Video: Greedy Hamster

In addition to funky cats, the Russians apparently have quite interesting hamsters as well.  (I still think I prefer these videos without the music added.)

Read the rest of this post...

Video: 56 episodes of Star Trek simultaneously

I made it through 2 minutes 30. (Geek alert) Sounded a bit like another Star Trek episode when Data heard a thousand voices at once.

Read the rest of this post...

EU debt increasing, even with austerity

In yet another sign of trouble for the wisdom of harsh fiscal austerity (along with the CNN report), Commerzbank has noted the destructive impact of austerity. The story by conservatives that austerity cures all problems is proving false, just as many liberal economists stated from the beginning. It doesn't work that way and there are no solid examples to show it working in modern history either. The Democrats need to ramp up the discussion on austerity and its human cost because it's ugly. Read more about the Commerzbank report via CNBC:In a note to clients, analysts at Commerzbank said data is now clearly showing that government debt in the euro zone’s periphery is rising, despite the imposition of tough austerity at the behest of the International Monetary Fund, the European Central Bank and the European Union. Following data showing Portuguese debt rose in the first quarter of 2012, Christoph Weil, the chief economist at Commerzbank says it is unlikely Lisbon will meet its targets without even more spending cuts. Read the rest of this post...

Mitt Romney's plan for the nation is so secret even he doesn't know it

The Obama campaign has been hitting Romney hard on his "secret strategy" for America - meaning, they're hitting Romney hard for not dealing plans for much of anything. Romney would understandably prefer to keep the conversation on Obama.  But at some point, the man needs to spell out his vision for the country.  And having run for President, and office, for so many years, it's disturbing that he doesn't seem to have one.

AP really lets Romney have it in this rather long story detailing policy after policy about which Romney has little detailed to say. Read the rest of this post...

How rude of Ron Paul to keep beating Mitt Romney in the primaries

It's so mean of Ron Paul to keep winning. Winning is for losers. From Dave Weigel:

Not quite yet. Over the weekend, Minnesota held congressional district conventions. Now, the state's February caucus -- one of the trio of non-binding contests Santorum won early that month -- went 45 percent for Santorum, 27 percent for Paul, and only 17 percent for Romney. The Associated Press and other groups went on to estimate that Santorum would win 17 of Minnesota's delegates, Paul would win 10, and Romney 6. Wrong. Ron Paul dominated the CD conventions. According to a tweet from RNC committeewoman Pat Anderson, Paul took 20 of the 24 delegates available in the CDs.

Read the rest of this post...

Mitt Romney's Latino Problem

Mitt Romney has a Latino problem. No, it's nothing along the lines of disgraced Arizona Sheriff Paul Babeu's affair with an undocumented Mexican immigrant. Mitt's problem is that while he desperately needs Latinos to make up for his voter deficit to President Barack Obama, Latinos just don't like Mitt very much.

In fact, Fox News' own Latino division found that if the general election were held today, only 14 percent of Latino voters would cast their ballots for Romney (assuming Republicans hadn't already forced those voters to self-deport). A whopping 70% would cast their ballots for incumbent Obama.

Mitt's problem with the Latino voting bloc mostly likely stems from a deep distrust in his attitudes towards them - and that is "attitudes," as in plural. Over the course of the GOP primary, Mitt's stances on immigrants and Latinos have shifted ever more to the right to compete with the lunacy of the now-dead campaigns of Rep. Michele "Double Fence" Bachmann and Herman "Electrocute Them Already" Cain. Remember Mitt's "self-deportation suggestion," gente?

So what's Mitt to do? Always in search of his own bailout (like when he asked the federal government for cash in order to save his Winter Olympics), Romney may be hoping that possible VP pick Marco Rubio, the Cuban freshman senator from Florida, will come to his rescue.

There's just one problem with Mitt possibly picking Rubio as his running mate: Latinos aren't falling for the pandering. Recent polling finds that even with Rubio on the ticket, Mitt loses Latinos to President Obama in the general election. In fact, the GOP ticket loses to the Democratic ticket by seven points in Rubio's own home state of Florida.

Part of the problem lies with Rubio's own disingenuous attempt to duplicate the Democrats' popular DREAM Act, while still trying to keep a rabid, anti-immigrant GOP base at bay. Rubio's proposed alternative, which John called the Ream Act, would offer no path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants brought to the United States against their own volition as kids. This isn't even including the fact that Mitt himself refuses to comment on whether or not he endorses his possible running mate's legislation.

Latinos' distrust of Mitt could ultimately lie with Arizona's infamous "Papers Please" law. While he named its author Kris Kobach an "advisor," and called the law a "model for the nation" as recently as February, Mitt has pulled out the Etch-A-Sketch and changed the mariachi tune, saying that he was only referring to the E-Verify system. He even threw the author under the bus, saying that he was a "supporter" and nothing more (Mitt's spokesperson was later forced to recant).

Kobach himself tried to staple down Mitt's position, saying that in reality Mitt does want the "Papers Please" law nationwide. “He stated very publicly that Arizona’s law should be a model for how the federal government enforces its immigration laws. And he’s correct there too."

Only Mitt knows how much pandering is left for a man who flips more than a jumping bean (someone please let Mitt know that that's not Mexico's national symbol). He's already claimed his Mexico-born dad was a poor immigrant (minus that whole actually being Mexican stuff). He'll continue to erase and distort, even though we all remember he's someone who fired an undocumented gardener - a man simply trying to make a living - just to save himself some GOP votes.

Say, Mitt, you think Menudo needs any new members? Read the rest of this post...

Obama in NC today, won't mention huge anti-gay ballot initiative taking place in two weeks

Well that isn't very nice. As Joe notes over at AMERICAblog Gay:

Today, President Obama will be at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill to give a speech on student loan interest rates, which will double in July if Congress doesn't act. That's not the big issue in North Carolina right now. North Carolinians are currently voting on the viciously anti-gay Amendment 1, which will ban marriage equality and more in the state. Early voting began on April 19th for the May 8th election. Much of the opposition is coming from students. The President's campaign issued a statement a couple weeks ago, which stated Obama's opposition to Amendment 1.

It's not just not helpful. It sends a terrible message, having the President in the state, and NOT talking about the biggest issue in the state. It makes it look as if he's afraid to talk about the issue. And it sends the message to voters, especially certain constituencies deeply aligned with the President, that he just might not care how they vote on the issue.

I get that the White House wants to stay on message and talk about the economy rather than gay stuff.  Okay.  Then don't go to North Carolina two weeks before a crucial anti-gay vote.  To go anyway, and ignore a massive civil (and human) rights violation in the making, is somewhat ugly, to say the least.  It's also asking for political trouble with a constituency that knows how to make it. Read the rest of this post...

Please thank the Catholic church for throwing the US election to Obama

It's that time, every four years, when the Catholic leadership tries to throw the US elections to the Republicans.

Earlier this month, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops called for two weeks of public protest in June and July against what it sees as growing government encroachment on religious freedom.

The protests are expected to include priests and nuns and thousands of Catholic parishioners. Some activists expect civil disobedience, which could lead to powerful images of priests and nuns being led away in hand restraints.

Can't be long now until they start cutting off communion to Democrats.

I always get a kick out of two things when the Catholic leadership tries to influence US elections on behalf of Republicans.

1. That the Catholic leadership actually acts as if it still has any moral authority whatsoever after aiding and abetting, and continuing to cover up, the decades-long serial rape of children; and

2. That it pretends to represent some huge Catholic constituency when it views don't even represent a majority of US Catholics.  Meaning, if you want to do the bidding of American Catholics, watch these people protest then do the opposite of what they're asking for.

Key findings from the [PPP] survey include:

-57% of Catholic voters support the new policy President Obama announced yesterday allowing women who work for religiously-affiliated hospitals and universities to receive coverage for prescription birth control without requiring Catholic institutions to pay for the coverage directly. Only 29% oppose the policy because they believe it still goes too far in requiring birth control coverage; additionally 5% oppose it because they think Catholic hospitals and universities should be required to pay for this coverage. Catholic women are particularly positive toward the policy, with 59% of them expressing support.

-With the inclusion of President Obama’s solution for religiously-affiliated institutions, Catholics favor the requirement that health plans cover prescription birth control by a  margin of 54% to 42%. Catholic Democrats (80% - 17%) favor the requirement by virtually the same margin that Catholic Republicans (16% - 79%) oppose it; significantly, politically independent Catholics favor the requirement by an 18-point margin (56% to 38%). Catholic women also favor it by an 18-point margin, while Catholic men favor it by a 4-point margin.

But even better?  The more the fringe Catholic leadership rabble-rouses on this issue, the more it actually hurts Romney, according to PPP:

-This issue has the potential to cause Mitt Romney trouble with Catholic voters in the fall. 51% say they side with Barack Obama on this issue, while only 38% prefer
Romney’s position. Hispanic Catholics, a group Romney must make in roads with, go with Obama 59/32 on the policy and Catholic women do so by a 54/35 margin. Catholics ave been a key swing voting group in recent elections, supporting George W. Bush in 2004  and then Obama in 2008. Obama’s even-handed approach on this issue has him positioned  well with Catholics for the fall.

And it may just throw control of the US House to Democrats, again from PPP:

-Congressional Republicans risk losing their majority in the House and squandering any opportunities in the Senate by continuing attacks on the popular birth control benefit.

The trick here for the Obama administration, and campaign, is to make sure that any stories about the Catholic protests explain WHY people are protesting - namely, the Obama birth control benefit policy that most Catholics agree with.

As for the protests themselves, someone needs to counter-protest with a group of five year old boys holding signs saying "you lost your moral authority when you covered up my rape." The only way to chasten the Catholic leadership is for them to know that every single time they try to force all Americans to live under Catholic doctrine Americans will be reminded that these are the same people who to this day still protect child rapists. Read the rest of this post...

Dow CEO: If you ignore fracking problems, shale gas is awesome!

Only on CNBC's Kudlow Report can you get such priceless discussions that completely ignore the problem of earthquakes and polluted water sources. In the fantasy land known as The Kudlow Report, it's all about the wet dreams of Big Energy including the usual demands for scrapping pesky regulation, as in the already anemic regulation that is supposed to protect people.

Forget if you can that ever so small problem of cities like Youngstown, Ohio purchasing earthquake insurance or the EPA study that linked fracking to water pollution. Clean drinking water is probably overrated anyway, right?

What is missing (again) from this pro-fracking love fest on CNBC is a debate about why it's OK for business to pass on costs of fracking to everyone else. If Big Energy wants to destroy the environment to make a few bucks, why shouldn't they also be responsible for funding the cleanup and after effects of their destructive practices? With the economy still weak and Americans wondering about job security, how is it fair to push these costs onto others rather than asking the always profitable energy industry to foot the bill? Read the rest of this post...