Jack & Jill Politics

From PoliticalInaction.com

MUST READ of the day

In a long, but must read article, a New York Times financial reporter bears all about his financial life: how a man who covers the financial world, skeptically, ended up a knowing victim in America's financial collapse. He lists his salary, his alimony, his wife's salary, and all of his expenses, as well as the process in buying a home he couldn't afford. How a family can make $180,000 a year and have any financial trouble at all is beyond me, and exactly what people in the country have a huge problem with in terms of these bailouts. It wasn't poor people who brought this country to it's knees, it was yuppies with money and banks that wouldn't tell them no. Everyone should be pissed that people who ran up their credit destroyed our country with the banks as willing accomplices.

Excerpts:

Bob’s original plan was to write two mortgages, one for 80 percent of the purchase price and a piggyback loan for 10 percent. I would kick in the final 10 percent, cashing out a chunk of New York Times stock — my last. If I had been a normal borrower, the whole deal would have sailed through at a low interest rate. My $120,000 base salary and my assets were easy to document. But given my actual income after alimony and child support, I couldn’t possibly have qualified for a standard mortgage. Bob’s plan was to write a “stated-income loan,” or “liar’s loan,” so that I wouldn’t have to give the game away by producing paychecks or tax returns.
.....
Despite the obvious red flag of applying for a Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell loan, I wasn’t paying that much for the money. The rate on my primary mortgage of $333,700 was a remarkably low 5.625 percent for the first five years, though my monthly payments would probably jump substantially after the fifth year. On top of that, I was paying a much higher rate of 8.5 percent on my “piggyback” loan for $80,300. Even so, I would be paying slightly more than $2,500 a month for the first five years. It would get expensive eventually, but I could worry about that later.
.....
I felt like a crack addict calling up my dealer. It was April 2006, and I had just reached Bob Andrews, our once and future mortgage broker, on his cellphone.
.....
I took a certain pride that I outlasted two of my three mortgage lenders. American Home, my original lender, collapsed overnight when the financial markets first froze up in August 2007. Fremont, my second lender, was forced out of the mortgage business by federal regulators. That left me with JPMorgan Chase, one of the few big banks smart enough to sell off most of the subprime loans it financed. It still serviced my loan, but it wasn’t on the hook if I defaulted.
......
I was actually beginning to feel sorry for Chase. It seemed to be so flooded with defaulting borrowers that it didn’t have time to foreclose on my house. Eight months after my last payment to the bank, I am still waiting for the ax to fall.


Article here: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/17/magazine/17fo...

********************************

But..but....I thought it was all those poor Black and Brown folks that caused the collapse...

uh huh

rikyrah, I know of a couple, a real estate broker and a psychiatrist, who bought a HUGE mansion in a rich Boston suburb that they couldn't afford and damn sure didn't need. It's not like they rented out any of the rooms. In this mansion that used to be a monastery, they hosted big party after big party, including a huge New Year's Eve bash every year, and were the talk of the higher-ups in the social strata of the town.

I know of this couple because a few years ago a friend invited me to their home as his guest for one of their luncheons. Some French baron was in town so they wanted to make an impression.

It was all excessive.

I'm not that impressed by mansions. They're monstrous. They're oppressive. I enjoyed a few of the conversations I had with a few of the guests, but, by and large, I couldn't wait to get back to the farm.

Something just didn't feel right.

Last summer, my friend, who I hadn't talked to in a while, called me up to ask for a favor. It seemed that the real estate broker and the psychiatrist were in dire straits. I didn't listen to all the details, because when "rich" people are in financial trouble I simply roll my eyes. In this case, I half-listened with the phone between my shoulder and ear and went about the kitchen cooking whatever it was I was cooking.

He finally got around to that favor. He wanted me to create a bed and breakfast invoice for the real estate broker and the psychiatrist with a certain date on it so they could use it as evidence for an insurance fraud claim they were running on the company that held the policy on their Volvo. Can't say I remember all the details, but that's how desperately they needed money: they asked a friend of theirs to ask a friend of his, whom they'd only met ONCE, to be a party to insurance fraud.

Oh, yeah. I forgot to mention. On the way home from the French baron's lunch, my friend complained to me that the hosts never treated him with much "equality," for lack of a better word, regarding the New Year's Eve bash. My friend, you see, is white, and while he and I had always just been friends, he usually dates Black men. The real estate broker and the psychiatrist never allowed him to bring a date to the bash.

I haven't spoken to my friend ever since that phone call last summer.

What I took from that is how deceiving appearances are. Really, some people look down on minorities, and there they are pulling all kinds of scams. We shouldn't be stunned that the banks were stealing from poor black and brown people.

That is the hardest part of life figuring our whom your true friends are.

BlackPlanet.com article: White Supremacy & Law and Order
by HansBennett [Subscribe]
Thu May 14, 2009 at 09:31:43 PM PDT
Check out this new article at Black Planet's "News One" website. It is a front-page story and the author has granted permission to reprint.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/5/15/731545/...

Bolden will get head of NASA first black chief
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30753761/
GONE HEAD BLACK MEN
Holder
Bolden
Barack
Powell
you cant stop us lol

Hey, I think we pointed him out a few months ago, didn't we?

I saw Dennis Kucinich on The Ed Show tonight talking about AIG, manufacturing, the car companies, the American worker, and national security.

http://kucinich.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.a...

Kucinich Introduces Resolution to Strengthen Economy and Protect National Security
Resolution calls for Coordinated Manufacturing Policy to Protect Core Industries

Washington, May 14 - Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), Congresswoman Candice Miller (R-MI), Congressman Steven LaTourette (R-OH) and Congressman Tim Ryan (D-OH) today introduced H. Res. 444 that would build support for a national industrial manufacturing policy that would strengthen the steel, automotive, aerospace and shipping industries because of their irreplaceable contribution to America’s economy and national security.

“No major economy can remain strong without a strong manufacturing sector, and no major power can remain secure without the ability to manufacture durable goods. It is time that the United States enacted a coordinated a federal policy to rebuild the manufacturing sector of America,” added Kucinich

The American manufacturing sector has suffered under the weight of the slow economy, bad trade agreements, and policy neglect.

“We can buy the goods we will need to meet the energy needs of the future from American businesses, or we can buy them from overseas. We can buy our articles of national defense from the U.S. or we can buy them from overseas. An industrial manufacturing policy would create jobs at home. I think the choice is clear,” said Kucinich.

H.Res. 444 states, “that it is the sense of the House of Representatives that in order to ensure that workers and industries in the United States meet the needs of a stronger American economy and national security, the Nation needs an industrial policy that corrects the widespread disinvestment in its productive capacity, that preserves core industries, that positions core industries as global leaders in manufacturing the goods necessary to support clean and renewable energy development, and that restores the possibility of middle class incomes to working people.

I swear to god these last 8 years has been to do nothing more than destroy this country.

this would be too much like right. Saw him on The Ed Show tonight.

AM: If this whole thing goes all the way to the Supreme Court....I truly hope the conservative block pokes Obama in the eye.

WEDNESDAY MAY 13, 2009 16:55 EDT
Obama's latest effort to conceal evidence of Bush era crimes
(Updated below - Update II - Update III)

It's difficult to react much to Obama's complete reversal today of his own prior decision to release photographs depicting extreme detainee abuse by the United States. He's left no doubt that this is what he does: ever since he was inaugurated, Obama has taken one extreme step after the next to keep concealed both the details and the evidence of Bush's crimes, including rendition, torture and warrantless eavesdropping. The ACLU's Amrit Singh -- who litigated the thus-far-successful FOIA lawsuit to compel disclosure of these photographs -- is exactly right:

The reversal is another indication of a continuance of the Bush administration policies under the Obama administration. President Obama's promise of accountability is meaningless, this is inconsistent with his promise of transparency, it violates the government's commitment to the court. People need to examine these abusive photographs, but also the government officials need to be held accountable.
Andrew Sullivan, one of Obama's earliest and most enthusiastic supporters, wrote of today's photograph-concealment decision and yesterday's story of Obama's pressuring Britain to conceal evidence of Binyam Mohamed's torture:
Slowly but surely, Obama is owning the cover-up of his predecessors' war crimes. But covering up war crimes, refusing to prosecute them, promoting those associated with them, and suppressing evidence of them are themselves violations of Geneva and the UN Convention. So Cheney begins to successfully coopt his successor. . .
From extending and deepening the war in Afghanistan, to suppressing evidence of rampant and widespread abuse and torture of prisoners under Bush, to thuggishly threatening the British with intelligence cut-off if they reveal the brutal torture inflicted on Binyam Mohamed, Obama now has new cheer-leaders: Bill Kristol, Michael Goldfarb and Max Boot. . . .

Those of us who held out hope that the Obama administration would not be actively covering up the brutal torture of a Gitmo prisoner who was subject to abuse in several countries must now concede the obvious. They're covering it up - in such a crude and obvious fashion that it is actually a crime in Britain.
John Aravosis said Obama's logic was "a bit Bushian." Steve Hynd observes that "Obama Trades Our Principles For Cheneyism." TPM declares: "Obama falls back on Bushisms." Dan Froomkin writes: "Obama Joins the Cover-Up." I'll just note a few points for now about Obama's efforts to keep these photographs concealed:
(1) Think about what Obama's rationale would justify. Obama's claim -- that release of the photographs "would be to further inflame anti-American opinion and to put our troops in greater danger" -- means we should conceal or even outright lie about all the bad things we do that might reflect poorly on us. For instance, if an Obama bombing raid slaughters civilians in Afghanistan (as has happened several times already), then, by this reasoning, we ought to lie about what happened and conceal the evidence depicting what was done -- as the Bush administration did -- because release of such evidence would "would be to further inflame anti-American opinion and to put our troops in greater danger." Indeed, evidence of our killing civilians in Afghanistan inflames anti-American sentiment far more than these photographs would. Isn't it better to hide the evidence showing the bad things we do?
Apparently, the proper reaction to heinous acts by our political leaders is not to hold them accountable but, instead, to hide evidence of what they did. That's the warped mentality Obama is endorsing today, and has been endorsing since January 20.

(2) How can anyone who supports what Obama is doing here complain about the CIA's destruction of their torture videos? The torture videos, like the torture photos, would, if released, generate anti-American sentiment and make us look bad. By Obama's reasoning, didn't the CIA do exactly the right thing by destroying them?
(3) This is just another manifestation of the generalized Beltway religion that we should suppress and ignore the heinous acts our government committed and to which we acquiesced, because if we just agree to forget about all of it, then we can blissfully pretend that it never happened and avoid doing anything about it.
(4) Obama's claim that he has to hide this evidence to protect our soldiers is the sort of crass, self-serving exploitation of "The Troops" which was the rancid hallmark of Bush/Cheney rhetoric. Everyone knows what the real effect of these photographs would be: they would highlight just how brutal and criminal was our treatment of detainees in our custody, and further underscore how amoral and lawless are Obama's calls that we Look To the Future, Not the Past. Manifestly, that is why they're being suppressed.

(5) For all of you defend-Obama-at-all-cost cheerleaders who are about to descend into my comment section and other online venues to explain how Obama did the right thing because of National Security, I have this question: if you actually want to argue that concealing these photographs is the right thing to do, then you must have been criticizing Obama when, two weeks ago, he announced that he would release them. Otherwise, it's pretty clear that you don't have any actual beliefs other than: "I support what Obama does because it's Obama who does it." So for those arguing today that concealing these photographs is the right thing to do: were you criticizing Obama two weeks ago for announcing he would release these photographs?

Also, the OLC torture memos released several weeks ago surely increased anti-American sentiment. Indeed, those on the Right who objected to the release of those memos cited exactly that argument. How can anyone cheer on Obama's decision today to conceal these photographs while also cheering on his decision to release the OLC memos? Those who have any intellectual coherence would have to oppose both or support both. Those two decisions only have one fact in common: Obama made them. Thus, the only way to cheer on both decisions is to be guided by the modified Nixonian mantra: what Obama does is right because Obama does it.
Also, during the Bush years, were you -- along with Bill Kristol and National Review -- attacking the ACLU and Congressional Democrats for demanding that the Bush administration stop concealing evidence of its torture, on the ground that disclosure of such evidence would harm America's national security? Were you defending Bush then for doing what Obama is doing now?

(6) If these photographs don't shed any new light on what our Government did -- if all they do is replicate what we already know from the Abu Ghraib photographs -- then how can it possibly be the case that they will do any damage? To argue that they will harm how we are perceived is, necessarily, to acknowledge that they reveal new information that is not already widely known.

(7) We are supposed to have what is called Open Government in the United States. The actions of our government -- and the evidence documenting it -- is presumptively available to the public. Only an authoritarian would argue that evidence of government actions should be kept secret in the absence of a compelling reason to release it.

The presumption is the opposite: documents in the government's possession relating to what it does is presumptively public in the absence of compelling reasons to keep it concealed. That the documents reflect poorly on the government is not such a reason to keep them concealed. If it were, then it would always be preferable to have political leaders cover-up their crimes on the ground that disclosing them would reflect poorly on the U.S. and spur anti-American sentiment. Open government is necessary precisely because only transparency deters political leaders from doing heinous acts in the first place.

UPDATE: Here (.pdf) is the letter the DOJ sent to the court this afternoon, advising the judge that they changed their minds "at the highest levels of Government" and would not, as previously promised, release the photographs, but instead would attempt to appeal the Second Circuit's decision compelling their release to the Roberts Supreme Court.

UPDATE II: In comments, Paul Daniel Ash addresses the Obama supporters who are defending Obama's decision to keep these photograhps concealed on the ground that "no good would come" from disclosure:
I'm pretty jaded, but even I'm outraged and saddened by the number of voices being raised in this comment thread supporting the decision to conceal these photos.
"No good will come?" Would we even have had an Abu Ghraib scandal without the pictures of bloody prisoners and men cowering in front of dogs? "No good?" Is there or is there not an active debate in this country about whether or not torture is acceptable? "No good?" Did a United States Senator not say just today, in the Judiciary Subcommittee on Administrative Oversight and the Courts, that torture techniques have been used for the past five centuries because "apparently they work?"
"No good will come?"
Indeed, it's pretty hard to believe that the people who are arguing that "no good will come" from release of these photos either (a) lived through the impact of the Abu Ghraib photos and/or (b) are living through the "torture debate" we are now having.
Photographs convey the reality of things in a way that mere words cannot. They prevent people who want to deny what was done the ability to do so. They force citizens to face what their country did and what they are now justifying and advocating. They impede the ability of political leaders to use euphemisms to obscure the truth. They show in graphic detail what the effects are of sanctioning torture policies. They prove that this was about more than "dunking three terrorists into water." They highlight the fact that no decent person believes that this should all just be forgotten and its victims told that they have no right to have accountability. That's precisely why the photographs are being suppressed: because of how much good they would do.

UPDATE III: For more on the claim that release of the photos will "inflame anti-American sentiment," see here.
-- Glenn Greenwald
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/05/...

I don't think this essay is seeing the forest for the trees. Obama might WANT this to go the Supreme Court. As Lawrence O'Donnell (there is no better pundit ANYWHERE) suggested, these decisions to "cover up" Bush's war crimes are litigation tactics. The unitary executive, which Bush/CheneyCo employed to commit their crimes, needs to be dealt with by the Supreme Court, not just the current president. Obama won't be in office forever, so no matter what he does, nothing can keep future presidents from doing what they're gonna do.

I've got beefs with the president, I do, but I'm not interested in him taking on our our military apparatus alone. Such a thing just doesn't end well.

That's all I'm going to say on the matter.

Glenn Greenwald = 1/3 of the Poutrage (tm Al Giordano) Trio. Yawn.

Come on, now. When some of these people (white liberal bloggers, I mean) say things I don't like, or I strongly disagree with them on something, it can irk me. I won't deny that. But the hysterical condemnations I see here all the time are just...I don't know, LOL. The pendulum swings back and forth wildly. Take Joan Walsh, for instance- hated, loved, and now hated again. At some point, Obama is going to say or do something that Al Giordano will take strong exception to, then he'll be talked about as if he has two tails.

As a matter of fact, Al has criticized Obama. He called him out for how he answered a question about legalizing marijuana. He has criticized him on Mexico. He has said that he doesn't trust politicians and that includes PBO. Guess what? I still read and recommend his blog.

The difference between Al and the Poutrage (TM) Brigade is that his commentary is well thoughout. He doesn't fall back on histrionics like "Obama is covering for Bush!" or "Obama's a crook!". I don't mind criticism, but when you a) only criticize and b) resort to accusing Obama of being like Bush/sellout/crook/shady...etc. just because he does something you (in general) don't like, then you lose me.

When has Joan Walsh been loved? She may get a prop point for defending Wanda Sykes, but folks still remember her bullshit during the primary when she falsely accused Bob Herbert of being sexist and the other crap she pulled in the name of white female solidarity.

If it goes to the Supreme Court and they rule against the government, then it's out of his hands. I think that the people screaming the loudest about this issue have to at some point acknowledge that the release of the pictures doesn't change the reality of what has occurred. I have not read any comments where people are saying that torture is a good thing and that the government was right, but I have read thoughtful comments that attempt to look at the issue in its entirety. Put it this way, we didn't see the pictures on Monday and we knew what happened and we didn't see them today and we still know what happened. The idea that we have to actually see the images to grasp what occurred is slightly illogical and if we're honest, the motivation is to prove what Bush/Cheney did, and I argue that there are ways to do that without releasing the images to the general public, here or abroad. In courtrooms all across this country people are convicted on circumstantial evidence without pictures or any other form of direct evidence. And where I part company with those in favor of releasing the documents is their attempt to portray Obama as a clone of Bush or a stooge of the military.

Now to your point about Obama cheerleaders descending on your comment: I am an unabashed supporter of the President and I respectfully reserve the right to disagree with him when I disagree with him. I will not, however, on this site or any other, speak about him disrespectfully because he has not earned my disrespect. I voted for Obama because I trusted his judgment and I will not throw him under the bus because he makes a decision that is contrary to what I think. There has been a tendency to treat Obama like he is the head of our local neighborhood watch rather than the President of the United States. Many have demanded that Obama think and act in a manner that is agreeable to them and they have followed these pronouncements with withdrawals of support over Warren, SOS Clinton, FISA, Geithner, Black Farmers, etc. His every move has been scrutinized to a ridiculous extent, so pardon me, if I choose not to pile on. I argue that Obama has always been a pragmatist and that's who he will continue to be and frankly after eight years of the ideologically driven Bush/Cheney administration, I want a President who is not so rigid in his thinking that he is unable to handle changing landscapes and/or unforeseen circumstances.

Lastly, there are many people who are just waiting to take Obama down because that is how the game is played and anyone who doesn't understand that the stakes for Obama (as the first black POTUS) are astronomical, is delusional. The media and the real people who are a threat to my values and ideals would love nothing more than for the left to cannibalize Obama and usher in Palin, Perry, or Sanford in 2012. The GOP has proven ineffectual in their effort to hurt Obama and I will be curious to see how willing the so-called left will be in ensuring that he is a one-term President. I have seen the shift since the election and it's the same cast of characters Sirota, Uygur, Hamsher, Greenwald, Maddow, Jon Stewart, et al. It is an old game that has always been used against successful blacks and Obama is not exempt. I'm not surprised by them but I am surprised by the willingness of some others to take every opportunity to slam this President and even more saddened by their unwillingness to even give him a chance.

Damn, hopee. You better say that!! Can I copy and paste this everywhere like a certain robot poster who shall not be named?

You better say it often, say it loudly, say it everywhere.

Especially this:

I argue that Obama has always been a pragmatist and that's who he will continue to be and frankly after eight years of the ideologically driven Bush/Cheney administration, I want a President who is not so rigid in his thinking that he is unable to handle changing landscapes and/or unforeseen circumstances.

The problem is he is changing the landscape for many of the decision because he changed it not that it changed underneath him.

Bump a hammer..... MALLET. MEET. NAIL.

hater.

So what should the proper response to Obama's actions? ah, let me guess: My President is Black!

I think the appropriate response would be to wait and see.

What's the hurry?

Tell me why those photos need to be released RIGHT NOW?

No one has made any semblance of a convincing argument for why those need to be released RIGHT NOW.

Obama is not Bush or Cheney. He is not complicit in their war crimes. Not a year ago, he was supposedly too inexperienced to even be running for president and now all of a sudden he's no different than those criminals?

Doesn't pass the smell test.

"What's the hurry?"

Hurry? The ACLU requested release of those photos way back in 2003, and have been trying to get them and other documents released since then.

Craig: I know that amidst the illegality of the last eight years this may sound a little bit radical....but a court ordered the government to release those photos a while back. I know that for conservatives the rule of law was whatever their "Dear Leader" Bush said or wanted.....that doesnt have to be the case with us and Obama. If those pictures are released, then there's no way that [another radical concept coming up here] prosecutions for CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY could be staved off.

People challenge court orders all the time. Not all court orders are constitutional, either. I admit, I haven't been following this case that closely. I, personally, have no interested in seeing the photos. I couldn't even get through the torture memos. I don't see why Obama shouldn't challenge the court order if he thinks it's best to challenge it.

Once the Supreme Court decides, if it goes that far, then that will be that and Obama will do what he must.

Craig: You're missing the point. This isnt about you, or about President Obama. This is about the rule of law and the inhumane treatment of HUMAN BEINGS at the hands of the US military tortures, in the name of our government. If you, Craig Hickman, are not interested in seeing the pictures, or having complete knowledge of what your government has been doing (though Im sure you werent outraged when the Obamin said they were going to release the pics....right?), then please respect the fact that there are others who want to see the full extent of the law applied to those who broke it.

No, AM2k9, I'm not missing the point at all.

We just don't agree about how to go about ensuring that the full of extent of the law is applied to those who broke it.

ONLY those prosecuting the war crimes NEED to see those pictures.

Maybe even the families of those who have been tortured may NEED to see them in order to heal.

Other folks may WANT to see them, but want and need are not the same thing.

There's more than one way to skin a cat.

No one will convince me that those photos NEED to be released publicly in order to bring the criminals to justice.

That said, they WILL come out, and we all know it.

Some have already been leaked. A few just today.

I'm just not interested in our nation undoing itself anymore than it already has.

That's my story and I'm sticking to it.

First economics now science. America's ignorance is appalling.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/entertain...

I s@#$ you not. A trucking company applies for TARP money.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124234450459821...

By the way...I am truly interested in what your opinions are on one of my favorite books..To Kill A Mockingbird.....I grew up with that book and recently have been reading about the author, Harper Lee. She has led quite a different lifestyle...basically became a recluse after writing and winning the Pulitzer prize. Never published another book.

I would love to hear your views on this book. It became a favorite between me and my sister Cathi... yet we grew up in a very anti Native American atmosphere. Makes me think that the book bridged some things that can be understood no matter the racial element.

Have you ever watched the movie with Gregory Peck?

To Kill A Mockingbird is probably my favorite book, as is the movie. I think it was one of those things that raised my 'awareness' level - for wont of a better phrase.

If I remember correctly, Atticus was asked to be the jailed father's attorney by the judge (who in the movie was played by Micah, that sheriff from The Rifleman). The father's name was Tom Robinson, btw.

Now some folks say the same about 'Catcher in the Rye' which I've also read but for the life of me I can't remember shit about it nor why anyone want to ban it.

Outstanding book, for all children who are in the 6th and 7th grades. It shows how important empathy is when the lawyer finally figures out what the jailed father means when he tells him why he hired him. So, he could tell the story in a way 'his people' would understand it...and the closing argument was powerful for that reason.

Excellent read.

Damn, whiterose, you better than me. I could barely remember the story. All I could pull was a little white girl named Scout. I wiki'd and STILL don't remember the whole thing... LOLOL

O I loooved that story isonprize cause for once a fictional book gave retribution to the black man in the south after his daughter was brutally raped and he killed the perpetrators, shot them dead in cold blood, on the courthouse steps in broad daylight after they were arraigned. A strong father defending his innocent girlchild who was traumatized for the rest of her life. But the jury was all white and he had killed two white men...vicious sadistic redneck animals but nevertheless white men...and he was up against it.

The closing argument was so compelling,powerful and persuasive made the difference saved that black father's life... he was freed!!

It felt good after reading that. Cause it was just so uplifting to know a black man defended his child in the strongest way possible and won!

In the movie, Samuel Jackson plays the father and Matthew McConaughey plays the lawyer.

thanks for responding

fyi..they always have an excuse....

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/earl-ofari-hutchi...

The Washington Times quickly yanked the picture of Malia and Sasha Obama juxtaposed with the screaming headline "36 Chicago area kids killed sets record." Times editor John Solomon blamed it on a computer auto file error. No word from Editor Solomon who or what programmed the computer, and no formal apology either for the slander.

No matter, the Times blunder (?) dumped back on the table the sensitive, troubling, and polarizing issue of racial stereotyping. And that's the issue of the blanket typecasting of young blacks, as crime and violence prone no matter who they are. The plague of gang killing and violence and murders in Chicago that stirred the Obama-murder connection has stirred even more vivid, and lurid images of young blacks as lawbreakers.

and the excuses are usually bullshyt. This one is no different.

its called 101 in stupidity

I wish I were in Dixie. NOT.

http://www.montgomeryadvertiser.com/article/200...

Please read so we can discuss.

lol....It was posted in the afternoon thread...but there is really nothing to discuss because short of Bear Bryant rising from the dead to tell them to stop, they'll be having "Old South" day next year and on and on and on. They'll probably not march in front of the AKA house again, but the Old South celebration not about to stop in Tuscaloosa.

Sorry, for the repost. Been at the hospitol with a loved one all day. But this is what got me;
"I don't believe these young folks were in any way trying to be racist," said Joyce Stallworth, an Alpha Kappa Alpha alumna who saw the April 29 parade in Tuscaloosa and is an associate education dean at Alabama. "But they were being insensitive. I don't think they understood the broader implications of what they were doing."

Why is Joyce Stallworth apologizing? Oh I know why, she wants to keep her J-O-B.

Ya know, Booky - it's TOTAL BULLSHIT. You don't do shit like that and get a pass on being racist because what it is - is racist.

WHY would you STILL have an annual event named 'OLD SOUTH DAYS?' What's the fucking point? The old south is fucking gone.

Tradition is important at Alabama, which Union troops burned in 1865 near the end of the war. About a century later, then-Gov. George C. Wallace staged his "stand in the schoolhouse door" to protest forced racial integration of the campus.

Someone stopped in front of that sorority house & the others stopped, and there was a reason for it, I guarantee it. It's about intimidation and that may be their point.

There's only one solution for this: Open up a keg of whoop ass on this mofos. That's the only thing they understand.

I admit I am a sucker for certain human interest stories and this one certainly got my attention. US women switched at birth but don't find out until they are 56!!

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/may/14/wom...

Each weighed about 6lbs (2.8kg) at birth on 3 May 1953. Each was hairless. They were the only two babies delivered that day at the tiny Pioneer Memorial hospital in Heppner, Oregon. A nurse took them both to be bathed, sharing the facilities for convenience's sake, then returning them to their mothers.

They were taken to homes 20 miles apart and in the course of time married and had children and grandchildren of their own. Their paths never crossed again until earlier this year.

The truth began to emerge last summer when a neighbour of Marjorie Angell, Dee Ann's mother, divulged a secret she had been carrying inside her for years. Aged 86, the unidentified neighbour had waited until all four parents of the women had died, keen to avoid inflicting distress.

Now she came forward and confided in one of Kay Rene's brothers that while still alive Marjorie had told her that the babies had been mistakenly switched at birth.

When the nurse brought back the babies from bathing them Marjorie had cried out, "This is not my baby!" But her protests went ignored, and she had spent the rest of her life privately convinced she was raising the wrong child.

When Kay Rene heard the news it rang a bell for her. Her own mother, Donalda Reed, who had been heavily sedated giving birth and had never harboured doubts, had only once referred to the rumours that had occasionally swirled around the family. She told Kay Rene they were not true. "You are my daughter and you always will be," she said.

But those doubts were now impossible to put down. The two women contacted each other earlier this year and arranged to meet. One of Dee Ann's sisters, Juanita, joined them and for Kay Rene it was like lightning had struck. They were identical. "That's me!" she exclaimed, pointing at her natural sister.

Juanita replied: "There's no point having a DNA test, just look at us!"

They did go ahead with a test, and as they awaited the results they cracked jokes. "Who's my mama?" shouted Dee Ann, "Who's my daddy?" echoed Kay Rene.

The test measured the genetic possibility of Kay Rene being related to her brother and sister: zero. It also tested the genetic possibility of her being related to Dee Ann's brother and sister: 99.99%.

The few weeks since the discovery have been an emotional roller-coaster for both women. In part it has been a bereavement, a coming to terms with the fact that they will never meet their natural parents, that the lives that had been intended for them have been irretrievably lost.

"It's sad," Dee Ann told ABC television today, close to tears. "I think that I missed out on knowing my own parents, my own family."

Kay Rene described feeling intense guilt, that she had stolen the other woman's memories. When she looked at her family now she felt "I have cheated them - it shouldn't have been me. I'm glad it was because I've had a wonderful life."

But another part of the experience has been hugely enriching. On their 56th birthday earlier this month the two families came together for the first time. It was as if each woman had been given a gift of a second family. "We just had a ball together," Kay Rene said.

There is also the gift of friendship that has been forged between the two. They call each other "twisters". They have shared notes about each other's lives that have revealed strange intimacies. Dee Ann grew up loving horses which was unlikely in her family that had no tradition of riding; she learnt that Kay Rene had been brought up on a ranch by her father who saw himself as a cowboy.

Kay Rene cracked chewing gum in a distinctive way; when she met her natural sisters for the first time they did likewise.

The ups and downs continue. The hospital that made the switch has offered them counselling to ease the trauma, but they politely declined. "We are old women now," said Kay Rene.

This has nothing to do with nothing but ... DAYYUM!! Dwight Howard is cut. This is why my nephew hates watching sports with me.

god bless you sports people.....I don't have one iota interest in sports ....just something I have to live with!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

LMAO

rikyrah: FRICK & FRACK!! - - -2-gether!!? :>)(

Michael Steele, Michele Bachmann Join Forces Against ACORN

RNC Chairman Michael Steele is teaming up with Rep. Michele Bachmann, asking Republicans for their help blocking public funding for ACORN, the progressive community organizing group.

Bachmann is sponsoring an amendment that would block some $8.5 billion from being made available to the organization, according to a fundraising email from Steele. The group was a frequent target of Republicans during the 2008 election for its voter registration efforts.

"Over $50 million in federal funding money has found its way into the hands of ACORN's leftist activists over the last several years, but now the Democrats are about to make $8.5 billion more in tax-payer funds available to this radical group," Steele wrote to supporters.

The House blocked a similar amendment of Bachmann's just last week, which would have barred groups facing indictment from receiving public funds.

Bachmann spoke out against funding ACORN in a Thursday morning press conference.

"This is about how Congress spends the people's money in our country and its about the bar that Congress sets for accessing federal funding. The question before us is, it a right that anyone is entitled to or is it a privilege that must be earned?"

Steele urged Republicans to talk to their legislators.

"It's time we told Barney Frank, Nancy Pelosi, and Barack Obama that we won't tolerate using our tax dollars to pay off their electoral support machine. That's why I hope you'll take this opportunity to send Barney and Nancy an eCard to let them know that the Democrats' assault against our free election right to "One Person, One Vote" and the Rule of Law will not be tolerated."

2 NUTS!! - NOT 1 BRAIN BETWEEN THEM!!! GEEZ!!!

I know it's politics and dish.....but im starting to hate Michael Steele. I am. He's literally a lap dog for the white supremacy party....I meant to say the Republican Party. It's shameful and despicable.

I haven't been so disappointed by a person in a long time. He is in great position to stand up to the extremist that have taken over the party but instead he bows to them and on top of this acts like (and I can't believe I am about to type this after getting so upset about others using this word as CPL may recall) a damn coon. I can't think of any other word that better describes him and that saddens me. He is embarrassing and needs to go somewhere a sit down.

pjamma: By 91 VOTES - - - the "GO-TO-COON!!" :>) :>)

As I've said B4, I'll bet those 91 VOTERS R HIDIN' OUT!! :>)

AM2K9: Mega- CO-SIGN!!

As I've said - - -He's the "GO-TO-COON!!"

Annnnnnd, he MUST like his POSITION!! He does IT sooooo WELL!!

"Shameful & despicable, - - INDEED!!

Michael Steele is teaming up with Rep. Michele Bachmann...

Whatever follows is guaranteed to be a horrible idea.

pjamma: Heeeey! :>)

U AIN'T NEVA LIED!! :>)

***passin' the JJP POPCORN!*** Let's WATCH!!! :>) :>)

2 squirrels trying to get a nut.

Booky: LOL!!! :>) :>) GOOD ONE!! :>)

Just so you know how stupid white people were during the subprime boom. this guy wrote the economics column for the NYTimes:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/17/magazine/17fo...

rikyrah: Ooooo-Kaaaaaay! "WHYCOME" the CIA is LYIN"??

First Pelosi!

Now Graham: Graham: CIA Gave Me False Information About Interrogation Briefings

In testimony that could bolster Speaker Nancy Pelosi's claim that the CIA misled her during briefings on detainee interrogations, former Senator Bob Graham insisted on Thursday that he too was kept in the dark about the use of waterboarding, and called the agency's records on these briefings "suspect."

In an interview with the Huffington Post, the former Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman said that approximately a month ago, the CIA provided him with false information about how many times and when he was briefed on enhanced interrogations.

"When this issue started to resurface I called the appropriate people in the agency and said I would like to know the dates from your records that briefings were held," Graham recalled. "And they contacted me and gave me four dates -- two in April '02 and two in September '02. Now, one of the things I do, and for which I have taken some flack, is keep a spiral notebook of what I do throughout the day. And so I went through my records and through a combination of my daily schedule, which I keep, and my notebooks, I confirmed and the CIA agreed that my notes were accurate; that three of those four dates there had been no briefing. There was only one day that I had been briefed, which was September the 27th of 2002."

As for the one briefing he did attend, the Florida Democrat said that he had "no recollection that issues such as waterboarding were discussed." He was not, per the sensitive nature of the matters discussed, allowed to take notes at the time. But he did highlight what he considered to be pretty strong proof that the controversial technique was not discussed.

"What struck me...was the fact that in that briefing, there were also two staff members," he said. "As you know, the general rule is that the executive is to brief the full committees of the House and Senate Intelligence committees about any ongoing or proposed action. The exception to that is what is called "covert action," where the president...only briefs the Gang of Eight, which is the four congressional leaders and the four intelligence committee leaders. Those sessions are generally conducted at an executive site, primarily at the White House itself. And they are conducted with just the authorized personnel, not with any staff or any other member of the committee.... Which leads me to conclude that this was not considered by the CIA to be a Gang of Eight briefing. Otherwise they would not have had staff in the room. And that leads me to then believe that they didn't brief us on any of the sensitive programs such as the waterboarding or other forms of excessive interrogation."

The remarks made by Graham bolster the comments offered by Pelosi on Thursday. The Speaker told reporters that during her briefing session in the fall of 2002 she was not just kept in the dark about the issue of waterboarding, she was assured that it had not been used.

"Yes, I am saying that the CIA was misleading the Congress," she said.

However, records and testimony do show that high-ranking aides were present during a February 2003 briefing when waterboarding was discussed by the CIA with Reps. Porter Goss and Jane Harman.

Graham declined to speculate as to what took place during Pelosi's briefings, noting that the House and Senate had two entirely different sessions. But he did point out that, at the time, "the whole credibility of the intelligence committee, particularly the CIA, was pretty much in question" -- giving credence to Pelosi's claims that she was given faulty information.

"The irony," said Graham, "is that the whole series of events in late September of '02 were concurrent with the CIA's release of the first classified version of the National Intelligence Estimate, which was one of the key factors that led me to vote against the war in Iraq because I thought that their case was so weak. And they were making to the public these very bold statements about how we were in extreme danger if we didn't move quickly to eradicate Saddam Hussein. The whole, 'a smoking gun may appear in the form of a mushroom cloud' kind of argument."

Welllll, What's done in the DARK - - WILL COME 2 LIGHT!! We'll C!!!

I'm sorry I do not believe Pelosi. She went into te cone of silence and shut her mouth as long as they were toruturing other. She's exposed and wants to keep her position as head heifer in Congress. Given her district the CIA is going to drop her name and pictures w/ Condi and her w/ whips in their hands reading their outsource contractors and their stilletto boot clad feet on someone's face. It ain't going to be George.

I'm kinda torn. My initial reaction was the same as yours -- homegirl is scrambling to save her ass. But on the other hand, the CIA's mouth ain't no prayer book.

They lied about Iraq so what makes you think they didn't lie about this.

It's not that I do not believe theCIA can or is lying. It's Pelosi. When they briefings are given they go into the "cone of silence", sign papers that say they can't discuss it with anybody even the people in the cone unless it is within the cone. As Ta-Hehisi pointed out in his blog, it is not only politician blowing this it is ouselves and we're blowing it because when it comes down to "other" will accept anything to protect the "country".
Pelosi is found w/ dirty and wants to save herself politically

RobM: BWAHAHAHA!! . . . .head heifer in Congress. . . GOOD ONE!! :>)

its not the current cia its the previous two CIA administrations. the current one is saying basically off of what we have this is the best we can tell you of what happened. now the previous administration went through 3 damn CIA heads for a reason. And really this aint about the CIA. They do the dirty work in every administration and often push the limits. This is about the administration being corrupt in every way imaginable

allamr18: the previous administration . . .

THERE YA GO!!! SHRUB!!

"What's done in the DARK is comin' 2 LIGHT!!"

Someone shut this man up. Can someone arrange a hunting trip w/ Bill and Cheney?
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601070...

what ever...all ex-presidents have an audience willing to listen and pay them...just wait until you hear more from GW and the people willing to pay him exhorbitant fees for the gibberish we had to listen to for eight years. Welcome to how ex-presidents earn tons of money.

he has raised plenty of money already. I thought his speeches had to be vetted in order for Her Royal Clinton to become Sec of State. The purpose of this was to avoid him acting like he could make or access policy.

I just read this and as a Native American who participates on this wonderful site....I was astounded when I read this.....my eyes have been opened to some new learning. Especially you women...please read this and think it about it in a very serious way.

"Once again we are witnessing the role that race and class play in accessing health care. Good health care should be a universal right, yet many die needlessly each year because we continue to devalue bodies of color to privilege whiteness. We know that breast cancer is a serious issue for all women and yet the buy pink, fight cancer campaigns routinely target white women who have a much higher survival rate than Native American women. We cannot afford to look at this as simply a woman's issue because we have a tendency to allow whiteness to define what is and is not legitimate womanhood, thus leading to death for WOC. Considering the history of malpractice and racism by both the medical establishment and the government, would you want to risk your life on the concept of colorblindness or a post racial society?



Thursday, May 14, 2009

Indigenous Women Are Not Being Given Mammograms

The history of the relationship between the medical establishment and Indigenous women has been fraught with racism, negligence, malice and neglect. Informed consent was a right routinely denied these women, making them subject to unnecessary surgeries. In many cases Indigenous women were unknowingly sterilized after being told they were having routine procedures like the removal of a gall bladder. Doctors made these decisions based in the idea that they had the right to determine when a woman had birthed too many children or that the prospect of her reproduction produced an undue burden upon society. The Indigenous community has long been considered by racist white eugenicists to be surplus population.

Clearly doctors have forgotten their vow to do no harm and continue to privilege whiteness in their medical treatments. It has been reported that because Native women have lower incidents of breast cancer that they are not receiving mammograms.

“In any one year, 32 out of every 100,000 American Indian women and 79 out of every 100,000 Alaska Native women are diagnosed with breast cancer. In comparison, 112 out of every 100,000 White women, 95 out of every 100,000 African American women, and 70 out of every 100,000 Latina women are diagnosed with breast cancer. Native Hawaiian women have a breast cancer incidence comparable to White women at 106 per 100,000 women and higher than other Native American women, African American women, and Latinas. American Indian women living in the northern states have higher rates in comparison to other Native American women”.

Breast cancer like all other cancers has a much higher survival rate when it is caught early. The lack of early detection in the Indigenous community has lead to a 53% five year survival rate whereas; white women have a 81% five year survival rate.

For Alaskan native women the rate of breast cancer is alarming. Between the years of 1969 and 1998 it tripled. Between the years of 1999 to 2004 there was a small decrease to 132 out of every 100,000 from 138 per 100,000. This rate still exceeds by half the rate for American Indians and Alaska Natives who live in the Lower 48 states. According to the Anchorage Daily News, “Breast cancer among Alaska Native women is now diagnosed more than twice as often as lung cancer, but lung cancer is twice as deadly as breast cancer (lung cancer resulted in 83 deaths from 2000 to 2004, compared to 40 deaths from breast cancer).”

Indigenous women are able to access medical treatment through the IHS (Indian Health Services), however if there is not a center located where they live, medical coverage is not extended to private clinics or hospitals. The state of California has the second largest Indigenous community and yet there are no IHS facilities. This is further complicated by the fact that many women do not trust the IHS for medical care because of the history of malpractice and racism.

Once again we are witnessing the role that race and class play in accessing health care. Good health care should be a universal right, yet many die needlessly each year because we continue to devalue bodies of color to privilege whiteness. We know that breast cancer is a serious issue for all women and yet the buy pink, fight cancer campaigns routinely target white women who have a much higher survival rate than Native American women. We cannot afford to look at this as simply a woman's issue because we have a tendency to allow whiteness to define what is and is not legitimate womanhood, thus leading to death for WOC. Considering the history of malpractice and racism by both the medical establishment and the government, would you want to risk your life on the concept of colorblindness or a post racial society?

It was a while ago, but I remember reading about some programs at medical schools (maybe it was a federal program?) where students who agreed to work for a certain number of years in economically disadvantaged places could have loans waived or deferred....I remember that the places mentioned as examples where the Mississippi Delta and in the Appalachian mountains. It could have been that this was an idea being proposed, because remember it hadn't happened yet. I'll try and find it.

I have a cousin that had her Dental School paid for through a program like this. She spent 5 years in a poor border town down in Texas. But, once she was finished, she had her Dental Schools loans paid off.

Would love to get that info.

Malpractice based on the color of the person, unfortunately has existed for like what seems forever in these United States.

The question is -- What can we do to change it?

excellent point...I will research to see if there is a way to change it...? Right off the bat I am thinking nurses and doctors of color could lead the way in order to make the biggest impact????

Gotta start earlier than that, for your suggestion seems to imply that it's the RNs and MDs of color who are the larger part of the problem, (which they are not...)

The 'politcally correct' term for the problem is 'healthcare disparities'

National Healthcare Disparities Report - 2003 Summary

Admissions to medical and nursing school for people of color have been down (If I have time, I'll research the stats for this point...) ALL docs, nurses, and medical professionals need to understand that everyone deserves equal care.

Racism is a pervasive monster of a problem.

Sorry if I gave the wrong impression, I actuallly wanted to imply that nurses and doctors of color could best lead the way to changing and leading us people of color to better health.

IN NO WAY would I consider our mds and rns "part of the problem."

Cool, but I still think that ALL docs, especially since there are way more white doctors than doc of color, must understand that excellent care must be given to all, regardless of color, age, sexual orientation, religion, etc, etc.

The medical profession is still largely white and male. Until they, along with all medical professionals, understand that the 'disparities' must cease, we will be reading cases like the story you cited.

I totally agree with what you just said.

Here is the kind of chaos CDS cause in the real economy when you try and restructure your companies debt.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601109...

Did anyone else notice the great dress Dr. Biden wore to the poetry slam? Pics were posted in the afternoon thread. She looked really really good. Probably one of the most attractive white women in politics in a while. The fabulousness of the First Lady and Dr. Biden are unearthing what my husband would call my latent lesbianism :)

Dr. Jill is usually right on point. Remember, she's used to being in front of students. She's been a teacher for more than a few minutes. And you know, kids will tell you if your stuff ain't right.

Jill doesn't get her due. I haven't seen her miss yet.

Had to post the link for a laugh or two

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UFHCfwF87_o

I love that! LOL