Only anarchists are pretty...

The passage of the Stupak Amendment has soured any positive feelings I might have had about the passage of the health care reform bill in the House of Representatives. See my Twitter page for more reaction.

For those who don't understand why I'm furious and downright sick about this, check out the full text of the amendment. Here's what jumps out at me:

No funds authorized or appropriated by this Act (or an amendment made by this Act) may be used to pay for any abortion or to cover any part of the costs of any health plan that includes coverage of abortion

Can you see how broad that is? As Planned Parenthood states: "The Stupak/Pitts amendment would result in a new restriction on women’s access to abortion coverage in the private health insurance market, undermining the ability of women to purchase private health plans that cover abortion care, even if they pay for most of the premium with their own money."

Make no mistake: House Dems (65 of them) that voted for this amendment have voted to throw women, especially poor women, under the bus in order to be able to say they passed health care reform.

This is it. When I re-register to as a Michigan voter, I will be registering as Independent. If the Democratic Party refuses to fight for me, then I refuse to fight for it.

Via Shakesville, quoting Rep. Alan Grayson (D-FL):

America understands that there's one party in this country that's in favor of healthcare reform, and one party that's against it, and they know why. They understand that if Barack Obama were somehow able to cure hunger in the world, the Republicans would blame him for overpopulation. They understand that if Barack Obama could somehow bring about world peace, they'd blame him for destroying the defense industry. In fact, they understand that if Barack Obama has a BLT sandwich tomorrow for lunch, they will try to ban bacon!

-To those complaining about Obama shilling for Chicago to get the Olympics because he needs to focus on the entire country or some such: Last time I checked, Chicago was a part of the United States of America, and the only American city in the running for the 2016 games. So, Obama's lobbying for the Olympics to come to Chicago does have something to do with the entire country.

-Re: The whole Polanski debacle: It's very simple. The man raped a child. It was not "mere" statutory rape because she was underage (though she was, of course, only 13). It was coercive and forcible RAPE. He gave her booze and drugs, then forced her to have sex with him while she was crying and saying no. AND he admitted it. I'm not sure what the legal solution here is re: extradition/statute of limitations/whatever, but Polanski raped a child. There's no defense for that, Hollywood elite. None. Full fucking stop. And then, of course, he ran away and has lived a life of remorseless freedom ever since. How anyone can argue that he's "paid enough" is beyond me. See my Twitter page for some links to good Polanski coverage.

-Audacity Limited is live! Thanks to those who came out to the launch party last weekend, and head over to the new site to buy t-shirts.

-I am so, so happy that fall, especially October (my favorite month) has arrived.

My friend M wrote this. It's a must-read.

Sanctity of Life and The Health Care Pissing Match.

I was going to hold off on this one. This is the busiest summer of my life and I haven't been keeping up on the issues like I would under the normal run. I can't keep my mouth shut, however, when the church takes a political position that utterly runs backwards to it's creed.

Let me begin by saying that I am unquestionably in favor of health care for every human being. While I haven't had time to read any of the bills being passed around on the Hill, I can also say that I am okay with 'health care reform' or 'universal health care' or 'socialized medicine' or whatever term the PC crowd is throwing around this week. I find flaws with some of the major points in the bills, but for the most part, I am down for Americans taking care of Americans.

A couple weeks ago, several state level Christian organizations released statements to their members. They were urging these Christians to attend townhall meetings and cause a ruckus. The kind of ruckus that they bitched about when the lefties did it for 8 years. One was quoted as saying, "Go to your local meeting and read your congressperson the riot act..... in Christian in love, of course." What in the fuck does that even mean? The only riot act that I recall Jesus ever reading was to the fat-cats in the Temple who were making money off the broken backs of commoners. The urge to be militant at townhalls doesn't really fit into the 'Christ-likeness' that the Bible asks of followers.

This isn't the problem. I don't take issue with anyone standing at a public event and screaming at the wind. That is a harmless action and is based in the freedoms of speech and assembly. These rights are exercised by few so I appreciate it, even when it is done by someone with whom I don't agree. My problem is when supposed Christians rail against one person wanting to care for another, the basis of our religion.

The term 'pro-life' is a bit of a misnomer as it relates to the Christian right in this country. Most of you know that I am not a big fan of abortion, but not to the extent that it needs a government intervention. I have trouble swallowing the fact that every American who now needs health care was once an embryo and a baby. So, I ask my right-wing brothers and sisters in Christ, when did this human's worth decrease? Was it while he or she was a toddler? Was it when they turned 18? Is that when this former baby became not worth fighting for anymore? When you ask, 'What would Jesus do?', you need only to look at my boy Matt's book, written a long time ago... chapter 25, v35-43, it runs as follows:

"For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.'

"Then the righteous will answer him, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?'

"The King will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.'

The LEAST of these brothers. Human beings with less, in Biblespeak. This passage is Jesus telling his followers: Feed hungry people. Give water to thirsty people. House the homeless people. GIVE CARE TO SICK PEOPLE. Visit those who have committed crimes.

Things I haven't read in the Bible: Don't care about circumstances, just make sure the baby is born. As soon as the baby is born, it's no longer your problem. Science doesn't help anyone, it's Satan's plaything. Make sure you don't have to chip in for public health, because why should you have to? If someone commits a violent crime, just kill him.... screw 'turning the other cheek'.

I will always end with a plea. First, don't use the words 'sanctity of life' if you are standing up for denying health care to those who need it. Or if you believe that human life is sacred only until birth. Don't talk about pro-life when you are unwilling to feed a woman wrapped in a dirty blanket on the street, but are more than happy to feed a woman in a dirty blanket in a Hospice Care facility only after you heard about her on the nightly news. Don't talk about life issues when you support state instituted execution programs. Why? It brings me to my second plea. Read The Doctrine. All of it. Remember that your faith, Christianity, contains the name of the Man who saved your ass from yourself. If you have already forgotten what He asked you to do down here, please read again paragraph 6 and on. If you are going to continue thumping folks with your Bible.... I fully expect you to know what that Bible says.

When Right To Life says, "Health care is not a right", stand your ass up and ask how there can be life without health. Then ask them to call Jesus in Washington to ask His opinion.

A couple of choice bits from the Sotomayor confirmation hearings this week:

SENATOR JEFF SESSIONS: Thank you, Chairman. Judge Sotomayor, let’s talk about empathy. I find it shocking that President Obama said that judges should have empathy. I hate empathy. My Republican colleagues hate empathy. In fact, I am proud to say that we’ve reached an all-time low in the “understands the problems of ordinary people” category.

Thank you, Senator Sessions, for finally stating on the record what we've known all along: The GOP hates empathy and has no understanding of the problems of ordinary people.

SENATOR LINDSEY GRAHAM: Judge, before I read a string of anonymous comments about your temperament problem, I’d like to make you repeat that wise Latina remark again just for the heck of it.

JUDGE SOTOMAYOR: Thank you, Senator, for the opportunity to revisit that matter. I appreciate that the man who once said he’d drown himself if North Carolina went for Obama has a special contribution to make when it comes to the importance of thinking before you speak.

As Jon Stewart might say, Aw, SNAP!

Like the rest of the world, I was shocked yesterday to learn of Michael Jackson's passing. As I watched the hype late into the night (every news channel was running nonstop MJ coverage, and MTV was even playing MJ videos - I can't remember the last time I saw a video on MTV), I was reminded of when I wrote about appreciating art as a reflection of its time, even if that time was focused on ideas we find anathema now. In a similar sense, the death of Michael Jackson resurfaces a question I've thought about extensively, namely this: Can you separate the art from the artist? In a sort of inverse of the old love-the-sinner-hate-the-sin axiom, can you love the art and hate (or perhaps simply dislike, or get squicked out by) the artist?

I think the answer has to be yes, you can respond to art without liking the artist. I think Phil Spector is an abusive, murdering arsehole, but I love the Wall of Sound style he created back in the 60s. I have no doubt that Roman Polanski raped a girl back in 1977, but I've quite enjoyed some of his films (Rosemary's Baby, Bitter Moon and The Ninth Gate come to mind). In the same vein, while I think it's never been clear what actually happened between Michael Jackson and the children with whom he surrounded himself, I do think that something did happen. Call it intuition, call it legal knowledge (the fact that the victims came forward at all is pretty strong evidence - being a victim of sexual abuse of any kind in our legal system is no picnic), something was up. But I still listened to and enjoyed his music, even after all of the abuse allegations came out. I can separate the art from the artist.

One of the earliest MJ memories I have is of being in grade school, and just about to start a new school year at a new school. Mum jane3tis knew that I was nervous, and so she told me on the morning of the first day of school that I could pick out a record (yes, vinyl) to listen to to put me in a good mood. I picked Off The Wall, which is still arguably my favorite MJ solo album. I also remember scrawling my school folders and such with "Michael Jackson" and "Thriller" when that came out in 1982, and trying (and failing miserably) to moonwalk. I remember being amazed at the man's reinvention capability with "Smooth Criminal" came out, and again when "Scream" was released. And of course, I have always loved just about everything the Jackson 5 did.

And so, in tribute, I offer you ( my favorite MJ songs: )

Note that "Dirty Diana" did NOT make the list. People started singing that song to me the instant it came out (when I was in junior high), and they still haven't stopped. I do not thank you for that, MJ. ;)

Back on Inaguration Day, I wrote about what it means to live in a democratic society:

There are 2 days in every election cycle that embody what it means to live in a democratic society.

The first is Election Day, when the people speak and make the choice that determines how our country will be led.

The second is today, Inauguration Day, when power is transitioned peacefully from the old administration to the new. On Inauguration Day in the United States of America, the reins of power don't change hands because of a coup or a war. The old administration doesn't scheme for ways to stay in office longer, doesn't refuse to leave, doesn't seek to hold power at any cost. The people have spoken. The wheel by which the country is steered is handed over. And that, for all our flaws, missteps and horrific mistakes, is what we seek to show and bring to the world.

What I wrote above is what we're being shown does not exist in Iran. I don't feel qualified to speak at any length or in any depth on what's going on in Iran in the aftermath of this weekend's "election" - but I do feel able to say it all seems incredibly fishy, to put it lightly. In an honest election, hundreds of thousands of people don't take to the streets in protest that their government has forbidden. In an honest election, the loser isn't put under house arrest. In an honest election, the government doesn't shut down as much communication with the outside world as it possibly can, including online social networking, text messaging, and international media. I wonder, too, if the recent parliamentary elections in Lebanon, in which a pro-Western coalition won, is what prompted what looks very much like voter/election fraud in Iran. Did Ahmadinejad get spooked and clamp down?

Bitch Ph.D. has a couple of posts (here and here) that outline the issues with this election and its aftermath, and I highly recommend the Twitter feeds of Change_For_Iran and persiankiwi for real-time updates from those who are literally in the thick of the protests and riots - they will take your breath away. I also recommend TPM's Iran coverage.

I send nothing but positive thoughts out to the protesters, and hope that they come away from this safely (though there's already been at least one shooting), and I hope that their dreams of democracy aren't buried by the events of this weekend.

* -Franklin D. Roosevelt

So, we all know Fox News is crap. And we've all seen/heard how the news crews stalk people and the pundits are a big bunch of blowhard know-nothings, etc.

But even I was a bit surprised to hear that a Fox News writer purposefully hit a bicyclist, and then dragged the cyclist on his hood for a few blocks. What happened, apparently, is the Fox dude cut off the biker, so the biker caught up to the Fox dude, got in front of his SUV at the next red light and told the Fox dude to slow down and observe the speed limit. At which point Fox dude sped up, purposefully hit the biker and his cycle, and then, when the biker stood in front of the SUV to stop Fox dude from fleeing the scene, hit the biker again, making the biker have to jump on top of the SUV hood. Then Fox dude kept driving with the biker on his hood as the biker screamed for him to stop, and drove away after finally jerking the biker off his hood when he stopped.

Jesus.

I really think there is something to the idea that Fox News is full of angry white dudes. The right wing is full of these self-entitled, consistently furious assholes who wander through the world as if they are the only humans with a right to be in it. They rant and rave in the media and elsewhere, and listen to likeminded ranters and ravers, and then something like this (and far more horrible examples) takes that ranting and raving out of the context of mere talk and translates into action. I'm a big proponent of free speech, no matter how ugly it is, but I'm also a big proponent of taking responsibility for one's words/deeds, and of respecting the space of others. So, angry white dudes, while it is your right to rant and rave all you like, I'd ask that you think about what the hell has got you so angry, and how your anger is going to affect others. Because going out and hitting people purposefully with cars, shooting doctors, shooting up churches and museums - this stuff is coming from the anger being expressed and fomented on the right, and yes, on Fox news. Turn it down. Try and have a reasonable discussion instead of a shouting match. Listen. And for the love of heaven, THINK.

A listing of my tweets should tell you what I'm thinking about today...

-For those wanting an official bio of U.S. Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor: http://is.gd/F3TI She is absolutely qualified.
(about 6 hours ago)

-Sotomayor has the broad experience needed to be a justice, and has done so much that would serve her well on the Court.
(about 6 hours ago)

-To wit: stellar education, gov't prosecutor (crim), private practice/civil litigation, writing and teaching experience, service orgs.
(about 6 hours ago)

-Also, she kind of reminds me of The Oracle in The Matrix, which can only be a plus.
(about 6 hours ago)

-Some summaries of Sotomayor's appellate opinions, for the curious: http://is.gd/F6I9
(about 5 hours ago)

-What's wrong with Hollywood today: it actually wants to remake the Buffy movie, sans Joss Whedon. http://is.gd/FbZp Blasphemers and morons.
(about 5 hours ago)

-Wow. Way to wimp out, California Supreme Court: http://is.gd/FlmH
(about 3 hours ago)

-RT @anamariecox: "CA Supreme Court follows People vs. KFC precedent: no more gay marriage except for 18,000 who already used coupon." (v ...
(about 3 hours ago)

-Shorter CA S. Ct.: "Well, it's alright for SOME." Where the hell in American jurisprudence is that still allowed? This. Is. Ridiculous.
(about 3 hours ago)

-@bitterandrew I'm a lawyer, and I can't understand it. It's so half-assed, and I can't think of any precedent for it.
(about 3 hours ago)

-You know what you get when a "majority" gets to decide the basic rights of a minority? Slavery. Segregation. Discrimination.
(about 3 hours ago)

-I hereby make a motion to call Ross Douthat "The Douchehat" for as long as he writes like one, i.e., likely always. http://is.gd/Fw4X
(about 1 hour ago)

-Oh, and California? Time for a constitutional convention, seriously. Your amendment process is the fundamental underlying problem here.
(about 1 hour ago)

...via my Twitter account:

Yesterday:

9:47 a.m.: So - what's this swine flu thing everyone's bugging about? We can still eat bacon, right? So, you know, not an epic crisis, then.

9:49 a.m.: Seriously, though, folks should stop freaking out about these small outbreaks of flu, etc., when HIV/AIDS kills far more people per year.

9:49 a.m.: A little perspective re: disease, is all I'm saying.

10:12 a.m.: 2006 deaths from HIV/AIDS in the U.S.: 14,000. 2005-Jan. 2009 Swine Flu cases in the U.S.: 12. Current number of U.S. Swine Flu cases: 40.

1:12 p.m.: I sure hope all the anti-tax folks aren't trying to get flu meds from the CDC. That's just big government spending, you know. /sarcasm

1:31 p.m.: I'm looking at you, Rick "Secession-Happy" Perry: http://is.gd/uWoI and you, House Republicans: http://is.gd/uWp7

Today:

4 hours ago: Welcome to the party, Senator Specter: http://is.gd/v8K6

4 hours ago: So, for those who haven't been counting, if Specter goes Dem, and Franken gets seated, Dems have a filibuster proof majority in the Senate.

3 hours ago: Which means we could actually get some stuff done.

3 hours ago: And we can tune out McConnell's whining.

3 hours ago: Specter's statement: http://is.gd/v9jH "I now find my political philosophy more in line with Democrats than Republicans."

Minutes ago: Has anyone described this swine flu thing as simply porkulus? Because, duh.

From "Iowa State Senate Majority Leader Mike Gronstal's speech on the State Senate floor, explaining why he will not support an effort to amend the state's constitution to reverse the recent unanimous ruling legalizing same-sex marriage in Iowa":

One of my daughters was in the workplace one day, and, in her particular workplace at that moment in time, there were a whole bunch of conservative, older men. And those guys were talking about gay marriage—they were talking about discussions going on across the country—and my daughter Kate, after listening to it for about 20 minutes, said to them: "You guys don't understand. You've already lost. My generation doesn't care."

From Roger Ebert's thoughts on Bill O'Reilly:

Dear Bill: Thanks for including the Chicago Sun-Times on your exclusive list of newspapers on your "Hall of Shame." To be in an O'Reilly Hall of Fame would be a cruel blow to any newspaper. It would place us in the favor of a man who turns red and starts screaming when anyone disagrees with him. My grade-school teacher, wise Sister Nathan, would have called in your parents and recommended counseling with Father Hogben.

Yes, the Sun-Times is liberal, having recently endorsed our first Democrat for President since LBJ. We were founded by Marshall Field one week before Pearl Harbor to provide a liberal voice in Chicago to counter the Tribune, which opposed an American war against Hitler. I'm sure you would have sided with the Trib at the time.

***

Bill, I am concerned that you have been losing touch with reality recently. Did you really say you are more powerful than any politician?

Also, check out this bit from Rush Limbaugh, self-appointed arbiter of who's Republican enough in this country, in which he slams a veteran (Gee, Rush, when did you serve your country in the military, again? Oh yeah, NEVER.) who's against torture, calling him stupid, ignorant, and "no Republican". Keep it up, right wingnuts. Soon, you will have scared off every sane, rational ally you've ever had.

When will the so-called party/movement of personal responsibility take some responsibility for using violent and explosive language to stir up all the right wingnuts out there in America who are just looking for a reason, any reason, to go on some horrific rampage?

I'm all for free speech. I'm also all for thinking before you speak. To sit there on Fox News and talk about rising up against "liberals" in America, to shriek about how now that Obama's president, it's time to stockpile guns, and then to shrug it off when some warped fucker takes that talk and turns it into violent action, is nothing short of dispicable. And you know what else it is? Fucking unpatriotic. To paraphrase Sydney in The American President, I don't have "patience for people who claim they love America, but clearly can't stand Americans". You know what? You don't get to sit and rant about how much you love this country when you're preaching hate against its citizens. It's not love of country to only give a damn about the minority that agrees with you. It's not love of country to hope that the government fails, thereby hurting this country's citizens, just because you differ ideologically. That's anti-patriotism. That's anti-American. And if you don't love this country and it's citizens, then YOU can get out. And take the violence you've fomented for your precious ratings with you.

When I was a kid, I remember my mum having a book called Ma, Can I be a Feminist and Still Like Men? by artist Nicole Hollander. It was a cartoon/comic book, and I don't even remember much of what was in it (although I do give special thanks to Mum for never limiting my reading as a child, even if I don't remember all I read), but the phrase has stuck with me throughout the years as I grew into understanding feminism, sexism, and the politics of being a woman in this world.

The answer to the question that is the book's title is, of course, yes. Of course you can be a feminist and like men. And of course you can be a feminist and be a man. And in light of that assertion, I wanted to point out a couple of posts I've seen in recent days from male feminists that I think are worth reading:

-Diary of a Black Male Feminist: Open Letter to Chris Brown.

-Feministing Community: Men, masculinity, porn and feminism.

Check 'em out.

Matt Taibbi's here to make you even more pissed off.

As if in answer to my prayer, TPM has the AIG bonus contract up. It's fairly complex legal and financial -ese, but looking at the clause Barney Frank mentioned yesterday when Liddy was testifying (3.07(a)), it looks like this thing caps the amount by which the bonus pool can be reduced, even in the case of losses to AIG. Not to mention that section 3.04 lists a few specific instances in which an AIG employee who's been terminated won't receive the retention bonus, but then states other instances in which a terminated employee will receive a retention bonus (how can an employee who no longer works for AIG get a retention bonus?). I'm no financial whiz, but I am a lawyer, and these clauses seem incredibly stupid to me, not to mention woefully shortsighted. Did AIG's shareholders (before WE became AIG's shareholders) see this? I wonder. It's like a bunch of members of some exclusive club drafted this thing to cover each other's asses, no matter what happens...wait, what? Oh yeah, that's exactly what's happened here.

Before all the recent news, the only thing I really knew about AIG was that Stockard Channing voiced its commercials. Now we're learning more than we ever wanted to know about AIG and the business world in which it operates. The whole thing is rather confusing (check out Shakesville and TPM for lots of coverage), but what I'm distilling from the news is this: AIG plans to use bailout money to pay bonuses. Taxpayers and lawmakers are pissed about this, saying AIG shouldn't use taxpayer money to give bonuses to the folks who ran AIG into the ground. AIG counters that they are contractually bound to pay these bonuses as part of the salaries of those workers.

So, as a taxpayer and as a lawyer, my question is this: Can we see these contracts which bind AIG to pay these bonuses? Because, in most businesses, bonuses are at least somewhat connected to performance, even if they're considered a part of salary. And this is usually noted in employment contracts. For example, when I worked at a BigLaw firm (for my very short, not-even-3-month stint - man, I hated it there), bonuses were tied to billable hours, i.e., the measure of the amount of money an associate made for the firm. As I recall, if an associate billed over 2000 hours per year, then he or she got a bonus. The more hours billed, the bigger the bonus. But if the associate didn't make it to over 2000 hours, no bonus. Is there no clause in these contracts containing similar provisions for the AIG employees to get their bonuses? Nothing saying that if you make X profit for the company, you get Y bonus, but if you don't hit that mark, you don't get the bonus? Because if not, that is just poor contracting on the part of AIG. Incredibly stupid to not link bonuses to some measure of performance, even if the bonus is considered part of salary.

The other question I have relates to AIG saying that if it doesn't pay out these bonuses, it will lose its "best and brightest" employees (which characterization is debatable), and my question is: Do you really think that will happen? In this economy, where exactly are those employees going to go? And even if they do go, is it that much of a loss to have those who messed everything up move on? Maybe some new blood is exactly what these giants of industry need. Maybe it's what we all need.

...in light of today's Prop 8 argument before the California Supreme Court: Any straight person who purports to subscribe to the opinion that gay people should not be allowed the right of civil marriage is coming at the issue from a position of extreme privilege - from a position of having an unquestioned access to a civil (i.e., governmental - not religious) right from time immemorial. How dare such a person purport to keep that right from other adult citizens? How dare any person even think they have a right to a say in whether consenting adults can marry? The only people who should get a say are those consenting adults who want to marry.

Finally got a chance to go see Milk last night with kiwi_grrl. Utterly brilliant. Sean Penn definitely deserved his Oscar, as he really did become Harvey Milk. Solid, nuanced performances by all, especially James Franco (positively disarming) and Josh Brolin, who gave his Dan White a complex, conflicted persona that almost made you feel for the guy. The film made me think of how far we've come, and how far we still have to go. It also made me reflect on the complete stupidity and short-sightedness of assassination. Killing one's ideological opponents does nothing for one's cause but create martyrs for the other side. What doesn't kill us may make us stronger, but what does kill us makes us immortal.

...it's so nice not to have President Cowboy speechifying anymore.