hardly out the door from Washington after receiving assurances from administration officials that a new round of tough sanctions would be in place by the end of March, with or without the Security Council. Clinton herself assured a Senate panel last week that stiff sanctions would be clamped down on Iran "in the next 30 to 60 days."
Clinton and defense secretary Robert Gates, when they talked to Barak last Thursday, Feb. 25, were so sure of that timeline that they fixed a date for the defense minister to return got Washington for the second time in a month after sanctions were in place.
debkafile's Iranian sources add that the Islamic Republic's leaders were also convinced last week that the US and likeminded European governments had finally made up their minds to new sanctions in the space of a month. They read the reports leaked to the US media by administration sources about plans to freeze Iran's external banking connections and cripple Revolutionary Guards businesses, and heard that the White House and a number of staunch European Union governments was ready to go ahead and sidestep the slow-moving, hamstrung Security Council.
Tehran's anxiety brought Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad running to Damascus on Feb. 25 to pull his alliance together. Brandishing his fist, he warned that Iran would not knuckle under to sanctions and the Middle East stood at the threshold of a new war.
Iran's war preparations hinged on the assignment of operational tasks to its allies and proxies, including the leaders of eleven Palestinian terrorist organizations based in Syria and Lebanon, who were summoned to Tehran Saturday, Feb. 27. They were given their instructions and treated to the most vicious anti-Israel, anti-Semitic invective from Ahmadinejad heard anywhere since World War II.
In another threat, the deputy Revolutionary Guards commander Hossein Salami stressed Sunday, Feb. 28 that Iran controlled 50 percent of the world's fuel reserves and if sanctions were imposed, Europe would be very cold next winter.
The Obama administrations response to these threats has been to buckle.
Suddenly, Secretary Clinton announced sanctions would take a leisurely "several months," so easing Tehran's concerns and enabling its rulers to carry on its dash for a nuclear bomb, even after the new International Atomic Energy Agency director in Vienna Yukiya Amano noted that its peaceful nature could not be confirmed.
The American U-turn has left Israel high and dry with the Iranian nuclear threat looming ever closer.
Month after month, the Obama administration was able to hold Israel back from attacking its nuclear facilities only by a guarantee of tough sanctions, first promised for the end of last year and latterly by the end of March. Israeli prime minister Binyamin Netanyahu believed he was in tune with Washington when he visited Moscow two weeks ago to discuss sanctions in the immediate term and arms sales to Tehran, and sent minister for strategy affairs Moshe Yaalon to Beijing to persuade the Chinese not to stall urgent sanctions at the Security Council.
Israeli government officials now feel they have been strung along and, moreover, that their diplomatic efforts in Moscow and Beijing were irrelevant.
To mark Washington's change of face, John Kerry, chairman of the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee landed in Jerusalem this week, to be followed March 8 by Vice President Joe Biden. They are on hand to bulldoze the Obama administration's bid to keep Israel in what Kerry called "alignment" with Washington on the Iranian nuclear threat. They will first have to explain to prime minister Netanyahu and Barak how their previous "alignment "on speedy sanctions suddenly broke down and no effective international action is any longer in play to delay Iran's ambitions.
Monday, March 1, 2010
Google Buys Photo Editing Service Picnik; No Terms Announced
Google (GOOG) today said it has acquired Picnik, a Seattle-based start-up which provides browser-based photo-editing tools. I’d note that Picnik is well-integrated on Flickr, which of course is owned by Yahoo (YHOO). The Picnik tool allows you to crop, touch-up and add effects to photos.
The company said it is not announcing any significant changes to Picnik today, and will “continue supporting all existing Picnik partners” - that means you, Flickr and Facebook.
Terms of the deal weren’t announced.
The company said it is not announcing any significant changes to Picnik today, and will “continue supporting all existing Picnik partners” - that means you, Flickr and Facebook.
Terms of the deal weren’t announced.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)