Ditching your big bank is the way to go

Not just because 650,000 consumers have switched to credit unions since September 29, but because the American public is tired of being manhandled by these behemoths of greed.  The latest stupid move by not-to-bright Bank of America was the instigator of this latest rush away from institutions like them, Wells Fargo, Chase and Citibank.  B of A wanted to charge its customers $5 per month to access their own money by using their debit card.  Other banks thought of it, even tested, but decided no.

Even more have deserted the big guys and moved to smaller banks where service is much better, and they are not so greedy.  The bank dumping movement began officially on November 5, prompting another 40,000 to join credit unions.  This, combined with the larger figure is more than credit unions add in a whole year, expressing the ire of consumers in the U.S.  We switched to a smaller bank a couple of years ago, but they have eventually been acquired by BMO Financial Group of Canada.  We’ll see?

Derivatives time bomb

Occupy Wall Street formed “Dump Your Bank Day” which started on November 8.  The Occupy Movement has been very vocal over the big bank menace citing the consolidations going on for 20 years resulting in a concentration of four large banks.  They are JP Morgan, Citibank, Bank of America and Wells Fargo, and they add up to 40 percent of the total assets of the commercial banking system.  On the other hand there is risk involved in their trading of derivatives.  JP Morgan Chase and Citibank combined hold 54 percent of derivatives contracts.

Investopedia defines derivatives as: “A security whose price is dependent upon or derived from one or more underlying assets. The derivative itself is merely a contract between two or more parties. Its value is determined by fluctuations in the underlying asset. The most common underlying assets include stocks, bonds, commodities, currencies, interest rates and market indexes. Most derivatives are characterized by high leverage.” 

The key here is the term “high leverage.”  Companies in that category are considered to be at some financial risk, in some cases bankruptcy.  So on top of everything else, the extra fees and charges by big banks, they could also tank if the derivatives market goes bad.  Both the above banks think their risks are manageable but Davis Paul, Pres. Of Fiscal Strategies Group, isn’t so sure.  He cites “…the corruption of the culture of commercial lending as banks embrace the trading culture that is central to the derivatives world.”



According to Marcy Gordon writing for the Associated Press, “Federal regulators bowed to pressure from big banks seeking a quick exit from the financial bailout program and did not uniformly apply the government's own conditions set for repaying the taxpayer funds.”  Get this; the banks wanted this quick exit so they could avoid any limits on executive’s compensation.  Taxpayers pay for the bailout and these greedy bastards go home with our money.  No wonder Americans are deserting the big banks in droves.

In all fairness to the system, the taxpayer will recoup the $245 billion invested in banks and will make an additional $20 billion in profits.  But it’s just the arrogance of this industry that has galled the American public as they continue to dump the culprits.

Impeach Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer



AZ Gov. Jam Brewer exposed



I hesitate to address the woman as Governor, which is because I feel she has never acted nor performed as the position demands.  Her incompetency is so blatant that Brewer’s time in office can best be described as a period of counter-productivity for the state of Arizona.  I can’t remember it ever being this bad in any state nationwide.  There is even a recommendation from Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee chairman Rep. Steve Israel (D-N.Y.) that she should be impeached over the redistricting mess.

I can say this because I have lived in the state of Arizona for almost twenty years, having lived before that in the South, Washington, D.C, Chicago and Los Angeles, where I witnessed some weird politics at times.  But nothing like the tyrannical government of Jan Brewer.  Both George W. Bush and the Windy City’s Richard J. Daley could have taken lessons from this woman, except that they at least had some modicum of intelligence; well at least Daley did.   

In case you haven’t heard, Brewer and her lackeys in the state legislature moved to remove Independent Colleen Coyle Mathis from the redistricting commission because she drew the wrong lines that put the GOP and some of its newest additions to Congress in jeopardy.  Mama Quayle, wife of former Republican V.P. Danny, even lobbied Brewer for her sonny boy Ben.  Pathetic.  This pitiable woman who sits in the Arizona state capitol building was in New York promoting her stupid book when all the redistricting furor was going on.



From what Israel said, the Dems are going all-out with “every strategy to correct this “…trampling of a fair and independent process."  The DCCC is going after House members in California, Illinois and Florida.  Arizona was not mentioned and that may be because this redistricting already puts Rep. Ben Quayle’s seat at risk, or they think the state is hopeless.  It is hard to imagine that voters would not see the ineptness of most GOP House members since they became a majority there.

So if progressives can’t get the attention of an apathetic American public by spelling out their ineptitude, maybe the approach is to start proceedings to impeach or recall politicians like Arizona State Sen. Russell Pearce and Jan Brewer.  We could move on to national figures like John Boehner and Mitch McConnell.  Why didn’t we think of this for the GWB administration?  The political world is changing daily, and regardless of the trend to the right nationwide, I am not convinced that this country is so conservative it is willing to overlook the inequities in our social makeup.   

If you still don’t agree with the idea of impeaching Jan Brewer, you must listen to this audio, which should make up your mind for good.  It is from the Alan Colmes show on conservative, I repeat conservative, Fox radio.

Have you been exposed to mail order diseases?

You may have and not even know it.  That’s because some lunatic parents are ordering measles through the mail to intentionally infect their child and this friend, if you can call them that, subjected you and your children to the disease by you just being in their house.  They most likely got it from a Facebook group called, “Find a Pox Party in Your area.”  These nut cases aren’t satisfied with refusing to vaccinate their children, once again exposing the community to whatever they might catch.

And this is one moronic idea you can’t blame on the junk mail industry.  These new entrepreneurs are the Joneses next door, who were no doubt scared by the debunked vaccinations causing autism study that came from a doctor in Great Britain, who lost his license to practice medicine over the issue.  Doctors and other medical experts are concerned that these families still don’t get it, and continue to do stupid things like intentionally exposing their children to measles, chicken pox, mumps, whooping cough and more.

It is hard to understand how any responsible parent—and this does not imply that any of these wackos are that—could accept completely unknown organisms from strangers and intentionally infect their children.  To me this seems like sheer lunacy, the type that bears an investigation which could lead to removing the children from these homes.  My local Phoenix TV station did an excellent job of exposing these fruitcakes, actually talking to some of the participants.

KPHO-TV investigative reporter Morgan Loew noted that one doctor said this is dangerous.  Dr. A.D. Jacobson said chickenpox is “extremely contagious” and should not be sent through the mail.  This after Loew told him of the Facebook page that read, "I got a Pox Package in mail just moments ago. I have two lollipops and a wet rag and spit."  Another said, "This is a federal offense to intentionally mail a contagion.”  Yet another woman said, "Tuck it inside a zip lock baggy and then put the baggy in the envelope :) Don't put anything identifying it as pox."

You have to see the video below to believe it:

ABC News reports that medical authorities and doctors are warning parents that the practice of sending these diseases through the mail is “not only unsafe but illegal.”  They reconfirm the danger of trying something this critical to the child’s health when receiving it from a complete stranger. 

In the same report, another medical specialist in pediatric infectious diseases at Vanderbilt Children’s Hospital, Isaac Thomsen, said what is being sent through the mail may not even be effective for transmitting the diseases.  But Thomsen warned further that “…lollipops could carry other more dangerous viruses, like hepatitis.”

Infant with measles

A Tennessee U.S. Attorney says that what these families are doing “…carries a sentence between less than a year to 20 years if convicted…”  With the precarious financial situation at the U.S. Postal Service right now, you would think they would jump at prosecution in obviously blatant violations of the law to protect their reputation.  Another question arises, does the neighbor’s mail containing dangerous pathogens infect my mail?

This whole thing is so bizarre that it is hard to understand why law enforcement hasn’t jumped in to stop these lamebrains from starting a plague across the U.S.  Although probably farfetched, this group has exhibited their willingness to skirt both the law and current medical practices, which makes them as dangerous as the stuff they are passing around the country.  They should be stopped now!

Afraid of losing your job? So is Congress…not yours, theirs

Now is your chance to speak your mind by voting out the blockheads in Washington in 2012 by the hundreds.  Yes, a clean sweep is necessary, although there may be a few that deserve salvaging.  I can’t come up with any names right now, but am sure some will surface as the fall elections draw near.  It would also be a good time to write your congressional representative to prepare them for the unemployment line, and you can reach them through the following sites: HOUSE; SENATE.

And for those of you who have complained about Congress in general but sort of condoned what your own lawmaker did, the experts say that the recent blundering of this esteemed body might change your mind on even that attitude.  In a September New York Times/CBS News poll, just one-third of the registered voters planned to send their representative back to Congress.  Only 6 percent of the same group believes in the re-election of Congress in general.

But a surprising statement in the New York Times article says that most operatives and analysts believe the Republicans will keep their majority in the House and challenge control of the Senate.  Considering the poll numbers coming from the same people covered in my Nov. 3 blog post, this allegation is hard to accept.  With only a 9 percent approval of Congress, and a majority of the public who feel income inequality must change, getting rid of a Republican majority is the only way to accomplish this.

But history contends that the party in the White House is the one to blame, and that is President Obama and the Democrats.  What I don’t comprehend is why the American public does not understand how Mr. Obama has been faced with the GOP of “NO” throughout his administration, making his job near impossible.  Where the President must be faulted is in his apparent inability to stand up to conservatives and insist on what he believes, and what the public wants.

What is worse is if we end up with another division in Congress that would allow a continued Washington standoff, the same kind of Catch-22 we have been going through the last three years.  This could result in a frustration of voters that provides no majority for either party in neither the Senate nor the House, producing a situation far worse than we have experienced to date.

Here are two good reasons most GOP candidates should be flushed from Congress. 

• First, they want to cut taxes when the country is in dire need of revenue, and ease regulations when that clearly didn’t work in the financial industry.
• Second, they want tax cuts for the wealthy strongly opposed by even some Republican voters.

Economist Bruce Bartlett, who worked for both the Reagan and H.W. Bush administrations, says cutting regulations to produce jobs is “nonsense.”  And this view is supported by both government and industry studies.  It’s the law of supply and demand that has held up hiring by most companies.  Reasons for layoffs found only 1,119 were due to regulations, where there were 144,746 because of poor business demand.

Applying these factors to the most popular Republican candidates, Herman Cain would significantly cut taxes for the wealthy while doing away with more regulation.  Mitt Romney made the unbelievable statement, “Don't try and stop the foreclosure process. Let it run its course and hit the bottom."  Tell that to the family who has just lost their home and ask them who they will vote for.

Reckless parents endanger children by not vaccinating

Measles are back.  Mumps are back.  Whooping cough is back.  All thanks to senseless parents that have decided not to vaccinate their children for these diseases, or delay vaccinations from the recommended schedule.  So far this year there are 152 cases of measles, double a typical year; the biggest outbreak in 15 years, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.  In the pre-vaccine days, this disease killed between 3,000 and 5,000 Americans a year.

These irresponsible families claim the right to decide what is best for their children, but overlook the fact that what they are doing is affecting their entire community.  And this could spread nationwide if these crazies continue their crusade.  It all started with a nutcase doctor in Great Britain who published a study saying that a combined measles-mumps-rubella shot caused autism.  Many U.S. parents panicked and stopped their children’s vaccinations.

There were over twenty studies showing no link between the vaccines and autism, the incorrect study was retracted, and the doctor who submitted it was stripped of his license to practice medicine.  Yet alarmist parents continue to resist vaccinating their children: “…40% of parents say they have deliberately skipped or delayed a shot for their children.” 

This continued denial after debunking the autism study is possibly due to the book, The Vaccine Book, by pediatrician Robert Sears, who says "I'm not a proponent of mandatory vaccination for schoolchildren.  …vaccines should be a parent's choice.”

 

Forty-nine states allow parents to pass on vaccinations for religious reasons; 21 for their own individual reasons.  “From 1991 to 2004, the number of unvaccinated children in states allowing philosophical exemptions more than doubled,” according to a study in Journal of the American Medical Association.  And then there are those unvaccinated travelers bringing disease into the U.S. 

Diseased child

Cancer survivor Catherine Anderson, 41, contracted measles from a fellow passenger, even though she had measles as a child.  This was made possible because her migraine medications suppressed her immune system.  Children with cancer are even more vulnerable.

In another national survey it was found, “…that more than 1 in 10 parents vaccinated their children outside of the recommended schedule developed by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.”  Others did not trust the recommended schedule and it was found that 13 percent used an alternative schedule.  A whopping 81 percent of parents who skipped or delayed vaccinations didn’t “agree” that what they were doing was harmful, thus, a complete lack of awareness of the consequences to the community.

The lead author of the study, Amanda Dempsey, says prior experience, or lack of, with the diseases could contribute to the attitude.  Those they would most likely skip were flu and chicken pox.  Dempsey also confirmed one of the reasons for skipping the measles, mumps and rubella vaccine was the bogus study on autism.  Also, they may never have seen someone with the disease and therefore can’t relate to the effects.  Doctors and scientists say this creates a dangerous situation where these parents fear the vaccine more than the disease.

Some pediatricians refuse to treat children that aren’t vaccinated.  But the American Academy of Pediatrics recommends not to “fire” them, rather they should work with them.  But this could pose a conflict.  If the doctor treats, does that mean he or she condones not vaccinating the child?

NEXT: Parents exposing their children with mail order diseases

Who do you trust? Not your government?

There are polls on Congress, the President, and government in general everywhere, coming out on almost a daily basis.  They reflect a rabid distrust in the system that runs our country and that is not good.  Only a pathetic 9 percent of the voting population thinks Congress is doing a good job.  Only 22 percent of voters strongly approve of Barack Obama’s job.  These are both recent surveys taken by Rasmussen, a conservative leaning research organization.

But the worst, coming from the New York Times/CBS News poll, found Americans’ highest level of distrust ever in their government.  Close to half of the public agree with the Occupy Movement in that it represents the will of the people.  A whopping two-thirds of the public want wealth spread more evenly in the U.S.  (There’s that old Social Democracy rearing its head again)  Seventy percent of Americans think Republicans favor the rich, 66 percent object to corporate tax cuts and want increased income tax on millionaires.

I could stop right here and have illustrated the dismal support Uncle Sam has from his constituents.  But unfortunately, there is much more.  Case in point, income inequality is greater today than it has been since the 1920s.  According to David Leonhardt in the New York Times, this is due to two broad categories: market forces and institutional forces.  The former a result of increased productivity and technology moving some workers up the ladder into better paying jobs.  The latter deregulation, decline of unions and the retardation of the minimum wage.

Another whopping 89 percent of Americans distrust government to do the right thing, and 74 percent think the country is going in the wrong direction.  In the NYT/CBS poll, 84 percent disapprove of Congress, but the President’s approval rating is 46 percent but with an identical disapproval rating.  More than half of the public are concerned over his plan to create jobs; the key complaint out there right now, especially if you are jobless.

If you are out of a job, the income inequity issue is simply not acceptable.  “Nearly 9 in 10 Democrats, two-thirds of independents and just over one-third of all Republicans say that the distribution of wealth in the country should be more equitable…”  (There’s that Social Democracy talk again)  With the disapproval of Congress jumping 22 percent since the first of the year when Republicans took over the House, people are definitely looking for a different, improved style of government.



And one of the primary reasons is that the top one-percent of earners more than doubled their incomes over the last three decades with those at the other end struggling to find jobs, put food on the table and keep their house out of foreclosure.  This report from the Congressional Budget Office also states that “…government policy has become less redistributive since the late 1970s, doing less to reduce the concentration of income.”

Other points in the study:

·       The most affluent fifth of the population received 53 percent of after-tax household income in 2007

·       People in the lowest fifth of the population received about 5 percent of after-tax household income in 2007

·       People in the middle three-fifths of the population saw their shares of after-tax income decline by 2 to 3 percentage points from 1979 to 2007

We are where we are today due to an eight-year run in the White House by George W. Bush and his ultra-conservative policies, followed by a brief period of respite in which Democrats did nothing.  Then, the GOP gains control over the House, with hefty numbers in the Senate that thwarts almost everything President Obama attempts to accomplish…just because it’s him.

But progressives have awakened and they are tuned in to 2012, alongside an American public that is fed up with the present government.  It should be an interesting year.

Recent handgun survey doesn’t ask most important question

The Gallup poll found a new low of 26 percent of Americans who favor banning handguns in the U.S. other than law enforcement and other authorized users.  This is compared to 60 percent back in 1959.  What was surprising was the change in attitude to banning assault rifles, 53 percent to 43 percent.  To me this is sheer lunacy; who the hell needs an AK-47 other than the cops and the military?  The finding is a near reversal from 1996.

But the question that is never asked in these polls is: “Do you favor banning concealed weapons for anyone but law enforcement and authorized users?”  And I don’t mean any Dick and Jane off the street who just wants to carry a gun to prove their manhood or womanhood.  This includes those exhibitionists who walk around with one in a holster.  I don’t want these malcontents, many of which have no training at all, acting as vigilantes. 

These are my two problems with the gun issue.  Concealed carry and assault weapons in the wrong hands.  People should be able to keep a gun in their home for protection, a right backed by the 2^nd Amendment.  But no where in the 2^nd Amendment does it say you can carry a handgun around on your person mimicking law enforcement, nor is it even implied.  As far as walking around with an AK-47, common sense tells any thinking person this is not something meant for the average citizen.

And now the House has OKed a bill to allow concealed guns to cross state lines.  The Wild West is turning into the Wild USA.  The National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act, House Resolution 822, would make the concealed-carry permit valid in all states but Illinois and the District of Columbia, where more sane minds have prevailed in the passing of laws to forbid concealed carry. 

“The version of the bill that was reported out makes it very clear that if someone has a concealed carry license in a state with very few restrictions they will be allowed to carry that gun into a state where they would not even be allowed to possess a gun, much less carry it,” Dennis Henigan, acting president of the Brady Campaign, said.  An example is Arizona where most anyone can buy a gun and carry it concealed with no permit or training.  A prescription for disaster.



Along with the incompetence factor of those who walk around armed but untrained, Henigan says the states are doing a lousy job of making sure that dangerous people don’t get guns.  The best example of that is Jared Loughner, in January of this year, who killed six injuring 14 including Rep. Gabby Giffords, also in the loosest gun law state in the country, Arizona.

Gallup comments on its findings in light of the regular incidents of handgun killings in the U.S. citing Loughner’s Arizona massacre.  Hardly a day goes by in that state that a shooting isn’t reported, many resulting in death.  The Brits, who are accustomed to around 600 murders per year don’t quite understand the 12,996 murders in the U.S., 8,775 of which were caused by firearms.  Gun crimes are actually down in most states but are up in New York, Virginia, New Jersey, Mississippi, Missouri, Arizona, Delaware, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, North Dakota, Connecticut and several of the smaller states.

If it is imperative for the gun nuts to carry their firearms around with them everywhere, then it is time to challenge the 2^nd Amendment to determine if the right to possess a weapon really includes this right.  Or does the meaning of a “well regulated militia” imply an organized military group, not a bunch of insurgent bubbas running around with their glorified equalizer?

What the Occupy Movement is all about

Fifty percent of American workers earned under $26,364 in 2010.  Those making $1 million-plus skyrocketed more than 18 percent from 2009.  These are figures from the Social Security Administration, and the reason why people have taken to the streets to protest this economic inequity.  The Occupy Movement focuses on the individual, as compared to the Tea Party, which, although individually inspired, makes its case for less government, thus less regulation, thus more corporate greed.

Some of those TPers on TV don’t look like fat-cats to me so you might wonder if they are following a cause, or just have a radical conservative ring in their nose.  I vote for the latter.  When a movement openly admits it would rather shut down the government than give any ground in negotiation, that’s clearly a bunch of nutcase renegades that are out of control and anti-American.  Do these twits know that compensation for the CEOs of the country’s largest corporations is up 28 percent in 2011, while those at the bottom still struggle desperately?

The Economist says that the rage of the populists against government surpasses that toward Wall Street.  With the infrastructure of American business and government crumbling like it is, it almost mirrors the decline and fall of the Roman Empire.  In studying the Occupy Movement, the magazine says: “Populist anger, especially if it has no coherent agenda, can go anywhere in times of want.”  It mentions the 1930s as one example, but most recently, the Tea Party.

The number of Americans with jobs fell again last year with 5.2 million less jobs than in 2007 when the deep recession began.  According to the Census Bureau, 5 percent of national income has moved from the middle class to the most-wealthy households.  Who can blame the Occupiers if all they want is to balance the act by simply getting a job, having something to eat, and providing a roof over their heads.  This isn’t anarchy, this is survival. 

Forbes magazine says the Occupy protesters are at the wrong place.  Instead of Wall Street, where not one “bankster” is in the top ten paid CEOs, they should be camped outside companies like health-care systems provider McKesson or others sure to benefit from health reform like ExpressScripts and United Health Group.  Their CEOs are expected to earn $131 million, $51.5 million and $48.8 million respectively.

 

Then there’s Ralph Lauren of Polo at $66.7 million, Michael Fascitelli from Vornado Realty at $64.4 million and Bob Iger of Walt Disney raking in $53.3 million.  One you might have expected to be in the highest ranks of paid executives in the world actually came in at basement bargain rates.  That’s Big Oil chief Rex Tillerson who heads ExxonMobile who makes a paltry $13.9 million.  So what we find here is more economic inequity, even within the ranks of the millionaires.  Poor baby.

In European countries like Britain and France the Social Democrats have found bashing the banker and the wealthy too good to resist, according to The Economist.  They’re looking at tariffs and a supertax on the rich the magazine questions as possibly making things worse.  President Obama’s current situation is given as an example.

And if austerity always goes along with protest as TE states, are we in for yet more tightening of government purse strings and economic inequity?  Or is this all simply a part of the far-right conservatives’ plan to eliminate government control completely and set up an autocratic system?  Should that happen, will all the Occupy demonstrators simply go home or are we in for something much worse?

Obama takes Arizona in 2012. Myth or potential reality?

A recent Rocky Mountain poll says that as of today, it would happen.  President Obama leads Republican Mitt Romney by 45 percent to 40 percent.  Herman Cain and rick Perry both come in at 38 percent.  The way things are going in the GOP right now, and if the President continues his forceful support of his jobs bill, this could be a nationwide trend in the near future.  Although the Occupy Phoenix turnout was only around 1,000, for the first time progressives have made themselves heard in Arizona.

Did you know that Arizona’s legislature was considered the most conservative in the nation last year?  Also the most farcical considering its political blunderings.  But it looks like states east and north are putting Arizona to shame in 2011 with their conservative fanaticism.  I am talking about Alabama and South Dakota.  Arizona got its first place in 2010 with the rash of stupid gun laws and the bigoted anti-immigration bill SB1070, authored by State Sen. Russell Pearce.

Due to the 2010 election, state legislatures across the country had more Republicans than anytime since 1928.  This esteemed body of racists produced a total of 1,592 bills connected to immigration.  The granddaddy, of course, was passed in xenophobic Arizona.  Other states like unenlightened Tennessee now prevents public school teachers from helping students understand theories such as evolution and global warming.

The conservatives have obviously had the momentum, but this radicalism, along with corporate greed and an inept Congress, has now awakened the progressives from their long sleep.  The Occupy movement is the best example, and hopefully this will translates into votes in 2012.  Michael Moore said Mr. Obama’s only hope for re-election was the Occupy Movement.  I don’t agree, but Moore also said he must come out immediately in a more forceful way for the left and I agree with this 100 percent.

Another very interesting point in the poll is that the President picked up 50 percent of Arizona’s Independent voters against Romney, Cain and Terry, with their showing of 29 percent, 33 percent and 26 percent, respectively.  If Independents in the most conservative state in the country have decided that Obama is the best choice in 2012, still over one year from the election, what can democrats expect from their stronghold states and those that are left-leaning?  It depends entirely on just how hard we work for the votes.

Think your personal data is safe? Think again

I spent 35 years in the junk mail industry selling your names and personal data, making a lot of money doing it.  That’s the reason companies are so anxious for you to reply to their offers, asking you to “tell them all about yourself.”  All about yourself garners over $4 billion annually for junk mailers and data brokers who hawk your private information like any other commodity.  Years ago when I started in the business, security was at the bottom of the priority list.  Profit was number one.

This has changed in the last few years with the number of personal data breaches soaring, and identity theft becoming the top consumer complaint according to the Federal Trade Commission.  The top five states in 2010 were Florida, Arizona, California, Georgia and Texas.  South Dakota was last.  You can see the full FTC report here.  The largest age group hit was 20 to 29, followed by 30 to 39, then 40 to 49.  Those age 60 plus surprisingly accounted for only 13 percent.

And then there was the massive hack into RSA SecurID tags in March of this year.  RSA provides additional security to 40 million customers to prevent unauthorized access to their data systems.  RSA’s SecurID tags are a two-factor authentication solution that provides additional security to its clients.  This includes, along with the normal username and password, a key fob or token in randomized code that must also be entered.

The hackers could now possess the keys to circumvent companies’ database protection.

RSA described the attack as an “advanced persistent threat” (APT), an approach that involves “…patient, skilled, well-funded attackers…”  It was carried out in three stages.  First, “phishing” emails are sent to employees of the target company.  In RSA’s case, one opened the message and then opened an attached Excel file.  Bingo, malware installed through the backdoor. 

Second, the hacker, in control of the employee’s computer, steals his or her passwords and uses them to enter other systems where sensitive data is housed.  Three, extracting files from RSA to a hosting provider’s hacked machine, the data is then downloaded to the hacker. 

The security industry believes there have been other victims, companies not willing to talk openly like RSA.  Those affected by the RSA breach include giants like Amazon, Google, Facebook, Yahoo and Microsoft.  Other large corporations were Charles Schwab, Freddie Mac, Wells Fargo, Intel and IBM.  Government agencies named were the General Services Administration and the IRS.

Security analyst Brian Krebs said: “The sheer number of corporations mentioned in the list proves that no one is safe from attack.”  He added: “That’s why these attacks are called ‘advanced persistent threats.’  They often carry on for years without anyone knowing.  But RSA says they feel no damage has been done to the best of their knowledge, and some of its client companies may have fended off the attacks with no damage done.  You can see a list of all the companies involved here.

There is a treasure trove of personal data in this list which could yield the bad guys just about any information they wanted on most individuals in the U.S.  And this is only the beginning.  The key fobs or tokens were on the Internet underground within hours, and many of us won’t know for months, perhaps even years, if our private information is going to be stolen.

Read more here and here.

If the 1% buy elections, the 99% must cancel that with their votes

The Center for Media and Democracy’sPR Watch says, “…the top one percent are playing an increasingly outsized role in American elections.”  My simple answer to that is to offset this influence with the 99 percent that can out contribute and vote out the congressional culprits that are taking it under the table. 

Yes, that’s exactly what it is when you buy votes, no matter how the contribution was made.  We’re all sick and tired of the stock answer from aides—almost never from the elected official—that the donation of money to his or her campaign has nothing to do with the Senator’s or Representative’s votes.  BS!

This becomes even more bizarre when you consider many of these politicians and their aides, when leaving office, slip right into high-paying lobbyist positions in Washington, as the following video illustrates.

This increased influence was made possible by the Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United decision, and is one of the primary factors fueling the Occupy movement nationwide.  PR Watch accuses a CEO of the Variety Wholesalers dimestore discount chain headquartered in North Carolina of buying that state.  “The Republican agenda in North Carolina is really Art Pope's agenda,” says Marc Farinella, a Democratic political consultant.

Thanks to the Citizens United decision, Super PACs can now raise unlimited funds from corporations, unions and individuals, using this huge storehouse of cash against federal candidates.  PR Watch says this decision proves that “money is speech” and that in 2012 money will overwhelmingly come from the 1 percent.  Unless…the 99 percent kicked in say a $5 donation, $1 for low income households, for their progressive candidate of choice.  Than go out and vote.

This has become necessary because in 90 percent of political races, the one who raises the most money wins.  That’s why the folks like those in the Occupy movement, plus all good progressives out there, must take a direct approach to the 2012 elections and support the left with both money and votes.  And if you need good reason to get on the progressive band wagon, let me tell you more about that 1 percent.

The figure includes 1.4 million households that earn nearly 17 percent of U.S. income and pay approximately 37 percent of its income tax.  Their collective adjusted gross income is $1.3 trillion and the average income is $960,000.  This is the group whose incomes have soared while the middle-class deteriorates.  And the higher up in the income categories you look, the higher the gains.  It is one thing if at least we are all moving in a positive direction, but this is clearly class favoritism.

It is time to re-think the philosophy of share-the-wealth, or those without will find another way to take it back.