Republicans for rape

I'd say they had some explaining to do, but perhaps it isn't necessary. There's enough in the fact that 30 Republican Senators thought that legalized gang rape was preferable to "government interference" and punishing it is an offense against the sanctity of the employment contract, particularly those of government contractors owned by prominent Republicans.

30 Republican Senators voted against Senator Al Franken's "anti-rape" amendment to the Department of Defense Appropriations Act. We have no way of explaining, other than to assume these Senators owe more to KBR than to their constituents or to their sense of morality, because they won't tell us why.

I don't think we need an explanation. I think we can assume that if we allow employees of KBR, for instance, to sue their employers if they are raped on the job, by company employees in company facilities. it might cost the owners of Senators too much money.

Fortunately a majority of us voted for Democrats last year - not that they're all saintly Senators either - but at least they weren't ready to support the validity of employment contracts wherein a 19 year old like Jamie Leigh Jones can inadvertently sign away her body for the recreational use of criminals. Perhaps some of them just have daughters, but in any event, a somewhat watered down version of the amendment was passed and signed into law by President Obama in what will surely be explained, like everything he does, as an act of Kenyan Marxist Fascism worthy of Pol Pot and Adolph Hitler.

The 30 Republicans who want to kidnap and rape your daughters is a group with many familiar names. We've all heard them tell us all about morality and family values and our Christian heritage. If you're a Republican, perhaps that won't puzzle you. If you have however, some basic respect for morality and law and any kind of human values, you'll want to look at the list and remember when it comes time for that grand reconquista in 2010 they're pretending is a sure thing.

Rep. Anthony Weiner Wants To Chat

Or so he says, and you betcha (thanks, Sarah) I'm not going to miss the opportunity. Thought you may want to take advantage of it, too. The man wants to know how I/we feel -- so let's tell him.

Here is his message:

Dear Elizabeth,

I am deeply disappointed with the lost opportunities and capitulation in the health care bill the Senate will vote on later this week. And I know we are all upset with the Senate proposal.

I believe that we have a real chance to curb health care costs and provide affordable coverage to everyone. And we're all frustrated that the Senate has chosen not to act boldly, but to instead bend to the will of a small minority who do not want to see real reform.

As I wrote you last week, it's important to me to hear directly from you during this frustrating time. Please join me for a live online chat on Tuesday, December 22nd, at 7:00 PM EST at countdowntohealthcare.com/chat/.

We can discuss what's happening in the Senate and talk about what the rest of the process will look like, from a full Senate vote, to the conference committee that will reconcile the House and Senate bills.

I want to answer your questions, but I also want to know how you feel. I still believe that we should remain at the table until this process is over, but it's important to me to hear what you think.

I know that many of us are upset that just a few senators have managed to stand in the way of real progress on health care. But now is a time for us to talk, keep the conversation alive, and figure out what we can do to help advance the cause of quality, affordable health care in America.

I look forward to chatting with you on Tuesday, December 22nd at 7:00 PM EST at countdowntohealthcare.com/chat/.

Thanks,
Anthony.

Misinformer Of The Year

Media Matters names Glenn Beck "misinformer of the year:"

Tweet Tweet

In the winter, Florida sees countless twittering things with small brains, perching on power lines and trees, circling overhead and grazing my lawn looking for lizards and bugs. Of course, even a hundred years ago there were so many they would darken the sky, but we've hunted some to extinction, rendered many species endangered by draining the everglades to grow sugar and by poisoning the waters with pesticides, fertilizers, oil and heavy metals. All over the world, nature as we once knew it is in retreat, from the rain forests of the Amazon to the melting tundra and retreating glaciers. Even the birds know it and we all know who's to blame. It's not the birds.

Well, not all of us. Sarah Palin insults the intelligence of most twittering things by claiming that man can't influence or change "nature's ways" and is arrogant to think so. Yes, that's OK, speechlessness is a normal reaction to such idiocy. What can you call it but idiocy and what can you call it but arrogance to assert that the magical powers of God will steadily restore the countless square miles of ocean bottom scraped bare by drag nets, restore the countless miles of coral bleached by growing acidity and reanimate the countless species disappearing at an accelerating rate? And what is arrogance, after all, but making grand statements about nature without any knowledge whatever having to do with atmospheric and oceanographic sciences, geology, physics, chemistry or in fact, any damned thing but talking in tongues and burning witches?

"arrogant&naive2say man overpwers nature" tweets the idiot Palin.

The painful irony of course, is not that man is part of nature and man is changing the world in many, many obvious and quantifiable ways. It's not just that we've disassembled the building blocks of matter, decoded the blueprints for life, unravelled the history of the universe -- the irony is that it may be arrogant to say that we can ever overpower stupidity, cupidity, stone age superstition and the crackpot politics that eats away at America like a cancer.

Worthwhile perspectives on the Senate bill

Professor Jacob Hacker, the "godfather of the public option", and Senator Al Franken explain why they support passage of the Senate bill, even weakened as it is. Both found via Oliver Willis, who has consistently been a good source of blogger coverage and analysis on this issue -- Liberal Values has been another. And don't forget Paul Krugman. Update: The AMA comes out in support too.

Hey, all forty Republicans still voted against the thing -- there must be some good in it!

(Cross-posted from my home blog.)

Health Insurance Reform Winners and Losers

Who wins, who loses in Senate health bill

By Erica Werner, AP

WASHINGTON – The little town of Libby, Mont., isn't mentioned by name in the Senate's mammoth health care bill, but its 2,900 citizens are big winners in the legislation, thanks to the influence of Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, D-Mont.

After pushing for years for help for residents, many of whom suffer from asbestos-related illnesses from a now-closed mineral mining operation, Baucus inserted language in a package of last-minute amendments that grants them access to Medicare benefits.

He didn't advertise the change, and it takes a close read of the bill to find it. It's just one example of how the sweeping legislation designed to remake the U.S. health care system and extend coverage to 30 million uninsured Americans also helps and hurts more narrow interests, often thanks to one lawmaker with influence or bargaining power.

Continue.

====

How outrageous is it that Baucus et al. deemed all citizens of that small town worthy of Medicare benefits, but not the rest of us? Are some people better than others? More deserving of affordable health care than others?

Read the whole piece -- it's pretty disturbing, even though it's only a glimpse of the winners and losers in this debacle. Without a doubt, there are more eyebrow-raising revelations included in the bill. Like insurance coverage for prayer.

It also shows that -- surprise, surprise -- if there is a will, there is a way. If an obstinate senator wants to squeeze favorable provisions for his "special interests," it can be done, even if it flies in the face of decency, equality, and/or common sense.

So why can't the so-called progressives insist on such concessions on behalf of ALL American people?

Is this really too much to ask?

HARASSED WOMEN

There is an insidious and dangerous pattern of harassment against women in the Middle East that is reaching critical proportions, mostly because:

“…that harassment was unchecked across the region because laws don't punish it, women don't report it and the authorities ignore it.”

That is the conclusion from a panel of activists after a 2 day conference in Cairo to discuss this alarming trend. The full article is HERE.

No matter how demurely they are dressed or whether they have children in tow, women who venture into the streets are subjected to sexual harassment, including groping and verbal abuse.

The problem seems to encompass most nations of the Middle East, including Syria, Yemen and Egypt.

“Participants at the conference said men are threatened by an increasingly active female labor force, with conservatives laying the blame for harassment on women's dress and behavior.”

“In Yemen, where nearly all women are covered from head to toe, activist Amal Basha said 90 percent of women in a published study reported harassment, specifically pinching.”

"The religious leaders are always blaming the women, making them live in a constant state of fear because out there, someone is following them," she said.”

“If a harassment case is reported in Yemen, Basha added, traditional leaders interfere to cover it up, remove the evidence or terrorize the victim.”

There is a campaign of systematic terrorizing and unrelenting harassment aimed against Arab women that has largely been ignored or covered up for years.

Women have had no place to turn, no one to help them. But that is changing with the formation of The Alliance For Arab Women which is spearheading projects to change the course of women’s lives in Arab nations.

We need to let these women know we support them and that they will not be forgotten by drawing attention to their plight every chance we get.

Would You Vote For This Bill?

That's the question Bill Moyers poses to Matt Taibbi and Robert Kuttner on his "Journal."

Taibbi answers "No." Kuttner says, "I would hold my nose and pass it."

Watch the video (and weep -- and/or bang your head against the wall).

The Bill

If you haven't seen Keith Olbermann's recent interview with Wendell Potter, discussing the benefits for the medical-insurance industry coming from the current Senate health care bill, here it is.

Informative and worth watching:

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Only in America -- or, "I Told You So!"

On PBS News last night, Mr. The-Strangest-Name-Outside-of-Porn-Business Axelrod (and doesn't he look the part, too?) waxed semi-poetic on the virtues of the health care reform bill that is going to be (i.e., may be) voted on before Christmas. Axelrod assured us so.

And he added, causing a massive jaw drop in yours truly, that this is the most progressive piece of legislation -- I'm not sure if he said in a long time, or ever, because at that very moment the downward pull of my jaw created an unbearable pressure in my ears, which resulted in a deafening POP! Thus I missed the Axelrod's qualifer for his self-serving assertion.

As I was picking my jaw off the floor and trying to jump on one foot to restore my hearing (an old Polish folk remedy), I pondered, as it's customary during such complex acrobatics, the sad absurdity of his statement.

Only in America this colossal transfer of the poor, huddled masses to the greedy paws of the private insurance cartel could be called the most progressive piece of legislation, whether in the recent years, or ever.

Only in this world, where rabid capitalism defines who we are and how we treat each other, we can have a presidential adviser state with a straight face that this is something we should all look forward to and be proud of.

Only in this strange country of ours, up is down and black is white. I thought I've seen everything under the communism, where the propagandist double-speak ruled the day and we learned early on to make fun of anything coming out of the politicians' mouths (because whatever it was, it had zero resemblance to reality). That was before I moved to USA where the wonders of absurdity never cease to amaze me. Commies had nothing on the corporatist propaganda -- the pinkos' attempts at shaping the minds and hearts, that was a child's play. This, here, in the US, this is the real mind-boggling (literally) deal.

But back to the miracle at hand, a.k.a. this most progressive piece of propag... I mean, legislation. Let's take a quick stroll down the memory lane.

First, Barack Obama said that a single-payer health care is the best solution to our health care woes. He was right, of course, but that was years ago, before he ran for President and he could afford to both say the truth and be right. Then, as the candidate-Obama, he insisted that a robust public option and drug price controls would be necessary to introduce any meaningful changes to this broken system.

Next, he started to remind us not to get our panties in a bunch over such an insignificant sliver of the health care reform as the public option, and he struck a quiet, behind closed doors deal with PhRMA promising them not to touch their God-given right to super duper profits garnered from the Americans' suffering. That was when he was already President. At the same time, he and his people told us that things will be just fine, not to worry. He said that we will have a uniquely American health care system.

Little we knew then what he meant, but, as I (and others) frantically kept pointing out, the signs of things to come were already there, for all to see (should all wanted to keep their eyes open). One of the sure giveaways about the real scope of this "reform" was the change of language: some time in the summer, the White House talk switched from discussing health care reform to health insurance reform. Yes, we've noticed and we told you so. (I told you so is the phrase my husband uses with abandon when I rant about the "reform." I'm just passing it on, is all. Call it the giving spirit of Christmas, or something.)

(BTW, if you'd like to take a moment to bang your head against the wall at any time, please feel free to do so. It is the only thing any rational person would be expected to do in these circumstances.)

As of today, there is no public option, the Medicare expansion plan was killed (thanks, pouty Joe), no drug price controls in sight, no cost controls to speak of, and, of course, no competition for the private insurance companies who are also exempt from antitrust laws. And as if that was not enough, there is an extra slap in the progressive faces coming in the form of the scrapped abortion provision in the bill. So is this the most progressive piece of legislation or what?

Sorry, Mr. Axelrod, it's not even close -- unless you redefine progressive ASAP (preferably while jumping on one foot and banging your head against the wall; harder, please).

But not all is grim news. There is a bright side: Christmas arrived early for the medical-insurance cartel this year. Can you hear the bells ringing? It's Santa Claus coming to Cigna, Wellpoint, United Healthcare and all the naughty boys and girls from The Outfit, bearing things glittery and nice -- and lots of them, too, something like 30+ million. Oh, and the insurance stocks are soaring.

So rejoice, all ye faithful -- joyful and triumphant, The Outfit will show us the way, first to servitude, and then to bankruptcy, or maybe the other way around, not that it matters.

Merry... whatever.

Cross-posted at The Middle of Nowhere.