Jack & Jill Politics

On a website TPMCafe, a post by a person who felt that the Civil war had soured the rest of the US on the South. A theoretical discussion was suggested to address if slavery would have burned out without the Civil War. One hypothesis was that the slaves would have been eased into US society and North-South relations would be better.

Can Blacks participate in a dispassionate discussion on slavery?

Does the hypothesis make sense?

deleted

Whoops, I was trying to respond to lahm32 on the Obama doc.

You can only watch ondemand programming on premium channels if you actually subscribe to it. You might be able to wait a little bit and if they put it on DVD you rent it from netflix or blockbuster or something.

In an intelligent political society, this is how it should be, but we live in the world of Dobbs, hannity, beck, etc. So the crazies are allowed to have a national platform.

Birther sympathizers take flack locally

Flirting with birthers is starting to exact a bit of a local cost.

The conservative Tulsa World chides Inhofe:

Oh, senator. You could have done the right thing and dismissed this goofiness for what it is, and reminded people that there are far more important issues to worry about.

But, instead, you gave them some legitimacy....

[T]he "birthers," like the alien abduction believers, Kennedy conspiracy adherents, the Big Foot hunters and those who believe in the bogeyman, will not be deterred. We don't expect they will be. But it would have been nice if Sen. Inhofe had shown some statesmanship. We expect more of our leaders.

And the Houston Chronicle raps some local Reps.:

A group of five Texas congressmen, including Reps. John Culberson, D-Houston, and Ted Poe, R-Humble, is considering whether to require future presidential candidates to provide proof of U.S. citizenship. Please, gentlemen. That strikes us as grandstanding in the third degree.

The whole thing is getting weirder than those old tabloid stories about house cats giving birth to space aliens.It's time to say, “Enough, already.”

AFTERNOON OPEN THREAD IS UP

Michael Jackson's mother will retain custody of his children
5:26 AM | July 30, 2009

The mother of Michael Jackson will retain custody of his children, and the biological mother of the two elder children will visit and maintain her legal parental rights under an agreement reached by both sides, The Times has learned.
Katherine Jackson, 79, the late pop icon’s mother, and Debbie Rowe, 50, who bore Jackson’s two older children, also agreed to mutually hire a child psychologist to advise them on how, when and where Rowe’s visits should take place, a knowledgeable source said.
The agreement will go before a Los Angeles judge Monday, and both sides expect the judge to approve it, the source said. Rowe did not ask for custody. “Debbie is really happy” about the arrangement, said the source, refusing to be identified because the agreement has yet to be announced.
The source said Rowe did not receive any money under the arrangement and will pay half of the fees for the child psychologist.
Neither side made any demands that were rejected, the source said, and the arrangement was agreed to without contentious negotiation.
In his will, Jackson named his mother as guardian. Singer Diana Ross was listed as an alternative choice should his mother be unable to care for the children. Rowe has not seen the children in several years and at one time relinquished her parental rights.
During a period when she had visitation, she complained that she was forced to meet the children in hotel rooms in the presence of Jackson’s associates and could not make up for visits she missed.
Rowe met Jackson while working in the office of Dr. Arnold Klein, his Beverly Hills dermatologist. Jackson wanted her to have children for him. "If someone needs something, I'm there, you know," Rowe later said in a televised interview.
Jackson and Rowe married in 1996 when she was six months pregnant after being artificially inseminated. She is the mother of Prince Michael Jr., 12, and Paris Michael Katherine, 11. Jackson’s youngest child, Prince Michael II, 7, called "Blanket," was borne by an unidentified surrogate.
Rowe lives on a horse farm in Palmdale that she purchased after receiving an $8.5-million divorce settlement from Jackson. The terms of the divorce, finalized in 2000, gave Jackson sole custody of the children and Rowe visitation. She soon stopped visiting the children because she said “it was not working out,” according to court records.
After giving up her parental rights in 2001, Rowe went to court in 2003 to challenge that waiver. At the time, Jackson was facing child molestation charges. An appeals court ruled in her favor.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2009/07/m...

Don't know if ya'll discussed this yesterday, but did you hear about the FOX news poll on what Sarah Palin should do now that she's not gov?

Just 6% of those polled for Fox think Palin should be President. And just in case you think that it's all liberals flooding the polls, only 12% of Republicans think Palin should be President.

The number one result, and not surprisingly the most sexist: 32% think she should become a "Homemaker"!

And people still think Palin is a "contender" for Prez in 2012?

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/just-6-of-a-fox-news...

A lot of that talk about her being a contender for '12 is nothing but media hype. They want nothing more than an Obama vs. Palin showdown. It reminds me of how they were hyping up Guiliani vs. Clinton a couple of years ago.

You see how that turned out.

Duplicate

No additional comments necessary.

http://www.campbell.house.gov/images/stories/ho...

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/Demaidehealt...

Heh.

Yep, that's about right.

Today's Conversation:
I'm Hoping The "Free Your Mind" Events Will Become A National Campaign http://bit.ly/bmGCZ

At last Clear Channel has shown some sense.15 hours of you betchas?I guess even the brain dead rethugs in time would scratch their heads and say to themselves "WTF"

Sometimes Expensive Health Care is Worth the Price.

The rapid development of technology and therapies also means higher costs as we succeed in curing disease or allowing people to cope with them. The Washington Post noted that over forty years the likelihood of dying from a heart attack went from around 50-50 to 6% — but that the costs of treating that heart attack had increased rapidly during that period. It costs a lot of money to rescue people from death, and usually those rescued don’t gripe about the bill when it comes. Also, the 44% of people whose lives are saved will live long enough to use more medical care, raising the overall costs of care over their lifetimes.

What you say is very true. And while the heart attack example is a very good one, it only barely touches upon the subject. Since the late 1950s, medical care has changed the life expectancy of americans. But the cost has been the huge increase in medical related expenses.

Agreed. But consider the other medical advances that are just as important and effective as heart procedures. AIDS, breast cancer, prostate cancer and so on.

I heard of a man who was diagnosed with bladder cancer and was prescribed chemotherapy and surgery. No hassles from the insurance company and his doctors and care were able to treat him in the most timely manner. He paid the co-pays and deductibles and his employer was very supportive.

He wanted a second opinion so he saw a doctor from the highlt regarded National Health Care Institute. He writes:

"In the course of receiving the second opinion, an oncologist on staff there noted "in Europe and other parts of the world, your treatment options for this diagnosis would be much different." He cited statistics from outside the United States where a much smaller percentage of patients afflicted with this kind of Stage II cancer received chemotherapy and surgery. Rather, he stated that a much higher percentage of patients outside the U.S. received radiation therapy. This was disconcerting to my wife and me, as it caused us to question if the treatment paradigm my doctors prescribed was the right option for me.

I asked my local oncologist about the statement by the oncologist from this national health care institute. He asked me if the staff oncologist was trained outside the United States; in fact, the physician was from South America. My local oncologist then commented that he wasn't surprised by his statement, and agreed that he was probably right -- outside the U.S. the percentage of patients diagnosed with this type of Stage II cancer who were treated with a regimen of chemotherapy and surgery was lower than those who were treated with a regimen of radiation therapy. When I asked him why, he had a one word reply: "rationing." He went on to explain that the majority of patients afflicted with this kind of Stage II cancer are older -- I was 49 when diagnosed -- and outside the U.S. the government apportionment bodies who authorize care and treatment plans conclude that older patients do not merit the more expensive chemo/surgery regimen, and instead authorize only a regimen of radiation therapy.

Thankfully, everything worked out for the best and, God willing, I am fully cured. I am very grateful for the highly skilled physicians, nurses, technicians and other health care personnel who guided me through my cancer diagnosis, chemotherapy, and surgery. I am also grateful for the insurance company and their agents who reviewed and authorized my treatment, and my employer who supported me through this process. I am very concerned that if the public option becomes available, my and other very rational employers will make a reasonable financial analysis of the costs associated with maintaining private plan sponsorship against the costs of rolling their employees into the public plan, and conclude that it simply makes economic sense to give up private sponsorship in lieu of enrolling their employees in the public option. It won't be long for the public option to overwhelm private insurance plans, and the expert care I was so blessed to receive may not be provided to people who receive a similar diagnosis. Of course, this gives lie to the Administration's repeated claim that "if you like your present insurance and your present doctor, you can keep them."

That's right.

A little something that's missing

Older white males hurt more by this recession
By Dennis Cauchon, USA TODAY- July 30, 2009

Dean Canaris, 56, a quality engineer for a Honda automotive supplier, was laid off in April and out the door in 30 minutes with no severance.
Harry Jackson, 55, an airline pilot and supervisor, lost his job in 2007 and, to his surprise, has found it nearly impossible to get another job.
Mark Montgomery, 53, was let go from an Owens Corning insulation factory in April and can't afford his $575 monthly mortgage payment.

These men from the Columbus, Ohio, area are the unusual new faces of joblessness in this groundbreaking recession: older men cut loose from employment at the peak of their earning power and work experience.

In previous recessions, veteran workers were largely spared the pain of widespread job cutbacks, according to Bureau of Labor Statistics data. Layoffs tended to be concentrated among younger workers: The younger you were, the more likely you were to get fired. Traditional, bread-winning older males — especially white men — were the least vulnerable.

http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/employmen...

Sounds similar to the infamous Kmart white male manager purging some years back when a budgetary decision was made to drop the older employees and hire college grads. Its was the same in the 90s through the invention of the term corporate "rightsizing" when American jobs were removed in name of profit.

This is just evidence of another economical bubble popping.

Men of color unemployment have remain unchanged at twice the unemployment rate of whites since 1967.

I am not surprised. Will these men ever be able to re-enter the workforce while manufacturing in this country is on life support? These jobs are not coming back and the 'green jobs' of the future may take years to materialize.

Well according to your ilk, they should have planned better, so its their own fault.

That article is the white male sympathy meme.

Don't put words in my mouth.

According to data from a study performed by the accounting group Pricewaterhouse Cooper, malpractice actions account for at least 10% of all medical costs — 2% by jacking up legal insurance and as much as 9% from the defensive medicine lawsuits create. Instead of looking at overhauling the nation’s health-care system, we should pursue tort reform.

"Trial lawyers helped create a medical crisis through malpractice suits that raise costs while driving doctors from their practices.

Old Democratic presidential aspirant John Edwards won $175 million in judgments over a 12-year period suing doctors, hospitals and insurance companies, everyone but the candy stripers, over infant cerebral palsy cases allegedly caused by mishandled deliveries.

As the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists noted in a study in 2003, cerebral palsy could not be blamed in the “vast majority” of cases on delivery trouble. Edwards enriched himself by using bad science to bankrupt innocent physicians. …"

Will Dems risk alienating large donor trail lawyers to help lower overall costs?

The Corporatocracy admits that ethics and compliance is costly and time consuming and the reason why they hire lawyers and accountants for compliance risk assessment. Using compliance risk assessment, corporations routinely create workarounds to create an appearance of being ethical or in compliance with rules, laws, regulation.

"malpractice actions account for at least 10% of all medical costs — 2% by jacking up legal insurance"

hmmmm "jacking up"? Is that a legal term?

You also said "Will Dems risk alienating large donor trail lawyers to help lower overall costs?"

Conserv - just curious but what DO you stand for? Who do you support exactly?

I support reform that reforms existing programs such as Medicare/Medicaid to make them more efficient and to make sure that all those who do not have coverage because they cannot afford it are brought into these existing programs. Successfully reforming existing programs will pave the way for further reforms and build confidence that the government can deliver on its promises.

For those who do not qualify for existing programs I would like to see reforms in place that will mandate that insurance companies cannot refuse coverage based on pre-existing conditions or catastrophic illness. This can be done without overhauling the entire system.

The key to a true safety net is state uninsurable risk pools, which already exist in the majority of states. At modest cost, these provide coverage for the relatively tiny portion of the population who are uninsured and become too sick to buy private insurance. Medicaid should also be sent back to the states with federal block grants, as was done so successfully with the old AFDC program in 1996. Each state could then adopt a new Medicaid program providing a surer safety net, preferably based on vouchers for the poor to buy private health insurance.

The best solution to the problem of high health costs would be Health Savings Accounts, with savings to finance all but catastrophic health care over a high deductible. That would provides true market incentives for patients, doctors, and hospitals to control costs. Allowing insurers to sell across the nation and between states would also increase competition and reduce costs. You could also reduce costs sharply by repealing state regulation mandating the guaranteed issue of health insurance, regardless of how sick the buyer is; by implementing “community rating” that would require insurers to charge the same for everyone regardless of health condition; and by repealing the state health insurance mandates — there are some 1,900 of them — that now force consumers to buy health benefits they may not want.

I support a plan that looks seriously into tort reform.

I want a plan that all members of Congress would enroll in. No "Cadillac plan for me, but not for thee." Contrary to conventional wisdom, Congress DOES NOT have a government run plan. They have a PRIVATE plan paid for by the government. This is NOT what they are offering the American people.

I want INDIVIDUALS, not the government or employers to bear the responsibility of purchasing and paying for their own insurance. The government could mandate a basic level of care, and even provide it for those who cannot afford to pay. But everyone could go to the private market to purchase 'cafeteria style' the treatments, drugs and services that are over and above the basic level.

I want to see healthy individuals who practice preventative care receive credit for their contribution to lessening the burden on our system and making healthy choices.

I want individuals to think twice about the services they demand and the cost those demands inflict on the overall rising cost of healthcare. Right now, individuals are far removed from the price, relying on someone else to pick up the tab from everything from birth control to massages.

"I want INDIVIDUALS, not the government or employers to bear the responsibility of purchasing and paying for their own insurance."

Conserv - are you self employed or not and if you are self employed do you have employees? If you have employees do you contribute toward your employee healthcare plan. If not, do you compensate your employees enough to allow them to be able to afford to pay into a healthcare plan?

Also what exactly does this mean? "I support REFORMS that REFORMS existing programs such as Medicare/Medicaid to make them more efficient and to make sure that all those who do not have coverage because they cannot afford it are brought into these existing programs. Successfully REFORMING existing programs will pave the way for further REFORMS and build confidence that the government can deliver on its promises".

You said you want to make sure all those who do not have coverage because they cannot afford it are brought into existing programs. BUT you wrote INDIVIDUALS, not the govt. or employers bear the responsibility of purchasing and paying for their own insurance.

Then you tout medicare and medicaid as an example of what works and indicated it would be improved on with future reforms but yet you say government should not bear the responsibility of paying and purchasing insurance but. . .you also contended that government could mandate a basic level of care, and even provide it for those who cannot afford to pay. Then went on to say everyone could go to the private market to purchase 'cafeteria style' the treatments, drugs and services that are over and above the basic level.
??? I am confused. What do you support?

Also still interested in your statement of ""Will Dems risk alienating large donor trail lawyers to help lower overall costs?" What is your position on lawyers and the healthcare industry vs. the American consumer?

"I want to see healthy individuals who practice preventative care receive credit for their contribution to lessening the burden on our system and making healthy choices."

This reminds me of being part of a group, and being told by some toady that our share of health insurance premium sharing would be going up. When asked why, she launched into this convoluted, double-talking "explanation", but what it came down to was that our share was going up because the employees tended to use the HMO as exactly that- a health maintenance organization. Because we used it for prevention, we used it...too much.

Good question for Conserv1, Val:). It reminds one to remember that people like him are arguring in bad faith from the start, because although they say "I want healthcare reform and universal insurance too", when you get right down to it they don't believe in universal healthcare...they're philosophically opposed to the very idea of it.

Before you jump to conclusions about what I support, and what my intention are please read my response to Val.

Malpractice lawsuits aren't successful without ... ahem ... (((MALPRACTICE)))!

Why so much malpractice committed? Doctors who are more attentive to insurance billings than patient care.

Your assertion is patently unfair. You truly wish to demonize doctors? Doctors are human and do make mistakes to be sure, but there are many frivolous lawsuits that are brought against doctors as well.

Again, taking a serious look at tort reform as a way to bring down overall costs is a reasonable position. Such a move would demonstrate a desire to look at the problem of rising health insurance and health care costs from all sides.

Refusing to consider tort reform reveals the Dems to be as concerned with protecting 'special interest' as they claim the opposition to be.

Not only that they are complaining about the amount of tests they have to order on a patient. Supposedly it is a waste of money but considering the amount of medical mishaps it would seem to me that even more tests are needed.

"Defensive' medicine is the result of doctors being 'better safe than sorry' and if you prefer this approach then we must be prepared to bear the cost.

My neighbor will bring her child to the Doctor at the slightest hint of a cold or cough. She regularly demands antibiotics as a 'precaution' and always demands a strep test. Her child has tested negative for strep more often than not and has built up immunities to practically every antibiotic, increasing her child's risk of infection.

She switched pediatiricans when they would not meet her demands.

In our present model, consumers are disconnected from costs by third party intervention, either insurers or the government in the case of Medicare/Medicaid, etc. Because consumers do not deal with prices, they do not efficiently use the medical system and their resources. In markets without third-party intervention, such as Lasik and plastic surgery, we see much more efficient pricing through competition, which also promotes an expansion of providers from the incentives of market payment.

This is more likely the case than the the one in which a greedy doctor is taking out a child's tonsils for profit.

Any accounting group will tell you what you want to hear.See Arthur Anderson and Enron.That is all.

Surely you cannot dispute the fact that medical malpractice insurance and 'defensive' medicine are contributing factors in the rising cost of health insurance?

But thank you for confirming what I already knew. Dems will protect their "special interests' at the expense of the American people, violating one of the President's main campaign promises.

How can you hope to maintain any credibility in this debate?

Only if you concede that the greed and inhumane practices of the insurance industry is the MAIN!! reason for rising cost.But thank you for confirming what I already knew.Rethugs would screw the people to please their corporate masters.

"Surely you cannot dispute the fact that medical malpractice insurance and 'defensive' medicine are contributing factors in the rising cost of health insurance?"

Well, some years ago, Texas once again lived up to its reputation of being in the vanguard when it comes to enacting backward-assed legislation, and put "tort reform" into place. Did the number of malpractice lawsuits go down? You damn well better believe they did. Did the practice of what you call "defensive medicine" decline? Well...from the New Yorker...


Others were skeptical. “I don’t think that explains the costs he’s talking about,” the general surgeon said.

“It’s malpractice,” a family physician who had practiced here for thirty-three years said.

“McAllen is legal hell,” the cardiologist agreed. Doctors order unnecessary tests just to protect themselves, he said. Everyone thought the lawyers here were worse than elsewhere.

That explanation puzzled me. Several years ago, Texas passed a tough malpractice law that capped pain-and-suffering awards at two hundred and fifty thousand dollars. Didn’t lawsuits go down?

“Practically to zero,” the cardiologist admitted.

“Come on,” the general surgeon finally said. “We all know these arguments are bullshit. There is overutilization here, pure and simple.” Doctors, he said, were racking up charges with extra tests, services, and procedures.
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/06/01/0...

So we do not follow the Texas model.

Advocates of single-payer love to look to MA, Mediare or the VA as shining examples, but they are also is wrought with problems.

There is often more than one solution to a problem. We should try using the states are proving grounds for policies before we consider a fullscale restructuring of 1/6 of our economy based on little more than faith.

Interesting that you seem to be advocating for a 'do nothing, settle for the status quo' position on tort reform.

What do you mean "So we do not follow the Texas model"? The "Texas model" is "tort reform", LOL.

I see so there is only one way to approach the problem?

I think not.

To be sure I am not well versed on the issue as you appear to be and I will look into your claims, but again I think it is fair to say that IT WOULD BE PRUDENT AND PRACTICAL TO EXPLORE TORT REFORM as one way to bring down overall healthcare costs.

You're really not saying anything, Conserv1. You're bullcorning. As you can see, putting a cap on damages ("tort reform") isn't going to stop the doctors who are inclined to do so from practicing "defensive medicine". It works out for them, because they can pay lower premuims and still make money from all those duplicate tests, but it obviously doesn't work out well for the public.

No. as I cited above...

Sometimes Expensive Health Care is Worth the Price.

The rapid development of technology and therapies also means higher costs as we succeed in curing disease or allowing people to cope with them. The Washington Post noted that over forty years the likelihood of dying from a heart attack went from around 50-50 to 6% — but that the costs of treating that heart attack had increased rapidly during that period. It costs a lot of money to rescue people from death, and usually those rescued don’t gripe about the bill when it comes. Also, the 44% of people whose lives are saved will live long enough to use more medical care, raising the overall costs of care over their lifetimes.

Answer this simple question.What is the purpose of the health insurance industry,to maximise profits or to provide affordable healthcare?

The purpose of a free market economy is to allow consumers, supply and demand, dictate the quality and cost of goods and services in the US. The most successful, and profitable companies exist because they provide the best product at the best price.

When employers were mandated to provide health insurance to employees the unions negotiated higher wages AND gold-plated insurance plans and pensions. These unfunded liabilities overwhelmed the American car makers so they could no longer produce quality products at a lower price than foreign competition. And the financial woes began.

Employees demand great healthcare benefits as part of an overall salary package, but do not realize that this is a contributing factor to stagnant wages and can force a company to delay hiring of new employees or be forced to cut jobs in the face of a downturn in their business cycle.

You have been brainwashed into thinking that all profits are bad. That all corporations seek to exploit workers. This is sad.

American innovation, entrpreneurship and determination have been at the forefront of the greatest technological advances of our lifetime. American business create jobs and make our lives better by constantly providing us with newer, better goods and services. We live longer and enjoy a better quality of life than ever before.

I am not as cynical or pessimistic as you appear to be.

So from all that palinese I gather the market rules,profits are good the reason we have stagnant wages is because of health cost and the insurance industry has been at the forefront of the greatest advances known to mankind.Jesus h Christ why you didn't just say Corporations are the bomb and dont nobody fuck with their profits.

Black Hair in the Jolie-Pitt world: Zahara Jolie Pitt is out for a walk with her mother and instead of people commenting on what a pretty little girl she is, Zahara is attacked for having Nappy hair. The Black people are the most offended by this crime as though our natural hair makes us unworthy to be seen in public.

There is a very simple solution to this problem, keep their hair short. So what they do not look like little girls, short hair doesn't change the fact they are little girls.
I w/ you womanist. The hair standard thing should go byebye.
As to dumping on Angelina because of Zahara's hair is hater behavior. If you don't like Angelina attack Angelina. Going after her kids should get you a serious beat down.

I think they're kids who look like kids look when they have been playing all day. I read somewhere where Angelina said Zahara will undo her hair as soon as it's been done, so who knows what her hair looked like earlier that day?

Thank you. Another lady and I commented about the child's hair not looking neat and the Pitt Jolies not doing anything to it and we were mildly rebuked for suggesting it. Like lamh32 said, give the child some little afro poofs or barrets or twists or something. Some folks seem to think she won't inherit black woman hair paranoia by being in an all white household but somehow I think not.

How many of us recall the tears and angst that went with getting nappy hair combed/brushed/washed/straighten? How many of us recall the threats and pops because you failed to sit still, while momma was doing your hair? Can there be any doubt that Zahara is not exactly cooperating about getting her hair combed?

Zahara, who both Jolie-Pitts have said is a really dynamo personality and runs the family? If Z doesn't get what she wants she takes the entire house on an emotional rollercoaster. Now, who do you suppose is actually going to deal with Z over something like her nappy hair getting combed?

It was a fight for many mothers with nappy hair to teach their nappyheaded child how to sit still and most times they only succeeded cause their threats and pops were worse than the hair combing.

Angelina can hire someone to do Z's hair but only if she allows the woman to discipline her as well, cause Z is NOT going to just let someone comb her head!

My sister has straight to wavy hair that practically combed itself, and she used to cry when she got it washed. Screaming "Granny, help me!" from the ktichen sink.

Don't even talk, Vulcan girl. When I was little, I cried a many days about my hair. I was always in trouble for taking it down. I hated all those pig tails. Much too much!

In my opinion (having a boy who gets an every 2-week buzz cut) I think BOTH girls head look 'a hot mess' but that's just me -- I love little girls of all cultures in bows, ribbons and girly stuff. I do know it takes a bit longer to get girls 'up and out'. From appearances, it seems that Zahara's hair is being treated like Shiloh's hair when in fact the textures are very different.

I'll use fabrics as an example -- you would care for both very well, but you treat silk differently from cashmere.

Personally, I don't attach negativity to the term 'nappy.' I've been happy to be nappy for 15+ years and heard all kinds of praises as well as wicked criticism. My hair, even when 'out', is healthy. It's never going to flow or shine or be wavy. It is thick and nappy, soft if I've got olive oil in it or wiry if I don't.

I don't really care about her style, per se, I just want Zahara's hair to be HEALTHY.

"I think BOTH girls head look 'a hot mess' but that's just me"

not just you. Both baby girls looked a hot mess.

There is nothing wrong with natural hair and that is not the issue here. There is no excuse for not combing a child's hair. Both of those children look raggedy and could use a brush. Black, white, natural . . . whatever. . . . not combing those kids hair is just lazy and trifling.

Is it the "nappy" issue or the UNKEMPT issue? I mean Zahara's hair texture isn't really nappy anyway. It's just she always looks like they put NO THOUGHT into styling her hair. I think some blacks are thinking a relaxer would tame it's appearance when it's a styling issue. Which is something that always bothers me when whites adopt black children or it's a biracial child with a white/asian/etc mother. If they don't have the preferred blow in the wind hair they just let it look like a weed. They have plenty of $$$ and can LEARN to care for her hair properly. It's highly offensive for them to allow her to be photographed looking like that.

I agree Zahara's hair looks unkempt. She doesn't have to have an eurocentric do. They just need to style it--like they would their non-African kids.

thank you, most of my family did not start relaxing our hair until we were in our pre-teens (bout 10 or so), so until then, we had natural hair. There are more ways than "get up & go" for our hair. I personally like to see little girls with bows, barretts, twist, afro puffs, etc.

This to me just looks like the Jolie-Pitts ain't even trying to do any other natural styles.

I really don't think that her hair is in such rough shape..granted it could be neater but she is a child out and having fun, I see no need to shame her this way.

I'm politricked out this week. Here is a great positive story about a young woman in Brooklyn pursuing Olympic goals

A Young Gymnast’s Distant Olympic Dream

"On weekends, the subway and bus trip can take two and a half hours — each way, that is. Alexis Page, 13, is pursuing her sport, her art, from uptown Manhattan to the outer fringes of Brooklyn.

Millions of hopeful American youths ride to practice in team vans or their parents’ cars or perhaps they bicycle to a nearby field or gym. Alexis takes the No. 2 subway and the Q35 bus.

Her discipline is rhythmic gymnastics, twirling a ribbon, dancing with a ball, an Olympic sport that is obscure just about everywhere except the old Soviet bloc.

Alexis cannot afford to think about the Olympics themselves, she says softly. She must live within the moment of the music and the rhythm, and not think how she will pay for all this, or when she will sleep."
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/30/sports/30vecs...

rikyrah, I'm on a roll here this morning. SOMEBODY STOP ME! :-)))

Here are a series of good video clips from yesterday's cable shows

Rachel Maddow: "Yes, Slur" Mr. President
Melissa Hart- Lacewell

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

Thom Hartmann - The myths and truths about Canadian healthcare
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Gl0kXfzcsk

Countdown - GRITtv's Laura Flanders outlines the fight for Progressive action

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3LBewz9-g_Y

Those were great. thanks Spirit.

Interesting how HarrisLacewell presented the same dichotomy on racism...that white folks do not think it is racism unless you can show the actions/behaviors were intentional on their part. Unbelievable, imagine if we used such a reference bar for child abuse...no matter how badly beaten the physical evidence was , the abuser would not be labelled an abuser unless everyone could prove the abuser 'intended' to do harm.

Imagine that.

The piece on healthcare was good and insightful.

Joan Walsh Accurately Says Limbaugh & Beck "Built Careers Out of Dividing People" Made their living off the backs of BLACK PEOPLE!

Walsh is BREAKING IT ALL DOWN
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-gRDmGGNWY0

Damn. Joan must have been doing some serious work on ancestry.com and wants her black card. I hope she's packing causing the liberals at Salon do not want any part of her historical argument

Excellent...someone seeing through the fog...Walsh is dead on target!

This entire onslaught on health insurance reform is nothing but the southern strategy writ large. To once again have the havenots pitted against their own self-interest simply because they want to keep some other race/ethnic group from getting it. White folks have consistently bit off their nose to spite their face when it comes to progrssive policies in this country. The lack of common humanity means...we pay with millions uninsured, and who have their coverage dropped when they need it.

Race baiting is alive and well....look no further than WJC...who tried to do the same thing when he saw HRC losing...he adapted the never fail Nixon strategy..and it HELPED. The 42% who did not vote for Obama believed Bill.

I saw Joan Walsh and couldn't believe she actually went there. Joan broke it down!

Ed Schultz: Glenn Beck Is "A Hate Merchant"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kY1_RAm0K1k

Even before watching Jon Stewart last night, Beck contradicted himself within the first couple of sentences. Brian Kilmeade (?) looked disgusted when Beck started his bullshit.

What I find just utterly amazing is the UNMITIGATED GALL of these idiotic racists calling out anyone else.

Glenn Beck is....special.

Can't watch him on TV, but his books aren't bad.

D -- do you buy his books or do you borrow them from the library?

I checked out "An Inconvienent Book" (always spell that word wrong).

I brought his latest, "Glenn Beck's Common Sense."

if you can't even watch him on tv. . . borrowing the book was a great idea. no need in putting any of your hard earned money in his pocket.

He's much quieter on paper. LOL.

So was Mein Kampf.

... and the Little Red Book, and the al-Qaeda Reader.

As well as Rules for Radicals. ;)

...and you can't see him either, so I guess that's another advantage to the book. That is, if you're like me, and thinks he has one of the most punchable faces you've ever seen.

Senate Probes Banks for Meltdown Fraud
By JOHN D. MCKINNON
JULY 30, 2009

WASHINGTON -- A Senate panel has subpoenaed financial institutions, including Goldman Sachs Group Inc. and Deutsche Bank AG, seeking evidence of fraud in last year's mortgage-market meltdown, according to people familiar with the situation.

The congressional investigation appears to focus on whether internal communications, such as email, show bankers had private doubts about whether mortgage-related securities they were putting together were as financially sound as their public pronouncements suggested. Collapsing values for many of those securities played a big role in precipitating last year's financial crisis.
According to people familiar with the matter, the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations also has issued a subpoena to Washington Mutual Inc., a Seattle thrift that was seized by regulators in last year's financial crisis and is now largely owned by J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. It appears likely that several other financial institutions also have received subpoenas. Subcommittee investigators declined to comment. A Goldman Sachs spokesman declined to comment on the subpoena. Deutsche Bank didn't immediately respond to a request for comment.

J.P. Morgan Chase spokesman Thomas Kelly declined to comment on whether the firm, which acquired the banking assets of Washington Mutual last September, had received any subpoenas, saying only "we cooperate with government agencies."
A subpoena from the subcommittee raises a number of factual questions and asks for various company correspondence, according to a person who reviewed it.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124890898142691...

It was straight up FRAUD...time for someone to prove it.

Where is Spitzer? O yeah WallStreet bankers, neutered him with the prostitution scandal. Cause Spitzer was on to them and had perped walked them as NY AG.

Securitization is not fraud. Rating Agencies giving AAA ratings to bonds that underlie them is when the mortgages are of poor quality. Mortgage companies falsifying records to make applicants financially better looking than they are is fraud. Nonfeasance as prctised by the regulators under President Bush(43) is fraud.
Eliot spitzer on cnbc fr 5pm est show.

Pls, as if the perpetrators of the biggest crime of the century will admit their roles. If the Senate panel is actually seeking the truth, maybe they should contact the NAACP (NAACP Sues 12 Mortgage Companies for Race Discrimination) or Eliot Spitzer (Predatory Lenders' Partner in Crime: How the Bush Administration Stopped the States From Stepping In to Help Consumers?

Entry in wrong place.

Which entry?

Worried Democrats and union leaders huddled about the party's future on Tuesday amid concerns about Gov. Paterson's low poll numbers.

Dems ponder fate amid concerns about Gov. Paterson's low poll numbers

"His poll numbers are bad from across the board ... and that's a concern of ours," said Assemblyman and Brooklyn Democratic Chairman Vito Lopez.

Lopez yesterday organized the 2-1/2-hour meeting at a Kingston hotel that included six county chairmen and officials from seven unions.

Those in attendance said the primary topic was the dissatisfaction the unions are having with the Democratic Party.

Culture Wars
The Picnic Table Summit
By Scott Wilson

The imagery, participants, and much-mentioned choice of beverage (a beer) when President Obama gathers Harvard Prof. Henry Louis Gates, Jr., and Cambridge Police Sgt. James Crowley at the White House Thursday will all be used to send the same message: Nothing more to see here. Let's move along.

Crowley's arrest of Gates, a star Harvard professor of African-American Studies, opened for many a window on the way race is lived in this country -- and also offered a raw prime-time look at how America's first black president understands the unresolved issue of racial profiling in police work.

In a news conference, Obama said the Cambridge police "acted stupidly" in arresting Gates in his own home, only to later call his own remarks "stupid." He has maintained the view, however, that the arrest itself was questionable. The disorderly conduct charge against Gates has been dropped.

The story since has taken on a life of its own, providing the White House with an unwanted distraction as it pushes a recalcitrant Congress to come up with a health care reform bill. Details about the arrest have tended to cloud rather than clarify the debate over whether Gates or Crowley acted correctly.

Now comes what may soon be known as the Picnic Table Summit.

Robert Gibbs, Obama's press secretary, told reporters this morning that the president will meet with Gates and Crowley at 6 p.m. Thursday around the picnic table outside the Oval Office (and not far from the new swing set). They'll drink beer, as the world has been told repeatedly -- Blue Moon for the policeman, Red Stripe for the professor, Bud for the president.

Crowley will bring his family and take some pictures, Gibbs said. It's not known yet whether Gates will do the same.

And a plea from the White House press operation: No more racial politics, at least not now.

"This is about a beer," Gibbs said, adding that the meeting was a chance to "deescalate."

"The president wants to continue to take the temperature down," Gibbs said.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2009/07/28/...

"Crowley will bring his family and take some pictures, Gibbs said. It's not known yet whether Gates will do the same"

Wow. What a watered down story. The reporter failed to mention: Union brass, lawyer to accompany Sgt. Crowley to White House

if this is the case the President better bring the AG, the lawyer to the President, the head lawyer for the EEOC, the head of the FBI and a pistol in his pocket

Morphus - I think it is possible that this will happen without lawyers. It's only a few more hours. Lets wait and see.

My guess is the President will have an initial conversation with Gates and with Crowley inside the Whitehouse and he will lay on the charm. Then they (Crowley, his family and Gates will meet the first lady, grandma and her girls). 6:00 p.m. we will see them (probably without the president's family) at the picnic tables in good spirits.

"My guess is the President will have an initial conversation with Gates and with Crowley inside the Whitehouse and he will lay on the charm. Then they (Crowley, his family and Gates will meet the first lady, grandma and her girls). 6:00 p.m. we will see them (probably without the president's family) at the picnic tables in good spirits."

That's what I originally expected to see until I was blind sided with the entourage story. The entourage sounds like grandstanding for a targeted audience.

"The entourage sounds like grandstanding for a targeted audience."

:-) This is why I refer EVERYONE to JJP. The best minds in the world. All Common sense . . no BS. .tell it like it is.

You are right on point morphus.

Piss poor reporting. I heard on NPR this morning one announcer say it's
great that Gates and Crowley can come together without lawyers. <<rolling
my eyes, big time here>>>

Gates is already a friend of the Prez. So is his lawyer Ogletree. So if Gates is smart, he will bring Ogletree along too. Let's see how Crowley, his lawyer, and union brass stand up to a united front.

IS TRYING TO WIN OVER NON-BASE VOTERS EVEN WORTH THE EFFORT FOR THE GOP?

I said in an earlier post that the GOP thinks ratcheting up racism is entirely consistent with winning at the polls, even in an Obama world. In the comments to that post, aimai argues that the Republicans might not even be trying to do better at the polls -- and might not need to:

I wonder if we shouldn't be looking at all this as a kind of "virtual voter" strategy in which the actual interests and the real person of the voter is becoming less and less important to the Republican party. Under Bush, at the national level, and under the current disorganized party they really don't need all that many actual representatives to wreak havoc on society and pay off their corporate owners. There's absolutely nothing in it for individual republicans to increase market share for the party as a whole. Their position as receivers of graft and favors from monied interests is actually enhanced by their inability to govern, but their ability to block progressive governance. And of course that is true for the Blue dogs as well.

Under this scenario the crazier and weirder the base gets the better it is for those who reprsent their districts because it means they get returned to a lopsided congress/senate in which they need do nothing but bargain and negate progressive legislation. In fact I doubt if the owners really even need to pay for a majority republican/right wing/blue dog majority as long as they can parlay very small numbers into obstructionism. I mean, isn't this exactly what has happened to California under its 2/3 majority for budgeting?

That might be much smarter than my theory. The Republicans who still hold office stay in office -- but they never actually have to accomplish anything, because they're at no risk of ever having to govern. All they have to do is stand athwart liberalism and centrism shouting "No!" That's worth it for their fat-cat donors; that basically preserves a Reaganite/Bushite world; and they keep getting reelected because they're in crazy-base districts, and the continued (apparent) dominance of the Democrats keeps the baseheads in a constant state of apocalyptic panic.

Maybe it's a brilliant plan.
http://nomoremister.blogspot.com/

Of course it's worth the effort. That's a stupid question.

Just as it's worth it for us to go marching into Democratic strongholds and campaigning...even if on paper, we get no votes.

Nothing-and no one-gets conceded.

Birthers, tea baggers and racists shouldn't be conceded?

I don't know any tea baggers.

But if I were on the other side...no, I wouldn't write off the Birthers or the Tea Party Patriots either.

If you can only stand and make your case among your supporters, can you truly say you represent everyone?

But in the end what is it you want.A theocracy where the corporate overrules the individual?Because from my point you talk about rights till it comes up against your corporate and religious leaders then you have no rights.That sounds like true fascism to me.Please talk me down and prove that I am wrong.

I can't speak for the GOP as a whole, but...

I try to keep my politics and religion separate. I know what I believe, but also know enough not to try to force that on anyone else.

I think the point is to try to get to a place where everyone's rights are respected, and the roles of the individual and the government are restored to what they once were.

You will be a slave if the roles of the government are rolled back to 1850 or living in Jim Crow in 1890. You keep arguing for rights you didn't have w/o the government.

But I never said anything about going that far back, did I?

Your ignorance is showing. Tell me wherein time you want to go in America and make a case.
You can't because the conservatism you are talking about never existed in this country. It has always been based on racism.

But the Gop does try to impose their value on everybody.It is your party plank to impose white christian values on the nation.I have more respect for Ron Paul even though he is a loon because he believes in no government in a persons life.The rest of you republicans talk about limited goverment but all you want is the government to rule the personal but let the corporate run roughshod in setting policies.

Yeah, well, it's kinda hypocritical to try to impose values when you can't seem to live up to them yourself.

I thought Paul was crazy, but he's actually got a lot of good points. It was the Truthers and the antiwar crowd that made him look foolish.

"Under this scenario the crazier and weirder the base gets the better it is for those who reprsent their districts because it means they get returned to a lopsided congress/senate in which they need do nothing but bargain and negate progressive legislation."

Granted all politics is local, but it appears there were no lessons learned from the McCain/Palin disaster. This line of reasoning makes the repugs appear to be tone deaf when failing to recognize the drop in individuals who self-identify as a Republican.

Rethugs dont,cant or wont govern.The only reason these lowlifes exist is to line the pockets of the the haves and the have mores.It is a class war and the vast majority in this country are to stupid to realize they are being f*cked by a razor bladed pole with no Vaseline.

You and your visuals.....

Thats what 30 years of rethug philosophy will do to ones mind.

You should get counseling for that.

I am recovering from Bus_ Derangement Syndrome "BDS", but my symptoms couldn't be described as "the acute onset of paranoia".

A self-proscribed blue pill of heavy political activism helps.

Has your BDS turned into Palin Derangement Syndrome?

Couldn't and wouldn't internalize Ms. Palin, maybe because I could never see her as contender. I will admit, I develop some form of derangement as folks began to look upon her as a serious contender, the derangement was directed to those who would accept her.

She'll contend among the GOP ranks, sure. In that circle, she's dead serious.

Outside of there? Different story.

She is a great product, until she opens her mouth w/o a script.

I did, but Dr.Jack Daniels is costing to much and I cant seem to fit him in my budget everytime I hear one of you talk.

Get a generic. LOL.

Paging Dr.Evan Williams LOL!!

So TRUE. Ouch!

Ouch!! That visual was rough.

Families searching for their loved ones' graves at Burr Oak Cemetery (Chicago) can search an online database for a photo of the headstone.

Web site helps Burr Oak graves search

The Web site, www.burroak.net, was set up by the Cook County Sheriff's Department for families fearing relatives' graves are among about 300 believed to have been illegally disinterred and resold.

So far, 10,000 photos have been added to the database. It can be searched by the deceased's last name.

Another worthwhile clip. Smearing the Stimulus clip #4
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036677/#32211343

Attn: Karmi, Conserv and D

The Plumline posted:

Has Obama’s “Brand” Taken A Hit?

Here was my response:

The brand has taken a hit amongst those who embraced Obama based purely on statements and intents that Obama never truly said or embraced. I suspect that it's mainly the people who were all caught up in the "feeling" of having a President Obama or a "not-Hilary/not-Palin/not-McCain/not-Bush" presidency, and who did not really listen an pay attention to what the candidate Obama actually said. It just seems to me that some of Obama's voters were merely playing at projecting what they thought Obama meant rather than what he said. Now in some cases some of these groups are right, somethings Obama said have not yet come to fruition (in some cases they probably won't, in others they will take more time than people want).

Also, now that the heavy work is being done, many people who are new to the political process are more impatient than those who are political vets. I also wouldn't be surprised if many of the disillioned are just right-leaning indies and moderates who are just returning to form, and extreme lefties who are gonna always be disatisfied with an Dem Prez who isn't.

Now amongst my group (African American, Latinos, liberal leaning young people) Obama's still riding high. So all's Obama's needs to do to hold his coalition together is to not disillusion all the whites who supported him before, and I think he can do that at least with the left-leaning ones, and maybe some of the left-leaning moderates.

Among independents Obama is losing support. Have the President and the leaders in the Democratic Party misread them? Wasn't Obama elected by moderates and independents because he was believed to be 'pragmatic', 'post-partisan', and 'post-racial'.

Progressives are becoming disillusioned as they have been disappointed in Obama 's handling of many of their key concerns: gay rights activists, the anti-war movement, and now the single-payer healthcare advocates are scratching their heads.

The 'Obama Brand' is an enigma, it is many things to many people and now supporters are finding it hard to understand just where the President is coming from.

Many Independents now view Obama as 'liberal' or 'very liberal' while progressives are saying he is too 'centrist'?

Obama has yet to assert himself on key issues like the bailouts, cap-and-trade and health care, other than to say 'we must act', 'we can no longer afford to do nothing' and 'the time for talk is over.'

Yet, isn't he doing what he has always done? Isn't he truly a 'blank slate' upon which voters could project their own desires? Isn't he voting 'present' preferring to leave the messy business of governing to the leadership in Congress, hoping to stay above the fray?

WRONG. Among Independents Obama is gaining support.

try again Conserv

Among independents, support for the President remains high.

Among independents, support for the President's policies is dropping.

All depends on what argument you want to make.

good clarification D. I agree on that. That support is dropping because of what we see as dems not willing to do the right thing as it pertains to the people. i.e. healthcare reform and making some ridiculous decision to kowtow to Republicans who have absolutely no interesting in contributing anything of value to policymaking and kowtowing to the insurance companies. Once we see the "citizens first" meme in the senate . . . those numbers will go back up.

D - Conserv would do well to watch your style and emulate your tendency to lean toward truthtelling and facts. Would improve his chances of being taken more seriously.

D - Conserv would do well to watch your style and emulate your tendency to lean toward truthtelling and facts. Would improve his chances of being taken more seriously.

In addition, if you are going to post a comment as fact...cite the source. And it is in poor taste to pass off comments as your own when it was a cut and paste. I remember when I was completing my masters and it pissed me off when my fellow classmates did that shit.

Since his election his support among independents is down. But I know you see only what you want to see so I would expect you refute all that I say. What happened to your vow to not read or respond to me?

I said nothing about not reading your posts I said I would not respond to your false statements yesterday on the thread regarding healthcare and I kept my pledge.

Yesterday's gone and this is a different thread.

"Now amongst my group (African American, Latinos, liberal leaning young people) Obama's still riding high."

"amk Reports of demise of Obama’s brand are exaggerated (and contrived)."

Thus far Mr Obama is coated with Teflon.

No, thus far, PBO has been in office for 190 days and 20 hours and have averted a global economical meltdown, have successfully combat an economical disaster that can't even be compared to the Great depression, and have performed more tasks in said timeframe than any President in modern times.

He may appear to have Teflon because the media and naysayers have been unsuccessful in rallying the public against him.

"because the media and naysayers have been unsuccessful in rallying the public against him."

and it isn't because of a lack of effort.

good post morphus

Well said, morphus. Which shows all that all these folks are interested in is the failure of this president.

They don't care how hard Barack Obama is working to fix this shitpile left by Bush & Co.

All the naysayers want to do is sling SHIT at the president, but he too busy working to let any of this nonsense deter him.

Rikyrah - more on the healthcare debate. Howard Dean on Keith Olbermann with Senator Sherrod Brown last night. You want clip #5 Compromising Healthcare
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036677/
Please consider adding to JJP today. It contains actionable items for anyone interested in ensuring we get a strong Public Option and healthcare plan.

is this on youtube

hi rikyrah that was on msnbc. the embed code is"

<div><iframe height="339" width="425" src="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22425001/vp/32211264#32211264" frameborder="0" scrolling="no"></iframe>

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

</div>

also found it on youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VITYqT8ovuY

The Daily show Takes on Obama critics
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/07/30/so-you...

Jon Stewart went after Obama's craziest detractors last night in a new segment called "So You Think You Can Douche." He began with Sean Hannity who says Obama is destroying the America he knew and grew up in. "I think that's because the America you knew and grew up in was segregated," Stewart responded. Hannity uses grainy footage and demonic music to terrify his audience about the president, so the "Daily Show" used the same effects on "Dora the Explorer" to show that no matter how innocuous you may be, Fox News producers can make you seem like the Anti-Christ.

Stewart then moved on to Lou Dobbs, who has been a champion of the birther movement, saying things like, "You suppose he's un... no, I won't even use the word undocumented, it wouldn't be right." Since then, and despite OVERWHELMING evidence that President Obama is in fact a citizen, he has kept demanding to see a birth certificate, as if showing it to all those other people doesn't count.

But, of course, you can't have a douche contest without Glenn Beck, who recently said of the president: "I'm not saying he doesn't like white people, I'm saying he has a problem. This guy is, I believe, a racist."

WATCH:

The Daily Show: So You Think You Can Douche

Jon, how I love thee

I'm no expert, but this is what Politico is reporting. RobM, you seem to know what's up with financial matters. What is Politico talking about, and are economist really saying this?

Economy on the uptick:Will the White House get the credit?

The White House will like this: A number of reports show that the economy is on the mend, USA Today reports.

The paper says economic indicators keep saying what investors have known for months: Things are getting better

Here's the USAToday article: http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/2009-07-2...

If you think of the economy as only jobs for people then the President will not receive credit from people whom can't find one because their skill level is so poor or not transferable to areas where there are jobs. If you were a carpenter for a home builder there is little work.
For many workers whom have jobs they are in a very hard place. It ususally works like, my neighbor doesn't have a job but I do so it's a recession. Neither of us do its a depression. Now it's a minidepression because many workers have given back wages(FEDEX), wage increases are foregone(local authorities) and benefits cut back-no matches on IRA's for example. Until people w/ jobs regain those lost benefits and people w/ skills can find employment they will grudginly give the President creidt for keeping it from getting worse.
If the question is is the economy now stable, especially the financial markets the President will receive credit. If you are a manufacturer or provide services that don't involve repair you're grateful it isn't worse I hope some of the stimulus comes your way.
The real problem for the President is how to explain that until the excesses created under the Bush administration are totally purged the expansion will be very gradual. Worse it will not go back to the track it was on for the last eight years during which wage expansion was neglible to be generous-people used their homes as ATM's) even after the purge until the next big driver of the economy comes along. This means job growth will be very slow.

Will the WhiteHouse get credit? of course not. lol

But it is all good. :-)

Until American begin to personally feel that they are better off, that they can get a job, sell their house, etc., they will be skeptical that things are getting better. We were told that we were on the verge of economic collapse, that we had to spend and spend, expand government and bailout corporations that were 'too big to fail'.

Goldman Sachs may be posting record quarterly profits but until the unemployed have jobs, no. The White House will not get credit.

Also, the public is wary of the media. Many feel that they are biased in favor of the President and will carry his water most shamefully. The President even recognizes this. Why else would he try to temper the blaring Newsweek headline that proudly proclaims "The Recession is Over!" as a blue (not so subtle reference to Dems) balloon wafts triumphantly upward!

No one doubts that our economy is as resilient as the American people but by raising the national anxiety level in order to not 'let a good crisis go to waste' American will remain very cautious.

"Many feel that they are biased in favor of the President and will carry his water most shamefully. The President even recognizes this. "

**snicker**

g'morning family,

Only in Philadelphia....read this

http://www.philly.com/philly/news/Black_workers...

And for the video
http://abclocal.go.com/wpvi/story?section=news/...

Now I'll be honest I'm feeling suspect about this because ..Why would someone wait after all these years and now complain? But read it for yourself. I wonder my fellow JJP fam what are your thoughts on this one?

Have a Blessed Day
Chris

Saw the story yesterday. Sometimes, situations in communities that are illegal have been normalized and no one knows its illegal. All it take is for someone to come along to make them aware that their rights are being violated.

I have witnessed some of this, blacks from northern areas are migrating back to the south and hometowns across the country. The returning blacks, armed with knowledge, know that activities widely accepted are illegal and are advocating for change. This may not be the case in this story but it is happening.

I just don’t know what to say about the story I heard on Rachael Maddow’s show last night. So I will let you read an excerpt of the conversation from Congressman Alcee Hastings.

Last month, 76 of my colleagues and I sent a letter to President Obama urging him to take leadership on this issue (DADT) and to work together with Congress to repeal this law. More than a month later, I have yet to receive an official response.
“I continue to hear the phrase, ‘next year, next year’ with regard to repealing Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. That is absurd. This law is plain wrong. It is wrong now and it will be wrong then. How many more soldiers are we going to force to suffer through the humiliation of a so-called ‘investigation?’ How many more Arabic- and Farsi-speaking soldiers are we going to remove from duty, depriving our country of valuable, even life-saving intelligence? How many more combat veterans are we going to tell that we don’t need their experience because their sexual orientation somehow precludes them from serving their country? If we know we are going to repeal this law eventually, then why not take action right now?”

On July 27, 2009 Congressman Hastings presented Amendment H.R. 3326 as part of the Defense Appropriations Bill. The White House asked him to withdraw the amendment which he announced on the floor of the House. This of course was taken up by the gay community. I was upset with Congressman Hastings moving forward with this amendment at this time. The president had met with the leadership of the gay community a few months ago and restated his intent to repeal DADT. Doesn’t Hastings see what is going on? The president is under siege from Birthers, Deathers, Blue Dogs, Rush Limbaugh and every other wackadoodle out here. The president is touring the country like a candidate trying to counteract the lies circulating about HCR. The Congress is trying to come up with a pseudo HCR bill, (Co-op) that will satisfy foolish people who have been duped. This move by Alcee Hastings, in my opinion, is pulling the scab off a wound. As I have said before, we are only six months into this new administration. When Obama took office we knew health care was the first order of business not DADT! What is wrong with the Dems have they always been this stupid and we didn’t know it?

Let it be known that Hastings was a full blown Hilaptine, so his "faux outrage" explains alot.

The fact of the matter is that it's up to CONGRESS to repeal DADT. If Hastings is so appalled by DADT, then they need to get ta writing. Obama said that he would sign a bill to repeal the law, so what are they (Congress) waiting for?

MoObama I understand what you mean. I think overall this is sending a very BAD MESSAGE. You saying one thing and your surrogates are saying another knowing folks are watching your every move!

Pres Obama please be very careful!

Recently, I read where the Gay community rejected the notion that they had a single leader and basically said they had many voices, is this true?

It has always been true. We are so varied that the word "community" applies to us as a literary/journalistic devise.

The clamoring and in some instances, demands for attention from seemingly every sector with an unmet need for the past eight or more years is surreal.

From one perspective, that's a bad thing, and another perspective, it's a good thing, because the public actually believes that he listens and cares about their concerns.

A University of Illinois trustee's resignation Tuesday made him the first casualty of the school's high-profile admissions scandal. Trustee Lawrence Eppley urges other board members to quit

University of Illinois trustee resigns over admissions scandal

Trustee Lawrence Eppley quit in a two-page letter to Gov. Pat Quinn that implored his fellow board members to step down along with him. He also urged administrators at the Urbana-Champaign campus to take responsibility for their actions in order to help the university regain the state's trust.

"The public's confidence in the University must be restored, and one way to begin to restore that confidence is to make a clean start," he wrote in the letter.

His resignation comes amid a growing chorus of public officials and educators demanding the entire board's ouster. Earlier Tuesday, trustee David Dorris called for the governor-appointed members to resign and allow Quinn to decide who should stay.


"The best way to approach it is for all the trustees to tender their resignations so long as the governor understands that we don't believe all trustees should necessarily be removed," said Dorris, a board member since 2005. "Give him the freedom, case by case, to evaluate."

Former federal Judge Abner Mikva, who leads the state commission investigating the admissions abuses, endorsed a similar idea Tuesday.

---

rikyrah, your story has legs. After the firings, how do they repair the harm done?

Nine trustees are appointed by governor out of thirteen members. Three student seats are elected by each campus. One of those elected is then appointed by the governor as a voting trustee. So, it's not necessarily about firing but about resigning.

Eppley had to resign because he was blatant and a total shill for Blago. Now, if the others will remains to be seen. Some of them are not necessarily shills for the former governor.

For appearance sake, do you think it would be better to just have a "fresh start" with new appointees?

It's hard to determine. It could be good to have Gov. Quinn appoint new
trustees. The real problem is the culture in Illinois. It's pretty darned
corrupt and the residents need to get pro-active to make change that we
need.

Good Morning.Your Thursday jam. Enjoy
Rahssan Patterson - Human Nature (Atlanta 2009)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WoTOrQLT2y4

Alright now!

Thanks. Also enjoyed MJ Tribute at Cozy's.

The Full On Racist Assault on Pres Obama Begins
by TexasMango [Subscribe]
Share this on Twitter - The Full On Racist Assault on Pres Obama Begins Wed Jul 29, 2009 at 10:41:04 PM PDT
Is anyone really suprised or shocked? It's been coming since the campaign. "He's a muslim, his pastor is a racist, he's not an American citizen, etc". It's been building up to this for some time and the usual players are leading it: FOX, Beck, Rush, Hannity, Dobbs and the far right websites. It's all been coming for sometime. As an AA, I have long feared this was inevitable. I asked the white posters on the board if we could talk in my first diary which made the rec list during the campaign. http://www.dailykos.com/... It was about some of the comcerns over the racism that people were encountering while campaigning for President Obama. Now I need you to talk to me because I'm getting scared. I'm having a hard time taking my own advice.

TexasMango's diary :: ::
My parents keep telling me this is nothing compared to what they have experienced and that I've been sheltered. This may be true, but this feels different then the birther nonsense or the muslim crap. I'm used to the veiled racist stuff, but this isn't veiled anymore. I'm only thirty but I fully expect to have high blood pressure soon. I've talked this over with family and friends. None of us who are black are surprised, but we don't know what the outcome will be. My concern is not just the hatred being spewed, but that it will work. President Obama only got about 45% of the white vote. Now I know this isn't unusual for a Democrat. No Democrat has gotten the majority of the white vote for President since former President Carter. President Obama has always had to walk a fine line on race and he has done so pretty well, even to the frusration of some in the African American community. However the Right is determined to push him over it. I'm afraid it's not just desperation, they think it will work and it may. Why else would they be so bold? Why do they fell so comfortable with laying it out there so boldly. How much of the white vote could Obama possibly spare? How much could the GOP get back? Especially for the 2010 midterms.

Are the far Right nuts just talking to their base filled with racial resentment or do they sense a wider audience? I don't know. I realized I'm not in a position to. Most of the white people I know support President Obama. This stuff would never work on them, but of course they aren't the target audience. Somebody talk me down or at least help me get back to taking my own advice because my lack of surprise has not translated into lack of alarm.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/7/30/759579/...

But he is gaining in the brown vote. We are still pushing voter registration and actually getting people to the polls on local and state. We are grateful to this president and the grassroot campaign that brought us together.

Two DeKalb County Officers are being investigated for allegedly performing a background check on President Barack Obama.

Cops suspended for Obama check

They have been placed on administrative leave pending the outcome of the investigation.

Officials would not release the names of the officers. The incident occurred on July 20, according to DeKalb County officials.

The United States Secret Service notified county officials that DeKalb County computer equipment was utilized to do a query on the President.

Such behavior, said William “Miz” Miller, DeKalb Public Safety director, is not to be tolerated.

“As Public Safety Director for DeKalb County, I want everyone to know that we take these allegations very seriously,” he said in a statement. “We expect our officers to adhere to professional standards and departmental policy. Furthermore, we do not and will not condone the inappropriate use of county equipment or resources.”

The county’s Internal Affairs division is handling the official investigation.

---

That the "Blue shield" in action using their choicepoint system.

The Dems lost this debate once Single Payer became Public Option
by bruddaone [Subscribe]
Share this on Twitter - The Dems lost this debate once Single Payer became Public Option Wed Jul 29, 2009 at 11:20:02 PM PDT
Face it...compromising has killed them, the bill...and confused the electorate...

No one knows what's in that crap they are generating on the hill and folks are hesitant about it and rightfully so...they should have stuck with single-payer and told the GOP to suck an egg...

Sad to say and blame Baucus all you want...but Obama and his team dropped the ball on this one...

bruddaone's diary :: ::
Obama and his team put the most important legislation to hit the hill in decades with a body that has proven time and again that it is corrupt and incapable of leadership as a whole...there are some solid people in the body but as a collective they have failed the American people miserably...and this time will be no different unless something is changed and quick...

An example of this was on full display this week with Congressmen running from a camera to get their position on the "Birther" debate...what an act of cowardice...since when have Americans or those that represent them been ashamed to stand up in their country for their positions right or wrong...running, ducking in stores...it was shameful...yet, they have the audacity to send America's treasure off to war.

I was sickened and hope none of our brave soldiers had to endure watching such acts of cowardice...

The Democrats are no better they stood on the sidelines and watched a corrupt colleague with the backing of the GOP single handily try to destroy the very thing that got Obama in office....hope for a better tomorrow...without so much as a peep...

My rational mind tells me this healthcare thing is just a cruel hoax on the American people to get elected...but I watched Obama for two years... every debate, every townhall meeting, every interview....I donated money...made phone calls...I just can’t throw in the towel on him yet...so I still support him 100%....but it’s crunch time and it’s time for him to call for the ball...because his supporting cast is crud

It’s time for him to crank the machine up that got him elected again...crack the whip on all those Dems who have been on the sidelines...have them step in front of the cameras and push back for his plan...I mean my god where is Debbie Wasserman Shultz when you need her to crack some GOP skull...

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/7/30/759479/...

President Obama can be very inspiring, but not very persuasive.

As the opposition steps up thier criticisms of the bill, the President offers the same platitudes and promises that we have been hearing for weeks. He appears to be unable to effectively quell the concerns of voters who are concerned with the price of the bill and stability of their own insurance.

1) the TRILLION dollar price tag that will NOT bring down health care costs and add to our already gigantic, unprecedented deficit. This plan does not come close to being 'deficit neutral' and higher taxes on the wealthy cannot pay for this alone. The middle class has a right to be concerned that they will not see cost-savings, but higher taxes.

2) Americans are paying especially close attention and demand DETAILS. This plan will effect EVERY AMERICAN and it is not enough to try and pat us on the head and say, "If you like your plan you can keep it' when it is very clear that a 'public option' will INCREASE the likelihood that your employer will opt to offer just the public option. The bill clearly states that IF you lose your job, or your employer changes your plan, in any way, for any reason, you MUST be enrolled in the public option. "Co-ops', 'exchanges' are euphemisms for mechanisms that will ultimately lead to a single-payer system. There is no way to square the circle on this dilemma so now again the President brings out the dreaded 'Do nothing' straw man to try and scare folks into thinking that their current coverage is 'unstable.'

That is a major concern to the vast majority of Americans who like their plans and doctors and want to keep them.

"But what a lot of chatter out there hasn't focused on is the fact that if you've got health insurance, then the reform we're proposing will . . . provide you more stability and more security," he explained.

I would agree that it is a concern that many folks could see their coverage reduced or denied because of a catastrophic illness or pre-existing condition, but the measures that the President is proposing to address this concern appear to many to be TOO COSTLY and TOO EXTREME.

We DO NOT need to turn the entire system upside down in order to reform it. There are many innovative solutions out there, including Health Savings Accounts, High Risk Pools and more. All options must be considered and debated before legislation is passed.

As for the progressives like the one you quote from dailykos, I have been hearing for some time that Obama 'owes' progressives because they were the ones who launched his candidacy and gave it legs. That may be true, must independents, moderate Democrats and even moderate conservatives made the difference in November.

Critics want him to 'step up' be like LBJ when he passed his Great Society agenda. But those people are dreaming.

http://www.philly.com/philly/opinion/20090726_T...

As the always astute Michael Barone notes:

President Obama, "has had little practice [legislating]. He served as a legislator for a dozen years before becoming president, but was only rarely an active one. He spent one of his eight years as an Illinois state senator running unsuccessfully for Congress and two of them running successfully for U.S. senator. He spent two of his years in the U.S. Senate running for president. During all of his seven non-campaign years as a legislator, he was in the minority party.

Compare this with LBJ:

"Johnson was a creature of Capitol Hill who had logged 23 years as a lawmaker, including a productive stint as Senate majority leader. He knew his colleagues well, he knew when to flatter or frighten. Many owed him favors; as president, he often called in his markers. Most important, Democratic lawmakers feared him. The current crop of Democrats do not fear Obama. He worked among them in the Senate for only four years and never gained any leverage, LBJ-style.

Lacking LBJ's inside moves, Obama has gone with his outside game. His grassroots political arm, Organizing for America, has run TV ads targeting red-state Democratic senators - such as Kent Conrad of North Dakota and Mary Landrieu of Louisiana - urging them to support sweeping health-care reform. These Democrats aren't exactly quaking in their boots. Conrad says, "It's fine with me." Landrieu says, "It really doesn't matter to me literally one way or the other."

Maybe LBJ could have knocked their heads together, and ordered them not to worry about deepening the deficit. But I wonder about that. In Obama's defense, LBJ never had to deal with the kind of fiscal headaches that persist today. When Johnson was twisting arms for his Great Society agenda, the economy was booming, General Motors and other corporate behemoths were alive and well, and banks were banks. His budget issues weren't nearly as dire as those currently afflicting Obama.

Johnson also had far stronger prevailing winds at his back; he had won a landslide election in the aftermath of the JFK assassination, and he enjoyed two-thirds majorities in both congressional chambers. And while playing his inside game - most commonly known as "the Johnson treatment," he had a weapon that Obama dare not employ.

Pork."

Perhaps he thought that the 'stimulus bill' or as some conservatives call it, 'porkulus bill' would suffice but I think that perhaps Obama and progressives have as Peggy Noonan says, "misread the national mood."

"The White House misread the national mood. The problem isn’t that they didn’t “bend the curve,” or didn’t sell it right. The problem is that the national mood has changed since the president was elected. Back then the mood was “change is for the good.” But that altered as the full implications of the financial crash seeped in. The crash gave everyone a diminished sense of their own margin for error. It gave them a diminished sense of their country’s margin for error. Americans are not in a chance-taking mood. They’re not in a spending mood, not after the unprecedented spending of the past year, from the end of the Bush era through the first six months of Obama."

Lack of a coherent, persuasive argument for such sweeping legislation that will dramatically change the way every American views their health care, the inability to date to bring his own party to a consensus, and the inability to accurately gauge the national mood are IMO the reasons why this bill is in trouble.

Obama is not persuasive...yet he persuaded 53% of the country to vote for him. Ok.

Can you deny that things have changed since he was elected. Go ahead and deny that the healthcare debate is losing public support, or that the progressives and Blue Dogs are finding it hard to find common ground without strong leadership from the WH.

I do not want a single payer option. I am okay with a strong public option.

Well I do want a single payer plan.I have the best health insurance in the US.the VA.And guess what, under champva my family is covered.We pay a deductible,get to pick our doctors, any medication, we pay a substantial discount and my family is a lot healthier because with regular visits to the doctor any problems can be caught in time.How come every American cannot have the same benefits?

I support your line of thinking that you want a single payer plan but every American does not have the same needs. I am okay with a public option. I can advocate for that.

Found a great article that looked at the Pros and Cons of a Single Payer system and read some insightful pieces on Single Payer vs. Public Option

http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/ezraklein_ar...

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/10/07/why...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/ar...

Then you have no idea what this bill aims to do. A 'strong public option' is nothing more than a mechanism to move us to a single-payer system. It gives incentive to employers to drop their private plans and enroll their employees in the public option.

Advocate will claim that the 'health care exchanges' will be the same as the type of plan that Congress enjoys, but this is not true. Congress HAS A PRIVATE PLAN, a "Gold-plated", "Cadillac" plan. If you want that under the 'public option' you will be heavily taxed, as will the insurance companies, effectively putting it out of reach for the vast majority.

Reform is necessary, but there is more than one solution, and many that are able to address the core concerns of Americans without putting us on a path towards a single-payer system.

"Medicare for All" may be the desire of progressives but for many, many Americans that simply is not good enough.

Conserv1 - :-) you are talking to the wrong person on this one. I know better.

"Medicare for All" may be the desire of progressives but for many, many Americans that simply is not good enough.
--------------
I guess 72% of Ameicans is a minority?

lol pssttt djchefron? Conserv does not compute facts.

Obama had said as clear as day "Force me to do what you want". We also need to force those lily livered Democrats to get us Medicare for all. Campaign contributions from health insurance companies and pharma dont mean nothing if you dont get elected. Its not too late. Partly the problem is that the organizing that got Obama to WH has been watching and waiting to see whats gonna happen. We need to take it to the streets and get people calling and letting the politicians know whats what. I have been doing that, calling Senators etc because I cant see this bill being sold out to special interests.

"We need to take it to the streets and get people calling and letting the politicians know whats what. I have been doing that, calling Senators etc because I cant see this bill being sold out to special interests."

That's what I'm talking about!

TAKIN IT TO THE STREET

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G54lfxiid_w

We need to take it to the street. And we need to drive the agenda. No more watered down bills with compromises of compromises. We need to push for Medicare for all. Check out bill HR 676. Thats what we need. Not in 2013 but phase it in starting in 2010.




________________________________

No argument here. Been down in the trenches for months.

What organization(s) are doing the best job at  forming public opinion and organizing folks around single payer? Because for me they have been lost in the din. Its frustrating!




________________________________

Organizing for America has been dramatically out numbered at townhall meetings and protests by a growing number of citizens who are outraged by the runaway spending, unprecedented deficits, expansion of government into the private sector(bailouts) and the threat of government intrusion into their freedom to choose a doctor or health care plan with which they are satisfied.

When you speak of 'special interests' do you include unions?
Unions want to keep their 'gold-plated' plans so they do NOT want employers or employees taxed for such coverage.

Or what about Trial Lawyers? This bill does NOTHING to address tort reform and the related issues of high malpractice premiums and the practice of 'defensive' medicine that results in duplicate tests, etc.

Congress could enact reforms that assure that coverage cannot be denied for catastrophic illness or pre-existing conditions without risking people losing their existing coverage by being forced by their employers into a "Medicare for all' single-payer public plan.

We need Medicare for all. You say "citizens who are outraged by the runaway spending, unprecedented deficits, expansion of government into the private sector(bailouts) and the threat of government intrusion into their freedom to choose a doctor or health care plan with which they are satisfied."
Your arguments are weak. In the 1960s health insurance companies were saying that Medicare would spell the end of the world and that government would be between patients and doctors. Guess what? Medicare is a sucess. And private health insurance exists in the over 65 year old market. Elderly people can go to whatever doctor or hospital they want in Medicare. What doesnt work about Medicare are the spiraling costs. And why are costs spiraling? Because weak Democratic and Republican senators and representatives caved to hospital associations, big Pharma and insurance companies whenever  there is talk about negotiating prices. Remember Medicare Part D? Could have been a victory instead it was a rout where pharma companies made sure that Medicare could never negotiate prices for drugs as every other indistrialized nation does. What happened to free market doctrine Conserv1? Its good enough for Walmart to negotiate with manufacturer but the government cant?

Very interesting how you only want free market theology to work only when it benefits your case.




________________________________

"One troubling provision of the House bill compels seniors to submit to a counseling session every five years (and more often if they become sick or go into a nursing home) about alternatives for end-of-life care (House bill, Page 425-430)," writes Betsy McCaughey in the New York Post.

There's one lie...

http://ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=33...

"Politics is the shadow cast on society by big business" - John Dewey
In this case, the big insurance business...

I think people underestimate the tension between the two branches of government. Congressmen and senators are worried about reelection and many of them are on the take from Big Insurance in order to keep their war chests full. Barack is serious about health care (not a cruel hoax), but this is a tough environment. In any case, I have never known him to radically stick his neck out when it comes to party politics he is much more of a nudger than a skull-cracker. (full disclosure: I'm a Chicagoan and a community organizer; so my view of him is not centered around campaign promises).
That said, one rule of organizers is not to do for others what they can do for themselves (the nudging idea again). But another rule of organizing is to be willing to step in to prevent total failure. We're not done yet. We have a couple of months and the senate is still in play.

Paul Krugman thinks that even a watered down change will set the ball rolling. Given the power of the Insurance lobby, did we really expect a radical AND instantaneous change in this term? Why put all that on Barack?
People need to be organizing in these districts where Blue Dogs and others are worried (or just plain wrong)--that's what is going to move them on their positions. I'm not confident they are completely wrong ( the legislation is complex), but if they are then they are going to pay attention to what's going on in their districts before they "obey" Barack, skull-cracker or not. Barack is leading but it is our responsibility to make sure these legislators follow.

Good points.

Maddow Show Exposes "Family" Demolition of Church-State Wall
by Troutfishing [Subscribe]
Share this on Twitter - Maddow Show Exposes "Family" Demolition of Church-State Wall Wed Jul 29, 2009 at 04:25:34 PM PDT
Last night, MSNBC's Rachel Maddow continued the tear she's been on over the past several weeks, in her multi-part, ongoing series [link to Youtube videos of segments of Maddow's series] that delves into Jeff Sharlet's research on The Family and the increasingly notorious "C Street House".

As revealed Tuesday on the Rachel Maddow Show, footage shows US GOP Oklahoma Senator James Inhofe discussing being dispatched by "Family" head Douglas Coe, to Africa, on trips paid for by the US government and American taxpayers during which Inhofe, by his own words, promoted The Family's theological views to kings and top government leaders.

Troutfishing's diary :: ::
Described in Sharlet's book The Family: The Secret Fundamentalism at The Heart Of American Power, The Family holds to a distinctly unorthodox political philosophy that celebrates the organizational accomplishments of Lenin's Bolsheviks and Hitler's Nazi Party.

The profile emerging from Maddow's ongoing series publicizing Sharlet's revelations about The Family is of a church-state separation so effectively demolished that, at top levels of US government, it's hard to say whether some Senators and Congress members are working for The Family or for the US government.

And, as I've noted, the Family has been an important promoter of Christian nationalist revisionist views of American history that purport to prove the United States was originally founded as an expressly Christian nation.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/7/29/759451/...

A cult brothel for elected officials!!

Sharlet's been on Maddow's show four times (that I know of) in the past few weeks, and not once have they discussed Hillary Clinton's association with The Family...just saying.

That'd be too much like, you know, right.

No one watches MSNBC.

UPDATE: Grassley/Enzi Trying to Kill Bipartisan Deal. Baucus got Played & Senate Dems are PISSED.
by I said GOOD DAY sir [Subscribe]
Share this on Twitter - UPDATE: Grassley/Enzi Trying to Kill Bipartisan Deal. Baucus got Played & Senate Dems are PISSED. Wed Jul 29, 2009 at 08:00:15 PM PDT
Sometimes I just want to hit Dems like Baucus with a sockful of nickels...

Two Senate Republicans negotiating on health care reform say a bipartisan deal is out of reach before the August recess.

I had a feeling they would pull this. I think Baucus got played for a fool. Unfortunately, I think it could kill reform.

I said GOOD DAY sir's diary :: ::
link

(CNN) — Two of the three Senate Republicans negotiating a bipartisan deal on health care reform said they consider an agreement out of reach before the Senate goes on its August recess.

That likely dashes the hopes of Democratic leaders and President Barack Obama for a deal among the so-called Gang of Six negotiators that could deliver critical momentum for the stalled health care overhaul.

Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, and Sen. Michael Enzi, R-Wyoming, dropped the bombshell news to CNN and two other reporters in Capitol hallways Wednesday night. They have spent weeks behind closed doors, trying to hammer out an agreement with their Democratic counterparts on the Senate Finance Committee but said too many issues remain unresolved, making it virtually impossible for them to sign on to a deal before the break.

Somehow I think this still won't teach Baucus a lesson.

Tomorrow, they need to move forward on a partisan deal or I say that Harry Reid should be thrown out over the recess.

I don't support the SFC bill, but I think that its death could really hurt momentum for HCR. And that would be a bad thing going into August.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/7/29/759....

Why is it bad? What is the rush? Why not work to build public support by crafting a clear, bill that can show the American people how it will truly benefit them?

Did Dems learn nothing from the ramming through of the 'stimulus' bill? The near certain death of the hastily passed Cap and Trade that will certainly die in the Senate.

The pupose for the Senate is to do just what it is doing, forestall any hastly action and provide time for serious, thoughtful debate.

If the Health Care plan is worthy of support, debate will reveal it to be true. If not, then it is all of our best interests to go back and get it right.

Ed Schultz cracked me up last night on Glen Beck.

http://cdinsight.com/news.php?readmore=1787

In South Carolina, a 21 year old HORSE named Sugar is recuperating after being sexually assaulted by a 50 year old AA male. This is his SECOND arrest for having sex with Sugar. He faces 5 years if convicted.

WTF? He's gotta be sick with all of the black women in SC!

Morning Jokes got jokes this morning.AND a picture of the black man.

Wonder why Morn' Jokes didn't show the picture of the fellar from the state of Washington a repeat offender who died while in the act with the horse.

This was my first ever hearing of these "issues". Email them the link on that story. DIED? WTF? Did he fall out of a chair of something. This is crazed.

Hold onto your seat and google "zoophilia"

Ewwwwwwwww

nasty