Must Reads

Dana Milbank: Nothing sweet about heckling Obama in the Rose Garden

Kate Conway: People with Down Syndrome Can Be Jerks, Too

Shaun, Addicting Info: The Right Wing Does Not Understand What Racism Is And What It Isn’t

Justin Rosario: For My Conservative Friend: You’re Asking The Wrong Question.

Margaret and Helen: Vagina is a 6 Letter Word

Jason Easley: 3 Things Barack Obama Did That Ruined Mitt Romney’s Week

Jim Wright: The Real Entitlement Mentality

SCOTUS & American Families

POSTED BY JHW22

Next week the Supreme Court will rule on ObamaCARES.

In case you are wondering what will happen if they rule against it:

• the private policy I have for my son & me will go up several hundred dollars
• if I try to switch plans my son's peanut allergy will be a factor in whether he gets coverage
• my c-section (from 6 years ago) will be a factor in the price of our coverage
• we won't be guaranteed that our annual exams will be covered at 100%
• the website that helped me find the plan we're on now, which is super user-friendly, will go away

So, whether you realize the benefit of ObamaCARES or not, families like ours will notice when our needs are no longer being met. Families like ours will notice when capitalism is tipped away from the consumer and toward a corporate bottom-line yet again.

**UPDATE** in response to a friend who suggested the Public Option:

*IF* SCOTUS gets rid of ObamaCARES, we're not going to be any closer to a public option. Americans may want reformed health care, but they REALLY want jobs and if the message pivots away from jobs (even though health care impacts jobs) Americans will get frustrated. Not only that, the health reform debate dragged on FOREVER and I doubt Americans are going to want to enter that debate again soon enough to make a difference for the families affected by the overturn. If it's overturned now, we still have a R-controlled House. That means until a new House, we won't get ANYTHING, let alone a public option. So between now and January we'd be back to where we started. UNLESS SCOTUS overturned everything but the mandate -- WHICH insurance companies won't want them to do since the mandate is how they pay for all the other parts.

Unless you can see a way for us to replace ObamaCARES with a public option next week, that still doesn't help the immediate problem American families will face.

And unless we can guarantee Obama is re-elected and we give him a mature Congress that would be filibuster-proof, even come January families will likely still be suffering.

A lot of things would have to fall into place for a SCOTUS over-turn to be OK for American families. And a lot of time in between. Some families can't afford that in-between time right now.

President Obama's Weekly Address - June 23, 2012

Congress Must Act on Transportation Bill and Student Loans

President Obama's NALEO Annual Conference Speech

President Obama Speaks at the NALEO Annual Conference

LeRoy Neiman Dies at 91

NY Times: LeRoy Neiman, whose brilliantly colored, impressionistic sketches of sporting events and the international high life made him one of the most popular artists in the United States, died on Wednesday in Manhattan. He was 91.

Don't Be Stupid

I'm tired.

I'm tired of ideologues who insist on absolutely no compromise when it comes to our President. They either have no idea how the world works, or they are so high and mighty/holier than thou, they could care less about reality. They are no better than Grover Norquist tax pledge signing Republicans. And I'm tired of hearing from fellow Democrats or liberals or progressives, PUMAs or whatever they want to call themselves, saying that they're soooo discouraged by President Obama that they're going to show him come November by staying home or refusing to vote for the President. Yeah, that'll show 'em.

They'd rather cut their ideological noses off their idiotic faces and let Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney win the election, than cast a vote for someone who's apparently been such a disappointment in their eyes. You know, because under a Republican president, we would have repealed Don't Ask, Don't Tell; because under a Republican president, we would have managed to pass the start of a universal health care system that previous presidents have tried and failed to enact over the last hundred years; because under a Republican president, we would have gotten a law in place protecting pay discrimination toward women in the workplace; because under a Republican president, we would still be in our 29 straight month of private sector job growth after shedding over 800,000 jobs a month by the end of the previous administration.

I could go on, but you get my point. Despite certain disappointments in an ideological fantasy world some of us would love to live in, the fact of the matter is that President Obama has been more successful in pushing a center/left agenda than any previous Democratic president.

I had been thinking about this for a while now and lo and behold, my co-blogger Jennifer, was on the same page and hit the nail on the head with a Facebook update today.

It's been a long time since I've invited people to unfriend me. But if you're a Democrat who would even consider not voting in the Presidential election because you're disappointed in Obama, then you're a disappointment to me and I don't want your energy around here. So, you can unfriend me. It's called time-management.

Unfortunately, someone didn't think her statement through and commented:

Don't forget the importance of listening to opposing/different opinions to avoid being in a self-reinforcing bubble.

Jennifer's response:

I reject the suggestion that I don't listen to opposing/different opinions. I reject the implication that I am in a bubble. Believe me, I hear/read opposing views as much or MORE than I hear agreement. What I clearly stated above is my refusal to make time in my life for people who won't vote for him because of a single issue. I didn't say they have to agree with him on everything. I didn't say that they have to agree with me. I said that anyone who won't vote for him because of an issue, or who would encourage others not to vote because of a single issue, are not worth my time. It has NOTHING to do with disagreement. It has to do with being so fucking stupid as to not vote at all. I really dislike the LEAP from me saying not voting is unacceptable to me saying disagreement is unacceptable. I mean I REALLY dislike that leap. So don't fucking go there with me. 

I have more respect for Republicans who actually believe Romney would be a better choice than I do for Democrats who DON'T FUCKING VOTE! It's about the vote, not the disagreement. GOT IT?! 

And furthermore, just because I don't agree with much of the dissent and disappointment and frustration does not mean I am oblivious, to it, naive to it, in denial of it. Guess what? I can actually disagree with people, too. Just because I am more supportive of Obama doesn't mean I haven't given a great deal of thought and research to each issue. Just because I disagree with the disappointed left doesn't mean I have blocked their reasoning from my life. Just because I filter how much I discuss it does not mean I filter their perspective. I just choose not to waste my time trying to convince Democrats the value of FUCKING VOTING! 

The leap you made is equivalent to people who say gay marriage will lead to man on dog sex. It's ridiculous and unfounded and fucking insulting.

I think Jennifer was insulted.

Let's not forget that a Romney presidency would pretty much destroy the Supreme Court as we know it. Currently, we have eight justices split evenly on the scales of justice with a ninth who straddles the balance point. A spine-shuddering thought like a President Romney might tilt the Supreme Court balance to the ultra-conservative side for the next forty years. Do we really want to add to a Roberts/Scalia/Alito/Thomas style court?

Think about that before you decide to stay home on Election Day to make your fruitless point.

Parody Is Dead...

...at least according to the Fox Nation website.

to·tal·i·tar·i·an·ism: absolute control by the state or a governing branch of a highly centralized institution.

Yes! Lawless! Totalitarianism!

They keep using that word. I don't think it means what they think it means.