The job thread that would not die…

Yesterday’s job thread is still going, and there have been some good posts yesterday evening and overnight from people with job opportunities and suggestions and some more people who are looking for work.

I don’t know if it will do any good, but you never know. If you folk think it’s a good idea, I’m happy to make it a semi-regular thing.

In the mean time, this is yet another open thread.

ETA: I’m bringing over a few of the more interesting posts. If for some reason you don’t want your post on the front page let me know and I will take it out. Sorry if I didn’t pick yours – I’m just sticking in what caught my eye in a quick scan of the second half of the thread. There is lots more good stuff on the original thread or feel free to repost on this one. Squeaky wheel and all that…
Read more








And then dance and drink and screw, because there’s nothing else to do…

The lovely harlana notes that:

Ordinary people have sacrificed enough already. Come on! I saw 2 people on the blog last nite who have recently lost their jobs. I really wish we could have an open thread for that, for their stories, nobody around here seems interested.

I don’t know very much about struggle and hardship (not least because I’m imaginary), but I am happy to admit that in a week when London is burning, stockbrokers are behaving like Michele Bachmann in a k-hole, and thousands of Somali children starved to death, listening to those in our little community who are having hard times is much more worthwhile than yet another post about Sullivan or McArdle or Brooks.

Have at it.

ETA: Via Arguingwithsignposts:

The Slacktivist does this, I just noticed. Here’s his post format:

Job seekers: Let us know where you are and what you’re looking for.

Everybody: Skim through and see if you know something, or know someone, or know someone who knows someone, who might help out one of our job seekers.

Duly stolen. And yes, feel free to mention friends or family.

[Image: David Vinckbooms (1576-1632) – Distribution of Loaves to the Poor.]








credit where due

I’ve been criticized for failing to recognize the liberal victories of the Obama administration, and it’s a well-taken criticism. Here’s a good piece from NPR that highlights the Obama administration’s considerable and righteous efforts to make the American federal judiciary a more diverse institution. A justice system can only remain truly fair and impartial if it is made up of professionals who accurately reflect the composition of the nation. The Obama administration has to be commended for making this a priority.

Of course, there’s a Republican dicknose concern trolling.

“The Obama administration doesn’t have a coherent judicial philosophy so it’s not surprising that it’s falling back on diversity, which I think it sees among other things as appealing to its various political constituencies,” says Ed Whelan, a prominent conservative who used to work in the George W. Bush Justice Department.

Unless, of course, you happen to think that increasing diversity to be better representative of this country is a coherent judicial philosophy. That equality under the law was denied to so many classes of people for so long doesn’t change the fact that centuries of jurisprudence have proven the value and inherent justice of giving all constituents adequate representation among the judicial class. This kind of statement is classic GOP dreck, by the way; the idea that democratic republics such as ours have a legitimate interest in promoting the cause of equal representation is just dismissed out of hand. It’s got to be playing to political constituencies, the dread “special interests” that are code for “anybody Republicans don’t like.”

Note that the same Bush administration tool expresses the really important takeaway, to my mind: there is more diversity in large part because “There’s a much bigger pool of minority candidates with lots of legal experience….” It’s depressing, but not surprising, that he can’t see the disconnect here. There’s a much bigger pool of minority candidates with lots of legal experience precisely because of efforts like the one Obama is undertaking. Diversity breeds diversity. Years of affirmative action and other policies designed to give opportunities to underrepresented groups at all levels– law school, clerkships, in DA and public defender offices– have led directly to talented and experience minority candidates who can fill these vacancies and make the courtroom a more equal and fair institution.

Why, you might even say that those programs are helping America to more fully embody its best commitments.








Open Thread – Hey, Teacher! Leave our tags alone

Cupid Chastised - Bartolomeo Manfredi (1582-1622)

And for the love of fucking christ, can you other front pagers stop making stupid fucking categories you only use once?

I don’t know what you’re so grumpy about, Mr Cole.

Isn’t the world a better place for the #notintendedtobeafactualstatement tag category?

And “Sweet Fancy Moses!” makes me laugh every time I see it.

But then, I still don’t have my name in the Contact list, so what do I know?

btw – Open Thread.

Note: No new tags categories were created for the purposes of this post.

[Image: Cupid Chastised – Bartolomeo Manfredi (1582-1622)]








Vermont and Washington are also far apart

I’ve been looking into Vermont’s brand new single-payer health care law.(pdf). I’ll just pick out some highlights:

As provided in Sec. 4 of this act, upon receipt by the state of necessary waivers from federal law, all Vermont residents shall be eligible for Green Mountain Care, a universal health care program that will provide health benefits through a single payment system. To the maximum extent allowable under federal law and waivers from federal law, Green Mountain Care shall include health coverage provided under the health benefit exchange established under chapter 18, subchapter 1 of Title 33; under Medicaid; under Medicare; by employers that choose to participate; and to state employees and municipal employees.

The board shall negotiate payment amounts with health care
professionals, manufacturers of prescribed products, medical supply
companies, and other companies providing health services or health supplies in order to have a consistent reimbursement amount accepted by these persons.

Read the whole thing or just the good parts. It’s like liberal policy porn.

Maybe we can do a group analysis of the law here, because we don’t hear a lot from (sitting) liberal governors. There are apparently four available lots for rent on the valuable real estate that is commercial news, and those lots are reserved for Mitch Daniels, Scott Walker, John Kasich or Chris Christie.

The state-level policy debate stretches all the way from far Right in Indiana to far Right in New Jersey. In terms of geography it’s broad, I guess. Can anyone deny that Indiana is many miles from New Jersey? There you go. The media defense rests.

Reading the Vermont law, I think of Bernie Sanders. When I think of Bernie Sanders I think of community health centers. I’ve described my great experience with a community health center before. But I relied on a county community health center for affordable, sliding-scale fee pre-natal care (a long time ago). Mine wasn’t a federally qualified community health center. At the time I knew nothing of these distinctions, but I did know this was the only primary care provider that would take me because I looked.

This is the definition of a federally qualified community health center:

non-profit, community-directed providers that remove common barriers to care by serving communities who otherwise confront financial, geographic, language, cultural and other barriers. Also known as Federally-Qualified Health Centers (FQHCs), they: are located in high-need areas identified as having elevated poverty, higher than average infant mortality, and where few physicians practice; are open to all residents, regardless of insurance status or ability to pay; tailor services to fit the special needs and priorities of their communities, provide comprehensive primary and other health care services; provide high quality care, reducing costly emergency, hospital, and specialty care, and saving the health care system $24 billion a year nationally.

40% of the low-income uninsured in Vermont rely on a federally supported non-profit community health center for basic health care, now, today. Compare with Texas (12%), or Ohio (14%) or California (25%). Then compare with Washington. 47%. Take a look at all the states.

Is an existing non-profit or public primary care delivery system a good prerequisite to a universal single-payer payment mechanism? Or, does an existing non-profit or public primary care delivery system make a transition to a universal single-payer mechanism more likely?

I’d add the caveat I began with: federally supported community health centers are not the only non-profit or public health care provider. Looking at the percentage of uninsured who rely on this provider may be misleading. Perhaps Texas, for example, has a great network of county health department centers that aren’t (directly) established at the federal level. Of course we know that all health care delivery in the U.S., public or private, is federally supported one way or another, despite the persistent libertarian fantasies of media and conservatives.

Here’s where you can find a federally-funded community health center, if you’re looking for one.