Another example of how much it matters who gets appointed to lifetime positions on the federal courts and Supreme Court.

For those who are concerned about Obama's appointees, the actions of Obama themselves should be of concern too.  And Obama has given plenty to be concerned about and disgusted with in the area of civil liberties, warrantless spying, wars, state secrets, drones and assassinations, etc.

I'll try to post when I have the occasional opportunity, as I have no idea how wired Vietnam is. But, considering that I didn't have much problem using the internet in southern Africa (including Zimbabwe) in November 2010, I figure there won't be any problem.

I'm really looking forward to it, and am going home early today to pack and get ready.

Take care, everyone. Next time I talk to all of you, it'll be from Asia.

"BUT THE very breadth and openness of this proudly leaderless uprising make it difficult to sustain. Even if it endures, such an insurgency is unlikely to grow into a movement that can bend politics in its direction. Forty years ago, the feminist activist Jo Freeman presciently warned of the severe limits that "structurelessness" imposes on an anti-authoritarian movement:
The more unstructured a movement is, the less control it has over the directions in which it develops and the political actions in which it engages....Given a certain amount of interest by the media and the appropriateness of social conditions, the ideas will still be diffused widely. But diffusion of ideas does not mean they are implemented; it only means they are talked about. Insofar as they can be applied individually they may be acted on; insofar as they require coordinated political power to be implemented, they will not be.

Without a structure, it is almost impossible to come up with a strategy for the movement, and tactical decisions can easily go awry."

Link

When calls for structure came, people thought it was because others wanted the movement to die or be morphed into a tool of the dems.  That was wrong.

The demise of low-cost, low-benefit health plans for students is a consequence of the 2010 health-care overhaul. The law is intended to expand coverage to tens of millions of uninsured Americans, but it is also eliminating some insurance options.

Many students already have coverage through their parents and aren't affected by the changes. Parents who get insurance from an employer have traditionally been able to enroll dependents on their plans up to the age of 22 if they are full-time college students, and about two-thirds of students have that kind of coverage, according a 2008 study by the Government Accountability Office. The health-care law has since increased the age at which children can be on their parents' coverage to 26.

Around 600,000 students, about 7% of the total number of 18-to-23-year-olds in college, bought their own insurance, generally plans arranged by schools for which students pay all the premiums, the GAO study said

SNIP

Obama administration officials said they expected only a few schools to drop health-insurance plans entirely.

The administration is phasing in the requirements for the student plans. In the 2013-2014 school year, plans must cover at least $500,000 in medical expenses, and the year after that plans can't have any payout cap.

For those colleges that choose to keep their health-insurance plans, students may see sharply rising premiums.

Notice how this clown pats himself on the back for the really hard choice to devastate coal communities. Hard for him, poverty for the peons.