Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Demeter
Demeter's Journal
Demeter's Journal
September 30, 2015
Mexican business magnate Carlos Slim, the world’s second richest man, has announced he intends to break up his América Móvil telecoms empire to comply with anti-trust reforms introduced by the country’s president, Enrique Peña Nieto. The move has been hailed in the international media as a victory for Peña Nieto as he attempts to open up the industry to competition and to curb the power of the country’s telecoms giants. But it is nothing of the sort. These reforms represent yet another stich-up at the expense of ordinary Mexicans. After all, one should always be cautious about reforms that have been pushed overwhelmingly by the very industry they are supposed to regulate.
Since his election in 2012, Peña Nieto has dismantled progressive constitutional rights and accelerated the privatisation of government-owned companies. International investors and corporations have been allowed to further accumulate and control the country’s natural resources, no small matter for the world’s sixth largest producer of oil. In common with Peña Nieto’s other reforms, the new telecommunications law inevitably favours Mexico’s economic and political elites. It reflects a trend which has continued unabated since the 1980s and which has witnessed a massive transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich, with now well over half the population living in poverty. The reforms, which have been passed by congress but await Peña Nieto’s personal seal, stipulate that no company can control more than 50% of market share. On the surface, this would appear to be a welcome development. In theory it will indeed allow for smaller players to enter the market, increase competition, lower prices and offer consumers higher-quality and more diverse media products. But that doesn’t mean there aren’t lots of workarounds.
Take Mexico’s largest media company Televisa, for instance, owned by media mogul Emilio Azcárraga Jean (worth US$3 billion). The law doesn’t limit Televisa’s market share. Rather, it allows for media companies to diversify their investments. Article 9 will allow Televisa to acquire TV stations without requiring the authorisation of the regulators while another article guarantees that no limits be placed on how many paying channels it can operate, opening up huge new sources of profit. As a result of the reforms, Televisa can extend its TV empire and also move into the mobile phone market. It’s the same elsewhere in the sector: Slim’s América Móvil, primarily a mobile phone company, can now invest in broadcasting, cable and satellite TV. The claim that the new law will lead to higher-quality programming is similarly contradicted by new measures which will allow TV stations to use up to a third of their air time on commercials. Such a move is highly attractive to advertisers and TV executives alike, but unlikely to improve content.
The reforms do not threaten to disrupt the profits of Latin America’s telecommunications giants; quite the contrary, now they will no longer be confined to dominating one sector of the market. In such a context, smaller competitors will find it hard to enter and establish themselves in the market, given that telecoms giants will extend their share.
MORE
Carlos Slim’s empire broken up but oligarchs still control Mexico
http://theconversation.com/carlos-slims-empire-broken-up-but-oligarchs-still-control-mexico-29072Mexican business magnate Carlos Slim, the world’s second richest man, has announced he intends to break up his América Móvil telecoms empire to comply with anti-trust reforms introduced by the country’s president, Enrique Peña Nieto. The move has been hailed in the international media as a victory for Peña Nieto as he attempts to open up the industry to competition and to curb the power of the country’s telecoms giants. But it is nothing of the sort. These reforms represent yet another stich-up at the expense of ordinary Mexicans. After all, one should always be cautious about reforms that have been pushed overwhelmingly by the very industry they are supposed to regulate.
Since his election in 2012, Peña Nieto has dismantled progressive constitutional rights and accelerated the privatisation of government-owned companies. International investors and corporations have been allowed to further accumulate and control the country’s natural resources, no small matter for the world’s sixth largest producer of oil. In common with Peña Nieto’s other reforms, the new telecommunications law inevitably favours Mexico’s economic and political elites. It reflects a trend which has continued unabated since the 1980s and which has witnessed a massive transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich, with now well over half the population living in poverty. The reforms, which have been passed by congress but await Peña Nieto’s personal seal, stipulate that no company can control more than 50% of market share. On the surface, this would appear to be a welcome development. In theory it will indeed allow for smaller players to enter the market, increase competition, lower prices and offer consumers higher-quality and more diverse media products. But that doesn’t mean there aren’t lots of workarounds.
Take Mexico’s largest media company Televisa, for instance, owned by media mogul Emilio Azcárraga Jean (worth US$3 billion). The law doesn’t limit Televisa’s market share. Rather, it allows for media companies to diversify their investments. Article 9 will allow Televisa to acquire TV stations without requiring the authorisation of the regulators while another article guarantees that no limits be placed on how many paying channels it can operate, opening up huge new sources of profit. As a result of the reforms, Televisa can extend its TV empire and also move into the mobile phone market. It’s the same elsewhere in the sector: Slim’s América Móvil, primarily a mobile phone company, can now invest in broadcasting, cable and satellite TV. The claim that the new law will lead to higher-quality programming is similarly contradicted by new measures which will allow TV stations to use up to a third of their air time on commercials. Such a move is highly attractive to advertisers and TV executives alike, but unlikely to improve content.
The reforms do not threaten to disrupt the profits of Latin America’s telecommunications giants; quite the contrary, now they will no longer be confined to dominating one sector of the market. In such a context, smaller competitors will find it hard to enter and establish themselves in the market, given that telecoms giants will extend their share.
MORE
September 30, 2015
The mainstream reaction to the forced resignation of John Boehner as the Speaker of the House has been a kind of weary admiration. He fought the good fight against the extremists in his Republican caucus, the narrative goes, but his solid Midwestern virtues (he’s from Ohio) were ultimately no contest for the extremism of the Tea Party. This interpretation is far too generous to Boehner, whose failures, political and substantive, were due mostly to cowardice. The tragedy of Boehner is that he could have been a great Speaker, even on his own terms, but instead his legacy is one of almost complete failure.
Boehner long made it clear that he was a dedicated party man, who believed that what was good for the G.O.P. was good for the country as well. This is how the issue of comprehensive immigration reform came to be the true crucible of his speakership. Following President Obama’s reëlection, in 2012, it was clear that Republicans had to try to appeal to Hispanic voters. In March of 2013, Reince Priebus, the chairman of the Republican National Committee, released a report saying that the Party “must embrace and champion comprehensive immigration reform.” In short order, many Republicans in the Senate, including such prominent figures as John McCain and Marco Rubio, did just that, and a bill which included a path to citizenship for a majority of undocumented immigrants passed by a vote of sixty-eight to thirty-two.
Boehner also supported immigration reform, at least in its broad outlines—because he correctly saw that it was good for both his party and his country. And there was no doubt that the reform bill could pass the House, with the support of most Democrats and a substantial number of Republicans as well. But Boehner’s Tea Party colleagues in the House opposed immigration reform. So the choice for Boehner, who controlled the House floor, was clear: pass a historic bill that would be good for the Republicans and for the republic, or appease the extremist elements in his party in hopes of hanging on to his position as Speaker.
Boehner caved, refusing to bring the bill to the floor for a vote, and he suffered the fate of all those who give in to bullies; he was bullied some more. This year, the fight was over the highway bill, another piece of popular legislation that Boehner himself and a majority of the House (as well as the Senate and the President) supported—as well they might, given that maintenance of roads and bridges represents some of the basic work of government. But again the Tea Party intimidated Boehner into keeping the bill off the floor, depriving the Speaker of another major accomplishment...
MORE
The Pointless Cowardice of John Boehner By Jeffrey Toobin
http://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/the-pointless-cowardice-of-john-boehnerThe mainstream reaction to the forced resignation of John Boehner as the Speaker of the House has been a kind of weary admiration. He fought the good fight against the extremists in his Republican caucus, the narrative goes, but his solid Midwestern virtues (he’s from Ohio) were ultimately no contest for the extremism of the Tea Party. This interpretation is far too generous to Boehner, whose failures, political and substantive, were due mostly to cowardice. The tragedy of Boehner is that he could have been a great Speaker, even on his own terms, but instead his legacy is one of almost complete failure.
Boehner long made it clear that he was a dedicated party man, who believed that what was good for the G.O.P. was good for the country as well. This is how the issue of comprehensive immigration reform came to be the true crucible of his speakership. Following President Obama’s reëlection, in 2012, it was clear that Republicans had to try to appeal to Hispanic voters. In March of 2013, Reince Priebus, the chairman of the Republican National Committee, released a report saying that the Party “must embrace and champion comprehensive immigration reform.” In short order, many Republicans in the Senate, including such prominent figures as John McCain and Marco Rubio, did just that, and a bill which included a path to citizenship for a majority of undocumented immigrants passed by a vote of sixty-eight to thirty-two.
Boehner also supported immigration reform, at least in its broad outlines—because he correctly saw that it was good for both his party and his country. And there was no doubt that the reform bill could pass the House, with the support of most Democrats and a substantial number of Republicans as well. But Boehner’s Tea Party colleagues in the House opposed immigration reform. So the choice for Boehner, who controlled the House floor, was clear: pass a historic bill that would be good for the Republicans and for the republic, or appease the extremist elements in his party in hopes of hanging on to his position as Speaker.
Boehner caved, refusing to bring the bill to the floor for a vote, and he suffered the fate of all those who give in to bullies; he was bullied some more. This year, the fight was over the highway bill, another piece of popular legislation that Boehner himself and a majority of the House (as well as the Senate and the President) supported—as well they might, given that maintenance of roads and bridges represents some of the basic work of government. But again the Tea Party intimidated Boehner into keeping the bill off the floor, depriving the Speaker of another major accomplishment...
MORE
September 30, 2015
Bernie Sanders might still be trailing Hillary in all the national polls, but late last month he took the lead in a more newfangled — if possibly meaningless — measure of political strength: Facebook love. According to data obtained by Quintly, a social media analytics firm, Sanders’ presidential campaign page began the day of Saturday, August 22 with 1,197,290 likes to Clinton’s 1,199,797. By the end of the day, he had 1,218,879 to her 1,205,437. His lead has only increased since then.
Sanders’ success comes despite some suggestions that the Clinton campaign has been padding its totals on Facebook with purchased likes. Back in April, Vocative, a data mining media site, reported that Clinton’s presidential campaign page was more popular among Facebook users in Baghdad than any American city. And a further side-by-side comparison of both candidates’ page data shows that, over the last month, 95% of Sanders’ growth came from within the United States, while for Clinton that number is only 74%.
Oftentimes, so-called “click farms” are based out of developing countries and employ legions of low-paid workers to create fake Facebook profiles and then like the pages of clients. Clinton has seen strong growth over the last several weeks in followers in developing countries. To cite a single example, her followers in Myanmar tripled, to 18,150. (By contrast, Sanders’ share of foreign followers is much smaller and comes mostly from Western Europe.) This doesn’t necessarily mean Clinton’s campaign was paying click-farms directly — sometimes customers buy ads from Facebook, which promises to generate a certain number of likes, and those end up coming from click farms — but that didn’t stop some Reddit users from accusing her of buying likes to stave off Sanders.
Todd Haupman is the public relations director for Wishbond, an online marketing platform, and previously worked as the social media director for two members of Canada’s parliament. According to Haupman, when politicians purchase likes on Facebook, it comes from a general ignorance and lack of understanding of social media...
Sanders Has an Army of Die-Hard Facebook Fans, While Clinton's Campaign Is Trying to Buy Popularity
http://www.alternet.org/election-2016/sanders-has-army-die-hard-facebook-fans-while-clintons-campaign-trying-buy-popularity?akid=13528.227380.OrDPHe&rd=1&src=newsletter1043186&t=6Bernie Sanders might still be trailing Hillary in all the national polls, but late last month he took the lead in a more newfangled — if possibly meaningless — measure of political strength: Facebook love. According to data obtained by Quintly, a social media analytics firm, Sanders’ presidential campaign page began the day of Saturday, August 22 with 1,197,290 likes to Clinton’s 1,199,797. By the end of the day, he had 1,218,879 to her 1,205,437. His lead has only increased since then.
Sanders’ success comes despite some suggestions that the Clinton campaign has been padding its totals on Facebook with purchased likes. Back in April, Vocative, a data mining media site, reported that Clinton’s presidential campaign page was more popular among Facebook users in Baghdad than any American city. And a further side-by-side comparison of both candidates’ page data shows that, over the last month, 95% of Sanders’ growth came from within the United States, while for Clinton that number is only 74%.
Oftentimes, so-called “click farms” are based out of developing countries and employ legions of low-paid workers to create fake Facebook profiles and then like the pages of clients. Clinton has seen strong growth over the last several weeks in followers in developing countries. To cite a single example, her followers in Myanmar tripled, to 18,150. (By contrast, Sanders’ share of foreign followers is much smaller and comes mostly from Western Europe.) This doesn’t necessarily mean Clinton’s campaign was paying click-farms directly — sometimes customers buy ads from Facebook, which promises to generate a certain number of likes, and those end up coming from click farms — but that didn’t stop some Reddit users from accusing her of buying likes to stave off Sanders.
Todd Haupman is the public relations director for Wishbond, an online marketing platform, and previously worked as the social media director for two members of Canada’s parliament. According to Haupman, when politicians purchase likes on Facebook, it comes from a general ignorance and lack of understanding of social media...
September 30, 2015
Bernie Sanders' Shrewd Move That May Push Clinton Left
FORGET PUSHING HER LEFT; PUSH HER OUT! FIGHT CRIME AND CORRUPTION--RETIRE HILLARY (AND BILL) FROM PUBLIC LIFE.
http://www.alternet.org/election-2016/bernie-sanders-shrewd-move-may-push-clinton-left?akid=13525.227380.dmkrH7&rd=1&src=newsletter1043107&t=9
When Bernie Sanders’ Senior Advisor Tad Devine announced in August that the Democratic presidential candidate would not be running any attack ads against Hillary Clinton, many saw the move as simply being consistent with his previous campaign strategies and his progressive platform. Sanders has said he “hates and detests these 30-second negative ads” and has never run one. He sees the ads as part of what’s broken with American politics, and his disavowal of them fits with his electoral reform policies, which condemn super PACs and the buying and sensationalizing of U.S. elections.
But Sanders’ refusal to produce attack ads has proven to be more than a matter of simple moral consistency. His pledge represented a shrewd political decision by the Sanders campaign—a decision that has now paid off.
Electoral reform is central to Sanders’ platform for president. By swearing off attack ads against his opponents and cash from super PACs which often fund such ads, he has attempted to show that unlike his opponents, he can actually carry out the ideals he speaks so often about. In fact, shortly after Bernie’s announcement, his campaign sent a cease-and-desist letter to a PAC supporting him, which was first formed by Congressional lobbyist Cary Lee Peterson to encourage the Vermont Senator to run.
Meanwhile, Clinton, who earned a reputation for cutting attack ads during her 2008 presidential bid against Obama, is running on a similarly progressive electoral reform platform—while also gladly accepting more than $20 million in support from Priorities USA Action, her Super PAC. At the same time as her own website criticizes the Supreme Court’s Citizen United case, saying it “helped unleash hundreds of millions of dollars of secret, unaccountable money into U.S. elections that is drowning out the voices of ordinary Americans and distorting our democracy,” Hillary is seeking some $2 billion, much of it PAC money, for her campaign....
September 29, 2015
The billions of dollars China loans to Venezuela in exchange for oil are a “disgrace” and used for corrupt purposes that go undisclosed to the general public, said Harvard professor Ricardo Hausmann.
Venezuela, which has tapped China for more than $45 billion over the last decade, is increasingly reliant on the world’s second-biggest economy for cash because of its unwillingness to comply with the requirements of the International Monetary Fund, Hausmann wrote in a Sept. 28 opinion piece for Project Syndicate. Those loans have become more important than ever as the nation’s international reserves tumbled with oil prices to a near 12-year low.
“The Chinese have not required that Venezuela do anything to increase the likelihood that it regains creditworthiness,” wrote Hausmann, a former Venezuelan planning minister. “They merely demand more oil as collateral. Whatever the IMF’s faults,” China Development Bank “is a disgrace.”
The loans have “built-in privileges for Chinese companies” in sectors including telecommunications, appliances, cars and oil drilling, Hausmann said. An e-mail to the bank seeking comment, sent after business hours, wasn’t immediately returned....
SO WHAT?
Harvard’s Hausmann Calls Chinese Loans to Venezuela a ‘Disgrace’
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-09-28/harvard-s-hausmann-calls-chinese-loans-to-venezuela-a-disgrace--if47489t?cmpid=yhooThe billions of dollars China loans to Venezuela in exchange for oil are a “disgrace” and used for corrupt purposes that go undisclosed to the general public, said Harvard professor Ricardo Hausmann.
Venezuela, which has tapped China for more than $45 billion over the last decade, is increasingly reliant on the world’s second-biggest economy for cash because of its unwillingness to comply with the requirements of the International Monetary Fund, Hausmann wrote in a Sept. 28 opinion piece for Project Syndicate. Those loans have become more important than ever as the nation’s international reserves tumbled with oil prices to a near 12-year low.
“The Chinese have not required that Venezuela do anything to increase the likelihood that it regains creditworthiness,” wrote Hausmann, a former Venezuelan planning minister. “They merely demand more oil as collateral. Whatever the IMF’s faults,” China Development Bank “is a disgrace.”
The loans have “built-in privileges for Chinese companies” in sectors including telecommunications, appliances, cars and oil drilling, Hausmann said. An e-mail to the bank seeking comment, sent after business hours, wasn’t immediately returned....
SO WHAT?
September 29, 2015
China dares you to cross its giant glass bridge: Bridge over the river why PHOTO HEAVY
http://www.theverge.com/2015/9/29/9413571/china-biggest-glass-suspension-bridge
September 28, 2015
going on right now!
best link for the lunar eclipse
http://time.com/4050491/supermoon-eclipse-livestream-video/going on right now!
September 27, 2015
At the White House, a stunned President Obama expressed hope for bipartisan progress as turmoil among Republicans ended Representative John A. Boehner’s speakership...And on Wall Street, fear set in at the prospect of another showdown over the government’s ability to pay its debt, support its export businesses and simply keep its doors open.
Mr. Boehner’s sudden announcement on Friday that he will step down from the speakership and leave the House on Oct. 30 has thrown Washington into deep uncertainty. His resignation is likely to herald an even more combative stretch in the nation’s capital, emboldening conservatives to defy Mr. Obama on looming decisions regarding spending, debt and taxes. Some in Congress and the White House hold out hope that Mr. Boehner’s departure and the election of a new speaker will break the fever among conservatives, who have been plotting his downfall for over a year, and grant his replacement a grace period. Mr. Obama promised Friday to “reach out immediately” to the next speaker to begin working on the nation’s problems. But more prevalent is a sense of dread that an already bitter and divisive political atmosphere is about to get even worse... with conservatives claiming Mr. Boehner’s demise as a political victory, many expect his successor to face tremendous pressure to bring that combative spirit to the halls of Congress, and to instigate a showdown with the president over budget limits and the debt ceiling at the end of the year.
Uncompromising conservatives on and off Capitol Hill are demanding the elevation of one of their own to confront the president at every turn. And lawmakers who had pressed to get rid of Mr. Boehner warned Friday that they would not buckle in their defense of those spending limits, even in response to veto threats by Mr. Obama that could lead to a Christmastime stalemate and government shutdown.
IT'S GOING TO BE A LIVING NIGHTMARE--THE ATTACK OF THE ZOMBIE STUPID IDEAS THAT REFUSE TO DIE
The Post-Boehner Congress and Washington’s Sense of Dread By JONATHAN WEISMAN and MICHAEL D. SHEAR
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/27/us/the-post-boehner-congress-and-washingtons-sense-of-dread.htmlAt the White House, a stunned President Obama expressed hope for bipartisan progress as turmoil among Republicans ended Representative John A. Boehner’s speakership...And on Wall Street, fear set in at the prospect of another showdown over the government’s ability to pay its debt, support its export businesses and simply keep its doors open.
Mr. Boehner’s sudden announcement on Friday that he will step down from the speakership and leave the House on Oct. 30 has thrown Washington into deep uncertainty. His resignation is likely to herald an even more combative stretch in the nation’s capital, emboldening conservatives to defy Mr. Obama on looming decisions regarding spending, debt and taxes. Some in Congress and the White House hold out hope that Mr. Boehner’s departure and the election of a new speaker will break the fever among conservatives, who have been plotting his downfall for over a year, and grant his replacement a grace period. Mr. Obama promised Friday to “reach out immediately” to the next speaker to begin working on the nation’s problems. But more prevalent is a sense of dread that an already bitter and divisive political atmosphere is about to get even worse... with conservatives claiming Mr. Boehner’s demise as a political victory, many expect his successor to face tremendous pressure to bring that combative spirit to the halls of Congress, and to instigate a showdown with the president over budget limits and the debt ceiling at the end of the year.
Uncompromising conservatives on and off Capitol Hill are demanding the elevation of one of their own to confront the president at every turn. And lawmakers who had pressed to get rid of Mr. Boehner warned Friday that they would not buckle in their defense of those spending limits, even in response to veto threats by Mr. Obama that could lead to a Christmastime stalemate and government shutdown.
“To get members to bust the budget caps, they have to threaten a Christmas-vacation shutdown for members of Congress,” said Representative Thomas Massie, Republican of Kentucky and one of the rebels who pushed for Mr. Boehner’s overthrow. “Heaven help the speaker who replaces John Boehner and goes along with that charade.”
IT'S GOING TO BE A LIVING NIGHTMARE--THE ATTACK OF THE ZOMBIE STUPID IDEAS THAT REFUSE TO DIE
September 25, 2015
Clinton spoke a language that DNC members know well, focusing ably on broad themes that are familiar to Democrats and on the electoral mechanics that are a source of fascination for members of the party’s national committee. She promised “to help Democrats win up and down the ticket—not just the presidential campaign.” She declared, correctly, that “It’s time to rebuild our party from the ground up.” And she tipped her hat to the popular notion that the party needs to get back to the 50-state strategy of former DNC chair Howard Dean. “We have to compete everywhere,” announced Clinton, to loud applause, which continued as she declared, “We’re building something that will last long after next November.”
Sanders spoke a language that DNC members are learning in a turbulent campaign season that has already produced a fair share of surprises; offering a mixture of progressive-populist agenda and political tough love. The senator from Vermont held nothing back when he spoke to the committee members—and to a crowd of Minnesota grassroots activists that had packed into the ballroom to cheer him on. “My friends, the Republican Party did not win the midterm election in November: We lost that election,” Sanders declared. “We lost because voter turnout was abysmally, embarrassingly low, and millions of working people, young people and people of color gave up on politics as usual and they stayed home. That’s a fact.”
MORE FACTS AT LINK
Bernie Sanders Lays Down 2016’s New Electoral Math
“I think you’re looking at the candidate who can substantially increase voter turnout all across the country.”
I THINK SO, TOO! DEMETER
http://www.thenation.com/article/bernie-sanders-explains-the-new-math-of-2016-to-democratic-leaders/
Democratic candidates for president flew to the Twin Cities last week to make their pitches to members of the Democratic National Committee. They did not come to debate—a missed opportunity highlighted by Martin O’Malley in a fiery speech decrying the DNC’s constricted debate schedule—but to sell themselves to the men and women who devote their waking hours to figuring out how to elect Democrats.
For Hillary Clinton, the Democratic front-runner and a veteran of DNC gatherings going back to the 1970s, the point of the visit was to reinforce traditional understandings of electability.
For Bernie Sanders, a longtime independent who has emerged as Clinton’s most serious challenger for the party’s 2016 nod, the point was to expand the understanding of who is and who might be electable.
Clinton spoke a language that DNC members know well, focusing ably on broad themes that are familiar to Democrats and on the electoral mechanics that are a source of fascination for members of the party’s national committee. She promised “to help Democrats win up and down the ticket—not just the presidential campaign.” She declared, correctly, that “It’s time to rebuild our party from the ground up.” And she tipped her hat to the popular notion that the party needs to get back to the 50-state strategy of former DNC chair Howard Dean. “We have to compete everywhere,” announced Clinton, to loud applause, which continued as she declared, “We’re building something that will last long after next November.”
Sanders spoke a language that DNC members are learning in a turbulent campaign season that has already produced a fair share of surprises; offering a mixture of progressive-populist agenda and political tough love. The senator from Vermont held nothing back when he spoke to the committee members—and to a crowd of Minnesota grassroots activists that had packed into the ballroom to cheer him on. “My friends, the Republican Party did not win the midterm election in November: We lost that election,” Sanders declared. “We lost because voter turnout was abysmally, embarrassingly low, and millions of working people, young people and people of color gave up on politics as usual and they stayed home. That’s a fact.”
MORE FACTS AT LINK
September 25, 2015
Weekend Economists Leave Autumn Leaves September 25-27, 2015
So this is an easy weekend for all of us:
Post anything that says "close of summer" or "start of fall" and live in the moment. The Earth is tilting and the sun is spending less and less time on our side of the planet. Make the most of these golden moments!
Here in Michigan the weather has been ideal: sunny, not too hot, not too cold, could have a little more rain, but that's coming next week...so here's a tribute or two for the season:
Profile Information
Gender: FemaleHometown: Ann Arbor, Michigan
Home country: USA
Member since: Thu Sep 25, 2003, 02:04 PM
Number of posts: 85,373