Saturday, January 23, 2010
Thursday, January 21, 2010
Never mind the fact that separation of church and state ... it's no big deal. Fox News ... all the right wing slant .. and none of the sanity.
Other cogent retorts heard on FauxNews:
" I know I am but what are you"
"I'm rubber your glue..."
"Am NOT!"
"Moooommyyy, he's touching me tell him to stop touching me"
When Only The Best Democracy Will Do ... We Bring You ...
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court has ruled that corporations may spend freely to support or oppose candidates for president and Congress, easing decades-old limits on their participation in federal campaigns.
By a 5-4 vote, the court on Thursday overturned a 20-year-old ruling that said corporations can be prohibited from using money from their general treasuries to pay for their own campaign ads. The decision, which almost certainly will also allow labor unions to participate more freely in campaigns, threatens similar limits imposed by 24 states.
It leaves in place a prohibition on direct contributions to candidates from corporations and unions.
Critics of the stricter limits have argued that they amount to an unconstitutional restraint of free speech, and the court majority apparently agreed.
"The censorship we now confront is vast in its reach," Justice Anthony Kennedy said in his majority opinion, joined by his four more conservative colleagues.
However, Justice John Paul Stevens, dissenting from the main holding, said, "The court's ruling threatens to undermine the integrity of elected institutions around the nation."
Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor joined Stevens' dissent, parts of which he read aloud in the courtroom.
The justices also struck down part of the landmark McCain-Feingold campaign finance bill that barred union- and corporate-paid issue ads in the closing days of election campaigns.
Advocates of strong campaign finance regulations have predicted that a court ruling against the limits would lead to a flood of corporate and union money in federal campaigns as early as this year's midterm congressional elections.
By a 5-4 vote, the court on Thursday overturned a 20-year-old ruling that said corporations can be prohibited from using money from their general treasuries to pay for their own campaign ads. The decision, which almost certainly will also allow labor unions to participate more freely in campaigns, threatens similar limits imposed by 24 states.
It leaves in place a prohibition on direct contributions to candidates from corporations and unions.
Critics of the stricter limits have argued that they amount to an unconstitutional restraint of free speech, and the court majority apparently agreed.
"The censorship we now confront is vast in its reach," Justice Anthony Kennedy said in his majority opinion, joined by his four more conservative colleagues.
However, Justice John Paul Stevens, dissenting from the main holding, said, "The court's ruling threatens to undermine the integrity of elected institutions around the nation."
Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor joined Stevens' dissent, parts of which he read aloud in the courtroom.
The justices also struck down part of the landmark McCain-Feingold campaign finance bill that barred union- and corporate-paid issue ads in the closing days of election campaigns.
Advocates of strong campaign finance regulations have predicted that a court ruling against the limits would lead to a flood of corporate and union money in federal campaigns as early as this year's midterm congressional elections.
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
Democrats To Cut Health Care Bill
WASHINGTON – Chastened by the Democratic Senate loss in Massachusetts, President Barack Obama and congressional allies signaled Wednesday they may try to scale back his sweeping health care overhaul in an effort to at least keep parts of it alive.
A simpler, less ambitious bill emerged as an alternative only hours after the loss of the party's crucial 60th Senate seat forced the Democrats to slow their all-out drive to pass Obama's signature legislation despite fierce Republican opposition. The White House is still hoping the House can pass the Senate bill in a quick strike, but Democrats are now considering other options.
No decisions have been made, lawmakers said, but they laid out a new approach that could still include these provisions: limiting the ability of insurance companies to deny coverage to people with medical problems, allowing young adults to stay on their parents' policies, helping small businesses and low-income people pay premiums and changing Medicare to encourage payment for quality care instead of sheer volume of services.
The goal of trying to cover nearly all Americans would be put off further into the future.
Obama urged lawmakers not to try to jam a bill through, but scale the proposal down to what he called "those elements of the package that people agree on."
"We know that we need insurance reform, that the health insurance companies are taking advantage of people," the president said in an interview with ABC News. "We know that we have to have some form of cost containment because if we don't then our budgets are going to blow up. And we know that small businesses are going to need help."
One potential Republican convert for health care legislation remained an enigma. Sen. Olympia Snowe of Maine, who has been in regular contact with Obama, roundly criticized the Democrats' hard push to pass their bill. But she would not rule out voting for something in the end.
Asked if the Democratic bills are dead, Snowe responded: "I never say anything is dead, but clearly I think they have to revisit the entire issue."
Some Democrats weren't ready for that, despite the president's new words.
One option, still alive and stirring strong emotions, called for the House to quickly pass the Senate version of the broader bill — simply accepting it and therefore bypassing the Senate problem created by the loss of the Massachusetts seat to Republican Scott Brown. But that appeared to be losing favor.
"That's a bitter pill for the House to swallow," said the No. 2 Senate Democrat, Dick Durbin of Illinois.
"Full speed ahead is off the table," said Rep. Earl Pomeroy, a moderate Democrat from North Dakota. "We are still very much in the exercise of drawing meaning from the public disquiet."
Nevertheless, the quick approach remained on the table, despite some House members' deep misgivings. In fact, administration officials were working behind the scenes on that idea, which would be the fastest and cleanest route to getting a bill to Obama, said a senior administration official, who spoke on condition of anonymity to more freely describe private talks.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and other Democratic leaders were gauging support for the idea among liberals and moderates. The initial reaction was not encouraging.
"If you ran that Senate bill right now on the House floor, I'll bet you would not get 100 votes for it," said Rep. Bart Stupak, D-Mich.
It takes 218 votes to pass legislation. A majority of House Democrats oppose a tax on high-cost insurance plans in the Senate bill that unions see as a direct hit on their members. Stupak and other abortion opponents, backed by Catholic bishops, say the Senate bill falls short in restricting taxpayer dollars for abortion.
A week ago, House and Senate Democrats were working out the differences in their respective bills, and a quick resolution seemed likely. But feuding broke out after Brown's upset victory secured the seat held by the late Sen. Edward M. Kennedy for the GOP.
Some Democratic senators suggested it was up to the House to save the day by passing the Senate bill.
"The Senate has passed the health care bill. The House has to make a decision how they want to proceed," said Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., a member of the leadership.
Republicans said that would make their day.
Trying to push the Senate bill through would be a desperate ploy seen as such by voters, said Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., Obama's 2008 presidential rival. "If they try to jam it through the House, they'll pay a very heavy price."
As the day wore on, those urging moderation seemed to be winning the argument.
"We're not going to rush into anything," said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev. "We will wait until the new senator arrives."
Many Democrats are wary of starting over with the goal of drafting a bill that reaches for the political middle. They doubt they'll get any cooperation from Republicans.
"You cannot dance with someone if they are not willing to dance with you," said Sen. Robert Menendez, D-NJ. He called GOP complaints that the Democrats wrote a partisan bill "pretty lame, when they have made a political calculation that their path to victory is to have the president fail."
But House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., said a more modest approach would be a "reasonable alternative" that could appeal to the public even if Republicans still oppose it.
"Given the public concern, I think that we ought to focus on that which...the public can support and will be positive in terms of making health care more affordable and obtainable," he said.
Instead of one big bill, health care overhaul could be broken into chunks and passed over time.
"Medicare wasn't done in one fell swoop," said House Majority Whip Jim Clyburn, D-S.C. "You lay a foundation and you get this thing done over time."
A simpler, less ambitious bill emerged as an alternative only hours after the loss of the party's crucial 60th Senate seat forced the Democrats to slow their all-out drive to pass Obama's signature legislation despite fierce Republican opposition. The White House is still hoping the House can pass the Senate bill in a quick strike, but Democrats are now considering other options.
No decisions have been made, lawmakers said, but they laid out a new approach that could still include these provisions: limiting the ability of insurance companies to deny coverage to people with medical problems, allowing young adults to stay on their parents' policies, helping small businesses and low-income people pay premiums and changing Medicare to encourage payment for quality care instead of sheer volume of services.
The goal of trying to cover nearly all Americans would be put off further into the future.
Obama urged lawmakers not to try to jam a bill through, but scale the proposal down to what he called "those elements of the package that people agree on."
"We know that we need insurance reform, that the health insurance companies are taking advantage of people," the president said in an interview with ABC News. "We know that we have to have some form of cost containment because if we don't then our budgets are going to blow up. And we know that small businesses are going to need help."
One potential Republican convert for health care legislation remained an enigma. Sen. Olympia Snowe of Maine, who has been in regular contact with Obama, roundly criticized the Democrats' hard push to pass their bill. But she would not rule out voting for something in the end.
Asked if the Democratic bills are dead, Snowe responded: "I never say anything is dead, but clearly I think they have to revisit the entire issue."
Some Democrats weren't ready for that, despite the president's new words.
One option, still alive and stirring strong emotions, called for the House to quickly pass the Senate version of the broader bill — simply accepting it and therefore bypassing the Senate problem created by the loss of the Massachusetts seat to Republican Scott Brown. But that appeared to be losing favor.
"That's a bitter pill for the House to swallow," said the No. 2 Senate Democrat, Dick Durbin of Illinois.
"Full speed ahead is off the table," said Rep. Earl Pomeroy, a moderate Democrat from North Dakota. "We are still very much in the exercise of drawing meaning from the public disquiet."
Nevertheless, the quick approach remained on the table, despite some House members' deep misgivings. In fact, administration officials were working behind the scenes on that idea, which would be the fastest and cleanest route to getting a bill to Obama, said a senior administration official, who spoke on condition of anonymity to more freely describe private talks.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and other Democratic leaders were gauging support for the idea among liberals and moderates. The initial reaction was not encouraging.
"If you ran that Senate bill right now on the House floor, I'll bet you would not get 100 votes for it," said Rep. Bart Stupak, D-Mich.
It takes 218 votes to pass legislation. A majority of House Democrats oppose a tax on high-cost insurance plans in the Senate bill that unions see as a direct hit on their members. Stupak and other abortion opponents, backed by Catholic bishops, say the Senate bill falls short in restricting taxpayer dollars for abortion.
A week ago, House and Senate Democrats were working out the differences in their respective bills, and a quick resolution seemed likely. But feuding broke out after Brown's upset victory secured the seat held by the late Sen. Edward M. Kennedy for the GOP.
Some Democratic senators suggested it was up to the House to save the day by passing the Senate bill.
"The Senate has passed the health care bill. The House has to make a decision how they want to proceed," said Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., a member of the leadership.
Republicans said that would make their day.
Trying to push the Senate bill through would be a desperate ploy seen as such by voters, said Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., Obama's 2008 presidential rival. "If they try to jam it through the House, they'll pay a very heavy price."
As the day wore on, those urging moderation seemed to be winning the argument.
"We're not going to rush into anything," said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev. "We will wait until the new senator arrives."
Many Democrats are wary of starting over with the goal of drafting a bill that reaches for the political middle. They doubt they'll get any cooperation from Republicans.
"You cannot dance with someone if they are not willing to dance with you," said Sen. Robert Menendez, D-NJ. He called GOP complaints that the Democrats wrote a partisan bill "pretty lame, when they have made a political calculation that their path to victory is to have the president fail."
But House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., said a more modest approach would be a "reasonable alternative" that could appeal to the public even if Republicans still oppose it.
"Given the public concern, I think that we ought to focus on that which...the public can support and will be positive in terms of making health care more affordable and obtainable," he said.
Instead of one big bill, health care overhaul could be broken into chunks and passed over time.
"Medicare wasn't done in one fell swoop," said House Majority Whip Jim Clyburn, D-S.C. "You lay a foundation and you get this thing done over time."
Tuesday, January 19, 2010
Insurance Companies Can ...
Los Angeles resident Stacey Owens found out after a recent doctor's visit that her health insurer, Aetna, had canceled her coverage, ostensibly because she'd missed a monthly payment.
Never mind the heartlessness of leaving people uninsured because of something as potentially trivial as a misplaced bill.
No, the problem in this case is that Owens, 25, never missed a payment -- and she has the bank records to prove it.
Yet when she confronted Aetna with what clearly appeared to be a clerical error on the company's part, Owens said, the insurer dug in its heels and refused to reinstate her coverage.
This wasn't a minor inconvenience. Owens is a thyroid cancer survivor and requires medication to keep her body running smoothly. She also sees an endocrinologist for regular checkups.
"I'm not a person who can go without health insurance," Owens said last week. "I need to be able to see the doctor."
As lawmakers continue wrestling with -- and watering down -- bills intended to overhaul the U.S. healthcare system, stories like Owens' illustrate the need for change. Just about all Americans are just one bureaucratic bungle away from going without coverage.
Owens was insured by her parents until she graduated in 2006 from Mount Holyoke College in Massachusetts with a degree in film and TV production. She was covered by Aetna after being employed as a production assistant at Warner Bros. in mid-2007.
The job ended about five months later when production finished for the TV show she was working on. Owens continued her Aetna coverage under COBRA, the federal program that allows people to maintain health insurance for at least 18 additional months, albeit paying substantially higher premiums.
Owens said she found out that her coverage had been canceled only after a doctor's bill was rejected by Aetna in November.
She called the company and asked what was up. Owens said she was told by a service rep that her policy had been terminated because of a missed payment for October.
This simply wasn't the case. According to bank records produced by Owens, she wrote a check for $472.99 to Aetna on Sept. 28. The check was deposited by Aetna into a Citibank account in Delaware on Nov. 1.
Yet even when Owens appealed Aetna's cancellation of her coverage and asked to be reinstated, she was told -- via a form letter -- that there was nothing the company could do to help her.
While she pressed for reinstatement, Owens said she was careful to continue mailing monthly payments to Aetna. And Aetna kept mailing them back.
Finally, Owens brought her case to me. I took it back to Aetna.
"We could have done a better job with this situation," admitted Anjie Coplin, a company spokeswoman, after reviewing Owens' file.
The problem, Coplin said, resulted from a roughly $32 increase in Owens' premium that took effect in August. Although Owens continued sending in monthly checks, she neglected to pay the higher amount for two months.
She began paying the higher premium -- $472.99 a month -- as of October. But by then, at least in Aetna's eyes, it was too late. She was short by about $64 for the previous two months combined, and that was reason enough to have her join the 47 million other people in this country lacking health coverage.
Owens said she never received advance word that her premium was going up. She said she received a letter from Aetna in October saying that her rates had risen as of a couple of months earlier.
"That was the first I heard of it," Owens said.
Again, the paperwork backs her up. Aetna sent me a copy of the letter it sent Owens. It's dated Sept. 30 -- two months after the rate increase took effect.
I asked Coplin why Aetna didn't simply untangle the situation after Owens appealed her canceled policy. After all, the company's letters repeatedly told Owens she hadn't paid her bill, even though she knew she had -- and the company had even deposited her October payment.
"That was our mistake," Coplin acknowledged. "We took the check. It should have been returned."
So why wasn't Aetna more proactive in reaching out to a customer who clearly was making a good faith effort to pay her bills?
"I wasn't part of the appeals process," Coplin replied. "But in the future, we need to make sure our communications are more clear."
She said Aetna would reinstate Owens' coverage -- providing she now submits nearly $1,900 to cover four months of returned payments.
Coplin also said Aetna would retroactively cover any medical costs that accrued while Owens was uninsured. About $330 in prescription drug costs were run up during this time.
As for whether Owens' trouble represents a systemic problem, Coplin said Aetna did the best it could. The payment process is automated, she said, making it impossible for the company to contact customers personally in the event of a missed or insufficient payment.
Regarding Owens' appeal, Coplin said Aetna had been looking for any extenuating circumstances that would have explained why a customer failed to pay the full amount due. It didn't see any, she said.
That's just harsh, canceling someone's almost $473-a-month coverage over a matter of $64. And to then blow that customer off after she appealed the decision -- is it any wonder people think health insurers are only in it for the bucks?
"I did everything I was supposed to do," Owens said. "I tried to communicate with them. All I got back were form letters."
She said she's glad that Aetna (after some gentle prodding by the media), agreed to reinstate her coverage. And she'll likely pay the almost $1,900 just so her records show no lapses in health insurance -- you can never be too careful.
But Owens said she's already applied for alternative coverage offered by the Academy of Television Arts & Sciences, the people behind the Emmys.
The new policy would cost about half as much as the old one, which Owens likes. There's just one thing:
It's offered by Aetna.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
With what looks like the impending defeat of Martha Coakley in Massachusetts, it's likely that any move towards Health Care Reform is now RIP. Welcome to the New Welfare States of America.
No insurance ... Fuck you
No job .... Fuck you
No house .... Fuck you
No accountability ... Fuck you
No future ..... No kidding
Never mind the heartlessness of leaving people uninsured because of something as potentially trivial as a misplaced bill.
No, the problem in this case is that Owens, 25, never missed a payment -- and she has the bank records to prove it.
Yet when she confronted Aetna with what clearly appeared to be a clerical error on the company's part, Owens said, the insurer dug in its heels and refused to reinstate her coverage.
This wasn't a minor inconvenience. Owens is a thyroid cancer survivor and requires medication to keep her body running smoothly. She also sees an endocrinologist for regular checkups.
"I'm not a person who can go without health insurance," Owens said last week. "I need to be able to see the doctor."
As lawmakers continue wrestling with -- and watering down -- bills intended to overhaul the U.S. healthcare system, stories like Owens' illustrate the need for change. Just about all Americans are just one bureaucratic bungle away from going without coverage.
Owens was insured by her parents until she graduated in 2006 from Mount Holyoke College in Massachusetts with a degree in film and TV production. She was covered by Aetna after being employed as a production assistant at Warner Bros. in mid-2007.
The job ended about five months later when production finished for the TV show she was working on. Owens continued her Aetna coverage under COBRA, the federal program that allows people to maintain health insurance for at least 18 additional months, albeit paying substantially higher premiums.
Owens said she found out that her coverage had been canceled only after a doctor's bill was rejected by Aetna in November.
She called the company and asked what was up. Owens said she was told by a service rep that her policy had been terminated because of a missed payment for October.
This simply wasn't the case. According to bank records produced by Owens, she wrote a check for $472.99 to Aetna on Sept. 28. The check was deposited by Aetna into a Citibank account in Delaware on Nov. 1.
Yet even when Owens appealed Aetna's cancellation of her coverage and asked to be reinstated, she was told -- via a form letter -- that there was nothing the company could do to help her.
While she pressed for reinstatement, Owens said she was careful to continue mailing monthly payments to Aetna. And Aetna kept mailing them back.
Finally, Owens brought her case to me. I took it back to Aetna.
"We could have done a better job with this situation," admitted Anjie Coplin, a company spokeswoman, after reviewing Owens' file.
The problem, Coplin said, resulted from a roughly $32 increase in Owens' premium that took effect in August. Although Owens continued sending in monthly checks, she neglected to pay the higher amount for two months.
She began paying the higher premium -- $472.99 a month -- as of October. But by then, at least in Aetna's eyes, it was too late. She was short by about $64 for the previous two months combined, and that was reason enough to have her join the 47 million other people in this country lacking health coverage.
Owens said she never received advance word that her premium was going up. She said she received a letter from Aetna in October saying that her rates had risen as of a couple of months earlier.
"That was the first I heard of it," Owens said.
Again, the paperwork backs her up. Aetna sent me a copy of the letter it sent Owens. It's dated Sept. 30 -- two months after the rate increase took effect.
I asked Coplin why Aetna didn't simply untangle the situation after Owens appealed her canceled policy. After all, the company's letters repeatedly told Owens she hadn't paid her bill, even though she knew she had -- and the company had even deposited her October payment.
"That was our mistake," Coplin acknowledged. "We took the check. It should have been returned."
So why wasn't Aetna more proactive in reaching out to a customer who clearly was making a good faith effort to pay her bills?
"I wasn't part of the appeals process," Coplin replied. "But in the future, we need to make sure our communications are more clear."
She said Aetna would reinstate Owens' coverage -- providing she now submits nearly $1,900 to cover four months of returned payments.
Coplin also said Aetna would retroactively cover any medical costs that accrued while Owens was uninsured. About $330 in prescription drug costs were run up during this time.
As for whether Owens' trouble represents a systemic problem, Coplin said Aetna did the best it could. The payment process is automated, she said, making it impossible for the company to contact customers personally in the event of a missed or insufficient payment.
Regarding Owens' appeal, Coplin said Aetna had been looking for any extenuating circumstances that would have explained why a customer failed to pay the full amount due. It didn't see any, she said.
That's just harsh, canceling someone's almost $473-a-month coverage over a matter of $64. And to then blow that customer off after she appealed the decision -- is it any wonder people think health insurers are only in it for the bucks?
"I did everything I was supposed to do," Owens said. "I tried to communicate with them. All I got back were form letters."
She said she's glad that Aetna (after some gentle prodding by the media), agreed to reinstate her coverage. And she'll likely pay the almost $1,900 just so her records show no lapses in health insurance -- you can never be too careful.
But Owens said she's already applied for alternative coverage offered by the Academy of Television Arts & Sciences, the people behind the Emmys.
The new policy would cost about half as much as the old one, which Owens likes. There's just one thing:
It's offered by Aetna.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
With what looks like the impending defeat of Martha Coakley in Massachusetts, it's likely that any move towards Health Care Reform is now RIP. Welcome to the New Welfare States of America.
No insurance ... Fuck you
No job .... Fuck you
No house .... Fuck you
No accountability ... Fuck you
No future ..... No kidding
Saturday, January 16, 2010
Satan writes to Pat Robertson
Dear Pat Robertson,
I know that you know that all press is good press, so I appreciate the shout-out. And you make God look like a big mean bully who kicks people when they are down, so I'm all over that action.
But when you say that Haiti has made a pact with me, it is totally humiliating. I may be evil incarnate, but I'm no welcher. The way you put it, making a deal with me leaves folks desperate and impoverished.
Sure, in the afterlife, but when I strike bargains with people, they first get something here on earth -- glamour, beauty, talent, wealth, fame, glory, a golden fiddle. Those Haitians have nothing, and I mean nothing. And that was before the earthquake. Haven't you seen "Crossroads"? Or "Damn Yankees"?
If I had a thing going with Haiti, there'd be lots of banks, skyscrapers, SUVs, exclusive night clubs, Botox -- that kind of thing. An 80 percent poverty rate is so not my style. Nothing against it -- I'm just saying: Not how I roll.
You're doing great work, Pat, and I don't want to clip your wings -- just, come on, you're making me look bad. And not the good kind of bad. Keep blaming God. That's working. But leave me out of it, please. Or we may need to renegotiate your own contract.
Best, Satan
I know that you know that all press is good press, so I appreciate the shout-out. And you make God look like a big mean bully who kicks people when they are down, so I'm all over that action.
But when you say that Haiti has made a pact with me, it is totally humiliating. I may be evil incarnate, but I'm no welcher. The way you put it, making a deal with me leaves folks desperate and impoverished.
Sure, in the afterlife, but when I strike bargains with people, they first get something here on earth -- glamour, beauty, talent, wealth, fame, glory, a golden fiddle. Those Haitians have nothing, and I mean nothing. And that was before the earthquake. Haven't you seen "Crossroads"? Or "Damn Yankees"?
If I had a thing going with Haiti, there'd be lots of banks, skyscrapers, SUVs, exclusive night clubs, Botox -- that kind of thing. An 80 percent poverty rate is so not my style. Nothing against it -- I'm just saying: Not how I roll.
You're doing great work, Pat, and I don't want to clip your wings -- just, come on, you're making me look bad. And not the good kind of bad. Keep blaming God. That's working. But leave me out of it, please. Or we may need to renegotiate your own contract.
Best, Satan
Great quote from Sam Jackson
"Enough is enough. I've had it with these monkey fighting snakes on this monkey fighting plane"
As heard on FX's "family friendly" version of Snakes on a Plane.
As heard on FX's "family friendly" version of Snakes on a Plane.
Friday, January 15, 2010
Wing Nut Alert
By posting this ... I'll just let it stew in your minds. You can't escape the images. You won't be able to un-see this. It's Michelle Bachmann, sent to save us from ourselves by Jesus.
Truly Disturbing
From The Gate
Did you know that everything you and those in your network do and discuss online may be compiled and provided to creditors? If your settings are tuned to public, it's true. This includes your Facebook status updates, Twitter "tweets," joining online clubs, linking a Web site, and even posting a comment on a news blog (such as, well, this one).
It's fascinating stuff. Here is my full story that came out today, Social networking: Your key to easy credit?, but in brief -
What's going on: In hopes of identifying good credit customers, some financial institutions are tapping into the information you and your friends reveal online. The idea is that the friends you keep and data you disclose may help them make more accurate business decisions.
Who is doing it: Companies such as Rapleaf hunt and gather social networking transmissions, turning the conversations you have in your network into consumer profiles. These profiles provide banks with insight into your behavior patterns - what you like and dislike, want and don't want, do well and do poorly.
How it's being used: There are a couple of ways this information may be applied. It can help creditors promote certain products, cutting down on marketing waste. Why sent pre-approval letters to people not interested, right?
Lowering lending risk is another reason. Creditors can see if people in your network have accounts with them, and are free to look at how they are handling those accounts. The presumption is that if those in your network are responsible cardholders, there is a better chance you will be too. So, if a bank is on the fence about whether to extend you credit, you may become eligible if those in your network are good credit customers.
Having a robust online social network can also expedite loan acceptance. If you're connected to a lot of people who are great credit risks, it can speed you through the process. Amazing, isn't it?
What you can do. While financial institutions and companies that gather your online data are emphatic that the idea is to increase the odds of a person getting credit, what you reveal online can have unintended consequences. Therefore, if you want to opt out, turn all of your settings to private. Other best practices:
- Don't accept invitations to your social networking site from people until you check their profiles out first.
- Be acutely aware of what you write. Don't make public anything you don't want public.
- Take an annual inventory of all your social networking sites and delete people and information that can potentially damage you in the eyes of a creditor or employer.
There is a problem to going completely underground, of course. If you're like me and want to be found (I couldn't conduct my business as well without being public), you won't be.
Did you know that everything you and those in your network do and discuss online may be compiled and provided to creditors? If your settings are tuned to public, it's true. This includes your Facebook status updates, Twitter "tweets," joining online clubs, linking a Web site, and even posting a comment on a news blog (such as, well, this one).
It's fascinating stuff. Here is my full story that came out today, Social networking: Your key to easy credit?, but in brief -
What's going on: In hopes of identifying good credit customers, some financial institutions are tapping into the information you and your friends reveal online. The idea is that the friends you keep and data you disclose may help them make more accurate business decisions.
Who is doing it: Companies such as Rapleaf hunt and gather social networking transmissions, turning the conversations you have in your network into consumer profiles. These profiles provide banks with insight into your behavior patterns - what you like and dislike, want and don't want, do well and do poorly.
How it's being used: There are a couple of ways this information may be applied. It can help creditors promote certain products, cutting down on marketing waste. Why sent pre-approval letters to people not interested, right?
Lowering lending risk is another reason. Creditors can see if people in your network have accounts with them, and are free to look at how they are handling those accounts. The presumption is that if those in your network are responsible cardholders, there is a better chance you will be too. So, if a bank is on the fence about whether to extend you credit, you may become eligible if those in your network are good credit customers.
Having a robust online social network can also expedite loan acceptance. If you're connected to a lot of people who are great credit risks, it can speed you through the process. Amazing, isn't it?
What you can do. While financial institutions and companies that gather your online data are emphatic that the idea is to increase the odds of a person getting credit, what you reveal online can have unintended consequences. Therefore, if you want to opt out, turn all of your settings to private. Other best practices:
- Don't accept invitations to your social networking site from people until you check their profiles out first.
- Be acutely aware of what you write. Don't make public anything you don't want public.
- Take an annual inventory of all your social networking sites and delete people and information that can potentially damage you in the eyes of a creditor or employer.
There is a problem to going completely underground, of course. If you're like me and want to be found (I couldn't conduct my business as well without being public), you won't be.
Worst Song Ever
So I was watching VH1 late last night and came upon this car crash. It's called Fireflies by a band called Owl City.
You would not believe your eyes
If ten million fireflies
Lit up the world as I fell asleep
Cause they fill the open air
And leave teardrops everywhere
You'd think me rude, but I
Would just stand and stare.
I'd like to make myself believe
That planet Earth turns slowly.
It's hard to say that I'd
Rather stay awake when I'm asleep,
Cause everything is never as it seems.
Cause I'd get a thousand hugs
From ten thousand lightening bugs
As they tried to teach me how to dance.
A foxtrot above my head,
A sock-hop beneath my bed,
The disco ball is just hanging by a thread.
I'd like to make myself believe
That planet Earth turns slowly.
It's hard to say that I'd
Rather stay awake when I'm asleep,
Cause everything is never as it seems.
(When I fall asleep.)
Leave my door open just a crack.
(Please take me away from here.)
Cause I feel like such an insomniac.
(Please take me away from here.)
Why do I tire of counting sheep?
(Please take me away from here.)
When I'm far too tired to fall asleep
To ten million fireflies.
I'm weird, cause I hate goodbyes
I got misty eyes as they said farewell.
But I'll know where several are
If my dreams get real bizarre
Cause I saved a few,
And I keep them in a jar.
I'd like to make myself believe
That planet Earth turns slowly.
It's hard to say that I'd
Rather stay awake when I'm asleep,
Cause everything is never as it seems.
(When I fall asleep.)
I'd like to make myself believe
That planet Earth turns slowly.
It's hard to say that I'd
Rather stay awake when I'm asleep
Because my dreams are bursting at the seams
THIS is what passes for music these days. What a LOAD of shit.
You would not believe your eyes
If ten million fireflies
Lit up the world as I fell asleep
Cause they fill the open air
And leave teardrops everywhere
You'd think me rude, but I
Would just stand and stare.
I'd like to make myself believe
That planet Earth turns slowly.
It's hard to say that I'd
Rather stay awake when I'm asleep,
Cause everything is never as it seems.
Cause I'd get a thousand hugs
From ten thousand lightening bugs
As they tried to teach me how to dance.
A foxtrot above my head,
A sock-hop beneath my bed,
The disco ball is just hanging by a thread.
I'd like to make myself believe
That planet Earth turns slowly.
It's hard to say that I'd
Rather stay awake when I'm asleep,
Cause everything is never as it seems.
(When I fall asleep.)
Leave my door open just a crack.
(Please take me away from here.)
Cause I feel like such an insomniac.
(Please take me away from here.)
Why do I tire of counting sheep?
(Please take me away from here.)
When I'm far too tired to fall asleep
To ten million fireflies.
I'm weird, cause I hate goodbyes
I got misty eyes as they said farewell.
But I'll know where several are
If my dreams get real bizarre
Cause I saved a few,
And I keep them in a jar.
I'd like to make myself believe
That planet Earth turns slowly.
It's hard to say that I'd
Rather stay awake when I'm asleep,
Cause everything is never as it seems.
(When I fall asleep.)
I'd like to make myself believe
That planet Earth turns slowly.
It's hard to say that I'd
Rather stay awake when I'm asleep
Because my dreams are bursting at the seams
THIS is what passes for music these days. What a LOAD of shit.
Thursday, January 14, 2010
| The Daily Show With Jon Stewart | Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c | |||
| Clusterf#@k to the Poor House - Wall Street Bonuses | ||||
| ||||
I owe money to Bank of America. I used a credit card to live off of a few years ago, but screw them if they think they'll ever get another dime from me. The reason? I think they have enough money from me already. And then there's this:
Bank Of America CEO Moynihan: 'No Disconnect' Between Lavish Exec Bonuses And The Crumbling Economy'
Pardon me BOA ... but FUCK YOU!
Tuesday, January 12, 2010
Finally ... I understand the Health Care Debate
Thank you Rep. LaTourette for explaining it to me. I would have NEVER understood this without your mature reasoning skills.
Monday, January 11, 2010
Hey Fox News ... You Stay Classy
Just when you thought that the drumbeats of banality just couldn't be elevated any higher:
Sarah Palin to Fox News: Former Alaska Gov., 2008 GOP VP nominee, inks multi-year deal.
Said Ms Palin:
"I am thrilled to be joining the great talent and management team at Fox News," "It's wonderful to be part of a place that so values fair and balance news."
I think at this point, Fox has stripped ALL veneer off of the idea that they are a "fair and balanced" network. With the addition of Ms. Palin the lies that she espoused in both her book "Going Rogue" and the multitude of falsehoods she continues to spout, she'll be a welcome addition to the line up at Fox. I can imagine Carl Rove and Bill O'Reilly are working to organize a loofah party in her honour now.
Sarah Palin to Fox News: Former Alaska Gov., 2008 GOP VP nominee, inks multi-year deal.
Said Ms Palin:
"I am thrilled to be joining the great talent and management team at Fox News," "It's wonderful to be part of a place that so values fair and balance news."
I think at this point, Fox has stripped ALL veneer off of the idea that they are a "fair and balanced" network. With the addition of Ms. Palin the lies that she espoused in both her book "Going Rogue" and the multitude of falsehoods she continues to spout, she'll be a welcome addition to the line up at Fox. I can imagine Carl Rove and Bill O'Reilly are working to organize a loofah party in her honour now.
Are Americans a Broken People? Why We've Stopped Fighting Back Against the Forces of Oppression.
From Alternet:
Can people become so broken that truths of how they are being screwed do not "set them free" but instead further demoralize them? Has such a demoralization happened in the United States?
Do some totalitarians actually want us to hear how we have been screwed because they know that humiliating passivity in the face of obvious oppression will demoralize us even further?
What forces have created a demoralized, passive, dis-couraged U.S. population?
Can anything be done to turn this around?
Can people become so broken that truths of how they are being screwed do not "set them free" but instead further demoralize them?
Yes. It is called the "abuse syndrome." How do abusive pimps, spouses, bosses, corporations, and governments stay in control? They shove lies, emotional and physical abuses, and injustices in their victims' faces, and when victims are afraid to exit from these relationships, they get weaker. So the abuser then makes their victims eat even more lies, abuses, and injustices, resulting in victims even weaker as they remain in these relationships.
Does knowing the truth of their abuse set people free when they are deep in these abuse syndromes?
No. For victims of the abuse syndrome, the truth of their passive submission to humiliating oppression is more than embarrassing; it can feel shameful -- and there is nothing more painful than shame. When one already feels beaten down and demoralized, the likely response to the pain of shame is not constructive action, but more attempts to shut down or divert oneself from this pain. It is not likely that the truth of one's humiliating oppression is going to energize one to constructive actions.
Has such a demoralization happened in the U.S.?
In the United States, 47 million people are without health insurance, and many millions more are underinsured or a job layoff away from losing their coverage. But despite the current sellout by their elected officials to the insurance industry, there is no outpouring of millions of U.S. citizens on the streets of Washington, D.C., protesting this betrayal.
Polls show that the majority of Americans oppose U.S. wars in Afghanistan and Iraq as well as the taxpayer bailout of the financial industry, yet only a handful of U.S. citizens have protested these circumstances.
Remember the 2000 U.S. presidential election? That's the one in which Al Gore received 500,000 more votes than George W. Bush. That's also the one that the Florida Supreme Court's order for a recount of the disputed Florida vote was overruled by the U.S. Supreme Court in a politicized 5-4 decision, of which dissenting Justice John Paul Stevens remarked: "Although we may never know with complete certainty the identity of the winner of this year's presidential election, the identity of the loser is perfectly clear. It is the nation's confidence in the judge as an impartial guardian of the rule of law." Yet, even this provoked few demonstrators.
When people become broken, they cannot act on truths of injustice. Furthermore, when people have become broken, more truths about how they have been victimized can lead to shame about how they have allowed it. And shame, like fear, is one more way we become even more psychologically broken.
U.S. citizens do not actively protest obvious injustices for the same reasons that people cannot leave their abusive spouses: They feel helpless to effect change. The more we don't act, the weaker we get. And ultimately to deal with the painful humiliation over inaction in the face of an oppressor, we move to shut-down mode and use escape strategies such as depression, substance abuse, and other diversions, which further keep us from acting. This is the vicious cycle of all abuse syndromes.
Do some totalitarians actually want us to hear how we have been screwed because they know that humiliating passivity in the face of obvious oppression will demoralize us even further?
Maybe.
Shortly before the 2000 U.S. presidential election, millions of Americans saw a clip of George W. Bush joking to a wealthy group of people, "What a crowd tonight: the haves and the haves-more. Some people call you the elite; I call you my base." Yet, even with these kind of inflammatory remarks, the tens of millions of U.S. citizens who had come to despise Bush and his arrogance remained passive in the face of the 2000 non-democratic presidential elections.
Perhaps the "political genius" of the Bush-Cheney regime was in their full realization that Americans were so broken that the regime could get away with damn near anything. And the more people did nothing about the boot slamming on their faces, the weaker people became.
What forces have created a demoralized, passive, dis-couraged U.S. population?
The U.S. government-corporate partnership has used its share of guns and terror to break Native Americans, labor union organizers, and other dissidents and activists. But today, most U.S. citizens are broken by financial fears. There is potential legal debt if we speak out against a powerful authority, and all kinds of other debt if we do not comply on the job. Young people are broken by college-loan debts and fear of having no health insurance.
(read the whole post here.)
Can people become so broken that truths of how they are being screwed do not "set them free" but instead further demoralize them? Has such a demoralization happened in the United States?
Do some totalitarians actually want us to hear how we have been screwed because they know that humiliating passivity in the face of obvious oppression will demoralize us even further?
What forces have created a demoralized, passive, dis-couraged U.S. population?
Can anything be done to turn this around?
Can people become so broken that truths of how they are being screwed do not "set them free" but instead further demoralize them?
Yes. It is called the "abuse syndrome." How do abusive pimps, spouses, bosses, corporations, and governments stay in control? They shove lies, emotional and physical abuses, and injustices in their victims' faces, and when victims are afraid to exit from these relationships, they get weaker. So the abuser then makes their victims eat even more lies, abuses, and injustices, resulting in victims even weaker as they remain in these relationships.
Does knowing the truth of their abuse set people free when they are deep in these abuse syndromes?
No. For victims of the abuse syndrome, the truth of their passive submission to humiliating oppression is more than embarrassing; it can feel shameful -- and there is nothing more painful than shame. When one already feels beaten down and demoralized, the likely response to the pain of shame is not constructive action, but more attempts to shut down or divert oneself from this pain. It is not likely that the truth of one's humiliating oppression is going to energize one to constructive actions.
Has such a demoralization happened in the U.S.?
In the United States, 47 million people are without health insurance, and many millions more are underinsured or a job layoff away from losing their coverage. But despite the current sellout by their elected officials to the insurance industry, there is no outpouring of millions of U.S. citizens on the streets of Washington, D.C., protesting this betrayal.
Polls show that the majority of Americans oppose U.S. wars in Afghanistan and Iraq as well as the taxpayer bailout of the financial industry, yet only a handful of U.S. citizens have protested these circumstances.
Remember the 2000 U.S. presidential election? That's the one in which Al Gore received 500,000 more votes than George W. Bush. That's also the one that the Florida Supreme Court's order for a recount of the disputed Florida vote was overruled by the U.S. Supreme Court in a politicized 5-4 decision, of which dissenting Justice John Paul Stevens remarked: "Although we may never know with complete certainty the identity of the winner of this year's presidential election, the identity of the loser is perfectly clear. It is the nation's confidence in the judge as an impartial guardian of the rule of law." Yet, even this provoked few demonstrators.
When people become broken, they cannot act on truths of injustice. Furthermore, when people have become broken, more truths about how they have been victimized can lead to shame about how they have allowed it. And shame, like fear, is one more way we become even more psychologically broken.
U.S. citizens do not actively protest obvious injustices for the same reasons that people cannot leave their abusive spouses: They feel helpless to effect change. The more we don't act, the weaker we get. And ultimately to deal with the painful humiliation over inaction in the face of an oppressor, we move to shut-down mode and use escape strategies such as depression, substance abuse, and other diversions, which further keep us from acting. This is the vicious cycle of all abuse syndromes.
Do some totalitarians actually want us to hear how we have been screwed because they know that humiliating passivity in the face of obvious oppression will demoralize us even further?
Maybe.
Shortly before the 2000 U.S. presidential election, millions of Americans saw a clip of George W. Bush joking to a wealthy group of people, "What a crowd tonight: the haves and the haves-more. Some people call you the elite; I call you my base." Yet, even with these kind of inflammatory remarks, the tens of millions of U.S. citizens who had come to despise Bush and his arrogance remained passive in the face of the 2000 non-democratic presidential elections.
Perhaps the "political genius" of the Bush-Cheney regime was in their full realization that Americans were so broken that the regime could get away with damn near anything. And the more people did nothing about the boot slamming on their faces, the weaker people became.
What forces have created a demoralized, passive, dis-couraged U.S. population?
The U.S. government-corporate partnership has used its share of guns and terror to break Native Americans, labor union organizers, and other dissidents and activists. But today, most U.S. citizens are broken by financial fears. There is potential legal debt if we speak out against a powerful authority, and all kinds of other debt if we do not comply on the job. Young people are broken by college-loan debts and fear of having no health insurance.
(read the whole post here.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)