Monday Open Thread



When dipshyt employers plan to screw over their employees anyway, they have to have a reason for doing so.  Never mind that the reason is bullshyt and probably just a means of discriminating against employees.  What’s your take on this? Personally, I wish these dipshyt employers would come up with something ELSE….

Open Thread Below….

This entry was posted in Health, Open Thread, Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

55 Responses to Monday Open Thread

  1. Selling the Iraq War1

    Selling the Iraq War

    Selling the Iraq War3

    [wpvideo QE7lyWdu]

    [wpvideo mbuVAVDs]

    [wpvideo p3j4mTRu]

    [wpvideo pWlBABA4]

    [wpvideo FFAoHzs3]

  2. rikyrah says:

    Ebony’s twitter person is like, “My name is Bennett and I’m not in it!” LOL

    EBONY Magazine ‏@EBONYMag
    @DebbieLuvs Thanks for the feedback. Let the writer know and comment on our site.

    EBONY Magazine ‏@EBONYMag
    @Mama4Obama1 This was one writer’s opinion, so if you have a comment for her, you may want to leave it on the site.

    EBONY Magazine ‏@EBONYMag
    @symmetry11 This is one writer’s opinion. Leave a comment on the site if you would like to reach out to the writer.

    EBONY Magazine ‏@EBONYMag
    @MarquitaLove Please leave comments on the site where the writer/other readers can engage you!

    EBONY Magazine ‏@EBONYMag
    @mshotspot70_kc This was one writer’s opinion, so if you have a comment for her, you may want to leave it on the site.

  3. rikyrah says:

    Outguess Ebert? I may have them all right

    By Roger Ebert on February 7, 2013 6:08 PM|

    Anyway, my guess for the best picture Oscar was made a while ago. On Sept. 10, I wrote:

    • “The winner of the Academy Award for Best Picture will be Ben Affleck’s tense new thriller ‘Argo.’ How do I know this? Because it is the audience favorite coming out of the top-loaded opening weekend of the Toronto Film Festival.” Unquote. Also, because I had a feeling.

    Nothing has changed. I did feel elevation during a 3-D shot in “Life of Pi” when the camera looks up from beneath the lifeboat and we experience the ocean’s surface as a membrane between sea and sky. But a membrane, an Oscar does not win, and another reason Ben Affleck’s film will win this year is that it’s a dashed entertaining example of what Hollywood always knew how to do, and seems to be forgetting: It’s a great story. Lives are at stake, yet comedy sneaks in. There’s a caper needing split-second timing and blind luck. It depends on story and not star power or a franchise. It’s Inspired By a True Story of the best possible kind: It makes the movie industry look good while based on an untrue story. Our side tries to rescue some Americans hidden inside the Canadian Embassy in Tehran by concocting a phony sci fi movie named “Argo” as a cover to smuggle a rescue team into Iran during the Hostage Crisis.

    It is said “Les Miserables” has a chance in this category. That would be an insult to the other finalists. I get the sensation this year that the awards reflect a new Hollywood reality: With so many different ways for audiences to see films, the new emphasis will be on (yes) quality in whatever genre, and away from blockbusters that are pounded down our throats. There are many ways to see movies these days, even on a telephone. A routine picture can be absorbed through many pores. Theatrical screenings were once assumed to be the great mass entertainment. Now they’re subtly becoming elitist. A good reason to see a first-run movie in a theater is to join a cool audience that knows why it’s there. Friday night at a superior film will feel more like the 8:30 a.m. press screenings at Cannes: We are the select, the chosen few.


    Best actor: Daniel Day-Lewis for Steven Spielberg’s “Lincoln.” It’s a finely controlled, non-heroic performance. He interprets the character anew, not burdened by its weight of history. Day-Lewis and Spielberg create a Lincoln who is older and less robust than we usually imagine him, and who shows not fiery heroism but great patience as he shepherds his anti-slavery legislation through a congressional maze. This Lincoln makes me think of Obama in the way he doesn’t spout off and moves in deliberation. The movie is much about that political process. We understand the 13th Amendment passed not so much for moral reasons, but for immediate pragmatic ones. Lincoln won the necessary votes from the necessary legislators by making those pragmatic schemers an offer they couldn’t refuse

    • Ametia says:

      Haven’t seen Argo, yet. And don’t know if I will. Hubby and I saw Zero Dark Thirty yesterday. I was on the edge of my seat the whole time.

      My pics: Lincoln & Silver Linings Playbook for best pictue
      Best cinematography: Life of Pi
      Best Actor: Daniel Day Lewis
      Best Supporting Actor- Tommy Lee Jones Licoln. Bradley Cooper
      Best Actress:Jessica Chastain- Maya Zero Dark Thrity
      Best Supporting Actress: Sally Field -Lincoln Jennifer Lawrence- Silver Linings Playbook

  4. rikyrah says:

    Why Hagel Matters

    Feb 18 2013 @ 11:47am

    As I’ve written before, a huge amount of this is opposition to any US defense secretary who doesn’t see Israel as a 51st state or somehow subject to evangelical theological doctrines that over-rule any diplomatic ones. And insofar as Israel is an issue, they particularly oppose a defense secretary who believes that Israel’s continued settlement of the West Bank is a huge liability for the US in its relationship with the entire Muslim and Arab world and a constant recruiting mechanism for terrorists to attack the West. Then there’s Hagel’s deadly combination of two Purple Hearts and a foreign policy realism versus Dick Cheney’s five deferments in Vietnam and “ignorant interventionism”.

    But Josh Marshall also notes the broader generational fact that Hagel and Obama do not see the Middle East as the center of America’s security challenges. As our oil independence grows, the relevance of all those oil-producing despotisms or democracies or failed states declines. And so the worldview that was defined as “mainstream” only a few years ago seriously is being challenged:

    Hagel in himself is no singular figure. But he’s part of the Scowcroft/Brezinzski et al. running critique of Bush era foreign policy. It’s not just that he didn’t vote for this or that declaration about the Iranian government or doesn’t toe the Likud line on the Israel/Palestine front. He’s one of those people who just don’t think these issues should be the be all and end all of our role in the world at all. And that’s extremely threatening to some people.

    Indeed it is. For that is one reason they get up in the morning. I see Hagel’s nomination as the natural evolution of Obama’s slow but relentless shift of US foreign policy from neconservative dogma to conservative pragmatism (with a few small splotches of idealism). Of course, the neocon fanatics are threatened. As history unfolds, their catastrophic ideology will come to seem the temporary and horrifying exception, not the new rule. And when a member of their own party helps advance their consignment to the dustbin of failed ideologies, you can see why they are having a conniption.

    Meep meep.

  5. Ametia says:

    Sneak preview of Skype visit on Rachel Ray show to air Wednesday, Feb/ 20.

    Video excerpt

  6. Ametia says:

    ABC OTUS News – Michelle Obama Jokes About Bangs (ABC News)

    Michelle Obama jokingly says a mid-life crisis is what inspired her new haircut with bangs.

    The first lady revealed the new hairstyle last month on her 49th birthday, which came a few days before the festivities for President Barack Obama’s second inauguration.

    Mrs. Obama was asked about the new haircut during an interview with talk-show host Rachael Ray.

    Said Mrs. Obama: “This is my mid-life crisis.” She added that she cut her bangs because she can’t get a sports car and won’t be allowed to bungee jump.

    The interview was conducted via Skype and is scheduled to air on Wednesday. The Rachel Ray show released excerpts on Monday.

  7. rikyrah says:

    Ron Johnson’s odd take on his political rivals
    By Steve Benen
    Mon Feb 18, 2013 11:28 AM EST

    Remember former Rep. Allen West (R-Fla.)? Last May, the Republican raised eyebrows when he accused dozens of House Democrats of being secret members of the Communist Party. Asked for an explanation, West eventually argued that, in his mind, “Communism, Progressivism, Socialism, Marxism, or Statism” are all effectively the same thing.

    He’s apparently not the only one who thinks this way.

    Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) made no effort to hide the fact that he believes the Democratic agenda is radical, comparing members of the party to Socialists and Marxists over the weekend.

    Johnson lamented President Barack Obama’s reelection with fellow Republicans in a speech on Saturday night in Johnson Creek, Wis., calling it a “body blow to freedom.” He then described what “people who like freedom” — people such as himself — were up against.

    “We are up against a strategy that is taking place by liberals, progressives, Democrats, whatever they call themselves nowadays, Socialists, Marxists,” Johnson continued, according to the Daily Jefferson County Union.

  8. rikyrah says:

    When the sequester hits

    Posted by Jonathan Bernstein on February 18, 2013 at 4:15 pm

    Stan Collender today remembers the government shutdown of 1995-1996 and how closed national parks put pressure on Newt Gingrich and the Republicans to cut a deal — and he suggests that something similar might happen if the sequester goes through.

    One thing he doesn’t mention is that the reaction against the shutdown seems to have surprised many Republicans at the time. Of course, that alone didn’t automatically hurt them; had people blamed President Bill Clinton for the shutdown, it’s possible that pressure could have fallen more on him than on Congress. Granted, since Republicans in 1995 had planned the shutdown all year, that wasn’t all that likely, but it was possible.

    But the government shutdown, and the damage from it, were intended from the start as temporary measures.

    That’s not the case this time. As Greg has been detailing recently, the sequester as it is — sharp cuts to domestic spending with some Democratic priorities protected, sharp cuts to defense spending — is, for Republicans, already a compromise position from the even deeper domestic cuts they’ve advocated ever since the Paul Ryan-authored budget passed the House in 2011. And the new GOP plan to balance the budget within 10 years (still without any new revenues, and protecting many other Republican priorities) would mean far sharper cuts in popular domestic programs.

  9. rikyrah says:

    Bobby Jindal’s rise shows that GOP reform is all cosmetic

    Posted by Jamelle Bouie on February 18, 2013 at 11:00 am

    Since November, Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal (R) has successfully positioned himself as a reformist outsider, despite his clear commitment to the same right-wing policies championed by all sides of the GOP divide, from tea party Republicans like Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, to establishment-minded lawmakers like Wisconsin Rep. Paul Ryan.

    The past year of Jindal’s tenure, in fact, has been defined by steady progress on a wish list of conservative policies. Under Jindal, Louisiana has expanded its voucher system, rejected the Affordable Care Act’s Medicaid expansion, passed onerous new anti-abortion laws, and is poised to accept a massive overhaul of its tax code, replacing income and corporate taxes with a large new sales tax. The latter policy, in particular, will place a huge burden on ordinary Louisianans. To maintain the state’s current revenues under the new tax plan, notes the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, Louisiana would have to double its sales tax revenue. “For households that don’t pay income taxes and save little or no income, this amounts to close to a 4 percentage point drop in after-tax income.”

    Writing for Politico, Emily Schulthesis notes that this is clear evidence Jindal is positioning himself for a presidential run in 2016, despite his protests to the contrary:

  10. rikyrah says:

    Lindsey Graham struggles with fiscal basics

    By Steve Benen
    Mon Feb 18, 2013 9:20 AM EST

    There was an exchange yesterday between Fox News’ Chris Wallace and Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) that was hard to watch, but nevertheless illustrative of a larger point.

    WALLACE: You know that if we go into the sequester the president is going to hammer Republicans. The White House has already put out a list of all the things, terrible things that will happen if a sequester kicks in: 70,000 children losing Head Start, 2,100 fewer food inspectors, small business will lose $900 million in loan guarantees. And, you know, Senator, the president is going to say your party is forcing this to protect tax cuts for the wealthy.

    GRAHAM: Well, all I can say is the Commander-In-Chief thought — came up with the idea of sequestration, destroying the military and putting a lot of good programs at risk. Here’s my belief: let’s take “Obamacare” and put it on the table…. If you want to look at ways to find $1.2 trillion in savings over the next decade, let’s look at “Obamacare”. Let’s don’t destroy the military and just cut blindly across the board.

    Now, the first point is obviously ridiculous. Republicans are heavily invested in the idea that automatic sequestration cuts were something President Obama “came up with,” but reality shows otherwise. It’s trivia anyway — what matters is resolving the threat, not imagining who created it — but what Graham chooses to overlook is every relevant detail: the sequester was part of the ransom paid to the Republican Party when it took the nation’s full faith and credit hostage for the first time in American history. GOP leaders, at time, bragged that this policy was their idea, not Obama’s.

  11. rikyrah says:

    say it with me, ladies and gentlemen…

    Rubio is against is because Rubio is a FRAUD.


    Marco Rubio is against administration’s Rubio-esque immigration plan

    Posted by Jamelle Bouie on February 18, 2013 at 9:35 am

    Comprehensive immigration reform remains one of the few issues where Washington is making process. Florida Sen. Marco Rubio (R) has been shopping his plan to Republicans and Democrats, while in his State of the Union, President Obama made reference to his plan, which he promised to introduce if Congress can’t come to an agreement. Over the weekend, USA Today published the details of this proposal. As the Miami Herald notes, it is “the most-specific comprehensive-immigration reform plan proposed.”

    Its provisions should be familiar to anyone following the debate. It would further expand immigration enforcement and require businesses to check the immigration status of new hires within four years. It would also create a two-step process for full legalization. Under the proposal, any of the nation’s 11 million unauthorized immigrants could apply for a “Lawful Protective Immigrant” visa, provided they pass a criminal background check, provide biometric information and pay a set of fees. If approved for the visa, they would be allowed to live and work in the United States for four years before reapplying. They could leave the country for short periods of time, and apply to have their spouses and children covered by the same provisional legal status. Immigrants could be disqualified from the program if they were convicted of a crime that led to a prison term of one year, or several crimes that led to at least 90 days in jail


    Despite these similarities, Rubio has come out against the administration’s proposal. “If actually proposed,” the senator said in a press release, “the President’s bill would be dead on arrival in Congress, leaving us with unsecured borders and a broken legal immigration system for years to come.” Rubio accuses the White House of “failing to secure our borders,” creating a “special pathway” for those who broke the law, and doing nothing to address the “future flow” of immigrants.

    This isn’t true. The administration might have a more lenient proposal than the one favored by Rubio, but it fits his criteria for acceptability.

    This raises an important question. Is Rubio interested in passing immigration reform, or does he want credit for being the kind of GOP senator who is interested in immigration reform. If its the former, then this is just posturing — Rubio knows that he has to placate the right-wing of his party, which is hostile to anything that comes from the White House. But if it’s the latter, then Rubio might be positioning himself for a break with the administration, and a mournful declaration that — despite his hard work — he just couldn’t come to an agreement. Congress has yet to issue its proposal for immigration reform. But when it does, we’ll see where Rubio falls.

  12. rikyrah says:

    Historic oversight corrected: Film ‘Lincoln’ inspires look into slavery vote
    Feb 17, 2013

    Oscar-nominated “Lincoln,” which depicts the political fight to pass the 13th Amendment abolishing slavery, played a role in Mississippi officially ratifying the amendment this month — a century and a half later.

    …After Congress voted for the 13th Amendment in January 1864, the measure went to the states for ratification.

    On Dec. 6, 1865, the amendment received the three-fourths’ vote it needed when Georgia became the 27th state to ratify it. States that rejected the measure included Delaware, Kentucky, New Jersey and Mississippi.

    In the months and years that followed, states continued to ratify the amendment, including those that had initially rejected it. New Jersey ratified the amendment in 1866, Delaware in 1901 and Kentucky in 1976.

    But there was an asterisk beside Mississippi. A note read: “Mississippi ratified the amendment in 1995, but because the state never officially notified the US Archivist, the ratification is not official.”

  13. rikyrah says:

    The Best Take Down of Hipster Racism You Will Ever See

    I’ve watched and shared this video so many times that I figured I should blog about it. The poets are Kai Davis (left) and Safiya Washington (right) of the Philadelphia Youth Poetry Movement performing at last year’s Brave New Voices semi-finals.

    The term “hipster racism” was coined by Carmen Van Kerckhove at Racialicious and refers to using racist language “ironically”. But I would go a step further and say that the hipster lifestyle is quite racist in and off itself and Davis and Washington’s performance perfectly encapsulates why that is. As s.e. Smith explained back in 2009:

    Hipsters are a driving force behind gentrification, driving out low income people and people of colour. They consistently co-opt and appropriate elements of other cultures, piecemeal, and often without any cultural sensitivity or respect. They regularly draw upon the work and legacy of people of colour, usually without crediting them, and most of their contact with people of colour comes in the form of the service personnel serving them their food, cleaning their wine bars, and picking their organic produce.


    This can be seen in the reaction to the video. In my experience, people either love or hate it and those who hate it are more often than not (surprise surprise!) white hipsters who complain that Davis and Washington’s performance is too angry, too aggressive. They’re basically demanding that people who are routinely insulted and oppressed by the world around them temper their criticisms to spare the feelings of the oppressor. Fuck that!

  14. rikyrah says:

    Dr. Ben Carson should apologize to President Obama

    Our politics have become so polarized and corrupted that a president of the United States cannot even attend an event devoted to drawing people closer to God and bridge partisan and cultural divides without being lectured about his policies.

    Last Thursday at the National Prayer Breakfast in Washington, D.C., Dr. Ben Carson, director of Pediatric Neurosurgery at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, and a 2008 recipient of the Presidential Medal of Freedom, broke with a 61-year-old tradition and publicly disagreed with some of the president’s policies, such as “ObamaCare,” taxation and the national debt. Disclosure: I have attended this event since 1971 and host a dinner the night before for members of the media.

    Several in the audience of 3,000 applauded Carson’s remarks, which must have made the president feel even more uncomfortable.

  15. rikyrah says:

    Two Kansas brothers accidentally blow up house while celebrating lottery win, report says

    (CBS/AP) WICHITA, Kan. – Authorities said a man was taken into custody after he and his brother accidentally blew up their house in a drug-related explosion Friday while celebrating a winning lottery ticket CBS affiliate KWCH

    Police said one of the brothers was taken to a hospital Friday evening with second-degree burns on his hands, arms and chest, the station reports. The 27-year-old man remains in serious but stable condition

    Authorities said the victim told them that he and his brother bought marijuana and meth to celebrate after winning $75,000 on a scratch lottery ticket, KWCH reports.

  16. rikyrah says:

    Super-pod” of dolphins spotted in California (VIDEO)

    Tourists on a cruise through the waters off San Diego where treated to an enormous surprise when they came across a “super-pod” of dolphins: tens of thousands of the marine mammals, gathered together in a rare natural spectacle. The February 16th tourist boat, operated by Hornblower Cruises, managed to follow the massive gathering for over an hour, according to NBC San Diego.

    “They were coming from all directions, you could see them from as far as the eye can see,” said ship captain Joe Dutra to NBC. “I’ve seen a lot of stuff out here… but this is the biggest I’ve ever seen, ever.” Tourist boat passenger Victor Morassi captured this footage of the event[….]

  17. rikyrah says:


    Really outstanding comment by Jamila JP posted to the Ebony article:


    What a disappointing article. Not because you want to critique the president, but because you are helping to continue a false narrative that started last Friday about what the president actually said, and in what context. You also continue to promote the twisted logic that the president, a Black man, asking our communities to aspire to greatness is, to quote Jesse Jackson from 2008, “talking down to Black people.”

    First of all, the White House never billed his appearance as solely a “gun policy speech.” That was what the media and certain groups who believe they “forced” him to come assumed. And of course we all expected him to talk about the ongoing gun violence in Chicago. And he did, BUT he did it in the context of how to build and repair broken communities, socially, economically, and otherwise. That is what the president is promoting in the days after his SOTU speech that laid out the same plans. From more job opportunities to universal preschool, to better access to household resources- all part of the president’s agenda. And his hope is that with more opportunities will be less desperate action that often leads to violent crime. But no one can be forced to live this kind of stable life; people have to want to change in order for this plan to be successful.

    Many of us come from two parent, married families that were stable, loving, and protective. Many of us come from two parent, married families that were dysfunctional, abusive and filled with financial struggle. Many of us come from single-parent households, adoptive families, grandparents as guardians, etc. And there are countless success stories to be shared. THAT is what President Obama said. Read the transcript and watch the speech again, this time with open ears. He had nothing but praise for his single mother’s work and his grandparent’s work, while also revealing that the hole his absent father left was unique and unfilled, even to this day. And yet, he is president of the Unites States. Barack Obama came from a broken home, made many mistakes, and suffered internally because of that brokenness, but is also able to appreciate the hard work that families do to help their children succeed. President Obama wants to make it easier on families by promoting more stable family and community action and ONE prong of a multi-pronged effort to stop violence. He told that audience of young Black people that he was no different than them other than where he grew up, and that they too can have his type of success. An historic moment, for those who actually listened.

    All gun violence is not born from the same situations, so why should we expect the discussion and solutions to be the same across the board? The daily violence in Chicago that has plagued cities like it for generations- caused by gang activity, unchecked crime, unchecked mental health, and domestic violence to name just some issues is NOT the same scenario as a mass murderer with access to war weapons killing unrelated scores of people in one unique event. The president rightly points out that much of the violence in Chicago is from people who feel that they don’t have any better opportunities for success or respect, and who have decided that their neighbors aren’t worthy of respect either. The same can be said of the Newtown shooter. The solutions will diverse, just like he has said after the Newtown and Aurora shootings. There will be MANY actions needed, and government can’t help with all of them. It will start with personal responsibility.

    The most important part of the speech is one that everyone seems to have missed- the continuation and expansion of the “Promise Zone” program to give extra aid to communities that need it the most. This is direct federal help for places that even Obama admits are not set up for success no matter how hard people work. He is now, slowly but surely, laying out the case to correct the long standing inequality that plagues so many of our Black communities around the country. President Obama is saying directly that the system has set up some communities to fail, and that it’s time to correct that inequality. Sounds like the start of a so-called “targeted Black Agenda” that many have been crying for since he took office.

    I find it bizarre that we are constantly pressured to defend and promote the rights and aspirations of all other people (marriage equality, full benefits and opportunities of citizenship, etc.) and yet we not only accept and expect less for our own, but we promote it that way! We’ve been nursing our broken hearts for 400 years; how much longer are we going to go on without mending? How is the promotion of stronger communities- from the world’s most successful former community organizer, no less- “throwing us under the bus?” President Obama is telling us what our black leaders, faith leaders, educators, conscious music artists, and more have been saying forever: we need to start healing and building our OWN communities and stop worrying about what other people are doing. If we continue to wait on the rest of the nation to decide to treat us fairy and right the wrongs of the past, we will only continue to sink as the rest move on.

    Criticize the scope of the policies if you want. Debate the amount of resources that are needed to stop gun violence. Critique the tone of the overall speech, if you thought the pitch was off at times. But please, let’s drop this silly and ultimately destructive notion that asking more of our own is an insult. It should be a requirement.

    • Ametia says:

      Read this earlier. THIS:
      “But please, let’s drop this silly and ultimately destructive notion that asking more of our own is an insult. It should be a requirement.”

      Some negroes, I tell you, they scream and yell about being Iin a hole and downtrodden, and when there are words of upliftment, they scream.”But you don’t understand, can’t you see, I’m in this hole and downtrodden?!” It’s easier to stay in the hole and scream, when the hands are outstretched to help lift them out. SLAVE-MENTATLITY.

  18. rikyrah says:

    Obama to Receive Presidential Honor on Israel Visit

    Barack Obama will become the first serving U.S. president to receive Israel’s presidential medal, from his Israeli counterpart Shimon Peres on a visit to the Jewish state next month, Peres’s office said on Monday.

    “President Obama has made a unique and meaningful contribution to strengthening the state of Israel and the security of its people,” it said in a statement.

    “Barack Obama is a true friend of the state of Israel and has been since the beginning of his public life. As president of the United States he has stood beside Israel in times of crisis,” it added.

    Israel’s presidential medal of distinction is awarded to individuals or organizations who have contributed to Israeli society and Israel’s image in the world.

  19. rikyrah says:


    I don’t trust black people with advanced educations who aren’t out there mixing among regular everyday black people. I just don’t.

  20. rikyrah says:


    Aside from the obvious flaws in this piece, when President Obama began his remarks re: rebuilding communities + families, and male role models, he made clear that he was explicitly addressing rural America as well:

    In too many neighborhoods today — whether here in Chicago or the farthest reaches of rural America — it can feel like for a lot of young people the future only extends to the next street corner or the outskirts of town; that no matter how much you work or how hard you try, your destiny was determined the moment you were born. There are entire neighborhoods where young people, they don’t see an example of somebody succeeding. And for a lot of young boys and young men, in particular, they don’t see an example of fathers or grandfathers, uncles, who are in a position to support families and be held up and respected.

    This is about economic and social displacement of entire depressed communities, and how that is perpetuated across generations, and was not a lecture to black people per se at all, although we’re disproportionately more likely to be affected by this for many reasons. If the critique were simply that PBO didn’t outline all of those reasons, that would be one thing, but people are just straight making stuff up and claiming that PBO said things which he never said, while ignoring many of the profound things which he did say.

  21. rikyrah says:

    Obama Seeking to Boost Study of Human Brain


    Published: February 17, 2013

    The Obama administration is planning a decade-long scientific effort to examine the workings of the human brain and build a comprehensive map of its activity, seeking to do for the brain what the Human Genome Project did for genetics.

    The project, which the administration has been looking to unveil as early as March, will include federal agencies, private foundations and teams of neuroscientists and nanoscientists in a concerted effort to advance the knowledge of the brain’s billions of neurons and gain greater insights into perception, actions and, ultimately, consciousness.

    Scientists with the highest hopes for the project also see it as a way to develop the technology essential to understanding diseases like Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s, as well as to find new therapies for a variety of mental illnesses.

    Moreover, the project holds the potential of paving the way for advances in artificial intelligence.

    The project, which could ultimately cost billions of dollars, is expected to be part of the president’s budget proposal next month. And, four scientists and representatives of research institutions said they had participated in planning for what is being called the Brain Activity Map project.

    The details are not final, and it is not clear how much federal money would be proposed or approved for the project in a time of fiscal constraint or how far the research would be able to get without significant federal financing.

    In his State of the Union address, President Obama cited brain research as an example of how the government should “invest in the best ideas.”

    “Every dollar we invested to map the human genome returned $140 to our economy — every dollar,” he said. “Today our scientists are mapping the human brain to unlock the answers to Alzheimer’s. They’re developing drugs to regenerate damaged organs, devising new materials to make batteries 10 times more powerful. Now is not the time to gut these job-creating investments in science and innovation.”

    Story C. Landis, the director of the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, said that when she heard Mr. Obama’s speech, she thought he was referring to an existing National Institutes of Health project to map the static human brain. “But he wasn’t,” she said. “He was referring to a new project to map the active human brain that the N.I.H. hopes to fund next year.”

  22. rikyrah says:

    Booker will need to mend fences in time for 2014 Senate campaign

    By Alexandra Jaffe – 02/18/13 06:00 AM ET

    Sen. Frank Lautenberg’s (D-N.J.) decision to retire cleared what was likely the largest obstacle to Newark Mayor Cory Booker’s path to the Democratic nomination for Senate in New Jersey, but Democrats privately warn that Booker will have to mend fences coming out of a turbulent two months.

    “Mayor Booker will probably be spending a lot of time unruffling some feathers and making new friends,” said Democratic strategist Hank Sheinkopf, who has worked extensively on races in New Jersey.

    Read more:
    Follow us: @thehill on Twitter | TheHill on Facebook

  23. rikyrah says:


    saw Downton Abbey…

    there are no words.

    I’m so sad….the Brits are BRUTAL.

    no ifs, ands or buts… no ‘ maybe he could be alive’.

    they’ll kill a main character in a minute.

  24. rikyrah says:

    5 presidents with highest net worth

    George Washington set a standard of wealth that none of his successors has been able to match. Here’s a look at the richest occupants of the White House.

    ByDouglas A. McIntyre, Michael B. Sauter and Ashley C. Allen, 24/7 Wall St.

    George Washington, the nation’s first president, was a wealthy man. Mount Vernon, his Virginia plantation, was spread across 8,000 acres of prime farmland. His property holdings had been greatly increased by his marriage, at age 26, to a wealthy widow, Martha Dandridge Custis.

    Abraham Lincoln, the nation’s 16th president, was born in a log cabin and owned a house in Springfield, Ill., where he worked as an attorney before entering politics.

    The financial news site 24/7 Wall St. has estimated the net worth of Washington, Lincoln and every other U.S. president, using historical sources. Many efforts to evaluate presidential net worth have come up with a wide range of estimates. Most sources have provided no hard figures. Finally, most efforts have focused on recent presidents, because it’s easier to calculate figures when assets and incomes are a matter of public record.

    One of the most important conclusions of this analysis is that the presidency has little to do with wealth creation. Several presidents were wealthy when they arrived at the White House. Some lost most of their fortunes after leaving office. Others never had much money at all.

    Estimates of each president’s net worth are based on 2010 dollars. Because a number of presidents, particularly in the early 19th century, made and lost fortunes within a few years, the figure for each man represents an estimate of his net worth at its peak.

    24/7 Wall St. took into account hard assets like land as well as estimated lifetime savings based on work history, inheritance and property ownership.


    .#5: James Madison

    Fourth president
    Net worth: $101 million
    In office: 1809 to 1817

    Madison was the largest landowner in Orange County, Va. His land holdings consisted of 5,000 acres and the Montpelier estate. He significantly increased his wealth as secretary of state and president. Madison lost money near the end of his life due to the financial collapse of his plantation.

    No. 4: Andrew Jackson

    Seventh president
    Net worth: $119 million
    In office: 1829 to 1837

    While he was considered to be in touch with middle-class Americans, Jackson quietly became one of the wealthiest presidents of the 1800s.

    “Old Hickory” married into wealth and made money in the military. His Tennessee homestead, the Hermitage, included 1,050 acres of prime real estate. Over the course of his life, he owned as many as 300 slaves. Jackson went into considerable debt later in life.

    No. 3: Theodore Roosevelt

    26th president
    Net worth: $125 million
    In office: 1901 to 1909

    Born to a prominent and wealthy family, Roosevelt received a sizable trust fund. He lost most of his money on a ranching venture in the Dakotas and became an author to pay bills. Roosevelt spent most of his adult years in public service. His 235-acre estate, Sagamore Hill, sits on some of the most valuable real estate on Long Island.

    No. 2: Thomas Jefferson

    Third president
    Net worth: $212 million
    In office: 1801 to 1809

    Jefferson inherited 3,000 acres and several dozen slaves from his father. Monticello, his home on a 5,000-acre plantation in Virginia, was one of the architectural wonders of its time.

    Jefferson made considerable money in various political positions before becoming president but was mired in debt toward the end of his life.

    No 1: George Washington

    First president
    Net worth: $525 million
    In office: 1789 to 1797

    His Virginia plantation, Mount Vernon, consisted of five separate farms on 8,000 acres of prime farmland, run by more than 300 slaves. His wife, Martha, inherited significant property from her father.

    Washington made significantly more than subsequent presidents: his salary in 1789 was 2% of the U.S. budget.

  25. Ametia says:

    In answer to your question, Leutisha, now a days I think employees are layin goff/firing employees so they don’t have to pay pensions, healthcare insurance… JMO

  26. Ametia says:


  27. Ametia says:


    Mother Jones’ David Corn Wins George Polk Award
    By Monika Bauerlein and Clara Jeffery| Sun Feb. 17, 2013 9:02 PM PST

    How is MoJo Washington Bureau Chief David Corn like Edward R. Murrow, Carl Bernstein, David Halberstam, Gay Talese, Fred Friendly, I.F. Stone, and Walter Cronkite? So many ways really, but the most notable today is that they have all won a George Polk Award, one of the most prestigious honors in journalism. Corn is the winner in the political reporting category for the 47 percent story—his revelation of a video documenting Mitt Romney’s remarks at a $50,000-a-plate fundraiser that 47 percent of Americans were “dependent upon the government” and would never “take personal responsibility and care for their lives.”

    • Ametia says:

      Cool! I’m sure the wingnuts and the jackals’ heads were exploding. HA HA HA HA

      Go POTUS and Tiger!

      • Ametia says:

        Here we go!

        White House Press Corps: ‘Extreme Frustration’ With Lack Of Obama Access
        The Huffington Post | By Jack Mirkinson
        Posted: 02/18/2013 7:22 am EST | Updated: 02/18/2013 8:11 am EST


        Ed Henry, the Fox News reporter who is president of the WHCA, issued a stern statement protesting the exclusion:

        Speaking on behalf of the White House Correspondents Association, I can say a broad cross section of our members from print, radio, online and TV have today expressed extreme frustration to me about having absolutely no access to the President of the United States this entire weekend. There is a very simple but important principle we will continue to fight for today and in the days ahead: transparency.
        Josh Earnest, the deputy press secretary for Obama, replied that the treatment was, to use a phrase, par for the course:

        “The press access granted by the White House today is entirely consistent with the press access offered for previous presidential golf outings. It’s also consistent with the press access promised to the White House Press Corps prior to arrival in Florida on Friday evening.”


      • Ametia says:



        The Kiddie Bitches want to dig into PBO’s off time. GTFOH Ed Henry!

  28. rikyrah says:

    Mellody Hobson discusses Black wealth with The Root.

  29. rikyrah says:

    McCain lost in a fog of partisan rage
    By Steve Benen
    Mon Feb 18, 2013 8:35 AM EST.

    Looking back at the tragic and deadly attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi last fall, we know quite a bit about what happened. We also know, thanks to an independent investigation, that “Republican charges of a cover-up” were “pure fiction.”

    But as Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) argued yesterday, he can’t be bothered with facts — he has a partisan vendetta to pursue.

    For those who can’t watch clips online, “Meet the Press” host David Gregory pressed the Republican senator on the unsubstantiated charge that the Obama administration has engaged in a “massive cover-up.” Gregory asked a simple question: “A cover-up of what?”

    McCain, just a few days after explaining how important it is not to be “disagreeable,” became unusually belligerent, asking the host whether he cares about the deaths of four Americans.

    Gregory tried to get an answer anyway, responding, “You said there is a cover-up. A cover-up of what?” McCain, unable to think of anything substantive, said, “Of the information concerning the deaths of four brave Americans.”

    Even for McCain, whose capacity has deteriorated sharply in recent years, this was a pathetic display.

    Remember, McCain has had several months to think about this. He’s sat through classified and unclassified briefings. He’s participated in a series of congressional hearings. He’s (presumably) read the results of independent investigations, and had his own questions answered, verbally and in writing.

    And yet after all of this, McCain is not only ignorant of the basics, he doesn’t understand his own conspiracy theory. The senator, after pondering the issue since September, still believes there’s an elaborate “cover-up,” but doesn’t know why he thinks this.

    The exchange on “Meet the Press” wasn’t awkward; it wasn’t bizarre; it was alarming.


    This was the point at which it might have dawned on everyone watching, including journalists who still consider the senator an credible on foreign policy and national security, “Good lord, John McCain has no idea what he’s talking about.”

  30. rikyrah says:

    Dem forced from congressional race over NRA support
    By Steve Benen

    Mon Feb 18, 2013 8:00 AM EST

    We’ve been keeping a close eye on this month’s congressional special election in Chicago — the race to fill the vacancy left by former Rep. Jesse Jackson, Jr. (D) — for a few reasons. For one thing, it’s the first congressional race since the 2012 election. For another, it’s also the first since the massacre in Newtown, Conn.

    But more to the point, it’s also proving to be the first race in recent memory in which candidates are facing considerable pushback over their ties to the National Rifle Association. Indeed, over the weekend, this one issue helped push a leading Democratic candidate out of the race.

    State Sen. Toi Hutchinson dropped out of the 2nd District special Democratic primary Sunday and endorsed ex-state Rep. Robin Kelly in the contest to replace Jesse Jackson Jr. in Congress.

    The move, announced in a morning news release, shakes up the Democratic field just nine days before the Feb. 26 primary election.

    As Rachel noted on the show on Friday, a super PAC run by New York City Mayor Mike Bloomberg (I) has taken an active interest in the special election, hitting Chicago’s airwaves with ads targeting Hutchinson and former U.S. Rep. Debbie Halvorson (D) for having earned “A” ratings from the National Rifle Association.

    The RNA’s grade, Rachel noted, “is a scarlet letter” in the heavily-Democratic district, so much so that it helped push Hutchinson out of the race altogether.

    If there were any doubts that the post-Newtown environment has changed, ask yourself: when was the last time a congressional candidate was forced to quit after taking heat over a positive NRA rating?


    Robin Kelly, meanwhile, is eager to tout her “F” rating from the right-wing organization. Though the Democratic primary remains quite crowded, the race increasing appears to be a showdown between Kelly, who enjoys backing from Bloomberg and progressive groups like the CREDO super PAC, and Halvorson, who is scrambling to convince voters she disagrees with the NRA on a series of key issues, her previous boasts about her “A” rating notwithstanding.

  31. Ametia says:

    Good Morning, Eveyone! :-)

Leave a Reply