Jack & Jill Politics

EVENING OPEN THREAD IS UP

Who here watches "Glee"?

I'm sorry ya'll but Jane Lynch who plays "Coah Sue" is the shizzznit!!!!

That woman is hella funny, and from what I hear she does mostly ad libbs. So much of what comes outta her mouth is from her own funny, twisted mind

I have just caught up on fancast this show because of all of the fan posts on this site. I lurve it. I saw Jane on Chelsea Lately and she was just a screwball. Her little story of Meryl she playes Julia's sister in the movie) was just so weirdly funny. I saw her on Psych, too. This woman is majorly funny or twisted, however her humor strikes you.

I LUV GLEE.

and Coach Sue is hilarious

this is incredible, after all the years of Limpballs earning his millions from being a leading racist pundit and now may buy a sports team. IMHO this would be like the plantation owner revived in a new era. YEAH, buy that team with all those dark people I have brewed hate against, but, they better damn make me some money so they can make money.

www.politicususa.com

"Potential St. Louis Rams Owner Rush Limbaugh Declares Basketball the Sport of Gangs

Wrap your mind around the fact that this man, Rush Limbaugh, thinks that his constant racial comments should not interfere with his potential ownership of a team. Comments such as this one could look bad to a league where 70% of all the players are African-Americans."

Tell Rush Limbaugh to get off my balls
This 2010 ain't 1864

--Jay-Z "Off That"

It is all about money..if you don't have the $$$ to stop that piece of crap...well it doesn't matter if it ain't 1864 anymore...Rush has the bucks, you and I don't. Do you have the $$$ to stop this ahole from buying a sports team? I doubt it. And all those people of color who will agree to play for this ahole once he buys the team...makes me wonder.

I wouldn't worry about it. Limbaugh might buy a part of the team, but he ain't buying the whole team. And quite frankly most black athletes have no problem being on the plantation from pee-wee on up to the pros as long as they get paid and get some shine.

aint that the truth..ethics be damned

This is not even one of my favorite Queen songs (I'm partial to "Another One Bites The Dust:) but the "Glee" kids sung the hell outta this song:

Somebody To Love

If only our president had the courage and principles of this patriot in Washington - we need more people like her and less like Obama and Bush:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zh_sxilhyV0

http://www.democracynow.org/2009/10/7/as_afghan...

This is really cute imho....

http://abcnews.go.com/video/playerIndex?id=8774555

"President Obama awarded the nation’s highest honor for scientific and technological achievement – the National Medal of Science and the National Medal of Technology and Innovation - to thirteen recipients in the East Room this afternoon.

The President said that he was glad these innovators at the White House – as his youngest daughter needs a little help with her science fair project.

“I must admit that I have an ulterior motive for presenting these awards today. You see, Sasha has a science fair coming up. And I was thinking that you guys could give us a few tips. Michelle and I are a little rusty on our science.”

more new on the First Lady's genealogy.

history.http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2009/10/genealogist-traces-michelle-obamas-roots.html#

"Are you named Davis, Easley or Humphrey?

Or Johnson, Jumper, Laws, McGruder, Morehead or Moten?

Or Robinson, Shields, Thornton, Tinsley or Wade?

If yes, you may be a distant cousin of first lady Michelle Obama, whose family tree features a young slave girl from South Carolina--once sold for $475--who appears to have borne children in the mid-to-late 1800s with an Irish-American named Shields.

The two could be among Mrs. Obama's great-great-great maternal grandparents.

Those are among key findings by genealogist Megan Smolenyak, who spent nine months researching the first lady's family tree in conjunction with the New York Times. The newspaper's story was published Wednesday on the Web.

According to Smolenyak, it's not uncommon for African-Americans to have bloodlines that are 20 percent to 40 percent European--and the country's first black presidential spouse also is likely to have had native American ancestors."

Dang, Angelar, you beat me to this. I just read the NYT article--http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/08/us/politics/08genealogy.html--and they put everything out there. They have Census records, obituaries, etc on her family--here: http://documents.nytimes.com/one-paper-trail-to.... This is the reason I still love the NY Times b/c they always put up great primary sources documents when they are doing an expose.

Hmm, McGruder? You remember when the Boondocks guy was saying Michelle was "one of us", meaning she's authentically black than POTUS. Looks like he wasn't totally wrong. FLOTUS might be his family. He was from East St. Louis, right? I think FLOTUS has family in Missouri. They could be cousins!!

The thing is the article just proves what most black people already knew about slavery, but it will no-doubt surprise a number of white Americans who don't research this stuff. Mrs. O's story is an American story about how black people lived slavery and emancipation and went to the Northern cities in the early 1900s to take part in America's industrial/manufacturing opportunities. Her great-great grandfather was no joke--church all day, everyday, no pants for ladies, no blues on the radio, a deacon who owned his own carpentry shop, a real striver. Real old school. Great human interest story.

I forgot to add, that as a Native American, I just love that last part about Michelle "likely to have had native American ancestors."

I know, it is really captivating. Also, for really reasonable money, I would recommend Ancestry.com for anyone who wants to research their family history.

I have been able to confirm some very interesting personal family rumors to facts as a result of that sites records.

History, personal and otherwise has always been my favorite subject.

I know Keith O disappoints alot of us but he is on fire tonight on health care reform and he isn't pulling any punches; he has dedicated his entire show tonight on the subject.

When he quoted Winston Churchill about where the power of the mandate comes from I heard Republicans all over the country crapping their pants

well said

Dems Discussing Public Option With Opt-Out Clause: The Silver Bullet?

Instead of starting with no national public option and giving state governments the right to develop their own, the newest compromise approaches the issue from the opposite direction: beginning with a national public option and giving state governments the right not to have one.

"It is clearly much better than triggers and [Carper's] opt-ins," said Richard Kirsch, executive director of the group Health Care For Americans Now. "A trigger option is a way to kill the public option and these opt ins are not effective because it leaves it up to state legislatures to set it up..."

Another Democrat working on reform legislation added, "If everyone gets a plan, and states have to affirmatively vote, preferably by referendum, to opt out. I really don't see a lot of states opting out, for one. And, for two, you get your national [public plan] available everywhere. If a few holes start appearing, it's not nearly as fatal as if you went with the Carper plan, which after a few years might mean 10 or 20 [state-based] public options. If you go the other way, you'll probably have like 47 states. It's a big difference."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/07/dems-d...

Ingenius....I know this is Obama's idea. He always comes up with a brilliant strategic tactic to master the political minefields and this one fits the bill perfectly.

It sound interesting and very politically feasible. It covers a lot of political wangling for the red state and blue dog Dems.

It allows the blue dogs to vote for it and say they gave their state the right to choose.

hehehehehehe...beautiful

I always believe that old cliche...."until the fat lady sings" it aint over

<<snicker>>

this is perfect! just like the stimulus. the red state gov's are going to be grandstanding but totally unable to do anything since the opt-out plan is going to be done through the legislature. And trust, with the public option making health care cheaper, vis subsidies, ain't no state gonna want to opt-out. If O came up with this, kudos!!! And as LaRapier said, the blue dogs can TRUTHFULLY say they gave their states a choice.

You know, I hope they continue with this and work on it until Thanksgiving/Christmas b/c company health plans are typically renewed around this time and if people are signing up and noticing their premiums increasing, they'll more likely support the public option. This is why I didn't bat an eyelash when health care didn't go through in August b/c people don't really notice healthcare costs until it's time to renew in the fall/winter. When you see the insurance companies are gouging you, the Democratic alternative is attractive.

Well said Jojoraze, well said.
This sounds like Obama's thinking, particularly since so much is being done behind closed doors. Obama told us often that they had 80% agreement and he just was unwilling to tip his hand as he understood he needed to play his cards close vested. Here is a blurb on this development:

"while the opt-out approach to the public plan is in its nascent stages it has been discussed with leadership in the Senate. It was pulled out of an alternative idea, put forth by Sen. Tom Carper (D-Del.) and, prior to him, former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, to give states the power to determine whether they want to implement a public insurance option."

I suspect Daschle could have been the birdie in Obama's ear and that Obama was the birdie in Carper's ear.... and it sounds just like Obama to have flipped it from opt in to opt out.

I hope that Obama does not derail all this forward progress with his big speech on Gay rights this Saturday...timing, timing, timing.

The country has so much bigger fish to fry right now, with the war and health reform...I just wish he would wait til he signs the Health Reform before moving onto the DADT powderkeg.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jose-antonio-varg...

I thought Daschle, despite being an insurance lobbyist, was actually good for HHS b/c he knew where the bodies are buried. I found it surprising how quick Repubs in addition to progressives, didn't want him. He knew a lot since he had been behind enemy lines.

I love Dr. Dean, but when you are a complete enemy of the health care industry, this was going to be much harder. The right-wing noise machine would have been on him and distracted from the issue at hand, healthcare reform. Dr. Dean would just tick everyone off and nothing would have gotten done.

Now, O and his team are making the insurance companies the enemy and appeasing Pharma. Now, everyone is saying they are for reform, even Rick Scott and the AMA and WAL-MART (!!), b/c they know they have to get on the bus or be left. But, I knew that this would turn out fine once Dr. Dean said reconciliation is on the table. Once he calmed done in July--I guess the White House called him and told him what they were doing and told him to tell the progressives to calm down, I knew everything would turn out ok.

I think the thing is that O is very strategic. I think he and his team knows that some battles are worth fighting right now, and some for later. Look at the stimulus. The House Repubs under Cantor voted no and since then O has not said a word to them. And no one can blame him b/c he wined and dined them and they played him. They showed themselves so O said, "Next!" Nancy P can override them and corral votes so the House is no problem.

The reason why they are appeasing the Senate Repubs is that three of them voted for the stimulus (Snowe, Collins, Specter). It's good to always be open to catering to Snowe or Collins b/c they are reasonable and malleable and they just might switch parties like Spector did. Enzi and Ensign and the rest of the men in Gang of Six are dispensable now to O b/c they have shown themselves to be hypocrites of the highest order during this whole health care fight--so the next time O needs legislation passed--the climate change bill in the Senate--he can bypass them altogether and get no flack for it b/c it is obvious he tried to be bi-partisan. My .02 cents on how this is playing out.

ICAM

Playing chess, while folks are playing tiddly winks.

"Ingenius....I know this is Obama's idea."

As soon as I read it my first thought was "checkmate". :-)

Yeppper!! President Obama plays chess not checkers. All those handwringers who were fretting and sweating now can finally relax and maybe quit telling the rest of us,we drank KoolAid...when the real deal is that we can see the long game and most of them can't. We understand the multi-dimensional chess that Obama plays.

I mean, how many folks that met the man from HS on stated he was brilliant and that they had not ever met anyone with his type brilliance. he is a velvet glove with a steel trap mind.

Woe is he who takes that velvety touch for weakness of conviction or cowardice of principles. The man just carves a new path through a mountainside like he is laser beam.

I hope we hear as much praise and accolades for the success of this as we have had to listen to the doom and gloom of this being his 'waterloo'

Go Obama...change we can believe in!

I am afraid that if success comes others with take the credit and leave the impression the president was forced to do the right thing. People need to chill out and watch the president do what he does best...work out his plans.

They can try that if they want to, but we'll be right here to say, "Um, no".

We shall see won't we?

You're telling us everything except...why he's doing this (if he is in fact doing this). I mean, aside from giving folks the opportunity to say "he's playing chess", lol.

It is unclear what you are asking. You want to know why he is doing what? Why he is playing chess. Why he is being close vested?

If so, it is because of HRC's colossal failure with health reform. If you recall, she came with her big plan and all her specifics, she divided 500 folks up into 32 committees and commenced to creating such chaos that health reform was set back for over a decade.

What Obama has done is set forth some guiding principles that he would like, without specific details, and then let Congress write the bills. All of this is so that the opposition does not have a target to attack..they do not know what is vital to Obama. He refuses to draw a line in the sand and instead says he is open to all ideas, and even says that the public option is only one way to achieve cost control while stating it is a 'sliver' of health reform. He talked about the areas of agreement, eliminating pre-conditions, banning recission, mandatory coverage and limiting denial of coverage when sick.

He gives the opposition plenty of room to hang themselves this way. They have to stand for something in order to be effective, instead they are standing for nothing and slowly going down...it is death by a thousand cuts vs. one swift blow. A thousand cuts, brings folks to your side as it shows that you were willing to negotiate, whereas a swift blow makes you an uncivilized brute who uses power for the sake of power. Think Ali vs. Frazier...rope a dope vs. forceful swings that don't connect and tire the opposition out.

It just seems that you are unable to see the forest for the trees...thus, it appears you can't grasp the strategy as you are blinded by the tactics....it's chess not checkers.

lol

Read my post above. Congress is like high school and soap operas. You have to engage these people carefully or your agenda can be derailed. Since O doesn't have Bush family clout or lobbyists on his side, he has to be careful. Bipartisan is a weapon and idealistic idea...O has to do it at this early stage b/c he promised it and the independents want to see that. If he didn't try, he would look like the angry black man and O has to always be the least aggrieved black man in America. I think bipartisaniship is kind of like non-violent resistance.

The point is that by pretending to be weak and take the blows, you gain the sympathy of bystanders from your own party who will sympathize and want to join you and moderate, undecided people will basically think your enemy is a bully. And this is working for O. I think AP released a poll that says O's numbers are going up even as support is declining for his dealing with Afghanistan. So, his I'm a nice guy, I'm being reasonable approach is working for the long-term.

No one in their right mind believes O is trying to kill their grandma or that O is a socialist, communist, florist, typist or whatever -ist the right wing noise machine is coming up with especially since the GOP has no alternative plan. If you really believe O is going to kill your grandma and enslave Americans, why aren't you coming up with an alternative to stop this egregious act? Now Bob Dole and Trist are supporting O and the AMA and some Repub leaders are telling people to stop listening to Limbaugh.

Even if O loses temporarily, by his approach he'll get long-term gains. The opposition is basically lying and not gaining any ground. Do more people believe trust the Repubs than POTUS after the townhalls in August?

Oh.

Actually, that didn't really answer my question. Why did they come up with this plan? It has nothing to do with making it safe for the Blue Dogs to vote for a public option, because it has been safe for them to do that for a while now, if not all along. Most of their constituents are for the public option, so, for most of them, there isn't any electorial danger in them voting for it. People (all kinds of people) have been using that as an excuse. If they're afraid that voting for it will lose them the support of the insurance companies, I don't think this plan will be any more pleasing to the insurers than any other form of the public option.

Aside from that, how can they be so sure that they can get binding referenda for this plan in all 50 states, and so sure that 47 of them will vote to implement it?? That seems unrealistically optimistic.

"Why did they come up with this plan? "

They came up with the plan so that it would provide political coverage to the Blue Dogs. This way there is a national option, which states can opt out of. If they believe it is too costly or that government is running health care. Their representative will not have imposed this on their congressional districts. The Blue Dogs are in danger, for several reasons.

One, they would be voting for more government spending, two they would be voting for another government program and three many of them are in states where one health insurer is providing 90% of the coverage. Which is a big deal when it comes time to raise campaign funds or fund an opponent.

The beauty of the plan is that they do not need binding referendum from all 50 states, the states are in and their residents can buy in UNLESS and UNTIL the state opts out. The folks in a state have to vote themselves out of the national option.

That is the piece de resistance...it is not opt in. It is opt out.

"They came up with the plan so that it would provide political coverage to the Blue Dogs."

As I said, the Blue Dogs never needed any "political coverage", at least not with the voters in their states and districts, and "punting it back to the states" won't give them any coverage from their coporate donors. After all, how will they "punt it back"? By voting for it, that's how. Their insurance company benefactors want them to kill it at the federal level, now.

Just cause you say something doesn't mean it's true and I gave you three reasons to demonstrate you are not correct.

I am tired of explaining what is really very clear to most individuals that are politically savvy.

nice chatting with you

I doubt that it's "clear to most individuals", LOL. People don't like it when you're not straight with them, even if things turn out alright in the end....and I'm saying "turn out alright" just for the sake of argument. I think "most individuals" are like me- they don't feel as if they're in on the game, as you do. And you know, the people who think they're in on the game often turn out to be the biggest suckers of all:).

I'll pretend not to notice that you didn't address the points I made, LOL.

"I doubt that it's "clear to most individuals",

You shouldn't...I am not the only one attempting to explain the political dynamics and the reasons to you.

Obama has been straight. You just seem to wanna read everything as black and white and the world is full of shades of gray...and most folks don't give a hoot, long as they wind up getting what they want in the end.

It is more likely a reading comprehension problem as I answered your points.Even if you did not get it.

Most folks on political discussion sites DO get it!
And the folks that don't let everyone knows that they are inDEED suckers.

So, most folks on political sites constitute "most folks"?

No, I'm the one who's seeing the shades of gray...from a bit more of a distance than you, and with considerably more self-possession.

Oh- let me save you some typing, and assure you that I'm black, and not Jewish:).

...and I'm still noticing that you haven't addressed the points I made.

How do you know that most of their constituents want it? National polls show strong support but what is the support like in individual states? Places like Louisiana, Arkansas, North Dakota, Alaska where there are democratic Senators.

I'm not disagreeing with the monetary influence but if you vote against something that has strong support in your state, no amount of money will get you your constituents votes.

bingo

Exactly.

"How do you know that most of their constituents want it?"
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/09/analysis...

Scroll down to the long, color-coded list.

Why do you think these people got elected as Democrats from those places? It's because they always campaign on populist appeals, even though they're mostly corporatists. Their voters tend not to be as affluent as whites in other parts of the country, and they're not averse to getting a little something from the government. They just don't like blacks.

Sounds like Gohmert forgot this meds.

It's been some time coming-- but here is my FIRST BLOG.

http://blog.evavegadiversity.com/

For some reason it does not link to my consulting website but I'll figure out the bugs eventually.

My latest blog: Why do Republican Senators Support Gang Rape?

Good one.

Anyone see this commercial yet? It is not registering that it is different now.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rRY5waZ4IbE

It's one of Rick Berman's astroturf groups.

Some folks can't understand why no one likes the. they see you Blackwater. These guys got hustled out of the country faster than Larry Craig can clear a bathroom in an airport.

Two out of every three black children born between 1985 and 2000 were raised in neighborhoods with at least a 20 percent poverty rate, compared with just 6 percent of white children, a new report from the Pew Foundation finds. These numbers are virtually unchanged from thirty years ago. Among children born between 1955 and 1970, 62 percent of black children were raised in neighborhoods with at least a 20 percent poverty rate, compared with only 4 percent of white children, according to the Pew report. This gap persists even when the poorest families are excluded from the analysis. Among children from the upper three income quintiles, almost half of black children -- 49% -- lived in high-poverty neighborhoods, defined as those with at least a 20% poverty rate. Only one percent of white children from the upper three income quintiles lived in high-poverty neighborhoods.

Most black children grow up in neighborhoods with significant poverty

Wasn't it the poster Myth arguing that neighborhoods don't matter?

What is this? What context are you speaking about?

I was born between 1955 and 1970 and I agree that most black children are raised in neighborhoods with at least 20 percent poverty rate compared to 4 percent of white children. I do not recall commenting about this discussion AT ALL. But I go on record agreeing with the facts and premises. Neighborhoods don't matter in what regard? Help me understand your reference??????

I could be wrong...but I believe it was you that had this long back and forth with another poster, where you basically were asserting that black folks did not need to move to the suburbs and that they could still raise their kids in drug infested, gang violence communities...cause you were not raised in the burbs?

Wasn't that you?

I apologize if I have this incorrectly...it was some weeks back..right before I believe you stated you were preparing to take the Bar? Did you take the bar..or do I have you mixed up with another poster?

BTW...how did it take you 15 years to be born? j/k...typo, right?

To laRapierWit:
Wow! I don't usually respond to negativity particularly when its directed toward me on a blog by someone who I've met or ever had a conversation with. I do believe WhiteRoseBuddy in taking the high road and allowing a persons negative comments reflect directly on the person making the comments, and that generally does happen. People can easily see the anger, unhappiness, insecurities, lack or purposes and disgust in the person who is directing the message.

I will clarify two comments here that you have asserted:
(1) You will never, ever here me discuss any more than that I am from Dallas or Texas on this blog site. In discussing current events here, I have NO need to share whether you, me or anyone else was raised in the city, out of the city or suburb wherever. I don't deliberately try to judge people and could care less where anyone is raised or how they are raised. That is just not me and not important to who I am. So, YES, you are wrong to assert, assume, presume, jump to conclusions that I posted anything about how anyone has raised their children. That's just not important to me and I surely would not insert at anytime where I come from because that should not be anyone's business here in the discussion of current events.

Secondly, if it's that important to this assertion, assumption, conclusion you have jumped to - NO, I have never made any comment about taking the Bar. If I had chosen to, I would have done so over 30 years ago.

"BTW... how did it take you 15 years to be born?" WTF??????

As I stayed up front, I don't generally address others direct accusations, assumptions, presumptions, conclusion because this site SHOULD NOT be about anyone's personal affairs and specifically not mine. I believe that everyone here should take the HIGH ROAD and not deal in pettiness toward other individual, and stick to the topics and not deal in personal attacks against others on this site. So, NO WAY you can bait me into a cat fight.

"....and ain't I a woman?"

"I don't usually respond to negativity particularly when its directed toward me on a blog by someone who I've met or ever had a conversation with"

Huh? what negativity? I was only trying to figure out if I had the right poster, if it's not you...fine.


"I have NO need to share whether you, me or anyone else was raised in the city, out of the city or suburb wherever"


Again...huh? I was trying to recall bits and pieces of the overall comments made in the back and forth with the poster I believed was you. THAT was the only reason I gave that info. NOT trying to make a judgment. Just wondering if I had the right poster...was that you or not?


"BTW... how did it take you 15 years to be born?" WTF?????"


Yeah, wtf...did you read your OWN post about the years you were born between? GEEEZ



"I don't generally address others direct accusations, assumptions, presumptions, conclusion because this site SHOULD NOT be about anyone's personal affairs and specifically not mine. I believe that everyone here should take the HIGH ROAD and not deal in pettiness"


REALLY...then why have you gone there? My primary question was ...are you that poster or NOT?

dang

I answered that question YESTERDAY when I said to you,

"I do not recall commenting about this discussion AT ALL." I thought that would have been the end of this discussion.

I don't know what part of this statement is confusing you: " I was born between 1955 and 1970" ????

CBO reports Baucus bill will cover 94% while reducing federal deficit

In an announcement that should propel the Senate Finance Committee’s health care reform bill (”the Baucus bill”) to the forefront of the legislation soon to be considered by Congress, the Congressional Budget Office has reported that the Baucus bill will cost $829 billion over ten years, well below the “magic” number of $900 million. This puts the proposed legislation well under the price required by the White House directive that any health care reform bill be ‘deficit neutral.’

Read more at: http://trueslant.com/rickungar/2009/10/07/cbo-r...

Bob Dole: Health Care Will Pass, GOP Should Get On Board

Former Senate Majority Leader Bob Dole (R-Kans.) told a group of local Kansas reporters on Wednesday, that opposition to the president's health care package had been driven by knee-jerk partisanship and urged Congressional Republicans to get on board a version of reform.

The 1996 Republican presidential candidate also predicted, following a speech at a health care reform summit in Kansas, that "there will be a signing ceremony" for a reform bill sometime this year or early in 2010.

Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/07/bob-do...

it is amazing that these elder statemen(Frist, the governator) realize the healthcare bill is going to run them over and cost them seats in 2010. It's a little late considering the vitrol they allowed them to spew before speaking. The problem is the train has left the station and all their rabidly racist supporters won't let them on the next train. Best of all they have only themselves to blame

RobM - they are already busy trying to rewrite history.

What would a Republican healthcare bill look like?
Democrats have chided Republicans for not offering their own healthcare ideas. But GOP attempts to turn the debate toward more incentives and fewer mandates have been rebuffed.

http://features.csmonitor.com/politics/2009/10/...

They need to re-write badly. They were wrong on Medicare, and SS and now health reform...not a very good track record ..the public will remember.

Good to hear from you. Hope you had a good vacation.
As to rewriting history it's all they ever do.

thank you. I needed the sabbatical and I am better for it. Appreciate your comment.

Like David Byrne of the Talking heads once sang."Same as it ever was"
once in a lifetime
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kw54-rCIrPs

As sales wither at home, manufacturers see China, India and Brazil as a customer base of new affluence.

With debt-burdened American consumers cutting back in response to the recession, many U.S. companies are increasingly looking outward, toward fast-developing countries such as China, India and Brazil.

But instead of seeing these nations primarily as cheap producers of goods to sell to Americans, U.S. corporate leaders see them as potential customers for American products and services.

That shift, which has been underway for several years but has intensified sharply during the downturn, comes as vast numbers of families in these emerging economies are moving into cities and spending like never before to improve their living standards.

U.S. firms look to sell wares in emerging markets

---

U.S. businesses are off to new hunting grounds.

The change is the cost in fuel to produce and move goods. is it cheaper to make them in the PRC and ship them to America or is it cheaper make them in the Americas and ship them to the America's?
I'd brush up on my Spanish or learn Portuguese.

Not "debt-burdened American consumers"?

NFL's Greatest Nightmare------- Rush Limbaugh might one day own the St. Louis Rams. Hell, sometimes these column thingies write themselves.

The only thing that could make this news even more fantastic is if in his first two acts as owner Limbaugh traded for Donovan McNabb and made Jesse Jackson the head coach.

Followed by Ann Coulter's hiring as general manager.

My head exploded after hearing this Limbaugh news.

Limbaugh is going to change the name of the team from the Rams to the Nappy-Headed Hos.

Of course I know Don Imus said that but it still fits.

And somebody lock up the Rams' painkillers, stat.

When the Rams go 1-15 Limbaugh will blame it on the liberal media.

Or ACORN.

"Look, let me put it to you this way," Limbaugh once said on his radio show, "the NFL all too often looks like a game between the Bloods and the Crips without any weapons. There, I said it."

When I see McNabb and Tom Brady the first thought that comes to mind: gangs.

Sure.

"I mean, let's face it, we didn't have slavery in this country for over 100 years because it was a bad thing," Limbaugh said on his radio show. "Quite the opposite: slavery built the South. I'm not saying we should bring it back; I'm just saying it had its merits. For one thing, the streets were safer after dark."

Slavery had its merits, like the no-huddle.

"I think the media has been very desirous that a black quarterback do well," Limbaugh said on ESPN.

Brett Favre is black?

How exactly will Limbaugh address the team after he purchases them?

"I just want to introduce myself and say my door will always be open. That is, unless, you're a black quarterback. If you are, please leave the room now."

Would NFL owners really allow Rush Limbaugh to own a team? Really, really?

It is serious and it could happen, according to several NFL sources, because of one of Limbaugh's partners, Dave Checketts. The latter's tenure as president of the New York Knicks and then Madison Square Garden was definitely mixed nevertheless his name adds credibility to a bid that would otherwise be seen as some sort of sick joke. Checketts is currently owner of the St. Louis Blues NHL team.

Let's be clear: it's unknown if the Limbaugh-Checketts group truly has the cash or the muscle to buy the Rams, valued by Forbes Magazine at $913 million, but there are people in the sport who are taking this bid talk seriously.


Media types like me would love for Limbaugh to own an NFL team because it would provide an unending source of material.

Limbaugh is a pungent bowl of stark raving bigoted lunacy. He'd be a dream to cover. But for the NFL, Limbaugh as an owner would be as comfortable as a colonoscopy with a periscope. It'd be one of the great nightmares for the sport.

The league has made significant strides in putting its horrid racial past behind it. The NFL isn't perfect on the issues of ethnicity but it tries.

Allowing Limbaugh, who plays the song "Barack the Magic Negro" on his radio show, a seat at the owner's table would instantly undermine everything the NFL has worked decades to accomplish.

And again, this whole thing is very possible.

Limbaugh is a huge sports fan and football follower which is why ESPN hired him in the first place before he torched the place one day.

I'm still wrapping my head around the words "Limbaugh" and "NFL owner" which is like saying the words "Freeman" and "Denzel Washington" in the same sentence.

"Have you ever noticed," Limbaugh once said on his radio show, "how all composite pictures of wanted criminals resemble Jesse Jackson?"

Yeah, this could be interesting.

If the NFL Players Union is 60%AA they should take a stand.The owners decide who can own a team, they should take a stand and finally we the fans have to take a stand.There is no place for an avowed racist to own and profit from a league that is majority BLACK!!!!

No chance whatsoeveer. If they think they have a problem w/ PETA and Michael Vick can you imagine what it is going to be like when every player in the league starts in on Limbaugh.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/08/us/politics/0...

In First Lady’s Roots, a Complex Path From Slavery

Er...I don't think Betsey will be back..

What are we going to do w/ Charlie?

He'll survive because the GOP do not want the next option.

The next Democrat in line at Ways and Means is California Rep. Pete Stark, a strident liberal with a distinctly pro-tax record. He voted against the 2008 Wall Street bailout and the stimulus package, saying that the bills helped banks at the expense of taxpayers.

I don't know how many of you have seen this, but this is absolutely hilarious.

Here's the original:

http://www.mcnaughtonart.com/artwork/view_zoom/...

here's the spoof:

http://www.shortpacked.com/McNaughton%20Fine%20...

Oh, and notice how the two BLACK historical figures are in the back, I almost didn't spot the Civil War Soldier. But note how the WHITE Civil War soldier is right up front. I bet the artist put those two Black historical figures in there as an afterthought.

*Edit* Oh wait, I just accidentally found Harriet Tubman in the pic too.

Changes in financial services consumers behavior mean these institutions are going to be hard pressed to make their numbers on Wall Street w/ no income. Keep making it happen by joining a credit union which offers better terms as a rule.

whoooo hoooo for credit unions!!! my experiences with them has been amazing!

credit unions are a better deal anyway, why do you think the banking industry is always trying to get more regulations imposed on them. They also, by and large are more responsible at lending within their means......i.e. less leveraging of deposits. There are less credit union failures too, but that could change going into a still slowing 2010.

mistake

In Senate testimony, constitutional experts say the president has the right to appoint independent advisors as long as the distinction between practical and legal authority is rigorously maintained.

Panel finds no fault with Obama system of policy 'czars'

---

Conservatives complaint although some of these positions existed before PBO took office, and some won Senate approval.

john mccain can to to Hell in gasoline draws:

On Monday, during his Fox Business Network debut, Don Imus hosted Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), who tweeted that it was “great to be back on with Don Imus again.” Contemplating the prospects for Imus’ return to boost the Fox network, the Daily Beast’s Lloyd Grove writes today about an exchange between Imus and McCain, in which McCain laughed at an Imus joke comparing President Obama to the 9/11 attacks:

“Ha ha,” she added dryly, when I told her that Imus, in a discussion with another first-day guest, Sen. John McCain, repeated a “joke” that after 9/11 “President Obama was the second attack on America.” (McCain, on the phone, laughed more heartily.)

After McCain laughed at the joke, Imus attempted to distance himself from the comparison, calling it “an idiotic thing to say.”

http://thinkprogress.org/2009/10/07/mccain-imus...

Video at Link, I see Imus is still afraid to piss off Black people.

John McCain need to change his depends.Because the shit just keeps coming out.

Limbaugh-Beck and the GOP Patriots Against America
by Wattree
Share this on Twitter - Limbaugh-Beck and the GOP Patriots Against America Wed Oct 07, 2009 at 10:36:12 AM PDT
BENEATH THE SPIN • ERIC L. WATTREE

Limbaugh-Beck and the GOP Patriots Against America


If anyone had any doubt about whether or not the GOP has become anti-American, all doubt should now be laid to rest. Rush Limbaugh, the titular head of the Republican Party, slipped into an altered state of bliss after hearing the news that the United States lost its bid for the 2016 Summer Olympics. The man was completely beside himself with glee. God only knows what would have happened if we'd also been attacked - his body fluids would've had to be cleaned off the studio floor. I watched the video of Limbaugh's antics over and over again in total disbelief. It's literally unbelievable what's happened to the Republican Party.

Wattree's diary :: :: This man is not a true Republican, and comes nowhere close to representing conservative values. No true conservative would celebrate an American loss of anything, no matter what the competition, who we were competing against, or what the circumstances were surrounding the competition. You can say what you want about the Republican Party and conservatism, and I've said a lot of mean things, but a true conservative ALWAYS comes to the defense of America.

For those progressives who are too young to understand my breaking ranks to come to the defense of conservatism, it's important to understand that as a baby boomer I know and understand the conservative mind-set, because as baby boomers we all started out raised as conservatives - society was geared that way.

For baby boomers, the first thing we did when we arrived at school was to recite the pledge of allegiance; the second thing was to recite the Lord's Prayer. Then after the Lord's Prayer it was social studies, where we learned that America never loses, has never done anything wrong, and anyone who said differently was evil. That's conservatism, and I believed every syllable until I became old enough to start thinking for myself.

During the fifties all children were raised with the very same values. So just like any other child in America, I pulled for the cowboys against the Indians, and rode with John Wayne as we single-handedly slaughtering the bad guys - which was anyone who didn't happen to look, think, or act like us. And as I looked up at the screen, even as a Black child, I was completely convinced that I was a part of "us." It was only later in life that I began to recognize that I represented "them."

It was only due to the shock of that recognition that many of us became progressives. We made it our mission in life to turn the conservative myth of America into a reality. So the difference between true conservatives (as oppose to racists) and progressives wasn't a disagreement over the American ideal, but whether that ideal was a reality.

So I throughly understand the conservative mind-set - been there, done that. Conservatives can be insensitive, and in my opinion, delusional about what America represents, but the Republican Party has always been fiercely patriotic. So I can say without hesitation that Limbaugh, Beck, and these current batch of demagogues who currently run the GOP are definitely NOT true conservatives, or conservatives of any definition.

There was a time when a Dick Cheney wouldn't have even been able to work as a gofer in the Republican Party. A true conservative would've never put up with a man who took five deferments to avoid defending this nation then publically admitting that he didn't serve this country because "I had other priorities." Yet, in today's Republican Party he was able to make that statement without a bit of shame, even as he lectured America on patriotism. A true conservative would never tolerate such a man - one who, now that he doesn't have to put his own life on the line, wants to teach us how to protect America. Such a man would never be allowed to carry the Republican banner.

Can anyone imagine Cheney telling General Eisenhower that I didn't defend my country because "I had other priorities"? Ike would have told him in no uncertain terms that there ARE no priorities more important than serving your country. And there's absolutely no doubt that if Ike was president Cheney would have been shot for outing a CIA agent. Ike didn't play that, because he was a true conservative. He had a set of convictions that didn't vary as the wind blows, and he had the courage of those convictions. Unlike Beck, or Rush Limbaugh who avoided serving this country by claiming a boil on his ass, Ike was the kind of man that one could have serious disagreements with, but still feel compelled to call sir.

And this is not just hyperbole. Think about it. Is there anyone who was alive during the fifties and sixties who believe that conservatives would have allowed the Republican Party to be taken over by draft dodgers, and worse yet, allow draft dodgers to send our troops to a senseless death? I don't think so.

Even as a progressive, as a former marine I think I'm safe in going on record for Ike and every American in Arlington Cemetery as saying that it is unforgivable that America let our young troops and their families down by letting this bunch of demagogues send these young people to an untimely grave. And for what? The horrible, and inescapable fact are, they died for no other reason than to enrich a bunch of cronies who made it a point not only avoid their own military service, but also made very sure that their children avoided it as well.

Conservatives? No, I don't think so. These are a bunch of conspirators against America who used the nation's pain over 911 to victimize this nation and accommodate their own greed. Like the vultures they are, they decided to not let a good crisis go to waste.

And they knew exactly what they were doing. As the bodies of our brave young troops were carried off the battlefield, they were honored in secret, because the dishonorable men who sent them to their deaths didn't want America to see the true price of their vulturous greed. For if these young people did indeed die for this country, and not simple greed, where were the bodies of the sons and daughters of those who sent them? Aren't they also patriots, and don't they also love this country? Of course they do, but their job is to luxuriate in the lobbies to country clubs giving lip service and drinking toasts to the brave sacrifice of the dead little people.

So does this batch of GOP scoundrels truly love America? Let's take a look at that through a simple analogy. For the sake of this discussion, let's think of America as a football team. Suppose a member of our team didn't like the coach and was angered because he had to ride the bench during the Super Bowl. What would you think of him if he started openly pulling for the other team, then once our team lost, he ran out on the field and started dancing and celebrating? Could he ever convince you that in spite of his actions, he loved our team? I don't think so.

Well, that's exactly what's taking place in America with Limbaugh, Beck, and all of their new-and-revised Republican colleagues. So as progressives, we should stop referring to these insurrectionist turncoats as conservatives, because by doing so do a gross disservice to a long and honorable tradition, and a LOYAL opposition - even though we may seriously disagree with the tenets of that tradition.

If these neo-fascists were truly representative of conservative thought, Barack Obama would not be in office today. Let there be no doubt about it. This man was not elected by progressives alone.

Eric L. Wattree
wattree.blogspot.com

Religious bigotry: It's not that I hate everyone who doesn't look, think, and act like me - it's just that God does
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/10/7/790...

What would a novel written by a poet be like? I found this interview with poet Angela Jackson very interesting:

http://www.wbez.org/Content.aspx?audioID=37278

She is doing a reading tonight at Chicago's Southside Community Arts Center. Her new book is here:

http://www.amazon.com/Where-Must-Go-Novel-Triqu...

Several firms that received large taxpayer bailouts have adjusted executive compensation to trim cash payouts before the Obama administration's pay czar issues new rules. Some fear those rules will go too far, preventing them from attracting the talent they need to remain competitive.

Company officials and lobbyists say Bank of America Corp., Citigroup Inc., GMAC Financial Services Inc. and others are reworking their pay plans to ensure compensation reflects executive performance. They are giving executives more of their compensation in stock and stock options, and spreading pay over a longer period. And they are adopting plans to recapture some pay when bets go bad.

Bailed-out banks act before pay czar announcement

This is the problem w/ compensation if the company doesn't make money there are no profits to pay out. Bonus's should not be in the budget because you don't know that your going to have them. At best their should be a pool that everyone receives.
the second issue is that yu have to decide what you want your organization to do. Until the early 90's commerical banks did not engage in trading they only acted as a fidicuary for thier customers. when the organization has financial guarantees do you want them to engage in risk based business? the answer should be NO.

If you do not doubt it you may have noticed that Citigroup has put their commodity/deriative division Phibro up for sale today over the bonus the head of the company made; $100 million.

They are driven by the desire of current management to show improved profits of about 10% each year so as to sustain share price increases for the shareholders and compensation increases for management ... shareholders want returns on their investment as management wants boosts to their compensation. Excerpt from previous post

Hence, pay plans, bonuses, etc. was not based on profits or performance, increases were based purely on increasing compensation. Today, efforts are underway to re-writie accounting rules to match current circumstances and create appearance of solvency.

A peak in the Santa Monica Mountains has been officially renamed in honor of the Agoura area’s earliest known African-American resident.

The U.S. Board on Geographic Names, a federal body that is part of the U.S. Geological Survey, last month approved the decision to call the landmark Ballard Mountain in memory of homesteader John Ballard. The peak is in the Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area.

To date, the peak that rises 2,000 feet above sea level near Seminole Hot Springs, northeast of the intersection of Kanan Road and Mulholland Highway, has been known as Negro Mountain or Negrohead Mountain. On some older maps, it’s also described using a racial epithet.

Santa Monica peak renamed Ballard Mountain

---

There are many official place-Names containing the word nigger. Examples include:

* Nigger Bill Canyon,
* Nigger Hollow,
* Niggertown Marsh,
* Nigger Head Mountain, located just outside of Burnet, Texas
* "Dead Nigger Creek" in central Texas
* "Nigger Nate Grade" in Temecula, California
* Free Nigger Point, Mississippi
* Free Nigger Point, West Baton Rouge, LA Parish
* "Nigger Head Rock", Pennington Gap, Virginia

The Rude Pundit
Proudly lowering the level of political discourse

10/07/2009
Scenes from the Landscape of a Long War, as Viewed from a Distance:
Meanwhile, over there:
In three weeks in September, there were 42 attacks on humanitarian aid groups in Afghanistan, many of them with improvised explosive devices, according to the Afghanistan Non-Governmental Safety Organization, twice as many as last year.

Afghan Ambassador Said Jawad said that his country needed at least 20,000 more troops to help train Afghani troops. There are currently 87,000 of those after eight years. Jawad said they need 250,000 more.

This is not to mention that "A rocket fired by insurgents in Ghazni province, south of Afghanistan, hit a bus killing two persons and injuring 25 others on Wednesday, a statement of Interior Ministry said." "Two bomb blasts in the south and east Afghanistan left five persons including two Taliban fighters dead on Wednesday." "US-led forces in Afghanistan say they have killed more than 100 members of [the] Taliban in [the] northeast of the conflict-torn country over a period of 48 hours." "American and Afghan troops swept through forested mountains in eastern Afghanistan yesterday, killing 40 militant fighters in a hunt for insurgents responsible for one of the war's deadliest attacks on U.S. troops."

Oh, and by the way, "Two heroin labs were destroyed, from which 306 kg opium were seized and burnt over the past three days in separate operations in northern Badakhshan province...Some 90 tons of poppy seeds, 1,800 kg of opium and 35 tons of ammonium nitrate, which are used for making explosive materials, were found in an operation in Kajaki district of country's poppy growing province Helmand of southern Afghanistan on Oct. 5...One ton of hashish, 10 tons of chemicals for making explosive and weapons were confiscated and a compound, where has been used by militants for making roadside bombs, were destroyed in Garmsir district of Helmand on Oct. 4."

In the U.K., on this eighth anniversary of the invasion of Afghanistan, ostensibly to get Osama bin Laden, 56% of people polled oppose the war. However, in the U.S., 65% said that it's cool that Americans continue to die in Afghanistan for at least another 1-2 years if it will "eliminate the threat of terrorists operating in Afghanistan." Only 49% said that America would be successful in stopping the Taliban.

President Barack Obama has indicated, during his walk in the desert of deliberations, that he will not draw down in Afghanistan in order to concentrate on, you know, finding terrorists, the so-called "Biden option." Indeed, it seems now that the decision everyone is waiting on is how many additional troops he's going to send. Obama pooh-poohed the idea that he was thinking of "doubling down" on Afghanistan as a straw-man argument. But what else would you call it? "Escalation" would probably do. It seems the corrective that Obama may offer to the Bush strategy of ignoring Afghanistan until it was too late is to rewind the clock back to the start of the war and do what some believe we should have done when we were so righteously and innocently seeking vengeance in 2001. But it ain't 2001 anymore.

The Boston Globe columnist and author James Carroll has long been one of the most brutal critics of the war in Afghanistan, even back when such talk was heresy for much of the left - we had to support Afghanistan because it was the good war, in contrast to the bad one in Iraq. He wrote on September 14:

"We broke Iraq and Afghanistan, and now they own us. The main effect of our intervention in both places is that endemic conflicts (which predate our presence) are now being fought with unimaginably more lethal firepower. Especially dangerous is the Taliban’s transformation by its war with America from a crackpot cult with local reach into a mythic resistance force drawing ever wider support." The only thing the Rude Pundit would add is that we're also in the middle of a war between rival drug lords, too, and that ain't ever gonna go well.

This isn't Vietnam. The casualty count was much higher back then. And, wrong-headed as it was strategically to fight in this way, the war in Afghanistan did start with a provocation. But is anyone really convinced anymore that another ten years of battle in Afghanistan will make us one millimeter more secure? And could we maybe think about moving an anti-war movement offline and into the streets?

In Purcellville, Virginia, they learned that hometown boy Stephan Mace was killed. His body was returned yesterday, with five others, to Dover Air Force Base in Delaware. And their deaths made us safer how?

Carroll's ignorance is appalling. Did he forget how the Taliban and AQ came about? Has he read Charlie Wilson's war?
The idea of owning us is a little much. If they had a source of weapons like the Taliban did during their campaign against the USSR I might buy the argument. I don't think the goal is to turn Afghanistan into a Federal jeffersonian Democracy like the US. The short term goal is to keep the Taliban from running the government out, establish a Pashtun theocracy and keep that Pashtun theocracy from overwhelming and accerbating the ethnic situation in Pakistan and Afghanistan. The intermediate goal is going to be to keep Pakistan from using their nuclear weapons period in any fashion. The long term goal is to keep the South Asian countries from turning on one another given their historical animosity.

I know it sounds crazy to talk like this is a chessboard we move around on willy nilly like the gods in Olympus but if these folks start nuking each other its bad for billions of people.

Cash-for-Clunkers By The Numbers
By: Teddy Partridge Tuesday October 6, 2009 7:11 pm

From the November (not yet online) issue of Automobile Magazine, we learn the hard numbers from this summer's Cash-for-Clunkers program.

1: Rank of the Ford Explorer as the most-traded-in clunker.

1: Rank of the Toyota Corolla as the most-often-purchased new car.

$2.878 billion: total cash dispensed

15.8: average mpg rating of the clunkers traded in

24.9: average mpg rating of the cars sold under the program

28: days' supply of Chrysler Corp inventory at the program's end (typical inventory is 60 days)

55: days the program was in effect

$4,170: average clunker rebate

690,114: total number of cash-for-clunkers transactions
http://seminal.firedoglake.com/diary/8782

Let that be a lesson to Republican hacks who wander onto Dylan Ratigan's set and think they can filibuster with non-answers.

Dang. I ain't seen a beatin' like that since Rodney King.

And Republicans can't understand why we just can't get along!