Jack & Jill Politics

EVENING OPEN THREAD IS UP

Traveling some 27,000 miles, African-American journalist Rich Benjamin roamed the United States from 2007 to 2009 exploring a major demographic shift that's attracting remarkably little attention — the flight of white residents from cities and integrated suburbs into cloistered, racially homogeneous enclaves. Tidy communities such as St. George, Utah and Coeur d'Alene, Idaho — places Benjamin calls Whitopias — have grown at triple the rate of America's cities in recent years, raising troubling questions about the country's multiracial cohesion.
The Stanford literature PhD chronicled his adventure in a new book, Searching for Whitopia: An Improbable Journey to the Heart of White America, and spoke with TIME about what he found.

...
You say many Whitopias offer a high quality of life, and tend to perform well on those "Best Places to Live" lists that run in magazines. Do you think people are also drawn to these places specifically by their whiteness?

The major draw to Whitopia is that they're safe communities with good public schools and beautiful natural resources. Those qualities are subconsciously inseparable from race in many Americans' minds. For some people race is a major role, and they said so to my face, but most of the Whitopians I encountered aren't intentionally practicing racial discrimination or self-segregation.

You say Whitopias can form even in the middle of diverse cities. How is that possible?

People don't realize that diversity isn't the same as integration. Blacks and whites in New York, where I live, are as segregated today as in 1910 [based on sociologists' segregation index, which measures how much contact people of differing races have with each other.]

What is the danger Whitopias pose to America as a whole?

You can call me old-fashioned, but I'm an integrationist. A democracy can't function at its optimum unless all members are integrated as full members.

A community full of like-minded people tends to enforce their own view of the world and closes off opposing viewpoints. You can go to parties in New York City where the liberal smugness is intolerable, because they're only hearing liberal viewpoints. On the Whitopian conservative side, it's spinning out of control. Look at the teabagger movement, where people are concerned their taxes are going to be wasted on minorities and illegal immigrants. Same with the movement that says Obama is not a citizen.

America's Booming White Enclaves

the 21st century version of SUNDOWN TOWNS?

Sadly the old sundown towns never went away and now there is rapid growth of new ones.

Breastfeeding infant labeled obese, denied health insurance Add to Hotlist

by desmoinesdem, Mon Oct 12, 2009 at 09:47:31 AM EST

Breastfed babies can be long and lean, short and fat, or anywhere in between. But I never heard of an insurance company citing a breastfeeding infant's "obesity" as a pre-existing condition before reading this story from the Denver Post:

By the numbers, [four-month-old] Alex [Lange] is in the 99th percentile for height and weight for babies his age. Insurers don't take babies above the 95th percentile, no matter how healthy they are otherwise. [...]

Bernie and Kelli Lange tried to get insurance for their growing family with Rocky Mountain Health Plans when their current insurer raised their rates 40 percent after Alex was born. They filled out the paperwork and awaited approval, figuring their family is young and healthy. But the broker who was helping them find new insurance called Thursday with news that shocked them.

" 'Your baby is too fat,' she told me," Bernie said.

Up until then, the Langes had been happy with Alex's healthy appetite and prodigious weight gain. His pediatrician had never mentioned any weight concerns about the baby they call their "happy little chunky monkey." [...]

"I'm not going to withhold food to get him down below that number of 95," Kelli Lange said. "I'm not going to have him screaming because he's hungry."

Good call, Mrs. Lange. There is "no evidence to support 'dieting' or substituting other foods or liquids for human milk to reduce weight gain."

It's outrageous for an insurance company to use Alex's weight at four months of age as an excuse to deny coverage. Not that exclusions for other "pre-existing conditions" (such as a benign heart murmur that a child would grow out of without treatment) are any more defensible.

Also, the Lange family wouldn't have been shopping around for new coverage if their previous carrier hadn't raised their rates by 40 percent after Alex was born. I remember our insurance premiums went up quite a bit after our second child was born, but I don't think it was by that much. Then again, they went up 10 percent last year even without any new babies or health problems in our family.


http://www.mydd.com/story/2009/10/12/94731/520#...

The alcohol has really done its damage to this nasty looking Christopher Hitchens. He looks like he smells really putrid all the time.

It has been well documented that the Medicare Trust Fund will be out of money in about 9 years and that the Social Security Trust Fund will be depleted in about 25 to 30 years. But that is not the only problem facing future retirees. Public pension funds are underfunded.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/st...

Glenn Greenwald
Monday Oct. 12, 2009 05:13 EDT
Gay issues, the "fringe left" and the liberal veal pen

(Updated below - Update II - Update III - Update IV)

Thousands of Americans marched in Washington yesterday to demand a fulfillment of Obama's long-stated and oft-repeated commitments on issues of gay equality, in what the NYT calls "the largest demonstration for gay rights here in nearly a decade." That protest was preceded the day before by a virtual consensus 0f gay rights activists expressing extreme disappointment and frustration with Obama's speech to the Human Rights Campaign on Saturday night, where he merely repeated the same pledges he's been making for two years with no added specificity or time commitment.

About those protests -- and Democratic and progressive criticisms of Obama generally -- NBC's John Harwood "reported" the following last night:

Sure but if you look at the polling, Barack Obama is doing well with 90% or more of Democrats so the White House views this opposition as really part of the "internet left fringe" Lester. And for a sign of how seriously the White House does or doesn’t take this opposition, one adviser told me today those bloggers need to take off their pajamas, get dressed and realize that governing a closely divided country is complicated and difficult.

In the updates to her post about all of this last night, Pam Spaulding notes with exasperation the excuses and denials flying around everywhere, with all sorts of people expressing doubt that anyone in the Obama White House could possibly be capable of such an ugly sentiment, particularly in light of the President's eloquent, on-the-record commitment to gay equality (other than marriage). As is true for all instances of reckless and petty uses of anonymity like this, it's impossible to know how reflective it is of administration sentiment generally -- was this a senior White House official or some obscure low-level aide? -- but how could anyone who has paid any attention at all to the way Washington functions be doubtful that this sentiment is pervasive or find this at all unusual?

Just this weekend, a "top gay Democrat close to Obama" was granted anonymity by Politico to dismiss administration critics on gay issues as "naive." Just six weeks ago, an equally cowardly "senior White House adviser" hiding behind anonymity told told The Washington Post that the only people who cared about the public option in health care were "the left of the left" -- those same fringe, irrational extremists. In June, an anonymous "friend of John Brennan's" told Jane Mayer in The New Yorker that the people who prevented Brennan's nomination as CIA Director (because of his support for some of the most radical Bush Terrorism policies) were nothing more than "a few Cheeto-eating people in the basement working in their underwear who write blogs." Last year, "Democrats on the Hill" anonymously dismissed opposition to telecom immunity and warrantless eavesdropping as nothing more than a fringe issue being exploited by Chris Dodd for his presidential campaign, and then anonymously warned Dodd to abandon his left-wing obstructionism if he wanted to resume good standing in the Democratic caucus. Can anyone miss the pattern?

Every standard form of Washington behavior is on display here: reporters like Harwood with absolutely no standards who grant anonymity to pass along playground insults. Obama officials -- part of the Most Transparent Administration Ever -- who seem incapable of speaking about anything without cowardly hiding behind anonymity, even for on-the-record briefings. Snide, Fox-News-mimicking dismissals from the Democratic establishment of any discontent or criticism of the President as coming from the fringe, Far Left. And particular disdain for any instruments -- blogs, marches and protests -- which the White House cannot control, which exist independent of the tightly coordinated, Rahm-dominated "veal pen" messaging system to which so many leading progressive organizations have meekly submitted themselves in order to ensure their own continued access, funding and future career options within the Democratic establishment.

The only thing remarkable about the comments Harwood passed on is that anyone would be surprised by them. In that regard, the furor over Obama's complete inaction on gay issues vividly illustrates the same elements that shape political controversies in virtually every other area -- from war to civil liberties to health care and beyond:

* Pretty words and inspiring pageantry from the President, accompanied by endless inaction or contradictory policies;
*


* Hordes of people who believe in their heart of hearts that the administration is led by such a nice, just and likable man that it couldn't possibly be guilty of anything worse than a little benign political calculation (just as the evangelical, Texas-swaggering Bush did for Red State loyalists, the urbane, charming and highly intelligent Obama possesses all the cultural markers of a good and decent person for Blue State loyalists, and thus simply can't be capable of anything malicious or destructive -- there's a reason Bill Maher tried to remind liberals: "He's your president, not your boyfriend");
*


* Organizations (exemplified by the truly dreadful HRC) that suck funding out of progressives and serve as liberal validators of administration conduct whose overaching devotion is to the Democratic Party and the administration rather than the causes they claim to promote (fortunately, civil liberties groups are the exception, as they have remained steadfast, unapologetic, independent and principled in harshly criticizing Obama); and,
*


* Deeply personalized scorn directed at those who try to hold Democrats and the Obama administration accountable -- since they're the ones who control all branches of government with huge majorities -- rather than devote all their energies to the cheap and easy partisan task of ridiculing and blaming a marginalized, impotent conservative movement which is a small minority and currently wields no power in Washington.

I have no idea who the person is who said this to Harwood or how influential or obscure s/he might be, but whoever it is, that person is anything but unusual or aberrational. Quite the opposite.

It's often forgotten or obscured, but the central political fact now is that the Democratic Party controls everything in Washington -- from the branches of government to favors doled out to lobbyists to the policies that Congress and the President enact. Wars that are fought and bills that are or are not passed and policies that are maintained are, by definition, Democratic actions. The dreaded Right can't dictate or stop anything. That's the burden of having massive majorities in all areas -- everything that happens is the result of what the Democratic Party does, and that's why the divisions and conflicts that truly matter are ones with the party itself. The "right v. left" and even "Democrat v. GOP" drama dominates most of our discourse, yet at this point it is a distracting and largely irrelevant food fight. It's the Democrats who have won the last two elections by large margins and wield all the power, and increasingly the defining conflict is between those whose overarching allegiance is to Obama and the Party as ends in themselves, and those who see those things as mere means to more important ends.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/10/...

I keep beating the same horse over and and over. This is Booman's take. Booman was one of the three bloggers that allegedly kept you sane during the primary and general elections"

So Bored...
by BooMan
Mon Oct 12th, 2009 at 02:54:42 PM EST

"My list-servs are blowing up over the report from CNBC correspondent John Harwood that some anonymous source in the White House criticized the blogosphere and said some of us "need to take off the pajamas, get dressed and realize that governing a closely divided country is complicated and difficult.”
I couldn't be more bored.

You have the spectacle of a phalanx of left-wing bloggers who are bashing the crap out of the administration on every issue under the Sun. And, then, when asked about it, some frustrated White House adviser pushes back a bit. So what?

I thought the national press corp held the world record for fragile egos until I started hanging around with bloggers."

Booman, Nate Silver and Al Giordano are still there, still centered, consistent. They have not given up on this President. I don't get why post-election, you have pledged your allegiance with the poutrage club.

You need to WOMAN UP and look yourself in the mirror.

WEE SEE YOU.

Damn!!! telll it!!

"He's your president, not your boyfriend"

My my...sooo you looking for a BF?

ain't no one else..that is your only warped reality


damn.. boyfriend?

I have no sexual interest in the President of the United States. My reply was directed at Rikykah because I'm baffled by why she chooses the counsel of the people she hated during the election over the counsel of the people she respected.

It is very admirable that you see your job as to run interference and protect Rikyrah from any criticism, regardless of the merits. I think she is a very strong and secure woman and does not need your help.

I'm not running interference for Rikyrah. She can take care of herself. I'm just responding to the rabid, fevered, angry demands that everyone think like you Obama devotees. I don't think she or many other people here "hated" the people you listed during the campaign. There's at least one thing in common between them, Rikyrah, myself, and most other people- our political convictions may not be the same in all respects, but what he have is common is that we've maintained them. They haven't changed. You extreme Obama devotees can't say the same. That's what you all don't seem to understand. Any criticism of Obama is driven by the political convictions we've had long, long before we even heard of Barack Obama. Why should they change now?

"Rikyrah, myself, and most other people- our political convictions may not be the same in all respects, but what he have is common is that we've maintained them."

Bull. None of y'all represent core beliefs...you ALL waver and demonstrate NO conviction....whichEVER the MSM blows is where yall at.

We do? Document. It's one thing to just come up with "We'll say they're in thrall to the "MSM"...yeah, that's the ticket". It's another thing altogether to show proof. Document.

read the threads...it is a very clear and consistent pattern.

Yes, it is a clear and consistent pattern, based on long-held political convictions, rather than on who is doing what is being criticized. People used to call that integrity.

This is not integrity. It is WAFFLING whichEVER way the wind blows and taking a stance based on the talkingpoint of the day/week.

Again, document.

Greenwald has presented no concrete evidence that the Obama WH has said this or any of the comments he presented in his piece. Everything is based on anonymous sources.

According to Digby, John Harwood has a habit of talking slick about the left, so it's possible that he said this crap himself. So, this begs the question: Why is the left taking Harwood's comment as gospel? I think I know: Whatever fits the "Obama ain't shyte" meme.

here's a reason Bill Maher tried to remind liberals: "He's your president, not your boyfriend"

And someone needs to tell Maher, Greenwald et al that he's not your n---er, either.

The larger question should be -- so what?

it must be a slow week for news.

"Hordes of people who believe in their heart of hearts that the administration is led by such a nice, just and likable man that it couldn't possibly be guilty of anything worse than a little benign political calculation (just as the evangelical, Texas-swaggering Bush did for Red State loyalists, the urbane, charming and highly intelligent Obama possesses all the cultural markers of a good and decent person for Blue State loyalists, and thus simply can't be capable of anything malicious or destructive -- there's a reason Bill Maher tried to remind liberals: "He's your president, not your boyfriend");"

You know, all these people had to do was tell Obama that he only had 6 months out of the 4-8 years he'll be president to forefill his gay rights promises before they kneecap him and this would've saved everyone a bunch of headaches.

The president should be elected by how he will govern the country, not for what's he going to do for me and my collective.... Maybe they need to understand that Afgan war, economy and Iran are a little more important
than a gay man or woman in the miltary.. Please, your really not that important.... the rest of humanity has the number in front of you.

I know. He has done some smaller things and he is going to sign the hate crimes bill when it passes which is this week or next week I think. Yes he hasn't taken on DADT or DOMA but what did Bush do for gay issues in his 8 years. I know they want him to sign an executive order to stop the dismissal of gays in the military but Obama realizes that if he does that, it will make it harder for congress to change the law and then the whole thing is left up to the whim of the next President. On DOMA, the votes aren't there yet.

If you want DADT and DOMA changed, the President is with you. Do you know how your representative in congress feels on the issue? Have you called them? What have you done to raise awareness of the issue in your district? The President used his bully pulpit to raise the issue, what are these bloggers doing to raise the issue outside of their readership and get these people energized to push their congressperson on it? Polls show the public is supportive of repealing DADT but they need to be energized.

Are we nothing more than a collective of gays, whites, straights or blacks.... I don't think anyone's keeping them from marching, or buying a gun or worshiping a God of their choice, I don't care if he has a boyfriend or she has a girlfriend. It's no business of mine, nor any business of theirs what i do. Get over it and live your life and quit complaining and begging for governement help. As far as gay's in the military they have been there for a long, long time. Not everybodies gonna like you, and you can't legislate that someone has to like you, and as far as a hate crime... a crime is a crime why should you have speical treatment under the law because your different... If I rob a gay man and a straight man arent they both the same.... even if i robbed the gay guy because i don't like a gay man and robbed the staright guy, I comitted a crime, a robbery. because i needed money, Just another way to seperate us into collectives that we then fight amongst ourselves. So that we beg and plead for governement intervention....

"a crime is a crime why should you have speical treatment under the law because your different."

When you are killed simply because you belong to a group, whether it be race or gay, independent of an individual act...that is a terroristic act. Cause it is about THAT group!! The killing is meant to terrorize a GROUP of people.

It ain't about what you did...it is about what you represent.

I agree robbery is robbery. BUT if your robber victim is singled out on the basis of race, or they would not be robbed. That is twice as wrong..cause ain;t shyt they can no bout their race. They can't change that.

And THAT is WRONG...doubly wrong...cause folks can't change their race...even if those that have a deviant sexual interest can not portray that.



Hate crimes are JUST under the law.

HATE crimes are about Terrorizing a specific GROUP of people//


IOW's the act of violence is not random...it is solely about that race.

"Just another way to seperate us into collectives that we then fight amongst ourselves."

You mean fight against the hegemony you want to maintain.

"So that we beg and plead for governement intervention...."

As black person, I'm glad there was and is government intervention, for obvious reasons. See? We have different interests. I'm over here and you're over there for good reason.

Naw you are jusr illogical

And then there's this from Andy Serwer who has a different perspective. He says:

we should be skeptical of the anonymous White House adviser’s claim about the “Internet left fringe,” in keeping with the blogosphere’s broader crusade against media use of anonymous sources.

Edit: Greenwald, Hamsher and Sirota can take a flying leap out of high building as far as I care. The President can come up with a cure for cancer and they will still complain he didn't do it fast enough.

Speaking of Hamsher, it seems as though she's saying that the WH has no right to question Harwood. She writes:

But the White House is now openly challenging the accuracy of Harwood’s reporting. Obama adviser Dan Pfeiffer emails Greg Sargent and refutes Harwood’s claims:

That sentiment does not reflect White House thinking at all, we’ve held easily a dozen calls with the progressive online community because we believe the online communities can often keep the focus on how policy will affect the American people rather than just the political back-and-forth.

The White House just called into question the reporting of a senior White House reporter for the New York Times and NBC News, and it is being interpreted as such all over the internet.

So, because Harwood is a senior White House reporter for the New York Times and NBC News, he's above reproach? Chile, please! The Obama Administration said they were gonna "Call 'Em Out!" and that includes Harwood and anyone who lies on them. The irony in her subtle "How dare you!" is that this is what the left has wanted all along. But as soon as the WH claps back at a source that fits the left blogosphere's "Obama ain't Shyte" meme, they whine.

"Greenwald, Hamsher and Sirota can take a flying leap out of high building as far as I care. The President can come up with a cure for cancer and they will still complain he didn't do it fast enough."

Yes! yes! yes!

The Greenwald/Hamsher/Sirota Triangle is out in full force because they smell blood in the water.

Rapes Reported At Brad Henry's Governor's Mansion: Former Chef, Gardener Accused



OKLAHOMA CITY — Prosecutors are investigating claims that the former chef and chief groundskeeper at the Oklahoma governor's mansion raped female prison inmates assigned to maintain the mansion grounds.

Neither man has been charged but both have been fired from their jobs.

State Department of Corrections officials say at least three women who were inmates at the Hillside Community Corrections Center in Oklahoma City contend they were sexually assaulted while working at the mansion between March 2008 and January 2009.

Janet Roloff, an attorney for one of the women, said Monday her client was held down by one man while the other raped her.

Roloff says her client did not report the alleged assault until she completed her sentence because she feared retribution.


Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/12/brad-h...

Wow, it's kind of quiet around here today

I saw The View episode.

*big sigh*

Imma call Fidel right now!

Told you, she was terrible. I hope she doesn't come back.

who was the guest host today

Rachel Campos-Duffy. She was on The Real World San Francisco. She's the Cuban version of Elisabeth.

What is with the view giving reality show contestants a platform? If they really were brave they would invite Puck on.


LOL, that just made me laugh thinking about it.

I know who you're talking about

Today's Conversation Follow-Up to Good Hair: Still Being Mocked & Who Went To See It http://bit.ly/4Eus4b

For my JJP peeps.

Get your free credit report, for real... Not the scam, or the offers before you can get your report. Don't get ripped off...

The Color of Money: Michelle Singletary, Personal Finance Columnist
Washington Post, Sunday, October 11, 2009

Underlining 'Free' in 'Free Credit Report'

I just did yesterday at annualcreditreport.com. They want to charge for the scores. I know what I've paid and haven't paid on time. It's that scandalous score that makes or breaks us that they charge for - pisses me off. Have a good day.

Tyren, read the article. You should NOT have to pay for your credit report. It is FREE once a year from each of the agencies.

You can stagger the FREE reports throughout the year so that you will have an idea of what your credit report looks like.

Seriously, you DO NOT HAVE TO PAY for your credit report. Skip all the offers, and get to the FREE report.

Hey Isonprize,
Let me clarify, I got the reports from all 3 - Transunion, Experian and Equifax. My issue is all of them charging for the FICO number (300-850). For instance, 2 yrs ago my number was in 680's. I'm told due to previously liened student loan (since paid off) and high cc use/credit allowed. All this time trying to reach 700. That was the number we've been sold as "good enough." Now it seems all the banks etc want 750 WTF. A brotha can't win (channeling Michael in The Wiz.)
That's a discussion I'd like to see here amongst our Finance gurus. Our being beholden to FICO for credit, housing, cars, jobs etc...

Singletary is the SHYT!!

Four financial institutions sevice 56% of the outstanding mortgages in America. Most of the mortgages they service aren't theirs. This servicing the mortgages pay them a pretty penny. They are paid on the what this right is worh. The right is tied to how long the mortage will remain intact, i.e. how long people keep paying them until they sell the underlying house, refinance, et al.
It has become a game valuing them. It is one more problem w/ our financial system.

"Four financial institutions sevice 56% of the outstanding mortgages in America."

Wow. That is a helluva statement.

I am going to see Maxwell in concert tonight, here in Dallas. I need a break, time to just have some FUN!

I think I am going to let my inner 15-year-old out for the night in honor of Max. BUT it will be a dignified 15-year-old.

Y'all know I'm lying. LOL

Pretty wings..My PRETTY wings!

have fun!!

We'd all love to be 15 again listening to him sing!!

Enjoy it!!!

Have fun!

I wish I was there with you. Have a GREAT time. H was phenomenal when I saw him in July!

Let me just state for the record: I LOVE JIMMY SMITS. I'd rock his boat ANY DAY!

"W.H. showcasing Hispanic music"
http://www.politico.com/politico44/perm/1009/tu...

The first couple is hosting a concert Tuesday evening to highlight Hispanic music at the White House, according to ...

... guidance distributed to reporters. Among the performers who will grace the South Lawn: Marc Anthony, Jimmy Smits, Pete Escovedo, Gloria Estefan, José Feliciano, George Lopez, Thalía, Tito El Bambino and the groups Aventura and Los Lobos, according to guidance distributed to reporters.

Repost: http://muzikalthoughts.blogspot.com/2009/10/los...

And of course I'm still doing research about my hair, so what are some of your favorite hair blogs?

http://www.afrobella.com/ is one of my faves.