Online shopping up this year

When you read the stories of what's happening in the stores, it's no wonder more and more people are buying online. It's so much easier to be a rational shopper and compare prices from the comfort of your home than getting caught up in a shopping frenzy at the store.

For the week ending Dec. 9, consumers spent $5.9 billion online, up 15 percent from the same period a year earlier, according to comScore, which tracks Internet activity.

E-commerce spending for the first 39 days of the 2011 holiday season reached $24.6 billion, also up 15 percent versus the corresponding days last year, comScore added.

Earlier in the season, the day that has become known as "Cyber Monday" saw a record $1.25 billion spent online in the United States, up 22 percent from last year. Other early season shopping days were also strong, with "Black Friday" e-commerce sales jumping 26 percent from a year ago.

Read the rest of this post...

Remember when the GOP called Obama a Muslim? Now they’re saying he's too Christian.

First he was a Muslim.

Then he declared a war on religion (but not enough war on Islam).

And now he's too Christian.

Apparently the far right is now upset that the White House is all decorated for Christmas. From Media Matters:

Here's my favorite part from Malcolm:

How simple, politically astute, symbolically helpful and cost-effective it would have been for the Obamas this year to say that in sympathy with so many struggling countrymen, they were curtailing holiday decorations to match the sacrifices of others.

Right. Now imagine the seismic eruption that would have occurred if the Obamas announced they were curtailing (banning!!) Christmas decorations in the White House this year. Talk about a five-alarm fire for Fox News. The First Family would have been denounced as Grinch-like heathens.

Absolutely right. Can you imagine the uproar if the Obama's canceled Christmas?

Republicans need to start focusing on the actual economic, and other, problems this country is facing. Read the rest of this post...

OWS-related music video: What’s happening to the land I love?

About Occupy Wall Street, and more. It's quite good. Great iconic images. By Robert Horn, the brother of one of our long-time readers:

Read the rest of this post...

NYT claims "Star Wars" is 100 percent effective at shooting down ICBMs

I'm confused about something in the NYT. In an article supposedly debunking (I'm not so sure it's debunked) Newt Gingrich's concern about an electromagnetic pulse (likely from a nuclear device detonated over an American city) taking out much of the US electronic infrastructure (which also means our electrical grid), the following three paragraphs pop up.  The grafs seem to conclude that Star Wars works (and the NYT reporter seems to editorially accept the premise in between the lines of what he writes):

But it is to the risk of an EMP attack that Mr. Gingrich has repeatedly returned. And while the message may play well to hawkish audiences, who might warm to the candidate’s suggestion that the United States engage in pre-emptive military strikes against Iran and North Korea, many nuclear experts dismiss the threat. America’s current missile defense system would thwart such an attack, these experts say, and the nations in question are at the kindergarten stage of developing nuclear arms.

The Missile Defense Agency, an arm of the Pentagon that maintains an arsenal of ground-based interceptors ready to fly into space and smash enemy warheads, says that defeating such an attack would be as straightforward as any other defense of the continental United States.

“It doesn’t matter if the target is Chicago or 100 miles over Nebraska,” said Richard Lehner, an agency spokesman. “For the interceptor, it’s the same thing.” He called the potential damage from a nuclear electromagnetic pulse attack “pretty theoretical.”

Huh?

This sounds like one of the Star Wars programs. And I don't recall us ever being able to, with 100% certainty, shoot down incoming ICMBs. Here's what I found at Wikipedia, which describes the system mentioned in the article:

The U.S. Ground-Based Midcourse Defense (GMD; previously known as National Missile Defense – NMD) system has recently reached initial operational capability. Instead of using an explosive charge, it launches a kinetic projectile. The George W. Bush administration accelerated development and deployment of a system proposed in 1998 by the Clinton administration. The system is a dual purpose test and interception facility in Alaska, and in 2006 was operational with a few interceptor missiles. The Alaska site provides more protection against North Korean missiles or accidental launches from Russia or China, but is likely less effective against missiles launched from the Middle East. President Bush referenced the 9/11 attacks and the proliferation of ballistic missiles as reasons for missile defense. The current GMD system has the more limited goal of shielding against a limited attack by a rogue state.

Okay, the Pentagon quote in the NYT seems to be in response to Gingrich talking about rogue states attacking the US, and, per Wikipedia, that seems to be the "goal" of this program, but does it work 100% of the time?  That's not just the clear implication of what the Pentagon official said, it's seems to be the clear conclusion the NYT reporter has reached in this story.

Anyone else up on this? Read the rest of this post...

Mitt Romney is... The $10,000 Man

The DNC created a mock $10,000 bill with Mitt Romney's face on it to poke fun at the out-of-touch $10,000 wager Romney tried to make with Rick Perry during the last GOP debate. Read the rest of this post...

Gingrich takes "no adultery" pledge, for the 4th time

But this time he means it.  At least until November 7. Read the rest of this post...

QE3 could cost up to $1 trillion

The first two rounds were bad enough, but why should the Federal Reserve give more money - especially this amount - to the same bunch of losers who ruined the economy? The first two rounds of quantitative easing helped Wall Street pump up their trading, but it hasn't trickled down beyond that. This makes no sense at all, and is not a replacement for an actual stimulus plan that would benefit the broader population and the economy. The Wall Street giveaways have to end. Let them gamble and lose their own damned money.

If the Fed decides that the US economy needs another round of monetary easing, the price tag likely would be between $700 billion and $1 trillion, according to a new analysis.

While the Fed has not said explicitly whether it will enact a third round of quantitative easing — or QE3 in market parlance — speculation has grown that the central bank will step in should the economy stall again in 2012. The Fed next meets Tuesday, when the topic of more easing is likely to come up.

Recent indicators such as in housing, unemployment and consumer confidence have shown improvements, though most economists are expecting the gains to be temporary and, more importantly, susceptible to shocks from a European recession.

If QE3 happens, Bernanke is going to have to be sent packing. Someone is obviously floating this idea which means the plans are probably ready and waiting. Read the rest of this post...

Guardian: What the Top 1% really owns

Here's a nice bit of animation from The Guardian on the Top 1% (and the Top 0.1% above them). There's much detail; feel free to pause and ponder the data of your choice.

Please do notice the ending though, starting at 4:39. It makes a point I've been making as well. The Top 1% has strata, and you don't get power until you get into Top 0.1%. (H/T RedStateProgressive for the link.)



And for a quick, one-shot look, check out the graph in this post. Where would that last bar be if it represented the Top 0.01%? Answer: In your upstairs neighbor's apartment.

At the level of the 0.01%, you don't just have money, you have power. And you don't just have power, you have Power, Jon Corzine–power — freedom from the Rule of Law.

GP Read the rest of this post...

Excellent parody of the Rick Perry anti-gay ad that blew up in his face

Excellent parody. (Or should I say Perry-dee.) Read the rest of this post...

Occupy protesters shutting down ports in spite of unions telling them not to

I don't know about this. From AP:

Anti-Wall Street protesters along the West Coast joined an effort Monday to blockade some of the nation’s busiest docks, with the idea that if they cut off the ports, they cut into corporate profits.

The protesters are targeting the locations because they believe American ports have become “economic engines for the elite.” They are most upset by two West Coast companies — giant West Coast port operator SSA Marine and grain exporter EGT — that they believe epitomize the big corporations that make up the “1 percent.”

Goldman Sachs owns a major stake in SSA Marine, and the bank has been a repeated target of Occupy protesters since the movement began. The two port companies have also engaged in high-profile clashes with union workers lately, and the Occupy protesters want to stand up for the workers.

Okay, the connection to Goldman is interesting. But I'd like to know a hell of a lot more about just who works at that port, and whose goods are going through that port - meaning, they're not stopping Goldman's imports, they're stopping imports to businesses across America (and exports from business across America) right before Christmas, and during a Depression. And what's worse, the unions seem, at best, divided on this action (which isn't a good thing if it's supposedly being done in support of the unions).

More from CNN:

In addition to Los Angeles, Oakland, and San Diego protesters planned to shut down ports in Portland, Oregon; Seattle and Tacoma, Washington, Vancouver, British Columbia and Anchorage, Alaska, according to the Occupy the Ports website.

Then there's this:

"We are occupying the ports as part of a day of action, boycott and march for full legalization and good jobs for all to draw attention to and protest the criminal system of concentrated wealth that depends on local and global exploitation of working people, and the denial of workers' rights to organize for decent pay, working conditions and benefits, in disregard for the environment and the health and safety of surrounding communities," organizers said on their website.

Hmm. This is starting to sound more radical than I'm comfortable with, and that's the first time I've felt this way throughout these many months. And according to the article, truckers, for example, are going to lose a day of pay because of this action. I'm sorry, but that bothers me right before Christmas and in the middle of a Depression.

Alternet has a different take on all of this:

If work is shut down at the ports, "It's one more day that Goldman Sachs and Wall Street firms are unable to create profit," said Koch. And as the website for the action says, "U.S. ports have thus become economic engines for the elite; the 1 percent these trade hubs serve are free to rip the shirts off the backs of the 99 percent, who turn their profits."

That's how port truck driver Leonardo Mejia from Los Angeles sees it, too. Drivers, he says, "are part of the 99 percent." Mejia drives for Shippers Transport Express in Los Angeles and says that he's excited about the action, even if work stops at the nation's largest port complex. It means that he and most of his fellow drivers (not just the 1 percent) will also not be making any money that day. Mejia is part of the 82 percent of port truck drivers in the United States that are classified as independent contractors and not employees.

Maybe. I'm just getting a bad feeling about all of this. I hope I'm wrong. Your thoughts? Read the rest of this post...

How TCF Bank tried to cheat a kid out of $200

The bank changed course when this example of their corruption hit the papers. But the story does not report that the bank changed the policy.

The Chicago Tribune has the full story, but the short version is that 18 year old Daniel Ganziano had a balance of $4.85 in his account. The bank assessed a $9.95 monthly maintenance fee putting it into overdraft. They then charged an overdraft fee of $28 per day. Net result the kids account went from $4.85 in credit to $230 in debt overnight.

The Chicago Tribune claims that this is 'Problem Solved'. But all they have done is to solve one instance. The bank has not changed its policy of charging $28 per day for overdrafts of over $5. That is loansharking.[H/T Boing Boing] Read the rest of this post...

The GOP who cried "socialist"

Politico:

Some Republican critics say that Obama’s remarks this week in Kansas — delivered in the shadow of Teddy Roosevelt’s “New Nationalism” speech about using government to rein in corporate interests doing harm to people — offer evidence that he’s pushing a socialist agenda, but Obama stressed to Kroft, as he did in the speech, that it’s all about more basic fairness.

People in the audience at his speech, Obama said, want to know, “What’s happened to the bargain? What’s happened to the American deal that says, you know, we are focused on building a strong middle class?” Americans are “concerned about inequality” and he’s trying to remedy it by placing new rules on Wall Street, by intensifying consumer protections by getting his Consumer Financial Protection Bureau fully up and running, and by asking the rich to pay more in taxes to fund government spending on investments in the future like education and health care.

Yeah, Teddy Roosevelt was a socialist.

Someone should put a microphone in front of every Republican member of Congress and ask them what "socialism" is. I suspect you'd get several hundred really dumb answers that vaguely describe the Soviet Union, which kind of went away two decades ago.  But the Republican party only has so many tricks up its sleeve, and crying "communist" is one of them.  It's really offensive to the memory of what the Soviet Union actually was - and don't for a minute think that the Republicans aren't accusing Obama of being a communist, that's exactly what they mean when they say "socialist" - aka Soviet (they also call Obama and his administration "Marxist" - again, someone should ask them what that means).

I visited the Soviet Union and then Russia.  Back in early 1984, and then again shortly after its demise. It was a scary, seriously messed up, place.  And it's an offense to everyone the Soviets killed, and all the lives they ruined, to claim that stopping insurance companies from banning people with pre-existing conditions, or holding Wall Street accountable for the disaster they, and their ilk in Europe, brought upon the world, is "just like what the Soviets did."  I was there.  It's really not.

The Democrats should have put a stop to this "socialist" charge the second it came out from the Republicans.  But they let it go, and soon it became okay for Republicans of every stripe to make the absurdly offensive charge.  At some point Democrats need to out the Republicans for the extremist one-note bullies they really are. Read the rest of this post...

Krugman: We’re in a Depression

Krugman's point: It may not be as bad as the Great Depression, but that's hardly comfort. He gets into the political implications of Europe falling apart at the seams, and how the Euro - and overall, integration both political and economic - was meant in large part to help stop all those wars the Europeans have been having for a few millennia now. He notes uncomfortably that Germany is either being made out to be the bad guy, or in fact is starting to be the bad guy, and how historically that's never been a good thing. He also talks about the rise of the far right in Europe (the anti-immigrant far right won a key election in Sweden when I was there nearly a year and a half ago, and look at what's happened to the Republican party in this country).

It's really infuriating that the only thing the Republicans and the Democrats in this country can agree on is cutting spending, which maybe shouldn't be the last thing on our agenda, but it sure as heck shouldn't be the first during a Depression. Read the rest of this post...

Report: Failed UK bank due to lax regulation

It's the same old story that we've heard over and over. Easy regulations plus even easier implementation of the regulations. In this case, the former (Labour) government is blamed but the regulation failure which sounds fair, but also not out of the ordinary for any government. We saw the same behavior in the US under both Clinton and Bush and we know that Obama has not taken a tough line against the bankers as well when it comes to regulation. Governments of all flavors get addicted to the growth numbers that the bankers generate during the good times and are afraid of doing anything to stop it.

If only Lord Turner's report on the Royal Bank of Scotland failure wasn't such a common story.

"The fact that no individual has been found legally responsible for the failure begs the question: if action cannot be taken under existing rules, should not the rules be changed for the future?" Turner said.

"In a market economy, companies take risks on behalf of shareholders and if they make mistakes, it is for shareholders to sanction the management and board by firing them.

But banks are different, because excessive risk-taking by banks, for instance through aggressive acquisitions, can result in bank failure, taxpayer losses, and wider economic harm. Their failure is a public concern, not just a concern for shareholders," he added.

Read the rest of this post...

Durban climate change talks finish with success

The good news is, it was a tough finish with lots of stress and arguing but they got there in the end. The bad news is that there's still a lot more hard work ahead to forge an actual agreement, which will then have to be implemented. It will take a lot of time and a lot more hard work, including cries from industry and the GOP, but it has to be done. The Guardian:

Two weeks of talks — the last 60 hours of which was a single marathon negotiating session, with officials holed up in a conference centre through three nights with scarcely a break — ended with a surprise decision struck during a tea break just before dawn on Sunday.

A small huddle of key ministers were ordered to meet for 20 minutes and thrash out their differences. With tempers rising and the talks minutes from being abandoned, the chair, South African foreign minister Maite Nkoana-Mashabane, ordered China, India, the US, Britain, France, Sweden, Gambia, Brazil and Poland to meet in a small group or "huddle". Surrounded by nearly 100 delegates on the floor of the hall, they talked quietly among themselves to try to reach a new form of words acceptable to all.

The agreement – dubbed the "Durban platform" – is different from the other partial deals that have been struck during the past two decades, with developing countries, including China, the world's biggest emitter, agreeing to be legally bound to curb their greenhouse gases. Previously, poorer nations have insisted that they should not bear any legal obligations for tackling climate change, whereas rich nations – which over more than a century have produced most of the carbon currently in the atmosphere – should.

Read the rest of this post...