Supreme Court hears arguments in Hobby Lobby case for corporation's religious rights

Yesterday, the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments in Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby Stores Inc, where Hobby Lobby is challenging the Affordable Care Act's insurance coverage for birth control is violating the religious beliefs of the owners of Hobby Lobby, and that the company should be exempt from this birth control requirement.  This is from CBS News.com:

Two privately-held, for-profit companies -- Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. and Conestoga Wood Specialties Corp. -- are suing the United States government over a provision in the Affordable Care Act that requires large employers to offer their workers comprehensive health coverage, including contraception, or pay a fine. Hobby Lobby's owners, David and Barbara Green of Oklahoma, say they have strong objections based in their Christian faith to providing health care coverage for certain types of contraception. The Pennsylvania-based Hahn family, the Mennonite owners of Conestoga Wood Specialties, have the same complaint.

For Christian conservatives, the cases represent the threat of government overreach.

"This case will decide whether a family gives up their religious freedom when they open a family business," Lori Windham, a senior counsel for the Becket Fund, which is representing Hobby Lobby, told CBS News. "The question here is whether the Green family can be forced to do something that violates their deeply held religious conviction as a consequence of the new health care law."

Reproductive rights advocates, meanwhile, consider the notion that some businesses could pick and choose which contraception methods to cover "out of touch [and] out of line," Ilyse Hogue, president of NARAL Pro Choice America, told reporters.

Contraception is "integral with our economic security and our ability to hold jobs for our lifetime," Hogue said. "We've had enough of this idea our reproductive health is somehow separate from our economic well being... Our bodies are not our bosses' business."

The two cases, however, have implications that go well beyond the so-called "wars" on women or religion. If Hobby Lobby and Conestoga prevail, it would prompt "a fundamental shift in the understanding of the First Amendment," David Gans, the civil rights director for the Constitutional Accountability Center, told CBS News.

That shift in thinking could open the floodgates for unprecedented protections for corporations that some say amount to a license to discriminate. The ramifications could be felt nationwide, in states that are enacting laws to shield businesses from regulations that may violate their "religious beliefs." Gov. Jan Brewer, R-Ariz., last month vetoed one such bill, which would have allowed Arizona businesses to refuse to serve gays on religious grounds. A number of other states across the country have been considering similar legislation.

The ramifications could theoretically go further than that. U.S. Solicitor General Donald Verrilli argued in a brief to the court that siding with Hobby Lobby "would entitle commercial employers with religious objections to opt out of virtually every statute protecting their employees" -- such as laws that ban gender discrimination, minimum wage and overtime laws, the collection of Social Security taxes, or mandated health coverage for vaccinations.

This case certainly worries me.  The big question I would have to ask is, who defines a corporation's religious belief?  Hobby Lobby is a privately held company,  so I can see the Green family's religious argument against providing birth control.  But who defines a publicly-held corporation's religious belief?  The CEO?  The Board of Directors?  The shareholders?  Will such religious beliefs have to be placed up for a shareholder vote on the next shareholder meeting?  How does such religious beliefs in God, Satan, Original Sin, birth control, relate towards selling of shoes by Nike Corporation?  Wait--Jesus Christ wore shoes.  How does religious beliefs relate towards the selling of  iPhones and iPads by Apple Computer Corporation?

There have been a lot of arguments that I've read criticizing Hobby Lobby, and their arguments for corporate religious beliefs--Talking Points Memo, Huffington Post, Daily Kos has multiple postings on their site, and Americablog has four postings.  What worries me is that if the Supremes rule in favor of Hobby Lobby, then we may see that floodgate of corporate protections on taxes, discrimination, exemption on regulations on everything--all based on religious beliefs.  Corporations only believe in one God--and that is the God of Money!  They will say anything and do anything they can to accumulate even more of their God. 

And one more thing, the Supreme Court will rule 5-4 in favor of Hobby Lobby, with Justice Kennedy being the swing vote.  Because corporations are people too, my friend.

Jack Daniels faces Tennessee "Whiskey Rebellion"

I found this story through the Yahoo Food Section, with the source story from the Wall Street Journal.  Starting with the Yahoo Food Story:

There’s a whiskey brawl going on! Not the typical post-drink brawl, but a brouhaha that was born before the whiskey even made it to the people. Let us elucidate the details.

Jack Daniel’s Whiskey: Whiskey made (1) in Tennessee (2) from at least 51% corn, (3) filtered through maple charcoal and (4) aged in new, charred oak barrels.

Tennessee Whiskey: Whiskey made (1) in Tennessee (2) from at least 51% corn, (3) filtered through maple charcoal and (4) aged in new, charred oak barrels.

See the similarity there? That’s because Jack Daniel’s—or rather, Brown-Forman Corp., the company that owns Jack Daniel’s—urged Tennessee lawmakers to require anything labeled “Tennessee Whiskey” to fit that bill. (The bill that Jack Daniel’s fits.) This is important because that “Tennessee Whiskey” label sells bottles—it’s part of why the American liquor business is booming—and without, it, the Other Guys have less of a chance in the marketplace.

Tennessee Whiskey, According to the Other Guys: Whiskey made (1) in Tennessee (2) from at least 51% corn, (3) filtered through something (maybe?) and (4) aged in some kind of barrel. This is what both small Tennessee distilleries and Diageo, the company that owns top-selling George Dickel “Tennessee whiskey,” want—looser terms—so that they can experiment with grains and woods and use family recipes, if they have them.

"If you don’t want to use new barrels or charcoal filtering, you can’t call it ‘Tennessee Whiskey.’ You can call it ‘whiskey from Tennessee’ or ‘whiskey made in Tennessee’ or any other combination,” Phil Lynch, a Brown-Forman spokesman, told Yahoo Finance.

You just have to love this ridiculous fight going on here.  Jack Daniels used the Tennessee state government to pass legislation requiring any whiskey labeled "Tennessee Whiskey" to be produced according to Jack Daniels' requirements.  Jack Daniels wants to use the term "Tennessee Whiskey" for themselves as a marketing term, and shut the rest of the distillers out.  According to the Wall Street Journal, Jack Daniels sells about 90 percent of Tennessee's whiskey, with Diageo PLC's George Dickel's Tennessee Whiskey in a distant second place.  There are also some small craft distillers in Tennessee that want to experiment in creating specialty whiskies, and are complaining about the stringent requirements and short supply of new wood barrels.  Ironically, Jack Daniels makes its own, oak barrels.  Legislators in Nashville are planning to debate the possible rule changes and amendments to roll back some of these requirements.

In one sense, I can see what Jack Daniels is doing for "Tennessee Whiskey," in imposing regulations for the term is similar to such regulations for terms of  "Scotch," and "Champagne."  Unfortunately, I would say that they've gone a little too far in imposing their production requirements for the term.  Jack Daniels covets the therm "Tennessee Whiskey," as it is prominently displayed in their label.  Now that competitor distilleries are coming into Tennessee to produce their own whiskeys, Jack Daniels is fighting to maintain their own monopolistic market share.  And one way is to keep the "Tennessee Whiskey" term for themselves. 

It is rather ironic, because Jack Daniels is okay--but it is not the best tasting whiskey out there.  To me, it is good as a mixing drink, but I would prefer the more subtle tastes of micro-brewed whiskies or bourbons.  To me, Makers Mark is a better tasting whiskey than Jack Daniels--and Maker's Mark is supposedly an inferior bourbon.  According to the WS Journal:

Brown-Forman—which is based in Kentucky (And maker of Jack Daniels)—is casting the debate in near-apocalyptic terms, saying in a news release Friday that Tennessee Whiskey was "under attack."

It accused Diageo of trying to undermine the designation by watering down regulations that would "dramatically diminish the quality and integrity'' of Tennessee Whiskey and make it inferior to bourbon.

Bourbon, the most famous type of American whiskey, is made with a recipe similar to Jack Daniel's. Under longstanding federal regulations, any whiskey labeled "bourbon'' must be distilled in the U.S. using at least 51% corn and aged in new oak barrels that have been charred. Unlike Tennessee Whiskey, bourbon doesn't require maple charcoal filtering. It can also be made in any state, although more than 90% of bourbon is produced in Kentucky.

There is no federal regulation governing the term "Tennessee Whiskey.''

(....)

Part of what makes bourbon and Tennessee Whiskey unique is the substitution of barley and other grains with corn, typically making them sweeter than other whiskies such as Scotch. Brown-Forman says new barrels are another important difference, delivering unique flavor and turning the spirit orange-brown without caramel coloring. Charcoal filtering produces a smoother sip, it says.

To me, the best-tasting whiskey would have to be a single malt Scotch.  And there are a wide variety of single malt scotches out there, with so many different flavors, aromas, and subtleties.  Unfortunately, single malt scotches have gone up in price.  So I've switched over to the next best thing in bourbon.  Go into a BevMo store, you'll find a number of interesting bourbons--each with their own subtleties in their distillation and production process.  Half the fun is trying out different bottles of scotches and bourbons and comparing them to each other.  Apparently Jack Daniels is saying that watering down the regulations would '"dramatically diminish the quality and integrity'' of Tennessee Whiskey and make it inferior to bourbon.'  I've tasted unique bourbons in Makers Mark, Knob Creek, Elijah Craig, Woodford Reserve (Which is OWNED by Brown-Forman), Rock Hill Farms, and a few others that have a better taste and complexity than Jack Daniels.  There are plenty of whiskies and bourbons that are superior to Jack Daniels.

The term "Tennessee Whiskey" is not under a "near-apocalyptic" attack.  Jack Daniels use of the term "Tennessee Whiskey" is. 

How many types of orgasms can a woman really have?

I'm not sure I have a comment on this story from Salon.com.  But it is rather interesting:

 The elusive female orgasm has been the subject of much scientific debate over the last century.  Some researchers have argued that women can have two types of orgasms through external clitoral stimulation and vaginal penetration, while others believe both orgasms are the same type accessed through different parts of the female anatomy.

In a bid to settle the dispute once and for all, a recent study published in the Journal of Sexual Medicine claims to have solved this age-old scientific mystery, revealing that there are indeed two types of female orgasms … well kind of.

Two French gynecologists carried out ultrasound scans on three “healthy volunteers” by measuring variations in their blood flow patterns to decipher just how their sexual organs moved during different types of sex.

These women were asked to arouse themselves through manual self-stimulation of the external clitoris and through vaginal penetration using a wet tampon. Say what? Both examinations measured the changes in blood flow patterns in the area to ascertain just how the clitoris and vaginal complex responded.

The outcome? The study discovered there is a “functional difference” in orgasms depending on the type of sexual contact.  Specifically, researchers found that only the top of the clitoris responds to external stimulation, while during vaginal penetration both the “root” of the clitoris and the whole clitoral and vaginal complex respond. This affected the flow of blood and therefore produced different sensations in the body.

The study concluded: “Despite a common assumption that there is only one type of female orgasm, we may infer, on the basis of our findings, that the different reported perceptions from these two types of stimulation can be explained by the different parts of the clitoris (external and internal) and clitorourethrovaginal complex [the system of clitoral nerves] that are involved.”

In other words, as Jezebel explains, both types of orgasms are clitoral, but the parts of the clitoris that respond are different depending on the type of stimulation.

So, are these doctors going to further continue this important line of research?  Inquiring minds want to know.

Democrats are abandoning the Middle Class

I found this Kevin Drum post, where Drum responds to this American Prospect story by Sean McElwee, on why the American voters vote against their self-interests, and whether the Democrats can use the environment as a centrist issue.  First, the American Prospect story:

For decades, thinkers on the left have wondered why the working class regularly votes against its own interests, upending what Marx believed would be an inevitable march from democracy to socialism. In his book, What’s the Matter with Kansas?, Thomas Frank argued that social issues obscure economic motives, and indeed the most salient non-economic one has always been race, at least in this country. In America, conservative politicians have exploited racism to their own benefit, first to disempower blacks with Jim Crow, then to undermine the union movement, and more recently to undercut support for welfare programs, as Ian Haney Lopez recently documented in Dog-Whistle Politics. Nixon’s “law and order campaign” played on racial fears, as did Reagan’s denunciation of “welfare queens.” Republicans played at race to win solid majorities for decades while actively working against the interests of the majority of Americans. The left has much to learn about this strategy. It needs to fundamentally re-align Americans around an issue with a deep and latent importance: the environment.

When asked about the most important global issue, 25 percent of Americans cite environmental degradation, while only 10 percent cite the economy. "Everyone studying American politics has been waiting for a new realignment because the last few decades have been marked by political apathy and the rise of a new voting bloc that is not strongly tied to either party,” says Dr. Benjamin Radcliff, professor of politics at Notre Dame and author of The Political Economy of Human Happiness: How Voters' Choices Determine the Quality of Life. “What is needed is some spark, either an event, like the Great Depression—or just a party capable of mobilizing this latent potential."

What I'm especially interested here is that Kevin Drum gets "peevish" at McElwee's story:

 Why is it that the working class often votes against its own economic interests? Well, let's compare the sales pitches of the Republican and Democratic parties when it comes to pocketbook issues:

• Republicans: We will lower your taxes.
• Democrats: We, um, support policies that encourage a fairer distribution of growth and....and....working man....party of FDR....um....

There are two problems with the Democratic approach. First, it's too abstract to appeal to anyone. Second, it's not true anyway. Democrats simply don't consistently support concrete policies that help the middle class. Half of them voted for the bankruptcy bill of 2005. They've done virtually nothing to stem the growth of monopolies and next to nothing to improve consumer protection in visible ways. They don't do anything for labor. They're soft on protecting Social Security. They bailed out the banks but refused to bail out underwater homeowners. Hell, they can't even agree to kill the carried interest loophole, a populist favorite if ever there was one. 

(....). 

And then Democrats will wonder yet again why a big chunk of the working class votes for Republicans. It's a stumper all right.

Apologies for being peevish. But honestly, Democrats have done virtually nothing for the middle class for three decades now. They're nearly as reliant on the business community for campaign funding as Republicans. Can we all stop pretending that there's some deep mystery about why lots of working and middle class voters figure there are no real economic differences between the parties, so they might as well vote on social issues instead?

If you want to know why the Democrats can't seem to win elections like the Republicans, this is it.  The Democratic Party no longer believes in policies to help the Middle Class, and barely advocates policies to help the poor and working class--Cat Food Commission anyone?  The Democrats will not "support concrete policies" in a no-compromising way that Republicans have done for three decades.  Instead, the Democrats cave and compromise to Republican demands on everything.  The Republicans know it, so they push their demands even further rightward into Crazyland, with the Democrats continuing to cave and shift rightward away from their core values.  Democratic congress critters are never primaried for compromising on their values the way that Tea Party voters primary their Republican congress critters.  And finally, both political parties have been purchased by corporations, Wall Street, and the ubber-rich.  Middle class policies and values will always be rejected for the interests of those who purchased their Democratic congressmen.

You can't expect voters to continue voting for you, if you don't give them something in return.  So far, the Democrats are not giving the Middle Class any policies to help them--not helping them with the lost jobs, improving education, bankruptcy, housing, crushing student debt, TBTF Banks, protecting Social Security, spiraling health care costs and single-payer insurance.  Social issues don't matter worth a damn--Not if people can't keep a roof over their heads and place food on their table.   And the "Vote-For-Us-We're-Not-As-Bad-As-The-Other-Guy" can only go so far--if you keep caving in and not standing for anything, then you're actually worst than "The Other Guy."  While I may know that the Republican policies are bad for the country, I also know that the Republicans are pretty consistent with their policies.  The Democrats?  They have no consistency. 

That is what's wrong with the Democratic Party.  I doubt that the Democratic Party can ever change--not with the way things are now.

Colorado GOP Senator: "a good thing that he (Aurora Theater Shooter) had a 100-round magazine, because it jammed."

I found this story on both Daily Kos, and Talking Points Memo.  I'm still trying to wrap my head around the absurd logic of this story.  From TPM:

A Republican state senator in Colorado on Wednesday suggested during a legislative hearing that it might have been a "good thing" that James Holmes had a 100-round magazine with him when he opened fire in an Aurora, Colo. theater in 2012.

According to KDVR, state Sen. Bernie Herpin (R) made the comments during a hearing debating legislation he has proposed that would overturn the state's new ban on magazines of more than 15 rounds. A measure similar to Herpin's was voted down on Monday by Democrats in the state's House.

“My understanding is that James Holmes bought his 100-round capacity magazine legally,” state Sen. Irene Aguilar (D) said to Herpin during the hearing. “So in fact, this law would have stopped James Holmes from purchasing a 100-round magazine. ... I just wondered if you agree with me.”

“Perhaps, James Holmes would not have been able to purchase a 100-round magazine,” Herpin said in response. “As it turned out, that was maybe a good thing that he had a 100-round magazine, because it jammed. If he had instead had four, five, six 15-round magazines, no telling how much damage he could have done until a good guy with a gun showed up.”

Herpin was elected in September to replace former state Senate President John Morse, a Democrat who faced a recall following his support of gun control measures.

Talking Points Memo also has the audio here:



Fox 31 Denver, has more on this story.

It is a "good thing" that the 100-round magazine jammed?  What if the 100-round magazine did not jam?  Would Holmes have killed more than 12 people, and injured more than 170 people in the Aurora theater shooting?  Is that responsible gun control--hoping gun magazines jam?

The madness of Republican politicians.

Introducing the Submarine Hotel--For only $149,000 per person per night!

I found this story via Yahoo.com, which even I can't believe:

If candy and flowers won't cut it this Valentine's Day, one high-end travel organization is offering an experience that's sure to be remembered.

The Lovers Deep offers the chance for an adventurous, rich — and not claustrophobic — couple to spend an evening below sea level. The sky-high price of $140,000 per person for one night doesn't include airfare.

The swanky submarine is an over-the-top — or shall we say below-the-deep — luxury experience billed as the "Mile Low Club" that offers members the luxe services of a chef, a butler, and a captain who cater to the two guests.

The vessels start from about 40 feet long. The hefty price tag includes romantic gestures aplenty. The package includes rose-petal scattering, Barry White on the soundtrack, and a dinner that serves up oysters, caviar, and chocolate fondant.The leisure submarine "is designed to your personal specification and built as a unique, one-off trip of a lifetime that you'll never forget," according to the website for Oliver's Travels.

"This is now Oliver's Travels' most unique, luxury and expensive 'property' on the site," spokeswoman Rachel Aldersley told Yahoo in an email. "We don't believe other travel rental companies offer an underwater vacation like this one."

As underwater vacations go, you can't beat the view. Guests can choose where to dock, "whether that be a stunning coral reef off the coast of St. Lucia or a sunken battleship in the Red Sea," the press release notes.

Good news for moguls who like subs (looking at you, James Cameron): Since this property was just added, Lovers Deep hasn't received any bookings yet — so now's the chance.

You can view the pictures of this Submarine Hotel here: 

In the back of my mind, I can just hear Robin Leach gush about how "swanky" this submarine hotel is, where you and your sweetie can enjoy your "champagne wishes and caviar dreams." In a sense, I wonder if I am living in the 1980s, watching recycled versions of Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous. The Travel Channel is famous for showing these series of people flaunting outrageous wealth--Extreme Houseboats, Extreme Yachts, World's Hottest Hotels, and Island Secrets. The cable channel Destination America has such series Epic Homes and Epic Log Cabins. Destination America even had a series, showing "Epic Bathrooms!" Epic Bathrooms???

I could go on a rant in saying that the wealthy have too much money, or present statistics in showing this inequality of wealth. In one sense, it doesn't matter. But then you have these stories of $140,000 a night stay in a submarine, and the extreme wealthy building their own private city outside the slums of Nigeria. And they are flaunting this extreme wealth in showing how much they've spent building their epic home, epic log cabin, epic bathroom! A functioning society can not exist with this type of extreme inequality, where a small segment of the population has taken all the wealth, and then gives the middle finger to the rest of society. Something will crack, and you will see a class warfare that may become violent and bloody.

Billionaire Sam Zell claims, "The 1 percent work harder!"

I found this Huffington Post story, via Daily Kos.  From the Huffington Post:

When the going gets tough, the rich dudes stick together. Or at least rich dude Sam Zell did in an interview with Bloomberg TV Wednesday.

The billionaire chairman of Equity Group Investments backed up fellow rich guy Tom Perkins, who set off a firestorm when he recently compared the "progressive war on the 1 percent" to Nazi anti-Semitism in a letter to the Wall Street Journal. (He later apologized for using the word "Kristallnacht" but defended the overall "message.")

"I guess my feeling is that he’s right," Zell said when asked by Bloomberg's Betty Liu how he felt about Perkins' stance. "The 1 percent are being pummeled because it’s politically convenient to do so."

Zell then said the problem is that all non-rich are just jealous that they don't have the same work ethic that the country's wealthiest do.

"The problem is that the world and this country should not talk about envy of the 1 percent. It should talk about emulating the 1 percent," he said. "The 1 percent work harder. The 1 percent are much bigger factors in all forms of our society."

Liu countered that the ever-widening gulf between the richest and poorest Americans must make it harder for those living under the poverty line to get ahead, no?

Nah, said Zell.

"Lots of people have come from nowhere and become part of the 1 percent," he said.

You know, I would love to see Zell work 8-12 hours a day in a fast food restaurant,  on a summer weekend day in 100 degree heat.  I'd like to see him hustling on a fryer, prepping burgers, or moving between taking lunch rush orders, mixing shakes, and handing out food for customers.  And after the lunch and dinner rushes are over, I would love to see Zell clean off counters, bus tables, sweep outside, wash dishes, restock food drawers, conduct food prep of making sauces or slicing food, and perform closing shift of even more cleaning of kitchen, wiping down dining room tables and chairs, sweeping floors, mopping floors, cleaning and sweeping kitchen area.  And I want to see Zell perform this work, making minimum wage, and still have to come home to perform his own housekeeping chores, cleaning, laundry, or fixing his own food.  I worked in a fast food restaurant for several years, starting from cooking french fries, and moving all the way up to practically supervising the night operations at the store.  It was the hardest job I have ever had to work at.

This guy is full of crap!

CNN Poll: Americans want less income inequality and government to reduce the gap

Well, isn't this an interesting poll from CNN.com:

(CNN) – A majority of Americans surveyed believe the government should work to reduce the income gap between rich and the poor, according to a new national poll.

A CNN/ORC International survey released Wednesday indicates more than six in 10 Americans strongly or somewhat agree that the government should work to narrow that gap, compared to 30% who believe it should not.

"That sentiment may put Republicans in a difficult position, because nearly seven in 10 of those surveyed believe GOP policies favor the rich compared to the 30% of respondents who said Democratic policies benefit the wealthy," said CNN Polling Director Keating Holland.

The results come after President Barack Obama made a major push in his State of the Union address last week for policies curbing income inequality.

The White House has billed 2014 as a 'Year of Action' and efforts to stem the widening gap between the rich and poor has become a cornerstone of the administration's agenda.

Opinion on the income gap appears to have changed little since the Reagan era. In 1983, 68% of Americans favored government action to narrow the divide. Today, that number stands at 66%.

Most Republicans oppose such measures, and nine in 10 Democrats favor them. Among independents, two-thirds believe the government should work to reduce the income gap.

Higher income earners agree. Fifty-seven percent of Americans who earn more than $100,000 a year said the government should help decrease the income inequality.

There is a gender gap on this issue as well, with women, at 70%, slightly more likely to favor measures to reduce the gap than men, at 62%.

I am not sure of what else to say here, except that two days ago, the New York Times ran a story, saying that businesses are now catering their products and service to the upper rich class, and forgoing the middle class. When you have 85 of the richest people on earth owning as much wealth as the bottom half of the global population, you have a serious problem here. The middle and working class has no money to spend on products and services that businesses need to sell.  No money to spend means no economic demand--there are only so many $4,000 refrigerators that the uber-rich are willing to buy.  And I certainly do not see these 85 of the richest people on earth willing to donate part of their fortune to alleviate this income gap--These are the individuals who will "retire" to their walled, private city of Eko Atlantic, surrounded by a slumville. 

Which leaves the government to take care of this situation.  Unfortunately, the government will not solve this situation, as the uber-rich, and mega corporations have just about purchased the politicians to do their bidding.  The only way things are going to change is when Americans wake up, and start demanding that the government institute such changes.  Otherwise, when things get so bad to the point where Americans have nothing else to lose, the country could end up in a dangerous time.

Corporate boss can look over your shoulder with a "wearable gadget."

This is from CNN.com:

(CNN) -- If you're a person who hates it when your supervisor looks over your shoulder at work, you may want to stop reading this column right now.

Because what follows is only going to depress you.

Hitachi, the big electronics company based in Japan, is manufacturing and selling to corporations a device intended to increase efficiency in the workplace. It has a rather bland and generic-sounding name: the Hitachi Business Microscope.

But what it is capable of doing ... well, just imagine being followed around the office or the factory all day by the snoopiest boss in the world. Even into the restroom.

And, the thing is, once you hear about it, you just know that, from a management point of view, it is an innovation of absolute genius.

 Apparently, Hitachi has constructed the perfect employee monitoring system to watch and record everything you do, everything you say, every time you take a crap on the toilet, every time to take a drink at the water cooler--your every moment that you are at work!  The device will look like an ID badge, but will contain "infrared sensors, an accelerometer, a microphone sensor and a wireless communication device."  According to CNN.com:

If you get up to walk around the office a lot, the badge sends information to management about how often you do it, and where you go.

If you stop to talk with people throughout the day, the badge transmits who you're talking to (by reading your co-workers' badges), and for how long.

Do you contribute at meetings, or just sit there? Either way, the badge tells your bosses.

The stated intention of this is to increase productivity and get the most out of employees

Management's argument for such a device is supervisors need to keep an eye on how workers are spending their time on the company hours, with employers paying for their workers time.  If the employees do not like wearing the Business Microscope, then they can find another job.   The Business Microscope is an employer's dream 'of maximum efficiency, and Hitachi says that, since the Business Microscope was first developed in its labs in 2007, "over one million days of human behavior and big data" have been collected."'

Corporate slavery has arrived.

When I read this article, I seriously wonder just how much hypocrisy and degradation that corporations have towards their employees.  It is bad enough to look at career pages on a corporate website, and read about how much corporations value their employees, and want to make employees feel like they are working in an exciting career, with great wages, and everyone will be treated like family.  While in reality, employee wages have remained stagnant, while the corporate CEOs pay has skyrocketed.  Corporations want to pay as little as they can on wages, expect complete loyalty from you, and treat you not as an "asset," but as a "cost" and "liability," from which they can fire you at any time and for no reason. 

What is especially amazing is that Hitachi had the crazy idea to design this employee monitoring device to eventually market and sell to such corporations.  And Hitachi is probably right.  There may be a huge market for more corporate-intrusive monitoring on employees.  The problem will be whether employees will abide towards company instructions of wearing such monitoring devices.  When companies treat their employees like crap, you can be employee morale and employee loyalty towards the company will plummet.  If employees can quit and move on towards another company which doesn't use such devices, they will.  If employees can not move on towards better jobs, they may be forced to wear such devices at the company workplace.  But such employees will certainly be resentful, and simply put in their time towards the company store--but they will not put in the extra effort, or desire to improve the company products or services.

Then again, I seriously doubt that corporations would give a damn.

UPDATE:  I'm curious.  If corporations start forcing their employees to wear these Hitachi Business Microscope, will the CEOs and top corporate leaders also be required to wear these devices?  And who will be listening to the CEO's Business Microscope?

GOP's new leaders are Bill, Rush, and Glenn, according to young people

I found this interesting Scribe story through Kevin Drum:

During the January 2013 focus group research, respondents in the Columbus group of young men who voted for Obama were asked to name who they viewed as leaders of the Democratic Party. They named prominent former or currently elected officials: Pelosi, the Clintons, Obama, Kennedy, Gore. When those same respondents were asked to name Republican leaders, they focused heavily on media personalities and commentators: Bill O’Reilly, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck.

This is a real problem for the Republican Party, when young people cite media personalities as leaders of your political party. Media personalities are not interested in formulating political policies to solve complex problems this country is facing. Media personalities are interested in building an audience to their TV and radio programs, so they can charge higher fees to advertisers. And how do you build that audience? How about manufacturing controversies and faux outrages to keep the hard-right, conservative base angry and looney all the time? How about pounding more stories on social issues of gays getting married, President Obama planning on taking away all your guns, the continuing "War on Christmas," ACORN, illegal immigrants getting government assistance while driving Cadillacs, or name-your-own culture war scandal?

Unfortunately, I doubt that the GOP could change and shake off the media personality leaders of O'Reilly, Limbaugh, and Beck. I'm guessing that Fox News has a strong viewership on older viewers, who have a history of regular voting. I am also guessing that Tea Party folks also regularly watch Fox News, or listen to Limbaugh and Beck, so they can become angry at the next latest outrage. Fox News will bring GOP congress critters to the studios to lob softball questions on culture war issues, or simplified solutions to complex issues--can you say flat tax anyone? The congress critters get free, and favorable, media coverage to their home states and districts, allowing them to keep the rabid, Tea Party conservative base angry enough to re-elect the same critters to office. Bill, Rush, and Glenn get to continue manufacturing their faux outrages to anger their audience, and sell more advertising. The system becomes self-serving for both the GOP and the conservative media establishment leaders that now control the GOP. With the development of blogs, Facebook, social media, Twitter, how many young people are getting their news and information from such social media sites, and not from the mainstream conservative media establishments of Fox, Rush, Bill, and Glenn?

Appeals Court rules DOMA Act unconstitutional

This will soon go to the Supreme Court. From MSNBC News:

A federal appeals court has ruled that the Defense of Marriage Act, a law that denies a host of federal benefits to same-sex married couples, is unconstitutional.

The 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston ruled Thursday that the act known as DoMA, which defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman, discriminates against gay couples.

The law was passed in 1996 at a time when it appeared Hawaii would legalize gay marriage. Since then, many states have instituted their own bans on gay marriage, while eight states have approved it, led by Massachusetts in 2004, and followed by Connecticut, New York, Iowa, New Hampshire, Vermont, Maryland, Washington state and the District of Columbia. Maryland and Washington’s laws are not yet in effect and may be subject to referendums.

The appeals court agreed with a lower court judge who ruled in 2010 that the law is unconstitutional because it interferes with the right of a state to define marriage and denies married gay couples federal benefits given to heterosexual married couples, including the ability to file joint tax returns.

The 1st Circuit said its ruling wouldn’t be enforced until the U.S. Supreme Court decides the case, meaning that same-sex married couples will not be eligible to receive the economic benefits denied by DOMA until the high court rules.

I'm thinking for the Supreme Court, it becomes a question of looking at this case from a social issue, or from a benefits issue. The social issue would be that marriage is a religious pact between a man and a woman. The benefits issue are insurance, visitation, and tax benefits that federal and state governments provide for married couples. Conservatives are arguing this is a social and religious issue for heterosexual couples--no gay couples allowed! Gay couples are demanding they should have the same benefits that married couples enjoy. With the Court so evenly divided, it becomes a question of how will Justice Anthony Kennedy decide?

This also brings gay marriage in the front of the presidential elections. Whoever will be elected president this November, will probably select one or two Supreme Court slots in the next four years. GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney will obviously choose a hard-line conservative to the Court. President Obama will probably choose a moderate-conservative to the Court. So it becomes a question of how far right will the Court be tilted in the next four years?

Mitt Romney's "The Promise of America"

I saw this post through the Daily Kos, and went to GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney's Youtube page. I watched the video with the sound off, and wanted to look at the images in this latest Romney political ad. This video is creepy: There is not one close up of an African-American, Hispanic, or any minority individual face in this video. The faces in this video are all white. Disturbing.

New poll reveals 23 percent Americans spend too much time online

Excuse me while I check out the latest OMG from Yahoo. In the meantime, you can ponder this revealing Rasmussen poll:

Americans increasingly live in a world of cell phones, laptops, Blackberries, desk computers and more, all wirelessly linked to the Internet, and now automakers even plan front-seat computers in some cars.

But a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that only 23% of adults think they personally spend too much time using the Internet, computers and mobile communications devices.

Seventy-one percent (71%) disagree and believe the amount of time they spend this way is appropriate. Seventy-five percent (75%), however, believe young children spend too much time on computers and other electronic equipment.

In a survey last August, 51% of adults said they use the Internet every day or nearly every day. Another 14% said they are online several times a week. Six percent (6%) said they are on the Internet once a week or less, while 28% rarely or never go online.

Pastor advocates more sex for married couples

This is from The New York Times:

GRAPEVINE, Tex. — And on the seventh day, there was no rest for married couples. A week after the Rev. Ed Young challenged husbands and wives among his flock of 20,000 to strengthen their unions through Seven Days of Sex, his advice was — keep it going.

Mr. Young, an author, a television host and the pastor of the evangelical Fellowship Church, issued his call for a week of “congregational copulation” among married couples on Nov. 16, while pacing in front of a large bed. Sometimes he reclined on the paisley coverlet while flipping through a Bible, emphasizing his point that it is time for the church to put God back in the bed.

“Today we’re beginning this sexperiment, seven days of sex,” he said, with his characteristic mix of humor, showmanship and Scripture. “How to move from whining about the economy to whoopee!”

On Sunday parishioners at the Grapevine branch watched a prerecorded sermon from Mr. Young and his wife, Lisa, on jumbo screens over a candlelit stage. “I know there’s been a lot of love going around this week, among the married couples,” one of the church musicians said, strumming on a guitar before a crowd of about 3,000.

Mrs. Young, dressed in knee-high black boots and jeans, said that after a week of having sex every day, or close to it, “some of us are smiling.” For others grappling with infidelities, addictions to pornography or other bitter hurts, “there’s been some pain; hopefully there’s been some forgiveness, too.”

Mr. Young advised the couples to “keep on doing what you’ve been doing this week. We should try to double up the amount of intimacy we have in marriage. And when I say intimacy, I don’t mean holding hands in the park or a back rub.”

Only married couples are suppose to have sex seven days a week? What about the single people, or the unmarried couples?

Then again, maybe the world will become a better place if more people are doing it seven days a week.

Sales of guns surging after Obama win

I'm just going to post this story without much of a comment. I'm not even sure what to say, except that there are plenty of Americans who are fearful of the coming Rapture Day, where Barack Obama will become President of the U.S., and then take away all of their guns! From Reuters.com:

PHOENIX (Reuters) - Sales of rifles, pistols and ammo are surging in parts of the United States, as many gun owners fear President-elect Barack Obama's administration may seek to tighten ownership of certain weapons.

"The day after the election, I had many more calls than usual from people looking for semi-automatic rifles," said David Greenberg, the owner of the Second Amendment Family Gun Shop, in Bisbee, Arizona, who sold out of AR-15 rifles in recent days.

"There seems to be a fear they will be banned, and it's fairly likely," he added. "Obama and Biden are driven to eliminate firearms from the face of the country."

Gun stores and trade groups have reported a spike in firearms sales in the run-up to the November 4 election victory of Democrat Obama and Vice President-elect Joe Biden, who many perceive as strongly pro-gun control.

The National Shooting Sports Foundation, a trade association for the shooting, hunting and firearms industry, reported a 10 percent jump in gun sales this year based on its analysis of an excise tax placed on firearms and ammunition, and a spokesman said the increase had grown dramatically ahead of the election.

"Gun owners are afraid of what Obama is going to do as far as guns," said spokesman Tony Aeschliman. "He has a clear record of being against us."

Obama stated his support for the right to bear arms during campaigning, although both he and Biden back a permanent ban on assault weapons -- military style semi-automatic rifles -- and "common sense measures" to keep guns away from children and criminals, positions which spurred concern among some gun enthusiasts.

"It's always been the liberal or Democratic agenda to restrict gun ownership," said Jim Pruett, the owner of a gun store in a Houston-area strip mall, whose sales more than tripled on the Saturday before the election to $35,000.

In McPherson, Kansas, gun dealer Steve Sechler said demand at a gun show last weekend jumped by more than 50 percent as buyers rushed to stock up on guns including Kalashnikov and AR-15 rifles.

"Most of the people there were cussing Obama and saying we need home defense," Sechler said.

You might also want to stock up on that duck tape as well.

Choice?

From YouTube:

Martin Luther King--I Have A Dream

In celebration of Dr. Martin Luther King's birthday, here is his famous "I Have A Dream" speech, delivered on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial on August 28, 1963 during the March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom. Even now, Dr. King's address is still so powerful in expressing the problems of race and economic inequality that exists in this country, and the potential future where we all will be free at last. From YouTube:



And here is the transcript of Dr. King's "I Have A Dream" speech.

The Christmas Defense Kit--A perfect gift for the War on Christmas!

I found this story through ThinkProgress, and I'll admit that I'm dumbfounded. I know that the War on Christmas has been raging within the delusional minds of Fox commentators Bill O'Reilly, John Gibson, and even Michelle Malkin. But I never expected that you could get a Christmas Defense Kit to prepare you for that good fight in the War on Christmas.

Yes, you heard me--a Christmas Defense Kit! What is a Christmas Defense Kit? Let's go to the World Net Daily News online store, which is selling these Christmas Defense Kits like...well...holiday fruitcakes?

It's coming!

You know it's coming.

Like clockwork, the American Civil Liberties Union grinches will be out in force punishing those erecting Nativity displays, extending Christmas greetings and otherwise exercising their God-given, First Amendment-protected rights to freedom of speech and freedom of religion.

But now you can fight back – and you don't need a lawyer to do it.

Just check out WND's online store for your personal "Christmas-defense kit." What you'll find are three choices of bumper stickers:

* "This is America! And I'm going to say it: 'Merry Christmas!'"

* "It is STILL a wonderful life – Merry Christmas!"

* "Merry Christmas! An American Tradition"

They're all magnetized for seasonal use. Buy them separately or all together. Use them this year, next year and for many years to come.

In addition, there's the "Reason for the Season Auto Magnets," also perfect for your refrigerator or office file cabinet or desk. Part of every purchase goes to Christian charities.

It's the perfect way to make your statement this Christmas – that Jesus is the reason for the season. Buy one, buy 25, buy 50!

There's one more component of your Christmas-defense kit: It's the "Operation: Just Say 'Merry Christmas' Bracelet." They make great stocking stuffers, but why wait! Make your feelings about Christmas known to one and all. Wear them to pick up the kids, when you buy groceries and when you go to work. They're guaranteed to ward off the evil spirits of the ACLU grinches.

Get your order in now, because Christmas will be upon you before you know it.

And, if you think it's just too early to worry about the anti-Christmas onslaught, go on the offensive now and proclaim the true meaning of Thanksgiving. After all, it's not really about pilgrims and turkeys -- it's about thanking God for all the blessings in our lives.

Check out WND's "Christmas-defense kit" now.

I went on to World Net Daily's store, and downloaded the pictures of the magnetic bumper stickers and the bracelet. You can pick up a 3-pack of the magnetic bumper stickers for $14.95, or a single bumper sticker for $5.95 each:

War on Christmas 3-Pack Magnetic Bumper Stickers.

The War on Christmas bracelet can be yours for only $2.00 each:

The War on Christmas Bracelet.

And if you're so anxious to become a Christian foot soldier in the War on Christmas, but can't wait until December, well, the World Net Daily store also has the War on Thanksgiving magnetic bumper sticker for only $5.95:

The War on Thanksgiving Magnetic Bumper Sticker.

And even more, according to the World Net Daily website:

"This is just about the nicest bumper sticker I've ever seen." - Joseph Farah

This Thanksgiving season (and every Thanksgiving season from now on), remind the world of what this distinctively American holiday is all about, with this beautiful magnetic bumper sticker.

It says, "Remember to thank Him. Happy Thanksgiving."

I'm trying to think of some type of comment or analysis on this, but I can't. There is this level of absurdity here that is just incredible. Who buys this stuff? Who is so angry enough that they are willing to make a political statement about Christmas?

Then there are those who are profiting in this War on Christmas. The people who created this merchandise at World Net Daily really have two agendas here. The first, obviously, is to continue this political deception of screaming how Christmas is being destroyed by liberals--a deception that meant to create a sense of victimization in order to maintain political power and control of hard-lined conservatives and the Religious Right by the conservative elite. It is about maintaining GOP political power and control of the Religious Right vote. The second agenda is to economically profit from the Religious Right. Here we have all these wonderful symbols to show your support for the War on Christmas--all for a price. The marketing strategy is brilliant--the evil liberals are going to destroy Christmas! Buy this bumper sticker in order to stop the evil liberals from destroying Christmas! I'm sure that there are plenty of World Net Daily readers who are getting sucked into this scam, and have parted their Christmas dollars for this junk. The funny thing is that there really is a War on Christmas--a war that is being won by marketers, toy manufacturers, and Big Business constantly demanding that the American consumer spend even more money, shopping earlier, for Christmas gifts. It is not the evil liberals that are destroying the meaning of Christmas, but rather Big Business' desire to commercialize Christmas. Then again, I doubt that the Fox News War on Christmas foot soldiers could ever understand that lesson.

Alabama Sex Toy Law - No Vibrators Allowed

I saw this through Shakesville, and I just can't believe it. Let's see if you can spot the absurdity in this story. From Yours Daily.com:

In Alabama, you can sell guns on any street corner but you can't sell sex toys.

That's right. Alabama is a vibrator-free state!

Well, technically you can go across state lines and buy sex toys in Georgia and Tennessee and carry them home. But the Alabama Legislature, in its infinite wisdom and in the spirit of protecting citizens from moral turpitude, a while back banned the sale of sex toys (or "marital aids" as some lawmakers coyly call them).

Today, the U.S. Supreme Court has shown a gleam of interest in this controversial state law, which has been challenged in Alabama courts by adult toy retailer Sherri Williams. She has been fighting the law for nearly 10 years.

Williams has been in district court three times on this issue and has won twice. But both times her victories were struck down by the U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals. She filed a petition to the Supremes and has hired well-known First Amendment rights attorney Paul Cambria. Also joining in the appeal petition with Williams are the Free Speech Coalition and the First Amendment Lawyers Association.

(At the very least, this case seems to be a restraint-of-trade case as much as anything else, since the devices are sold in all the neighboring states. You'd think she would win on that, alone.)

Anyway, the Supremes have informed the state of Alabama that it must file an answering brief with the High Court, which is an indication that the case might be taken up in the next session.

It seems them Alabama boys can shoot their guns off anytime they want, but when it comes to the point where an Alabama woman wants to have a little fun with her vibrator--That's a NO! NO!

I wonder if the Supreme Court will allow the sale of Clarence Thomas patented vibrators in Alabama--Coke cans with pubic hairs on top?

Fox News producer for John Gibson: Edwards "whored his wife's cancer as a fundraising gimmick."

The right wing-nuts are just going crazy over at Fox News. I found this posting on both Americablog and Daily Kos here. The original source is through Media Matters:

On the August 3 edition of Fox News host John Gibson's nationally syndicated radio program, the show's executive producer, who goes by the name "Angry Rich" on the program, claimed Democratic presidential candidate former Sen. John Edwards (NC) "whored his wife's cancer as a fundraising gimmick." He also went on to call him "a fraud" and "a pansy." Gibson referred to Edwards as "the Breck Girl," "Silky," and "the biggest fraud running for president." Gibson and "Angry Rich" were attacking Edwards for saying that Democratic candidates should give back campaign contributions from News Corp., the parent company of Fox News Channel, while accepting advance and expense money from HarperCollins, another News Corp. division that had published a book written by Edwards; Gibson played an audio clip of Edwards stating that money was donated to charity. They also attacked Edwards for his refusal earlier this year to participate in a debate co-sponsored by Fox News.

From the August 3 edition of Fox News Radio's The John Gibson Show:

GIBSON: Fraud alert. Fraud alert. This is Angry Rich's favorite subject, and it's getting to be mine as well.

AUDIO CLIP: Fraud alert.

GIBSON: Our John Gibson program fraud alert today focuses on the biggest fraud running for president, and that takes some doing. We're talking about the Breck Girl, Silky, the former senator from North Carolina, the baron of a 28,000-square-foot manse, the protector of the poor while ensconced on a pillow of 100 million dollars.

ANGRY RICH: A man who whored his wife's cancer as a fundraising gimmick.

GIBSON: John Edwards today was going after other Democratic candidates, and by other he meant Hillary Clinton, for taking money as political contributions from Rupert Murdoch or from certain employees or executives of either the Fox News Channel or News Corporation, which owns the Fox News Channel. Edwards has a real kind of problem about Fox. He just -- well, actually he doesn't have a problem about Fox. He realizes there are a whole bunch of really far-lefters who hate Fox and he's busy sucking up to them.

And here is the YouTube clip of the exchange:



This is about as a disgusting and sickening personal attack against any politician that I've seen--whether it be a Democrat or a Republican. What is not astounding is that this comment came from a producer of a Fox News program--Fox News is practically a propaganda arm for the Republican Party. What is astounding is the depth of the extreme hatred and slander that comes from these supposed "journalists." Neither John Gibson or his executive producer can criticize Edwards on his political policies, or his ideas--instead Gibson and his executive producer resort to this slimy attack of Edwards "whoring" his wife for political gain. The guttural language of this attack is uncalled for. I could say that such language should result in the firing of both Gibson and his executive producer from Fox News, but we know that will never happen. If anything, Gibson and his executive producer will be praised in conducting this extreme hatred of an attack. Because that is all the conservative right wing of the Republican Party has for debating the issues and problems that face this country. We've had seven years of Bush administration screw-ups with Iraq, the crushing debt, the increasing inequality between the upper rich and everyone else, the growing health care crisis, the Katrina disaster, the attorney scandal, and the erosion of civil liberties with the rise of a police state here. The Republicans cannot seriously debate on these issues. So instead, they are reduced to conducting malicious character attacks against their opponents.

As November 2008 gets closer, we're going to see more of these malicious character attacks coming from Fox News and the Republican Party.