Type: CE Title: TiVo TCD746320 Premiere DVR (Black) See all customer reviews Product Description: The Tivo TCD746320 Series4 Premiere DVR is the next generation of DVR technology, from the original TV revolutionary company. Store, playback, record and fast-forward to or through your favorite shows and commercials. Use TiVo’s intuitive interface to navigate your recordings, TV settings and more. Features: Connects to your cable service and replaces your cable box. Works with cable and antenna; does not support satellite. Records up to 45 hours of HD programming Record your favorite shows and discover new ones with TiVo’s new HD interface Full HD support, including 1080i and 1080p Monthly subscription required See the details
Continue reading …Click here to view this media We hadn’t heard all that much from the man who claimed that he met a demon once and helped perform an exorcism , but Governor Bobby Jindal is back in the news. He hasn’t done nearly enough work to try and restore his popularity with the conservative movement after his disastrous SOTU rebuttal response, which embarrassed him and the GOP . He was once considered an up-and-coming GOP star who could run for president in 2012, but those hopes died fast. He received a lot of airtime during the BP oil spill crisis, and I heard many Republicans sounding like they feel a bit better about him after that. Well, this won’t win him any more gold stars with the GOP, except for maybe a spot on the next Celebrity Apprentice. NOLA – Gov. Bobby Jindal would sign a bill requiring presidential candidates to provide a copy of their birth certificate to qualify for the Louisiana ballot if it reaches his desk, a spokesman said Monday. “It’s not part of our package, but if the Legislature passes it we’ll sign it,” press secretary Kyle Plotkin said. House Bill 561 was filed last week by two Republican lawmakers. President Barack Obama ‘s citizenship has been challenged by some groups, derisively called “birthers,” despite numerous independent investigations finding that documents and contemporary news reports show that Obama was born in Hawaii. The bill by state Rep. Alan Seabaugh, R-Shreveport, and Sen. A.G. Crowe, R-Slidell, would require federal candidates who want to appear on Louisiana ballots to file an affidavit attesting to their citizenship, which would have to be accompanied by an “original or certified copy” of their birth certificate. The requirement also would apply to candidates for U.S. Senate or the House of Representatives. A similar bill was recently passed by the Arizona legislature. Seabaugh, an attorney, said his bill was motivated by the numerous lawsuits that have been filed over Obama’s citizenship. “Not one of them has ever been decided on the merits,” Seabaugh said. “As an attorney, that’s offensive to me.” You’ve really sunk pretty low if Jan Brewer looks like the adult in the Birther situation.
Continue reading …enlarge Credit: AP It’s impossible to take the efforts seriously of negotiating any kind of deficit deal in context between the two parties when one side — Republicans — refuses to include the key component of tax increases, which would guarantee raising real revenues for the government in the discussion. Republican leaders in the Congress said on Wednesday they would not support tax increases as part of a deficit-reduction plan. Now Republicans compound that problem by not even sending a worthy negotiating team to the table: The White House’s proposed deficit talks with Congress appear to be unraveling before they’ve even begun. House and Senate Republican leaders announced Tuesday that their sole appointees to the May 5th meeting would be House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) and Senate Minority Whip Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.)–neither of whom are budget leaders and both of whom function largely as political mouthpieces for their party. GOP leaders also each opted to send only one appointee, instead of the requested four, to the meeting. The Democrats also sent in their B team to the table, but with Republicans (except, of all people, Tom Coburn) pledging to never increase taxes under any circumstances, it’s hard to see the point of this exercise. Matt Yglesias writes: You have a government set to steadily increase spending on autopilot as a result of demographic change and rising health care costs. And you have a Democratic President urging congress to enact spending cuts. But you have conservative politicians refusing to make a serious effort to reach an agreement out of some blend of taxophobia and fear of giving the President a win. The result, again, whether the right realizes it or not, is a gift to the wing of the Democratic Party that disagrees with Obama about the desirability of enacting spending cuts. It’s still early in the game, but I’d rather do nothing at this point than give away the store to appease the Beltway media and deficit hawks who are crying for cuts in all our programs that we pay into which are our safety net as we get older. We are entitled to Social Security, we pay for it. And if being serious about the reducing the deficit is what Republicans are all about, then they should come to the table willing to actually make a bargain instead of only caring what Grover Norquist believes. Washington Monthly: For a bunch of conservatives who claim to be obsessed with debt reduction, far-right GOP leaders don’t seem especially interested in actually working on the issue. There’s probably a good reason for this. As Matt Yglesias noted this morning, we have “conservative politicians refusing to make a serious effort to reach an agreement out of some blend of taxophobia and fear of giving the President a win.” That sounds about right. But whatever the motivation, the notion of Republicans agreeing to any kind of sensible compromise seems remote, if not ridiculous. Durbin’s Gang of Six has no real authority once they come out with their center-right plan, so I see as many Republicans as Democrats voting against their proposal anyway. When Bob Schieffer asks Paul Ryan to justify why he’s against raising taxes for the rich to get a deal, you start to see the Beltway at least waking up incrementally. Schieffer: I guess the question I would have, congressman, why do these rich people need another tax cut? I mean they’re already rich. They seem to be doing pretty well as it is now. Why cut their taxes some more?
Continue reading …David Cameron, who has created more peers more quickly than any postwar PM, told increase threatens upper chamber’s ability to do job David Cameron has been told he could “unwittingly destroy” the House of Lords because the rate of new peers appointed to the upper chamber is threatening its ability to do its job, a report has warned . The warning on the volume of House of Lords appointments and their impact on a functional parliament has been raised by the independent Constitution Unit at University College London. The unit’s report, entitled House Full, reports “huge concern” among peers. Cameron has created more peers more quickly since becoming prime minister than any of his postwar predecessors, having ennobled 117 people in less than a year. The Lords now has 792 members who are entitled to attend and vote. Written with the support of 18 senior parliamentarians and independent experts, the report said the arrival of so many new peers in such a short space of time has had a “negative impact” on the culture of the upper chamber which, in the past, has seen new members added more gradually. It warned that the Lords is now overcrowded, with members competing for seats in the chamber and office space outside, creating a “fractious” atmosphere because many peers feel frustrated at their inability to take part in debates. The report said the rapid influx of new peers – which includes many former MPs – has had a negative impact on the Lords’ non-partisan ethos and courteous atmosphere. It warned that any further increase “risks the House being unable to do its job” and called for an “immediate moratorium” on appointments, to be lifted only when the figure drops below a suggested cap of 750. It noted that, although a draft Lords reform bill is expected shortly after 5 May, it will be four years before reform happens if the legislation makes its way through parliament. The report also called for peers to be allowed to retire and for future appointments to be put on a “more transparent and sustainable basis”, with the independent House of Lords Appointments Commission determining how many vacancies exists. The report is endorsed by the former cabinet secretary Lord Butler, the former Speaker Baroness Boothroyd, the convenor of the independent crossbenchers, Baroness De Souza, the former Labour leader of the Lords Baroness Jay, the former Tory Cabinet ministers Lord Forsyth and Lord Mackay of Clashfern, the former Labour cabinet minister Lord Adonis, the former Liberal leader Lord Steel of Aikwood and the former Master of the Rolls Lord Woolf. The Constitution Unit deputy director, Meg Russell, said: “It is unusual for a group of such senior figures to come together on a cross-party basis to call for change, but there is huge concern in the House of Lords about this issue. “The fear is that David Cameron may unwittingly destroy the Lords through this volume of appointments. “We await Lords reform, but in the meantime we must maintain a functional parliament. The risk is that reform fails – as it often has before – but that, meanwhile, the Lords has become bloated and dysfunctional”. House of Lords David Cameron Hélène Mulholland guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Infallible, maybe, but Pope Benedict still needs help around the house. Worldcrunch (via Time ) provides a look at the pontiff’s everyday life, including the four “guardian angels” who help him: Four lay women who have taken vows of poverty and chastity work in his Vatican apartment. Loredana runs the…
Continue reading …When a 15-year-old has a baby, it doesn’t have to mean the end of her education and her hopes of a career. Amelia Hill visits the school that treats motherhood as an opportunity Pregnant at 15, Tanya didn’t think having a baby would ruin her life. But then, she didn’t think she had much of a life left to ruin. Rarely going to school, fighting with her mother, and depressed, Tanya had been devastated to discover that John, her boyfriend and the father of her child, was just 13 years old; throughout their 15-month relationship, he had pretended to be 17. The couple stayed together during the pregnancy, but five weeks after the birth of their daughter, Amy, John told Tanya he didn’t want anything to do with either of them. Yet today, Tanya is bubbling with love for her 10-month-old daughter, with shy pride in herself and hope for both their futures. In the past 14 months, she has gained five GCSEs and two level 1 qualifications. Next year, she will take two more GCSEs. If all goes to plan, she will then start a beauty therapy course at the local college. “Amy makes my world a better place. It makes my day when she smiles,” she says. “I never went to school much until I got pregnant. I had no plans for the future. Now I want to do well and go to college, then get a job and be a good mum for Amy.” Teenage pregnancies have been falling since 2002 and are now at their lowest for more than a decade: 7,586 under-16-year-olds became pregnant in the past 12 months, compared with 8,200 the year before, according to the most recent research by the Office for National Statistics. Despite the fall in numbers, however, the UK still has the highest rates of teenage births and abortions in western Europe – five times those in the Netherlands, and double those in France and Germany. Britain’s young people are still likely to become sexually active at a younger age than their European peers. The rate of sexually transmitted diseases among children aged 14 and younger is rising. Launched in 1999, the government’s Teenage Pregnancy Strategy aimed to halve the rate of conception in a decade. Instead, the conception rate has fallen by just 13.3% among those aged under 18, and by 11.7% in under-16s. But even this hard-won reduction is at risk, campaigners warn, thanks to the scrapping of all direct funding to the £285m scheme by the end of the year. It is left to people such as Dr Kathy Burton, head of Moat House school in Stockport , Cheshire, to try to improve the life chances of the 20,000 under-18s who get pregnant each year and decide to keep their babies. To try to make education and a job the priority of mothers who are little more than children themselves. To teach them how to be good parents and, ideally, to delay further pregnancies. “My opening gambit to every girl who comes to us is: ‘What would you have wanted to be doing, 12 months from now, had you not got pregnant?’ Then I make it clear that they will still be able to achieve that ambition – or do even better – with a baby,” says Burton, whose school was one of the first of a dozen units across the country dedicated to pregnant girls or young mothers aged between 13 and 17. Last month, the Guardian was granted rare access to Moat House. The unit, discreetly tucked into a quiet residential close near the centre of Stockport, is clearly no ordinary place of learning. Signs on the walls instruct teachers what to do if a girl goes into labour while at school. Visitors are greeted by a bold picture display of cheerful pink and blue cots, each one naming and congratulating a new mother on the birth of her baby. A large, bright creche is the centrepiece of the school: the girls are allowed to check on their babies at any time during the school day but are expected to spend breaks and lunchtimes caring for them. Four teachers, including Burton, teach the usual core curriculum to between 19 and 24 girls. Expectations are high – GCSEs are completed in two and a half terms instead of the usual two years, with the assumption that the students will go on to college. Their chances are good: last year, more than half of the 65 GCSEs taken by the students were achieved at grade C or above. Last May, Ofsted ranked the school as “outstanding ” for the third time. Alongside the maths and English lessons, the school prepares the girls for their new role as mothers. Midwives and health visitors run sessions on sex education, what to expect during labour, pain relief, weaning, potty training – and preventing further pregnancies. Nursery nurses talk to the girls about how to care for a new baby. A Connexions careers adviser eases each girl into college by encouraging her to apply for college courses in line with her interests and aptitudes. The school even has its own Young Parents’ Project co-ordinator, part of Stockport’s drive to help its post-16 mums find college places and access childcare. Such specialist support has put Stockport at the head of the national league table for the government’s Care to Learn scheme, which helps get teenage parents back into learning by funding childcare while parents are at college. Having been excluded from school for much of the time between turning 13 and becoming pregnant at 14, Annie was functionally illiterate when was referred to Moat House. She is now headed for college where she will study animal care and hopes to become a zoologist. If she makes it to university, she will be the first member of her family to do so. “Being pregnant calmed me down a lot. I had a lot of anger but I’ve grown up,” she says, expertly cradling her three-and-a-half-month-old daughter in one arm and tidying toys with the other. “I’ve learned I can read if I try – and I want to try now, I want to be a good role model for Tara. Without her, I wouldn’t have done anything with my life but now I’ve got plans and ambitions.” Most of the girls are in long-term relationships. Often with the same boyfriends since the age of 14, they talk of how having a baby has strengthened their relationships and given their partners a new focus in life. “My boyfriend, Colin, used to be so immature,” says 16-year-old Lauren, who gave birth to her son Ciaran two months ago. “He was just a kid himself. But now he’s got a job and is finding us a house. At the beginning, he wouldn’t hold Ciaran because he was so scared, but now he changes his nappy, feeds and burps him. He’s a brilliant father and Ciaran’s a real daddy’s boy: his eyes light up whenever his dad comes into the room.” Behind Lauren is a shelf of Romeo and Juliet textbooks. Underneath are letters the girls wrote earlier in the year, to their “bumps”: “When you get old enough to have sex, please use protection because you don’t want to end up like Mummy,” reads one. Another says: “Me and your daddy are going to bring you up so you can go and sort yourself out with a career when you’re older.” By her own admission, Lauren had little idea what to do with her future before she became pregnant. Now she laughs as she remembers the recent suggestion of her boyfriend that they should have eight children. “My dad wants me to have more kids too,” she says. “He asked me when I was going to give him a granddaughter but I’ve told them all that they have to wait. I don’t want another kid until I’m at least 24. I want to train as a nursery nurse and get a good job sorted before I have more kids.” Currently there is no requirement to provide mothers aged up to 16 with a full-time education if they cannot attend school towards the end of their pregnancy and in the weeks after the birth. The Department for Education has said it “thinks that this is wrong”. From September 2011, the DfE will require all local authorities to provide full-time education for every child, with the aim of getting 60% of young mothers into education, employment or training. Whether it will achieve its goal is another question: a recent report by Barnardo’s, the children’s charity, found that 72% of young mothers are currently not in education, employment or training, compared with about 10% of 16- to 18-year-olds generally. Many young mothers interviewed as part of the Barnardo’s research said they had never been officially excluded but that their schools had put pressure on them to drop out over unfounded health-and-safety fears. Other young mothers admitting having dropped out – effectively excluding themselves – because of their schools’ lack of support and flexibility. In some cases there were no offers of home tuition or alternative teaching arrangements. “Most mainstream schools, even if they let a girl stay on when she gets pregnant, are unhappy letting her continue her education in school beyond 36 weeks,” says Burton. “Here, we have them up to and beyond their due date. After they give birth, they are only given four weeks’ maternity leave. Most nurseries won’t take a baby until they are 12 weeks old, which means that even if a girl stays in the most accommodating of mainstream schools, she can take up to 18 weeks’ absence – which, in year 11, is a significant amount of time.” Funded by Stockport local authority, Moat House is expecting cuts of no more than 7% next year. But Burton fears the impact of reductions in the welfare services that target school attendance and deprivation, both key predictors of teenage pregnancy. She also believes the scrapping of direct funding for the Teenage Pregnancy Strategy is “short-sighted” and says the disappearance of the education maintenance allowance, and of all childcare-specific funding after the age of 19, will hit young mothers trying to stay in education and training. But while reducing the numbers of teenage pregnancies can seem a sisyphean task, there are some reasons to be cheerful. Some authoritative studies have found that early parenthood does not guarantee social deprivation. In fact it can be a positive influence on the lives of young mothers – if they are given enough support. “Young mothers often see parenthood as providing a chance to create a loving family – often compensating for their own bad experiences of childhood,” said Suzanne Cater and Lester Coleman, authors of a 2006 report into planned teenage pregnancy for the Joseph Rowntree Foundation. “Many said that their life would have been worse if they had not become a parent, pointing to family insecurity, a growing sense of worthlessness and lack of direction.” A 2003 study by John Ermish for the Institute for Social and Economic Research came to a similar conclusion. Using evidence from the British Household Panel Study, the professor of economics found that outcomes for women at age 30 showed that the negative consequences of teenage parenthood had been overstated. Most notably, he said, outcomes are shaped most powerfully by poverty. Dr Jan Macvarish, author of the new book Teenage Parenthood: What’s the Problem?, agrees. “The disproportionate political attention given to teenage parenthood has produced a number of profoundly unhelpful outcomes for young parents,” says Macvarish, a lecturer at the University of Kent. “Rather than [society] respecting young people who have chosen to grow up through parenthood, they are treated as dysfunctional, destined to fail and in need of ‘special treatment’ that is far more intrusive than most new parents would accept.” Back at Moat House, 17-year-old Natalie agrees. “Being a teenage mother is hard,” she says. “But the most difficult thing is the way I’m judged and treated by people who assume bad things about me, just because of my age. They don’t know how much I love my baby. They don’t know I’m a good mother. They don’t know any of that, but they assume all sorts of things about me. And that makes changing the future for me and my child so much harder.” Young people Schools Parents and parenting Sexual health Pregnancy Parents Amelia Hill guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …As part of its effort to “shore up” the backing of social conservatives, House Republicans today “issued a contract today to pay former Solicitor General Paul Clement $575 an hour, up to $500,000 to defend the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act,” San Francisco Chronicle's Carolyn Lochhead insisted in the paper's Politics Blog. “Republicans claim they will take the money out of the Justice Department's budget, as if that will hold taxpayers harmless. But a cost is a cost and taxpayers will pay it either way. Any funds removed from DOJ are funds removed from other work,” Lochhead groused. This from the same reporter who approved of Obama's fiscal year 2012 budget proposal as “centrist.” Yet nowhere in her four paragraph April 19 blog entry did Lochhead note that the reason the Republican House of Representatives is hiring a lawyer to defend DOMA in federal court is because the Obama administration in February announced it will no longer defend the popular bipartisanly-supported law in court. Lochhead also failed to remind readers that although the Obama administration insists DOMA is unconstitutional, it is still enforcing the law's federal implications on tax, including tax and immigration implications of failing to recognize same-sex marriages.
Continue reading …A new McClatchy poll brings some bad news for Republicans in light of the House’s vote to adopt Rep. Paul Ryan’s (R., Wis.) budget proposal last week, which includes politically risky reforms to Medicare. According to the poll of registered voters, 80 percent oppose cutting Medicare and Medicaid to reduce the deficit, including 68 percent of self-identified conservatives and 70 percent of Tea Party… Broadcasting platform : YouTube Source : The Corner Discovery Date : 19/04/2011 17:17 Number of articles : 5
Continue reading …Will Dick Durbin be given a prime role in AMC’s The Walking Dead? Why does the Gang of Six have five conservatives in it and only one progressive? Howie points out that David Frum sounds much more reasonable than these Gang of Six idiots. Speaking only personally, I cannot take seriously the idea that the worst thing that has happened in the past three years is that government got bigger. Or that money was borrowed. Or that the number of people on food stamps and unemployment insurance and Medicaid increased. The worst thing was that tens of millions of Americans – and not only Americans – were plunged into unemployment, foreclosure, poverty. If food stamps and unemployment insurance, and Medicaid mitigated those disasters, then two cheers for food stamps, unemployment insurance, and Medicaid. What I want to know is: Who ate Dick Durbin’s brain? In 2005, Durbin sounded very different when talking to Tim Russert on MTP about Social Security and Bush’s plan to privatize it: MR. RUSSERT: Do you believe that we currently have a crisis with Social Security? SEN. DURBIN: I wouldn’t use the word crisis. Untouched, Social Security will make every single payment for the next 37 years to every retiree, maybe 47 years. But beyond that, unless the economy grows well and grows us out of the problem, we need to address it. And there are ways to address it in sensible, commonsense approaches today that will play out in 40 or 50 years. {…] MR. RUSSERT: So as long as the president insists private and personal accounts are on the table, will you not sit at the table? SEN. DURBIN: I don’t believe that we can. I believe that if we are to start with the premise that we are going to weaken Social Security, cut benefits and leave the next generation a $2 to $5 trillion deficit, how can that possibly be good for America? Social Security is not the cause of the federal deficit and does not need to be touched except maybe raising the payroll tax cap to add more revenue. Not only has Durbin signed on to social security cut benefits, he didn’t back up Bernie Sanders. ABC News: Senator Dick Durbin, D-Ill., says the bi-partisan group of senators working to find a way to reduce the deficit — the so-called ” Gang of Six ” — is near agreement on a plan that will chart a middle ground between the House Republican budget and the plan outlined last week by President Obama. And while other top Democrats say Social Security should be untouched, Durbin says Social Security changes should be made now. – He expects the Gang of Six — which, in addition to Durbin, includes senators Tom Coburn, R-Okla.; Mike Crapo, R-Idaho; Saxby Chambliss, R-Ga.; Mark Warner, D-Va.; and Kent Conrad, D-N.D. — to agree on a plan shortly after Congress returns from its Easter recess.. — Durbin criticized a resolution put forward by Sen. Bernie Sanders, a liberal independent from Vermont, that says Social Security should not be cut under a deficit reduction plan. Durbin said he would not vote for such a resolution. “I think Bernie is going too far with his language,” Durbin said. “In 2037, as we know it, Social Security falls off a cliff,” he said. “There’s a 22 percent reduction rate in payments, which is really not something we can tolerate. If we deal with it today, it’s an easier solution than waiting. I think we ought to deal with it. Many of my colleagues disagree, put it off to another day. But from my point of view, leaving it out makes it easier politically, including it, I think, meets an obligation, which we have to senior citizens.” Bernie Sanders is standing up for the working class and trying to protect them as seniors and you throw him under the bus? Why exactly is Bernie going too far? You sit there in a dark subway car and praise the lunatic known as Paul Ryan, who wants to destroy Medicare, but attack Sanders. I think you’re going too far with your bipartisan fetishism, sir. It’s obvious Republicans want to attach Social Security cuts to any deal you come up with, but that doesn’t mean Durbin has to feed us garbage to be part of it. Many of my friends on the left — they are my friends, these are my roots politically — are going through the stages of grief: denial, anger, frustration, sadness, resignation,” Durbin said. “They are going through those stages because they understand that borrowing 40 cents for every dollar you spend, whether it’s for missile or food stamps, is just unsustainable. But you’ve got to do something.” I’m sorry, but If we have to do something then why does it always get dropped at the feet of the working class? Do something then. Raise taxes on the rich and cut military spending like the MEADS missle system . You are betraying your progressive roots, Dick. I understand about compromises and the sausage making process, but there is no justification for this outrageous call to cut social security and that the American worker must be forced to pay far more than their fair share while the rich elites laugh all the way to the bank. You sir, are the one in denial. Don’t forget to contact Senator Dick Durbin and tell him to stop the madness because he is embarrassing himself: Washington, DC 20510 9 a.m. to 6 p.m. Phone: (202)224-2152 Fax: (202)228-0400 CHICAGO Office 230 South Dearborn Street Suite 3892 Chicago, IL 60604 Hours: 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. Phone:(312) 353-4952 Fax: (312) 353-0150 SPRINGFIELD Office 525 South 8th Street Springfield, IL 62703 Hours: 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. Phone: (217)492-4062 Fax: (217)492-4382
Continue reading …