Saturday PM Stuff

I've been meaning to share this all week and I keep forgetting, so I suppose now is as good a time as any...



...and I think this is some pretty cool, Saturday-night-party music (part of me wants to "dropkick" Ryan Madson).

Saturday Stuff

I don't agree with his Nader comment, but Bill Maher is spot-on about everything else here (if I hear one more chicken Democrat - redundant? - complain that "we don't have the votes" on ANYTHING, including a public health care plan, I'm going to spit - hat tip to diarist Count Imbroglio at The Daily Kos)...



...and I've always found a quiet and contemplative tune to be an appropriate remedy for a dreary Saturday like this; however, this ain't it.

Friday Stuff

This is a big deal for local Philly sports fans, by the way, and I'm referring to the passing of WPVI Sports anchor Gary Papa; the synch is slightly off, but this is a nice remembrance...



...and I have to admit that I had a hard time trying to come up with a way to properly note that yesterday was the 25th anniversary of the murder of Denver radio talk show host Alan Berg by white supremacists (here), but I guess the most appropriate way to do it is to put up an excerpt of this Democracy Now! interview last October by Amy Goodman of James Ridgeway, author of "Blood in the Face: The Ku Klux Klan, Aryan Nations, Nazi Skinheads and the Rise of a New White Culture" (pointing out, among other things, the way racism became more pronounced with Obama's candidacy...I always thought Berg's death was one of the milestones in the gradual rise of right-wing radio and media in general in this country, with many of its practitioners casually advocating violence and death against those they disagree with)...



Update 6/20/09: I think this is a cautionary column from Bob Herbert of the New York Times on this subject.

...I'll try to lighten things up now a bit with "Worst Persons" (House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Man Tan) first calls the stimulus "generational theft," but now applauds the "shovel-ready" projects funded by it - huh?; The California Repug Party hires a guy named Mark Anthony Jacoby to trick people into registering for them - and of course, what do we hear from the Murdoch Street Journal and other right-wing media in response, those who worked themselves into a froth over ACORN, who actually found out their own screwups and corrected them? Why, the sound of crickets, of course; but Jeffrey Smith of the Justice Department takes it for trying to keep video of an interview Deadeye Dick Cheney gave concerning the outing of Valerie Plame (CREW wants Smith to give the interview to prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald, which he should)...and oh, Smith doesn't want the testimony "to end up on a late-night comedy show," huh? How about every left-wing blog in creation, then?)...

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

...and believe me when I tell you that I need this to try and "get me in the mood" for Sunday, given the awful weather and the even-more-awful play of your Philadelphia Phillies at the moment.

Where The Rubber Meets The Road (6/19/09)

As reported in last Sunday's Philadelphia Inquirer, here is how Philadelphia-area members of Congress were recorded on major roll-call votes last week.

House

Car, truck vouchers. Voting 298-119, the House passed a bill (HR 2751) enabling consumers to trade their car or truck for a government voucher worth $3,500 to $4,500 to be used to help buy or lease a new, more fuel-efficient vehicle - foreign or domestic. The exact value of the voucher would depend on the new vehicle's fuel efficiency. The government would destroy the traded-in vehicles. Congressional auditors predict the bill would spur 600,000 vehicle sales and leases. The bill is now before the Senate.

A yes vote was to pass the bill.

Voting yes: John Adler (D., N.J.), Robert E. Andrews (D., N.J.), Robert A. Brady (D., Pa.), Michael N. Castle (R., Del.), Chaka Fattah (D., Pa.), Jim Gerlach (R., Pa.), Tim Holden (D., Pa.), Frank A. LoBiondo (R., N.J.), Patrick Murphy (D., Pa.), Joseph R. Pitts (R., Pa.), Allyson Y. Schwartz (D., Pa.), Joe Sestak (D., Pa.), and Christopher H. Smith (R., N.J.).

Voting no: Charles W. Dent (R., Pa.).

Am I the only one who sees some humor in the fact that the only person who opposed a bill to encourage people to buy cars is named “Dent”?

This tells us that the voucher applies if your car gets 18 mpg or less; the Democratic Underground post also wonders how “Government Motors” came up with that figure (and, as I always say to people who think we’re “goin’ Socialist” or whatever, if the automakers and money geniuses hadn’t fracked up their companies so bad, then the “gov’mint” wouldn’t even be in the car business or owning AIG, Lehman, etc.).

And I’m sure you’re all breathlessly awaiting this week’s stupid “No” vote by Joe Pitts, wondering why this isn’t it. That will come later.

Foreign-affairs budget. Voting 235-187, the House authorized a $40.6 billion, two-year foreign-affairs budget (HR 2410) that would fund Department of State and Peace Corps operating expenses, a major expansion of the Foreign Service, and a broad range of U.S. non-military policies and programs overseas.

A yes vote was to pass the bill.

Voting yes: Adler, Andrews, Brady, Castle, Dent, Fattah, Holden, Murphy, and Schwartz.

Voting no: Gerlach, LoBiondo, Pitts and Smith.

David Waldman at Congress Matters tells us what’s going on with this bill here (I think what got the collective shorts of the Repugs all tied in a knot here, minus Castle and Dent, is the part about “meeting our financial commitments” to the U.N. – I should say, though, that as much as I don’t like Chris Smith, he tried to get some interesting stuff into this, and I mean that as a compliment).

I think it’s safe to say that, with this bill, the State Department will now have a higher profile under Obama, and will not be dismissed with the metaphorical back of the hand as the “department of nice” as they were during the dark Bushco days (that quote came from the utterly ignominious Doug Feith, by the way).

Aid to Pakistan. Voting 234-185, the House authorized $10.5 billion in U.S. economic and military aid to Pakistan through 2014. The bill (HR 1886) puts the Department of State in charge of the funding and sets benchmarks for Pakistan to meet. Now awaiting Senate action, the bill signals growing U.S. concern over the stability of Pakistan and its nuclear arsenal.

A yes vote was to pass the bill.

Voting yes: Adler, Andrews, Brady, Fattah, Holden, Murphy, Schwartz, and Sestak.

Voting no: Castle, Dent, Gerlach, LoBiondo, Pitts, and Smith.

Wow, funding Pakistan with actual oversight and benchmarks. What a concept (with more party-line Repug nonsense).

Tobacco regulation. Voting 307-97, the House gave final congressional approval to a bill (HR 1256) launching FDA regulation of tobacco products, with the cost to be paid by fees on tobacco manufacturers and importers.

A yes vote was to send the bill to President Obama.

Voting yes: Andrews, Brady, Castle, Dent, Fattah, Gerlach, Holden, LoBiondo, Murphy, Schwartz, Sestak, and Smith.

Voting no: Pitts.

Not voting: Adler.

“Pancake Joe” does it again! And wasn’t it worth the wait?

Senate

Tobacco regulation. Voting 79-17, the Senate passed a bill (HR 1256) to begin federal regulation of tobacco products. Under the bill, the FDA would regulate cigarette ingredients; require public disclosure of those ingredients; restrain cigarette marketing to children; require health warnings to cover at least half of each side of a cigarette package, and require manufacturers to verify health claims.
A yes vote was to pass the bill.

Voting yes: Thomas Carper (D., Del.), Bob Casey (D., Pa.), Ted Kaufman (D., Del.), Frank Lautenberg (D., N.J.), Robert Menendez (D., N.J.), and Arlen Specter (D., Pa.).

This week, the House took up fiscal 2010 appropriations bills, while the Senate debated a government apology to African Americans for slavery and segregation and a bill promoting foreign travel to the United States. Both chambers voted on a bill to fund war and foreign affairs through Sept. 30 (which passed, as noted in the prior post).

Fumento’s Fractious Pandemic Prognostication

(You know me, always trying to build my word power, as they say - and I also posted some stuff here.)

The Philadelphia Inquirer published this Op-Ed today by Michael Fumento on the matter of the swine flu pandemic…

How bizarre. The World Health Organization has declared swine flu a pandemic, signaling that governments worldwide should launch emergency response plans.

The mildest pandemics of the 20th century killed at least a million people worldwide, according to the WHO's data, while old-fashioned seasonal flu strikes every nation yearly and kills an estimated 250,000 to 500,000. As of last week, when the swine-flu pandemic was declared, the H1N1 virus had killed a total of 144 people. In Mexico, where the outbreak began and has been most severe, the cases peaked quickly, in just four weeks.

A pandemic declaration will be costly at a time when we can least afford it, and it could prompt severe restrictions on human activities (think China). Perhaps most important, the declaration could render the term "flu pandemic" essentially meaningless, risking lethal public complacency if a bona fide one hits.

I think you get the idea of where Fumento is coming from based on this excerpt (and I fail to understand how he can apparently prioritize financial cost with what could be the cost to human lives and entire populations should this virus – which, as Wikipedia notes here, is already a mutation of four different viruses - mutate further and “become(s) more virulent and less susceptible to any vaccine developed to protect from an earlier strain”).

I should back up briefly and note that, according to this, $8 billion has been approved to fight the flu pandemic, so in addition to Fumento’s disingenuous argument IMHO, I have to wonder about the timing of this editorial (as noted here, pandemic preparedness funding has been one of many political “footballs”). But there you are (and I don't mean to "blow off" the issue of the war spending bill; I can only put out one fire at a time, as they say).

As Fumento points out in his editorial, the reason for the preparedness is to prevent any possible recurrence of the 1918-19 Spanish flu outbreak, which killed at least 20 million people. However, just because medical understanding and technology as well as pharmacology have advanced as they have over nearly the last 100 years, that doesn’t mean that we should take anything for granted.

But what the Inky doesn’t tell us here is that Fumento is an old hand as dismissing such public health threats; here, (footnote #8) in January 2007, he did the same thing over the “bird flu” (basically arguing that, hey, if it doesn’t threaten industrialized countries like ours, then don’t worry, be happy). And here (also along with Dr. James Chin, who Fumento cited in today’s Inquirer editorial), the headline is titled, “United Nations’ Panel Lowers Its Politically Correct AIDS Estimates,” which I think is a particularly repugnant headline given this.

I suppose I could dig deeper into the disease numbers here to critique what Fumento is saying, but I don’t think he should be taken all that seriously anyway when you consider that, as noted here (in the matter of FDA regulation of the tobacco industry)…

Fumento typically assumes positions on tobacco issues that are in favor of tobacco companies. He has been a vocal critic of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's 1993 Risk Assessment on secondhand smoke.[5] In a July 7, 1996 article in the Rocky Mountain News, Fumento disputed whether the nicotine in cigarettes is addictive, stating "The FDA is using the addiction issue as an excuse to gain the power to regulate tobacco."[6]

And it gets even better, believe it or not…

"Scripps Howard News Service announced Jan. 13 that it's severing its business relationship with columnist Michael Fumento, who's also a senior fellow at the conservative Hudson Institute," reported BusinessWeek in 2006. "The move comes after inquiries from BusinessWeek Online about payments Fumento received from agribusiness giant Monsanto -- a frequent subject of praise in Fumento's opinion columns and a book."

With this in mind, I’ll look forward to a future Inquirer editorial from Armstrong Williams on “No Child Left Behind” (here).

Update 6/21/09: Or Larry Sabato commenting on Virgil Goode's congressional campaign here, though we don't know that he did so, but still...(h/t Atrios).

Thursday Stuff

Boy, is Ed Schultz right here; I contacted Casey and Specter earlier, but thus far, no response; I'll keep you posted (h/t The Daily Kos - to find out who your senator is so you can do what must be done, click here)...

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Update 6/25/09: I heard back from Bob Casey earlier, and he supports a public option. Go Bob!

Update 6/26/09: I know this is driven solely by politics (Specter's numbers are in a nose dive), but kudos to him for doing the right thing anyway.

..."Worst Persons" (the staffer for Repug State Senator Diane Black of TN, Sherri Goforth, forwards an incredibly offensive presidential portrait with two white eyes against a black background only for Obama, with Black giving Goforth the proverbial beating with a wet noodle as punishment - yep, good for Keith to take advantage of an opportunity for a really bad pun...and by the way, wingnuts, I heard a hue and cry over the Emerge Magazine cover of Clarence Thomas as a lawn jockey, which actually was appropriate, but not a peep from you over this; Karl Rove laments ABC's coverage of Obama next week...oh for God's sake, stop being such a WATB!; but Charles Krauthammer wins it for manufacturing an alleged "quote" from Obama concerning Fix Noise...God, and this war-porn-cheerleading Beltway hack - who may have had something to do with Dan Froomkin losing his job, though I hasten to add that a lot is still "up in the air" on that - is published EVERYWHERE!)...

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Update 6/19/09: More from Jane H. on Froomkin here (h/t Atrios)...as well as appropriately tongue-in-cheek remarks by kos here.

...and even though this song is a little uncomfortably biographical, I still thought it was neat...



...and RIP, Bob Bogle of The Ventures.

Repug (And Now Dem) Immigration Irritation

The New York Times tells us here that…

Nearly three years after the Justice Department found that the nation’s immigration courts were seriously overburdened and recommended hiring 40 new judges, only a few hirings have taken place and the case backlog is at its highest point in a decade, according to a study released Wednesday.

The report, by the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse, a nonpartisan group that analyzes data about federal government performance, found that the shortage of judges had contributed to a 19 percent increase in the backlog of cases since 2006 and a 23 percent increase in the time it takes to resolve them.

As of April 12, Justice Department officials said, there were 234 active immigration judges, an increase of 4 judges since August 2006. At that time a review by the attorney general, Alberto R. Gonzales, determined that immigration courts were struggling with their case burden and recommended that 40 judges be brought on board.

“It’s a system at its breaking point,” said Dana L. Marks, an immigration judge in San Francisco who is president of the National Association of Immigration Judges. “How can a system function properly when it is starved from the critical basic resources it needs?”

And in response, President Obama plans to sink more funding into a program started by Dubya, as noted here (I’m not quite sure of the wisdom of this move, but I’m just presenting the info so you can decide – the spin seems to be that he’s moving towards the issue of immigration reform once more, but we’ll see; by the way, more than a little bit of editorial interpretation in this L.A. Progressive article here, as far as I’m concerned)…

The controversial program gives Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) unregulated access to the immigration information of every person in local prisons across the United States. Although Obama may be sending mixed signals as he paves a road to immigration reform-signals that frustrates many of his most steadfast supporters-he also understands that he must smooth the way for immigration reform by restoring the confidence of the American public and prove that the government is capable of upholding the rule of law.

Immigration enforcement is fundamentally a federal responsibility, but state and local governments can and should play a role in helping the federal government remove violent criminals from American society.

Yeah, well, it sounds like state and local governments are already doing that; according to this, Obama would “drop funding for the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program and save $400 million (something Dubya tried but couldn’t do, forcing the cost of ‘incarcerating and prosecuting criminal aliens’ on the states),” but increase funding for border enforcement and the “E-Verify” system used by the Citizenship and Immigration Services department in concert with the Social Security Administration, as well as hiring 80 new agents to identify criminal immigrants in jails.

And no discussion of this topic would be complete without noting the words and actions of His Fraudulency himself, who told us this in 2005…

Since I've taken office we've increased funding for border security by 60 percent. Our border agents have used that funding to apprehend and send home more than 4.5 million people coming into our country illegally, including more than 350,000 with criminal records.

And of course, since we’re talking about Dubya here, none of this information is verifiable.

However, this tells us the following…

Despite assurances it repeatedly gave to Congress, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has not used its increased funding to capture the "most threatening" immigrants who have outstanding deportation orders -- immigrants ICE characterized as criminals or terrorists. ICE instead pursued easier targets.
A vast majority of those arrested had no criminal record, and many had no deportation orders against them, either.

In 2007, only 9 percent of those arrested had criminal records, and 40 percent had no outstanding deportation order. Over 5 years, ICE spent $625 million to arrest 96,000 people, three-quarters of whom had no criminal record.

And…

Showing good numbers became a higher priority for ICE than following its mission -- and so ICE quietly changed its mission. Although ICE repeatedly told Congress that it was focusing its resources on immigrants with criminal backgrounds, when it changed the rules in 2006 it didn't bother to tell Congress. After all, the truth might have jeopardized the increased funding that ICE enjoyed.

And these were the typical ICE tactics to justify their numbers and, thus, their funding…

During [a 2007 in New Haven] raid, lawyers at Yale’s immigration law center said, agents who found no one home at an address specified in a deportation order simply knocked on other doors until one opened, pushed their way in, and arrested residents who acknowledged that they lacked legal status.

Janet Napolitano has "ordered a review of the fugitive teams operation." She should order it to return to its original mission and to stop lying to Congress about its results. While she's at it, she should order ICE agents to respect the Fourth Amendment.

Indeed, our existing lack of policy allows characters like Arizona’s Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio (noted here) to continue pretending that he’s keeping us safe by arresting those nasty illegals busy hatching plots, when in reality, the “crime” most of these people are guilty of is faulty-to-non-existent documentation on their status.

It doesn’t take a genius to point out that any sensible discussion of immigration reform precludes a path to citizenship for people doing the right thing. However, that notion taking hold to the point where it will be enshrined in a bill that eventually makes its way to Obama’s desk is as “certain” as our collective realization in this country that terrorists can be safely housed in our supermax prisons along with all other manner of violent offenders who pose infinitely greater threats to our safety.

Hiring more judges and/or clerks and/or agents are all “back end” solutions to the problem that are important in their own right. However, federal legislation that would grant that path to citizenship for the illegals who deserve it is a “front end” way to get a handle on this situation before they become statistics that we have to pay for anyway.

(Another “front end” solution here is to grant them driver’s licenses for work only, forcing them to purchase insurance and quantifying their numbers – they’d have to go a long way to be worse than the people I share the road with now, and failing to do this only forces them further into an underground economy, as noted here.)

Update 6/25/09: A great comment to this Media Matters post tells us the following...

...many of these migrants are being guided into the United States by coyotes working for American companies that like using the abject poor of Mexico for cheap labor rather than pay Americans a decent wage for what is often dangerous work.

We don't have an illegal immigration problem in the United States, we have an illegal EMPLOYER problem. Make the penalties for bringing in people from other countries for the purposes of exploitation stern enough to force compliance, and the immigration part of it will take care of itself.

Amen.

An “Overqualified” Supreme Sellout

(The “o” word being code for age discrimination, IMHO - and I also posted some stuff here.)

This post from NBC News tells us the following…

In (an) age discrimina- tion case, the court -- again by a 5-4 vote -- said that lawsuits claiming that an employee was fired because of age must show that age was the reason for the firing, not simply that it was one of several other factors. The court has allowed the "several factor" analysis in claims for race discrimination. But the court said today that the Age Discrimination in Employment Act is worded differently and does not allow lawsuits for such "mixed motive" cases.

This AP story provides these additional details…

Jack Gross had been a vice president of FBL Financial Services of West Des Moines, Iowa. But in 2001, he lost the title of vice president in a reorganization and two years later, some of his responsibilities were given to a colleague.

Gross sued under the federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act and a jury agreed that his age was a motivating factor in his demotion. Gross was awarded $46,945 in lost compensation.

A federal appeals court in St. Louis overturned the verdict, however.

"We hold that a plaintiff bringing a disparate-treatment claim pursuant to the ADEA must prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that age was the 'but-for' cause of the challenged adverse employment action," (Justice Clarence) Thomas said in the high court's opinion. "The burden of persuasion does not shift to the employer to show that it would have taken the action regardless of age, even when a plaintiff has produced some evidence that age was one motivating factor in the decision."

Oh, and by the way, AP, I’m not aware of the existence of a “Democrat” Party. Can you, then, confirm the existence of a “Republic” Party?

What is particularly curious (and appalling, truth be told) to me is that, prior to now, the Court had ruled favorably towards workers in age discrimination issues; a year ago, the Court said here there was a “burden of proving that a layoff or other action that hurts older workers more than others was based not on age but on some other ‘reasonable factor.’”(Meacham vs. Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory)

Also, this ruling by the Supremes “allow(ed) a claimant (or claimants) to recover if it can be shown that an employer used a neutral business practice (not motivated by discriminatory intent) that had an adverse impact on people age 40 and over. The claimant need not establish that the employer intended to discriminate.”(Smith v. City of Jackson)

And in addition to Meacham, this article provides more information on recent Supreme Court decisions in this matter.

The supposed rationale provided here by The Supremes in the Gross case at issue this moment smacks of the same parsimony as that of the Lilly Ledbetter ruling, and it looks like a legislative remedy will be required here also to undue the wrong they committed today.

More Stuff On Iran

I thought this was a good interview of NBC News Correspondent Richard Engel by K.O. last night, with the political background stuff also, of course...

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

...and here's the Rachel Maddow interview with Trita Parsi that I mentioned last night (a lot of replication between the two here, I know).

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Tuesday Stuff

God, you mean all Ensign did was cheat with a woman whom he later fired (here)? He didn't journey into a public restroom in the Minneapolis airport to troll for sex or wear a diaper when consorting with a prostitute? Hey, he's got a "high bar" to meet from his party when it comes to this stuff -- BOOOR-IIING!!...



Update 6/17/09: Or, as Ensign put it, “I believe that marriage should be defined as that between one man and one woman, as well as the campaign staffer married to an employee in my Senate office” (more or less – from here).

Update 6/19/09: Better and better...

...Rachel Maddow interviewed Trita Parsi tonight on the Iran election and the aftermath, by the way - interesting stuff. When the video becomes available, I'll put it up here, but for now...

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

...and if you're talking about a delicate international crisis requiring tact, intelligence and discretion - well, you can always count on the Repugs to Bring On Teh Stupid instead (and Pence wins a free jar of jellybeans for invoking The Sainted Ronnie R - at least he didn't say that Tehran was "like a normal Indiana outdoor market in the summer time" as he did about Baghdad here)...

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

...and as a tribute to Barry Beckett, he of the Muscle Shoals sound, here's the '70s hit "Kodachrome" by Paul Simon (that's Beckett on the piano).



Update 6/22/09: The "wheel of karma" strikes again.

Without Ted, Will Enzi Lead The Charge Against Health Care Instead?

As the typical, inevitable Repug obstruction now begins in earnest on health care legislation, I should say that we shouldn’t be surprised that this is occurring.

However, I should point out that I’m a little surprised by the “point person” in their campaign, who would be Senator Mike Enzi of Wyoming (pictured).

You see, Enzi and Kennedy worked together here on the “Drug Safety Act of 2006,” which, among other things, accomplished the following…

• Establish(ed) a collaboration among the FDA, academic research institutions, and the biomedical research industry to improve the process of drug development and evaluation, and advance the FDA’s Critical Path Initiative;
• Establish(ed) a publicly available database of clinical trials to help enhance patient enrollment in clinical trials of drugs, provide a mechanism to track subsequent progress of trials, and ensure that the results of trials are made public, and that patients, doctors, and pharmacists have the most up-to-date information;
• (Made) improvements to the FDA’s process of screening advisory committee members for financial conflicts of interest to ensure that these committees provide independent expert advice, and to bolster the credibility of the product review process.

The bill also addressed a variety of other issues pertaining to the marketing of drugs, including safety monitoring, risk avoidance, and disclosure of clinical trial results.

And in this matter, Enzi said as follows…

“As Chairman of the (Health, Education, Labor and Pensions) Committee, I am deeply grateful for the cooperation and support of Senator Kennedy, as well as the dozens of stakeholders, who have worked tirelessly to make this bill a reality,” Enzi concluded.

And this tells us that Enzi, also along with Kennedy and former Repug Senator Pete Domenici, passed the Mental Health Parity Act of 2007 through the Senate (it never passed the House and, consequently, never became law). It would have required employers to cover mental disorders with the same health coverage as would be used for those suffering from physical disorders (with child mental disorders alone costing this country about $9 billion annually, as noted here – mental health was a particular cause for Domenici, as noted here Update: I meant to note earlier what the Time story tells us, that the Domenici bill was reintroduced and passed last year).

And on June 4th (concerning the health care legislation), Enzi said the following (from here)…

Senator Michael B. Enzi of Wyoming, the senior Republican on the health committee, said that there were also a lot of areas of agreement. “I think we have been surprised at the amount of agreement there is on a lot of it,” he said, adding, “There are still a lot of areas of disagreement, too. Now Senator Dodd has been given the role of taking the lead in the HELP committee, and I appreciate the way that he is doing that.”

However, on June 9th, we learned this (from here)…

Meanwhile, Enzi criticized the Democrats for trying to push health care reform through on, what they call, an “arbitrary deadline.”

“I am disappointed in the focus that some Democrats have placed on meeting arbitrary deadlines over getting the legislation done right,” Enzi said.

And worst of all, from here (last Sunday)…

The politics are getting uglier by the day as reform moves from abstractions to legislation. Republican leaders have moved into opposition, with moderates whom Obama needs to make the legislation bipartisan, such as Utah's Orrin Hatch and Wyoming's Mike Enzi, ridiculing proposals as "liberal gobbledygook."

All of these histrionics over the public option, cousins (and yes, I realize how ridiculous it is to consider Hatch as a “moderate”).

However, I have to admit that I expected better of Enzi here, someone who has done some legitimate good. Maybe he should stop his current posturing, though, and realize the great existing need for an end to the gamesmanship here.

Were he to do the right thing, I’m sure an elderly politician currently being treated for a life-threatening illness in Massachusetts would be “deeply grateful for (his) cooperation and support,” as would we all.

Update 6/18/09: Oh, and speaking of Hatch, to no one's surprise, he's reading from the same script as Enzi here (NY Times content).

We've Already "Changed The Channel," Dana (update)

(I also posted here, and posting probably won’t happen tomorrow, just to let you know.)

My goodness, is Dana Perino a sourpuss at National Review Online today (here)…

I like a robust debate, and finally we’re starting to see some really good reporting on the merits of the president’s reform proposals. Judging by the reaction, people don’t seem to like what they’re learning. And some may feel like they’ve not been getting the full story about how much the reforms will cost them. Now that that cat’s out of the bag, their skepticism is rising. It’s no wonder the White House wants to open its doors to ABC for a large-scale PR push.

Perhaps ABC will help provide more clarity and “select” people who will ask tough questions; however, no matter how tough the questions are, President Obama will have home-field advantage. And it’s hard not to look like you’re in the tank when you’re anchoring from the Blue Room.

President Obama gets to lead the news with his announcements every night. What might provide a more informed debate would be to use ABC’s considerable resources to go outside the Beltway and Manhattan and see what the rest of America is thinking about health-care reform.

And by the way, I’m not being mean here; in case you thought I was choosing to exclude the portion of the post where Perino provides the background on what she’s talking about, I should let you know that I didn’t, because she didn’t include it.

So I navigated here, and I found out from wankerific Baltimore Sun media pundit David Zurawik that “Primetime” will devote an hour on Wednesday June 24th to the president while he answers questions on health care, with the “health care conversation” continuing on “Nightline.” “Good Morning America” that day will originate from the South Lawn of the White House and will include an exclusive interview with President Obama (and clips of an interview correspondent Robin Roberts conducted with Michelle Obama). Also, Charlie Gibson will broadcast the ABC Evening News that day from the White House “blue room” (Perino referenced that much anyway - at least, as a news reader, it will be impossible for Gibson to ask any questions about the capital gains tax).

So basically, if you love the Obamas, the White House, and the ABC television network, just camp out in front of the tube all day and vegetate with your snack food and beverage of choice. (and oh yes, “Z,” Rachel Maddow only books guests for her show who agree with her – what an asshat; that's in another post today from his blog).

Hell of a bunch of details for Perino to omit, huh?

Update 6/18/09: OK, to be fair, I should note that Zurawik was, once more, trying to draw an equivalency between Rachel Maddow, who actually converses with her guests and, to my knowledge, has never cut off someone’s mic, and a certain falafel-abusing, murder-encouraging Fix Noise talking head whose initials are B. O’R. That is what got me steamed, and it wasn’t accurate for me to summarize this as “Z” saying that Maddow didn’t want to have guests who disagreed with her. Maddow’s point is that she wishes to have substantive discussions with Republican policy makers, assuming that’s possible, not self-anointed spokespeople like Gingrich, Romney, Huckabee, etc. And when anyone on Faux “News” communicates something to that effect, please let me know (I won’t hold my breath). Also, this is the Zurawik post in question that I should have linked to earlier.

Also, I realize I could run with the quote from Perino about her version of “robust debate” within the White House, but I’ll let that go for now because, happily, she and the regime she fronted for are gone.

Instead, I’ll merely point out that Perino’s old boss used the media as much as he could also to forward his own agenda, such as this interview five years after 9/11, in which he STILL made the Iraq/9-11 connection, saying “that we're in– we're in a – a– a major struggle with extremists. You know, when you really think about why would somebody kill 3,000 Americans?”

And he, no doubt, always will.

Oh, and this tells us of the Bush’s 2001 Christmas special, a “behind-the-scenes look at preparations for the holiday transformation of the White House. This year, First Lady Laura Bush chose ‘Home For the Holidays’ as the theme of her first Christmas with President George W. Bush in the White House. The White House Curator, White House Chief Florist and the White House Chief Pastry Chef give viewers an insider's perspective of the days of preparing the ‘People's House’ for the holidays.”

Yeah, I’m sure we got the “full story” on the intricacies of designing table centerpieces so as not to obscure the seasonal poinsettia plants.

And another thing: do you remember that little movie Dubya made (here). In 2004? It was called “Faith In The White House.”

So in terms of a “large-scale PR push,” former President Highest Disapproval Rating In Gallup Poll History wasn’t even satisfied with TV. He needed a damn feature film!

Really, though, all we have here is the typical Bushie whining when they can’t control their precious narrative (or, absent that, the narrative of their party), such as here when well-connected Repug stooge Ed Gillespie whined about NBC’s editing of an interview Bush gave to correspondent Richard Engel.

Also, there's more than a bit of jealousy on display here; this informs us that Obama’s inauguration was the second highest rated in the history of TV inaugural coverage (Reagan’s was the highest), with 37.8 million viewers. Conversely, “the least watched inauguration would be George W. Bush's second one in 2005 that withdrew only 15.5 million.”

Tee hee hee…

Monday Stuff

ZOMG, RUN FOR YOUR LIVES!!! HERE COME THOSE AWFUL DEMOCRATS AND THEIR "SOCIALIZED MEDZIN"! AND RONNIE WARNED US!!!

AND SOYLENT GREEN IS PEOPLE!!!

(Ok, I'm calmed down now - and The Sainted Ronnie R. was "buds" with this guy, let's not forget)...



...and sorry, Holy Joe and Huck (well, actually, I'm not at all)...



..."Worst Persons" (Jonathan Weisman of the Murdoch Street Journal has a con-vee-nient memory lapse as to who exactly it was who took over Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and AIG...I'll give you a hint: it was Number 43; The Doughy Pantload somehow finds an equivalency between liberals calling neocons for what they are and anti-semitism...uh huh; and the city council of Brooksville, FLA gets just a tad bit extreme in their dress code - wearing briefs "on the outside," huh? And yes, I know that part is truly a joke.)...

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

...the only thing dumber than the Brooksville, FLA city council is this vid (I think these guys saw "Magical Mystery Tour" one too many times; and oh yeah, if you play the backwards part at the end backwards, it sounds like "raspberry sauce").

Beck’s Dreck Is A Monday WaPo Waste

Boy, it must’ve been a really slow news day for the WaPo; as noted here, the paper held an online Q&A with Glenn Beck today.

Paris: Should liberals be afraid to say what they believe about the best way forward for the U.S.?

Glenn Beck: No. During the Iraq War, for anyone who cares to know the truth, I was on the air chastising people that were saying that Hollywood should shut up or that if you have a different opinion you should shut up. I was of the opinion that there's nothing wrong with vigorous debate, what George Washington called the "battlefield of opinion."

Here are examples of what Beck considers “vigorous debate” (telling Dem U.S. House Rep Keith Ellison of Minnesota to “prove to me that you’re not working with our enemies,” calling Hillary Clinton a “stereotypical bitch,” discussing the prospect of “nuking the Middle East,” calling those who were unable to leave New Orleans after Katrina hit (or chose to stay) “scumbags,” saying he “hates” the families of 9/11 victims, calling Cindy Sheehan a “tragedy pimp” and “a pretty big prostitute”…need I go on?).

And oh yeah, on the matter of discussing opposing viewpoints on the war, Beck told us the following last year (from here, under the title “Iraq Victory Possible, If We Want It”)…

It seems that for so many in the media and elsewhere, there is an incredible desire to find the negative. It's an unquenchable thirst. How else could an essentially fired former press secretary's questionable claims about the war be more important to cover than improvement in the actual war?

Widely reported or not, we have made great progress.

Terrorism worldwide has decreased by 40 percent since 2001, according to a Canadian study. The Iraqis have gained control of Basra and Sadr City. Iraqi oil outputs have hit a post-war high.

But then again, to be fair, Beck could not have known this when he concocted his propaganda.

Continuing...

Anonymous: What do you think about the current crop of likely Republican presidential contenders for 2012 (e.g. Palin, Gingrich, Romney, Pawlenty, and Sanford)? Which one(s) have common sense?

Glenn Beck: I don't know yet. I haven't seen anybody yet that I totally believe. I don't know if I will. I think America has been burned too many times.

In 2000 I wasn't for George W. Bush, and then I got wrapped up in the whole political party thing, especially after 9/11, and like a lot of people I fought about it with my friend and at parties because I thought the people in Washington really believed what they were saying.

Beck was working at WLFA in Florida in 2000, and I really wasn’t able to find out much of what he did until his show was picked up by WPHT here in Philadelphia (typical). However, as Media Matters notes here, just because he “wasn’t for George W. Bush” in 2000 doesn’t mean he didn’t serve as a Dubya propagandist in 2004.

Bluffton, SC: What specific alternatives to Obama's policies do you propose?

Glenn Beck: I've already given my thoughts on the bailouts. America is built on failure -- we build our success on failure. I don't understand why so many on the left who believe in Darwinism don't let it apply to a business standpoint. Let the banks' lose their tails, they need to. It's harsh and painful, but I don't think any animal lover would be walking around trying to staple tails back on monkeys as they became humans.

As for health care, the idea that my company is going to be taxed higher because I provide coverage for my employees is an insult and should tell you what direction this country is going.

Yeah, maybe, but guess what? “Straight Talk” McCain proposed the same thing during the election last year, as noted here. If you disagree with it, fine, but just note that that’s a bipartisan position.

Meanwhile, I’ll breathlessly await what I hope will be an eventual online Q&A with some other published authors hosted by the Post, namely Markos Moulitsas Zuniga and David Sirota (and I’m sure I’ll KEEP waiting).

I now return you to your regularly scheduled propaganda.

Update: More from this idiot here...

Randall Terry Rides Again

(And I also posted here.)

I put up the “Countdown” video from here last Friday about Randall Terry’s indignation over Judge Sonia Sotomayor’s nomination to the Supreme Court, which he among others has been using to rally “the base” on behalf of his “pro-life” cause.

Well, it turns out that the “Countdown” excerpt was just a prelude to what Terry hopes will be bigger things, based on the rest of his speech (and we’ll be so much the worse off if he turns out to be right).

As noted here, Terry “announced the formation of a new organization to be known as Operation Rescue Insurrecta Nex,” with the Latin phrase translated to “insurrection against death.”

Lovely…

"The freeing moment will come when you decide to take a bullet for this movement," Mr. Terry said in a small ballroom watched over by one security guard. "Then you can't be bullied and intimidated into silence anymore."

…

"My mission is to raise up a new generation," (Terry) said, "to recruit them, train them and unleash them."

He brushes off criticism that activists like him created a climate that goaded the suspect in Dr. (George) Tiller's slaying into action.

"You can't work with me if you can't say abortion is murder and child-killers are murderers," he said. "You've got to be prepared to take the heat over those words. The true terrorists are those who reach into a woman's womb and kill her child."

His opponents "refuse to admit that abortion is the cauldron from which evil flows," he added. "George Tiller reaped what he sowed. He was a murderer."

Randall Terry, judge, jury and executioner, ladies and gentlemen (and just because Alan Keyes happened to be one of the people who showed up for Terry’s little party, that hardly means that these people can be laughed off).

And by the way, Media Matters put together this post four years ago to tell us about more of Terry’s deranged antics (and that was before he compared Obama to the leaders of Nazi Germany here), including the following…

In 2005, he emerged as the spokesman for the parents of the terminally ill Terri Schiavo (that episode, combined with Katrina later that year, marked the beginning of the end of conservative dominance in this country).

In 1993, at an anti-abortion rally in Fort Wayne, Terry said "Our goal is a Christian nation. ... We have a biblical duty, we are called by God to conquer this country. We don't want equal time. We don't want pluralism. ... Theocracy means God rules. I've got a hot flash. God rules." In that same speech, Terry also stated that "If a Christian voted for [former President Bill] Clinton, he sinned against God. It's that simple."

In 1989, a "Holy Week of Rescue" shut down a family planning clinic in Los Angeles. More than 40,000 people were arrested in these demonstrations over four years. Subtlety wasn't Terry's thing -- he described Planned Parenthood's founder, Margaret Sanger, as a "whore" and an "adulteress" and arranged to have a dead fetus presented to Bill Clinton at the 1992 Democratic National Convention.

In 1988, Terry and his legions started standing in front of local abortion clinics, screaming and pleading with pregnant women to turn away. They tossed their bodies against car doors to keep abortion patients from getting out. They waved crucifixes and screamed "Mommy, Mommy" at the women. When Terry commanded, hundreds went jellyfish-limp and blockaded the "death clinics."

And believe me when I tell you that there is much more.

And as dear as my faith is to me, I believe something is very wrong when a Catholic priest, Father John Mikalajunas, can say here that...

"I have known Randall longer than all his accusers... Let us remember that it is the Devil, the father of lies, who is the 'accuser' of the faithful.

"I am happy to declare as a Catholic priest and a proclaimer of the gospel, that Randall Terry is a Catholic Christian in full communion with the Church, and that the statements and insinuations to the contrary should be devoutly ignored by the faithful."

But meanwhile, this guy, for one, can’t even catch a break from his own archbishop because the one-time presidential candidate supports a woman’s right to choose.

I mentioned Judge Sotomayor at the beginning of this post, since, as noted, he is a fresh target for Terry’s outrage. However, I should say that, even though I believe Sotomayor is a fine nominee, if would have been perhaps even more interesting if Obama had nominated Judge Diane Wood, who, as noted here “made use of RICO provisions in dealing with a legal case” against Terry, thus designating Operation Rescue as “an ongoing criminal organization.”

Uh, yep.

Update 7/6/09: God, what a freaking psycho (here).

Sunday Stuff

God, is "Dr. McLaughlin's Gong Show" still on the air? I thought that decrepit staple of the fossilized Beltway punditocracy had been put out of its misery (more fool me, I guess - and Media Matters explains what's wrong with this clip here)...



...and lo, another week beckons.

The Gun Rules Over All

The New York Times tells us the following today (from here – this is a long one)…

Congress has shamefully caved in, yet again, to the gun lobby and abandoned the effort to grant the long-suffering District of Columbia a voting representative in the House. Hopes for passage were high this year, until the historic measure was poisoned in the Senate with an amendment to strip the district’s government of its power to enact responsible gun control laws.

Sadly, the district’s need for strong controls was dramatized Wednesday when a man the authorities identified as a white supremacist opened fire with a rifle and killed a guard at the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum.

The gun lobby galvanized anti-gun control Republicans and timorous Democrats in both houses to stop the representation bill in its tracks. Pleas from district officials about public safety drew no interest from the Senate majority leader, Harry Reid. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi likewise failed to sway Democrats too cowardly to stand up to the gun lobby in next year’s elections.

Most disappointing, President Obama showed no appetite to confront the gun lobby and campaign for a clean bill. He had already signaled his weakness when he signed a credit card reform law that included another senseless gun lobby diktat — to allow people to carry loaded guns in national parks.

Representative Steny Hoyer conceded on Tuesday that the votes for passage had evaporated. He noted disagreement among city officials. Some wanted acceptance of the amended measure because the city’s chance for a voting representative was unlikely to occur again soon.

The net effect is to maintain the district as a laboratory for Congress’s plantation whims. And also, of course, to add swagger to the gun lobby. It does not have nearly the Election Day clout that its supporters, and those who cower before it, fear — but is now free to attach its repressive District of Columbia measure to the next bill that comes along.

All Americans, not just residents of the nation’s capital, should worry that an obeisant Congress and administration has proved no test for the gun lobby’s agenda.

I keep promising myself not to post on this topic, and then events take place in the news or commentary is written that make this issue impossible to ignore.

Before I say anything, though, I should state that I’m not going to use James von Brunn as a launching point for any anti-gun remarks. Yes, his instrument of death was purchased illegally, but he was a product of domestic terrorism, and I think his commitment to kill was such that he would have used any instrument at his disposal to do so (knife, dirty bomb, screwdriver, poison…you name it). Also, Scott Roeder’s affiliation with the “pro life” craziness of Randall Terry and Operation Rescue is the matter at fault in his case.

Maybe I should “back up” first, though, to earlier in this week and communicate the following.

On Tuesday, I put together a post over at the Wordpress site that really wasn’t much of anything, linking to a column by Bob Herbert from April and an article in last week’s People Magazine citing gun violence statistics (Herbert’s column states as follows)…

There is no way to overstate the horror of gun violence in America. Roughly 16,000 to 17,000 Americans are murdered every year, and more than 12,000 of them, on average, are shot to death. This is an insanely violent society, and the worst of that violence is made insanely easy by the widespread availability of guns.

…

Homicides are only a part of the story.

While more than 12,000 people are murdered with guns annually, the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence (using the latest available data) tells us that more than 30,000 people are killed over the course of one typical year by guns. That includes 17,000 who commit suicide, nearly 800 who are killed in accidental shootings and more than 300 killed by the police. (In many of the law enforcement shootings, the police officers are reacting to people armed with guns).

And then there are the people who are shot but don’t die. Nearly 70,000 fall into that category in a typical year, including 48,000 who are criminally attacked, 4,200 who survive a suicide attempt, more than 15,000 who are shot accidentally, and more than 1,000 — many with a gun in possession — who are shot by the police.

The medical cost of treating gunshot wounds in the U.S. is estimated to be well more than $2 billion annually. And the Violence Policy Center, a gun control advocacy group, has noted that nonfatal gunshot wounds are the leading cause of uninsured hospital stays.

The toll on children and teenagers is particularly heartbreaking. According to the Brady Campaign, more than 3,000 kids are shot to death in a typical year. More than 1,900 are murdered, more than 800 commit suicide, about 170 are killed accidentally and 20 or so are killed by the police.

Another 17,000 are shot but survive.

Well, as a result, I received a trickle of comments from gun supporters citing this case for a supposed justification for the claim that the federal government cannot impinge on their personal rights (more from lawyer Adam B here at The Daily Kos; I’ve managed to read about this some more since everything has calmed down for the moment based on what I will describe shortly, though how anyone can claim that a case involving the slaughter of over 100 African Americans by a white mob absolves their actions is something I can’t completely comprehend).

And, foolishly, I responded to a Wordpress-post comment in the Cruikshank case, as well as a study by someone named Gary Kleck claiming that there are about 2 million instances a year of people defending themselves from criminals with their guns (I found a link debunking the study which I published, though another commenter added somewhat testily that further evidence had supported Kreck, though of course there was no link provided to his new evidence; I'm not providing links to this stuff here because it's not my point to rehash this stuff all over again).

I say “foolishly” because, even though I was trying to help the commentary along by saying something about Cruikshank (which was dumb also because I’m hardly a legal expert), the post was about the statistics, and I was expecting a response about that, totally forgetting the “black and white” world in which most gun rights advocates live (based on my experience – probably goes for some gun control supporters also). Basically, the people who comment at the WP site (and mostly here also) on this topic care about absolutely nothing except their right to have any gun they want whenever they want.

Also in response to a comment, I said something along the lines of “don’t bother using these justifications the next time a cop is killed in the line of duty or a child is killed in a schoolyard by stray gunfire from drug dealers.”

And then what happened after that was “through the looking glass.”

One of the commenters must have entered a chat room and told his fellow travelers about the Wordpress post (probably something along the lines of “hey, this anti-gun nut just criticized us; let’s ‘rattle his cage’”) because I noticed that the site hit count skyrocketed (about 400 hits in one hour). I’d like to think that it rose because, spontaneously, huge amounts of people suddenly came to appreciate my brilliant prose, but I know better.

And before I knew it, I had at least 15 extensive comments citing everything from a study in Great Britain about supposed relaxed gun ownership that increased public safety, to Cruikshank again, to other legal minutiae that supposedly enshrined the Second Amendment in their favor (an army of John Lotts, springing up, if you will). There was no possible way I could properly respond to all of the comments (with the tone of them being pretty damn haughty along the lines of “you must not care about public safety,” “funny that you don’t know this,” etc.). And again, since none of them had a damn thing to do with the original post, I just gave up and deleted the post (prompting another round of ad hominem attacks, which I should note that, while also demeaning in their tone, were not actually filled with profanity, so that’s progress of a sort anyway).

(Also, I started getting particularly wingnutty comments to other WP posts, including one about Obama that mentioned his possible assassination. At that point, I shut off comments to all new posts over at WP; I think a “cooling off” period is wise at this point.)

Why exactly am I telling you all this?

Because I’m really fed up with posting on this topic and receiving virtually no support, that’s why.

Bob Herbert and the New York Times editorial board (as well as the Philadelphia Inquirer and Daily News on occasion, truth be told) deserve credit for “beating the drum.” And PA State Representative Dwight Evans does also, as well as Philadelphia Mayor Michael Nutter, for trying to enact sensible gun laws in this area (update: forgot to mention Governor Rendell also). I firmly believe that Pennsylvania should allow Philadelphia the right to regulate usage of firearms within its boundaries, as well as other municipalities in this commonwealth.

And as far as I’m concerned, law enforcement and emergency medical personnel should be leading the call for common-sense gun reforms, and, with the notable exception of Philadelphia DA Lynne Abraham, all I hear on that end is the sound of crickets (any reason why Abraham, Evans and Nutter aren't arguing for more guns, if they thought that would ensure the safety of the citizens of Philadelphia, as well as the police to a greater extent than now?).

Also, forget the politicians on this, except Evans and Nutter. Just forget them. The only other person who has any guts at all on this is U.S. House Rep Carolyn Maloney McCarthy of New York, whose husband was killed by the Long Island gunman years ago (and oh yeah, I once came across an Op-Ed in the Inquirer from PA State Representative Senator Daylin Leach in favor of regulating guns from ’07, I think). And the Brady Campaign and the Coalition to Prevent Gun Violence, of course.

And by the way, don’t even imagine that you’ll be able to leave a comment here supporting gun rights (“criminals don’t obey the law,” “judges should pass harsher sentences,” etc.). The purpose of this post is not to argue pros and cons. That's already occurred on numerous occasions here and at the WP site. I know how I feel and I know how the “pro gun” people feel. I’m not going to change their minds (maybe some discussion about stuff "in the margins" like the Tiahrt Amendment, but that's it), and they sure as hell aren’t going to change mine.

So the next time the media tells us about an incident of gun violence that accidentally takes the life of a promising young scholar or a young cop who is married with three kids and his whole life ahead of him also, just ignore it. There’s no point in shedding tears or feeling any sense of remorse.

It’s just the price tag for living in the United States of America.

Update 6/18/09: And I can hardly wait for John Lott's next Op-Ed in the Inquirer telling us that MORE Uzis would make us safer, in response to this (h/t Atrios).

Update 6/19/09: Progress of a sort anyway (here - registration req'd for this also)...

Update 6/6/11: Thanks for helping the terrorists, wingnuts (here).

Friday Stuff

So Randall Teh-REE is apparently so upset over Judge Sonia Sotomayor that he can’t remember how to pronounce her name…awww, poor widdle thing; take your crying towel with you into the corner, and I’ll send milk and cookies over to you – I’d love to see the Repugs utterly ignore the wise counsel of Jonathan Alter that “demographics is destiny” (and it’s pretty bad when Poppy Bush has to enter the fray and tell everyone who will listen to play nice, but I guess that’s what this is all about)…

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

...and maybe we'll actually see that big yellow ball in the sky this weekend.

Where The Rubber Meets The Road (6/12/09)

As reported in last Sunday's Philadelphia Inquirer, here is how Philadelphia-area members of Congress were recorded on major roll-call votes last week (I don't have much this week, but here it is).

House

Family leave. Voting 258-154, the House passed a bill (HR 626) providing federal employees with additional benefits under the Family and Medical Leave Act. The bill would entitle civil servants to four to eight weeks of paid leave to care for a newly born, adopted, or fostered child. Such leave is now available to civil servants without pay. The bill awaits Senate action.

A yes vote was to pass the bill.

Voting yes: John Adler (D., N.J.), Robert E. Andrews (D., N.J.), Robert A. Brady (D., Pa.), Michael N. Castle (R., Del.), Chaka Fattah (D., Pa.), Tim Holden (D., Pa.), Frank A. LoBiondo (R., N.J.), Patrick Murphy (D., Pa.), Allyson Y. Schwartz (D., Pa.), Joe Sestak (D., Pa.), and Christopher H. Smith (R., N.J.).

Voting no: Charles W. Dent (R., Pa.), Jim Gerlach (R., Pa.), and Joseph R. Pitts (R., Pa.).

I guess the hope here is that states will follow the lead of the feds on this and allow the additional paid time also, but I wouldn’t count on that.

GOP leave plan. Voting 157-258, the House defeated a Republican amendment to strip HR 626 (above) of its new category of paid leave. Instead, federal workers could use accrued sick leave to care for new family members.

A yes vote backed the GOP plan.

Voting yes: Castle, Dent, Gerlach, and Pitts.

Voting no: Adler, Andrews, Brady, Fattah, Holden, LoBiondo, Murphy, Schwartz, Sestak, and Smith.

Transportation security. Voting 397-25, the House approved a two-year budget of $15.7 billion for the Transportation Security Administration. The bill (HR 2200) awaits Senate action.

A yes vote was to pass the bill.

Voting yes: Andrews, Brady, Castle, Dent, Gerlach, Holden, LoBiondo, Murphy, Pitts, Schwartz, Sestak, and Smith.

Not voting: Adler and Fattah.

Senate

Federal tobacco regulation. Voting 84-11, the Senate agreed to take up a House-passed bill (HR 1256) that would begin federal regulation of tobacco products. Under the bill, the Food and Drug Administration would regulate cigarette ingredients; require public disclosure of those ingredients; restrain cigarette marketing to children; require health warnings to cover at least half of each side of a cigarette package; and require manufacturers to verify health claims.

A yes vote was to begin debate.

Voting yes: Thomas Carper (D., Del.), Bob Casey (D., Pa.), Ted Kaufman (D., Del.), Frank Lautenberg (D., N.J.), Robert Menendez (D., N.J.), and Arlen Specter (D., Pa.).

And here is an update – look for this to be signed into law at long last (and never forget the 1994 sham perpetrated by these white-collar criminals seen below, claiming that cigarettes weren’t addictive when their own studies had been telling them that it was for at least the last 30 years!).

This week, the House debated foreign policy and special aid to Pakistan, while the Senate resumed (and concluded) debate on tobacco regulation. Both chambers were scheduled to vote on a $91.3 billion bill to fund war and foreign affairs through Sept. 30.

Some Friday Funnies (6/12/09)

Oh, is Christine Flowers a hoot today, everybody (from here)…

I DIDN'T kill George Tiller.

Neither did Bill O'Reilly, Randall Terry, Pope Benedict or the little old lady praying the rosary outside Planned Parenthood.

So to all of the pro-choice advocates and their sympathizers in the media, drop the collective guilt trip, OK? Because the myth that the pro-life movement bears any responsibility for Tiller's death is on par with the fairy tale that most abortions are performed to protect a woman's health.

I’ll give Flowers $20 to repeat those very words to workers and patients at a Planned Parenthood clinic of her choice (I live on a low budget – that’s the best I can do).

And do you want to know the really amusing part? No comments were allowed for a response.

BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!

Today’s Washington Times (usually referred to as the “Moonie Times” because it’s owned by this guy) tells us this (along with some truly wretched anti-Clinton lies about 9/11, of course)…

Osama bin Laden, you have the right to remain silent. You have the right to an attorney, and if you cannot afford one, an attorney will be provided. Do you understand these rights?

Well, we don't.

During a visit to Afghanistan, Rep. Mike Rogers, Michigan Republican, witnessed captured foreign fighters being read Miranda warnings. The Justice Department says this is done "to preserve the quality of evidence obtained." The practice began during the Bush years when congressional challenges to the administration's detainee policy required building criminal cases using "clean" evidence that could stand up in U.S. courts.

OK, now for the reality-based point of view, we have this…

Any random news article normally prompts wing-nuts to come out and start preaching their shock and outrage if it's something they can use as an attack against the opposing party. In comes the Weekly Standard report that claims that the Obama administration has secretly been mirandizing detainees in Afghanistan.

Well General Petraeus quickly dismissed that report as false while giving his keynote speech this morning at the Center for a New American Security conference.

“The real rumor yesterday is whether our forces were reading Miranda rights to detainees and the answer to that is no,” Petraeus said today.

I guess this is typical for Rogers (pictured), a “closet teabagger,” as noted here (hat tip to the blog "Mr. Rogers’ Neighborhood").

The New York Times gave column space to Iran-Contra criminal and longtime neocon Elliott Abrams today (here), and he told us the following about the elections in Lebanon and Iran (this excerpt pertains to the former)…

Hezbollah’s inability to win support outside its Shiite base, along with the poor showing of its Christian ally, Gen. Michel Aoun, leaves Sheik Nasrallah diminished and less able to drag Lebanon into another war with Israel. He will play hardball, no doubt, in the negotiations over the next Lebanese government, and he retains the ability to take over downtown Beirut as he did in May 2008. But such displays of power were apparently the exact kind of thing that turned off swing voters — mostly Christians — and Hezbollah now uses them at its political peril.

However…

We should not idealize Lebanon’s election, nor its politics.

Gee, do you think that’s the case maybe because of this?

And yes, I know you can’t really measure the impact of Obama’s speech, but Dubya’s “our way or the highway” rhetoric helped cement the support of Ahmadinejad in Iran, Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in the Palestinian territories…just sayin’.

I guess the part here that’s humorous is the fact that Abrams is considered to have enough foreign policy “cred” to write unbiased on anywhere in the world, particularly a region as full of strife as the one he’s opining on today.

And finally, here is an Op-Ed for the L.A. Times written by Bill Maher that I thought was pretty amusing (something legitimately funny…I think Obama is following through in mostly good ways, but Maher makes a point with some of the jibes).

(And to be briefly serious, I’d like to suggest a “New Rule” for Maher; wingnuts who, by virtue of their written or spoken words as well as their actions, end up providing some flimsy – albeit utterly twisted – rationale for murder aimed at their objects of hate, don’t have any right to blame those with whom they disagree for the horrible, violent outcomes that inevitably ensue…Paul Krugman had a thing or two to say about that here today.)

Update: And by the way, do you want to know what else is funny? CNN actually considers the items I highlighted to be news.

OK, maybe Poppy Bush's skydive is news after all - I'll give you that.