Jack & Jill Politics

Biglaw attorneys frequently complain about how hard it is to date given the amount of hours they devote to work. It would appear that attorneys at a small immigration firm in Chicago had a similar dilemma. Perhaps with thoughts of Maggie Gyllenhaal’s legal secretary role in Secretary, Samir Zia Chowhan of Chowhan Law put an ad on Craigslist in the “Adult Gigs” section for a secretary with benefits. From Legal Profession Blog:

Loop law firm looking to hire am [sic] energetic woman for their open secretary/legal assistant position. Duties will include general secretarial work, some paralegal work and additional duties for two lawyers in the firm. No experience required, training will be provided. Generous annual salary and benefits will be provided, including medical, dental, life, disability, 401(k) etc. If interested, please send current resume and a few pictures along with a description of your physical features, including measurements. We look forward to meeting you.

Many of you will recall that Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan waged a war against Craigslist’s Erotic Services section earlier this year saying that there was rampant prostitution there. By her doing, the section was taken down and replaced by this “Adult Gigs” section which is supposedly more closely monitored for illegal activity. But in our surfing of the section, we saw quite a few ads like Chowhan’s and ones like this: “I’m seeking a young lady who would like to have some fun with me, possibly on a regular basis, in exchange for some help with bills or whatever.”

At least Chowhan was a little more discreet in his May 2009 ad. But when one woman responded, he made it clear why he had listed the job in the Adult Gigs section. He defines “additional duties” after the jump.

The correspondence was made public when a complaint was filed against Chowhan last week for the ad and for neglect and misrepresentation in two immigration cases. Chowhan wrote to the woman who applied for the position:

As this is posted in the “adult gigs” section, in addition to the legal work, you would be required to have sexual interaction with me and my partner, sometimes together sometimes separate. This part of the job would require sexy dressing and flirtatious interaction with me and my partner, as well as sexual interaction. You will have to be comfortable doing this with us.

Since that’s part of the job, that should be part of the interview process. Obviously.

(Above The Law) Lawyer of the Day Last Week: Samir Zia Chowhan

---

Moral to story? Understand what "Adult Gig" means on Craiglist.

Phillips - the dude with the 22 year old JUMP OFF that stalked his family, was fired at ESPN.

I think it happened because someone pointed out the hypocrisy of how ESPN fire the Brotha, who just hugged upon the White Girl without blinking, yet this clown, was only 'suspended' at first.

He's going to "rehab" now according to his agent. LOL..so expect him to be a FoxSports anchor by next baseball season.

Phillips had to go. Like most men who get themselves in these type of situations there was always a pattern of infidelity and his wife was putting up with it. Unfortunately, for him he starting messing with a psycho. Who was the brotha rikyrah? I missed that situation.

Harold Reynolds

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2007...

Damn, I did miss Harold Reynolds after that.

Thanks Miranda.
Damn, Reynolds covered baseball so I didn't even notice. That's not really my sport. You can't be too friendly at work. All it takes is an accusation. And if you are a brotha and it's a white female. Forget about it. Just turn in your badge and keep it moving. I'm very careful how I conduct myself with women at work. Perception is reality.

Co-sign.

A bill to be introduced in Congress by a key ally of President Barack Obama would make it easier for the US government to seize control of troubled financial institutions that are considered too big to be allowed to fail, The New York Times reported.

Citing a senior administration official, the newspaper said the measure would be proposed this week by Representative Barney Frank, chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, after extensive consultations with Treasury Department officials.

The legislation would make it easier for the government to throw out the financial company's management, wipe out the shareholders and change the terms of existing loans held by the institution, the report said.

New Bill to Make Seizure of US Companies Easier: Report

Nouriel Roubini: Big Crash Coming
By Dave Nadig

Dr. Nouriel Roubini, professor of economics and international business at the Stern School of Business at NYU and chairman of RGE Monitor, is perhaps best known for his prescient predictions of the financial market collapse in 2005.

Dr. Roubini will be the keynote speaker at IndexUniverse’s upcoming “Inside Commodities” conference on Nov. 4 at the New York Stock Exchange. We sat down with Dr. Roubini ahead of the conference to take his temperature on global markets, the role of oil (NYSEArca:USO - News) and gold (NYSEArca:GLD - News) and the impact of regulation.

Index Universe (IU.com): You’ve said that you’re worried we’re already sowing the seeds of the next crisis. Where do you see that most directly?

Dr. Nouriel Roubini (Roubini):Well in commodities, I look at oil prices. They fell from $145 last summer, came down to $30 earlier this year and now they’re back close to $80. But if I look at the fundamentals of demand and supply, demand is down to 2005 levels, supply and inventories are at all-time highs. In my view, the movement in oil prices is not fully justified by the fundamentals.

There are improving fundamentals. There is a global recovery. But that justifies oil going from $30 to maybe $50. I think the other $30 is all speculative demand feeding on it—speculators and herding behavior. Last year, when oil was at $145, that killed the global economy. I worry that oil is going to go up above $100 for reasons that have nothing to do with the fundamentals of supply and demand. Oil at $100 would have the same negative effects on the global economy as oil did at $145 last year.

Last year, when oil was at $145, the global economy was still growing. Right now it has collapsed, and is recovering. Oil pushing above $100 would have nasty, negative real trade effects and real disposable-income effects on all importing countries:U.S., Europe, Japan, China, India; all the countries that were hit by the oil shock last year. So that’s an element that is in my view totally speculative, and dangerous to the global economy.

IU.com:Is that true elsewhere?

Roubini: I could make a similar argument for other commodity prices. In my view, rising commodity prices are not justified by the fundamentals.

There’s a huge bubble, because we have zero rates in the U.S., zero rates around the world and a huge carry trade. Everyone is borrowing at zero interest rates in dollars and getting a capital gain because the dollar is weakening, so they are borrowing at negative rates. And then they invest in risky assets:commodities, equities, credit. We’re creating a bigger bubble than before.

It’s going to go crashing down, in an ugly way. That’s the basics of the argument.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Nouriel-Roubini-B...

I think Roubini's concern here is valid. The price of oil will absolutely have an impact on the recovery. And speculators, who anticipate fundamentals in the future, could be too far ahead of reality.

But he is not known as Dr. Doom for nothing. I don't know a lot about him but I did catch his post on March 9 of this year (which was the very day of the stock market low) which also painted a very gloomy picture. This Forbes repost is a copy of Roubini's original 3/9 post on his own web site:
http://www.forbes.com/2009/03/11/recession-depr...

In that he "argued that another bear market rally may occur some time in the second or third quarter of this year and may end up like the previous six" , but our current rally since March 9 has more strength than he imagined possible. He goes pessimistic on the VERY DAY of the low and the SP500 is something like 60% higher since then. Even with a 30% correction in the market this month, Roubini is still wildly inaccurate.

He was concerned about global depression just a few days before that:
http://www.forbes.com/2009/03/04/global-recessi...

So I think his observations have merit but his conclusions frequently leave out other factors.

"IU.com:You’ve been clear that you think most assets are currently overvalued. Do you think there are opportunities for investors in certain asset classes or certain geographies?

Roubini: Well, there is a wall of liquidity chasing assets. That liquidity can chase those assets higher for the time being until the huge carry trade—the asset bubble and the wall of liquidity—comes crashing down. You can still have all the risky assets going higher. Of course, the higher they go, the more they diverge from fundamentals, and the riskier the situation becomes. But eventually, if the recovery of the economy is going to be anemic, sub-par, below-trend and U-shaped, there is going to be a correction. And therefore my view is to stay away from risky assets. Stay in liquid assets. I don’t know when the correction is going to occur, it could be a while longer, but eventually it will be a pretty ugly correction, across many different asset classes."

This guy was correct about the first crash. I hope he is not 2/2 because if he is Obama can forget about a second term.

Roubini was on all morning w/ CNBC.Yet this is all the video?
http://www.cnbc.com/id/15840232?video=130815878...
hs entry at7am
http://www.cnbc.com/id/15840232?video=130822409...
this is when he left right before 9am
http://www.cnbc.com/id/33477456
this is the print.

Malcolm X was bisexual. Get over it.

So what is the evidence for Malcolm X's bisexual orientation? Most people remember him as the foremost US black nationalist leader of the 1960s. Despite the downsides of his anti-white rhetoric, black separatism and religious superstition, he was America's leading spokesperson for black consciousness, pride and self-help. He spoke with fierce eloquence and defiance for black upliftment and freedom.

Malcolm's complex, changing sexuality was never part of the narrative of his life until the publication of Bruce Perry's acclaimed biography, Malcolm – The Life of a Man Who Changed Black America. Perry is a great admirer and defender of Malcolm X, but not an uncritical one. He wrote the facts, based on interviews with over 420 people who knew Malcolm personally at various stages in his life, from childhood to his tragic assassination in 1965. His book is not a hatchet job, as some black critics claim, it is the exact opposite. Perry presents an honest, rounded story of Malcolm's life and achievements which, in my opinion, is far more moving and humane than the better known but somewhat hagiographic The Autobiography of Malcolm X: As Told To Alex Haley.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamer...

I don't know what to think of this. I'll take the wait and see attitude.

"Malcolm X was bisexual."

This is not uncommon for incarcerated males. X did time. Nowadays, they call it on the down low. Men who have sex with men but live lives with spouses and kids. Some have said they love women but enjoy sex with men.

Oh, but this is easy. The reason "we" don't believe it is expressed in his Ossie Davis' eulogy: "Malcolm was our manhood, our living, black manhood! This was his meaning to his people. And, in honoring him, we honor the best in ourselves."

And manhood means "straight." Manhood means "no bitchass-ness." Right? And a man can't be a "real man" if he ever loved other men, right?

I'm not saying I agree with the sentiment, because I don't. This is just real talk, and we might as well say what we really mean, right?

His sexual orientation is utterly irrelevant to me. Was he effective? Did he try to make life better for African-Americans? Now *that's* what is relevant to me. Even I'm unnerved at really flamboyant displays of femininity by men because I see it as stereotypical portrayals. But when I hear men feeling disgust at anything remotely described as feminine behavior in a man, I can't help but to think that the person so repulsed just has some hate for women. Like there's some part of us that's inherently evil.

But Malcolm X was none of those things. He may have merely been Bisexual. He was still strong. Still eloquent. Still down for Black folks. That's what matters to me.

Anything else?

*shrug*

Doesn't lessen my respect for him as a person, and it most certainly doesn't diminish him as a man.

Call me when they say Malcolm X is a Republican...'cause I don't believe Malcolm X was bisexual.

...and I don't believe Malcolm X was a Republican, either.

Carry on.

"I don't believe Malcolm X was bisexual.

...and I don't believe Malcolm X was a Republican"

co-signing

didn't believe it when it was first posted here, and still don't.

I believe it.

Do you believe it because what you have read or just because you feel something like that could be true?

I feel that it is something that could be true. I read Perry's book, and I agree that it is problematic, but what isn't problematic is Malcolm's tenure as a sex worker. I can imagine what steps he took to become one. Just because one is a sex worker doesn't mean that s/he are distanced from what they are doing, because it can be both pleasure and payment.

If black British gays are looking for s/heroes, well and good. But sometimes white British--and American--gays protest too much. Some tend to separate the hero from the people they spoke for, so that they don't have to deal with them. Would they have acknowledged our folks in their lifetimes? One wonders. I have to visit Cannick's web page to read her piece again, but I have to disagree with some of what she says.

I think the issue that some people are having is that they believe this "outing" was done to diminish Malcolm's legacy. Now if him being a sex worker is true that is not dismissible but I don't think it diminishes his legacy.

To me, it humanized Malcolm. It doesn't make any difference to me whether he was bisexual or not. He's still Malcolm.

That's how I feel. It doesn't matter to me either way. He's still greatness to me.

This was posted on The Root, but I just don't buy it. When searching for the book, I came upon this one site that has me even more skeptical...

http://www.jtf.org/america/america.malcolm.x.ho...

If, and only if true, it wouldn't bother me, though I'd still give it the side eye...especially after browsing the above site I listed!

I would assume when Nation of Islam and Malcolm X became enemies the NOI would have flooded the streets with these gay "facts." So I'm not too sure about this one.

I don't believe that shit at all. And this is from Jasmyne Cannick

A White Gays Guide on How to Deal with the Black Community for Dummies: Chapter 11- Leave the Sexuality of Historic Black Leaders Alone

Apparently, it’s Black History Month in the U.K. and who better to hear from on the subject that a white gay man because of course there are no Black people in the U.K. qualified to speak on the subject. And what better way to honor the history of Black people than to suggest that El-Hajj Malik El-Shabazz, more commonly referred to as Malcolm X, was bisexual.

Now there are so many things wrong with this, I don’t know where to start.

To begin, that a news publication would look to someone who is not Black to write on the importance and relevance of Black History Month is a bit perplexing. It’s even more problematic when the author has no intention of honoring or respecting the history of Black people but would rather use the platform to further push the cause of white gays, because really, that’s what Black History Month is all about.

Second, it can’t be overlooked that most white people, gay or otherwise, have never been fans of Malcolm X. Let’s face it, he’s always been a little to controversial for them. They much preferred Black people’s “non-violent” Civil Rights Movement to the “by any means necessary” method that Malcolm X subscribed to at one time. So I am not surprised that 45 years after the murder of Malcolm X, they are still finding ways to smear his name.

But what I am surprised by is the continued audacity that white gay people have when it comes to Black people.

And I quote:

“Malcolm X’s bisexuality is more than just a question of truth and historical fact. There has never been any black person of similar global prominence and recognition who has been publicly known to be gay or bisexual. Young black lesbian, gay and bisexual people can, like their white counterparts, often feel isolated, guilty and insecure about their sexuality. They could benefit from positive, high-achieving role models, to give them confidence and inspiration. Who better than Malcolm X? He inspired my human rights activism and was a trailblazer in the black freedom struggle. He can inspire other LGBT people too.”

It’s clear the author knows little about Malcolm X or what he stood for because Malcolm X would have never written such an article about someone’s alleged sexuality to further the cause. It’s also clear that the author knows little about being Black, I mean how could he, he’s white. To insinuate that Malcolm X was both closeted and bisexual and missed the opportunity to inspire Black gay people because of it is as ludicrous as the idea of a white person trying to explain to me the history of Black people. I am both Black and lesbian and let me tell you, Malcolm X still continues to inspire me and it has nothing to do with his sexuality.

Suggesting that Malcolm X is bisexual is going to do nothing to mend relationships between white gays and Black people, if anything, the author just made that division a deeper.

Even if Malcolm X was bisexual, of what relevance is it to us today? None.

“Perhaps it is unintentional but Black History Month sometimes feels like Straight Black History Month.”

I’m sorry, but sleeping with Black people, befriending Black people, and listening to Black music, doesn’t make you Black. It just means that you’re having great sex, you have good friends, and that you listen to excellent music. Period. So I find it hard to believe that for a white person Black History Month feels like Straight Black History Month.

White gay people need to go back to the drawing board when it comes to Blacks and take some other Black people with them. The kind of Blacks who they aren’t sleeping with and who will have no problem saying to them, you might not want to right an article entitled “Malcolm X is bisexual. Get over it.” I’m just saying.

I guess I’ll just be thankful for the small things. Like the fact that the author and the paper that published his ridiculousness are both in the U.K. and not America. See we don’t play that shit here and unless our white gay marriage zealots want to see a repeat of California’s Proposition 8, they’ll heed my words and leave historic Black leaders and their sexuality alone.

And I feel the same!

Good Post. I consider Malcom X one of my heros - probably my favorite and greatest hero. This investigation into his sexuality seems a bit oppurtunistic. Malcom was ahead of his time and was one of the greatest Pan-Africanist. And it is true that white folks have never been comfortable with him because of his positions that refused to submit to Eurocentric worldviews or white folks desperate desire for black passivity.

Although I support gay marriage, I'm tired of those in the Gay Rights Movement using the Civil Rights Movement (and its figures) to enhance their cause. When they do this, they show an overt disrespect for black people, our history and leaders because what they fought for, compares nothing to what gay activits are fighting for now. I think stuff like this pushes more black people away from their cause.

your comment warrants a post. You raised multiple relevant points.

So I don't get it. Jasmyne talked about the relationship between whites/white gay people and black people but didn't address the content of the article. "Leave historic Black leaders and their sexuality alone." She made it into an entirely different issue. Lots of people have been "outed." I don't think anyone is immune to that. If there is sufficient evidence that Malcolm X was a bisexual lets hear the evidence and let people make their own assessments. If these allegations are true it doesn't change Malcolm's standing in my eyes.

YES WE CAN
After Six Years, Center Stage Again YANKEES WIN THE ALCS

After a six-year absence, Derek Jeter and the Yankees are back in the World Series, vanquishing the Los Angeles Angels on Sunday, 5-2, to win the American League Championship Series, four games to two.

It is the 40th pennant for the Yankees, who will host the defending champion Philadelphia Phillies in Game 1 of the World Series in the Bronx on Wednesday. Mariano Rivera was on the mound when the Yankees clinched, striking out Gary Matthews Jr. for the final out.

For Jeter, Rivera, Jorge Posada and Andy Pettitte, who won Game 6, this is their seventh World Series team in New York and first since 2003. It is the first trip for Alex Rodriguez, the sixth-year Yankee, who hit .429 with three home runs in the series.

Rodriguez and Mark Teixeira embraced Jeter at shortstop after the final out, while Rivera and Posada hugged near the mound. In the clubhouse celebration, Jeter found Hal Steinbrenner, the managing general partner, and dumped Champagne on his head.

“He used to do that to my dad all the time,” said Steinbrenner, adding that his father, George, would attend Game 1 on Wednesday.

“What I like about our team is they really care about each other,” Hal Steinbrenner said. “They are a family. They have all the ability, we know that. But they support each other, they pick each other up, and they never quit.”

Rodriguez reached base five times in Game 6, and his sublime postseason has shattered the notion that he wilts under pressure. He forged that reputation by fizzling as the Yankees dropped first-round series in 2005, 2006 and 2007. But poor pitching was also at fault.

The Yankees resolved to improve their pitching staff last winter, and the payoff is coming now. They have pitched to a 2.46 earned run average this postseason, more than two runs better than their opponents, whose E.R.A. is 4.48.

“It all starts with pitching, man,” Jeter said. “If we don’t pitch like we did, we wouldn’t be here.”

No pitcher was better than the new ace, C. C. Sabathia, who won twice this series and was named most valuable player. Sabathia will oppose the Phillies’ Cliff Lee in the World Series opener, a rematch of the Yankee Stadium opener on April 16, when Lee pitched for Cleveland.

Sabathia said he had sent Lee a congratulatory text message after the Phillies won the National League last week. Sabathia’s five-year-old son, C. C. III, was by his side in the clubhouse.

“He always keeps asking me, ‘Are we going to the World Series?’ ” Sabathia said. “And I can finally say, ‘Yeah.’ ”

The Angels scored only in the third, when Bobby Abreu drove in Jeff Mathis, who had doubled for the fifth time in the series. They got nothing else off Pettitte, who earned his 16th postseason victory, breaking the record he shared with John Smoltz.

Pettitte has been to the World Series more recently than Jeter, Rivera and Posada, starting once for Houston in 2005. Pettitte has considered retirement since then, but keeps returning, hoping for one more chance at a title.

This was his best opportunity. The Yankees splurged for Sabathia, A .J. Burnett and Teixeira last winter, adding three elite players in their prime. With the old guard enjoying strong seasons, too, the Yankees surged to the best record in baseball (103-59) in the regular season.

“It’s nice when things work out the way you think they’re going to work out,” Pettitte said. “But I felt like if me and C. C. and A. J. could stay healthy, we could get back to the postseason. In the playoffs, you don’t really know what you’re going to do, but C. C. has been so unbelievable leading this rotation.”

The Yankees were just 10 for 56 (.179) with runners in scoring position over the first five games, and the struggle continued in the early innings of Game 6. They left two runners on in the first, and then loaded the bases with two outs in the second.

Johnny Damon grounded out then, but he soon got another chance. Joe Saunders started the fourth inning by walking Robinson Cano and facing Nick Swisher, then batting .100 (3 for 30) in the playoffs.

Swisher had thrown out Vladimir Guerrero on a double play in the second inning, and he singled through the left side. The runners moved up on a sacrifice bunt, and after Jeter’s second walk, Damon lashed a fastball into left field.

Damon had the first hit at Yankee Stadium, in April, and this was his most important. The Yankees took a 2-1 lead, and a grateful Jeter pointed at Damon from second base.

Saunders lasted two more batters. Teixeira reached on an infield single when Damon beat a force play at second. Rodriguez came up next, and Saunders fell behind. He had been wild all night, and did not get a close call on 3-1.

Pettitte helped it translate to a pennant, allowing one run and seven hits in six and a third innings. With two out and one on in the sixth, he gave up a bloop double to right by Guerrero, who hit .370 in the series and flicked a ball just inches off the dirt. With Joba Chamberlain warming in the bullpen, Pettitte fell behind Kendry Morales, 3-0, before getting a called strike and a comebacker for the final out.

Chamberlain entered with one out and one on in the seventh, getting two ground balls, including one that bounced far enough off Jeter’s chest for the second baseman, Cano, to grab it for a forceout. Maybe that was what Jeter had in mind when he promised that the ghosts would follow the Yankees from the old stadium to the new one.

There is much more at play than the supernatural, of course — a hefty payroll, a healthy and productive roster, young players who augment the stars. Yet the Yankees have won all five home games in the 2009 playoffs, an encouraging trend for the team with home-field advantage in the World Series. If they stay perfect in the Bronx, they will capture their 27th championship.

Now bring on dem Phitin' Phils

Yankees in 6

go PHILLIES

Time to fight for me is in Conference all of these are just shows. REID get the bill out of the SENATE already [and you better be damn sure you got the votes and will not be double crossed with your new opt out shit like you were the Medical professional bill failing short]. I am all about the logistics, get the bill out of senate with whatever and get it to conference.

this week, on my blog, I will have a series of posts on healthcare reform. I will discuss the current state of healthcare reform and even if the most liberal proposal passes, how we need to do much more. The problem is that we aren't doing enough to improve the quality of healthcare. Also, I don't think we're doing enough to try to control the cost of health care.

I'll also spend some time this week talking about Afghanistan. Why are we still there? How do we get out? Are we still trying to build this trans-Asian pipeline from Uzbekistan through Afghanistan?

Now, I want to talk about football. Yesterday, was the best day of football that I think we seen in the NFL all season. First of all, although I predicted my Cowboys would go down in flames, they rose up to the occasion. They haven't played such a complete game in maybe two years. The Pittsburgh Steelers scored two defensive touchdowns in the last quarter to be a resilient Minnesota Vikings team. For three quarters we saw the good Brett Farve. Unfortunately, for Minnesota fans, the bad Brett Farve showed up in the fourth quarter.the New Orleans Saints traveled to the Miami Dolphins to prove that they are the best team in the NFL, right now. Their come-from-behind victory was truly impressive. The Cincinnati Bengals are really playing football for the first time and possibly for years. It was good to see Cedric Benson little revenge against his old team. What happened to the Chicago Bears defense? For that matter, what happened to their offense? Several teams demonstrated they should probably forfeit the rest of their games -- Oakland Raiders, St. Louis Rams and the Tampa Bay Buccaneers. The Carolina Panthers need to consider a quarterback change. The Arizona Cardinals decided to play defense. They picked off Eli Manning three times. By the New York Giants in trouble?

Wake up JJ'ers, it is going to be a great Monday!

Re: healthcare, did you watch 60 mins. piece on Medicare? If you did, do you have any thoughts about segment?

Edit:
Rambling thoughts from old post i.e. No discussion in hcr debate about: run away costs of medical capital equipment and medical supplies that drives up healthcare cost.

So, how well will health reform work after it passes?
...
Conservatives insist (and hope) that reform will fail, and that there will be a huge popular backlash. Some progressives worry that they might be right, that the imperfections of reform — what we’re about to get will be far from ideal — will be so severe as to undermine public support. And many critics complain, with some justice, that the planned reform won’t do much to contain rising costs.

But the experience in Massachusetts, which passed major health reform back in 2006, should dampen conservative hopes and soothe progressive fears.

Like the bill that will probably emerge from Congress, the Massachusetts reform mainly relies on a combination of regulation and subsidies to chivy a mostly private system into providing near-universal coverage. It is, to be frank, a bit of a Rube Goldberg device — a complicated way of achieving something that could have been done much more simply with a Medicare-type program. Yet it has gone a long way toward achieving the goal of health insurance for all, although it’s not quite there: according to state estimates, only 2.6 percent of residents remain uninsured.
....
And reform remains popular. Earlier this year, many conservatives, citing misleading poll results, claimed that public support for the Massachusetts reform had plunged. Newer, more careful polling paints a very different picture. The key finding: an overwhelming 79 percent of the public think the reform should be continued, while only 11 percent think it should be repealed.

Interestingly, another recent poll shows similar support among the state’s physicians: 75 percent want to continue the policies; only 7 percent want to see them reversed.

There are, of course, major problems remaining in Massachusetts. In particular, while employers are required to provide a minimum standard of coverage, in a number of cases this standard seems to be too low, with lower-income workers still unable to afford necessary care. And the Massachusetts plan hasn’t yet done anything significant to contain costs.

But just as reform advocates predicted, the move to more or less universal care seems to have helped prepare the ground for further reform, with a special state commission recommending changes in the payment system that could contain costs by reducing the incentives for excessive care. And it should be noted that Hawaii, which doesn’t have universal coverage but does have a long-standing employer mandate, has been far more successful than the rest of the nation at cost control.

After Reform Passes

Clarence Thomas, the justice long known as the silent member of the Supreme Court, criticized his colleagues Friday for badgering attorneys rather than letting them speak during oral arguments.

Thomas — who hasn't asked a lawyer a question during arguments in nearly four years — said he and the other eight justices virtually always know where they stand on a case by reading legal briefs before oral arguments.

"So why do you beat up on people if you already know? I don't know, because I don't beat up on 'em. I refuse to participate. I don't like it, so I don't do it," Thomas said during an appearance before law students at the University of Alabama.

Thomas didn't name names, but fellow conservative Justice Antonin Scalia is generally considered the court's most aggressive questioner during oral arguments. President Barack Obama's lone nominee so far, Justice Sonia Sotomayor, isn't afraid to ask questions either.

Thomas scoffed at the idea that the justices try to use questions to influence the opinions of fellow members of the court.

"All nine of us are in the same building," he said. "If we want to sway each other we know where we are. We don't need oral arguments to do that. It doesn't make any sense to me."

Thomas to other Supreme Court justices: Hush!

I saw this over the weekend at HuffPo. I felt that Unca Thomas was ticked off at Sotomayor, the new kid on the block. I thought it was an attack on Justice Sonia, especially when people compared the lack of his responses to hers.

He was essentially telling her to STFU, with her Ivy League credentials. So I guess Yale doesn't rate as Ivy League either...

That's EXACTLY what's going on. He ain't the Speshul Negro no'more. We heard NO peeps about diversity when Bush appointed white Catholic Ivy Leaguer after white Catholic Ivy Leaguer to the bench.

In reading the article, I found this quote to be the most interesting -- I actually agree with him on this -- "A native of Georgia and the only current justice from the South, Thomas said the court is too dominated by Ivy League lawyers and lacks regional diversity. People constantly worry about racial, gender and ethnic diversity, he said, and home states matter, too."

Also found it of interest that no one so far has commented on Justice Thomas' take on diversity for the SC.

His point "too dominated by Ivy League lawyers" is puzzling, he is also an Ivy Leaguer.

And he, too, benefited from Affirmative Action, but it doesn't stop him from weakening it. At least he's consistent. :<)

Really, this stunning mediocrity needs to take his own advice and kindly STFU. He doesn't say a mumbling word about his big-mouthed butt-buddy, Scalia, so he should be content to merely continue to look stupid...

...'cuz Lord knows, when he opens his mouth, he removes all doubt.

I don't find it too puzzling -- one can be part of group and still notice the effect that group has on the whole. For example, one could be a member of a BGLO -- and even have engaged in hazing -- and still recognize the effect hazing has on his/her respective organization and BGLOs in general. The two are not mutually exclusive. What I'm becoming increasingly intrigued by in this thread is the seeming inability to separate his idea (i.e., regional diversity) from the man himself.

I am not puzzled about lack of regional diversity and do not believe diversity will change the SC on one area that interests me, the dp.

Ok, you got me. What's the "dp?"

Sorry, death penalty.

No, I'd have to agree. Diversity is unlikely to change that.

Maybe Clarence Thomas should step down so Obama can appoint someone who didn't go to an Ivy League school.

Clarence Thomas' argument about diversity on the court really is silly considering that we're only just now getting a second person of color on the bench. Perhaps Thomas is mad that he's not the Speshul Non-White anymore?

I assume you are suggesting that he step down only in jest because it certainly wouldn't be a slam dunk that the President would appoint someone who wasn't from the Ivy League.

With respect to his diversity argument, I don't find it silly at all. Where a person hails from and their experiences inform a lot of their thinking. Looking at regional diversity doesn't exclude also taking racial diversity into account. Off the top my head, Judge Leah Ward Sears would fit the bill. Her name was bantied about as a replacement. AA woman from the south who graduated from Emory University School of Law.

No, there is no guarantee Obama wouldn't appoint another Ivy Leaguer but if Thomas is so concerned about diversity on the court he can step down and let Obama appoint:

another person of color

a non-Catholic (which Thomas & 5 of the other Justices are)

another woman (it makes no sense that the court only has 2 women on it when half of the country is made up of women).

Thomas is only bitching about "diversity on the court" because there's another non-white there to take away his "Only colored person on the bench" crown. He's only bitching about diversity because a woman got appointed. He ain't "speshul" no more. You wouldn't have heard a peep out of him about "diversity" had Obama appointed another Catholic Ivy League white guy to the bench.

It seems as though what Justice Thomas proposed is being lost by the fact that he proposed it. I'm not that interested in Justice Thomas per se (or his perceived motivations) and was hoping more for a discussion about what he proposed as another way of looking at diversity on the court -- thank you for your thoughts though.

Well, we do have to take into account who is doing the proposing and the timing of the proposal. Clarence Thomas has had AMPLE opportunity to speak out about the lack of regional and educational diversity on the court and he never did so until Sotomayor got appointed to the bench. Thomas is only doing this because he's getting called out (again) for his lack of curiousity while Sotomayor is jumping in there quizzing down the litigants. And it's not like she's the only one who does it, it's that Thomas is the only one who DOESN'T.

So we "see" right through Clarence Thomas and his all-of-a-sudden concern for "diversity" on the court, especially when he never had these diversity concerns when white Catholic dudes with Ivy League degrees were appointed to the bench.

Oh, and you don't need to thank me for my thoughts. I'm not thinking or doling out opinions for your benefit. You ain't that special. Sit yo' ass down.

For as long as I come on this board, I have never disparaged anyone, called them out of their names, or attacked anyone who didn't attack me. That's my MO whether on-line or off. If I don't want deal with someone who I can gather has nothing of substance to say except something like "STFU" or "Sit yo' ass down," I just don't respond to their postings. Now, I thanked you for your response -- as I have done on many occasion after I was done with a particular thread -- and you came back with this claptrap. Meanspiritedness seems to be part of your schitck -- so be it. I guess it is possible that a person can be so full a venom that they see it everywhere.

Anyhoo, since you're not "doling out opinions for [my] benefit," then I hope that we can agree that you will no longer respond to anything I write. Please do treat me as someone who "ain't that special" and I will most certainly return the favor.

Hmm...there's a first time for everything. Thanks for your thoughts, and keep the change. And stay sitting down. Thanks.

whenever I hear the name Clarence Thomas I get this urge to vomit. I tried taking medicines. I've tried yoga and Zen but it doesn't seem to help. Any recommendations?

You're the doctor. If physician heal thyself isn't working for you all the rest of us have just become very, very afraid.

That is one of the best replied to hearing Clarence Thomas speak I have ever heard. I live in Northern Virginia and ran into him in Burke, VA one day a few years ago. He spoke to me, and I refused to speak to him. The clerk, a brother, asked me why I snubbed "Brother" Thomas like that, and I stood there and gave him a lecture for about 10 minutes, until other people came through his line. There was no way possible I was going to speak to that man for all the progress he has and continues to attempt to push back from the bench, but you made my day today Mr. Thompson.

I don't know everyone has their way of dealing with situations. I wasn't raised to be rude to people. If another person says "hello" or "good afternoon" I would have reciprocated the cordiality and then kept it moving. Black people aren't going to be any worse or better as a group because of the voting record of Clarence Thomas. Disagree with man's opinions but don't I understand all this hatred. (And I don't know if you hate or him or not Thaddeus but a lot of black people do.) People get emotional and passionate for all the wrong reasons. If people had half the hatred that they have for Clarence for the people that are terrorizing black neighborhoods as a group we would be a lot better off. Who are the real race traitors? Who really deserves our hatred? Just something to think about.

@Guns
If we were delving in a critical discussion of the ailments of the Black community, Clarence Thomas certainly wouldn't have been a part of any conversation I would initiate, and I never implied that. My focus was the humor I found in the statement Mr. Thompson made about Justice Thomas. It takes too much effort to hate someone, but my choice to not speak to him was a conscious and sound one. You could have used your time and efforts to comment on something of more substance than this and possibly check your grammatical use of the English language.

However, you are completely wrong in your statement about Black people being affected by Justice Thomas' voting record. If John McCain had've been elected President and a conservative was seated on the bench, other than Justice Sotomayor, there are a lot of laws that would have been either enacted or overturned that would have had an adverse effect on people of color, so I don't know where you get that logic.

Thaddeus, what "humor" were you talking about? Your post was far from funny. And obviously you didn't think the clerk's comment was funny either because you spent 10 minutes trying to explain yourself. My post was a very appropriate to your post. For you to not address someone who spoke to you. That is a little weak. That's what high school girls do. Instead of trying to "school" the clerk maybe you should have looked Justice Thomas in eye like a man and address your concerns. That's what I was talking about. Some black people have more compassion about a man who they differ on political policy than real issues that are harming people of color.

My statement concerning Justice Thomas' voting record. I stand by it. There is nothing that is coming out of that bench that can or will do any more harm to black people as a group than our two major issues.

Black on Black crime
Single parent households

My point is Clarence Thomas has been made out to be such a "Benedict Arnold" but he cannot affect the real issues that are stalling black progress. And by the way I know you are perfect and do not make any grammatical errors but please save the English lecture. And you don't have to type "@Guns" every time you reply to someone. The red reply button works just fine.

Its taken me a long time, now, always see him in his shorts or clown suit, begin laughing. Continue with yoga and zen, add a trigger for words "Supreme Court" as pre-emptive measure to immediately redirect to happy thoughts.

Students in the Medill Innocence Project at Northwestern University investigate claims of innocence by death row inmates. Over the course of a decade, the Medill project has saved the lives of 11 innocent persons who were slated for execution.

Rather than applauding the students for their difficult and compelling work, prosecutors have hit them with a low blow. In a current case involving a claim of innocence by Anthony McKinney, Cook County prosecutors have served the Medill project with a shocking subpoena. According to the New York Times, the subpoena demands "the grades, grading criteria, class syllabus, expense reports and e-mail messages of the journalism students themselves."

The Subpoena Is Highly Inappropriate

The subpoena raises several red flags. First, the information the prosecutors seek is completely unrelated to the question of McKinney's guilt or innocence. Second, student grades are normally protected from disclosure by federal law. Third, the program is operated by the school of journalism and likely qualifies for protection by state journalism shield laws and the First Amendment. Fourth, the professor's course materials are possibly protected from disclosure by the concept of academic freedom -- which the Supreme Court has construed as a value secured by the First Amendment.

Sally Daly, a spokesperson for the Cook Country District Attorney's Office, denies any wrongdoing by prosecutors. Instead, Daly points the finger at students. Daly claims that prosecutors are concerned that students could have qualified for higher grades if they concluded that the inmate was innocent. This is a highly unusual -- and insulting -- assertion. First, any reputable professor would grade a student's research by evaluating the methodology and written presentation, rather than using the final conclusion as a litmus test. Second, prosecutors should make their own independent determination regarding McKinney's guilt or innocence -- rather than treating the students as suspects.

During interviews the students conducted, several key witnesses recanted their testimony. The students have already turned over videotapes of these interviews to prosecutors. Prosecutors should question these witnesses rather than fishing for the students' personal materials.

Daly makes other nonsensical and outrageous arguments in defense of the subpoena. Although the subpoena extends to grades, she says that "[w]e’re not trying to delve into areas of privacy or grades. . . ." Daly also likens the subpoena to the routine disclosure of information by "detectives." Police detectives, however, work for the government and assist the prosecution. They are colleagues. Although private detectives do not work for the government, they have an unambiguous financial stake in the outcome of their investigation. The students, by contrast, are private citizens and journalists. The Medill project exists to monitor and improve the criminal justice system -- not to service the prosecutor's office or inmates.

Shameful and Pathetic Tactics by Illinois Prosecutors: Subpoena for Student Grades?

This is such utter BS, it's ridiculous. they're ashamed, because students SHOW WHAT FUCKING FRAUDS AND INCOMPETENTS THEY ARE.

TRANSLATION: You got a C- on the quiz therefore your investigation is faulty and we were right to convict all those people.

They're mad because their asses--their cases--were made to look ridiculous by some students.

That means the Project is doing their jobs.

Eleven people doesn't sound like much, but man, that eleven ruint somebody's career.

@Morphus
You write some real "heavy" comments and knowledge on this blog. It's always a pleasure to read your commentary and contributions. I don't have any meaningful replies today, other than these compliments. Sometimes, it's best just to sit back and read and learn from others.

thanks