Sticking It to Iran, Obama and Jobs Creation, Survey Goes Against New Oil Drilling - News Headlines 18 May 2010

From Denny: Iran continues to be a thorn in the side of the international community. The naughty little third world country has been trying to slide under the door shut in its misbehaving face by the world. Now it's made deals with Turkey for an enriched uranium swap for fuel rods on the next path to nuclear warheads. As usual they keep lying about their intentions, claiming the nukes are for energy purposes, and the rest of the world rolls their eyes at the latest "my fish I caught was this big" story. Anyone who believes the Iranian government is gullible and every con artist in the world will be beating a path to their door to get rich quick.

Meanwhile, the smarter nations have come together into agreement on sanctions for Iran - quite the diplomatic feat for Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Time will tell how well these sanctions will work. We still may require a military action against these crazies.

As to President Obama and jobs creation for the 15 million people out of work, just how do you create jobs on a budget with a looming deficit? It really is a dilemma not faced in this country until now. I'm sure the Republicans, fools that they are, are celebrating the hoped political demise of Obama. They are foolish to pull against America in our time of great need like nothing seen since the Great Depression.

And you guessed it, support for oil drilling off America's shores has plummeted in response to the BP oil spill mess. Support might have remained constant or only dipped if BP had been truthful in all their statements. But no, BP just had to lie and keep the lies coming at a rapid pace. Americans are disgusted with the oil industry's cavalier attitude toward our wallets and our environment and our economy.

And, of course, the darlings of the oil industry are their political puppets they own lock, stock and barrel: the Republicans. Those crooked Republicans continue to block the lifting of the cap for British Petroleum's financial responsibility to the American taxpayers over this oil spill mess in the Gulf of Mexico. As usual, Big Business is too cheap to pay what they owe, whether for taxes - throwing that burden onto the middle class to pay for them, profiting by the billions of dollars in exchange for a few hundred or thousands jobs - or Big Business is too cheap to pay for their problems when they mess up on a gargantuan scale like the environmental disaster unfolding in the Gulf.





This story is good for the reason it gives you a blow by blow of how the United Nations process works.

Hillary Clinton: Russia, China to back new Iran nuclear sanctions (CSMonitor)

The five permanent members of the UN Security Council favor a fourth round of sanctions over the Iran nuclear program. It's seen as a response to Monday's nuclear fuel swap deal.

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton’s surprise announcement during Senate testimony Tuesday morning – and her elaboration that both Russia and China are on board in supporting the new resolution – is seen in part as a Big Powers’ response to a deal struck with Iran Monday by Brazil and Turkey to move a portion of Iran’s enriched uranium stockpile out of the country.





This story is worth the read for the detail of how economists have looked at this problem versus how the politicians have dominated the conversation on the air waves.


In Ohio, Obama says his policies have created jobs. Is that true? (CSMonitor)


......One thing that Obama can justly claim is that he inherited a very difficult situation when he took office early in 2009. The economy had come to the brink of collapse. It wasn't just Democrats, but also economists at places like the International Monetary Fund, who were calling for large government stimulus spending.

A year later, this January, the prevailing view among 50 economists surveyed by USA Today was that the Obama stimulus succeeded in saving many jobs. Unemployment would have hit 10.8 percent without the Recovery Act, according to their median estimate. The difference would translate into another 1.2 million lost jobs, USA Today said...

Many economists support key elements of the stimulus program, such as extended unemployment insurance, tax breaks for consumers, spending on infrastructure jobs, and aid to states to prevent massive layoffs or Medicaid cuts. Even with the stimulus, state and local governments have reduced employment over the past year. Some economists say more stimulus is needed to help launch a stronger jobs recovery...





This is something you don't see covered in the news. Just how does a government create jobs for 15 million people out of work - on a budget? Quite the dilemma.


Obama's job summit challenge: creating jobs on a budget (CSMonitor)

.......Some of the participants in the forum will urge Obama and Congress not to worry so much about deficits. Rather, they will argue, the government should spend to create jobs either indirectly through tax incentives that affect private employers, or directly by government spending on roads, green energy, or community service programs.

Their reasoning: Unemployment has become much worse than the White House envisioned when it made the case early this year for a $787 stimulus program. The federal debt is a significant long-run problem, fueled more by health care programs than by temporary stimulus efforts. The Treasury's fiscal troubles could actually be made worse, they add, if policymakers fail to get the economy moving........





Is anyone surprised at this reaction to the BP oil spill?


Poll: Support for More Offshore Oil Drilling Plummets (CBS)

Forty-six percent of Americans now say they support offshore drilling - a 16 point drop from the 64 percent who backed such drilling back in July of 2008, when "drill, baby, drill" was an oft-chanted Republican campaign slogan.

Forty-one percent, meanwhile, say the costs and risks of offshore drilling are too great - up from 28 percent in the summer of 2008.

The survey suggests a correlation between opinions on increased offshore drilling and party identification. Sixty-three percent of Republicans still favor new drilling, while 29 percent say the costs and risks are too great.

By contrast, just 34 percent of Democrats back increased drilling, while 55 percent oppose it. (Independents are nearly split, with 45 percent in favor and 39 percent opposed...)





Wall St. Reform Bill Matches Obama's Blueprint (CBS)

Washington Post: Obama Nears Second Major Legislative Win as Senate Nears Passage of Financial Reform Bill

...Passage of a 1,400-page bill to overhaul the nation's financial regulations would come just two months after Obama signed a landmark health-care overhaul. But in the case of financial regulation, much more so than with health care, the Senate bill largely reflects the administration's initial blueprint, despite the fervent efforts of lobbyists and lawmakers of all stripes to alter it.

The bill would, among other things, create an independent consumer watchdog aimed at protecting borrowers from lending abuses, establish oversight of the vast derivatives market and enable the government to wind down large, failing firms...

In January, commentators also wrote off the administration's "Volcker Rule" as dead on arrival. The provision calls for curbing the activities of big Wall Street banks, including a ban on owning hedge funds. The Volcker language now seems likely to survive, and it could grow more stringent in the days ahead.

Still, uncertainties remain. Big banks continue to lobby hard to weaken the Volcker Rule. Also in flux are new rules governing the $600 trillion derivatives market, particularly a controversial provision that could force banks to spin off their derivatives operations...





GOP Blocks Oil Spill Liability Bill (CBS)

Republicans for the second time blocked legislation that would increase oil companies' liability for oil spill damages, setting off criticism from Democrats seeking to make BP pay for the disastrous oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.

Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.) on Tuesday blocked a bill Democrats have put forward to raise the liability cap from $75 million to $10 billion. He said on the Senate floor he agrees the cap should be raised, but the Senate should "wait and see where the cap should be."

Obama to the Republicans blocking this legislation: "This maneuver threatens to leave taxpayers, rather than the oil companies, on the hook for future disasters like the BP oil spill," he said. "I urge the Senate Republicans to stop playing special interest politics and join in a bipartisan effort to protect taxpayers and demand accountability from the oil companies..."





*** THANKS for visiting, feel welcome to drop a comment or opinion, enjoy bookmarking this post on your favorite social site, a big shout out to awesome current subscribers – and if you are new to this blog, please subscribe in a reader or by email updates!

Airport Scanners Safety Questioned, Iran Skirts Nuke Sanctions, Sex Criminals Indefinitely Detained - News Headlines 17 May 2010

From Denny: The Supreme Court ruled lopsidedly in favor of detaining dangerous sex criminals - even after they have served their sentences. They reversed a previous lower court ruling. At some point, we all have to consider the public good and the welfare of children by preventing dangerous sexual predators access to them.

To date there is no therapy, pill or surgery that has proven effective against dangerous sexual predators to "cure" them, rendering them no longer dangerous. To hold them indefinitely after a prison term is served is far superior to turning them loose only to re-offend, often killing. Why wait for the obvious? They don't want to change so why let them loose on the population?

As it is about 25% of our population are considered to be psychopaths - all of which are not necessarily violent - or not yet. Those we know to be violent we might as well keep incarcerated. Sometimes, with wisdom you just have to rule in favor of the welfare of the majority as opposed to one individual's rights - rights they basically threw away the first time they raped, molested or killed.

I put up a January article that talks about how the Obama administration's EPA reversed the Bush policy for pollution. For several months now I've noticed how much better is the air quality here in south Louisiana even though we have a multitude of chemical plants and oil refineries. At first I thought it was because of the weather but the better air quality persisted. Thanks to the Obama administration the air I breathe is much improved! You might want to click on the title to that article to check on your city.

As to the new privacy invasive airport scanners I've been having this nagging bad feeling for some time ever since they were installed in 23 airports. Besides the modesty issue, I just don't trust the science. Turns out neither do several eminent scientists: a molecular biologist, a biochemist and biophysicist and a cancer specialist.

What's of deep concern here is that about one in 20 people in the population, about 5%, are sensitive enough to radiation that it causes gene mutation and chromosome damage. There are no tests to let people know if they are part of that small group susceptible to damage and as a traveler you have no way of knowing if you are at risk. Scientists are worried about skin cancer, immune-system problems, breast cancer, mutations in sperm cells, and effects on a developing fetus.

Now, tell me, does this sound like a machine you would willingly step into now that you know this from a pack of concerned scientists? How will this affect the world population over the long term when about 700 million people are screened like this a year? Will it sterilize fertility, causing massive depopulation? Will it cause world wide cancers or other birth defects? What are the long term ramifications? No long term studies have been done on this airport scanner. Until then, perhaps it would be a better idea to step up the drug dog patrols. Bring in the hounds...





White House Notes Iran Nuclear Deal Skeptically (CBS)

The White House on Monday showed deep skepticism about Iran's new deal to ship low-enriched uranium off its soil, saying it has the chance to be "positive step" but warning that the deal still allows Iran to keep enriching uranium toward the pursuit of a nuclear weapon.

"Given Iran's repeated failure to live up to its own commitments, and the need to address fundamental issues related to Iran's nuclear program, the United States and international community continue to have serious concerns," White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said in a written statement to the media.

In a deal struck with Turkey and Brazil, Iran said it would export much of its low-enriched uranium to Turkey. In return, Iran would get fuel rods of medium-enriched uranium to use in a Tehran medical research reactor. The move was seen as an attempt by Iran to prevent a looming round of United Nations sanctions.

But the nations leading the charge for more punitive action against Iran over its nuclear defiance, including the U.S., were hardly swayed...






Obama Will Establish Commission to Investigate Oil Leak (CBS)

...Mr. Obama will use an executive order to establish the commission. It will mirror panels created to investigate previous disasters like the shuttle Challenger and the Three Mile Island nuclear accident.







Reversing Bush, EPA Toughens Smog Rules (CBS) (7 January 2010)

Stricter Rules Recommended by Scientists Will Likely put Hundreds More Counties throughout the U.S. in Violation


The EPA proposed stricter health standards for smog, replacing a Bush-era limit that ran counter to scientific recommendations.

The new limits - which are presented as a range - will likely put hundreds more counties nationwide in violation, a designation that will require them to find additional ways to clamp down on pollution or face government sanctions, most likely the loss of federal highway dollars.

The tighter standards will cost tens of billions of dollars to implement, but will ultimately save billions in avoided emergency room visits, premature deaths, and missed work and school days, the EPA said.

The proposed range was what scientists had recommended during the Bush administration. However, former President George W. Bush personally intervened and set the standard above what was advised after protests from electric utilities and other industries. The Bush standard was still stricter than the previous smog standard set in 1997.

EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson said in a statement Thursday that science, this time around, had been followed.

"EPA is stepping up to protect Americans from one of the most persistent and widespread pollutants we face," Jackson said. "Using the best science to strengthen these standards is long overdue action that will help millions of Americans breathe easier and live healthier."

The Obama administration last year had indicated it planned to scrap the Bush smog limits, when it asked a federal judge to stay a lawsuit challenging the March 2008 standards brought by 11 states and environmental groups...





Court: No Need To Free 'Sexually Dangerous' Inmates (NPR)

The Supreme Court ruled Monday that federal officials can indefinitely hold inmates considered "sexually dangerous" after their prison terms are complete.

By a 7-2 vote, the high court reversed a lower court decision that said Congress overstepped its authority in allowing indefinite detentions of considered "sexually dangerous."

"The statute is a 'necessary and proper' means of exercising the federal authority that permits Congress to create federal criminal laws, to punish their violation, to imprison violators, to provide appropriately for those imprisoned and to maintain the security of those who are not imprisoned by who may be affected by the federal imprisonment of others," said Justice Stephen Breyer, writing the majority opinion.

President George W. Bush in 2006 signed the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act, which authorized the civil commitment of sexually dangerous federal inmates.

The act, named after the son of "America's Most Wanted" television host John Walsh, was challenged by four men who served prison terms ranging from three to eight years for possession of child pornography or sexual abuse of a minor. Their confinement was supposed to end more than two years ago, but prison officials said there would be a risk of sexually violent conduct or child molestation if they were released....

The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Va., ruled last year that Congress overstepped its authority when it enacted a law allowing the government to hold indefinitely people who are considered "sexually dangerous."

But "we conclude that the Constitution grants Congress legislative power sufficient to enact" this law, Breyer said....

Chief Justice John Roberts last year granted an administration request to block the release of up to 77 inmates at a federal prison in North Carolina. These were people whose prison terms for sex offenses were ending. The justice's order was designed to allow time for the high court to consider the administration's appeal...





Scientists Question Safety Of New Airport Scanners (NPR)

After the "underwear bomber" incident on Christmas Day, President Obama accelerated the deployment of new airport scanners that look beneath travelers' clothes to spot any weapons or explosives.

Fifty-two of these state-of-the-art machines are already scanning passengers at 23 U.S. airports. By the end of 2011, there will be 1,000 machines and two out of every three passengers will be asked to step into one of the new machines for a six-second head-to-toe scan before boarding.

About half of these machines will be so-called X-ray back-scatter scanners. They use low-energy X-rays to peer beneath passengers' clothing. That has some scientists worried.

"Many people will approach this as, 'Oh, it must be safe, the government has thought about this and I'll just submit to it,'" says David Agard, a biochemist and biophysicist at the University of California, San Francisco. "But there really is no threshold of low dose being OK. Any dose of X-rays produces some potential risk."

Agard and several of his UCSF colleagues recently wrote a letter to John Holdren the president's science adviser, asking for a more thorough look at the risks of exposing all those airline passengers to X-rays. The other signers are John Sedat, a molecular biologist and the group's leader; Marc Shuman, a cancer specialist; and Robert Stroud, a biochemist and biophysicist.

"Ionizing radiation such as the X-rays used in these scanners have the potential to induce chromosome damage, and that can lead to cancer," Agard says.

The San Francisco group thinks both the machine's manufacturer, Rapiscan, and government officials have miscalculated the dose that the X-ray scanners deliver to the skin — where nearly all the radiation is concentrated.

The stated dose — about .02 microsieverts, a medical unit of radiation — is averaged over the whole body, members of the UCSF group said in interviews. But they maintain that if the dose is calculated as what gets deposited in the skin, the number would be higher, though how much higher is unclear...

The scientists don't all agree on the nature of the potential risks. For instance, the UCSF scientists, in their letter to Holdren, worry about effects such as melanoma, a dangerous skin cancer; immune-system problems; breast cancer; mutations in sperm cells; and effects on a developing fetus...

Brenner says he thinks the danger to most individual travelers is miniscule. But he worries about the unknowns when those very small risks are multiplied times something like 700 million travelers a year.

Recent research, Brenner says, indicates that about 5 percent of the population — one person in 20 — is especially sensitive to radiation. These people have gene mutations that make them less able to repair X-ray damage to their DNA. Two examples are the BRCA-1 and BRCA-2 mutations associated with breast and ovarian cancer, but scientists believe many more such defects are unknown.

"I don't know if I'm one of those 5 percent. I don't know if you're one of those 5 percent," Brenner says, "And we don't really have a quick and easy test to find those individuals."

Children are also more vulnerable to radiation damage, because they have more dividing cells at any time. A radiation-induced mutation in their cells can lead to cancer decades later.

Brenner says the most likely risk from the airport scanners is a common type of skin cancer called basal cell carcinoma, which is usually curable...





*** THANKS for visiting, feel welcome to drop a comment or opinion, enjoy bookmarking this post on your favorite social site, a big shout out to awesome current subscribers – and if you are new to this blog, please subscribe in a reader or by email updates!

Russians Say Nuke BP Oil Spill, Hordes Leaving Facebook, Big Business Cheats, Obamas Tax Reform - News Headlines 13 May 2010

From Denny: The Russians have wanted to nuke America for decades. Now it looks like they just might get what their Communist souls have desired: blow up America. They are actually suggesting America use a nuclear bomb to shut off the BP oil spill. Now why can't you use a conventional bomb minus the nuke factor? The Russians claim they have done it numerous times to their own oil spills.

Well, that answered one question: Are they crazy? Yes. Answered another question: Do they care if they pollute their own environment for centuries? No. And how about this one: How did all those mysterious cancers and the like show up in the Russian population? Duh.

So, now Prez Obama, Congress and Big Business are seriously considering advice from the same guys who blew up the nuclear plant Chernobyl??? By their own admission the Russians have woefully failed to follow safety protocols in their own oil drilling, suffering serious disaster after serious disaster. Their solution is "just nuke it."

Honey, the Earth's crust is not a microwave oven. We're talking about trying to shut off an underwater volcano of gushing oil and natural gas. I live on the Gulf Coast and am not supportive of this IDIOT "NUKE THE OIL SPILL" ARGUMENT. Try again, Congress, Prez Obama and BP. You are going to have to do better than this bad idea. Since when did we start taking advice from our enemies anyway??? You honestly believe they are interested in our welfare? They don't care about their own people's health and environment. This is pure lunacy.

Prez Obama is worried about huge looming deficits he wants to get under control by changing our current tax system and do tax reform. Well, the first order of business - instead of raising taxes on the middle class - is to stop the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars. They are bleeding the national treasury to the tune of billions of dollars per month we could put to good use elsewhere - like rebuilding our national energy grid that is in tatters.

Let the Middle East sort out their own problems. If the Taliban overrun their governments then so be it. We can always send in drones to deal with that stupidity and not waste paying for a huge army to sit around waiting for the next engagement. Our military is needed at home to deal with protecting our borders from drug dealers and terrorists coming in from Mexico.

We need our military here to watch our coastlines, help with the BP oil spill and start checking literally every container that comes into our ports to help stop drug smuggling and human trafficking. There are plenty of government jobs, in a less hazardous environment, here at home in America for them to do. All of this will help our economy recover faster. Mr. Prez, quit allowing the drug drip to Defense contractors who are basically war profiteering off our soldiers' blood.

As a taxpayer I refuse to pay for this carnage, bad foreign policy holdover from the Republicans and drain on the national wallet. These situations are intractable and it's best to cut your losses and turn your attention to a situation where the people of the area do have the will to want better for themselves.

And as to the big uproar over the sleaze giant Facebook violating your privacy and selling your info to other social sites and the like, well, I left last April a year ago. Back then, they only allowed you to "deactivate" your account. How annoying is that? Well, finally, someone put up instructions on how to delete your Facebook account and put it into the search engines. I finally went over last night and deleted my Facebook account. Facebook tells you it will take 14 days. We will see if they are good for their word.

I never was much of a fan of Facebook because of the bizarre rude and crude psychology study probes they were doing: probably both for government agencies and advertising and marketing businesses eager to find out how to manipulate the consumer to buy their products. To me, that's just plain sleaze. Facebook is pure sleaze. Sleaze. They never honored anyone's privacy settings; they were busy selling all your personal information to other social sites, marketing and government companies. Duh. It's all about Big Business greed and profit.

As it is Facebook claims they have 400 million accounts. It will be interesting to see it all shake out and see how many millions leave them. They overstepped their bounds with consumers and should be investigated as to all the secrecy and manipulations, psychology and marketing studies. Of course, they termed it "marketing studies" but that's just a code phrase for "Just how easy is it to manipulate weak or unsuspecting minds? Let's find out!"






Why don't we just drop a nuclear bomb on the Gulf oil spill? (CS Monitor)

Using a nuclear explosion to try to plug the gushing oil well in the Gulf of Mexico might sound like overkill, but a Russian newspaper has suggested just that based on past Soviet successes. Even so, there are crucial differences between the lessons of the past and the current disaster unfolding.

The Russians previously used nukes at least five times to seal off gas well fires. A targeted nuclear explosion might similarly help seal off the oil well channel that has leaked oil unchecked since the sinking of a BP oil rig on April 22...

Weapons labs in the former Soviet Union developed special nukes for use to help pinch off the gas wells. They believed that the force from a nuclear explosion could squeeze shut any hole within 82 to 164 feet (25 to 50 meters), depending on the explosion's power. That required drilling holes to place the nuclear device close to the target wells...





Obama in Buffalo: tax reform is needed, but a flat tax isn't (CS Monitor)

President Obama said the nation must make "hard decisions" on tax policy, and that it would be better to find a fiscal fix in the next couple of years than to delay.

He avoided the hottest part of this hot-button topic: He didn't say whether he'd support tax hikes that may be recommended by a bipartisan fiscal commission he has created. (He has said all options should be "on the table" for the commission to consider.)

But in response to a town-hall questioner, Mr. Obama voiced support for efforts to streamline the tax code, even as he framed the case against a "flat tax" that many Republicans support.

The president spoke at a town hall meeting in Buffalo, N.Y., a day after the federal government reported an unexpectedly high monthly budget deficit. The Treasury Department reported an $82.69 billion deficit for April, the highest ever recorded for that month.

"We're going to have to spend the next couple of years making some very hard decisions," Obama said. "It's not going to be any fun. [But] it's not going to be as painful as it will be if we put it off."

The fiscal commission is expected to report to the president in December with recommendations on how to reduce US budget deficits. Without some new fix, budget deficits under Obama's forecasts would remain higher than 3 percent of gross domestic product every year this decade – a level economists see as unsustainable in the long run...





Crackdown On Opposition Appears Under Way In Iran (NPR)


The government of Iran is refusing to return the dead bodies of five young people to their families for burial. All five were hanged on Sunday in notorious Evin prison in Tehran.

The hangings appear to have been rushed through Iran's legal system, in order to intimidate the political opposition as it plans its next challenges to the government.

Four of the five executed were ethnic Kurds, and their families wanted to take the bodies back to Iranian Kurdistan for burial. But the authorities in Tehran refused, apparently concerned that the funerals would turn into opportunities for protest.

The five, one of whom was a woman, were sentenced to death two years ago, charged with association with terrorist organizations, although by most accounts no solid evidence was offered at their very short trials.

The hangings on Sunday came as a surprise. Neither their families nor their lawyers were informed in advance.

The five have had nothing to do with the Green Movement in Iran, the opposition movement that burst into the streets after the disputed presidential election held last year on June 12.

But many observers and analysts, such as Stanford University's Abbas Milani, believe the hangings are meant to intimidate the opposition...








U.S. Firms Dodge Billions in Taxes by Moving Profits Overseas (ABC)

'Transfer Pricing' Allows Companies to Avoid Tax on Profits -- Legally

As America struggles with record deficits, tax dodgers apparently are taking billions of dollars out of the country.

A new report from the business giant Bloomberg News finds hundreds of companies skirting $60 billion in taxes, and the practice is completely legal.

Thirty million prescriptions were filed last year for the anti-depressant Lexapro, made by the U.S. pharmaceutical company Forest Labs. According to a story in Friday's Bloomberg Businessweek, most of the profits from that drug were transferred overseas, thus avoiding having to pay taxes in the United States.

The news is shocking to Lexapro customers like Tyler Hurst, who buys the drug at a Phoenix pharmacy.

"It does not say, 'The profits of this go outside the country,' anywhere," said Hurst as he looked at the drug bottle. "It is shady."

It may seem shady to Hurst, but hundreds of U.S.-based multi-national companies engage in the legal practice known as "transfer pricing."

"The most recent estimate for how much tax revenue gets lost in the U.S. is $60 billion a year," said Bloomberg reporter Jesse Drucker. "But there are some reasons to believe those estimates are conservative."

The figure, $60 billion, is more than the budget for the entire Department of Homeland Security.

"We are obviously now in a time of enormous deficits, and we should be broadening our tax base," said tax economist Martin Sullivan. "This phenomenon is moving exactly in the opposite direction."

So, how does it work? Click on the title link for the rest of the article.





Some quitting Facebook as privacy concerns escalate (CNN)


Concerns over Facebook's new privacy policy and the online social network's recent efforts to spread its information across the Web have led some of the site's faithful to delete their accounts -- or at least try to.

On Wednesday's episode of a podcast called This Week in Technology, host Leo Laporte, a well-known tech pundit, said he had to search wikiHow, a how-to site, to figure out how to delete his Facebook account permanently.

After finding the delete button, which he said is hidden deep within the site's menus, Laporte proceeded to delete his account during the online broadcast.

"That's it. It's gone," he said during the show. "And I think that's the right thing to do."

It's unclear how many people have chosen to delete their Facebook accounts in recent weeks. The popular social network doesn't publish statistics on how many people quit the site.

But there has been much uproar online about Facebook's alleged lack of concern for the privacy of its users' personal information, and its clear that some people have become so upset that they're leaving the networking site, which has more than 400 million members...






Move over blobfish, the fangtooth is scarier (CS Monitor)




The common fangtooth, Anoplogaster cornuta, is a deep sea fish like the blobfish, but has some of the largest teeth in the ocean.




The aptly-named blobfish is now in danger of being wiped out. The bloated bottom dweller, which can grow up to 12 inches, lives at depths of up to 2,700 feet.


Last week a Chicago Tribune columnist opined that the "blobfish" is scarier than the Asian carp because of its potential to swim up rivers and ooze from your shower head.

No doubt that's frightening. But scarier than the fangtooth?

Blobfish? Pshah!

At least the blobfish has a human face. It's actually quite cuddly compared to the common fangtooth...

The front two fangs are so large that to close its jaws the fish has sockets for the teeth in the roof of its mouth.

Okay, so the fangtooth does only grow to be about six inches. But these guys, like piranhas, can travel in schools. Think packs of dracula fish...

Well, (to ever encounter them) you'd have to be a real deep swimmer. Fangtooths live in the pitch black dark of the ocean, about 3,000 feet to 16,000 feet down.








*** THANKS for visiting, feel welcome to drop a comment or opinion, enjoy bookmarking this post on your favorite social site, a big shout out to awesome current subscribers – and if you are new to this blog, please subscribe in a reader or by email updates!