Jack & Jill Politics

Another view of Strategic defaults.
http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2009/12/strategic-…

This wins the “Ain't That Some Shiggidy?” award of the day: Is Michelle Obama's makeup appropriate???

http://www.bvonbeauty.com/2009/12/14/michelle-o…

To bad the lapdogs that is the village dont have the conjones to call out the stupid that infects the body politic.

folks got too much time on their hands.

is there a reason why they were fingerprinted? of course not.

I have two items:

How I feel about Health Care Reform & What Happened this Week: http://bit.ly/8T6kDj

More Loretta Sanchez inspired blog posts!: http://is.gd/5sHiC

Howard Dean is perfectly positioned to primary Obama in 2012.

Attorney General Richard Blumenthal continued to hammer away at credit card interest rate increases Thursday, urging attorneys general in other states to join his call for an immediate rollback in rates to what they were as of Jan. 1, 2009.

Blumenthal says banks and major card issuers are jacking up rates ahead of federal legislation, which kicks in Feb. 22, that prohibits companies from raising rates on balances unless account holders are 60 days late in paying their bill.

The legislation also subjects any rate increases in 2009 to a review to determine whether those increases are justified. But specific rules pertaining to those reviews have not been written by the Federal Reserve.

On Wednesday, Blumenthal called on Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke to support the immediate rollback and write tough, enforceable rules to keep banks and other issuers accountable to the new law. Blumenthal urged other attorneys general to do the same.

AG Seeks Other States In Rate Rollback Fight

Wrong, Keith

WASHINGTON — Keith Olbermann wants to be a martyr, and he wants you to join him…

Just like that, in two overwrought paragraphs, Olbermann took his argument down the path of reductio ad absurdum. We must not buy insurance? All year, progressives — including Olbermann — have highlighted the endless horror stories from people who don't have health insurance. Barely a month ago, Olbermann was citing, on air, a Harvard Medical School study that found nearly 45,000 Americans die each year because they don't have insurance. Now all of a sudden, he's “calling on all those whose conscience urges them to fight” to voluntarily give the coverage up to make a point?

This is, of course, an easy protest for Olbermann to make — as he himself clearly recognized, noting that he's one of the self-insured “by choice.” Even if he went without whatever insurance he's buying, Olbermann could afford to just write a check to cover the full cost of his medical needs. (And for that matter, the fine he's willing to pay for not having insurance would be only $95 in 2014, though it would rise to $750 by 2016.)
Most of us don't have that luxury, though. Take me, for instance. Even if I was persuaded by his argument, I couldn't join Olbermann's boycott; I've had insulin-dependent, or type 1, diabetes for 22 years. There was nothing I could do to avoid it — it's genetic. But more important, it's expensive to treat. The insulin infusion pump I wear cost $5,000, which was covered by insurance. The continuous glucose monitor transmitter I also wear was another $2,000, also covered. I check my blood sugar six to eight times a day, using test strips that cost a little more than $1 each; my insurance also pays the full cost of those, because the company realizes it's cheaper to pay for me to check my blood sugar a lot now than to pay for the complications of uncontrolled diabetes later. The insulin I use in the pump would cost between $90 and $110 a vial without insurance, and I go through two or three vials each month. Add in a month's worth of pump infusion sets ($116), reservoirs ($33) and glucose monitoring sensors ($350), and the costs just for managing my diabetes add up to more than $1,000. Then there's the quarterly visits to an endocrinologist, twice-yearly dental checkups, an annual eye exam and a few other prescriptions. Pretty soon, I'm looking at taking on a second mortgage payment each month just to stand on Olbermann's idea of principle. Sure, my insurance premiums and co-pays come to several thousand dollars a year. But even buying insurance on the open market would be cheaper for me than paying for all that stuff out of pocket if I wasn't covered through my wife's employer. Though of course, if the healthcare bill fails, and its insurance industry regulations don't become law, I couldn't buy insurance on the open market anyway, because I have a pre-existing condition.

So the only people, really, who could afford to “use the only weapon left” to protest the healthcare bill along with Olbermann would be healthy people, who don't need insurance to begin with. And those healthy people are also where the argument against the individual mandate begins to fall apart. The reason it's worth swallowing the individual mandate is because that's the only way to make insurance affordable for anyone who might actually get sick and need it. Insurance providers — whether it's Blue Cross or a federal public option — need to have some healthy people in their risk pool to offset the costs of the sick people. Otherwise, if they've got to shell out $1,000 a month to keep me alive and more or less healthy, they'd have to charge me at least that much just to stay in business. (Unfortunately, as we all know, they also like to tack a little extra on to pay their CEOs extravagantly.) That's why large employers can afford to insure their workers, and why many small businesses can't — the risk pools aren't big enough.

One part of the healthcare legislation that pretty much everyone likes is the new regulation forcing insurers to cover everyone, no matter what kind of pre-existing conditions they might have. But without an individual mandate, there won't be enough healthy customers, who are cheap to insure, to balance out all the sick people who would be newly eligible for coverage. Premiums would rise even faster for the people who most need insurance than they already are. In what's known as an insurance death spiral, only the most expensive, sickest patients would remain in the risk pool.

What's galling about the mandate in a bill with no public option, of course, is that it essentially guarantees the insurance industry a steady revenue stream and millions of new customers. That's frustrating — infuriating, even. But it shouldn't be a deal-breaker. Would there be people, under the reform legislation, who can't afford insurance premiums? Unfortunately, there probably would — but the answer to that is to increase the federal subsidies, not kill the bill or remove the individual mandate. After all, anyone who might not be able to afford insurance in the future already can't afford it now. It's hard to imagine that there are people who don't have insurance but are holding out only because they don't want to become customers of the private insurance business.

The point of this reform legislation — as I wrote the other day, and as White House communications director Dan Pfeiffer wrote Wednesday — should be to expand access to healthcare, which every industrial nation except ours considers a basic human right, not to punish insurance companies for the many, many sins they've committed in the past. Plenty of those other industrial nations require people to buy insurance, the same way this bill would do. Is this the ideal answer to the healthcare system's flaws? No. But is it a decent place to start? Yes. Olbermann should keep that in mind, and push to fix — not kill — the healthcare bill. Most of us can't afford to do it his way.

I gotta ask…why is Loretta Sanchez in your crosshairs?

Calling the widespread shackling of juveniles in court “repugnant, degrading [and] humiliating,'' the Florida Supreme Court issued a new rule Thursday that forbids the restraint of juvenile offenders unless a judge finds that the youth is likely to be violent.

In a lengthy amendment to the rules that govern Florida's juvenile-court system, the state's highest court adopted the recommendations of a national advocacy group, the National Juvenile Defender Center, which argued that the wholesale shackling of juveniles is contrary to the purpose of rehabilitating youths.

The new rules reverse a long-standing practice in many courthouses — including Broward and Palm Beach counties — of permitting juvenile defendants to be handcuffed and leg-shackled for all court appearances, regardless of whether they are believed to be dangerous.

Florida Supreme Court limits 'degrading' shackles for juveniles

Tiger Woods’s indiscretions will cascade through Golf Inc., costing the PGA Tour, television networks such as CBS and merchandise vendors like Nike Inc. $220 million or more in lost revenue.

Woods’s indefinite leave from the sport, announced Dec. 11 after he disclosed marital infidelity, deprives professional golf of its biggest draw. In his absence, tournament crowds may be 20 percent smaller, according to organizers.

Television audiences may shrink by half, based on Nielsen Co. data from past events. TV advertising may drop by as much as 40 percent, said Aaron Cohen, chief media negotiating officer at New York-based ad agency Horizon Media Inc. Nike, which built its golf equipment business around Woods, stands to lose more than $30 million in sales, according to Claire Gallacher, an analyst with San Diego-based Capstone Investments Inc.

“It’s not so much a ripple effect as it is a tsunami,” said Rick Gentile, a former CBS Sports executive producer who teaches at Seton Hall University. “The aura is gone.”

The PGA Tour received revenue of $773 million from tournaments and television in 2008, according to its annual report. In turn, broadcasters received $642.7 million in TV advertising revenue, according to New York-based TNS Media Intelligence. Should Woods sit out the entire year, ad spending will skid 30 percent to 40 percent, Cohen said in an interview.

Golf Inc. Pays for Tiger’s Affairs With Lost Ads

“It’s not so much a ripple effect as it is a tsunami”

That's gonna hurt. It makes you wonder why wasn't there more rigorous moves to shelter their “cash cow”.

No it's worse than that.

The fool is effectively giving the teabaggers the thumbs up and linking the most vehement progressive opposition of the Senate healthcare bill to the right wing nuts we saw emerge over the summer.

How does someone who is sane think that is a good idea?

From her post:

There is an enormous, rising tide of populism that crosses party lines in objection to the Senate bill. We opposed the bank bailouts, the AIG bonuses, the lack of transparency about the Federal Reserve, “bailout” Ben Bernanke, and the way the Democrats have used their power to sell the country's resources to secure their own personal advantage, just as the libertarians have. In fact, we've worked together with them to oppose these things. What we agree on: both parties are working against the interests of the public, the only difference is in the messaging.

I would love to ask her what the difference in messaging is because the worst post and comments that I've read on the web about opposing HCR from the left have been every bit as disgusting as what the teabaggers have produced.

And how does one make that link and think for a single second that they will be able to “start over” with the Senate bill and have any credibility at all to persuade people to vote for single-payer or a public option?

I don't agree with those who feel that the bill shouldn't be passed but for those who do support that position these kinds of posts aren't good and lump good people and their efforts with people who are truly dangerous.

thanks for these

Okay, so the progressives (white) are talking about primarying President Obama.
Wonder how black folks and going to take to that? Guess blacks will get blame when their candidates they deem worthy lose like they did when Prop 8 failed.

hat tip: W.E.E. See You

Beyonce's Mother Tina Knowles Files for Divorce

HOUSTON (AP) — Beyonce's mother, Tina Knowles, has filed for divorce from the pop diva's father and manager, Mathew Knowles.

Tina Knowles began legal proceedings Nov. 11, according to documents filed with the Harris County Court Clerk. She launched the House of Dereon clothing line with Beyonce in 2006.

''The decision to end our marriage is an amicable one. We remain friends, parents, and business partners,'' the couple said in a statement provided to The Associated Press on Friday. ''If anyone is expecting an ugly messy fight, they will be sadly disappointed. We ask for your respect of our privacy as we handle this matter.''

The divorce filing came about a month after Mathew Knowles was named in a paternity suit. Los Angeles resident Alexsandra Wright claims in the lawsuit that he is the father of her unborn child.

Tina and Mathew Knowles wed in 1980. In addition to 27-year-old Beyonce, they have another daughter, 23-year-old singer Solange.

The split was first reported by Bossip.com.

I thought they were church-going folks? What happened? Paternity suits? Does he not know the power of rubbers? They only cost $8.99 at Walgreens.

AM2K9 U ARE SO WRONG THAT I AM LAUGHING……

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/ar…
UThe moment Ted Kennedy would not want to lose

By Victoria Reggie Kennedy
Sunday, December 20, 2009

My late husband, Ted Kennedy, was passionate about health-care reform. It was the cause of his life. He believed that health care for all our citizens was a fundamental right, not a privilege, and that this year the stars — and competing interests — were finally aligned to allow our nation to move forward with fundamental reform. He believed that health-care reform was essential to the financial stability of our nation's working families and of our economy as a whole.

This Story
The moment he would not want to lose
A Be-Like-Ted Election
Still, Ted knew that accomplishing reform would be difficult. If it were easy, he told me, it would have been done a long time ago. He predicted that as the Senate got closer to a vote, compromises would be necessary, coalitions would falter and many ardent supporters of reform would want to walk away. He hoped that they wouldn't do so. He knew from experience, he told me, that this kind of opportunity to enact health-care reform wouldn't arise again for a generation.

In the early 1970s, Ted worked with the Nixon administration to find consensus on health-care reform. Those efforts broke down in part because the compromise wasn't ideologically pure enough for some constituency groups. More than 20 years passed before there was another real opportunity for reform, years during which human suffering only increased. Even with the committed leadership of then-President Bill Clinton and his wife, reform was thwarted in the 1990s. As Ted wrote in his memoir, he was deeply disappointed that the Clinton health-care bill did not come to a vote in the full Senate. He believed that senators should have gone on the record, up or down.

Ted often said that we can't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. He also said that it was better to get half a loaf than no loaf at all, especially with so many lives at stake. That's why, even as he never stopped fighting for comprehensive health-care reform, he also championed incremental but effective reforms such as a Patients' Bill of Rights, the Children's Health Insurance Program and COBRA continuation of health coverage.

The bill before the Senate, while imperfect, would achieve many of the goals Ted fought for during the 40 years he championed access to quality, affordable health care for all Americans. If this bill passes:

– Insurance protections like the ones Ted fought for his entire life would become law.

– Thirty million Americans who do not have coverage would finally be able to afford it. Ninety-four percent of Americans would be insured. Americans would finally be able to live without fear that a single illness could send them into financial ruin.

– Insurance companies would no longer be able to deny people the coverage they need because of a preexisting illness or condition. They would not be able to drop coverage when people get sick. And there would be a limit on how much they can force Americans to pay out of their own pockets when they do get sick.

– Small-business owners would no longer have to fear being forced to lay off workers or shut their doors because of exorbitant insurance rates. Medicare would be strengthened for the millions of seniors who count on it.

– And by eliminating waste and inefficiency in our health-care system, this bill would bring down the deficit over time.

Health care would finally be a right, and not a privilege, for the citizens of this country. While my husband believed in a robust public option as an effective way to lower costs and increase competition, he also believed in not losing sight of the forest for the trees. As long as he wasn't compromising his principles or values, he looked for a way forward.

As President Obama noted to Congress this fall, for Ted, health-care reform was not a matter of ideology or politics. It was not about left or right, Democrat or Republican. It was a passion born from the experience of his own life, the experience of our family and the experiences of the millions of Americans across this country who considered him their senator, too.

The bill before Congress will finally deliver on the urgent needs of all Americans. It would make their lives better and do so much good for this country. That, in the end, must be the test of reform. That was always the test for Ted Kennedy. He's not here to urge us not to let this chance slip through our fingers. So I humbly ask his colleagues to finish the work of his life, the work of generations, to allow the vote to go forward and to pass health-care reform now. As Ted always said, when it's finally done, the people will wonder what took so long.

There are many (white progressives)that are hoping and praying that will be the case.
The blacks will do one or two things. Come out in droves and have their boy's back or sit it out period. He either gets re-elected or the whole party is going down with him.
Remember there were a lot of dems that rode Obama's coattails into office. My state senator was one of them. Kay Hagan.

But I'm sure this isn't something you wanted to hear or think about. The progressives are playing a VERY DANGEROUS game that could bite them in the ass.

Well:). I don't know if (white progressives) as a group are hoping and praying for that or not, but I do know that even if they are, it doesn't and wouldn't matter a damn. However that goes down, it will happen as a result of what black America perceives about Obama. It won't happen as a result of what (white progressives)…by the way, just as an aside, are some of the people you quote approvingly not “white progressives”?

Anyway, as I said, whatever happens regarding Obama and black people will be between Obama and black people, and to suggest that it won't smacks of the same attitude rightists have about us- that we have to be told what to think by white liberals.

“But I'm sure this isn't something you wanted to hear or think about. The progressives are playing a VERY DANGEROUS game that could bite them in the ass.”

I don't exactly understand what you're talking about here. Just what is this dangerous game, and how could it bite them in the ass?

“The one thing they can't do is blame kos or Howard Dean or progressives for killing health reform.”

Oh, but they will. If the bill doesn't pass, or does pass and turns out to be a disaster, those people will be blamed for it, and probably successfully. In fact, they're being set up for it right now.

“The blacks will do one or two things. Come out in droves and have their boy's back or sit it out period. He either gets re-elected or the whole party is going down with him.

Stop making sense angee_is_mad. But I wouldn't dig too deep into all this because President Obama WILL be re-elected in 2012. No matter what the fauxgressives try to do. Personally I think fauxgressives represent a very limited group. Kind of like the nutjobs on the right.

PO will be re-elected by the core group of folks who supported him in the last election. You are right about the the folks who rode PO's coattails and you are too kind with your term progressives. To progress means to move forward, develop, grow, advance, evolve. These folks are more fauxgressives. Not willing to do the work to push forward an agenda, or work to build a foundation, have absolutely no interest in using strategies to that allows us to move forward even if it means baby steps by baby steps. Instead they prefer to throw tantrums, stamp their feet and whine thinking it will help them to get their way. Sad really but hey . . . to each his/her own.

Great points.

“The blacks will do one or two things. Come out in droves and have their boy's back or sit it out period. He either gets re-elected or the whole party is going down with him.

Stop making sense angee_is_mad. But I wouldn't dig too deep into all this because President Obama WILL be re-elected in 2012. No matter what the fauxgressives try to do. Personally I think fauxgressives represent a very limited group. Kind of like the nutjobs on the right.

PO will be re-elected by the core group of folks who supported him in the last election. You are right about the the folks who rode PO's coattails and you are too kind with your term progressives. To progress means to move forward, develop, grow, advance, evolve. These folks are more fauxgressives. Not willing to do the work to push forward an agenda, or work to build a foundation, have absolutely no interest in using strategies to that allows us to move forward even if it means baby steps by baby steps. Instead they prefer to throw tantrums, stamp their feet and whine thinking it will help them to get their way. Sad really but hey . . . to each his/her own.

Great points.