Wednesday Open Thread | Music of the 1970’s

Enjoy the music of the 1970’s. Top 10, according to Billboard.

1. Superstition – Stevie Wonder
2. Papa Was a Rollin’ Stone – The Temptations
3. Smoke on the Water – Deep Purple
4. Lean on Me – Bill Withers
5. Heart of Gold – Neil Young
6. Walk on the Wild Side – Lou Reed
7. You Are the Sunshine of My Life – Stevie Wonder
8. If You Don’t Know Me by Now – Harold Melvin & the Blue Notes
9. I’ll Take You There – The Staple Singers
10. Tumbling Dice – The Rolling Stones



This entry was posted in Music, Open Thread, Politics and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

86 Responses to Wednesday Open Thread | Music of the 1970’s

  1. rikyrah says:

    from Kay over at BJ, who posts a lot about economic issues/unions/public employees. She didn’t link to the original paper:

    Steven Pitts, labor policy specialist at the University of California-Berkeley Labor Center, writes today about the striking results of his new research brief, Blacks and the Public Sector. In sum:

    The public sector is the single most important source of employment for African Americans.
    During 2008-2010, 21.2 percent of all black workers were public employees, compared with 16.3 percent of non-black workers. Both before and after the onset of the Great Recession, African Americans were 30 percent more likely than other workers to be employed in the public sector.
    The public sector is also a critical source of decent-paying jobs for black worker. For both men and women, the median wage earned by black employees is significantly higher in the public sector than in other industries.
    Prior to the recession, the wage differential between black and white workers was less in the public sector than in the overall economy.

    Workers across the country experience a “union premium” — an increase in wages for workers who belong to a labor union compared to workers who are not organized. That premium amounted to $1.24 per hour last year, a 17.3 percent premium. And according to a new study from the Economic Policy Institute, union membership is even more important for African American and Latino workers, whose union premiums exceed that of white workers.
    Black union members have a union premium of $2.60, earning them about 17.3 percent more than black non-union workers. Black men who belong to a union see a 20 percent increase over the normal wage; for black women, the increase is 14.8 percent. Union membership is even more beneficial to Latinos, whose men and women workers earn union premiums of 29.3 percent and 15.7 percent, respectively. (Latinos’ union premium is 23.1 percent overall.):


  2. rikyrah says:

    May 27, 2015 3:28 PM
    Does HRC Need to Repudiate Welfare Reform?
    By Ed Kilgore

    In the endless game of defining where Hillary Clinton is on some ideological spectrum, one way some progressives have chosen is to lay out an ideal agenda—say, Bernie Sanders’ agenda—and test her against it.

    But another way is to look back at the things Bill Clinton did that progressives didn’t like, and test her willingness to repudiate them. It’s a game Republicans can play, too, since it enables them to contrast the scary lefty HRC with her “centrist” husband (never mind that her husband, so far, has agreed with everything she’s said to “distance” herself from him, or that Bill was in his day treated as a crazy lefty, too).

    We’ve already been through one round of the “repudiate this” game, with criminal justice reform. And a lot of people are trying very hard to force HRC to repudiate Bill’s record on trade agreements.

    What’s next? Well, it could very well be the thing Bill Clinton did that probably aroused the most enduring hostility from some progressives: his signature on the 1996 welfare reform bill.

    Bloomberg Politics’ Melinda Hennenberger goes there with considerable force, tracking down former Bill Clinton staffers on both sides of the close and hotly debated decision to sign the third of three bills sent to the president by a Republican Congress nearly twenty years ago. And why, just for the record, is this relevant to HRC’s presidential campaign? It does get a little murky at this point:

    In a campaign focused on both income inequality and the opportunity gap, how Hillary Clinton engages with her husband’s record on poverty and the safety net is liable to become a central question. And both Clintons have already said they’ve changed their minds on other issues that were central to his presidency. They no longer stand by his administration’s record on criminal justice—especially the mandatory sentencing guidelines that filled prisons and hollowed out communities—or on gay rights, which were seen so differently by much of the public two decades ago.

  3. rikyrah says:

    I wish a muthaphucka would


    Is Anti-Choice Ideology Driving Malpractice Lawsuits? Byron Calhoun and the Phantom Fetal Skull

    by Imani Gandy, Senior Legal Analyst, RH Reality Check

    May 26, 2015 – 3:40 pm

    In spring of 2013, Itai Gravely received what must have been an alarming phone call from a man named Dr. Byron Calhoun. A year earlier, Gravely had obtained an abortion at the Women’s Health Center of West Virginia to terminate a nine-week pregnancy. Calhoun was the physician who treated her at the Charleston Area Medical Center Women and Children’s Hospital (CAMC) the next day, for severe pain and bleeding, suffering what appeared to be complications from the abortion.

    During that phone call, Calhoun told Gravely for the first time that when he had examined her at CAMC a year prior, he had found a 13-week old fetal skull in her uterus. In addition to giving Gravely this new information, Calhoun gave her the name and number of well-known anti-choice lawyer Jeremy Dys—a move that a West Virginia judge would later call “remarkable.”

    Calhoun kept one crucial detail from Gravely during that phone call, a detail that might have made her think twice before calling a lawyer: The pathology report which was conducted after her treatment at CAMC established that there was no fetal skull present in Gravely’s uterus, and contradicted Calhoun’s claims to the contrary. Calhoun had been presented with that pathology report long before he decided to pick up the phone and dial Gravely’s number.

    Based on the evidence, it’s hard to avoid a conclusion that Calhoun—who did not reply to our emails seeking comment for this report—lied to Gravely, dragging the young woman and her most personal information into a bitter public fight over abortion care, using her as a prop in his own ideological campaign.

  4. rikyrah says:

    this shouldn’t surprise you, but of course, they’re digging into her past, trying to find something to disqualify her. But, she stays winning!

    • Ametia says:

      HA! They’re trying to ‘THUG-A-FY State’s Attorney Marilyn Mosby.

      Fucking losers!

    • Ametia says:

      I wonder if Sara Goldstein’s of the NY Daily News is going to do a spread on the BPD, especailly the history of those six cops. Did they appear on Judge Judy for claims against them or did someone have claims against those 6 cops, hmm?

      I’ll wait for the answers.

  5. yahtzeebutterfly says:

    “Why Those Tiny Microbeads In Soap May Pose Problem For Great Lakes”

  6. rikyrah says:

    One of the funniest Tom Cruise segments ever

  7. yahtzeebutterfly says:

    I love this song :)

    Naomi Wachira – “Anywhere”

  8. rikyrah says:

    May 27, 2015 2:51 PM

    Here’s How Republicans Could Repel Latinos Even More!
    By Ed Kilgore

    We talked briefly yesterday about SCOTUS accepting a challenge to the traditional understanding of “one person one vote” in a case from Texas. This is turning out to be even a bigger deal than I initially expected, particularly among Latino groups who see it as a direct threat to their political representation in both Washington and in state capitals. But as Paul Waldman points out at the Plum Line, it’s going to be a very big deal for Republicans as well, who will likely see this as yet another way to entrench their control of legislative bodies. Paul considers this a direct analogue to what happened with King v. Burrell: yesterday’s fringe legal theory became tomorrow’s party orthodoxy:

    [B]efore long, every Republican is going to decide that they firmly believe, as the most fundamental expression of their commitment to democracy and the vision of the Founding Fathers, that only eligible voters should count when tallying population to determine district lines.

    One thing to watch out for as this plays out is the role of the conservative media. If I’m right, very soon you’re going to see Fox News hosts and radio talkers like Rush Limbaugh doing segments on this case, in effect instructing conservatives on what’s at stake and how they should think about the issue. That consistent drumbeat won’t only affect the conservative leaders and rank-and-file, it could even affect the Supreme Court justices, who will hear the arguments being made in the media in support of these plaintiffs. After a while, a legal theory that sounded absurd will begin to seem at the very least to be mainstream. In short order, there will be universal agreement on the right. And it could have a real impact on political power even if the plaintiffs lose.

    This last point refers to the fact that all the attention will alert Republicans to the reality that using voter-only data for redistricting decisions has probably been an option all along—one they will probably take in states where they have the power, which is quite a few at present.

    To the extent Republicans get excited about this, it will also exacerbate their unhappy relationship with Latinos. In fact, it will mean not one but two major federal cases—the other being the litigation over Obama’s executive actions on immigration—where Republicans are directly aligning themselves against Latino interests. And that doesn’t count King v. Burrell, which would deny a lot of Latinos health coverage.

    But hey, it’s hard to think strategically when you see unelected judges identifying a whole new way to screw over those people.

  9. rikyrah says:

    Why Jeb Bush’s line on Alzheimer’s matters
    By Steve Benen
    Like most Republican presidential candidates, former Gov. Jeb Bush (R) tends to emphasize his support for cutting spending on most domestic priorities. But as NBC News reported yesterday, there are apparently exceptions to Bush’s preferred approach.
    Presidential candidate Jeb Bush says that the nation should increase funding to find a cure for Alzheimer’s disease and should speed up the approval process for medications to treat it.

    The GOP presidential hopeful, who spoke last week about his mother-in-law’s struggle with the disease, proposed the ideas to NBC News Special Anchor Maria Shriver during an email exchange.
    Bush specifically said, “We need to increase funding to find a cure. We need to reform FDA [regulations] to accelerate the approval process for drug and device approval at a much lower cost. We need to find more community based solutions for care.”

    The former governor also tied his policy position to his own personal, family experiences. “My sister-in-law and husband are the caregivers for my now 95-year old mother-in-law,” Bush added. “Columba helps all the time. She is a blessing from God.”

    To be sure, there’s nothing wrong with this. Endorsing increased funding and related steps in the campaign against Alzheimer’s is a perfectly reasonable position to take.

    But in Bush’s case, there are some notable angles to keep in mind. The Tampa Bay Times’ Adam C. Smith, for example, noted that the Florida Republican’s current position is likely to annoy the state lawmakers in both parties who “recall Bush vetoing their budget items targeting Alzheimer’s research and care while at the same time approving tax cuts often mainly for the benefit of specific businesses or wealthier Floridians.”

    Smith noted several key measures, including Bush vetoing funding in 2003 for daycare centers in Boynton Beach serving 100 adults with Alzheimer’s Disease, and then in 2004 also vetoing funding for construction of outpatient treatment centers connected with the University of South Florida’s Alzheimer’s Research Institute.

    At the time, the Republican governor called it a “want,” not a “need.”

  10. rikyrah says:

    Pamela Jones @goodnewsgoddess
    “YOU control your life, the way you age, the way you look…” Great @washingtonpost article on @FLOTUS workout video:

  11. rikyrah says:

    Obama Administration Implements Major Advance for Civil Rights

    Now we know why the corporate lobby’s favorite lawmakers filibustered the nomination of our fantastic Labor Secretary, Tom Perez, for so long. He’s actually committed to sticking up for workers.

    Earlier today, the Department of Labor, along with federal procurement agencies, announced guidance and regulations that will give huge and important new protections to those who work with corporations that contract with the federal government. That’s 26 million people who will be positively impacted if the proposed regulations are approved.

    The proposed new rules would do two really significant things:

    • First, they would bar corporations from getting federal contracts if they have repeatedly subjected workers to safety risks, or if they have repeatedly engaged in wage theft.

    • Second, and of incredible importance (even if less obvious to most Americans),regulations from the General Services Administration would bar federal contractors from using fine print contracts to force their workers out of court and into rigged arbitration.

  12. rikyrah says:

    aint this about a muthaphucka


    A reminder that your Instagram photos aren’t really yours: Someone else can sell them for $90,000

    By Jessica Contrera May 25

    The Internet is the place where nothing goes to die.

    Those embarrassing photos of your high school dance you marked “private” on Facebook? The drunk Instagram posts? The NSFW snapchats? If you use social media, you’ve probably heard a warning akin to “don’t post anything you wouldn’t want your employer (or future employer) to see.”

    We agree, and are adding this caveat: Don’t post anything you wouldn’t want hanging in an art gallery.

    This month, painter and photographer Richard Prince reminded us that what you post is public, and given the flexibility of copyright laws, can be shared — and sold — for anyone to see. As a part of the Frieze Art Fair in New York, Prince displayed giant screenshots of other people’s Instagram photos without warning or permission.

    The collection, “New Portraits,” is primarily made up of pictures of women, many in sexually charged poses. They are not paintings, but screenshots that have been enlarged to 6-foot-tall inkjet prints. According to Vulture, nearly every piece sold for $90,000 each.

    How is this okay?

  13. rikyrah says:

    past time that they did this


    Charles Johnson, one of the Internet’s most infamous trolls, has finally been banned from Twitter

    By Caitlin Dewey May 26

    Chuck Johnson, the far-right mega-troll who doxed two New York Times reporters and argued thathomosexuality caused the Amtrak derailment, may at last be off Twitter — this time, for good.

    On Sunday, Johnson was permanently suspended from the site after asking for funds to “take out” the civil rights activist DeRay McKesson, who’s been active in Baltimore and Ferguson, Mo. Twitter has also suspended a series of Johnson’s new accounts, including @citizentrolling and @freechucknow, prompting Johnson and his lawyers to threaten legal action and accuse the site of “censorship.”

  14. rikyrah says:

    May 27, 2015 12:35 PM

    The Tired Old “Both Sides Getting More Extreme” Meme

    By Ed Kilgore

    In my recent book and elsewhere, I’ve noted that the meta-narrative Republicans were promoting—and much of the MSM was echoing—was that the Great Big Moderate Adults of the GOP had gotten the crazy extremist Tea People under control, and were ready to govern in a serious way that Serious People could appreciate. An important sub-narrative to the completely phony Republican Shift to the Center was that Democrats were moving to the left so fast that they’d probably start singing the Internationale at party events before long.

    A lot of people who don’t completely buy the GOP Shift to the Center are happy to promote the false equivalency classic of Everybody’s Polarizing at Exactly the Same Pace. But there’s one species of observers who are deeply invested in the Democratic Lurch to the Left meme: Republican “moderates” who spend a fair amount of time criticizing their zany brethren and need an excuse to reassume the Party Yoke when elections come around.

    Peter Wehner is one such person, and so he pens the classic so’s-your-old-man-and-actually-maybe-your-old-man’s-worse op-ed for the New York Times. Ignoring the fact that most actual lefty Democrats think Barack Obama is too much like Bill Clinton, Wehner’s case almost entirely depends on contrasting the noble centrist Big Dog (who, of course, conservatives denounced as a godless socialist when he was actually in office) with the left-bent Obama.

    And it’s a really terrible argument. Exhibit one for Wehner involves Clinton’s support for three-strikes-and-you’re-out and 100,000 cops, as though they are the same thing, with Eric Holder’s de-incarceration commitment. Keep up, Pete: Clinton, along with two-thirds of the Republican presidential field, has called for a reversal of “mass incarceration” policies. It’s not an ideological move in either direction so much as a rare and belated bipartisan recognition of what does and doesn’t work.

  15. rikyrah says:

    Tony Chevy Chase Club to parents: Your kids are brats!
    By Helena Andrews and Emily Heil May 27 at 12:42 PM

    The Chevy Chase Club has a problem. The bad behavior of some of its members is roiling the posh, exclusive country club, prompting a recent stern warning from the institution’s president.

    The culprits accused of slinging food, breaking furniture and otherwise wreaking havoc? The privileged children of the rich and famous folks who make up the club’s blue-blood roster — and who routinely fill the suburban Washington facility’s golf courses, gyms and restaurants.

    Complaints of kids gone wild detailed in a letter from club honcho J. Gordon Vap: “two pre-teen girls unloading the contents of a whipping cream dispenser along the salad bar; an eight year-old standing on the armrests of two chairs while her father [emphasis his] stabilized the chairs; two young boys breaking a sconce in the upper hallway with a football; goldfish crackers and crayons stuffed down our new heating vents.”

  16. rikyrah says:

    Claims of racism put new Edwardsville councilman under investigation

    Posted 10:57 pm, May 11, 2015, by Mary Pulley

    EDWARDSVILLE, Kan. — Barely on the job for two weeks, an Edwardsville city councilman is being investigated by the Kansas Bureau of Investigations. A teenager claims she got into a road rage incident with councilman Chuck Stites, and he called her a racial slur.

    Seventeen-year-old Kali Chatmon says what was scarier than being called the b-word and the n-word, is finding out the identity of the man she claims said it.

    “I’ve never been called that before,” said Chatmon.

    She told FOX 4 a near traffic crash got even scarier on May 3rd. She said she was turning onto Kansas Avenue when she spotted a Black Lincoln.

    “He had on his signal like he was going to turn right to where I was, so I proceeded to take my right and we almost collided because he continued to go straight,” said Chatmon.

    She said she felt bad for almost hitting the car, and started apologizing. She took great offense to what she says the other driver said.

    “He was just saying things like go back to Baltimore then he called me a black nigg** *itch,” said Chatmon.

    The upset teen told her parents. She said they along with her boyfriend spotted the Lincoln at a bar and grill in the 13000 block of Kansas Avenue. That`s where Chatmon said she discovered the driver was Edwardsville councilman Chuck Stites. An employee at the bar and grill told FOX 4 there was an altercation, but didn’t want to comment further.

  17. rikyrah says:

    it amuses me, the level of ignorance. That most yahoos here don’t understand how big soccer is. Why those FIFA charges are a HUGE DEAL.

    David Beckham made Michael Jordan-type endorsement money because they can sell Beckham on 5 Continents as an athletic ‘God’.
    Tom Brady WISHES he had the visibility that David Beckham has.


    Photos: FIFA president Sepp Blatter, the most powerful man in sports, is a “de facto head of state”

  18. rikyrah says:

    May 26, 2015 5:07 PM

    Smarter Horse-Race Analysis, Please

    By Ed Kilgore
    It’s too early for real horse-race coverage (i.e., who’s “winning” or “losing” contests that won’t occur for quite a few months) of the 2016 presidential nominating contest, though not too early to consider the emerging strategies of various candidates. So I don’t mind the subject of a Zeke Miller post on Scott Walker’s comments on his alleged national strength—just the use Miller puts them too.

    Here’s what Walker said in an interview with Laura Ingraham:

    “If we chose to get in, I don’t think there’s a state out there we wouldn’t play in, other than maybe Florida, where Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio are,” Walker said, suggesting that the expensive contest could equalize the money gap between himself and the better-funded Bush.

    “Some of the polls essentially tied and they’re going to eat up a good amount of that financial advantage that Gov. Bush is going to have,” he added, noting that incumbent Florida Gov. Rick Scott’s re-election campaign spent about $100 million in 2014. “A good chunk of that will be going up to the Florida primary.”

    Here’s what Miller had to say about it:

    Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker hasn’t even officially declared his presidential candidacy but he’s already considering sitting out at least one state….

    Just months ago Walker was referring to himself as the race’s front-runner. Asked about being signaled out by President Obama in a recent speech, Walker said, “Well, it suggests maybe we’re the frontrunner.”

    Oh good God. Of course Walker would sit out a winner-take-all primary in a state that’s the home base for two (technically four, since Mike Huckabee and Ben Carson also live there now) key rivals. He even notes an additional rationale beyond the likelihood that playing there would likely be for naught: it’s a state with many media markets where he hopes Jeb and Marco will dump huge quantities of money they won’t be able to spend elsewhere. There’s nothing wrong with Walker’s comments, and it has nothing to do with whether he is or isn’t the “front-runner,” whatever the hell that means right now.

    I guess at this point I should make it clear I really, really do not like Scott Walker and his hammer-head shark approach to politics and policy. But lately I find myself repeatedly defending him (or more strictly his presidential prospects) from really lame horse-race analysis, like the idea that he’s peaked too soon, or that he’s in a “crisis” because Tony Perkins doesn’t like him, or that he’s lost an imaginary front-runner status by saying he wouldn’t do something stupid like enter a winner-take-all primary in Florida.

    Believe me, when Scott Walker does do something disastrous, and if and when his presidential campaign goes down the tubes, I’ll be there with a big bouquet of fresh schadenfreude. But let’s don’t just imagine it, nice as that would be.

  19. rikyrah says:

    Loretta Lynch

    Earlier this week, Loretta Lynch was sworn in as the new US Attorney General. Brought up in North Carolina the daughter of a Baptist minister father and a mother who picked cotton as a young girl, Lynch is the first black woman to hold the position of the nation’s top law enforcement official. Harvard-educated Lynch worked at several private law firms and has been a federal prosecutor, winning high-profile cases against corrupt New York lawmakers, sex traffickers and mafiosi. But there has been criticism, too. She is accused of being soft on Wall Street wrongdoing. Edward Stourton has been speaking to people who know her well.

  20. Morning, Chicas!

    Marilyn Mosby is reading our tweets. Keep it coming.

    • Ametia says:

      BWA HA HA HA Ok I’ll caption it.

      Lemme give brother Joe SOEMTHING to do with his hands, so he won’t be giving me a MASSAGE.

  21. rikyrah says:

    yes, these drug companies want their hands on it.


    5 Things You Need to Know About Cuba’s Lung Cancer Vaccine

    by Steve Williams
    May 18, 2015
    8:30 am

    Read more:

  22. rikyrah says:

    Rand Paul is a plagiarizer…, why wouldn’t his book be a mess?


    Publisher To Correct Rand Paul’s Book After He Writes That Six People Died In Benghazi
    “We will correct the error in the next printing.”

    posted on May. 26, 2015, at 5:03 p.m.

  23. yahtzeebutterfly says:

    Naomi Wachira “I Am A Woman”

  24. yahtzeebutterfly says:

    “Naomi Wachira – African Girl – MUSIC OF AFRICA – KENYA – AFRICAN MUSIC TV.”

  25. yahtzeebutterfly says:×394
    ” Doreetha Daniels, 99, poses with students from her Career and Life Planning class at College of the Canyons.” (Barbara Davidson, LA Times)

    “Willpower, wisdom fuel nonagenarian’s quest for a degree”

  26. Ametia says:

    Why aren’t millennials running for office? It’s not because they’re turned off. It’s age.
    By Philip Bump May 27 at 6:30 AM

    There’s no question that young people are not terribly enamored of politics. No one is terribly excited about politics/politicians. Approval of Congress remains near all-time lows, trust in government is nearly the same — and millennials are at the leading edge of the push to partisan independence. (An aside: If you are using Google Chrome and haven’t yet installed this plug-in that replaces the word “millennial” with “snake people,” it is highly recommended and will make this post even better.)
    But it’s easy to take that indifference to politics a bit further than might be warranted. Our Carlos Lozada reviewed a book from two political scientists that casts a very grim light on millennial interest in running for office. “The mean-spirited, broken system that has come to characterize American politics turns young people off to the idea of running for office,” Lozada quotes the pair as writing. “It discourages them from aspiring, one day, to be elected leaders. It prevents them from even thinking about a career in politics.”
    Sure. That doesn’t mean they aren’t going to, though.

  27. yahtzeebutterfly says:


    The songs you are bringing us this week are FANTASTIC!

    So many favorites!!!

    Thanks so much!

  28. rikyrah says:

    because this is who Rafael is


    Ted Cruz’s Iowa Chairman Spent $250K to Stop People From Voting
    Matt Schultz used his spot as Iowa’s secretary of state to root around for evidence of voter fraud.
    —By Patrick Caldwell | Tue May 26, 2015 2:36 PM EDT

    Ted Cruz’s presidential ambitions may well live or die with the Iowa Republican caucuses. In recent years, the Hawkeye State has served as the launching pad for candidates courting social conservatives, handing caucus wins to Rick Santorum in 2012 and Mike Huckabee in 2008. The Texas senator hasn’t been too subtle in his attempts to claim the same mantle. Cruz announced his campaign in March at Liberty University—founded by Jerry Falwell, the late televangelist who once suggested 9/11 was God’s punishment for homosexuality and abortion—and during an initial trip to Iowa for a “Faith and Freedom Coalition” conference Cruz argued for allowing Christian symbols in public spaces. But perhaps his best play so far has been snagging former Iowa Secretary of State Matt Schultz to be his state chairman there, considering that three years ago Schultz was a prominent supporter of Santorum, who is about to announce his 2016 presidential bid.

    By tapping Schultz, Cruz also tied himself to Schultz’s leading cause: trying to restrict voting under the guise of combating voter fraud. During his four years as secretary of state, Schultz spent hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars to unearth evidence of fraud but ended up finding little and being cited for the mismanagement of public funds.

    Schultz was a little-known political figure in 2010, when he vaulted from two terms on the Council Bluffs City Council to be elected secretary of state. At 31 years old, he was the youngest person ever to hold that title. It was a small campaign, with just $100,000 spent on his Republican primary contest and the general election. He campaigned for tightening up Iowa’s voting procedures, creating strict photo ID laws, and scaling back the state’s same-day voter registration policy.

    Thanks to a Democratic majority in the state Senate, Iowa held off on passing any sort of photo ID voting requirement. Schultz may have failed to get that measure past the state Legislature, but on his own he went to great lengths to prove that voter fraud was a menace to the state’s electoral system.

  29. rikyrah says:

    Roy Moore wants Ruth Bader Ginsburg impeached
    05/26/15 03:18 PM
    By Steve Benen
    The U.S. Supreme Court probably won’t rule on marriage equality until the end of June, and when it does, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg is likely to side in support of equal-marriage rights.

    For the right, this will be deeply annoying – not just because of conservative opposition to marriage equality in general, but also because much of the right believes Ginsburg shouldn’t be able to participate in the case at all. Right Wing Watch had this report this afternoon:
    Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore spoke with Family Research Council President Tony Perkins on Friday about his belief that states should “resist” a potential Supreme Court ruling on marriage equality, saying that Congress and the states should simply defy a court decision they disagree with by stating “that there is no right to redefine marriage” in the U.S. Constitution.

    “We have justices on the Supreme Court right now who have actually performed same-sex marriages, Ginsburg and Kagan,” Moore continued. “Congress should do something about this.”
    Such as? Moore raised the prospect of impeachment proceedings.

    Perkins concluded, in reference to Ginsburg, “This is undermining the rule of law in our country and ushers in an age of chaos.”

    Oh, please.

    First, the idea that Ginsburg can’t consider the constitutional questions surround marriage rights because she’s performed wedding ceremonies is pretty silly.

    Second, let’s not lose sight of the context here. Roy Moore, who was once expelled from state Supreme Court because he declared an ability to ignore federal court rulings he doesn’t like, continues to argue that Alabama is not bound by the federal judiciary.

    There’s someone in this story who’s “undermining the rule of law in our country,” and trying to create “chaotic” conditions, but it’s clearly not Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

  30. TyrenM says:

    Good Morning 3Chics,
    I see we owned 1972 radio. My prayers to SG2 and hers.

  31. Kathleen says:

    Good morning, Chics & Chicettes! I hope SG2 and family are well and safe. My brother and sister in law live in Dallas and so far they’re OK, thank God.

  32. Good morning.

  33. yahtzeebutterfly says:

    how many. cleveland.— deray mckesson (@deray) May 27, 2015

  34. rikyrah says:

    of course the lawsuit is crazy, put forth by evil people who are just fine in taking away healthcare from MILLIONS of Americans.


    Former Senate Republicans Admit Obamacare Lawsuit Is Crazy
    By Jonathan Chait

    In the New York Times today, Robert Pear brings the latest report reassuring those of us who followed the health-care debate when it happened that we are not completely insane. This seemingly mundane task is necessary because the Supreme Court is due to rule on a lawsuit designed to cripple Obamacare, the premise of which is that everybody involved in the passage of health-care reform is misremembering or lying about the intent of the law.

    It is difficult to convey to people who don’t follow health care for a living just how preposterous the lawsuit against Obamacare has become. The original theory behind the lawsuit seized upon a tiny drafting error. The law allows states to run their own exchanges, but if they don’t, the federal government steps in to run exchanges for them. The glitch is that the portion of the Affordable Care Act authorizing tax credits only refers to health-care exchanges “established by the state.” The right-wing activists behind the lawsuit tried to use this drafting error to unravel large chunks of the law.

    The problem is that the law is not on their side. As law professors like Abbe Gluck and Nicholas Bagley have pointed out, the text of the law has many other provisions that make it utterly clear that it is intended to provide tax credits to exchanges run by the federal government as well as those run by the state. What’s more, if there is any ambiguity in the text at all, the agency carrying it out has a right to interpret it in the way it deems fit. So the textualist argument behind the lawsuit leads straight to dismissing it.

    This forced the lawsuit’s advocates to change their argument. They’re no longer arguing that the court has to eliminate tax credits in the federal exchanges because, sorry, the card says “Moops.” Instead, they’ve turned to arguing that the card is not a misprint. The law actually intended to create federal exchanges without tax credits — in other words, exchanges with unaffordable insurance that would immediately melt down. Unbelievably, numerous members of the conservative movement have actually persuaded themselves, or claim to believe, that this theory is correct. And not just oddballs of the talk-radio circuit, either. The Wall Street Journal’s editorial page, which won a Pulitzer Prize for its health-care coverage, and Bloomberg columnist Megan McArdle count themselves among the luminaries of the right that claim Obamacare was deliberately written with a self-destruct mechanism. The theory is that this was intended as a threat to force the states to establish their own exchanges, and that the government never got around to communicating this threat even a single time.

  35. rikyrah says:

    A moment of GOP candor on ‘Obamacare’
    05/26/15 04:22 PM—UPDATED 05/26/15 06:59 PM
    By Steve Benen
    In the political debate surrounding the King v. Burwell case at the Supreme Court, there are effectively two competing factions: those who acknowledge that the litigation is hopelessly insane, and those who know the case is hopelessly insane but pretend otherwise for the sake of appearances.

    Once in a while, even a congressional Republican is willing to stand in support of reality.

    At issue in the case is whether half of a sentence, buried within the law and removed from context, should be used to tear down the American health care system and strip millions of families of their health security. The New York Times set out to determine how that half of a sentence wound up in the law, and reporter Robert Pear talked to “more than two dozen Democrats and Republicans involved in writing the law.” Not one of them endorsed the argument put forward by the plaintiffs.

    “I don’t ever recall any distinction between federal and state exchanges in terms of the availability of subsidies,” said Olympia J. Snowe, a former Republican senator from Maine who helped write the Finance Committee version of the bill.

    “It was never part of our conversations at any point,” said Ms. Snowe, who voted against the final version of the Senate bill. “Why would we have wanted to deny people subsidies? It was not their fault if their state did not set up an exchange.”/b>

    Right. As Charles Gaba has noted, this is precisely how every member of the House, every member of the Senate, every congressional staffer, every White House staffer, everyone at HHS, everyone at the IRS, everyone at Treasury, everyone at the Justice Department, everyone at the Congressional Budget Office, every journalist covering the debate, every governor, every state legislator, every insurance company, and every hospital interpreted the law.

    Though Snowe is too polite to say so explicitly, she’s effectively acknowledged that the case her party is pushing to take coverage from millions of families is based entirely on a lie.

    It’s not just Snowe, either.

    The idea of denying subsidies to people who bought insurance through the federal exchange “was never discussed,” said Charles M. Clapton, a lawyer who worked on both committees for Senator Michael B. Enzi, Republican of Wyoming. Mr. Clapton said he had difficulty accepting the argument advanced by the plaintiffs because it was “so contrary to the intent” of those who had written the legislation.

    Jon Chait, who today described the case as “almost literally insane,” added, “It is difficult to convey to people who don’t follow health care for a living just how preposterous the lawsuit against Obamacare has become.”

  36. rikyrah says:

    Putting ‘one person, one vote’ on the line
    05/27/15 08:00 AM—UPDATED 05/27/15 08:04 AM
    By Steve Benen
    Conservatives on the U.S. Supreme Court have already undermined some important pillars of modern American life. Is the “one-person, one-vote” principle next? The answer, as of yesterday, is maybe.

    The high court announced yesterday that the justices will hear arguments in a case called Evenwel v. Abbott. As Adam Liptak summarized:
    The case, a challenge to voting districts for the Texas Senate, was brought by two voters, Sue Evenwel and Edward Pfenninger. They are represented by the Project on Fair Representation, the small conservative advocacy group that successfully mounted the earlier challenge to the Voting Rights Act. It is also behind a pending challenge to affirmative action in admissions at the University of Texas at Austin.

    In the new case, the challengers said their voting power had been diluted. “There are voters or potential voters in Texas whose Senate votes are worth approximately one and one-half times that of appellants,” their brief said.
    Under the status quo, legislative districts are based on total populations: the Census counts the number of people and lines are drawn accordingly.

    But some conservatives want a more restrictive model. Counting everyone, they argue, ends up including people who can’t vote – noncitizens, ex-felons, and those under the age of 18 – which skews district lines. It’s better, the right insists, to look exclusively at the number of eligible and/or registered voters.

    And why are they pushing this change? Because, as elections-law expert Rick Hasen explained yesterday, “A ruling that states may not draw legislative district lines taking total population into account will benefit rural voters over urban voters, and that will benefit Republicans over Democrats.”
    Urban areas are much more likely to be filled with people who cannot vote: noncitizens (especially Latinos), released felons whose voting rights have not been restored, and children. With districts redrawn using only voters rather than all people, there will be more Republican districts.

  37. rikyrah says:

    I’m gonna put it bluntly:



    They have NEVER been interested in little-d DEMOCRACY.



    Only Voters Count?
    Conservatives ask the Supreme Court to restrict states’ rights and overturn precedent.

    By Richard L. Hasen

    For the second time in a year, the Supreme Court has agreed to wade into an election case at the urging of conservatives. In both cases it has done so despite the issue appearing to be settled by long-standing precedent. In a case expected to be decided next month, Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission, conservatives asked the court to bar states from using independent redistricting commissions to draw congressional lines. In a case the court agreed to hear Tuesday, Evenwel v. Abbott, conservatives asked the court to require states to draw their legislative district lines in a particular way: Rather than considering the total population in each district, conservatives argue, the lines should instead divide districts according to the number of people registered or eligible to vote. Most states use total population for drawing districts, which includes noncitizens, children, felons, and others ineligible to vote.

    In both Supreme Court cases, there is great irony in the fact that they are being brought by conservatives, who usually claim to respect precedents and states’ rights. The challengers are not only asking the court to revisit issues that seemed to be settled by decades-old precedent. If successful, these cases will undermine federalism by limiting states’ rights to design their own political systems.

    A ruling favorable to conservatives in the Evenwel case, especially if extended to congressional redistricting, could shift more power to Republicans, who are more likely to live in areas with high concentrations of voters.


    Perhaps even more is at stake in the Evenwel case, from Texas. A ruling that states may not draw legislative district lines taking total population into account will benefit rural voters over urban voters, and that will benefit Republicans over Democrats. Urban areas are much more likely to be filled with people who cannot vote: noncitizens (especially Latinos), released felons whose voting rights have not been restored, and children. With districts redrawn using only voters rather than all people, there will be more Republican districts.

    Evenwel involves the issue of state legislature redistricting, but you can bet that if the challengers are successful in this case, they will argue for the same principle to be applied to the drawing of national congressional districts. It is not clear whether the ruling would apply to congressional districts, because the one-person, one-vote principle for congressional districts has a different source in the Constitution (Article I) than the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause, which applies to state legislatures. But logically, the two cases are likely to be treated the same, and the result could be more congressional districts tending Republican, helping Republicans keep their advantage in the U.S. House of Representatives.

  38. Ametia says:

    Loving the 70’s TOP 10, Rikyrah!

    If You Don’t Know Me by Now, You Are the Sunshine of My Life
    No need for Superstition with the Smoke on the Water
    Because Papa Was a Rollin’ Stone, and took a Walk on the Wild Side Tumbling Dice
    I got a Heart of Gold. You can Lean on Me; I’ll Take You There!

  39. rikyrah says:

    Nollywood Cinema Just Became More Accessible – iROKO Inks Deal with Netflix’s Streaming Platform

    Photo of Tambay A. Obenson
    By Tambay A. Obenson | Shadow and Act

    May 26, 2015 at 1:53PM

    If you’re a Netflix streaming subscriber, you just may have noticed the service’s recent Nollywood (Nigerian cinema) additions to its library! It’s because Netflix, the world’s leading internet based movie and TV series streaming service, and iROKO TV, the leading distributor of Nollywood films online recently, have inked a deal, after what are said to have been months of negotiations, that would see Netflix launch a dedicated “African movies” section.

    According to Jason Njoku, CEO of iROKO TV, “Obviously with 57 million subscribers globally, working with Netflix is a great first step to widening, or at least improving the visibility of Nollywood. Which again is super important to us at iROKO.”

    iROKO previously signed an exclusive content partnership with producers of Nollywood titles and video sharing site, YouTube, and serves as the website’s official Nollywood partner, featuring full-length movies, all very much in line with YouTube’s recent increasing shift towards long-form video.

    It’s also worth noting that Njoku and iROKO are getting into content production as well (films and TV series), launching ROK Studios. In the below interview with Smart Monkey, he talks about that specifically.

    Njoku launched iROKO in 2010, at 29-years-old, when he realized that there was a growing appetite for Nollywood films, after noticing how his mother and other relatives living overseas, had difficulties getting their hands on their beloved movies from Nigeria’s booming film industry. The tech entrepreneur spotted the gap in the market he founded iROKO Partners, the internet company that distributes Nollywood films to viewers across the world. Described as the “Netflix of Africa,” Njoku’s company has today grown to have more than millions of registered users.

    • rikyrah says:

      All I gotta say about this is…
      at least they weren’t cheap.
      It’s one thing to betray the public trust…it’s another thing to do it for pennies on the dollar. These crooks GOT PAID!!

  40. rikyrah says:


    please check in this morning. Just wondering how you and the family are doing.

  41. rikyrah says:

    Good Morning, Everyone :)

Leave a Reply