Double posting because that picture of Obama startled me and he looks like Bert.

This is hateration and holleration because only a hater and holler would notice this.

Your picture is outdated. As of the new ad campaign it will officially be called simply "H" and only talked about by Lil' Wayne in abstract terms over a series of pictures of old time haters where no one is really sure what is going on.

and Alex Rodrigues will be featured too?

Damn - that was fast! As a marketing professional who works with Web design/designers, I'm seriously impressed! Did he have to issue an executive order to get that site done?

Thank you.

Seriously, stop hateratin', people.

:D

The privacy issue is huge. It's possible that the benefits to patients may outweigh the risks, but there are legitimate reasons to be concerned about this.

I think one of the issues that will seem weird is employer-based insurance oversight with easy access to your whole history, but hey, maybe we'll get nationalized health care too, so that won't matter. Imagine the customer service and quality you associate with the DMV but with access to all your medical records. Awesome.

What would be the point of telling me? It won't work. I have just as much right to post here as you. :D


And for the record, ASTalumna hasn't done a good job on anything besides wasting posts to dicuss how annoying it is to him/her when people use the word hateration. (As if someone is supposed to actually CARE that hateration is annoying to him/her)

WOW for someone who finds it "annoying" you sure were quick to use it...

I hope you realize that at least three people's signatures pertain to you, deepimpact2. And by three people, I mean THREE POSTERS IN THIS THREAD ALONE.

Employers, especially big employers that essentially issue their own insurance, already have access to some of this information. I hadn't read that employers were going to gain access to the database, though...guess I need to read up on that more. I AM concerned about that, and the privacy/security issue in general. I don't really trust the government to build the most secure database around.

I can see both sides of the coin.

It would be good on a safety level. Bad on a privacy level. If it gets serious play in these talks, legislators are going to have to make a hard and fast decision on which is more important. Then supreme court justices will have to do the same.

I don't think we'll be nationalizing health care any time soon, though. I think the goal right now is ensuring everyone has access to some sort of health care.

Seeing and dealing with some of the data leak issues even coming from the VA...I am sure, to a point we can patch a few things but most of it is up to the actual folks who deal with data systems.

problem is, of course keeping up with hackers who keep trying to gain access and making sure that IT departments maintain adequate security.

Some of the problems I face in my department is that IT is so busy chasing it's own tail that they wind up locking out the wrong people who need access.

heh...

About the health medical records alone: Google Health has their site up... Pretty intense, and has all the info available. Not sure how your physicians will have access to it without their consent. Moreover, the folks that sat on the advisory board are some real "big wigs" in healthcare... So, they have a nice little program on their hands. IDK if I trust Google with all my health information, though... I did not include ALL of it, like my entire vax schedule.

Calm yourself. And before trying to insult me, you should read my username. Because if you did, and you knew what an ALUMNA was, you would realize that I'm a her.

I didn't mean to imply that I read anything that you need to. I just think that having one unified database will essentially mean that anyone who has access now would have access to everything. It's also difficult to imagine successfully locking the folks who control payment in the present system out.

It's hard to see the database leading to the benefits that it could provide while at the same time having the safeguards in privacy that most of us would be comfortable with. Either it's something that provides total access to your complete history to anyone who might need it, even in an emergency when you couldn't give consent, OR it's limited and protected in access and can't deliver its complete promise.

Maybe to the technology task force. :)


I have some better rhetoricals.

And the government deciding what's "meaningful" -- "The bill indicates that grants will go to establishments that show "meaningful use" of health IT, a somewhat vague description that analysts say could persuade physicians to hold off on upgrading their records." (http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2009/...ap6061672.html)

recovery.gov doesn't show where my money is going. It is a propaganda bar chart of motherhood and apple pie. I'll have to read the full bill, but it will take a while -- unlike those in Congress who distilled it and determined their votes not on party lines but on the merits (bullpuckey), I don't absorb instantaneously.

oh...you sound like that this is something new....LOL

Eh...no one absorbs instantaneously even if they think they do. :)

Anyway, you always have to read all of the information provided. Obviously reading the full bill would give you a direct and detailed reference as with reading the original document for anything. However, 5% or less of the American population will be reading the full bill, hence the website. There is more to the website than the bar chart and perhaps more details on specific programs under the categories will be released as details become available.

We have to have high expectations but realistic expectations.

Yes, it says right there in black and white that all of the spending will be specified once it's determined. I believe states and specific programs have to apply for some of it. We can't expect the federal government to just know which road projects, school programs, etc. need funding without states saying, "Hey! Over here! We've got this bridge replacement we need done ASAP..." (for example)

1. I'm not interested enough in other people's signatures to take notice of that if that is in fact the case.
2. I really hope you aren't saying that they actually CHANGED their signatures just to refer to ME. IF that is the case, you DO realize that's pathetic right? I certainly wouldn't waste a perfectly good signature on any of you. You don't warrant THAT kind of attention. It's enough to just post in response to comments made. :D
3. You must have been the class tattletale when you were in elementary school. I find it kind of strange that you just felt a pressing need to point that out. In the future...um...don't waste your time on things like that. I don't care. It won't make me stop posting.

Funny that you mention that...

I was hearing on the news this morning how some states once they knew how much they would be getting have already had plans in place on improvement projects that needed to be done ASAP.
Also you are correct, states have presented their cases before Congress about what they needed money for and how much, thus once the stimulus package was conceived, I believe it was already deteremined around about how much states that needed assistance would get and what they were to use it on.

ETA: Talking about catastrophes...The New York Post is mighty ballsy with this one today:

Delonas Toon

Gotta love the hot dank smell of idiocy early in the morning.

I think that's the case, as there was already talk in some towns around here about a couple of school projects that would be utilizing stimulus funds.

Also - anyone else have issues downloading the stimulus bill from the website?

I hope the information and deadlines are dessiminated to the states properly so "no state left behind."

You're right, there obviously is no point. Not because it's truly pointless, but because you're too oblivious to notice.

You really believe your own stuff, don't you? It's kind of . . . borderline personality disorder-ish.

But please don't stop posting - it takes all kinds in the message board community, and yours is certainly a view I don't get often in my sphere.

We're all familiar with the use of ape/monkey/gorilla imaging to debase blacks in the United States, but this is clearly a reference to the monkey that ate a woman's hands and nose in Stamford.

This is kind of an interesting situation, in my mind - Obama is the President, but authored about zero percent of the stimulus bill. Is his standing as President enough to invoke racial overtones in the cartoon regardless? (Clearly there will be a subtext of some degree no matter what)

So the cartoon is attempting to convey that this stimulus bill is a wild, untamed, animal comparable to that chimpanzee that bit off both of her hands and destroyed her face. OK. I can see that.

But, as you acknowledged, I do think that people are well aware of possible racial (over and under) tones seeing as though Obama is the "face" of this stimulus bill.

regardless...that 19th century mentality is a no...

remember these gems?


Limbaugh and Curious George

Bar gets sued over monkey shirt

GOP's stuffed monkey at Palin rally


See why this doesn't fly?

It's a lame way to try and tie in the chimp shooting with the stimulus bill and Obama's (or any black person) heritage.

I have viewed some of his other work and clearly he is not a fan of Obama and is provoctive, but no big deal, but this crosses the line.

ETA: Interesting...he is accused of gay bashing also...Delonas BAAAAD cartoon

Yeah, I'm not saying it's a particularly clever link - and I think it relies on the "this was written by a bunch of stupid monkeys" connection, too, which may play much more into the racial stereotype, too.

It's tripe either way.

If there were a lot of dead monkeys laying around sure...

Sorry if I don't agree with that POV.

But yes, garbage it is.

As opposed to the high level of insight you'd usually associate with the NYPost?

I'm often amused by them, but I wouldn't expect you to be based on the politics you've expressed here.

Good to know you have been paying attention.

And with the level of sales that they and most other papers had, I wouldn't be surprised if this 'stunt' was pulled in an attempt to boost sales.


Regardless if this was the NY Post....that isht is still uncalled for and unfunny.

Clownish at best.

I found it neither funny nor offensive. It would have "worked" better if there had been a typewriter in the background. I think it was related to the infinite monkey theorem.

This.

I can't subscribe to that theory for 2 reasons:

1. The already mentioned history of the relationship with Blacks and monkeys as a historical context in this country

2. The closeness of the related events surrounding the creation of the cartoon.

If the chimpanzee wasn't shot then the theory would have a 1/2 a chance of standing...but...you still have #1 to contend with in relation to the POTUS who signed the bill.

Yeah, I don't think so. I think it's a random monkeys typing PLUS deranged chimp attack this week rather than any attempt at an Obama/Monkey connection.

Are you basically saying that you don't think anyone can make any monkey-based jokes for the next four years despite all the Chimpy McHitler references about Bush?

I don't think I've ever made a monkey joke about the presidency so it won't really be a hardship for me. I just think you might be making more a sweeping condemnation than makes sense.

ETA: Maybe I went astray here by saying that I never made monkey jokes about the presidency. I didn't mean about just the presidency in my question. Are basically any monkey/chimp jokes/references just off the table?

Of course you would see it that way...but then having a general idea of the general make up of most of the folks here, my opinions on this would seem 'foreign' to most.


As far as your question, sure, they can make all the remarks they want just as long as they are prepared for any repercussions that comes from said remarks...again, scroll up and check some of the links from incidents that happened last year along the campaign trail when people did and made similar remarks and tried to play it off.


IMO This is a direct insult to African Americans. The references of us to monkeys has been synonymous for years but too many of us sweep stuff under the carpet or give it a different label so that we don't have to face the harsh reality. It is concerning for any one regardless of race, creed or religion to by into this type of hatred wrapped in satire. We may have come a long way but we still have so much longer to go.

Too many people have fought and died to simply let things like this 'slide' or 'pass' and it would be irresponsible to do so.

4 years? It's insulting to reference ANYONE Black from the President down to the janitor that does your floors on the same level as a monkey.
100, hell, 50 years ago, if anyone spoke out against this at the very least was jailed or at the very worst beaten or killed...so ok, if he wants to exercise his 1st Amendment right to draw it, I will do the same and call it garbage.

To put this in perspective, UGA, this ranks right up there with the Don Imus 'nappy headed hos' comment.

ETA: I bet none of you caught the tribute to Vick in the pic either.

The following letter was sent to the NY Post from the New York Assn of Black Journalists:

It amazes us that in the year 2009, in what was supposed to be the beginning of a new era of race relations, a picture could get past editors to disgrace the pages of a major metropolitan newspaper, during Black History month nonetheless.

We, at the New York Association of Black Journalists, take offense to the New York Post cartoon depiction of two officers shooting a monkey and then saying, "They'll have to find someone else to write the next stimulus bill" The history attached to racial slurs connecting people of color to monkeys isn't new. In fact, the issue was brought up during the Obama campaign and clearly characterized by him as offensive. Yes, it is true that former President George Bush was often depicted as a monkey, but historical context is what makes this different.

How do you think the Jewish community would feel about the use of rats in any depiction of them? How do you think the Italian community would feel about being generalized with mobsters? Monkey slurs against Africans and African Americans go back to the days of early colonialism, when Anglo Saxon, Spanish and Portuguese conquerors used these types of drawings and descriptions to dehumanize black people so that their mistreatment and enslavement would not be viewed as wrong or sinful. The practice also took on more sinister roles later in history including during the slave trade here in the U.S. and in Hitler's Nazi Germany.

We, at NYABJ, demand both an explanation and an apology from Sean Delonas of the New York Post. We find it unconscionable that such a depiction, especially during this time, would be used in an attempt at humor or political satire. Would it be a leap to suggest that it is funny or ok to shoot the President, if this is who the chimp in the drawing is suppose to represent? We are not laughing.

We often hear Elinor Tatum, publisher of the NY Amsterdam News and Chair of the NABJ black media committee, say that incidents like this "underscore the need for more black-owned media in this country, to counteract the actions and insensitivities of right-wing or even so called mainstream media outlets." We could not agree more. Shame on Mr. Delonas and shame on Mr. Rupert Murdoch who has allowed something like this to happen.

Gary Anthony Ramsay
NYABJ President

Zachary Dowdy
NYABJ VP-Print