Find the hottest deals on web today!…

…When you are aware when working at your projects you can be a lot more successful than if you don’t have much skills…..

If you use last.fm or playlist.com, someone’s figured it out for you….

That’s not a function you can do….

by John Cole

And he keeps on digging:

If Sherrod wanted to meet with you, what would you tell her?

I’d have a long discussion with her, and I’d tell her that I’m not one of these people in this country that thinks racism doesn’t exist. And that I’m not one of these people who says that she hasn’t suffered from racism. And that the scars of her racism aren’t warranted. But I’d also tell her that my passion in life and my political trajectory from left to right was born from watching the Clarence Thomas hearings. I didn’t understand how he NAACP sat on its hands while privileged white gentlemen hammered him mercilessly and humiliated him and the media and the NAACP allowed for it to happen.

Just so we’re clear, Sherrod was scarred by the murder of her father and subsequent failure to prosecute the murderers in the Jim Crow south, and Breitbart was scarred when Clarence Thomas was beaten to death on live television in the well of the Senate by Ted Kennedy and Joe Biden while the NAACP stood by and did nothing asked some questions before being promoted to a lifetime position in the highest court of the land. See- they’ve both been traumatized!

Two thoughts:

1.) Crazy people honestly have no idea how insane they sound, do they?

2.) After the Jeffrey Lord outburst this week, I’ve concluded the lunatic fringe of the right finds “high-tech lynchings” far more awful than, you know, actual lynchings.

http://www.balloon-juice.com/2010/07/30/so-you-…

President Barack Obama's visit to ABC's “the View” set a new ratings record for the daytime show with an audience of 6.59 million viewers. The previous high was 6.17 million viewers on the morning after the 2008 presidential election that brought Obama into office.

Here's some of the release from ABC:

• Thursday’s broadcast of “The View,” featuring President Barack Obama, qualified as the series’ most-watched broadcast ever in Total Viewers (6.59 million), exceeding its previous peak delivery achieved the day after the 2008 Presidential Election (6.17 million, 11/05/08).

• Thursday’s “The View” also qualified as the series’ most-watched broadcast in 17 months among the Key Women Demos 18-34 (516,000/1.5 rating) and Women 18-49 (1.33 million/2.0 rating) – since 3/2/09.

“We were honored to have President Obama on ‘The View.’ The ratings indicate that our show continues to break new ground. ‘The View’ has proven to be an important stop for political candidates and is appointment television for our loyal audience who value our opposing views,” said Barbara Walters.

“A historic interview leads to historic ratings,” said Brian Frons, President, Daytime, Disney/ABC Television Group. “It was wonderful to have Barbara Walters back for the interview with President Barack Obama, her first interview since her heart surgery, and together all five co-hosts did what they do best, ask the questions that are on our viewers’ minds.”

http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/entertainment/z…

Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) has chosen to go through an ethics trial, like the one lined up for New York Rep. Charles Rangel, rather than accepting charges made by an ethics subcommittee, a source familiar with the process tells POLITICO.

The back-to-back trials of a pair of black lawmakers represent an unprecedented use of an ethics adjudication system that has rarely been used by House members accused of breaking House rules.

Waters' case revolves around allegations that she improperly intervened with federal regulators to help a bank that her husband owned stock in and on whose board he once served.

Waters denies any wrongdoing.

“Congresswoman Waters has chosen to go through an adjudicatory subcommittee hearing, rather than accept any of the counts from the investigative subcommittee,” the source told POLITICO.

In layman's terms, that means she's going to trial.

…more…

President Obama visits GM and Chrysler auto plants in Detroit on Friday to call attention to the successes — so far — of the bailed-out companies.
And while he's likely to acknowledge that the decision to bail out the companies was widely unpopular outside the industrial Midwest, he's expected to make the case that government investment led to a stronger national economy overall.
Chrysler's Jefferson North Assembly plant on Detroit's east side is adding 1,100 jobs and a second shift to produce the new Jeep Grand Cherokee.
Bernie Kitter says that in the 15 years he's worked at the massive facility, the shifts have dwindled from three to just one. He hopes the president's visit means the plant is on the upswing.

Listen to the story here: http://www.npr.org/templates/player/mediaPlayer…

http://green.autoblog.com/2010/07/30/obama-driv…

Here from Politico:

Rangel “doesn't give a damn” what Obama thinks

“Frankly, President Obama, Charlie doesn't give a damn.

From my story on the Obama-Rangel drama:

[A] person close to the Rangel tells POLITICO the embattled Democrat “doesn’t give a damn about what the president thinks about this” and won’t step down.

“[Obama’s] statement comes as no surprise to us,” said a person close to Rangel, speaking on condition of anonymity because he wasn’t authorized to speak publicly for the congressman. “We’re not surprised by this, we’ve known the people in the White House have felt this way for awhile, but this doesn’t change anything for us.”

By: Kam Williams | TheLoop21
Fri, 07/30/2010 – 00:00

…KW: What interested you in writing The Presumption of Guilt, a book about Professor Gates’ arrest?

CO: The main thing was that it clearly raised the issues of race and class, and offered the perfect opportunity to talk about our lagging effort to solve the problem of racial profiling, and also to notice that the issue is not restricted to those who find themselves frequently in the criminal justice system. So, I thought that part of the intrigue would be to show how wide an array of black men find themselves presumed guilty when they haven’t committed anything close to a crime.

KW: I loved the second half of the book the best, where you have 100 prominent brothers talk about being profiled. I have personally been subjected to profile stops at least 25 times in my life. How do you feel about the official report on the Gates case which was recently released?

CO: I thought it was incredibly helpful in coming up with suggestions about going forward in terms of reaching out to and engaging the community, and in terms of community policing and examining whether charges like disorderly conduct can be administered in a neutral, professional and dispassionate way. On the other hand, when they said that both Sergeant Crowley and Professor Gates had missed equal opportunities to deescalate the situation, I thought that it was inappropriate and unfair to suggest that the citizen has the same power as the police in a situation like that. The police have the authority, the power and the responsibility to control the situation, because they have the powers of arrest.

KW: What about how Professor Gates handled himself?

CO: Professor Gates was angry and did ask why he was being treated like this. But that was because he had produced two forms of I.D., and had done everything the officer had asked him to do in identifying himself, and yet there were still questions about whether he was who he claimed he was. So, that’s why I think the review has a serious flaw when it equates the actions of Professor Gates with those of Sergeant Crowley….

more at:
http://www.theloop21.com/entertainment/professo…

You may have seen in the news that an oil pipeline near Kalamazoo ruptured spilling upto a million gallons of oil into the Kalamazoo River. It seems that the former Democratic Governor of Michigan – James Blanchard – is on the board of directors of the Canadian company that owns the pipeline.
“The Free Press reported today that Blanchard owns 12,332 shares of common stock in Enbridge, which would equal roughly $600,000 on the New York Stock Exchange at the close of trading today. Enbridge’s Web site says Blanchard also owns 37,761 shares in deferred stock in addition to an unspecified retainer. He is currently chairman of the board’s committee on corporate social responsibility, the site says”
http://www.freep.com/article/20100730/NEWS06/10…

“The Free Press has reported that Enbridge’s American subsidiaries have been the target of 31 enforcement actions by the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, or PHMSA, the U.S. agency that oversees pipelines.

This year, PHMSA sent two letters to Enbridge raising safety concerns about the Lakehead System, including one expressing concern about corrosion monitoring along Line 6B – the line that failed along the Kalamazoo River. “

In the same way that medical records are available only to people with a legitimate medical need, I think that credit records should be available only to those who actually extend credit. Beyond that, they're private. Employers don't get them, the FBI doesn't get them, journalists don't get them and my neighborhood association doesn't get them. I don't care how much each of these people really, really thinks it would be handy to have a peek at them. Short of a subpoena or a court order, my financial records are my business. You can't have them.

… The credit reporting agencies [have] been placed in a privileged position where they're allowed to collect sensitive private information — just as doctors and banks and census takers are. That privileged position means they have a heightened responsibility for maintaining privacy, not a license to use their databases for anything that can make them an extra buck or two.

I think that's exactly right.

It also seems to be exactly the opposite of the current relationship between citizens and credit reporting agencies.

Right now, the credit reporting agencies are permitted to collect and evaluate sensitive private information about anyone and everyone. (Although, again, “evaluate” may be too elevated a term for the crude reductionist number-crunching of their secret “scoring” formulas.) Almost no information about you and your money and how it is spent is off-limits to them. They are further permitted to sell this information to anyone to whom they wish to sell it, repackaging and marketing your private financial information for sale to insurance companies, your boss or your prospective employer.

They've also created an entirely new industry based on selling your private financial information back to you. This is where the idiot in the pirate hat comes in. Freecreditreport.com is actually Experian — one of the three credit-reporting and credit-scoring agencies — and their supposedly “free” credit report was free only to those signing up for Experian's $14.95-a-month credit-monitoring service.

That credit-monitoring service, Experian says, will help you to improve your credit score and will protect you from identity theft. The catchy ads for this free $180-a-year “service” illustrated the ever-expanding scope that Experian, Equifax and Transunion imagine for the use of their credit-scoring — just look at the various misfortunes inflicted on their slacker-troubador protagonist. He was denied an auto loan due to bad credit, which falls within the reasonable scope of Experian's business. But he was also unable to acquire a cell-phone, was forced to take a series of demeaning jobs and wound up unhappily married. The implication from these ads seemed to be that it is reasonable and acceptable for utilities, prospective employers and even prospective spouses to hire Experian to run credit-checks on just about anyone for just about any reason.

Both of Experian's claims about the benefits of credit-monitoring are vastly overstated. Since their monthly reports still don't reveal the calculations that go into their magical credit-scoring formula, such reports will at best only help you to make a slightly more educated guess as to what might improve your score. It's highly unlikely that this information would improve your credit standing more than, say, using that $14.95 a month to pay down your debt instead of sending it to Experian.

But Experian's claims about identity theft “protection” are even less true. Credit-monitoring has nothing to do with preventing the theft or misuse of your information. Nor does it have anything to do with preventing errors in your credit history. All it promises is a slightly faster heads-up to inform you that such theft, misuse or errors have occurred. And when theft, misuse and errors occur, Experian says, it is solely your responsibility to address the problem.

Kevin Drum, again, pointed out years ago the upside-down and backwards insanity of the idea that you are responsible for correcting and preventing their errors. Well before pirate-boy picked up his guitar, Kevin wrote a 2005 Washington Monthly article on the subject: “You Own You: When identity thieves open an account in your name it should be the bank's problem — not yours,” which was the first place I recall seeing it pointed out that the credit-protection service offered by the credit-reporting agencies was modeled precisely after a protection-racket shakedown:

For their part, the major credit-reporting bureaus — Experian, Equifax and TransUnion — don't seem to care much about the accuracy of their credit reports. In fact, they actually have a positive incentive to let ID theft flourish. Like mobsters offering “protection” to frightened store owners, credit-reporting agencies have recently begun taking advantage of the identity-theft boom to offer information age protection to frightened consumers. … In effect, customers are being asked to pay credit agencies to protect them from the negligence of those same agencies.

Five years later, Kevin's argument that “The banks or credit-card issuers that improperly offered credit to the thieves, and the reporting agencies that unfairly downgraded [the victims'] credit” ought to be responsible for cleaning up the mess of ID theft still reads like something revolutionary. And his call for holding those negligent lenders and agencies responsible for paying back the money and reputation rightly belonging to the victims — money and reputation the agencies and lenders carelessly gave away without the victims' knowledge or permission — still seems like a pipe dream.

But the one aspect of this that gives me hope was something else Kevin argued back in that 2005 article: Protecting consumers from the cost of identity theft and ID-theft protection scams ought to be a political winner.

There are at the moment Democratic attorneys general in 31 states. Of those, I'm guessing, about 31 are hoping some day to be governors or senators. Advocating for their constituents against the costly and predatory negligence of credit-reporting agencies seems like a promising step toward fulfilling such ambitions. (I forget who it was who first observed that some seek power in order to enact policies while others seek policies in order to attain power, but I think this should appeal to those in either category.)

The Federal Trade Commission estimates that about 9 million Americans are victims of identity theft every year, so it's a safe bet that each of these AGs (or A's G) has thousands of constituents whose credit histories are scarred by such theft and who are therefore being forced to pay premium rates for everything from mortgages to consumer loans to insurance and utilities. Some of these constituents may have been denied employment or promotion on the basis of these lucratively inaccurate and uncorrected credit scores.

These costs are real and therefore they can be measured and quantified and added up into a single Very Large Dollar Amount — the amount that constituents have been inaccurately and unfairly overcharged due to the negligence and irresponsibility of others. That VLDA is the basis for the class-action lawsuits that these attorneys general ought to be filing on behalf of their constituents.

Whether or not such lawsuits can succeed in achieving restitution for the millions of citizens who have paid dearly for the carelessness of the credit-reporting agencies, the lawsuits ought to be able to achieve at least a bit more of what is desperately needed and sorely lacking in the current system: accountability and transparency.

Without transparency and accountability, the power that credit agencies have will be abused and expanded and extended until its abusive presence is felt, as Matt Lauer put it, in “all portions of your life.”

State lawsuits will allow AGs to subpoena information on the calculations and variables that go into the credit-reporting agencies secret-formula scores. Such information would empower consumers to improve those scores beyond what is currently knowable from the best-guesses of hack finance writers and “credit-monitoring” scams.

More importantly, the state lawsuits would allow the AGs to subpoena information on the marketing of citizens private financial information — to gauge the full scope of the credit-reporting agencies' plans for the use of this private information beyond the realm of actual credit. Informed attention to the misuse of this information for employment decisions or by insurers or utilities would likely lead to the sort of outcry that would make limits on such misuse a legislative priority.

And that could lead to a situation in which the misuse or sale of private financial records is as obviously illegal — and unthinkable — as the misuse or sale of private medical records.
http://slacktivist.typepad.com/slacktivist/2010…

I think Danielle wanted to offer critique, but as she said, she sometimes writes freelance for Essence, so you don't want to really blast your paycheck.

View has best ratings ever: http://tvbythenumbers.com/2010/07/30/president-…