Sure does need to be spread around the site! GRRRRRR!!! A whole lot of the right-wing wins have stopped repeal of DADT!

NEWSWEEK's Power 50: The List

November 01, 2010

In the oversaturated, hypercommodified media culture of 2010, the most influential political figures are generally the ones who make the most money peddling their perspectives. To figure who's tops in this new world, NEWSWEEK asked Wealth-X, an intelligence and research firm, to compile a list of the 50 highest-earning political figures of 2010. Included in the rankings are politicians, ex-politicians, media personalities, and political consultants who hawk their personal brands in the public marketplace—and influence American political discourse in the process. To see a profile of any member of the Power 50, just click on their name in the list below. You can also sort these names to see the list broken down by gender or occupation, just click on the category at the top of the list. And, you can find our full methodology here.


1 Rush Limbaugh Male Talk show host $58.7 million

2 Glenn Beck Male Talk show host $33 million

3 Sean Hannity Male Talk show host $22 million

4 Bill O'Reilly Male Talk show host $20 million

5 Jon Stewart Male Talk show host $15 million

6 Sarah Palin Female Current or former government official $14 million

7 Don Imus Male Talk show host $11 million

8 Bill Clinton Male Current or former government official $7.7 million

9 Keith Olbermann Male Talk show host $7.5 million

10 Rudy Giuliani Male Current or former government official $7 million

11 Laura Ingraham
(tied with 10) Female Talk show host $7 million

12 Newt Gingrich Male Current or former government official $5.5 million

13 Madeleine Albright Female Current or former government official $5 million

14 Stephen Colbert
(tied with 13) Male Talk show host $5 million

15 Arianna Huffington
(tied with 13) Female Journalist $5 million

16 Mark Levin
(tied with 13) Male Talk show host $5 million

17 Chris Matthews 31 Male Talk show host $4.5 million 17

18 George W. Bush Male Current or former government official $4.2 million

19 Bill Maher Male Talk show host $4 million

20 Barack Obama
(tied with 19) Male Current or former government official $4 million

21 Jorge Ramos
(tied with 19) Male Journalist $4 million

22 Joe Scarborough 45 Male Talk show host $3.5 million 22

23 Fareed Zakaria Male Journalist $3.1 million

24 Bob Barnett Male Power broker $3 million

25 Alan Greenspan
(tied with 24) Male Current or former government official $3 million

26 Frank Luntz
(tied with 24) Male Political strategist $3 million

27 Mark Halperin Male Journalist $2.5 million

28 John Heilemann
(tied with 27) Male Journalist $2.5 million

29 Bob Woodward
(tied with 27) Male Journalist $2.5 million

30 Thomas Friedman Male Journalist $2 million

31 Al Gore
(tied with 30) Male Current or former government official $2 million

32 Rachel Maddow
(tied with 30) Female Talk show host $2 million

33 Jon Meacham*
(tied with 30) Male Journalist $2 million

34 Charlie Rose
(tied with 30) Male Talk show host $2 million

35 Karl Rove
(tied with 30)
Male Current or former government official $2 million

36 Condoleezza Rice Female Current or former government official $1.8 million

37 Charlie Cook Male Journalist $1.5 million

38 David Plouffe Male Political strategist $1.5 million

39 David Remnick 41 Male Journalist $1.3 million 39

40 Roland Martin Male Journalist $1.1 million

41 Tina Brown Female Journalist $1 million

42 Dick Cheney
(tied with 41) 7 Current or former government official $1 million

43 John McLaughlin
(tied with 41) Male Talk show host $1 million

44 Colin Powell*
(tied with 41) Male Current or former government official $1 million

45 Eduardo 'Piolin' Sotelo
(tied with 41) Male Talk show host $1 million

46 Richard Stengel
(tied with 41) Male Journalist $1 million

47 Paul Krugman Male Journalist $900,000

48 Mary Matalin* Female Current or former government official $800,000

49 Ann Coulter Female Journalist $750,000

50 David Axelrod Male Current or former government official $720,000

* Disputed our estimates, but declined to provide further information on the numbers.


http://www.newsweek.com/2010/11/01/power-list.html#

Freakin' ARGH!!! As the money turns.... as always, no matter the party!

Shrub continues to prove that he can't actually read or write. It turns out that an assistant did the online research, and the book is full of passages lifted from other sources.

That man is an idiot.

linkyloo

As requested, I am crossposting this here :)

Hotel unlawfully fired "tomboy" worker
 

I heard this on Iowa Public radio this morning, here is a Chicago Tribune article about it:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/c...,6721747.story

Teacher suspended without pay for trying to stop gay bullying!!!
 

"Don't touch his "junk!"
 

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/201...ing-passenger/

I avoid flying as much as possible- never liked it even when I had to do a lot of it for work. Give me a train or a road adventure!

This brings up abucnh of things- from why his junk is more important than my boobs, to what IS the status of our rights and freedoms and security post 9/11? This on the heels of the non-passenger currier flight bombs. Also this story has a sexual abuse issue within it via this guy. Interesting story to ponder what we live with today in terms of security.

Shock me shock me shock me.

Apple - Tree.

Interesting how the media I have been seeing about this hasn't focused on that you bring up that is very important- that fine print! He is an adult person that can read and purchased his ticket!

I see some of the issues some people are having about the body scanners, pat downs, etc., but, yes.... these measures have been taken for some pretty sobering and realistic reasons.

Probably because I don't fly often, I just do what is required for securiy when I do fly. It will be the same with these newer measures taking effect. I can understand how people that need to fly often can get annoyed with this. Yet, not having these safeguards seems nuts to me. Only takes one bomb, weapon (remember the box cutters) to cause a major disaster with innocent people being killed or injured.

WOW!!! The Hypocrisy!!!
 

:mohawk:

Lisa Murkowski has apparently won the senate race in Alaska.

Now, I do get that she's a Republican - but she's not the Tea Party backed Joe Miller. So this IS good news.

The devil you know, kids.

Murkowski becomes 1st write-in senator since '54

Palin says she can beat Obama...

Republicans are talking openly about President Obama's vulnerability for re-election in 2012, and one of them is Sarah Palin.

When ABC's Barbara Walters asked the former Alaska governor, "if you ran for president, could you beat Barack Obama?," Palin replied: "I believe so."

Palin -- tabbed by Walters as one of the "10 Most Fascinating People of 2010" -- again said she is weighing a White House bid.

"I'm looking at the lay of the land," she told ABC. "And ... trying to figure that out, if it's a good thing for the country, for the discourse, for my family, if it's a good thing."

The full interview airs Dec. 9.

Dear Scary Lady Sarah;

Oh please oh please oh please run, Sarah. It'll be funny! SNL has been so -boring- lately.

And you'll lose.

Love,

Brandy

Insurers Gave U.S. Chamber $86 Million Used to Oppose Obama's Health Law

By Drew Armstrong

Nov 17, 2010 Health insurers last year gave the U.S. Chamber of Commerce $86.2 million that was used to oppose the health-care overhaul law, according to tax records and people familiar with the donation.

The insurance lobby, whose members include Minnetonka, Minnesota-based UnitedHealth Group Inc. and Cigna Corp. of Philadelphia, gave the money to the Chamber in 2009 as Democrats increased criticism of the industry, according to a person who requested anonymity because laws don’t require identifying funding sources. The Chamber got the money from the America’s Health Insurance Plans as the industry urged Congress to drop a plan to create a competing government-run insurance plan.

“Clearly the secrecy was important to industry,” Sheila Krumholz, executive director of the Washington-based Center for Responsive Politics, said in an interview. The group tracks money in politics and isn’t affiliated with a political party. “Eighty-six million dollars is an astonishing sum,” she said.

The spending on the Chamber exceeded the insurer group’s entire budget from a year earlier and accounted for 40 percent of the Chamber’s $214.6 million in 2009 expenditures. The spending reflects the insurers’ attempts to influence the bill, which the Congressional Budget Office estimates will provide coverage to 32 million previously uninsured Americans, after Democrats in Congress and the White House put more focus on regulation of the insurance industry.

U.S. Disclosure Law

The $86.2 million paid for advertisements, polling and grass roots events to drum up opposition to the bill, said Tom Collamore, a Chamber of Commerce spokesman. The Chamber said in a statement it used the funds to “advance a market-based health-care system and advocate for fundamental reform that would improve access to quality care while lowering costs.”

The organizations disclosed the funding yesterday in annual tax records required under U.S. law. The Chamber’s records show it received $86.2 million from a single group, which a second person briefed on the transaction by those involved identified as Washington-based America’s Health group.

Insurers gave the $86.2 million to the Chamber in August 2009, funded by health insurers, said the first person. Early that month, America’s Health Chief Executive Officer Karen Ignagni said Democrats were trying to “demonize” insurers.

Only Amounts Required

Tax forms require organizations to list only the amounts granted or received from other groups, not the organizations’ identities. Health insurers expressed opposition to parts of the health-care legislation while they conferred with congressional Democrats writing the bill and the White House. At the same time, the Chamber of Commerce was advertising its opposition.

The Chamber spent $45.5 million on a campaign against the bill in 2009, according to TNS Media Intelligence/Campaign Media Analysis Group, an Arlington, Virginia-based company that tracks political advertising.

The Chamber began in March 2010, weeks before the bill became law, another $10 million effort focused on pressuring lawmakers to vote against the bill. Blair Latoff, a spokeswoman for the Chamber, wouldn’t say how much of the money was spent in 2009 and how much, if any, was used in 2010.

“With so much at stake we, like other major stakeholders, invested in advocacy,” Robert Zirkelbach, a spokesman for the insurers, said in an e-mail. “We supported a number of leading health-care advocacy organizations and coalitions that shared our views.” He declined to answer other questions on the money.

‘Breathtaking’ Amount

The amount is “breathtaking,” said Trevor Potter, the head of the political activity practice at Washington law firm Caplin & Drysdale.

The $86.2 million dwarfs other large donations given to the Chamber, such as a $15.4 million 2008 transaction whose contributor isn’t identified, as well an anonymous $4.5 million contribution in 2009, according to records.

By funneling the money through the Chamber, insurers were able to remain at the table negotiating with Democrats while still getting the bill criticized. “It enables you to have it both ways,” Potter said in a phone interview.

“They clearly thought the Chamber would be a more credible source of information and advertising on health-care reform, and it would appear less self-serving if a broader business group made arguments against it than if the insurers did it,” said Potter, a former chairman of the Federal Election Commission.

Critics Pounce

The Center for Responsive Politics’ Klein said that the public would have been “better served” by insurers disclosing the money when they gave it. “Perhaps this key debate would have progressed differently if the true source of the chamber’s spending had been known at the time,” Klein said.

The White House criticized the insurer money in a blog post. Insurers were “desperate to preserve their ability to discriminate against you if you had a preexisting condition, drop your care when you got sick and limit the amount of care you could receive in a year or a lifetime,” wrote Stephanie Cutter, assistant to the president for special projects.

Representative Pete Stark, a California Democrat who helped write the health-care law in the House, criticized the insurer spending in a letter to fellow members of Congress. “That $86 million in attack ads could have been better spent to reduce insurance premiums,” he wrote.

U.S. ChamberWatch, a Washington group that has been critical of the Chamber of Commerce, called the $86.2 million transaction “breathtakingly” large. “The U.S. Chamber has given up the right to call themselves the voice of American business; they are the voice of the insurance industry,” Christy Setzer, the group’s spokeswoman, said in a statement.

Insurance company members of America’s Health that didn’t respond to questions about whether they gave money to the 2009 effort were: Jim Turner, a spokesman for Louisville, Kentucky- based Humana Inc.; Tyler Mason, a spokesman for UnitedHealth Group; Mohit Ghose, a spokesman for Hartford, Connecticut-based Aetna. Kristin Binns, a spokeswoman for Indianapolis-based WellPoint Inc., and Cigna spokeswoman Gloria Barone declined to comment.

To contact the reporter on this story: Drew Armstrong in Washington at darmstrong17@bloomberg.net

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-11-17/insurers-gave-u-s-chamber-86-million-used-to-oppose-obama-s-health-law.html

I want to believe that she would lose. However, I remember an old time B movie star from California that wasn't taken as a serious contender for the US president in the mid-70's that went on to be elected in 1980 and re-elected even with the early symptoms of Alzheimer's. He also was the product of the ultra-far-right, Christian fundamentalists of the GOP. He too, ran during a time of economic turmoil and immgration of Latinos was under fire (although, Reagan pushed for amnesty).

After the mid-terms and just the kind of racist crap and socialist characterization of Obama, plus the impact of US politics of Faux News and multi-billionare supporters.... along with the apathy of those that came out for Obama in '08 during the mid-terms.... I will not underestimate Palin's chances of being elected US president. Or, MIS-underestimate them (peas in a pod, Palin & "Dub'ya").

George W Bush was elected and re-elected, too. And a lot of his appeal was his down-home, folksy style. Nope.... not convinced that Palin could not get elected, especially if our economy remains slow and unemployment is not significantly decreasing.

But, oh yes.... SNL would be much better if she were running... Cruel, cruel, joke as it would be if she did and won.

People are so fed-up and frustrated with Washington in growing numbers from all over the political spectrum, I really DO fear her being elected! Big time scary!!!

The one thing that gives me hope is the growing nubers of Latinos getting involved in the political process and the huge numbers that will be new voters. And let's hope that this population can finally see more of their own elected all over the US!

In a country where Film Stars are elected Governors and Presidents, and Citizens can proudly display the Rebel flag and bully youths into killing themselves....I believe Palin will be elected when she runs.

God help us.

Scientists create anti-matter in a lab!
 

Okay this is a *really* big deal!

Scientists at CERN have created an anti-atom in a lab and held onto it long enough to demonstrate that this most elusive form of matter can be studied.

Now, the reason why this is such a big deal is that anti-matter hasn't existed in this universe in the better part of 15 billion years! Just after the moment of the Big Bang the universe was made of both matter and anti-matter. Anti-matter is just matter with an opposite charge. So the proton has a twin called an anti-proton, the electron has a twin called the anti-electron. The anti-proton has a negative charge and the positron (anti-electron) has a positive charge (because the proton has a positive charge and electrons are negatively charged). So, at the Beginning there were *almost* but not quite equal amounts of matter and anti-matter which annihilated each other. Everything you see, everything that exists in this universe is the matter that was left after this fugue of destruction (and it may have fueled the rapid inflation of the universe, matter/anti-matter annihilation releases a lot of energy).

One practical--if future--use of this would be as a propulsion source for long-distance space travel. In the VERY long term, this could actually make interstellar space travel a reality.

Cheers
Aj

I don't know. I believe that even the stupids have to draw a line somewhere, and I think that they will draw that line just left of Sarah Palin.

ETA - I also think that the idea of her as president will be enough to stir up the lazy/complacent Democrat and YOUTH voters who couldn't be bothered to show up this month. I have friends in the US who are registered Republicans who jumped ship and voted Democrat in the 2008 election BECAUSE of Sarah Palin - even among people who traditionally vote Republican there are people who are reasonable enough to see those giant red flags.

This doesn't come near beating the antimatter breakthrough, but

Astronomers Discover Alien Planet In Our Milky Way

Astronomers have detected what they believe to be a planet at least the size of Jupiter that came from another galaxy. If true, the world is the first planetary immigrant ever detected in the Milky Way. The find would also violate the leading hypothesis of how and where planets form.

The planet lives 2200 light-years away inside the Helmi stream, a ring of ancient stars that cuts through the plane of the Milky Way. Astronomers believe the stream formed 6 billion to 9 billion years ago, when the Milky Way ripped another galaxy to shreds, swallowing some of its stars in the process. Astronomer Johny Setiawan of the Max Planck Institute for Astronomy in Heidelberg, Germany, likes looking at these stars because they tend to have unusual properties. But even by these standards, one star in particular caught his eye: HIP 13044.

... :)

Brave New World of Online Actuarial Research
 

Insurers Test Data Profiles to Identify Risky Clients

By LESLIE SCISM And MARK MAREMONT

Life insurers are testing an intensely personal new use for the vast dossiers of data being amassed about Americans: predicting people's longevity.

Insurers have long used blood and urine tests to assess people's health—a costly process. Today, however, data-gathering companies have such extensive files on most U.S. consumers—online shopping details, catalog purchases, magazine subscriptions, leisure activities and information from social-networking sites—that some insurers are exploring whether data can reveal nearly as much about a person as a lab analysis of their bodily fluids.

Life insurers are testing new ways to predict life expectancy and they're mining personal information online and offline to do it. WSJ's Kelsey Hubbard talks to reporter Leslie Scism about the brave new world of online actuarial research.

Inside Deloitte's Life-Insurance Assessment Technology Complete Coverage: What They Know In one of the biggest tests, the U.S. arm of British insurer Aviva PLC looked at 60,000 recent insurance applicants. It found that a new, "predictive modeling" system, based partly on consumer-marketing data, was "persuasive" in its ability to mimic traditional techniques.

The research heralds a remarkable expansion of the use of consumer-marketing data, which is traditionally used for advertising purposes.

This data increasingly is gathered online, often with consumers only vaguely aware that separate bits of information about them are being collected and collated in ways that can be surprisingly revealing. The growing trade in personal information is the subject of a Wall Street Journal investigation into online privacy.

A key part of the Aviva test, run by Deloitte Consulting LLP, was estimating a person's risk for illnesses such as high blood pressure and depression. Deloitte's models assume that many diseases relate to lifestyle factors such as exercise habits and fast-food diets.

This kind of analysis, proponents argue, could lower insurance costs and eliminate an off-putting aspect of the insurance sale for some people.

"Requiring every customer to provide additional, and often unnecessary, information" such as blood or urine samples, "simply makes the process less efficient and less customer-friendly," says John Currier, chief actuary for Aviva USA.

Other insurers exploring similar technology include American International Group Inc. and Prudential Financial Inc., executives for those firms confirm. Deloitte, a big backer of the concept, has pitched it in recent months to numerous insurers.

The industry is grappling with how to get policies into the hands of middle-class families more cost-effectively. Sales of life policies to individuals are down 45% since the mid-1980s. Deloitte says insurers could save $125 per applicant by eliminating many conventional medical requirements. Under Deloitte's predictive model, the cost to achieve similar results would be $5, Deloitte says. The total underwriting costs for a policy range from $250 to $1,000, insurers say.

Making the approach feasible is a trove of new information being assembled by giant data-collection firms. These companies sort details of online and offline purchases to help categorize people as runners or hikers, dieters or couch potatoes.

They scoop up public records such as hunting permits, boat registrations and property transfers. They run surveys designed to coax people to describe their lifestyles and health conditions.

Increasingly, some gather online information, including from social-networking sites. Acxiom Corp., one of the biggest data firms, says it acquires a limited amount of "public" information from social-networking sites, helping "our clients to identify active social-media users, their favorite networks, how socially active they are versus the norm, and on what kind of fan pages they participate."

For insurers and data-sellers alike, the new techniques could open up a regulatory can of worms. The information sold by marketing-database firms is lightly regulated. But using it in the life-insurance application process would "raise questions" about whether the data would be subject to the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act, says Rebecca Kuehn of the Federal Trade Commission's division of privacy and identity protection. The law's provisions kick in when "adverse action" is taken against a person, such as a decision to deny insurance or increase rates.

The law requires that people be notified of any adverse action and be allowed to dispute the accuracy or completeness of data, according to the FTC.

NetworkAccess thousands of business sources not available on the free web. Learn More Deloitte and the life insurers stress the databases wouldn't be used to make final decisions about applicants. Rather, the process would simply speed up applications from people who look like good risks. Other people would go through the traditional assessment process.

The use of the data also may require passing muster with insurance regulators. Regulators in Connecticut, New Jersey and New York, all home to major U.S. life insurers, say they haven't been briefed.

They say their concerns would include ensuring that the approach doesn't unfairly discriminate. "An insurer could contend that a subscription to 'Hang Gliding Monthly' is predictive of highly dangerous behavior, but I'm not buying that theory: The consumer may be getting the magazine for the pictures," says Thomas Considine, New Jersey's commissioner of banking and insurance.

AIG is in the early stages of analysis "to figure out what is meaningful and what is not" in the data, says Bob Beuerlein, chief actuary for its SunAmerica Financial unit. The tests are being conducted by an in-house "think tank" whose mission, he says, is "to see where we're going in the future."A Prudential spokesman says the insurer "is looking at" the potential of marketing data, declining to discuss details.

Some insurers are taking a wait-and-see approach. Deloitte's "methodology is sound," says Mike Belko, chief underwriter at USAA Life Insurance Co., but for now, "it's too soon to say how much reliance we would put on the information."

The largest marketing-database companies in the U.S. include Acxiom, Alliance Data Systems Corp., Experian PLC, and Infogroup. Each says it has detailed information on more than 100 million U.S. households, though contents of their databases vary as do their rules related to data use.

There are myriad sources of personal data. Acxiom recently told investors it takes in three billion pieces of information daily as businesses seek to "monetize" information about their customers. Some retailers share information about purchases made by people, including item description, price and the person's name.

Increasingly, information comes from people's online behavior. Acxiom says it buys data from online publishers about what kinds of articles a subscriber reads—financial or sports, for example—and can find out if somebody's a gourmet-food lover from their online purchases. Online marketers often tap data sources like these to target ads at Web users.

"Personally identifiable data from the online world is merged with personally identifiable information from the offline world, every day," says Jennifer Barrett, Acxiom's head of global privacy and public policy. She also says that, while Acxiom does store personally identifiable information, it doesn't store or merge anonymous online-tracking data, such as Web-browsing records.

Acxiom says it wouldn't let insurers use its data to help assess applicants, for fear of triggering the stiffer federal credit-reporting regulations. Infogroup says it isn't supplying information to insurers for this use. Experian said its marketing data may only be used for marketing purposes.

This isn't the first use of database mining in insurance. About 20 years ago, data pros found that some factors in people's credit histories have a strong correlation to claims on car and home-insurance policies.

In other words: The better your credit, the less likely you'll file a claim. Today, most car and home insurers use this phenomenon to price their policies. For this purpose, property-casualty insurers look at people's credit reports, as opposed to the consumer-marketing databases.

Life insurers haven't changed their general underwriting approach for decades, relying heavily on medical screening.

Deloitte's effort to promote predictive modeling to life insurers gained steam in recent months, boosted partly by the Aviva research. Deloitte detailed the test in May at a seminar hosted by the Society of Actuaries, a professional group.

At the seminar, a consultant helped explain Deloitte's concept by discussing imaginary 40-year-old insurance buyers, "Beth" and "Sarah."

Using readily available data, the consultant said, an insurer could learn that Beth commutes some 45 miles to work, frequently buys fast food, walks for exercise, watches a lot of television, buys weight-loss equipment and has "foreclosure/bankruptcy indicators," according to slides used in the presentation.

"Sarah," on the other hand, commutes just a mile to work, runs, bikes, plays tennis and does aerobics. She eats healthy food, watches little TV and travels abroad. She is an "urban single" with a premium bank card and "good financial indicators."

Deloitte's approach, the consultant said, indicates Sarah appears to fall into a healthier risk category. Beth seems to be a candidate for a group with worse-than-average predicted mortality. The top five reasons: "Long commute. Poor financial indicators. Purchases tied to obesity indicators. Lack of exercise. High television consumption indicators."

Data From 'What They Know'
The Wall Street Journal analyzed the tracking files installed on people's computers by the 50 most popular websites, plus WSJ.com. Explore the data here and see separate analysis of the files on popular children's sites.
Another consultant detailed the Aviva test to the seminar attendees. Deloitte didn't identify the insurer; Aviva confirmed its role to the Journal.

The consumer-marketing data for the test came from Equifax Inc.'s marketing-services unit, since bought by Alliance Data Systems. An Alliance spokeswoman says the company was unaware of the insurance-related test, which was done before it bought the former Equifax subsidiary. Alliance "does not provide its marketing data for such purposes," she says.

The goal of Aviva's test: With 60,000 actual insurance applicants, figure out how to use the marketing databases and other information to reach the same underwriting conclusions that Aviva reached using traditional methods such as blood work. The 60,000 people were applicants Aviva had already judged.

Such predictive models wouldn't necessarily look for indicators of all diseases, such as AIDS, because the insurer would likely learn about some conditions from the answers on an application. Rather, insurers say a model would tend to look for potential risks such as, for instance, diabetes (from, say, a poor diet).

Aviva declined to discuss the process in detail, but Mr. Currier says the insurer found that the model consistently yielded results that "closely aligned with those of purely traditional underwriting decisions."

The insurer says pilot projects with marketing data are continuing in its effort to improve clients' buying experience.

Deloitte acknowledges the potentially controversial nature of its work. "No matter what their predictive powers may be, any variable that is deemed to create a legal or public-relations risk, or is counter to the company's 'values,' should be excluded from the model," its consultants wrote in an April paper.

Deloitte isn't the only firm pushing data-mining for insurers. Celent, an insurance consulting arm of Marsh & McLennan Cos., recently published a study suggesting insurers could use social-networking data to help price policies and aid in fraud detection.

A life insurer might want to scrutinize an applicant who reports no family history of cancer, but indicates online an affinity with a cancer-research group, says Mike Fitzgerald, a Celent senior analyst.

"Whether people actually realize it or not, they are significantly increasing their personal transparency," he says. "It's all public, and it's electronically mineable."

Write to Leslie Scism at leslie.scism@wsj.com and Mark Maremont at mark.maremont@wsj.com


Read more: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...#ixzz15kusdXzj

You could have a point as voters in Nevada didn't elect Sharon Angle and in Delaware, Christine O'Donnell lost. But, I can't help but think of Reagan and the 2 terms of Dumb-Dumb Dubya.

Presently, due to how and how much $ can be poured into our elections, I am just not trusting much in our process. Also, the discust of Congress- which does have some merit.

My hope is that the general 2012 election will bring out what we saw in 2008 and Latino voters in large numbers that are the brunt of so much of what is going on in US politics.

Greyson - that is scary!!!

follow-up on privacy rights and TSA security in airports- this is from a duscussion forum, but goes into how just by paying for an airline ticket, we agree to submit to any security measures the TSA choses to impose, giving up some tenets of privacy rights. All of this is part of the Terms Of Service in purchasing an airline ticket.

The other point is that we have options for travel other than flying. No one tells us we MUST fly.

I hate what air travel has become in relation to security measures, yet, these points make sense to me in many ways. But, I don't believe issues around the scanners and pat-downs are black and white.

I do know that I don't want racial profiling to be part of air travel security and often think about how it is usually white males that cry the loudest about security measures, often stating... "Do I look like a terrorist to you?" Think about it... seems to me they are saying that anyone other than a white male is suspect....



http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread630146/pg4

As human beings, we have NO rights. If we did, there would be no need for a Bill of Rights or a Constitution.

As you knew of the security measures (including the full body scanners) well in advance of buying the ticket, you agreed to these measures under the "terms of service" when you bought the ticket. You don't have to sign anything to agree to terms of service, you agree to them simply by using the product. I can guarantee that the fine print
on the airline bill of purchase for the ticket includes a provision to submit to any security measures necessary.

You might not like it (neither do I) but there are other travel options available (even a boat if travelling overseas). These are just mostly a lot more inconvenient than flying.

A protest against airport screening and security won't matter - these security procedures were put in place "for your protection" as per the provisions of the Department of Homeland Security and The Patriot Act.

You gave up any rights to protest or refuse security screening when you didn't protest the signing of the Act or the creation of the Government Agency. 10 years later it's too late, and you've actually woken up and are starting to figure out how many of your freedoms you've allowed (yes ALLOWED) the Government to take away from you, without a single word of protest.

You even bent over and said "Thank you Sir, may I have another?" when you (the American public) reelected George Bush in 2004, who ran pretty much solely on the security that he had provided the country since 9/11, as he had actually done little else during his first term.

TSA forces cancer survivor to show prosthetic breast

A longtime Charlotte, N.C., flight attendant and cancer survivor told a local television station that she was forced to show her prosthetic breast during a pat-down.

Cathy Bossi, who works for U.S. Airways, said she received the pat-down after declining to do the full-body scan because of radiation concerns.

The TSA screener "put her full hand on my breast and said, 'What is this?' " Bossi told the station. "And I said, 'It's my prosthesis because I've had breast cancer.' And she said, 'Well, you'll need to show me that.' "

Bossi said she removed the prosthetic from her bra. She did not take the name of the agent, she said, "because it was just so horrific of an experience, I couldn't believe someone had done that to me. I'm a flight attendant. I was just trying to get to work."

For Americans who wear prosthetics — either because they are cancer survivors or have lost a limb — or who have undergone hip replacements or have a pacemaker, the humiliation of the TSA's new security procedures — choosing between a body scan or body search — is even worse.

Musa Mayer has worn a breast prosthesis for 21 years since her mastectomy and is used to the alarms it sets off at airport security. But nothing prepared her for the "invasive and embarrassing" experience of being patted down, poked and examined recently while passing through airport security at Dulles International Airport in Washington, D.C.

"I asked the supervisor if she realized that there are 3 million women who have had breast cancer in the U.S., many of whom wear breast prostheses. Will each of us now have to undergo this humiliating, time-consuming routine every time we pass through one of these new body scanners?" she said in an e-mail to msnbc.com.

I've been contemplating this post for a few hours. I think I will make a list.

1. Flying is optional if a. you never travel ever or b. you have all the time in the world to get where you are going. I'm not sure what the logic is here, but if they start implementing these at bus stations and train stations and bus stops - I'm just not sure where transportation becomes "optional."

2. You say that other options are available and it's just a matter of "convenience." Money and time are the two prohibitive factors for most people standing in line at the Southwest counter. It's not a matter of "convenience" to those of us who have very little money or time off work... The idea that i could get on a boat and cross the ocean is amazingly impossible unless I were working for whatever ship was crossing the ocean (since I have a job and precious few days off from it).

3. I do think the men in this community have every reason to be concerned about this process as do the rest of us. I'm not sure what you were saying about white men, but I'm pretty sure forcing people to take nude photos or be groped is pretty anti-Muslim. If flying means being subjected to humiliation and/or violating one's religious practice, then yes, many people will choose not to fly. And they will be more isolated and imprisoned in this "free" country of ours.

4. I refuse to embrace hopelessness when it comes to whether protesting this will "matter" and I haven't given up my right to protest one iota. Though you have a right to say I don't have a right to protest, I do not think you are right. I have the right to protest as long as I draw breath, and I'm lucky enough to live in a country with a bill of rights that supports my doing so.

Everyone has the right to demonstrate. And I deeply believe in the Bill of Rights as well as civil disobedience. Yet, disrupting other people that have chosen to fly, some of which have no problem with these security measures is also infringing upon their individual freedoms.

I personally don't like how far these measures go, yet, I know that if the TSA did not continue to develop techniques and utilize the technology available, and something happens again like 9/11, people will be pointing to them for not making a full and concerted effort to keep flying as safe as possible in the midsts of continued threats. The "under wear bomber"
from last Christmas is the reason for these new techniques.

We can't have it both ways. I do think that complaints need to be addressed by the congressional leaders that are the ones that put these things into effect. it seems to me that sending emails or letters, making calls, sending faxes to our representatives is the way to demonstrate about this. Not making it worse for people trying to fly in the middle of the most busy travel time of the year. Most likely, that will only end up having airports closed.

Read your airline tickets- there is an agreement to the security measures including all the ones now on the news and upsetting us.

I honestly don't see how airport security measures can be taken without some kind of invasion of privacy. We either have to accept this, settle for less than state of the art techniques, or stop it entirely and accept the risks. Only questioning or scanning or doing pat-downs of POC, those in non-western cultural clothing, etc. is racial profiling and our Constitution cover this, too.

I'd rather we built better relations with countries and people worldwide so that we are not targeted at all.

My comments and link are not because I don't understand why people would be upset by the body scans and pat-downs. They are about the alternatives.

I have had exspensive durable medical equipment ransacked, with dirty hands put all over what has to kept sanitary and broken by airport searches even when it says "Medical Equipment" right on it and is not a rare device. But, at one time it was not something that would be recognized for what it is. Now, due to the trainings that TSA employees are required to take, this has changed. But so have the kinds of things that terrorist types have figured out might be a good vehicle to put something in.

I'm sure my Mom would feel much the same as this woman as she wore a prosthetic breast. Yet, there are ways we can combat this. Just like people that have pace-makers carry medical cards stating so (like heart valve repacement folks carry cards with that information and people with joint replacements)- a card from a doctor for this can be given to TSA agents at airports. In fact, this would be something that could be on those data base frequent flyer security protocols being developed.

This is all on the TSA website, airline sites and the information is also given via a phone call. People that fly often know this and are prepared. Those of us that don't fly often need to look up these things when making our travel arrangements. And there is a disclaimer about things being "changed without notice."

In fact, after my medical equipment was handled and damaged, I complained and was instructed to re-read policies. I then got documentation from my doctor that I carry in my wallet. I have never had this problem since. i just show them the card and they only open the cover to my devise and that's it. It can safely go through the usual scanners, but cannot be thrown around with luggage, so it has to be part of my carry-on items. The TSA in-service trainings are continually updated about possible medical devices, either implanted or used by people that could be scrutinized.

This is a pain in the rear, but a sign of the times. I wish it wasn't and that this woman did not go through this. I also don't like how much medical 9and other) personal information is now computerized- anyone can get a hold of it really- just break into insurance computer banks!

I forgot something in the other post- talking to POC about what it feels like to continually be "suspect" by virture of their color or clothing, manner of speaking is interesting to this whole conversation. Most whites enjoy freedom from most of the kinds of suspicions that POC go through almost every day of their lives. I'm betting that it would only be POC, men in turbins or any other person in any kind of non-western clothing that would be subjected to pat-downs and body scans if we were ALL not required to go through the same security methods in airports.

Wesley Snipes ordered to surrender in tax case

A federal judge on Friday ordered actor Wesley Snipes to surrender to authorities so he can begin serving a three-year prison sentence for tax-related crimes.

U.S. District Judge William Terrell Hodges in Florida rejected a request from the actor's attorneys to review Snipes' sentence and grant a new trial. Snipes has been free on bond for more than two years while appealing.

TSA exempts pilots from pat-downs

WASHINGTON – After weeks of pressure from pilot unions over controversial new airport screening measures, the Transportation Security Administration has agreed to exempt pilots from enhanced pat-downs and full body scans, pilot organizations said Friday.

Pilots flying for U.S. carriers and traveling in uniform will immediately start going through "expedited" screening after having two forms of identification checked against a secure database, said TSA administrator John Pistole in a statement.

Airline pilots complained when the agency would not exempt them from pat-downs seen as too intrusive and full body scans that union leaders said would put pilots at risk for increased exposure to radiation.

"Allowing these uniformed pilots, whose identity has been verified, to go through expedited screening at the checkpoint just makes smart security and an efficient use of our resources," said Pistole Friday. The changes do not affect policies for screening passengers.

I have to say that I disagree with this strenuously. In fact, I would say that the case is *precisely* the opposite. If we had no rights there would BE no Bill of Rights or Constitution. Even a casual survey of Western history will show that we have gained rights. Think about the condition of your ancestors circa, say, 1010 CE (or AD if you prefer). The local Prince or Lord could come and say that he'd heard your daughter had just gotten married and he wanted to sleep with her. She would have NO right to refuse. If she did, her life and yours could well be forfeit. The Prince or Lord could, on a whim, take your land. Not because you'd done something, simply because it was his pleasure to do so. Or because the Sun rose that morning. If war came, your husband or son could be pressed into service. If a noble cut one of your relatives down in cold blood, you had no legal recourse. You could be imprisoned, indefinitely, at the whim of a noble. To speak out against the Prince or King or Lord was to court, at best, painful torture and the same followed by death. To speak out against the church was to sign one's own death warrant.

THAT, Susan, is having no rights.

As it stands you have quite a few rights. But that was a thousand years ago. So let's try 500 years ago? Significantly better? Well, there's been improvement and, at least, in England there now exists some limits on what the monarchy and the nobles can do. However, most of the above *still* applies 500 years ago. It isn't until the English Civil War, the American Revolution and the French Revolution that things improve significantly. By that point, Constitutional Republicanism is getting booted up. You get things like the Bill of Rights which lays out boundaries which the government cannot cross. If you still think we have no rights, I direct you to contemplate the following. Many of us here called the last POTUS everything but a child of God. Others here have said things about the current POTUS that are worse than that. NONE of us have given the least amount of worry that there will be a knock on the door and we will be dragged into the night. None of us have worried that we will simply not come home one night and our bodies found in a park or at the bottom of a river, the victim of an apparent 'suicide'.

I can, without the benefit of coffee, name half-a-dozen states where this isn't true. Ready? They are: North Korea, People's Republic of China, Russian Federation, Egypt, Iran, Syria. Like I said, that list is just off the top of my head and I haven't had my first cup of java yet.

I'm not saying either America or the Western Democracies are perfect. They are anything but. I am saying that your claim tosses out the fact that we can HAVE this discussion at all and demonstrates that, in fact, you DO have rights. Your rights are not in spite of the Constitution, but BECAUSE of it. If you think that non-Constitutional government would be better, would give you more rights, there's an example for that too: Somalia.

I will take the *worst* day in a modern Western Democracy, over the best *possible* day in either North Korea or Somalia. In the first case, people have no rights what-so-ever and in the second case, people have all the rights that they have the firepower to protect. No guns? No rights. Lots of guns? Lots of rights--as long as you have more guns than the next person.

Cheers
Aj

The TSA publishing their TOS and putting it on tickets does not magically make the measures that they are taking REASONABLE. Nobody is accusing them of sneakiness. We are questioning the REASONABLENESS of the process.

And Sarah Palin - 8 stories on the Politics section of Huffington Post today about her. (admittedly, she is fascinatingly comical)