Author Archives: Polly Browder

Watch Texas Lt. Governor Dan Patrick Call Black Lives Matter Protesters "Hypocrites" After Dallas Shooting

by Polly Browder Posted on July 8, 2016

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>
Watch the latest video at video.foxnews.com

Texas Lt. Governor Dan Patrick directly blamed Black Lives Matter protesters for putting the lives of police officers in danger—actions he said contributed to Thursday night’s attack in Dallas that killed five officers.

“Too many in the general public who aren’t criminals but have a big mouth are creating situations like we saw last night,” an emotional Patrick said during an interview with Fox News on Friday. He later added, “All those protesters last night, they ran the other way expecting the men and women in blue to turn around and protect them—what hypocrites!”

“I do blame people on social media with their hatred toward police,” he said. While pointing out that last night’s Dallas protest was peaceful, Patrick said, “I do blame former Black Lives Matter protests.”

Patrick’s comments follow a starkly different public statement calling for unity that he issued overnight:

Patrick’s comments come at a time of heated rhetoric in the wake of the Dallas attack. Prominent critics of the Black Lives Matter movement have gone so far as to declare the country is at “war.”

Read the article – 

Watch Texas Lt. Governor Dan Patrick Call Black Lives Matter Protesters "Hypocrites" After Dallas Shooting

Posted in FF, GE, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Watch Texas Lt. Governor Dan Patrick Call Black Lives Matter Protesters "Hypocrites" After Dallas Shooting

Here’s an Interesting Twist on Social Security That Might Be Worth Trying

by Polly Browder Posted on November 18, 2014

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

Via Matt Yglesias, here’s a fascinating little study in behavioral economics. It involves Social Security, which currently allows you to retire at age 62, but offers you a higher monthly payment if you retire later. For example, if you retire at 62, your monthly benefit might be $1,500, but if you delay a year, your monthly benefit might go up to $1,600. Given average lifespans, the total payout works out the same in both scenarios.

But what if you offered retirees a different deal? What if, instead of a higher monthly benefit, you offered them a lump sum payout if they delayed retirement? In the example above, if you delay retirement to 63, you’ll still get $1,500 per month, but you’d also get a $20,000 lump sum payout. Delay to age 70 and you’d get a lump sum of nearly $200,000. How do people respond to that?

It turns out that they delay retirement—or they say they would on a survey, anyway. Under the current scenario, people say they’d retire at 45 months past age 62, or 65 years and 9 months. Under the lump sum scenario, the average retirement age is about five months later. (A third scenario with a delayed lump sum payout motivates people to retire even later.)

Would people do this in real life if they were offered these options? Maybe. And it would probably be a good thing, as Yglesias explains:

Since the benefits would be actuarially fair, this would not save the government any money. But since people would be working longer, the overall size of the economy and the tax base would be larger. That extends the life of the Social Security Trust Fund, and helps delay the moment at which benefit cuts or tax increases are necessary. The overall scale of the change is not enormous, but it’s distinctly positive and it’s hard to see what the downside would be.

This is hardly the highest priority on anybody’s wish list, but it’s an intriguing study. And it would certainly be easy to implement. Maybe it’s worth a try.

Follow this link: 

Here’s an Interesting Twist on Social Security That Might Be Worth Trying

Posted in FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Here’s an Interesting Twist on Social Security That Might Be Worth Trying

Study: Fad Diets Work (But Not Why You Think)

by Polly Browder Posted on April 2, 2014

Mother Jones

What’s the best diet to follow to get healthy—should you go Paleo, low glycemic, low-carb, Mediterranean, or low-fat? For a paper released last month in the Annual Review of Public Health, Yale medical researchers David Katz and Samuel Meller surveyed the scientific evidence and decided … all of the above. Specifically, they found that all of these fad diets can be consistent with these basic principles:

The weight of evidence strongly supports a theme of healthful eating while allowing for variations on that theme. A diet of minimally processed foods close to nature, predominantly plants, is decisively associated with health promotion and disease prevention and is consistent with the salient components of seemingly distinct dietary approaches. Emphasis added.

But what about the Paleo diet, which encourages meat eating? The authors conclude the “aggregation of evidence” supports meat eating, as long as the “animal foods are themselves the products, directly or ultimately, of pure plant foods—the composition of animal flesh and milk is as much influenced by diet as we are.” That’s entirely consistent with the Paleo push for meat from pasture-raised animals, and brought to mind a study I wrote about late last year finding that cows fed on grass deliver milk with healthier fat profile than their industrially raised peers.

The Yale paper essentially cuts through the hype of various fad diets and affirms the koan-like advice put forward by author Michael Pollan in his 2008 book In Defense of Food: “Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants.” In fact, the authors reference Pollan directly in the chart that summarizes their findings:

Original post:

Study: Fad Diets Work (But Not Why You Think)

Posted in alo, Anchor, Citizen, FF, GE, LG, ONA, organic, PUR, Radius, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Study: Fad Diets Work (But Not Why You Think)

We’re Still at War: Photo of the Day for November 14, 2013

by Polly Browder Posted on November 14, 2013

Mother Jones

An AV-8B Harrier assigned to Marine Medium Tiltrotor Squadron 266(Reinforced), 26th Marine Expeditionary Unit, takes off from the flight deck of the USS Kearsarge, at sea, Nov. 1, 2013. The 26th MEU finished their eight month deployment to the U.S. 5th and 6th Fleet areas of responsibility aboard the Kearsarge Amphibious Ready Group serving as a sea-based, expeditionary crisis response force capable of conducting amphibious operations across the full range of military operations. U.S. Marine Corps photo by Sgt. Christopher Q. Stone/Released.

Read this article:  

We’re Still at War: Photo of the Day for November 14, 2013

Posted in FF, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on We’re Still at War: Photo of the Day for November 14, 2013

Yes, Technology Is Going to Destroy the Middle Class

by Polly Browder Posted on October 21, 2013

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

I haven’t read Tyler Cowen’s Average Is Over, but I’m familiar with its basic thesis: smart machines are going to put lots of people out of work over the next few decades, and this is going to substantially increase income inequality. A small number of very smart people will do really well, while the broad middle class will end up with bleak, low-paying jobs—assuming they’re lucky enough to have any jobs at all.

Obviously I agree, as readers of the May issue of Mother Jones know. And since I enjoy reading opposing arguments, I was curious to see what James Bessen had to say about this today over at The Switch. Unfortunately, the answer is: nothing much. “People have been predicting that technology will kill the middle class since Karl Marx,” he says. “They have generally been wrong.”

Well, yes, they have. Unfortunately, that’s his entire argument. The Industrial Revolution didn’t put everyone out of work, and neither did 80s-era technology like ATMs and accounting software. Therefore, 2030s-era technology won’t either.

This is, literally, the worst possible case you can make for the continued relevance of the middle class. To say that “intelligent machines per se are not new,” as Bessen does, wildly misrepresents both intelligence and machines. No machine built before about 2010 has had anything even remotely resembling true intelligence. Not spinning machines that stopped if a thread broke, and not ATMs or accounting programs. Even now, the smartest machines out there display only the barest glimmers of intelligence. We simply don’t have either the software or the hardware to do it. The machines that people like Cowen and I are predicting for the 2030s just flatly have no analog to previous machines.

Those machines won’t need help from ordinary humans. In fact, as they get smarter and smarter, they won’t need much help from really smart humans either. Eventually, they won’t need any help at all. Past machines always did, and that’s the decisive difference. If you wave this away, you’re missing the whole debate. You’re pretending to argue without actually addressing the main point of the techno-optimists: What happens to human labor when machines are smart enough that they need virtually no human guidance at all?

Bessen simply ignores this possibility. Apparently he thinks that future machines will get a little bit smarter, but will remain just dumb enough that they’ll continue to need constant attention from an army of folks who graduated from high school with a C+ average. But if that turns out to be the case, there’s really no interesting conversation to be had. The future will be pretty much like the present. Why even bother talking about it?

But the evidence suggests, rather, that we’re on the cusp of big changes. Machines in the future will be a lot smarter than current machines, and they won’t need constant attention from much of anyone. If you want to engage with this debate, you need to present a cogent argument that either (a) machines will never get all that smart, or (b) even if they do, there will still be a substantial role for average humans to play. Bessen does neither.

Visit source – 

Yes, Technology Is Going to Destroy the Middle Class

Posted in alo, FF, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , | Comments Off on Yes, Technology Is Going to Destroy the Middle Class

How Likely Is a Budget Deal Later This Year?

by Polly Browder Posted on October 17, 2013

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

My congressman, John Campbell, has been sending out daily emails during the budget showdown, and today’s wrap-up shows an admirable grip on reality:

The mainstream media (MSM) would have you believe that this was a “bipartisan agreement”. It was…..in the same way that Lee and Grant reached an agreement at the Appomattox Courthouse in 1865. It was a complete surrender on the part of Republicans. All that was “negotiated” were the terms of that surrender.

Yeah, pretty much. Except that, as I recall, Grant allowed Lee’s men to keep their swords and horses, didn’t he? I’m not sure the 2013 GOP even managed to get that much out of the deal.

In any case, Campbell’s email is basically an effort to buck up the spirits of his fellow conservatives by taking shots at the media, Janet Yellen, Obamacare, and scurrilous Democrats. (No, I’m not sure what Yellen did to deserve being put into this company.) That’s all fine. But I thought this was the interesting part:

The next “cliff” comes on January 15, 2014 when the government could potentially shut down again. That date was intentionally chosen because that is when the next round of Sequester cuts, that further reduce government spending, take effect. This round of cuts will disproportionately hit defense spending. Democrats are hoping that they can leverage increased funding for defense for all the IRS, EPA, ObamaCare and welfare spending that they want. I think that effort will fail. The greatest threats to America today are from within, not without. In my opinion, we must preserve the Sequester as the only force we currently have that is limiting the cost and scope of government to some degree. Between now and then, watch the White House spin machine spool up on how “devastating” these cuts are in order to soften the ground for this push. But, if they want to shut the government down again in order to increase spending, let them do it.

How should this be taken? In its most obvious sense, it’s an assertion that Republicans won’t budge on sequester levels of spending. If the greatest threats to America are “from within, not without,” this means they’re willing to sacrifice the Pentagon in order to keep domestic spending low.

On the other hand—and I freely admit that I’m just reading tea leaves here—when Campbell says only that “I think” increased funding will fail, that sure doesn’t sound very adamant, does it? Even granted that Campbell isn’t a table-pounding type of tea partier, that seems pretty lukewarm. Maybe there really is a minor deal to be made on the budget later this year.

Visit source:

How Likely Is a Budget Deal Later This Year?

Posted in FF, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , | Comments Off on How Likely Is a Budget Deal Later This Year?

105 Years in Jail for Posting a Link?

by Polly Browder Posted on September 9, 2013

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

A few months ago I passed along the story of Barrett Brown, a young journalist/activist who relentlessly followed up on documents leaked by Anonymous, was targeted for this by the FBI, and who was eventually harassed enough that he cracked—which took the unfortunate form of recording a YouTube rant promising to “destroy” one of his tormentors.

Brown was indicted for posting the YouTube threats, and there’s no question that it was an ill-advised rant regardless of the FBI instigation. But David Carr follows up with more today. It turns out that only three of the charges against Brown are related to the video. Twelve more are related to a link he posted in a chat room:

In December 2011, approximately five million e-mails from Stratfor Global Intelligence, an intelligence contractor, were hacked by Anonymous and posted on WikiLeaks. The files contained revelations about close and perhaps inappropriate ties between government security agencies and private contractors. In a chat room for Project PM, Mr. Brown posted a link to it.

Among the millions of Stratfor files were data containing credit cards and security codes, part of the vast trove of internal company documents….According to one of the indictments, by linking to the files, Mr. Brown “provided access to data stolen from company Stratfor Global Intelligence to include in excess of 5,000 credit card account numbers, the card holders’ identification information, and the authentication features for the credit cards.”

….But keep in mind that no one has accused Mr. Brown of playing a role in the actual stealing of the data, only of posting a link to the trove of documents….“The YouTube video was a mistake, a big one,” said Gregg Housh, a friend of Mr. Brown’s who first introduced him to the activities of Anonymous. “But it is important to remember that the majority of the 105 years he faces are the result of linking to a file. He did not and has not hacked anything, and the link he posted has been posted by many, many other news organizations.”

This is almost a textbook case of prosecutorial overreach. As Carr points out, the guy who actually stole the Stratfor information is facing a sentence of only ten years. So why is Brown facing 105 years? Certainly not for a video posted while he was in withdrawal from heroin addiction. More likely, it’s because the government considers him a thorn in their side and wants to send a message to anyone else planning to follow in Brown’s footsteps. That just ain’t right. As Carr says, “Punishment needs to fit the crime and in this instance, much of what has Mr. Brown staring at a century behind bars seems on the right side of the law, beginning with the First Amendment of the Constitution.”

Visit source: 

105 Years in Jail for Posting a Link?

Posted in alo, FF, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , | Comments Off on 105 Years in Jail for Posting a Link?

The GOP’s Plan B to Kill Elizabeth Warren’s Consumer Watch Dog

by Polly Browder Posted on July 24, 2013

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

Last week, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) declared victory when the Senate confirmed Richard Cordray to head the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), the consumer watchdog agency that she conceived and helped launch. For years, Republicans had been fighting tooth and nail to kill the infant agency, which is charged with protecting Americans from abusive practices by banks, payday lenders, mortgage-servicing companies, and debt collectors. Originally, the GOP planned to cripple the agency by blocking it from ever getting a director. That didn’t work, so now Republicans have to turn to Plan B.

The GOP has several weapons in its arsenal, including a case against the agency that the Supreme Court will hear in the fall, a separate suit recently lodged against the bureau, several pieces of legislation that would weaken the CFPB, and a slew of bills that would clamp down on government regulators more generally. There’s just one problem: the plans are probably not going to work.

Continue Reading »

View the original here:

The GOP’s Plan B to Kill Elizabeth Warren’s Consumer Watch Dog

Posted in FF, GE, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on The GOP’s Plan B to Kill Elizabeth Warren’s Consumer Watch Dog

Finding Superior Options For Organic Baby Clothes

by Polly Browder Posted on July 23, 2013

Lacking an option for quality organic baby clothes can find you forced to compromise on your future purchases. Dealing with garments that have been poorly constructed, or materials and manufacturing processes that are less desirable can be very disappointing. The right retail options can be found that will be able to satisfy all of your needs with much less effort.

Clothing that has been created in ways and methods that make use of unsafe labor practices, harmful harvesting of natural resources and any other practices that you are concerned with would be a poor investment. Finding a better alternative means that you will not spend your money supporting such manufacturing practices. Smarter shopping can be a vital concern.

Products that have been manufactured using a safer range of more natural materials will alleviate any concern you may have about them being in such close contact to young children and infants. Unsafe and illegal manufacturing of garments can be a real concern for those investing in new clothing. Ensuring that your products have been created safely, and with natural materials can be a real concern.

Options can be quite limited when you choose to do business with mainstream retailers. Even the outlets that carry a wide selection of clothing and garments designed for infants may be unable to provide you with the options you are most interested in. Dealing with a seller who specializes in such concerns will provide you with greater selection and options to make use of.

With the right retail purchases available, clothing and providing for your children may be done in the best ways possible. Having to compromise your shopping habits due to a poor selection of options to make use of could be very unfortunate. Knowing where to find a range of superior options will allow you to make wiser and more effective investments each time you make purchases.

Knowing where to find the best retail options could be key to the entire process. Choosing to do business with the right professionals will allow you to make use of an expanded inventory and the highest quality products available. Cost-effective resources that will provide you with the clothing that you have been searching for will allow you to more easily find the items you seek.

Searching though an online storehouse might be a lot easier than shopping in person. A faster and more effective way to make your purchases can be found, and all without ever having to leave your home. Purchasing natural high quality clothing and garments online provides you with the easiest means to provide for your children, ensuring that your shopping efforts will meet with success.

Dealers who can offer superior options for organic baby clothes are where you should concentrate your efforts. Shopping for the right garments can be done more quickly and successfully by those who have access to the right retailers. A better way to meet all of your needs would be well worth investigating, as such efforts may allow you greater opportunity to make the most beneficial of purchases in your efforts to assemble a wardrobe for your child.

Polly Browder is a full-time mother and part-time nanny. For more information about the advantages of organic baby clothing, visit www.organicbabywearhouse.com.

Posted in organic | Tagged , , , , | Comments Off on Finding Superior Options For Organic Baby Clothes

Congress Close to Deal on Student Loan Interest Rates

by Polly Browder Posted on July 18, 2013

Mother Jones

After a more than year-long political impasse, Congress appears close to a compromise plan to lower student loan interest rates, the New York Times reported Wednesday night.

At the beginning of July, interest rates on federal undergraduate student loans—called Stafford loans—jumped from 3.4 percent to 6.8 percent after Congress couldn’t agree on legislation to avert the spike. On Wednesday evening, a bipartisan group of Senators—including Sens. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), the chair of the education committee, Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.), Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.), and Tom Coburn (R-Okla.)—reached a deal that would set rates at 3.86 percent for the coming year. Thereafter, the rate for undergrad Stafford loans would be calculated by adding two percentage points to the rate at which the government borrows money over the long term (currently at about 2 percent), but the plan wouldn’t allow that rate to rise above 8.25 percent. (For graduate student loans, the Senate plan would add 3.6 percent to the government’s borrowing rate, and set a 9.5 percent interest rate cap.)

The Senate compromise brings Congress close to a solution on the student loan interest rate log jam because the plan the upper chamber has cobbled together is very similar to a plan the House passed in May.

Many Senate Democrats had long resisted the idea of tying interest rates to market fluctuations. And they argued that the House Republican plan, and a similar plan in the Senate, would reduce the deficit on the backs of students and eventually lead to higher rates.

But after senators met Tuesday with President Barack Obama, who was worried about ending the impasse, Democrats caved.

Progressive Dems are sure to be disappointed by the accord. When the House passed its student loan interest rate bill a couple of months ago, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) said the plan “takes a bad situation and makes it worse… Our students should not be a profit center for the government.” The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that the Senate plan would save the government $715 million over 10 years.

“I am just trying to get the best deal for students,” Harkin said Wednesday, according to Bloomberg.

Congress got itself into this mess in 2007, when it passed a law that gradually lowered interest rates from a fixed 6.8 percent to 3.4 percent over five years, then allowed the rate to shoot back to 6.8 percent in 2012. Last year, no one could agree on a compromise to prevent the rate increase, so lawmakers passed a stopgap measure to extend the 3.4 percent interest rate for a year. This year, when Congress again couldn’t reach a compromise, interest rates spiked up to 6.8 percent on July 1. Since then, lawmakers and the White House have been scrambling for a solution.

Alexander said Wednesday he was optimistic the Senate deal would pass the House. “The House can hopefully accept it, send it to the president, and it can all be done by the end of the month,” he told National Journal. A vote could come by next week.

Jump to original:  

Congress Close to Deal on Student Loan Interest Rates

Posted in FF, GE, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , | Comments Off on Congress Close to Deal on Student Loan Interest Rates