Unlimited On Demand Video’s For Amazon Prime Members?

Hell to the yes

Rumors have been heating up over the last few weeks that Amazon was on the verge of offering “free,” unlimited video streaming to its Prime members, who pay $79.99 a year for free two-day shipping on many items sold on Amazon. Now a tipster has sent a few screenshots to Engadget allegedly showing an unlimited video streaming section to complement Amazon’s VOD (video-on-demand) offerings.

Oh hell yes.

When Amazon first introduced it’s Prime membership, I couldn’t imagine anyone foolish enough to pay $80 for a years worth of 2 day shipping. After all $80 spent on Amazon Prime is a lot of money not being spent on women and booze.

But eventually I gave up and decided to try it out. And boy am I glad that I did. Amazon Prime is a lot like buying an iPhone. Totally changes your life.

But adding on a free netflix style service with your Prime membership? Oh that’s just money in the bank.

Advertisements

Knowledge Briefs: The Real Cause of The Financial Crisis

Here’s an old entry cross posted from another blog

With everything that’s gone on in the past year and a half you would think that the case against deregulation would be pretty clear to even the most partisan person. After all, call me a “crazy liberal” but it seems like common sense that the government should demand that banks operating as insurance companies have enough money to pay off the “insurance” they’re selling . After all, we demand insurance companies do it. But the more I talk to even the casual conservative the more I hear this myth that the government encouraging lending to low income people who couldn’t pay their mortgages was the cause of our current mess.

Uhhhh….no.

So here I find myself, almost a year after the crisis hit its apex, trying to debunk this patently false myth. Of course, we could just do a few seconds of napkin math and figure this out for ourselves. The cost of all the mortgages in the United States + even the most insane interest rates < the estimated 11.96 trillion dollars lost because of this scandal.  But of course, that’s far to simple and straightforward to satisfy people who don’t even believe in evolution. So let’s break it down like C.R. Avery on the piano box

The Myth: The Financial Crisis was caused by banks forced into making bad loans to low income people by the Government

Conservatives love to talk about personal responsibility. That is of course, when it comes time for them to take responsibility for the mistakes they’ve made. The financial crisis at the heart of the economic recession we are in, and primary cause of our sky high unemployment rate, is no different. When you ask Republicans what cause the financial crisis, they don’t hesitate to place the blame on the two groups they love to hate the most. Low income people and the government.  Indeed, they answer so quickly that you’d swear that their response resulted more as a natural reflex rather than a careful and dispassionate examination of the facts. Had they done so, they probably would have realize how patently false this claim is.

The Truth: NO. Government encouraged lending to low income people DID NOT cause the Financial crisis.

The evidence against this myth is pretty cut and dry. Laid out clearly by Robert Gordon in the American Prospect. To help you digest his arguments more efficiently I’ll break them down point by point

1. The Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 was…well enacted in 1977, 30 years before the crisis:

The evidence strongly suggests the latter. First, consider timing. CRA was enacted in 1977. The sub-prime lending at the heart of the current crisis exploded a full quarter century later. In the mid-1990s, new CRA regulations and a wave of mergers led to a flurry of CRA activity, but, as noted by the New America Foundation’s Ellen Seidman (and by Harvard’s Joint Center), that activity “largely came to an end by 2001.” In late 2004, the Bush administration announced plans to sharply weaken CRA regulations, pulling small and mid-sized banks out from under the law’s toughest standards. Yet sub-prime lending continued, and even intensified — at the very time when activity under CRA had slowed and the law had weakened.

2. Non- CRA were responsible for the majority of faulty sub prime loans:

Second, it is hard to blame CRA for the mortgage meltdown when CRA doesn’t even apply to most of the loans that are behind it. As the University of Michigan’s Michael Barr points out, half of sub-prime loans came from those mortgage companies beyond the reach of CRA. A further 25 to 30 percent came from bank subsidiaries and affiliates, which come under CRA to varying degrees but not as fully as banks themselves. (With affiliates, banks can choose whether to count the loans.) Perhaps one in four sub-prime loans were made by the institutions fully governed by CRA.

3. CRA Banks were less likely to engage in dangerous lending:

Most important, the lenders subject to CRA have engaged in less, not more, of the most dangerous lending. Janet Yellen, president of the San Francisco Federal Reserve, offers the killer statistic: Independent mortgage companies, which are not covered by CRA, made high-priced loans at more than twice the rate of the banks and thrifts. With this in mind, Yellen specifically rejects the “tendency to conflate the current problems in the sub-prime market with CRA-motivated lending? CRA, Yellen says, “has increased the volume of responsible lending to low- and moderate-income households.”

Gordon has more information in his article, like warning from various Governors of the Fed, about the unsustainability of the housing bubble, but you’ll have to read the full article for that.

UPDATE: Here’s a lot more compelling evidence debunking this zombie myth

Paul Krugman graphs are more than a thousand words

Blame the poor minorities? How about the wealthy multiple house owners? Yves Smith OF Naked Capitalism reports that wealthy people are the most likely to default on their mortgages

Even governors of the Fed aren’t buying this CRA talking point

The FDIC chairwoman quite clearly says “CRA: NOT GUILTY”

Barry Ritholtz uses reverse logic to debunk the anti-CRA claim

Dainel Gross of Slate a must read article about the bullshit factual inaccuracies with this myth

The Myth Of Absolute Freedom

The idea that being an adult and a free citizen enables you to do whatever you want is a myth pushed by conservatives who haven’t gotten over the fact that they lost the civil war. We live in a country with a government. Government’s have rules. If you don’t like them then by all means change them, but stop pretending that you have the “right” to do whatever you want.

This was originally posted in a facebook debate I had with a friend about the 2nd amendment. But the point made here strikes to the core of the conservative framework of reality.

Ohio Woman Jailed For Getting Her Children Into Better School

Yeah, this is an outrage :

Two-and-a-half years ago, Williams-Bolar was called to a meeting at the middle school her two daughters attended. When she arrived, she faced school administrators and a school lawyer. The meeting didn’t go well, turning into a shouting match.

This month, the 40-year-old single mom found herself in court, facing felony charges of tampering with records. She was found guilty and sentenced to five years in prison.

The first question that comes to my mind is, why was the school district even investigating Williams-Bolar? The idea of school officials and their army of lawyers hiring taxpayer funded investigators to spy on families is more than creepy. But more importantly, shouldn’t school administrators be focused on…i don’t know…improving the quality of education in our school system? Maybe they should hire an investigator to find out why they’re so bad at their jobs.

Regardless, when we’re imprisoning mothers for sneaking their children into better public schools, then we really need to think long and hard about education reform.

If I were President Obama, or if he had the privilege of being me, I would pardon Williams-Bolar* and use this incident as the catalyst to spark an education revolution in America.


NOTE: I know Williams-Bolar only served 10 days in jail, but remember her original sentence was for five years. Not to mention that she will from this point on be a registered felon which could take away her voting rights as well as make future employment difficult.

Betty White, The Next Naked Celebrity? Wow…

Okay…

I don’t normally blog about this kind of stuff. Personally, I prefer to corrupt the kids these days with profanity and violence. But after I stumbled across this…well, how do you NOT blog about something like this?

Anyways, I’ll let you decide for yourself. Don’t worry, the photo’s are from the 50’s when Betty White was a lot younger and a lot more attractive. So without further delay here you go…


BETTY WHITE NUDE PHOTO’S