And yet another reason why the FDA needs to get back to its mission

It's too expensive to do otherwise. This new study shows how expensive it is for consumers. The Republicans always love to talk about the high cost of regulations and oversight for business but they conveniently forget about the cost to everyone else. Sure business wants to cut costs but as this study shows, the costs are pushed out to others. Obama has been moving the FDA in the right direction and Democrats in Congress have been leading the way since coming back into power but there's more to be done.

Food-borne illnesses, such as E. coli and salmonella, cost the United States $152 billion annually in health care and other losses, according to a report released Wednesday by a food safety group.

The report comes as the U.S. Senate considers legislation that would require more government inspections of food manufacturers and give the Food and Drug Administration new authority to order recalls, among other things. The House passed a similar bill last year.

The government estimates 76 million people each year are sickened by food-borne illness, hundreds of thousands are hospitalized and about 5,000 die. Recent outbreaks have resulted in large recalls of peanuts, spinach and peppers.

Read More......

Name & Shame: 10 worst companies to work for women

Overall, the corporate world has been slow to bring women into upper management but some companies are obviously worse than others. As this article says, why is the US government doing so much business with one particular company that has such a horribly poor record on hiring women? If ever there was an instance where the government could use it's purchasing power to bring a business into the modern era, it's here. 24/7 Wall Street:

The companies on the 24/7 Wall St. Worst Places for Women to Work list have no women on their boards and no women in senior management. Any company on the list would have to: 1) completely lack sensitivity to the issues of women in the work place, or 2) have enough misgivings about women to insure that all the people who have any meaningful place in running their companies have to be men. It is hard to say whether these companies are “female-free” at the top tiers because of misogyny or dull-wittedness. The practice of equal opportunity is missing at all of these companies.

Our analysis makes an assumption, but we believe it is a fair one. A company with no women on its board or in senior management is extremely unlikely to be concerned about the issue of disparity in pay by gender and is likely to perform worse than the national census average in terms of what it pays its non-executive female management and its women rank-and-file employees.

Read More......

Larry Summers gently asks Wall Street to accept reform

If only this wasn't a joke. Summers made millions working for Wall Street so it shouldn't be too much of a surprise that he's still in the "asking nicely" phase. One needs to keep those job options open for the future, after all.

He asked leaders of business and public policy at the Citizens Budget Commission's fundraiser in New York to accept the role of government in preparing for and responding to crisis. Business should support, rather than thwart the government in its efforts, he said.

"A strong government (that) responds to market failures, provides social protection regulates potential abuses and supports economic conditions is undeniably in the long-run interest of business," he said.

While Summers said he understood business antipathy, "history teaches us that active government is a necessary force," he added.

Read More......

Starbucks holds firm on pro gun stance

Gutless. So what exactly is their policy for "threatening situations" as they call them? Calling the police after someone has been shot or is it direct dial to the city morgue?

Coffee chain Starbucks Corp. is sticking to its policy of letting customers carry guns where it's legal and said it does not want to be put in the middle of a larger gun-control debate.

The company's statement, issued Wednesday, stems from recent campaign by some gun owners, who have walked into Starbucks and other businesses to test state laws that allow gun owners to carry weapons openly in public places. Gun control advocates have protested.

Read More......

Rush Limbaugh's hideous NY apartment is up for sale

Being the son/grandson of modest Greek immigrants, on moving to the east coast I never quite understood the term "new money." I think I finally do. Gawker has much more.


Someone grab a towel, Marie Antoinette just threw up in the bedroom! Read More......

Secret RNC fundraising plan depicts Obama, Reid, Pelosi sending America into 'Socialism,' targets 'ego-driven' wealthy donors

UPDATE: I just found this on page 31 of the secret RNC fundraising plan. They made a photo of Obama as the joker (not sure painting a black man in white face is entirely wise) and under Obama's face wrote the word "Socialism." That alone deserves an apology from Michael Steele directly to the President.



From Ben Smith:

The Republican National Committee plans to raise money this election cycle through an aggressive campaign capitalizing on “fear” of President Barack Obama and a promise to "save the country from trending toward socialism."

The strategy was detailed in a confidential party fundraising presentation, obtained by POLITICO, which also outlines how “ego-driven” wealthy donors can be tapped with offers of access and “tchochkes.”

The presentation was delivered by RNC Finance Director Rob Bickhart to top donors and fundraisers at a party retreat in Boca Grande, Florida on February 18, a source at the gathering said.

The presentation explains the Republican fundraising in simple terms.

"What can you sell when you do not have the White House, the House, or the Senate...?" it asks.

The answer: "Save the country from trending toward Socialism!”

The small donors who are the targets of direct marketing are described under the heading “Visceral Giving.” Their motivations are listed as “fear;” “Extreme negative feelings toward existing Administration;” and “Reactionary.”

Major donors, by contrast, are treated in a column headed “Calculated Giving.”

Their motivations include: “Peer to Peer Pressure”; “access”; and “Ego-Driven.”

And just an aside. I've been arguing for a good year that the Democrats need to nip this "socialism" crap in the bud. The Republicans have taken a bizarre slur and made it real for many people. It's sick, and it's crazy. And when you don't respond, it gets worse.

UPDATE: Statement from DNC Communications Director Brad Woodhouse on RNC Fund Raising Document

If you had any doubt, any doubt whatsoever, that the Republican Party has been taken over by the fear-mongering lunatic fringe, those doubts were erased today. The Republican Party, which barely 20 percent of Americans will even admit they belong to anymore, seems hell bent on damaging their battered brand even further by engaging in the most despicable kind of imagery, tactics and rhetoric imaginable. This type of politics at all cost approach to our public discourse is what the American people are sick and tired of – and if anyone thinks this wasn’t approved of or signed off on at the highest levels they are kidding themselves. Republicans across the country have cheered on crowds where these very images appeared, they’ve encouraged and perpetuated scandalous lies about the President and his plans. And, from calling for secession to condoning violence against government officials they have sunk to new and unbelievable lows.

It’s no wonder the RNC reacted with alarm when they learned the American people would see this presentation. This revealing document proves what the Republican party has long denied. But now, by their own admission, the express strategy of the Republican party is not to offer new ideas, but ‘fear.’ Republicans can no longer deny that they are peddling fear when they are literally selling it as their path back to power. It is a sad commentary on the state of the Republican Party that, devoid of ideas and solutions to our nation’s problems, problems created on their watch, that they would resort to these type of tactics. It’s sad. But true.

Read More......

I say this sincerely, from the bottom of my heart. No one, and I mean NO ONE, wants to see Rush Limbaugh bend over.

Read More......

GOP falsely claiming that reconciliation can only be used when there's broad bipartisan support - not true

A friend writes:

1) 1995: The Balanced Budget Act of 1995 Passed Congress Through Reconciliation Before Being Vetoed By President Clinton. In November 1995, the Senate voted on the Balanced Budget Act Of 1995, which passed Congress through reconciliation before being vetoed by President Clinton. The vote in the Senate was 52-47. At the time, Republicans controlled the Senate. Senate Vote #584, 11/17/95

2) 1999: The Taxpayer Refund and Relief Act of 1999 Passed Congress Through Reconciliation Before Being Vetoed By President Clinton. In August 1999, the Senate voted on the Taxpayer Refund and Relief Act of 1999, which passed Congress through reconciliation before being vetoed by President Clinton. The vote in the Senate was 50-49, with one Senator not voting. At the time, Republicans controlled the Senate. Senate Vote #261, 8/5/99

3) 2000: The Marriage Tax Penalty Relief Reconciliation Act of 2000 Passed Congress Through Reconciliation Before Being Vetoed By President Clinton. In July 2000, the Senate voted on the Marriage Tax Penalty Relief Reconciliation Act Of 2000, which passed Congress through reconciliation before being vetoed by President Clinton. The vote in the Senate was 60-34, with five Senators not voting. At the time, Republicans controlled the Senate. Senate Vote #226, 7/21/00

4) 2001: Conference Report on the 2001 Bush Tax Cuts Was Passed Using Reconciliation. In May 2001, the Senate voted on the conference report on the first round of Bush tax cuts, which was passed using reconciliation. The vote in the Senate was 58-33, with two Senators voting ‘present’ and seven not voting. At the time, Republicans controlled the Senate. Senate Vote #170, 5/26/01

5) 2003: Conference Report on the 2003 Bush Tax Cuts Was Passed Using Reconciliation. In May 2003, the Senate voted on the conference report on the second round of Bush tax cuts, which was passed using reconciliation. The vote in the Senate was 50-50, with the Vice President voting ‘Yea’ as the tie-breaking vote. At the time, Republicans controlled the Senate. Senate Vote #196, 5/23/03

6) 2005: Conference Report on the Deficit Reduction Act Of 2005 Was Passed Using Reconciliation. In December 2005, the Senate voted on the conference report on the Deficit Reduction Act, which was passed using reconciliation. The vote in the Senate was 50-50, with the Vice President voting ‘Yea’ as the tie-breaking vote. At the time, Republicans controlled the Senate. Senate Vote #363, 12/21/05

7) 2006: Conference Report on the Tax Relief Extensions Reconciliation Act of 2005 Was Passed Using Reconciliation. In May 2006, the Senate voted on the conference report on the Tax Relief Extension Reconciliation Act of 2005, which was passed using reconciliation. The vote in the Senate was 54-44, with two Senators not voting. At the time, Republicans controlled the Senate. Senate Vote #118, 5/11/06

They just make stuff up. Read More......

Text of Obama's health care reform speech

Remarks of President Barack Obama on Health Insurance Reform
Wednesday, March 3, 2010
Washington, DC

Good afternoon. We began our push to reform health insurance last March with the doctors and nurses who know the system best, and so it is fitting to be joined by all of you as we bring this journey to a close.

Last Thursday, I spent seven hours at a summit where Democrats and Republicans engaged in a public and substantive discussion about health care. This meeting capped off a debate that began with a similar summit nearly one year ago. Since then, every idea has been put on the table. Every argument has been made. Everything there is to say about health care has been said and just about everyone has said it. So now is the time to make a decision about how to finally reform health care so that it works, not just for the insurance companies, but for America’s families and businesses.

Where both sides say they agree is that the status quo is not working for the American people. Health insurance is becoming more expensive by the day. Families can’t afford it. Businesses can’t afford it. The federal government can’t afford it. Smaller businesses and individuals who don’t get coverage at work are squeezed especially hard. And insurance companies freely ration health care based on who’s sick and who’s healthy; who can pay and who can’t.

Democrats and Republicans agree that this is a serious problem for America. And we agree that if we do nothing – if we throw up our hands and walk away – it’s a problem that will only grow worse. More Americans will lose their family’s health insurance if they switch jobs or lose their job. More small businesses will be forced to choose between health care and hiring. More insurance companies will deny people coverage who have preexisting conditions, or drop people’s coverage when they get sick and need it most. And the rising cost of Medicare and Medicaid will sink our government deeper and deeper into debt. On all of this we agree.

So the question is, what do we do about it?

On one end of the spectrum, there are some who have suggested scrapping our system of private insurance and replacing it with government-run health care. Though many other countries have such a system, in America it would be neither practical nor realistic.

On the other end of the spectrum, there are those, including most Republicans in Congress, who believe the answer is to loosen regulations on the insurance industry – whether it’s state consumer protections or minimum standards for the kind of insurance they can sell. I disagree with that approach. I’m concerned that this would only give the insurance industry even freer rein to raise premiums and deny care.

I don’t believe we should give government bureaucrats or insurance company bureaucrats more control over health care in America. I believe it’s time to give the American people more control over their own health insurance. I don’t believe we can afford to leave life-and-death decisions about health care to the discretion of insurance company executives alone. I believe that doctors and nurses like the ones in this room should be free to decide what’s best for their patients.

The proposal I’ve put forward gives Americans more control over their health care by holding insurance companies more accountable. It builds on the current system where most Americans get their health insurance from their employer. If you like your plan, you can keep your plan. If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. Because I can tell you that as the father of two young girls, I wouldn’t want any plan that interferes with the relationship between a family and their doctor.

Essentially, my proposal would change three things about the current health care system:

First, it would end the worst practices of insurance companies. No longer would they be able to deny your coverage because of a pre-existing condition. No longer would they be able to drop your coverage because you got sick. No longer would they be able to force you to pay unlimited amounts of money out of your own pocket. No longer would they be able to arbitrarily and massively raise premiums like Anthem Blue Cross recently tried to do in California. Those practices would end.

Second, my proposal would give uninsured individuals and small business owners the same kind of choice of private health insurance that Members of Congress get for themselves. Because if it’s good enough for Members of Congress, it’s good enough for the people who pay their salaries. The reason federal employees get a good deal on health insurance is that we all participate in an insurance marketplace where insurance companies give better rates and coverage because we give them more customers. This is an idea that many Republicans have embraced in the past. And my proposal says that if you still can’t afford the insurance in this new marketplace, we will offer you tax credits to do so – tax credits that add up to the largest middle class tax cut for health care in history. After all, the wealthiest among us can already buy the best insurance there is, and the least well-off are able to get coverage through Medicaid. But it’s the middle-class that gets squeezed, and that’s who we have to help.

Now, it’s true that all of this will cost money – about $100 billion per year. But most of this comes from the nearly $2 trillion a year that America already spends on health care. It’s just that right now, a lot of that money is being wasted or spent badly. With this plan, we’re going to make sure the dollars we spend go toward making insurance more affordable and more secure. We’re also going to eliminate wasteful taxpayer subsidies that currently go to insurance and pharmaceutical companies, set a new fee on insurance companies that stand to gain as millions of Americans are able to buy insurance, and make sure the wealthiest Americans pay their fair share of Medicare.

The bottom line is, our proposal is paid for. And all new money generated in this plan would go back to small businesses and middle-class families who can’t afford health insurance. It would lower prescription drug prices for seniors. And it would help train new doctors and nurses to provide care for American families.

Finally, my proposal would bring down the cost of health care for millions – families, businesses, and the federal government. We have now incorporated most of the serious ideas from across the political spectrum about how to contain the rising cost of health care – ideas that go after the waste and abuse in our system, especially in programs like Medicare. But we do this while protecting Medicare benefits, and extending the financial stability of the program by nearly a decade.

Our cost-cutting measures mirror most of the proposals in the current Senate bill, which reduces most people’s premiums and brings down our deficit by up to $1 trillion over the next two decades. And those aren’t my numbers – they are the savings determined by the CBO, which is the Washington acronym for the nonpartisan, independent referee of Congress.

So this is our proposal. This is where we’ve ended up. It’s an approach that has been debated and changed and I believe improved over the last year. It incorporates the best ideas from Democrats and Republicans – including some of the ideas that Republicans offered during the health care summit, like funding state grants on medical malpractice reform and curbing waste, fraud, and abuse in the health care system. My proposal also gets rid of many of the provisions that had no place in health care reform – provisions that were more about winning individual votes in Congress than improving health care for all Americans.

Now, despite all that we agree on and all the Republican ideas we’ve incorporated, many Republicans in Congress just have a fundamental disagreement over whether we should have more or less oversight of insurance companies. And if they truly believe that less regulation would lead to higher quality, more affordable health insurance, then they should vote against the proposal I’ve put forward.

Some also believe that we should instead pursue a piecemeal approach to health insurance reform, where we just tinker around the edges of this challenge for the next few years. Even those who acknowledge the problem of the uninsured say that we can’t afford to help them – which is why the Republican proposal only covers three million uninsured Americans while we cover over 31 million. But the problem with that approach is that unless everyone has access to affordable coverage, you can’t prevent insurance companies from denying coverage based on pre-existing conditions; you can’t limit the amount families are forced to pay out of their own pockets; and you don’t do anything about the fact that taxpayers end up subsidizing the uninsured when they’re forced to go to the Emergency Room for care. The fact is, health reform only works if you take care of all these problems at once.

Both during and after last week’s summit, Republicans in Congress insisted that the only acceptable course on health care reform is to start over. But given these honest and substantial differences between the parties about the need to regulate the insurance industry and the need to help millions of middle-class families get insurance, I do not see how another year of negotiations would help. Moreover, the insurance companies aren’t starting over. They are continuing to raise premiums and deny coverage as we speak. For us to start over now could simply lead to delay that could last for another decade or even more. The American people, and the U.S. economy, just can’t wait that long.

So, no matter which approach you favor, I believe the United States Congress owes the American people a final vote on health care reform. We have debated this issue thoroughly, not just for a year, but for decades. Reform has already passed the House with a majority. It has already passed the Senate with a supermajority of sixty votes. And now it deserves the same kind of up-or-down vote that was cast on welfare reform, the Children’s Health Insurance Program, COBRA health coverage for the unemployed, and both Bush tax cuts – all of which had to pass Congress with nothing more than a simple majority.

I have therefore asked leaders in both of Houses of Congress to finish their work and schedule a vote in the next few weeks. From now until then, I will do everything in my power to make the case for reform. And I urge every American who wants this reform to make their voice heard as well – every family, every business owner, every patient, every doctor, every nurse.

This has been a long and wrenching debate. It has stoked great passions among the American people and their representatives. And that is because health care is a difficult issue. It is a complicated issue. As all of you know from experience, health care can literally be an issue of life or death. As a result, it easily lends itself to demagoguery and political gamesmanship; misrepresentation and misunderstanding.

But that’s not an excuse for those of us who were sent here to lead to just walk away. We can’t just give up because the politics are hard. I know there’s a fascination, bordering on obsession, in the media and in this town about what passing health insurance reform would mean for the next election and the one after that. Well, I’ll leave others to sift through the politics. Because that’s not what this is about. That’s not why we’re here.

This is about what reform would mean for the mother with breast cancer whose insurance company will finally have to pay for her chemotherapy. This is about what reform would mean for the small business owner who will no longer have to choose between hiring more workers or offering coverage to the employees she has. This is about what reform would mean for the middle-class family who will be able to afford health insurance for the very first time in their lives.

And this is about what reform would mean for all those men and women I’ve met over the last few years who’ve been brave enough to share their stories. When we started our push for reform last year, I talked about a young mother in Wisconsin named Laura Klitzka [KLITZ kah]. She has two young children. She thought she had beaten her breast cancer but then later discovered it spread to her bones. She and her husband were working – and had insurance – but their medical bills still landed them in debt. And now she spends time worrying about that debt when all she wants to do is spend time with her children and focus on getting well.

This should not happen in the United States of America. And it doesn’t have to. In the end, that’s what this debate is about – it’s about the kind of country we want to be. It’s about the millions of lives that would be touched and in some cases saved by making private health insurance more secure and more affordable.

At stake right now is not just our ability to solve this problem, but our ability to solve any problem. The American people want to know if it’s still possible for Washington to look out for their interests and their future. They are waiting for us to act. They are waiting for us to lead. And as long as I hold this office, I intend to provide that leadership. I don’t know how this plays politically, but I know it’s right. And so I ask Congress to finish its work, and I look forward to signing this reform into law. Thank you.

Read More......

Excerpts from Obama's HCR speech this afternoon, revealing new compromise plan

“I don’t believe we should give government bureaucrats or insurance company bureaucrats more control over health care in America. I believe it’s time to give the American people more control over their own health insurance. I don’t believe we can afford to leave life-and-death decisions about health care to the discretion of insurance company executives alone. I believe that doctors and nurses like the ones in this room should be free to decide what’s best for their patients.

The proposal I’ve put forward gives Americans more control over their health care by holding insurance companies more accountable. It builds on the current system where most Americans get their health insurance from their employer. If you like your plan, you can keep your plan. If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. Because I can tell you that as the father of two young girls, I wouldn’t want any plan that interferes with the relationship between a family and their doctor.”

***

“So this is our proposal. This is where we’ve ended up. It’s an approach that has been debated and changed and I believe improved over the last year. It incorporates the best ideas from Democrats and Republicans – including some of the ideas that Republicans offered during the health care summit, like funding state grants on medical malpractice reform and curbing waste, fraud, and abuse in the health care system. My proposal also gets rid of many of the provisions that had no place in health care reform – provisions that were more about winning individual votes in Congress than improving health care for all Americans.”

***

“At stake right now is not just our ability to solve this problem, but our ability to solve any problem. The American people want to know if it’s still possible for Washington to look out for their interests and their future. They are waiting for us to act. They are waiting for us to lead. And as long as I hold this office, I intend to provide that leadership. I don’t know how this plays politically, but I know it’s right. And so I ask Congress to finish its work, and I look forward to signing this reform into law.”

Read More......

Top Latino group launches hard-hitting video taking Obama to task for broken promises on immigration

From the National Council of La Raza:

Read More......

'At 50, Emanuel has the lean, taut look of a lifelong swimmer, with broad shoulders and distractingly prominent quadriceps.'

The new art form of pro-Rahm suck up pieces enters its homoerotic phase. I'm disgusted yet titillated at the same time. This must be how Sarah Palin supporters feel. Read More......

Charlie Rangel steps down as chair of powerful Ways and Means Committee

Rep. Charlie Rangel has been embroiled in ethical controversies for the past year. He also chairs the very powerful House Ways and Means Committee. Republicans have been trying to make Rangel a symbol of corruption. (And, those Republicans, having protected Tom DeLay for years, know a lot about corruption.)

Last week, Rangel was admonished by the House Ethics Committee, a body that rarely addresses misconduct by members of either party. Since then, Rangel has faced pressure from his own caucus to step aside as Ways and Means Chair. This morning, Rangel announced he was doing just that:

Caught in a swirl of ethics inquiries, Representative Charles B. Rangel, the dean of the New York Congressional delegation, announced Wednesday that he would temporarily step down from his powerful post as chairman of the tax-policy-writing Ways and Means Committee.

“I have, this morning, sent a letter to Speaker Pelosi asking her to grant me a leave of absence until such time as the Ethics Committee completes its work,” the congressman said in a brief meeting with reporters.

During the 2006 elections, Democrats made a major issue out of the GOP's ethical problems. In fact, exit polls from the Associated Press and CNN confirmed that ethics was an important issue for voters that year. Speaker Pelosi famously vowed to "drain the swamp." Getting Rangel to give up his chairmanship was a big step in the right direction. Democrats don't need that added distraction during the campaigns of 2010. Read More......

Froomkin destroys Rahm

Visions of "Bambi vs. Godzilla" filled my brain after reading Dan Froomkin's take-down of White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel. Read the entire thing, even these excerpts don't do it justice:

Emanuel is not the would-be savior of this presidency. For one thing, there really isn't that much daylight between him and his boss, or between him and his top White House colleagues. Had things gone even more his way, it's possible that he would have squelched a few more of what few bursts of idealism and principle survived Inauguration. But people looking for the reasons why the Obama presidency has not lived up to its promise won't find the answer amid the minor rifts between key players. Nor will they find the answer in how well or poorly this White House has played the game of politics. The fact is that after a campaign that appealed so successfully to idealism, Obama hired a bunch of saboteurs of hope and change.

Rahm was simply their chief of staff. And now, this hypercompetitive bantam rooster is attempting to blame others for what went wrong. That's evidently so important to him that he's trying to take a victory lap around the wreckage of what was once such a promising presidency.

The Rahm Emanuel that Obama hired is the poster child for the timid, pseudo-pragmatism that is inimical to the idealistic Obama agenda so many excited voters responded to last November. And it's a pragmatism that is absolutely killing the Democratic Party in the long run, because American voters have an intrinsic distrust of politicians they see as tacking with the polls or shying away from a fight. This if nothing else is the lesson of two George W. Bush presidencies: American voters have a profoundly soft spot for people with clear, strongly-held principles, almost regardless of what those principles are.

Emanuel is a Bush Democrat - but not in that he has learned the lesson about the value of holding firmly to core values. He is a Bush Democrat in that he has allowed Republicans to traumatize him into submission. Emanuel operates on a battlefield as defined by Republicans, where the terrain is littered with the specter of imaginary but profoundly terrifying GOP attack ads. His reflexive approach is the strategic retreat. Most obviously in the current debate about health care, he has empowered the Democratic and centrist Republican obstructionists by validating their fear that come campaign time, they will be portrayed as radical -- even when they are supporting measures such as the public insurance option that have public support among a super-majority of voters.

"Emanuel bitterly opposed former White House counsel Greg Craig's effort to close the Guantanamo Bay prison within a year, arguing that it wasn't politically feasible. Obama overruled Emanuel, the deadline wasn't met, and Republicans pounced on the president and the Democrats for trying to bring terrorists to U.S. prisons. Likewise, Emanuel fought fiercely against Attorney General Eric Holder's plan to send Khalid Sheik Mohammed to New York for a trial. Emanuel lost, and the result was another political fiasco."

According to Horowitz: "Emanuel made his case to Obama, articulating the political dangers of a civilian trial to congressional Democrats. Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. presented a counterargument rooted in principle, for civilian trials."

The obvious conclusion: Obama should have taken Emanuel's advice, based on pure political calculation, rather than heeding the foolhardy, deeply-held ethical, legal and moral arguments made by his top legal advisers. The Post's endorsement of this argument is nothing short of obscene.

To Emanuel, victory is the only thing, and rather than recognize the error of his ways and recalibrate, he is publicly declaring that the now widely-recognized enfeeblement of his boss's presidency is not his failure, but his vindication. Hail Emanuel triumphant.

Read More......

Wednesday Morning Open Thread

Good morning.

It's going to be a busy day.

The President is unveiling his new bipartisan health care proposal today. According to the White House Daily Guidance:

He will reiterate why reform is so crucial and what it will mean for American families and businesses: they will have more control over their own health care, they will see lower costs, and they will see an end to insurance company abuses. The President will note that his proposal includes the best ideas from both parties, and he will restate his preference for a comprehensive bill that will reduce premiums and end discrimination against people with pre-existing conditions. The President will urge Congress to move swiftly toward votes on this legislation.

The only way to move swiftly is to use reconciliation.

There are four DADT related events today. Senator Lieberman is holding a press conference at 11:45 a.m. to unveil the Senate repeal bill. At 2:00 PM, there's a key hearing before the the Military Personnel Subcommittee of the House Armed Services Committee. The Palm Center has a press call at 10:30 a.m. And, there's another press event at 12:30 p.m. with Rep. Jim Moran and Media Matters. Also, tomorrow, HRC is hosting a press conference on the House side at noon.

And, not to be overlooked, the District of Columbia starts issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples today. The actual marriages won't take place until next week as it takes a couple days to process the licenses. But, today, equality begins in the nation's capitol.

Let's get threading... Read More......

EU Parliament has its Joe Wilson moment

There's a time and a place for everything. Attacking the new EU president in this way is as bizarre as Joe Wilson's "you lie" moment, if not worse. In this case, he wouldn't stop and kept the insults flying. He made personal attacks and then after calling him a "quiet assassin" he proceeded to insult the people of Belgium. Quite a few people take issue with the qualifications of the new EU president (myself included) but this was over the top. The outburst was everything you would expect from the far right UK Independence party. He'd get along just fine with the teabaggers. Read More......

Radovan Karadzic tries to reinvent history during his war crimes trial

Yes, the images of skinny, starving people behind barbed wire was a simple matter of an uppity journalist playing games with taking photos on the other side of barbed wire. They were all free, of course. And the infamous siege of Sarajevo where thousands were killed including innocent civilians? They were all legitimate war targets, naturally. What an insult to the people who suffered from his actions though it's doubtful that any of his sick comments will sway the judges from keeping him locked up for the rest of his life. The Guardian:

In a lengthy, rambling defence – during which he used detailed maps of the city – he claimed Bosnian Muslim forces had turned schools, hospitals and nurseries into military installations during the siege, making them legitimate targets for Serbian forces.

"We were accused of firing indiscriminately at Sarajevo, but the targets were legitimate targets," he told the court.

The 64-year-old accused Bosnian Muslim forces of shelling their own people as part of a "cunning" trick aimed at bringing Nato forces into the conflict against Bosnian Serbs.

"They killed their own people," Karadizic said as he again accused Bosnian Muslims of staging the Markale market massacre, in which 68 civilians were killed and 200 wounded on 5 February 1994.

Read More......