Check back for updates (since this appears to be the 4th of July Weekend, it's unlikely, but...)

http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/movies/moviesnow/la-et-mn-nora-ephron-movie-quotes-20120626,0,5851932.story

...Here is a small sampling of some of the choicer bits, and a poll where you can weigh in on which Ephron movie has the sharpest dialogue.

“When you're attracted to someone, it just means that your subconscious is attracted to their subconscious, subconsciously. So what we think of as fate is just two neuroses knowing that they are a perfect match.” — David Hyde Pierce to Meg Ryan in “Sleepless in Seattle”

“I always read the last page of a book first so that if I die before I finish I'll know how it turned out.” — Billy Crystal to Meg Ryan in “When Harry Met Sally”

“The whole purpose of places like Starbucks is for people with no decision-making ability whatsoever to make six decisions just to buy one cup of coffee. Short, tall, light, dark, caf, decaf, low-fat, non-fat, etc. So people who don't know what the hell they're doing or who on earth they are can, for only $2.95, get not just a cup of coffee but an absolutely defining sense of self. — Tom Hanks in “You’ve Got Mail”

"I have to murder and dismember a crustacean." — Amy Adams in "Julie & Julia"

“I remember in high school her saying, 'Now what'd you want to take that science class for? There's no girls in that science class. You take home ec, why don't you? That's the way to meet the nice boys.' 'Mom,' I said, 'There ain't no boys in home ec. The boys are in the science class.' " — Meryl Streep in “Silkwood”

“I love that you get cold when it's 71 degrees out. I love that it takes you an hour and a half to order a sandwich. I love that you get a little crinkle above your nose when you're looking at me like I'm nuts. I love that after I spend the day with you, I can still smell your perfume on my clothes. And I love that you are the last person I want to talk to before I go to sleep at night. And it's not because I'm lonely, and it's not because it's New Year's Eve. I came here tonight because when you realize you want to spend the rest of your life with somebody, you want the rest of your life to start as soon as possible.” — Billy Crystal to Meg Ryan in “When Harry Met Sally” (We had to.)

VOTE AT LINK, AND POST YOUR OWN BELOW.

MY PERSONAL FAVORITE: "It rains 9 months of the year in Seattle!" Meg Ryan's brother in Sleepless...when she announces her desire to track down Tom Hanks...

Hank's character was far too arrogant, and the economics of the situation cut way too close to home. I just thought he deserved a female counterpart with a little more spine, or Meg deserved someone with a little more soul...

And then, I saw the original "Shop Around the Corner"....and it was all over. SAC had been honed as a stage play and faithfully translated to film. The updated version had none of the charm or warmth.

I don't think it was the fault of the screenplay, as much as the casting. A different pair might have pulled it off more successfully.

I don't think she can act. She is just playing herself, and that's not someone I'd like to get to know, either.

She loved that store, gave her soul to it, and the corporate raider just swooped in and destroyed it. Destroyed all the people who had anything to do with it. It was all about the fucking money, and when she didn't care either, I lost it.

Fucking terrible movie. Fucking terrible.

Ephron must have had her head up her corporate ass.

Whereas you and I have toiled in retail.

I only saw part of one version of Shop Around the Corner years and years ago, so I'm not at all familiar with it, but my impression was that it was about the people, not about the business. YGM was much more, imho, about the business.

Anyway, I hated it.

Hanks super-store falters due to new market forces. Unable to compete with Amazon or Strand and losing market share to e-books, Hanks sees the writing on the wall and deploys his golden parachute. By this time, money has gone to Ryan's head (figuratively and literally). She can't stand to be associated with failure and drags Hanks through bitter divorce proceedings while pursuing a hunky young up-and-coming writer. Lawyers and plastic surgeons get rich, young writer gets publicity, Ryan gets good sex, nouveau poor Hanks has a spiritual awakening, hijinks ensue (?).

I don't know if there was any divorce involved, though....mostly it was a Bain-like operation...take it public, load it with debt, drop it like a stone.

I just remember watching YGM and waiting for Hanks to realize how awful he was being, dump the corpo mindset, put all his money into her little store and make it a huge success, benefiting the whole community and all the people who had supported her.

Never happed.

And she didn't seem to give a crap.

Can you tell I'm still upset about it?



Tansy Gold obsesses, frequently.

Last edited Fri Jun 29, 2012, 09:10 PM - Edit history (1)

and I would cast Billy Crystal, ROBERT "Frank" DeNiro, and Bette Midler in the love triangle...

What can I say...day whatever of the drought and heatwave...

formerly known as Romneycare....

Some have asked "What's so bad about it?" Well, we've got a weekend to answer that question, so it all goes here...as soon as I can get my gorge to stop rising. Why don't you all go first?

Later: I am so repulsed by this topic, it is a real sacrifice on my part to put up this stuff. I hope you all appreciate it. But after 6 hours of sleep, I'm wide awake (Sleepless in Ann Arbor?) so here goes!

(I AM STARTING WITH THE NEGATIVE STUFF....MAYBE CONTRAST IT WITH THE GUSHING PRAISE?)

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article31717.htm

It was a brilliant move by far Right (but oh so likable) Chief Justice Roberts to side with the Dem-appointed Justices and uphold ObamaCare. After all, this is a massive victory for corporate power, forcing citizens to buy an expensive insurance product that won’t serve our needs very well but will profit industry, in lieu of receiving real health care.

Obamacare and its corporate mandate were born on the Right (as in Heritage Foundation) as a way to destroy the political prospects of any single payer system that would cover all Americans with a tax-funded system of guaranteed medical care. This is the way all other industrial societies protect the right to health care, by taking it out of the hands of the giant insurance industry. The right to health care is like the right to not be enslaved – there are no half measures, and the insurance industry is the slave master.

Roberts may have brilliantly scored a “4-fer” victory:

1.) He now has an interesting historic legacy.

2.) He and his Dem-appointed colleagues have given huge new powers to corporations, and further reduced the rights of citizens.

3.) Any real reform — call it single payer, or medicare for all — is doomed in bipartisan fashion. The “pragmatists” who are for Obamacare are duped if they think it is going to be expanded to single payer. From this point on, it will only be picked over and further reinvented to empower the insurance and drug industries.

4.) Roberts siding with Dems has probably bounced Obama right out of office. The public overwhelmingly hates Obamacare, and this pours gas on the electoral fire.

No wonder Roberts delivered the goods! What a great Right Wing Justice he is.

**************************************************************************

John Stauber is an independent author and activist. He founded the Center for Media and Democracy in 1993, retiring in 2009. He lives in Madison, Wisconsin.

AND THAT IS THE BARE-BONES OF WHAT IS WRONG WITH IT...THERE'S SO MUCH MORE!

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/06/29/us-usa-healthcare-court-roberts-idUSBRE85S02U20120629?feedType=RSS&feedName=politicsNews&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Reuters%2FPoliticsNews+%28Reuters+Politics+News%29

In the end, it all came down to Chief Justice John Roberts, the sphinx in the center chair, who in a stunning decision wove together competing rationales to uphold President Barack Obama's healthcare plan. Roberts' action instantly upended the conventional wisdom that he would vote with his four fellow conservative justices on the U.S. Supreme Court and undercut the agenda of a Democratic president, who as a senator in 2005 had opposed Roberts' appointment to the bench...But Thursday's extraordinary conclusion to the bitterly fought healthcare battle was quite ordinary in some ways. Roberts hewed to a traditional Supreme Court principle that if the justices can find any constitutional grounds on which to uphold a law, they should do so. The 57-year-old chief justice also followed a stated principle of his own: narrowly deciding cases and trying to preserve the integrity of the judiciary in polarized Washington.

While he has voted consistently with the conservative bloc on social issues, such as abortion rights and racial policies, Roberts in his public remarks has suggested that he seeks, as chief, to transcend an ideological label. He routinely refers to the court's place in history and has bristled at polls and public commentary that suggest the high court acts in the same political realm as the two elected branches of government. Indeed, in his comments during oral arguments in the healthcare case, Roberts hinted that he could be open to siding with the government. He expressed concern that the court over which he presides might be seen as ignoring more than 75 years of precedent and rolling back U.S. law to the New Deal era. The last time the Supreme Court struck down a major act of Congress was in 1936, when the court invalidated a federal law that limited work hours and prescribed minimum wages for coal workers.

"He is positioning the court as the one, competent, principled institution in Washington," said Pamela Karlan, a Stanford University law professor. "The chief justice's opinion is designed to appear thoughtful, measured. He is in this for the long haul."

DEFYING HISTORY

As the lone conservative standing with four liberals, Roberts defied recent history, most people's expectations, and the deepest held hopes of the right-wing and Tea Party opponents of the law. He also rejected the prevailing view of Republican politicians, who had been his strongest backers when President George W. Bush nominated him five years ago....


A PYRRHIC VICTORY

Roberts did hand the conservatives a pyrrhic victory. He rejected the Obama administration's main argument that the core of the law, a mandate that requires most Americans to buy health insurance by 2014 or face a penalty, was covered by Congress's power to regulate interstate commerce. Roberts said that power, while broad, does not extend to "inactivity," such as the choice not to buy insurance.Whether this apparent limiting of the Commerce Clause will hinder Congressional power in the future remains to be seen. In their briefs and arguments, both sides characterized the health insurance mandate as distinctive, and it is unclear whether another Congressional regulation could be struck down under the Roberts "inactivity" rationale. Roberts' judgment on the Commerce Clause issue was endorsed by fellow conservatives Kennedy, Antonin Scalia, Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas. But in turning to another constitutional ground on which to uphold the mandate, Congress' taxation power, Roberts embraced the Obama administration's secondary argument - and delivered a victory to the President. Roberts reasoned that even though Congress had shied away from calling the penalty for not buying insurance a "tax," it effectively is one. Roberts stressed that the court was not endorsing the administration's approach. "Because the Constitution permits such a tax, it is not our role to forbid it, or to pass on its wisdom or fairness," he said.

MORE SPECULATION AT LINK

http://www.zerohedge.com/contributed/2012-06-29/constitution-what-they-make-it

“You are free to not eat broccoli, but if you don’t the government will impose a penalty on you. This penalty is really just a tax and since the government has the power to tax for all sorts of reasons, they can tax you if you don’t eat broccoli.”

This is the logic of Justice Roberts argument in the Obamacare case that was handed down today...This should not surprise us because the Constitution is whatever the Justices wish it to be. Now they have handed the government another mandate to regulate our behavior. As we know they can and do regulate our behavior already. For example, if you smoke, they will tax your habit heavily. It is not a giant leap to force you to do something they want you to do by penalizing you for not doing it. According to today’s ruling, there is nothing in the Constitution preventing them from doing this.

The technical details of the ruling are interesting but very disappointing. Roberts’ justification of the Obamacare Act relied on the taxing power of the federal government as well as the general welfare clause. Roberts shot down the government’s reliance on the Commerce Clause to mandate our behavior. He wrote, "The Commerce Clause is not a general license to regulate an individual from cradle to grave, simply because he will predictably engage in particular interstate]transactions." Some clever commenters are saying, “Aha, that sneaky old Roberts. He always wanted to limit the wide powers of the Commerce Clause and this is how he did it.”

This limitation of the Commerce Clause may or may not be significant. Only future cases will answer this question. Based on the history of the Court, I have my doubts that this will impose any new restrictions on the government’s broad powers to regulate the economy. The argument that a penalty was really a tax was, to say the least, a novel approach since the Administration thought it was a penalty and not a “tax” (the statute clearly points this out). Thus Justice Scalia’s famous query during argument that the government could force us to eat broccoli under the government’s theory of the Commerce Clause was cleverly turned aside by appearing to support the logic of Scalia’s broccoli argument yet upholding the law under the taxing authority. The tax argument by Roberts is a good example of finding means to justify an end. None of this is to say that the payment is not intended to affect individual conduct. Although the payment will raise considerable revenue, it is plainly designed to expand health insurance coverage. But taxes that seek to influence conduct are nothing new. Some of our earliest federal taxes sought to deter the purchase of imported manufactured goods in order to foster the growth of domestic industry.

Roberts' final words on the subject:



Roberts' logic is tenuous: none of the examples of taxation he cites impose a “tax” on something someone doesn’t do. If I wish to buy expensive heavily taxed imported goods, that’s my choice. Under his logic they could “tax” me for not buying domestic goods because it serves the goal of fostering “the growth of domestic industry.” Roberts just makes it up to fit his intended outcome. The Court’s dissenters make quick work of Justice Roberts' invention (turning a penalty into a tax). Justice Kennedy's dissent on behalf of Scalia, Thomas, and Alito:



It’s not a tax, it’s a penalty...This use of the taxing power was hailed by most legal scholars this morning as a proper conclusion by Roberts. Most whom I heard couldn’t understand why anyone would think it would not pass constitutional muster. Most legal scholars see nothing wrong with expanding federal power to implement social policies they believe are beneficial. This is the “living constitution” theory which has guided legal scholarship for many years, most specifically since FDR’s New Deal. But it is an old argument going back to the Federalists and the Jeffersonian Republicans. What Justice Roberts has done may be another “switch in time to save nine.”* Perhaps it is a bit hyperbolic to so suggest this, but clearly he wanted to uphold Obamacare and take the Court out of the political and policy spotlight by this legal sleight of hand. Left-wing commentators are saying how crafty the Justice is to uphold this worthy social policy on the one hand, and yet hew to his supposedly conservative roots with his Commerce Clause arguments on the other. Most of these people could care less about the Constitution: to them the end justifies the means in every extension of federal power. This is the problem with progressives who think the government has the right to regulate the economy in any way Congress deems it, and the Court is full of progressives. Justice Ginsberg in her opinion said, "The Chief Justice's crabbed reading of the Commerce Clause harks back to the era in which the Court routinely thwarted Congress' efforts to regulate the national economy in the interest of those who labor to sustain it." The Constitution has been gutted by the Supreme Court, and their butchers work continues. The Founders’ fear of a powerful central government has been betrayed by the Court. Our original constitutional limitations on federal power have been ground down by redefining the Constitution to suit government goals. A Court can now find constitutional power for almost anything the government wishes to do.

MORE

...Look at the expression in Roberts eyes. Its not like that of a normal sane person. His eyes also dart around all over the place like coyotes eyes do. There's something badly wrong with him....

...We should wake up and realize that the constitution was killed over 100 years ago by the creation of the Fed and corporate personhood to name a few examples. The inconsistency of SCOTUS over the last decade shows more of the institutional rot evident in the US....



...I would point out that taxes must only be levied for legitimate government functions, and those come from the enumerated powers. In this ruling, the Court stated that ObamaCare could not be justified under the ever-elastic Commerce Clause. In doing so, they admitted it was not found in the enumerated powers. But since it was suddenly a tax, the tax could be levied and the law could stand.

So, in my opinion, this ruling is treasonous because it devises and end run around the Ninth and Tenth Amendments. Every Justice who approves of that reasoning must be impeached. (but of course, nothing will happen)...

Those fuckers in Washington played the game well. The corporations get a handout and we the people stand more divided than ever. They knew it would go this way.

http://www.pnhp.org/news/2012/june/%E2%80%98health-law-upheld-but-health-needs-still-unmet%E2%80%99-national-doctors-group

Although the Supreme Court has upheld the Affordable Care Act, the law will not remedy the U.S. health crisis, physicians group says...The following statement was released today by leaders of Physicians for a National Health Program (www.pnhp.org). Their signatures appear below.

Although the Supreme Court has upheld the Affordable Care Act (ACA), the unfortunate reality is that the law, despite its modest benefits, is not a remedy to our health care crisis:

(1) it will not achieve universal coverage, as it leaves at least 26 million uninsured,

(2) it will not make health care affordable to Americans with insurance, because of high co-pays and gaps in coverage that leave patients vulnerable to financial ruin in the event of serious illness, and

(3) it will not control costs.

Why is this so? Because the ACA perpetuates a dominant role for the private insurance industry. Each year, that industry siphons off hundreds of billions of health care dollars for overhead, profit and the paperwork it demands from doctors and hospitals; it denies care in order to increase insurers’ bottom line; and it obstructs any serious effort to control costs.

In contrast, a single-payer, improved-Medicare-for-all system would provide truly universal, comprehensive coverage; health security for our patients and their families; and cost control. It would do so by replacing private insurers with a single, nonprofit agency like Medicare that pays all medical bills, streamlines administration, and reins in costs for medications and other supplies through its bargaining clout.

Research shows the savings in administrative costs alone under a single-payer plan would amount to $400 billion annually, enough to provide quality coverage to everyone with no overall increase in U.S. health spending.

The major provisions of the ACA do not go into effect until 2014. Although we will be counseled to “wait and see” how this reform plays out, we’ve seen how comparable plans have worked in Massachusetts and other states. Those “reforms” have invariably failed our patients, foundering on the shoals of skyrocketing costs, even as the private insurers have continued to amass vast fortunes.

Our patients, our people and our national economy cannot wait any longer for an effective remedy to our health care woes. The stakes are too high.

Contrary to the claims of those who say we are “unrealistic,” a single-payer system is within practical reach. The most rapid way to achieve universal coverage would be to improve upon the existing Medicare program and expand it to cover people of all ages. There is legislation before Congress, notably H.R. 676, the “Expanded and Improved Medicare for All Act,” which would do precisely that.

What is truly unrealistic is believing that we can provide universal and affordable health care in a system dominated by private insurers and Big Pharma.

The American people desperately need a universal health system that delivers comprehensive, equitable, compassionate and high-quality care, with free choice of provider and no financial barriers to access. Polls have repeatedly shown an improved Medicare for all, which meets these criteria, is the remedy preferred by two-thirds of the population. A solid majority of the medical profession now favors such an approach, as well.

We pledge to step up our work for the only equitable, financially responsible and humane cure for our health care ills: single-payer national health insurance, an expanded and improved Medicare for all.

Garrett Adams, M.D.
President

Andrew Coates, M.D.
President-elect

Oliver Fein, M.D.
Past President

Claudia Fegan, M.D.
Past President

David Himmelstein, M.D.
Co-founder

Steffie Woolhandler, M.D.
Co-founder

Quentin Young, M.D.
National Coordinator

Don McCanne, M.D.
Senior Health Policy Fellow

For a fact sheet on health care access, costs, safety-net and women’s health issues, and the evidence-based case for single-payer national health insurance SEE LINK

Physicians for a National Health Program (www.pnhp.org) is an organization of more than 18,000 doctors who advocate for single-payer national health insurance. To speak with a physician/spokesperson in your area, visit www.pnhp.org/stateactions or call (312) 782-6006.

http://thiscantbehappening.net/node/1217

Looking on the bright side, the Supreme Court has ruled that something that President Obama has done is definitively not unconstitutional. That’s probably the best that can be said of the 5-4 decision by the High Court today in upholding the ironically named Affordable Health Care Act...On the downside for Obama, he goes into the final four months of the election campaign saddled with a decision that says he has raised taxes on some of the nation’s poorest people -- for that is what the court said will be happening, 18 months from now, when the health insurance mandate part of the new Act takes effect, and people who have no employer-provided health plan, and no other kind of coverage, fail to buy a policy for themselves and their families. They will be socked with a bill by the IRS, and while the Obama administration and supporters of the act in Congress were at pains to say that the payment such people would be hit with would be a fine, the Justices in the majority were adamant that it would be a tax.

Also taking a hit were Republicans, who universally oppose what they have been deprecatingly calling “Obamacare.” Republicans, including their presidential candidate- in-waiting Mitt Romney, have vowed to eliminate the act after the November election if they win, though unless they do surprisingly well in the Senate and come up with close to a 60-40 majority -- very unlikely -- they will in truth be unable to do that. Romney, who as governor of Massachusetts launched a state health plan that included an insurance mandate with a fine for not having insurance, which was clearly the model for the federal law, is in the awkward position of another Massachusetts presidential contender, John Kerry, who went down to defeat in part because he voted for an $87-billion bill funding the Iraq War and then voted against it, leaving him lamely explaining to reporters that “I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it.” Now Mitt Romney will have to be saying, for the next four months, that “I was for an insurance mandate before I was against it.” Not an enviable position to be in as a candidate!

Locked out of the debate by Obama and Congressional Democrats: Medicare for All

The real losers in the latest Supreme Court decision, however, are the people of the United States. Not those who will be required to go out and buy some over-priced, minimal coverage, rip-off insurance plan offered by the private insurance industry, or to pay a “tax” to the IRS for not doing so, but everyone. This is because the Affordable Health Care Act is not affordable. It does little or nothing to control health care costs, which are destined to continue to gobble up an ever increasing amount of the total US Gross Domestic Product as well as of corporate profits and families’ incomes. The new federal version of Romneycare simply prolongs the day when the US finally does what it should have done decades ago, should have done during the first Clinton administration, and should have done at the start of the Obama administration: namely expanding Medicare to cover all Americans. Instead of going for this option when he had broad and enthusiastic support as the newly elected president, Obama deliberately shut out all discussion of the Canadian-style approach to national health coverage -- a national program of government insurance for all, with doctors’ rates and hospital charges negotiated by the government -- and instead devised a scheme that leaves the whole payment system in the hands of the private insurance industry, and effectively lets doctors and hospitals charge what they can get away with.

Obama did this because he was a huge recipient of money from all sectors of the health care industry -- the insurance companies, the hospital companies, the American Medical Association, the big pharmaceutical firms, and the medical supply firms. ObamaRomneyCare is at its core an enrichment scheme for nearly all elements of the Medical Industrial Complex, with the possible exception of the lowly family practice physician, nurses, and hospital workers. There is a reason why Canadians, who have better health statistics than US citizens, as measured by access to care, life expectancy, infant mortality rates, etc., spend half as much as we Americans do on health care both as individuals and as a percent of national Gross Domestic Product. There is a reason why the US has far and away the costliest medical system in the world, and yet still has some 50 million people who cannot get preventive care, and who cannot be seen by a physician when they or their family members get sick or injured unless they go to a hospital emergency room.

On balance, Obama probably has a narrow win in the Supreme Court decision, because the alternative -- having the Affordable Health Act ruled unconstitutional-- would have been an unmitigated disaster for him. There are certainly bragging rights in being able to tell Republican critics that the Supreme Court, including its Chief Justice John Roberts, an appointee of George W. Bush, have ruled that it does pass Constitutional muster. But it is a pyrrhic victory, both for Obama, who will now have to explain why it is a good thing to tax poor people who can’t come up with the money to buy a crummy mandated health insurance plan, and for the public, who are going to end up having to pay through the nose for this new law.

No “progressives” should be cheering this decision. It stinks.

***************************************************************************************

DAVE LINDORFF is author of “Marketplace Medicine: The Rise of the For-Profit Hospital Chains” (Bantam Books, 1992)

http://www.nationofchange.org/affordable-care-act-decision-effects-1341062258

...The downside of the Affordable Care Act is, as Dave Lindorff writes today, 18 months from now, when the health insurance mandate part of the new Act takes effect and people who have no employer-provided health plan and no other kind of coverage fail to buy a policy for themselves and their families, they will be socked with a penalty from the IRS — $95 for 2014, $325 for 2015, $695 in 2016 and that $695 indexed to the consumer price index in the years after 2016.

Some are saying that because the refusal to pay the penalty does not carry a prison sentence Chief Justice Roberts was persuaded that there was "no real compulsion here." Others claim that Roberts buckled under pressure at the very last minute, mindful of the Supreme Court's authority and legitimacy and unwilling to bear the burden of destroying a hugely important bill, with vast political implication.

If that's the case, there are some ironies here. When Obama served in the Senate in 2005, he voted against confirming Roberts as chief justice, arguing that he lacked empathy for underdogs and that "he has far more often used his formidable skills on behalf of the strong in opposition to the weak." Twenty-one other Democratic senators, including Joe Biden, also voted against confirming Roberts. Twenty-two Democratic senators voted to confirm him...

(THIS IS THE GUSHING PRAISE SUB-THREAD--BUT READ IT CLOSELY. I'VE BOLDED THE COGNITIVE DISSONANCE)

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article31735.htm

... the conservative Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, John Roberts, not only joined with the liberal justices to completely uphold almost every single part of the Obama health care law, he wrote the majority opinion himself! In fact, he went even further. When he realized that the government had poorly made its constitutional case to the court, he went searching for a clause in their argument and the constitution that would give him the justification he needed to back the administration and to insure that his decision would hold up legally. (JUDICIAL ACTIVISM, ANYONE?) In other words, even though he is on the opposite side of the political fence, he wrote the Dems' paper for them. Stunning.

The other four justices? They didn't just vote to overturn the individual mandate part of the law, they all voted to kill the entire Act.

The media is already spending much time talking about the mandate being the "centerpiece of the law," but the real news is that if you ever have a pre-existing condition, you cannot now be denied insurance. If you are a young adult without health insurance, you can now stay on your parents' plan until age 26. The insurance company can no longer say there is a lifetime cap to your coverage. The insurance companies are now required to spend 85 cents out of every dollar they take in on actual reimbursement for your health care – not on profit or "administrative costs" (some companies have been taking over a 30% cut; Medicare's total percentage of their budget for administrative costs: 2%)... For some of us, the first inclination is to point out just how weak the Obama law actually is, that it doesn't provide true universal health care (26 million will STILL be uninsured), and that it leaves control of the system in the hands of the vultures, otherwise known as the health insurance companies. The individual mandate was a huge gift to the private insurance companies, guaranteeing them billions more from millions of new customers. And many of the key provisions of this law don't even take effect until 2014 – and if the Republicans win in November, you can kiss all of that goodbye.


So, yes, the bill is highly flawed and somewhat wrong-headed – but what it IS is a huge step in the right direction. And today's court decision cements that. The right wing knows this and they are probably unraveling in some not-so-pretty ways right now. And that's why today is a great day. The Right has been smacked down by one of their own! They know what we all know — that the path of history has been, and will continue to move toward the basic human right that all people are entitled to see a doctor and NOT have to worry about losing their home because they can't afford to pay the medical bills. Those days are over, or will be soon, and that is where civilization is headed. It's not headed back to the days of Oliver Twist. Today's victory is momentum, it's forward motion, and we WILL have true universal health care in this country in the not too distant future.


...So that's the battle ahead of us: Organizing and mobilizing the majority of Americans to push for true universal health care, Medicare for All. ...Five years ago this week, my health care documentary, Sicko, opened in theaters across the country. I have spent the better part of the decade on this issue, and for me, personally, fully aware of the current law's limitations, I am very happy with today's news – not because of its specifics or nuances, but because it is a road sign, and that sign points in the correct, humane and sane direction. THAT makes this a great day.

BE HONEST, MICHAEL...BASED ON WHAT USUALLY HAPPENS, THIS IS A STEP INTO A BRICK WALL. THE ONLY WAY "PROGRESS WILL BE MADE TOWARDS SINGLE PAYER" IS WHEN THIS OBSTACLE IS TORN DOWN...

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/06/28/us-usa-healthcare-court-idUSBRE85R06420120628

..."We will continue to implement this law and we'll work together to improve on it," said Obama, speaking somberly in the White House East Room, the same setting he used to announce the 2011 death of al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden.

"What we won't do - what the country can't afford to do - is re-fight the political battles of two years ago or go back to the way things were. With today's announcement, it's time for us to move forward," Obama added...

MOVING FORWARD...WE'VE HEARD THAT BEFORE...IT MEANS "WASH MY HANDS OF IT AND GO ON TO SOMETHING ELSE THAT WILL SERVE THE CORPORATIONS....WHAT IT DOESN'T MEAN IS FIX THIS MESS


...Roberts showed he had taken control over a divided bench. He highlighted flaws in the administration's arguments and stressed the majority was not commenting on the wisdom of the law. Rather, he said, if it could be upheld, the court must uphold it. He said it was not the job of the judiciary "to save" the nation from policy choices made by elected legislators. Romney and the Republicans had hoped the Supreme Court would gut the law. Deprived of that outcome, they can now continue pressing the attack on Obama on the campaign trail, but their hopes for a rollback or repeal will hang on legislation, unlikely before the elections, and on the voting public, whose views are mixed.

"What the court did today was say that Obamacare does not violate the Constitution," Romney said. "What they did not do is say that Obamacare is good law, or good policy."

THIS SOUNDS MORE LIKE A TROJAN HORSE THAN A GREAT LEAP FORWARD....AND A WINNING ELECTION STRATEGY GIFTED TO THE GOP

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2012/06/it_matters.php?ref=fpblg

...we may learn that President Obama sacrificed his presidency to push through this piece of legislation — the Dems already lost Congress over it. But presidencies are for doing important things not just for getting elected to second terms in office. And I strongly suspect that even if Mitt Romney wins and gets a Republican Congress, they still won’t be able to get rid of this law.

That counts. That matters.

This is an imperfect law. But what’s most important is that it provides a structure under which the country can make a start not only on universal coverage — as an ethical imperative — but on doing away with the waste and inefficiencies created by the chronic market failure of the US health insurance system. Again, that matters. And I suspect there’s no going back.

http://blog.buzzflash.com/node/13574

...the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act provides medical care and financial relief for millions and millions of Americans right now. It will literally save lives and help keep people from going bankrupt paying for health insurance...

SAYS WHO? THERE'S NOTHING IN THIS BILL THAT SAYS ANYTHING ABOUT EITHER GOAL...

http://www.alternet.org/story/156097/4_reasons_why_republicans_won%27t_be_able_to_repeal_obamacare?akid=9003.227380.KZJTzM&rd=1&t=19

Responding to Thursday’s Supreme Court decision upholding the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act, Congressional Republicans have scheduled a vote in the House to repeal the law and Mitt Romney pledged to undo the measure if he’s elected president in November. But unless the GOP wins a super majority in the Senate — a scenario no one thinks is plausible — it can do little more than weaken Obamacare’s regulations and defund some of its provisions...


AND THIS IS SUPPOSED TO MAKE ME FEEL BETTER ABOUT IT?

(IN THIS SUBTHREAD, JUST THE FACTS, WITHOUT THE COLOR)

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/06/28/us-usa-healthcare-taxfacts-idUSBRE85R1QG20120628

President Barack Obama's healthcare overhaul law, upheld by the Supreme Court on Thursday, contains a slew of new tax provisions.

Some have been put into effect in the two years since Obama signed the law, including a tanning salon tax and tax credits for small businesses. Other provisions will be phased in over time.

Here is a look at major tax provisions in Obama's Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

IN EFFECT

* Small business tax credits. For businesses with fewer than 25 workers and average annual wages of less than $50,000 a person, the credit is meant to offset the costs of healthcare coverage provided by the businesses. Set now at up to 35 percent of employer contribution for small employers and 25 percent for tax-exempt employers, the credit will rise by 2014 to up to 50 percent.

* Drugmaker fees. An annual fee on drugmakers based on sales and market share, this will raise $2.8 billion in government revenue for 2012-2013, rising to $4.1 billion in 2018. The fee then ticks back down to raise $2.8 billion in 2019 and later.

* Medical device excise tax. An excise tax of 2.3 percent on sales of medical devices is levied on manufacturers, which are responsible for reporting and paying the tax.

* Tanning salon tax. A 10 percent excise tax on consumer payments to indoor tanning salons, it is collected by the salons at the time of service and passed onto the government.

BEGINNING IN 2013

* Medicare insurance tax increase for wealthy. This is an increase in the Medicare hospital insurance payroll tax rate for individuals with incomes exceeding $200,000, or married couples making more than $250,000. The rate will rise to 2.35 percent of wages from its current level of 1.45 percent.

* Unearned income tax. This is a new tax on investment income such as capital gains and dividends of 3.8 percent, on top of the current 15 percent tax, also for higher-income groups.

BEGINNING IN 2014

* Individual mandate penalty fee. Under the "individual mandate" portion of the healthcare law, Americans must have health insurance or pay a fee to the Internal Revenue Service.

The fee will be $95, or 1 percent of taxable household income, in 2014. By 2016, it will rise in phases to $695 per person, with a cap that equals the greater of $2,085 per family or 2.5 percent of household income.

* Employer mandate fee. Under the healthcare law, companies with more than 50 workers must pay the IRS $2,000 for each full-time employee they do not provide health coverage. The first 30 employees are excluded from the fee.

* Healthcare premium tax credit. This is a credit, based on a percentage of income, for low and middle income individuals to help them buy insurance in state-run insurance marketplaces.

* Health insurers fee. The government will collect revenue from health plans, beginning by raising $8 billion in 2014 and ramping up to raise $14.3 billion in 2018. Subsequent years' fees will be based on the rate of premium growth.

COMING LATER

* "Cadillac" health plan tax. This is a tax of 40 percent above threshold amounts on what are considered expensive policies. The tax, imposed on the insurer, is based on the value of plans with coverage costing more than $10,200 in benefits for individuals and $27,500 for families. Effective in 2018.

Sources: Congressional Budget Office, Internal Revenue Service, Kaiser Family Foundation.

IN OTHER WORDS, THE MASSIVE US TAX CODE HAS JUST DOUBLED IN SIZE...AND IT'S ALL UNPROVEN, UNTESTED, AND LIKELY TO RESULT IN MULTIPLE TEST CASES BY THE IRS AS PEOPLE TRY TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO STAY ON THE RIGHT SIDE OF THE LAW, OR HOW TO EVADE IT ENTIRELY OR IN PART...

http://truth-out.org/news/item/10046-court-upholds-health-care-law-individual-mandate-survives-as-tax

...The ruling on the mandate keeps the entire ACA together at the seams. Obama's health care plan would insure millions of Americans, ban insurers from denying coverage based on pre-existing conditions and allow young people to stay on their parent's insurance up to age 26.

According to SCOTUSblog, "the court reinforces that individuals can simply refuse to pay the tax and not comply with the mandate."

The ruling also looked at a planned expansion of Medicaid to 16 million people.

The court ruled that the Medicaid expansion was constitutional, but that the federal government could not withhold federal funds if states didn't comply, said SCOTUSblog.

According to Chris Hayes on Twitter, "Medicaid expansion is the biggest, most immediate source of new coverage for folks."

MORE

MEDICAID COULD (AND SHOULD) HAVE BEEN EXPANDED WITHOUT ALL THIS BAGGAGE

http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2012/06/commerce-clause-affordable-care-act-ruling-hypothetical?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Motherjones%2Fmojoblog+%28MotherJones.com+|+MoJoBlog%29

.... Roberts' opinion upholds the Affordable Care Act under Congress' taxing power, because, "it is abundantly clear the Constitution does not guarantee that individuals may avoid taxation through inactivity." So you can't "regulate" inactivity under the Commerce Clause, but you can tax it. Or as New York University Law Professor Barry Friedman* told the Washington Post's Greg Sargent, "They can’t make you eat broccoli, but they can tax you for not eating it." (That's not exactly right, in my view: They can tax you for not buying it.) Roberts says the government can't compel you to do something under the Commerce Clause, but it can still tax you for not doing it. A PREPOSTEROUS ASSERTION ON ITS FACE. It's difficult to see how that meaningfully constrains future liberal projects.

Liberals do have one reason to be concerned about the Supreme Court's ruling—but it's the court's reasoning on the expansion of Medicaid, not the Commerce Clause, that should worry them. Medicaid is a federal program in which the states get money to provide health insurance coverage for the poor. The only catch is that for Medicaid to be constitutional, the states have to be able to say no. The Affordable Care Act substantially expanded Medicaid coverage so that it would cover 16 million more Americans, but it forced states to either take the new funding or give up all the Medicaid funding they were already getting. The high court said that was not kosher.

The Medicaid part of the ruling represents the first time the Supreme Court has struck down a federal spending law in 75 years, UCLA School of Law professor Adam Winkler notes. It's an unusual outcome, but it wasn't a close vote. Justices Elena Kagan and Stephen Breyer, who were both appointed by Democratic presidents, joined the conservative wing of the court in arguing that the Medicaid expansion was unconstitutionally coercive—"a gun to the head," of the states, in Roberts' wording. But all that "coercive" means here is that conservative politicians would have to face the wrath of their constituents for refusing free money from the federal government. Thursday's ruling allows those governors to refuse Medicaid expansion without putting their existing federal Medicaid funding at risk...the court's ruling leaves open the question of whether past and future federal funding for education, transportation, and other national priorities could be at risk, because the federal government often uses financial incentives to persuade states to do things that the federal government doesn't have the authority to do.

But although the Supreme Court's ruling suggests that there's a limit on the conditions the federal government can attach to money it sends to the states, it's not clear what that limit is. That limits the decision's impact. "The healthcare cases do not impose strict new limits on the spending power," Winkler says. "There's no majority opinion to set out such limits. Seven justices agreed that states can't be denied all Medicaid funds for failing to expand their programs. But no five agreed on the reasons why."

Not to be entirely cynical about it, but Supreme Court Justices are lords of the realm. They can rule how they want, and a different lineup on the court—say one with a few more Democratic appointees—could reject this reasoning entirely. The Medicaid ruling is a concern. But the good news for liberals in the Affordable Care Act ruling is concrete and easy to see. The dangers are, for now, entirely hypothetical. EVEN MORE PREPOSTEROUS!

I'll be pouring out gall and bile here, but there's no reason you can't do the same...

This stupid act is crating an unmanageable, ungovernable, complicated layer of bureaucracy. I can see people who already can't afford health care spending small fortunes trying to get their tax returns legal with the "help" of expensive tax preparers...

KISS KEEP IT SIMPLE, STUPID! That 's the FIRST principle of effective design, whether it's politics or engineering. This sucker was born to fail. The parts people support unreservedly are the SIMPLE parts where the language is clear and unambiguous. Everybody is covered. No dodging or gouging. Everybody is treated equally, too.

CASE IN POINT: children covered under family plans to age 26. Nobody could misinterpret that...no insurance company can weasel out. Its inequalities come from the fact that different classes of people have different policies=some of them worth their weight in gold, others not worth the paper they are printed on, let alone the exhorbitant fees.

But this mandate is clear and universal (that is, if you have family insurance in the first place. But over 40 million don't, and thanks to this bill, most of them still won't have coverage of any kind except in extremis).

JUST TRYING TO CLARIFY MY EMOTIONAL RESPONSE INTO HARD FACTUAL TOOLS HAS RELIEVED THE BRAIN STRAIN...I THINK I CAN SLEEP A BIT MORE NOW....SEE YOU ALL WHEN THE SUN RISES!

eom

It must be the new jobs bill.

An old lady, probably in her late 70's, riding a motor-trike down the road, with a little twerp dog in a crate, strapped to her luggage rack.


Only in Flori-duh. I hope it shit all over her rear fenders.

just a few months before my own mother...she has been spared the sight of her youngest son clowning about.

And his father's been dead since 1995.

Mitt was raised in Bloomfield Hills...the most entitled place in Michigan. His bio is chock full of reasons why he should not be elected or selected president of anything...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitt_Romney

http://www.zerohedge.com/contributed/2012-06-29/beware-day-when-bulging-bunds-go-bust-bullshit-or-doesnt-anyone-use-math-anym

...Take a murky pool of depreciating, hard to value, illiquid assets and make them even murkier, harder to value, yet easier to pledge since it's now acceptable to look in the other direction as you receive said "trash assets". To make matters even worse, the Europeans are now attempting to perfect their method of throwing good money after bad by denying preferential status to the only money that can save (or at least buoy) these zombie banks. Of course, no lender will want to go in knowing that they can be instantly subordinated, but then again when the only lender that can really make a difference goes in, why should it take a bow to anyone else. Trust me on this one... Taxpayers will offer loans and see that money disappear... Poooffff!!! Don't believe me? Reference CNBC Asks, "So Why Are Spanish Bond Yields Falling?" I Ask The Better Question, "Why Are Spanish Banks Considered Solvent?"

http://boombustblog.com/blog/item/6100-cnbc-asks-so-why-are-spanish-bond-yields-falling?-i-ask-the-better-question-why-are-spanish-banks-considered-solvent?

Bloomberg also reports Spain Gets Relief as Europe Leaders Outflank Merkel in Bid to Blunt Crisis. Listen, pressuring Germany, the one remaining relatively stable/robust large economy in the union is a recipe for disaster. There's no wonder why 16 or so failing economies are in opposition to the wants and desires of the 1 or so successful economies. See any common threads here?

...Germany is a net export nation whose primary trading partners range from extremely hard landing to recessionary to outright depression. Exactly where is all of the economic growth going to come from to fund the world, or at least the European version of the world?

REGGIE MIDDLETON HAS GOT TO TAKE IT EASY, OR HE COULD SUFFER A STROKE OVER THE EUROZONE ANTICS....

http://www.zerohedge.com/contributed/2012-06-29/big-blink

Markets soared in Asia, Europe, the US, everywhere. Let the good times roll. The euro jumped to the highest level in a couple of weeks. Yields on Spanish bonds plunged to the lowest level since, well, Monday. A miracle had happened. German Chancellor Angela Merkel had blinked. Um, a little bit. All eyes were on her at the EU summit in Brussels, the one summit that would once and for all save the Eurozone, THE summit, where she’d be forced to submit to the majority of the Eurozone, and indeed to the majority of the world, and where she’d be forced to come to her senses and give in to the demands set out before the summit...

There was the Grand Plan, issued by European Council President Herman Van Rompuy. It included all the goodies: a European Treasury with power over national budgets and how much countries could borrow; Eurobonds; a banking union that would guarantee deposits; and the ESM that would bail out banks directly.

There was French President François Hollande’s plan, first issued during his campaign, then reiterated many times since. It included Eurobonds and the ability by the European Central Bank to directly buy sovereign bonds of debt sinner countries. He’d formed a triumvirate with Italian Prime Minister Mario Monti and Spanish Prime Minister Mariano Rajoy to corner Merkel.

Rajoy had been begging for help but didn’t want Spain to take the bitter medicine that the bailout Troika would prescribe if he asked for a full-fledged bailout. Hence his emphasis on bailing out the banks directly, and let Spain run its dismal affairs as it saw fit. Monti had warned last week that the Eurozone would break apart if summit attendees didn’t sign off on his list of items that were “absolutely necessary” to save the Eurozone.

So, here are the summit results on these items:

- Eurobonds? Nein.

- A banking union with tools to prop up banks and with a common deposit insurance fund. Nein.

- Allowing the ECB to buy sovereign bonds directly? Aber nein!

They did agree on a common banking regulator (even Merkel had wanted that). Of course, they already have one, the European Banking Authority (EBA), established in late 2010. It conducted “stress tests” on 91 major European banks. Results came out in July 2011. And in October, the 12th safest bank, the Franco-Belgian megabank Dexia, collapsed. So now, they want a different regulator. The ECB should play a role, the agreement said, but.... The Federal Association of German Banks and the Federal Association of Public Banks both expressed their opposition to the ECB becoming a regulator. Since the UK declared it wouldn’t have any part of it, German banks were worried that they’d experience pressures from the regulator that UK banks would not experience. And they were worried about the conflict of interest between the ECB’s role in funding states and in supervising banks that were also funding states.

And Merkel did blink. Or at least she redrew the line in the sand: she agreed to the tweaking the European Stability Mechanism (ESM), the permanent bailout fund. The ESM doesn’t exist yet and hasn’t been ratified by a whole slew of countries, and it’s getting scrutinized by the German Constitutional Court, but assuming it will see the light of the day, it would be changed in several ways, including:

- It can bail out banks directly, rather than lending to the government which then recapitalizes the banks. This way, on paper, this new debt to bail out the banks would not raise the indebtedness of the country.

- It can buy sovereign bonds of countries that stick to their commitments to cut budgets and implement structural reforms; thus, no further austerity measures if they ask for aid.

However, funding banks directly won’t be possible until after the Eurozone banking regulator has been established. The Commission will present a proposal in the near future. If all member states pass it by the end of the year, direct aid to banks would be possible at the earliest in 2013. So, the ESM will be able to bail out Spain and Italy, and their banks, and all the other countries, to which Slovenia may be added by end of July—and do all this with the €700 billion it may in theory have some day. In theory because the €700 billion includes the contributions of Spain and Italy, the very countries that the fund would have to bail out...


IT MAKES ONE THINK OF THE FIASCO THAT STARTED THE FIRST WORLD WAR...

http://www.testosteronepit.com/home/2012/6/28/a-eurocrash-is-baked-in-the-cake.html

...world traveler and legendary speculator Doug Casey talks about the coming economic crash and how to survive it...

"Lately I've been thinking about the EU's rising tide of troubles. We talked about this last January, when I said it was coming, but it seems to me that at this point it's rapidly coming to a head. A major financial and economic catastrophe in Europe is unavoidable. From there, it's likely to spread out to the whole world....it's not "Greece" we're talking about, but the Greek government. It's the Greek government that's made the laws that got people used to pensions for retirement at age 55. It's the Greek government that's built up a giant and highly paid bureaucracy that just sits around when it's not actively gumming up the economy. It's the Greek government that's saddled the country with onerous taxes and regulations that make most business more trouble than it's worth. It's the Greek government that borrowed billions that the citizens are arguably responsible for. It's the Greek government that's set the legal and moral tone for the pickle the place is in.

Second, the term "austerity" is used very loosely by the talking heads on TV. It sounds bad, even though it just means living within one's means… or, for Europeans, not too insanely above them. But who knows what's actually included or excluded from what the EU leaders think of as austerity? Take the Greek pension funds, for example: exactly how are they funded? I'd expect that private companies make payments to a state fund, as Americans do via the Social Security program. I suspect there's no money in the coffers; it's all been frittered on high living and socialist boondoggles. Tough luck for pensioners. Maybe they can convince the Chinese to give them money to keep living high off the hog…But the point at the moment is that just because the Greeks voted – basically to stay in the EU in hopes of economic benefits outweighing the pain of whatever the austerity requirements are – that doesn't mean they'll actually be able to deliver. Once the new half-measures begin to bite, I expect to see more angry mobs back out on the streets. These people have become so corrupt that they think the government is some kind of a magic cornucopia, when first and foremost it's really just a vehicle for institutionalized theft.

And it's not just austerity, and it's not just Greece, nor even Spain, which has formally asked for a bailout. All of these European economies are rigidly regulated: first, by their national governments; and then, even worse, by this extra layer of unbelievably oppressive regulation from Brussels. I understand there are some 30,000 people working for the EU, making new rules and regulations like an army of spiders, spinning their webs, sucking the life out of their victims. None of these rules are constructive. They're a waste of time at best, and most are actively destructive – like for instance, the EU rules telling the French how to make cheese...

I suppose, given a choice between chaotic violence and a police state, people will opt for the latter – as if there are no other alternatives."

MORE

I'll be back after a nap...

I never saw Harry and Sally, or Sleepless - I don't care for Romantic Comedy much. I long time ago I read that book about her marriage to what's his name, and I think I thought it was clever and amusing, but that whole world was so alien to me - it just did not really connect for me. But - like other themes we've had that are not part of my particular repertoire, I like what you do with them

It's way too hot here. I can't think. The whole health insurance thing depresses the hell out of me. Ah, yes, let us all CHEER at having to give more of our life's blood, forever, to the Vampire Health Insurance and Pharm industry's profits! All hail!

I'll be in and out - not feeling I have anything to contribute. Maybe something will spark a thought sometime this weekend.

edit for "too"

- which I admired very much.

Watch it - you'll set off another round of overblown tributes and comparisons to Mahatma Gandhi, Thomas Edison, and Jesus Christ for the marketing master and gadget maker.

I have friends who would go into delirium tremors if you hide their i-junk for more than minute and as heretical as they are, they all think Jobs is god. A new mac book with the new glass is $2400.00. My first car didn't cost that much.

the temperature immediately dropped 10 degrees, and the wind and humidity rose.

But today it's back to the sweatbox.

rattled the house deep in the night and woke me up.

did you guys get any of that?

We did not lose electric, but cities over SW Ohio did not have power.

If it stormed during the night, I slept thru it.



One of our clocks (actually clock-radio) started flashing 12:00, 12:00, 12:00
On closer examination, all other clocks were fine!
The clock-radio went haywire with the LED numbers, guess there is a timing malfunction.
I'd get a new clock, but the radio still works great.

We just got the wind - which blew stuff down.

Shook the house and knocked out power for a little bit. We have underground utilities so power comes back pretty fast, unless something big goes down, we tend to keep power in the development. Go half a mile and it will be zero along the main street.

Rained for an hour. Not nearly enough to help.

This am tree debris all over but nothing too too big. Ground is still hard as a rock.

I just finished cutting the grass and weeds, trimmed the bushes and it's 106 with 80% humidity. Clear blue sky.

UV index is a bizillion. You can hear your brain poaching after two minutes.

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/slow-recovery-seen-for-dc-area-after-storm-2012-06-30?siteid=YAHOOB

At least 3 million people were without electricity in triple-digit heat Saturday in the wake of a band of storms packing 80 mph winds that pummeled the U.S. from Indiana to New Jersey Friday night, killing 13 people and leaving a swath of destruction.

Hardest hit were Washington, D.C., its suburbs in Virginia and Maryland, and West Virginia, said officials who compared the damage to that caused by a hurricane. It may be several days to a week before electrical power is completely restored, officials said. That created a potential health hazard in the Washington area, where residents were forced to cope with another day of 100-degree-plus temperatures without air conditioning or fans.

Gov. Bob McDonnell said Virginia had suffered its largest non-hurricane outage in the state’s history...Rescue workers reported six people were killed in Virginia, two each in New Jersey and Maryland, and one each in Washington, Ohio and Kentucky.

The storm was a derecho, a straight-line wind storm that sweeps over a large area at high speed and can produce tornado-like damage, AP reported. The storm began in the Midwest, passed over the Appalachian Mountains and drew new strength from a high-pressure system as it hit the southeastern U.S., AP reported, citing the National Weather Service.

And now one source says it's 85F and the other says it's 93F. Based on the sweat running into my eyeballs while I'm standing unmoving in the shade, I'd guess the latter was correct.

And Monday is supposed to be 100+ again...oy, oy, oy!

The temps have never reached 100 here, due to the proximity to the gulf. I think the all-time record high is 96.

Just had breakfast, and a jump in the pool. Now, it's time to jump back in.

http://www.presseurop.eu/en/content/news-brief/2265681-scandal-sweeps-through-uk-banks

The Royal Bank of Scotland is set to be fined around £150 million (€186 million) for market manipulation as the “rates rigging” scandal spreads to other UK banks, reports The Times. Barclay’s was earlier implicated and received a record £290 million (€359 million) fine for rigging the key lending rate between banks, the daily adds, amid mounting calls for the resignation of the bank’s chief executive, Bob Diamond. News of the Barclay's fine saw more than £3 billion (€3.7 billion) fall off the bank’s share price. In an editorial, The Times said –

Bob Diamond is a man of integrity...Yet the business Mr Diamond leads has admitted to very serious offences that epitomise the concerns about a moral corruption at the heart of modern investment banking... He must send an unequivocal message about the behaviour he expects of bankers, the accountability of the boss and the values of the City. The quickest and most effective way of doing so would be to step down... One way or the other, Mr Diamond has to show that the buck stops with him.

6/29/12 Man Collapses, Dies in Court After taking suicide pill.

A former Wall Street trader and Yale-educated attorney, who was convicted of arson yesterday for burning down his Phoenix mansion, appeared to pop a pill after hearing the guilty verdict in court and died minutes later, according to Fox 10 News in Phoenix via New York Daily News.

Michael James Marin, who once reached the summit of Mount Everest, was convicted in Maricopa County Superior Court "of arson of an occupied structure" after setting his $3.5 million Biltmore Estates mansion on fire because he could no longer pay his $17,500 monthly mortgage, according to media reports.

At the time, he was reportedly found outside the home wearing a SCUBA gear after escaping from the second-floor.

The video in court shows Marin appearing to swallow something after hearing the jury read the verdict.

Moments later he started having convulsions and was pronounced dead before he arrived at the hospital, the reports said.

Maricopa County authorities told Fox 10 News they can't verify the cause of death until the toxicology report results come out.

The New York Daily News points out that the crime would have put Marin away for about 16 years.

Click link for the 4.5 minute video from Fox 10 News in Phoenix.

http://www.businessinsider.com/michael-marin-swallows-pill-in-court-2012-6#ixzz1zDSlkAH2


9-minute video from the courtroom
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=caa_1340983251

http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/gibraltar-s-spanish-neighbor-la-linea-in-crisis-a-840854.html

The residents of La Línea de la Concepción are leaving, like rats deserting a sinking ship.

They've been crossing the border by the thousands since early morning, first the cleaning women, nannies and construction workers, and then the smugglers. They all want to get out of Spain, if only for a few hours. There is work across the border, in the British overseas territory of Gibraltar, and work spells hope for a better life.
By around 11 a.m. on what promises to be a hot early summer's day, the traffic jam on the Spanish side already stretches from the border, across the coastal road and back to the town hall, where Mayor Gemma Araujo is holding down the fort in her office on the second floor, which has a view of the caravan of commuters. Araujo is 33, a Socialist and the first woman in her position. It's not exactly the most rewarding job in Spain. A "crisis tsunami" has reached La Línea, says Araujo, and the situation is more serious than ever before. "Our city isn't bankrupt, but it's close."

The city hasn't been able to pay its employees eight of their last nine monthly salaries. On this morning, the mayor found a sign posted opposite her office door with an unmistakable demand: "Pay or resign." Her house was pelted with eggs and besieged by protesters, and the mob set fire to her secretary's car.

Interesting comment by Ilargi at The Automatic Earth...

6/30/12
Wait a minute. Last Friday, June 29th, was the last trading day of the month. It was also the last trading day of the 2nd quarter. AND it was the last trading day of the first half of 2012.

Plus, in the days leading up to Friday, markets were suffereing quite badly, so the smart bet must have SEEMED to be to - or stay - short the market.

So how many people were short exactly, and how many had to scramble to cover their bets at the first snippet of what looked like good news? And what part of that was responsible for the market surge, Dow 2.2%, S&P 2.49%?

Look, when the DAX is up 4.33%, the CAC 40 4.75%, and Spain and Italy 5.66% and 6.59% respectively, everyone should take one step back, scratch their heads and realize those are not normal numbers, not even in a major bull market.

Ergo: everyone and their pet hamsters were covering their shorts. Sort of like the opposite of casual Friday.

Next week will be interesting to watch. Be careful out there.

http://theautomaticearth.com/Finance/wait-a-minute-what-day-was-friday.html

I thought all the trading was machine-generated. Can machines go naked short? Is that a bug or a feature? It ought to be illegal....

http://www.businessinsider.com/recession-status-defcon-3-2012-6

The Weekly Leading Index (WLI) of the Economic Cycle Research Institute (ECRI) rose fractionally to 121.5 from last week's 121.2 (a slight downward revision from 121.3). See the chart below. However, the WLI growth indicator (WLIg) declined fractionally, now at -3.6 as reported in Friday's public release of the data through June 22, down from the previous week's -3.5.
The ECRI numbers came in very close to the forecast in yesterday's RecessionAlert shadow estimates, which posted 121.3 and -3.62% for the WLI and WLIg metrics, respectively.
The latest data release to the general public continues to command focus in the wake of Lakshman Achuthan repeated reaffirmation of ECRI's recession call in live interviews around the major business networks on May 9th. The most detailed of the interviews was his Bloomberg appearance. See also Achuthan's similar video interview with the Wall Street Journal.
Additional Sources for Recession Forecasts
Dwaine van Vuuren, CEO of RecessionAlert.com, and his collaborators, including Georg Vrba and Franz Lischka, have developed a powerful recession forecasting methodology that shows promise of making forecasts with fewer false positives, which I take to include excessively long lead times, such as ECRI's September 2011 recession call (barring a future NBER announcement of a Q1 2012 recession start).
Here is their latest snapshot of the WLI growth variants, which should be studied in the context of the analysis at the Shadow Weekly Leading Index Project.



Here is an update of Georg Vrba's analysis, which is explained in more detail in this article.



Let's take a moment to look at the Weekly Leading Index. The first chart below shows the index level.


Read more: http://advisorperspectives.com/dshort/updates/ECRI-Weekly-Leading-Index.php/#ixzz1zICTohA6

Read more: http://advisorperspectives.com/dshort/updates/ECRI-Weekly-Leading-Index.php/#ixzz1zIBp9kLl

http://truth-out.org/opinion/item/10069-peter-edelman-on-fighting-poverty?newsletter

........

MOYERS: 50 years ago, you and I were part of the same era. I was a young White House assistant for Lyndon Johnson working on some poverty issues. And you were a young assistant to Senator Robert F. Kennedy when you made that celebrated tour through Mississippi...You seemed absolutely shocked, you and Robert Kennedy, and the party that went with you, seemed absolutely shocked at what you found. What did you see?

PETER EDELMAN: We saw children with in the United States of America, with swollen bellies, with running sores that wouldn't heal… Who had something meager for breakfast if that, were not going to have any lunch, whose refrigerators were empty in their houses. They had been forced off the plantations as a political matter because of the fear of increasing black political power.

BILL MOYERS The governor of Mississippi then was pressuring the White House to cut off assistance to the children's program that was going, because he feared the people working in it, the poverty, anti-poverty workers would encourage the civil rights movement. Do you remember that?

PETER EDELMAN: Absolutely. That's why we went down there. This was in the spring of 1967. And the Mississippi political hierarchy saw the Head Start Program as a political threat. A group of doctors went down there a month or two later and examined hundreds of children. And found, not just pernicious anemia but rickets, and kwashiorkor and marasmus. Diseases that you only find in the most underdeveloped of countries were there in the United States.

BILL MOYERS: I remember so well when CBS sent cameras following you. Subsequently one of the CBS News reports showed a child dying from malnutrition on camera. And the racist chairman of a very powerful committee from--Jamie Whitten from Mississippi was outraged about that. And he launched an investigation to see if he could find out if that scene had been staged.

PETER EDELMAN: Absolutely. Sent the F.B.I. to find out. It's hard to know what was obviously in the head of Jamie Whitten and others. Because these things do have a serious political aspect to them but...

VIDEO AND COMPLETE TRANSCRIPT AT LINK

http://truth-out.org/opinion/item/10058-during-times-of-crisis-better-unions-will-prevail?newsletter

As we contemplate the euro mess, there's a strong tendency to think of it as having a lot to do with the fundamental inequalities in overall productivity and economic development between euro members — backward, semi-developed countries like Greece or Portugal (not my view, but what you often hear) awkwardly tied to powerhouses like Germany.

So it comes as something of a shock to look at Eurostat data on real gross domestic product per capita (or productivity, which look similar). Sure, Greece and Portugal are relatively poor, with G.D.P. per capita of 82 and 77 percent, respectively, of the European Union average; this means roughly 76 and 71 percent of the euro zone average, since the euro countries are a bit richer than the E.U. as a whole. Meanwhile, Germany is at 120 percent of the E.U. average, or 112 percent of the euro zone average.

But it's no different, really, than the situation in the United States. According to data from the Bureau of Economic Analysis, Alabama is at 74 percent of the average, Mississippi at 67 percent, with New England and the Middle Atlantic States at 118 and 116 percent.

In other words, as far as underlying economic inequalities are concerned, the euro zone is no worse than the United States. The difference, mainly, is that we in the United States think of ourselves as a nation, and blithely accept fiscal measures that routinely transfer large sums to the poorer states without even thinking of it as a regional issue — in fact, the states that are effectively on the dole tend to vote Republican and imagine themselves deeply self-reliant. The thing is, we didn't always think of ourselves as a nation, either. Before the Civil War, people talked about "these United States"; it was only after the war that "these" became "the."

So the key to the success of the dollar zone may be summed up in three words: William Tecumseh Sherman.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Guess Who's Emerging From the Crisis?

"Iceland, of course. Kitchen-sinked and cleaned-up, the Icelandic central bank has just decided to push up rates by 25 basis points to combat signs of inflation amidst 'robust' domestic demand," according to a recent post in The Financial Times' Alphaville blog.



Look at the chart on this page, data from Statistics Iceland. Gross domestic product is still below previous peak, but I think one could argue — much more so than in, say, the United States — that a significant part of that peak involved a Ponzi financial sector that isn't coming back....

http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/47992439#.T-18k_WTWxs

For the first time in a century, most of America's largest cities are growing at a faster rate than their surrounding suburbs as young adults seeking a foothold in the weak job market shun home-buying and stay put in bustling urban centers. New 2011 census estimates released Thursday highlight the dramatic switch. Driving the resurgence are young adults, who are delaying careers, marriage and having children amid persistently high unemployment. Burdened with college debt or toiling in temporary, lower-wage positions, they are spurning homeownership in the suburbs for shorter-term, no-strings-attached apartment living, public transit and proximity to potential jobs in larger cities.

While economists tend to believe the city boom is temporary, that is not stopping many city planning agencies and apartment developers from seeking to boost their appeal to the sizable demographic of 18-to-29-year olds. They make up roughly 1 in 6 Americans, and some sociologists are calling them "generation rent." The planners and developers are betting on young Americans' continued interest in urban living, sensing that some longer-term changes such as decreased reliance on cars may be afoot...

"The recession hit suburban markets hard. What we're seeing now is young adults moving out from their parents' homes and starting to find jobs," Shepard said. "There's a bigger focus on building residences near transportation hubs, such as a train or subway station, because fewer people want to travel by car for an hour and a half for work anymore."

Katherine Newman, a sociologist and dean of arts and sciences at Johns Hopkins University who chronicled the financial struggles of young adults in a recent book, said they are emerging as a new generation of renters due to stricter mortgage requirements and mounting college debt. From 2009 to 2011, just 9 percent of 29- to 34-year-olds were approved for a first-time mortgage.

"Young adults simply can't amass the down payments needed and don't have the earnings," she said. "They will be renting for a very long time."

Hopey-changey.

There are infinitely worse things to obsess about. The stories we tell, or hear, shape us in formative and frightening ways.

Which is why I try very hard to keep "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" away from the Kid, among other really stupid, gross and deforming stuff...like "Charmed".

And if you are thinking about it, DON'T bother with "Puss 'n Boots" with Antonio Banderas.

It has NOTHING to do with Puss 'n Boots, and lots to do with fighting, ninjas, Humpty Dumpty, Jack and the Beanstalk. Thank goodness I only went on a $1 ticket....and anyway, it was air conditioned and dark...

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And of course, that's why debunking ACA and the fallout are so very important to set our feet on the correct path to the future...


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Time for me to go to work....the temp is down to 83, though the heat index is 88...

http://www.businessinsider.com/its-time-to-connect-the-dots-2012-6

This week may very well go down as ‘connect the dots’ week. Things have been moving so quickly, so let’s step back briefly and review the big picture from the week’s events:
1) After weeks… months… even years of posturing and denial, Spain and Cyprus became the fourth and fifth countries to formally request aid from Europe’s bailout funds on Monday.
In doing so, these governments have officially confessed to their own insolvency and the insolvency of their respective banking systems.
Meanwhile, Slovenia’s prime minister said that his country may soon ask for a bailout. (Humorously, Slovenia’s Finance Minister denied any such plans.)


Read more: http://www.sovereignman.com/finance/its-time-to-connect-the-dots/#ixzz1zMwBYrGU

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/feedarticle/10315307

REYKJAVIK, Iceland (AP) — Iceland's President Olafur Ragnar Grimsson, who turned his ceremonial office into a position of power by rejecting a deal that would have put taxpayers on the hook for $5 billion, has been re-elected to a fifth term.

The vote makes him the longest-serving president in Icelandic history.

The election Saturday hinged on how politically active the president should be. Grimsson took advantage of his role signing parliamentary legislation by refusing to OK two controversial bills, triggering referendums.

In a preliminary count, Grimsson took 52.2 per cent of the vote. Closest challenger Thora Arnordsdottir had 33.8 per cent.

Grimsson was criticized after the financial crisis for cheerleading the business sector, but earned back support by rejecting a deal that would have made taxpayers pay back British and Dutch deposits in a failed online bank.


*** i was surprised to learn that iceland is still trying to join the euro zone.

An extra billion(s) Euros can't hurt.

Most excellent swoon BTW.

http://uk.reuters.com/article/2012/06/30/uk-iran-opec-idUKBRE85T0AK20120630

(Reuters) - Iranian Oil Minister Rostam Qasemi urged OPEC's secretary general to call for an extraordinary meeting amid falling oil prices, Iranian Oil Ministry's website SHANA said on Saturday.

"In 161st meeting of OPEC it was agreed if oil prices fall below $100 per barrel it means that prices are in crisis, so we have urged secretary general of OPEC...to make preparations for holding an emergency meeting," Qasemi told SHANA.

International crude benchmarks Brent and U.S. oil futures posted their biggest quarterly declines on Friday since the fourth quarter of 2008 due to weak demand, ample supply and economic worries.

However prices rebounded later on Friday on a deal by European leaders to shore up euro zone banks. Brent crude oil futures rose more than $6 a barrel to near $98 while U.S. crude jumped by more than $7 to settle just below $85 a barrel.

Next Weekend I'll be able to participate a little more, perhaps. Maybe the psychic insult of Obamacare will have worn off a bit...

Source: BBC

1 July 2012 Last updated at 18:58 GMT

Barclays bank chairman Marcus Agius to resign

Marcus Agius is to resign as the chairman of Barclays in the wake of the Libor lending rate scandal.

There will be an announcement on Monday morning, BBC business editor Robert Peston says.

It comes after Barclays was fined £290m ($450m) for attempting to manipulate the Libor inter-bank lending rate.

Earlier, it emerged the Royal Bank of Scotland had sacked four traders over their alleged involvement in the Libor-fixing scandal.

[font size=1]-snip-[/font]

Read more: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18665719

I have not a clue, been busy with the grandkids today.
And just like Friday afternoon, we had another big storm with lots of wind and rain.