ET Williams

The Doctor of Common Sense

Blog

by

Can We Call Mitt Romney a Conservative?

I am a Progressive

By: Ben Shapiro

Much of the conservative punditocracy has declared that Mitt
Romney is the consensus conservative candidate. If he is, he’s the least
consensual consensus candidate in modern political history — the man can’t
break 25 percent with a sledgehammer. While his supporters shout from the hills
that Romney essentially tied for the win in Iowa, his glass remains
three-quarters empty, with no-name Rick Santorum winning as much of the vote,
Ron Paul winning nearly as much, and Newt Gingrich and Rick Perry combining for
as much. The last time a Republican candidate captured the nomination for the
presidency by winning Iowa with this low a vote total, his name was Bob Dole. A
couple of years later, he was hawking Viagra.

Nonetheless, the word is out: The fix is in. Unbelievably,
not a single anti-Romney television ad was run in the state of Iowa. And while
a few conservatives — including yours truly — have come out and opposed
nominating the most left-wing Republican in the field, many more conservatives
have endorsed Romney’s candidacy.

Now there are good reasons for supporting Romney in the GOP
nomination race. Some people argue that he has the most appeal to independents,
because he is the least openly conservative. Others state that he doesn’t have
personal baggage and is thus less likely to become fodder for late night talk
shows. Still others contend that his vanilla personality means that the focus
of the election will remain on President Obama and such focus will make Romney
a shoe-in. Finally, there are those who say that Romney has had his convenient
road-to-Damascus conversion to conservatism and we should now trust him.

 

These arguments, at the very least, are understandable. What
is not understandable is the contention by so many conservatives that Romney’s
record is conservative. It isn’t. He’s always been an advocate of a carefully
managed, large government rather than a freedom-ensuring small one; his record
in Massachusetts shows him to be an advocate for liberal policies like the
individual mandate and activist judges. There can be no doubt that among all
the Republicans running, his record is the most left. Even Jon Huntsman looks
like Ronald Reagan next to Romney.

 

Why, then, do so many conservatives say that Romney
represents true conservatism?

 

Because it’s convenient.

 

Whenever there is an open Republican race, many professional
conservatives fear alienating the candidates. Instead of holding their feet to
the fire, they find the person most likely to win and back him. If that person
happens not to be particularly conservative, the pundits rewrite conservatism
to fit the candidate. This preserves their access and their credibility with
their audience. As professional prognosticators, it certainly looks better to
have endorsed George W. Bush in 2000 than Steve Forbes. If pundits can convince
us that not only did they support George W. Bush but also that George W. Bush’s
“compassionate conservatism” was actually conservative rather than
warmed over big government liberalism, they can eat their cake and have it,
too.

 

This is deeply problematic, of course, since the
professional pundit class is supposed to stand for something other than
convenience. Yes, defeating horrible politicians like Barack Obama is the top
goal — but that doesn’t justify redefining conservatism entirely. Support Mitt
Romney if you must — but don’t urinate on our leg and tell us that it’s
raining. Mitt Romney is not a conservative. If you want to support him, go
right ahead. But don’t lie about your rationale. It undermines the conservative
standard.

 

Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan, D-N.Y., long ago pointed
out that folks who cannot live by certain standards tend to undermine those
standards. When the standards are lowered, the behavior that such standards
were originally intended to stop increases dramatically. In the case of unwed
motherhood, for example, when society ceases to consider such behavior morally
wrong, the behavior increases exponentially.

 

The same holds true in politics. When we deliberately
broaden conservatism to encompass government-forced purchase of health
insurance or raising taxes or appointing liberal judges or enforcing same-sex
marriage or using taxpayer money to bail out business or pushing trade
barriers, we destroy conservatism from within. If we do that, why would our
politicians even bother to pay lip service to the standard?

 

They wouldn’t. And we’d end up with ever more liberal
nominees. Which is precisely what has happened since the halcyon days of
Reagan.

 

Standards matter. If you want to support Mitt Romney, that’s
your prerogative. But don’t sell out conservative principles in the process.

http://townhall.com/columnists/benshapiro/2012/01/04/the_great_conservative_sellout/page/full/

by

President Obama appoints three to NLRB, and GOP does nothing

I can not be stopped

By: Lisa Mascaro

Capping a daylong assault on congressional Republicans,
President Obama appointed three members to the National Labor Relations Board
as part of a series of recess appointments the GOP had tried to prevent.

Obama made the move while Congress is away for the holiday
break, but meeting every few days in pro forma sessions to block the White
House from precisely these type of recess appointments. The labor board
appointments were tucked into Obama’s more public announcement of Richard
Cordray as the new consumer protection bureau chief.

“The American people deserve to have qualified public
servants fighting for them every day,” Obama said in a statement. “We can’t
wait.”

The labor board appointments will ensure that the panel,
which adjudicates workers’ right to form unions, will keep functioning. The
five-person panel was down to just two members in the new year – not enough to
fully function.

The appointments are sure to draw fire from Republicans who
have sought to block what they characterize as the pro-union slant of the labor
board in the Obama administration. Labor unions have been fighting for ways to
make it easier for workers to organize.

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), who had vowed to block Obama’s
nominees, called the labor board an “out-of-control rogue bureaucracy.”

“Hasn’t the NLRB already done enough damage?” Graham said.
“Today’s action may impress the union bosses but will deliver yet another blow
to job creation.”

The appointees include Sharon Block, a deputy assistant
Labor secretary who once worked for former Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.);
Richard Griffin, a board member of the AFL-CIO; and Terence Flynn, a counsel to
the Republican member of the board.

“We commend the president for exercising his constitutional
authority to ensure that crucially important agencies protecting workers’
rights and consumers are not shut down by Republican obstructionism,” said
AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka.

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-obama-nlrb-recess-appointments-20120104,0,2653686.story

by

Is Comrade Obama stepping over the line with Appointment?

 

The World Is Mine

 

By: Trish Turner

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce may sue the Obama
administration over President Obama’s controversial appointment of Richard
Cordray to head a controversial consumer financial board, officials from the
business group told Fox News on Wednesday after an unprecedented display of
executive power that is sure to poison already-strained relations with the GOP.

Chamber spokeswoman Blair Latoff and colleague Bryan Goettel
both told Fox News that their understanding is that “we are not ruling it
out.” However, they said they still “need to understand the specifics
of the appointment to determine if a legal challenge is even possible.”

Obama to Make Controversial Recess Appointment

President to appoint Richard Cordray as head of Consumer
Financial Protection Bureau

Related Stories Obama
Takes Economic Message to Ohio Obama Bypasses Senate, Installs New Consumer
Chief Obama Again Bypasses Congress, Appoints 3 To Labor Board Indiana House
Dem Leader Hints at Another Walkout

The chamber was early in its criticism of the president’s
move Wednesday to appoint Cordray to chair the Consumer Financial Protection
Bureau in a move that invites legal challenge but which administration
officials say is perfectly within the president’s authority to do.

“To say we are disappointed in the move by the
president today would be a gross understatement,” Chamber President Tom
Donohue said in statement. “This controversial appointment is
unprecedented, constitutionally questionable, and puts the authority of the
director and the validity of the bureau’s work in legal jeopardy. What’s more,
it ignores repeated calls to reform the bureau by restoring basic checks and
balances.”

Others are also questioning the validity of the president’s
move. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., who could become the
majority leader in 2012, released an ominous statement Wednesday, saying the
appointment “lands this nominee in uncertain legal territory, threatens
the confirmation process and fundamentally endangers the Congress’ role in
providing a check on the excesses of the executive branch.”

One senior GOP aide told Fox News to expect a lawsuit from
an outside group that would fall under CFPB’s regulatory jurisdiction since
Congress itself would lack the authority to sue.

“It’s our understanding that someone affected by the
CFPB would have standing here, not the House,” another aide told Fox
Business Network. “So some business that gets clobbered by the agency
could sue.”

The GOP aide added that aside from an almost immediate
challenge, even if Cordray moves into the post, he will face a wall of
opposition at every turn.

Cordray “will get absolutely nothing done. Also,
funding (for the CFPB) will be in some peril,” the aide said.

The White House might not mind a fight during a presidential
campaign year, as Obama looks to frame the battle as one against obstructionist
congressional Republicans who are against middle-class Americans.

“I nominated Richard for this job last summer, so you
may be wondering why am I appointing him today,” Obama told supporters in
Ohio, where Cordray appeared with him in Shaker Heights. “It would be a
good question. … The only reason Republicans in the Senate have blocked
Richard is because they don’t agree with the law that set up a consumer
watchdog in the first place. They want to weaken the law. They want to water it
down.”

Republicans made clear both during Cordray’s nomination and
on Wednesday that they have no problem with Cordray personally, but want
changes in the massive new watchdog agency, including a budget and nominee
subject to congressional oversight and other reforms in its wide-ranging
rule-making authority.

“The president should stop allowing his Chicago
political campaign to make his Washington policy decisions,” Rep. Patrick
McHenry, R-N.C., chairman of the Oversight Subcommittee on TARP, Financial
Services and Bailouts of Public and Private Programs, said Wednesday in a
statement in which he criticized Obama’s claims of transparency in his
administration. McHenry also invited Cordray to appear on Jan. 24 before his
committee to answer questions about how he would implement policies as head of
CFPB.

“There are legitimate policy concerns about the
structure of the CFPB. They can be reconciled, but the president refuses to
even have the conversation,” he said.

Cordray, who was successfully filibustered by Republicans
last year, will remain in the job until Jan. 3, 2014, unless confirmed by the
Senate sooner, an unlikely event given the current partisan move by the White
House.

While controversial, nowhere in the Constitution is a recess
expressly defined, though the document does give the chief executive the
“power to fill up vacancies that may happen during the recess of the Senate.”

As a result, a loose understanding has arisen over the years
as to what constitutes a recess.

Most, including Obama’s own acting solicitor general, appear
to hold to a three-day minimum for a recess, arising from the congressional
adjournment clause in the Constitution which states that no chamber may break
for longer than three days without the approval of the other chamber.

In a 2010 Supreme Court case, “New Process Steel vs.
National Labor Relations Board,” acting Solicitor General Neal Katyal
referenced the three-day minimum, during which no recess appointment could be
made and cited a Department of Justice brief issued in 1993 by Attorney General
Janet Reno.

But the document is vague.

In the brief, which was used to argue against a controversial
recess appointment by former President George H.W. Bush, Reno called the
three-day recess a “requirement.” But it went on to say “the
Constitution provides no basis for limiting the recess to a specific number of
days.”

That does not negate the understanding that appears to have
arisen in modern times among members of Congress, Democrat and Republican
alike. Democrats in 2008 held the Senate in “pro forma” session to
block recess appointments by President George W. Bush. At the time, Obama and Vice
President Joe Biden, while serving in the Senate, strenuously argued against
such an exercise of presidential power.

When Bush appointed John Bolton as ambassador to the United
Nations, then-Sen. Obama said the nominee was, as a result of the temporary
position, “damaged goods.” Noting the Senate had rejected the nominee
— though unlike Cordray, Bolton faced bipartisan opposition — the senator
said the U.S. would have “less credibility” at the world body.

At a Foreign Relations Committee hearing, Biden said,
“No president is entitled to the appointment of anyone he nominates,”
adding, “That’s why they wrote the Constitution the way they did. It says
‘advice and consent.'”

According to a Congressional Research Service report, since
the administration of President Ronald Reagan, no recess appointment has been
bestowed upon a nominee during a recess that was shorter than 10 days.

Nonetheless, a senior administration official told Fox News
that the White House is on solid ground with the maneuver.

“They’re not in session,” the official said of the
Senate, noting that the Senate has stated that “that no business shall be
conducted during pro forma sessions” and the Senate “is unable to
receive appointments” during that time because it is not prepared,
regardless of the length of time in between, to conduct business during those
meetings.

Thus, it is the interpretation of the White House that the
Senate is in fact “in recess” and the administration can make appointments.

Despite the predicted fight over the CFPB nominee, one
congressional GOP source predicted the fight will have no effect. The aide
sited polls that, according to the source, show Americans disinterested in the
watchdog agency, with few knowing about Cordray.

“It’s just not a ‘top of mind’ issue. It’s nowhere on
the radar of anyone,” the aide said.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/01/04/obama-administration-tests-constitutional-power-after-controversial-appointment/

by

Welcome to the USSR, (Obama signs NDAA Law)

 

President Barack Obama rang in the New Year by signing the NDAA law with its provision allowing him to indefinitely detain citizens. It was a symbolic moment, to say the least. With Americans distracted with drinking and celebrating, Obama signed one of the greatest rollbacks of civil liberties in the history of our country … and citizens partied in unwitting bliss into the New Year.

Ironically, in addition to breaking his promise not to sign the law, Obama broke his promise on signing statements and attached a statement that he really does not want to detain citizens indefinitely (see the text of the statement here).

 Obama insisted that he signed the bill simply to keep funding for the troops. It was a continuation of the dishonest treatment of the issue by the White House since the law first came to light. As discussed earlier, the White House told citizens that the president would not sign the NDAA because of the provision. That spin ended after sponsor Senator Carl Levin (Democrat, Michigan) went to the floor and disclosed that it was the White House and insisted that there be no exception for citizens in the indefinite detention provision.

 The latest claim is even more insulting. You do not “support our troops” by denying the principles for which they are fighting. They are not fighting to consolidate authoritarian powers in the president. The “American way of life” is defined by our constitution and specifically the bill of rights. Moreover, the insistence that you do not intend to use authoritarian powers does not alter the fact that you just signed an authoritarian measure. It is not the use but the right to use such powers that defines authoritarian systems.

 The almost complete failure of the mainstream media to cover this issue is shocking. Many reporters have bought into the spin of the Obama administration as they did the spin over torture by the Bush administration. Even today, reporters refuse to call waterboarding torture despite the long line of cases and experts defining waterboarding as torture for decades.

 On the NDAA, reporters continue to mouth the claim that this law only codifies what is already the law. That is not true. The administration has fought any challenges to indefinite detention to prevent a true court review. Moreover, most experts agree that such indefinite detention of citizens violates the constitution.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2012/jan/02/ndaa-historic-assault-american-liberty

by

Occupy Crowd Stabs Police Officer

At Occupy We are Smart

By: KIRSTAN CONLEY and CYNTHIA R. FAGEN

Some 800 Occupy Wall Street protesters began the New Year by trying to retakeZuccottiPark last night, starting a massive clash with police in which one officer was stabbed in the hand with a pair of scissors.

A suspect was arrested in the 11:30 p.m. incident, according to a law enforcement source.

Hundreds in the crowd of occupiers then surrounded the ambulance as it tried to leave with the wounded officer, the source said.

The officer, who was not identified, was taken to Bellevue Hospital in stable condition.

Shortly before midnight OWS protesters took to twitter to proclaim their assault on Zuccotti — from which they were booted by cops in November.

“Barricades being torn down at liberty [Zuccotti] park,” they wrote. “Happy New Years!!”

They later tweeted: “Big crowd at liberty square. We have taken back the park.”

Some 100 cops initially responded to the scene, including mounted police to maintain crowd control.

At one point, some of the protestors surrounded the circle of cops, before reinforcements were called in.

Police in riot gear started to attempt to clear the park at about 1:30 a.m. today.

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/manhattan/ows_mob_in_clash_with_cops_PWKCyTnw7qMpcg7VO9ovdO  

 

by

California Gov. Jerry Brown brings 760 crazy new laws into the New Year

By Patrick McGreevy,Los AngelesTimes

December 31, 2011, 3:28 p.m.

Reporting fromSacramento—

Californians will no longer be able to carry handguns openly in public, buy alcohol at self-serve checkout stands or purchase shark fins for their soup under hundreds of new laws that take effect Jan. 1.

Other measures bar minors from tanning beds, allow students to be suspended for cyber-bullying and require booster seats for children in cars until they are 8 years old or at least 4 feet, 9 inches tall.

Despite another year of budget shortfalls, the 760 bills that Gov. Jerry Brown signed into law in 2011 included several that cost money. Among them: new funding for a bullet train and a campaign to boost enrollment for food stamps as the economy remains sluggish.

Some bills took effect immediately after the governor signed them. One allows an NFL stadium proposed for downtown Los Angeles to receive expedited legal review of any challenges over environmental issues. Another prohibits cities and counties from outlawing male circumcision.

Brown faced a backlash for signing some of the proposals, including one allowing illegal immigrants to receive private financial aid administered by California’s public colleges. (Another permitting access to taxpayer-provided aid takes effect in 2013.)

Known as the California Dream Act, the pair of measures drew fire from the public and some lawmakers who consider them unfair to students born in the United States. But Assemblyman Gil Cedillo (D-Los Angeles) said his legislation recognizes the value of young people who graduate from high school in California regardless of where they were born.

“It’s important for California and the future of our economy to take advantage of the investment we have made in these young men and women,” Cedillo said.

Brown was also criticized for signing a law requiring public schools to include the contributions of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people in history lessons and instructional material, although new textbooks for lower grades are not planned for three years.

One of the most contentious issues was the ban on the open carrying of handguns, which put California in the minority of states that have adopted such restrictions. Some gun-rights advocates say the new law will not keep them from appearing in public with weapons that are not covered by the ban.

“Law-abiding citizens will start openly carrying unloaded long guns in public because their basic and fundamental civil right to self-defense, as enumerated in the 2nd Amendment, is clearly being infringed upon,” said Yih-Chau Chang, a spokesman for the firearms advocacy group Responsible Citizens of California.

Assemblyman Anthony Portantino (D-La Cañada Flintridge) said he introduced the measure in response to law enforcement officials who felt that public safety was jeopardized by gun owners wearing firearms on their hips at coffee shops and other public venues as they called attention to a right to bear arms.

Laws taking effect also include:

Athlete safety: requires school districts to develop a process for identifying cases in which students suffer concussions in sports mishaps and require a parent to give written permission for the athlete to return to the lineup.

Audits: gives the state auditor broad new powers to investigate misuse of taxpayer funds by cities and counties, in response to the financial scandal in the city of Bell.

Autism: requires health insurers to include coverage for autism.

Baby food: bans stores from selling expired infant food and formula.

Bail: requires that people extradited to California to face criminal charges face $100,000 in bail in addition to any bail already issued for the underlying offense.

Ballot measures: requires all ballot initiatives and referenda to be decided in November general elections, which typically have higher turnout — and more liberal voters casting ballots — than do June primaries. Excludes measures placed on the ballot by the Legislature.

Beer: bars the importation, production and sale of beer to which caffeine has been directly added as a separate ingredient, in response to incidents in which young people have been hospitalized with severe intoxication after drinking the beverages.

Bullet train: provides $4 million for planning work on a section of a high-speed rail system proposed between Los Angeles and San Diego.

Child actors: streamlines the process for obtaining state permission for minors to work in the entertainment industry by allowing parents to get temporary permits online rather than through the mail.

Clemency: requires governors to give prosecutors a chance to weigh in at least 10 days before acting on requests for commutation of prison terms. The law was proposed after former Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger acted on his last day in office to reduce a prison sentence for the son of former Assembly Speaker Fabian Nuñez.

Cyber-bullying: allows schools to suspend students for bullying classmates on social networking sites such as Facebook.

Development projects: grants large construction projects chosen by the governor faster judicial reviews of environmental challenges.

Dream Act: The portion of the California Dream Act taking effect this year makes illegal immigrants accepted at California public universities and community colleges eligible for privately funded scholarships administered by the schools.

Drugs: outlaws the supplying of a drug or compound containing dextromethorphan to a person younger than 18 without a prescription.

Drunk drivers: authorizes courts to revoke, for up to a decade, the driver’s license of any person convicted of three or more DUIs in a 10-year period. Another law bars police agencies that set up drunk-driving checkpoints from impounding cars from sober but unlicensed drivers if there is a legal driver available to take the wheel.

Elder abuse: allows wage garnishments against anyone convicted of elder abuse or financial abuse of a dependent adult.

Farmworkers: requires that, if the Agricultural Labor Relations Board refuses to certify an election because of employer misconduct, the affected labor organization shall be certified as the exclusive bargaining representative.

Food stamps: eliminates the requirement that food stamp recipients be fingerprinted to prevent fraud. Another law calls for state agencies to promote more enrollment in the federal food stamp program.

Foster care: allows foster care for eligible youths to extend beyond age 18, up to age 21, when the Legislature provides the money. Another measure requires California State University campuses and community colleges to give foster youths priority to enroll in classes.

Gas pipelines: mandates automatic shut-off valves and improved maintenance in vulnerable sections of pipelines, in response to the deadly explosion in San Bruno in 2010.

Human trafficking: requires large retailers and manufacturers to publicly report what steps they take to make sure those providing their supplies and products are not engaging in slavery and human trafficking.

Infused drinks: allows bars to infuse alcohol with fruits and vegetables for use in cocktails.

Insurance: prohibits doctors, when treating workers’ compensation patients, from prescribing drugs in which they have a financial interest.

Iran: mandates that the state’s pension boards divest their funds from companies that are part of the defense or nuclear industries in Iran.

Job applicants: bars employers from using credit reports in deciding whether to hire someone.

Labor: prohibits local officials from banning union labor agreements for publicly funded construction projects.

Lap-Bands: requires periodic inspections of outpatient surgery centers that perform Lap-Band operations and other procedures. The law is a response to the 2007 death of singer Kanye West‘s mother after liposuction and breast augmentation surgery at a Westside clinic

 

Libraries: restricts the privatization of public libraries by requiring that they continue to pay government-scale wages.

Lying politicians: forces elected officials to forfeit office if convicted of falsely claiming they have been awarded military decorations.

 

Marijuana: gives cities and counties clearer authority to regulate the location and operation of medical marijuana dispensaries. Another law creates new penalties for the possession of synthetic cannabis products, which have been sold in convenience stores and tobacco shops.

Maternity leave: requires employers to maintain and pay for health coverage while women are on maternity leave.

Medical consent: gives children 12 and older the authority to get medical care for the prevention of sexually transmitted disease, including the HPV vaccine, without parental consent.

Missing persons: requires law enforcement agencies to submit a missing persons report to the state attorney general when the person being sought is 21 or younger, a change from the current cutoff age of 16.

Needles: empowers cities and counties to allow pharmacists to furnish a customer with up to 30 hypodermic needles and syringes without a prescription. Another law permits the state Department of Public Health to allow select groups to provide hypodermic needles and syringe exchange services in any area where it determines that conditions exist for the rapid spread of HIV.

Presidential primary: moves the state’s presidential primary election from February to June and consolidates it with the statewide primary election to save $100million.

Prison phones: makes it a crime for cell phones to be smuggled into state prisons and allows increased time behind bars for inmates caught with them.

Prostitution: imposes a special court fine of $25,000 on defendants convicted of prostitution involving a minor.

Protests: makes it a misdemeanor to create a disturbance on or next to an elementary or middle school campus where the action threatens the physical safety of students.

Puppies: outlaws the selling of live animals on any street, sidewalk, parking lot or other public right-of-way.

Raves: requires any state agency that plans an event with more than 10,000 people on state property to conduct a threat assessment before the event.

Recycling: establishes as state policy that 75% of solid waste should be diverted from landfills to recycling and other processes by 2020.

Restaurants: may use up their supplies of shark fins — a delicacy in Chinese cooking — purchased before Jan. 1. After that, sale and possession of shark fins will be illegal.

Saving parks: allows nonprofits to take over the operation of state parks that otherwise would be closed because of budget problems.

Senior care: mandates that residential care facilities for the elderly notify residents within 10 days if the state determines that a serious health and safety violation occurred at the facility.

Sexual orientation: encourages state university systems to collect data on students’ sexual orientation and encourages the legislative analyst to use it to recommend improvements in the quality of life for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender students.

Student government: authorizes illegal immigrants who are students to receive grants, fee waivers and reimbursement for serving in student government at public colleges.

Tax break: provides a tax credit to California farmers for the cost of fresh fruit and vegetables donated to California food banks.

Work rules: establishes an employee’s right to as many as three days of bereavement leave within three months following the death of a spouse, child, parent, grandchild, sibling or domestic partner.

Wine: provides a special permit that makes it easier forCalifornia firms to sell wine over the Internet, by phone or by direct mail.

 http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-new-laws-20120101,0,4146983.story?page=3&utm_medium=feed&track=rss&utm_campaign=Feed%3A%20MostEmailed%20%28L.A.%20Times%20-%20Most%20E-mailed%20Stories%29&utm_content=Google%20Reader&utm_source=feedburner