My first thought on perusing the briefs filed in the combined cases was to notice what wasn’t there: any involvement on the part of Corporate America.
For the past 20 years, big business has complained endlessly about escalating health-care premiums, which they correctly blamed on “cost-shifting,” including paying indirectly for the free care provided to the workers at firms that did not provide health benefits. They wanted an end to fee-for-service medicine that rewarded doctors for providing more care than necessary. Some even talked of reforms that would begin to move the country away from an employer-based insurance system.
Yet despite the fact that “Obamacare” did all of those things and more, there was not a single brief in support of the law from an organization representing big business.
Small businesses have spent the past two decades complaining that the reason they don’t offer coverage is that it’s too expensive because they don’t get the large-group and community rating advantage. So how did the National Federation of Independent Businesses respond to a law that assured small businesses the benefits of large-group purchasing and community rating and threw in billions of dollars in subsidies to boot? It signed up as one of the named plaintiffs challenging the constitutionality of the new law.
It’s hard to know what the business community will demand if the Supreme Court overturns the health-care law. At that point, however, it will hardly matter, since they will have lost all political credibility on the issue, particularly with the Obama White House and anyone who happens to be a Democrat.
Wednesday, April 4, 2012
Steve Pearlstein: Why we should tell Corporate America to drop dead...
From Eat your broccoli, Justice Scalia, published on March 31st:
Tuesday, April 3, 2012
Monday, April 2, 2012
Just getting warmed up... (VIDEO)
The President launched this ad today, pissing off Mittens:
And Priorities USA came out with this ad on March 30:
I don't think they're coordinating, but they sure as heck are thinking the same.
And Priorities USA came out with this ad on March 30:
I don't think they're coordinating, but they sure as heck are thinking the same.
Friday, March 30, 2012
For once, Santorum should've gone with "Anti-Government Blah Person" (VIDEO)
Key point. Rick Santorum does not call our President a N***** int his video.
But he really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, meant to.
I feel very comfortable pronouncing Rick Santorum as a cheap, two bit racist.
But he really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, meant to.
I feel very comfortable pronouncing Rick Santorum as a cheap, two bit racist.
Thursday, March 29, 2012
If Claire McCaskill is good enough for @votevets, then she's good enough for me (VIDEO)
Claire McCaskill has been driving me crazy these last two years, tacking right while trying to keep her seat. She's done it enough to make me not care too much if she got re-elected.
However, if she's good enough for VoteVets, then...
Still mad about Mizzou bustin' my Bracket, though.
However, if she's good enough for VoteVets, then...
Still mad about Mizzou bustin' my Bracket, though.
Wednesday, March 28, 2012
Uhh, does this guy look like he's been assaulted to you?? (VIDEO)
This is from ABC News. It's pretty sharp-looking video.
The video might bleed over my format's margins, but Zimmerman doesn't disappear as far as I can tell. A smaller version of the video is below.
Okay, so at least he was detained for a time.
So I'm back to one of my questions. The lead Homicide Investigator says he thought a charge of Manslaughter was appropriate. It looks like Zimmerman was arrested, at least for a little bit.
So what happened after he goes in that door. Because something changed after that, and we still don't know what.
Also, we are being told a story that this man was under mortal assault, fear for his life, so much so that he had no choice but to go for his gun.
You tell me. Is the back of his head bloodied up? Is his nose broken? Does he look like anything's happened to him at all?
I can't say that these things did not happen, but the very lurid and vivid descriptions provided by Zimmerman's defenders seem to be 100% Grade-A Bullshit.
The video might bleed over my format's margins, but Zimmerman doesn't disappear as far as I can tell. A smaller version of the video is below.
Okay, so at least he was detained for a time.
So I'm back to one of my questions. The lead Homicide Investigator says he thought a charge of Manslaughter was appropriate. It looks like Zimmerman was arrested, at least for a little bit.
So what happened after he goes in that door. Because something changed after that, and we still don't know what.
Also, we are being told a story that this man was under mortal assault, fear for his life, so much so that he had no choice but to go for his gun.
You tell me. Is the back of his head bloodied up? Is his nose broken? Does he look like anything's happened to him at all?
I can't say that these things did not happen, but the very lurid and vivid descriptions provided by Zimmerman's defenders seem to be 100% Grade-A Bullshit.
Questions about the Trayvon Martin shooting...
This list started out with one question, and quickly grew to many. I would love to add more.
This is not a list of political questions, these are all questions that could be (or rather should be) asked at a Legal proceeding, and answered with hard documentation. The fact that we don't know the answers...and may never know the answers...to these questions terrifies me.
In the end, I think George Zimmerman is going to get away with murder, because the Police have hopelessly botched the case. I also think they hopelessly botched the case on purpose.
If you've got any more, I'd love to hear 'em.
Now, it's also fair to ask Trayvon's parents some questions, but I'm betting I don't know the answer to these out of my own ignorance rather than a concerted effort to conceal them:
UPDATE: 10:54pm Pacific: Well, I got one of the answers. From Joy Ann Reid at the Griot (Thanks Dirk!)
This is not a list of political questions, these are all questions that could be (or rather should be) asked at a Legal proceeding, and answered with hard documentation. The fact that we don't know the answers...and may never know the answers...to these questions terrifies me.
In the end, I think George Zimmerman is going to get away with murder, because the Police have hopelessly botched the case. I also think they hopelessly botched the case on purpose.
Where is the gun?
Where are Mr. Zimmerman’s clothes, along with any physical evidence of an assault?
If you needed these pieces of evidence, now way after the date, could the Sanford Police Department get them from Mr. Zimmerman?
Where is Mr. Zimmerman now? Could the Sanford Police Department find him if they needed to?
Is there any documentation backing up the claim that Mr. Zimmerman was assaulted?
Is there a Medical Report showing that Mr. Zimmerman was assaulted?
Was an ambulance called to treat Mr. Zimmerman because of this alleged assault?
Where there photographs taken at the scene? Of Trayvon’s body, of Mr. Zimmerman’s head and face?
Why did the Sanford Police Department hold onto Trayvon’s body for three days without identifying him?
Did anyone at the Sanford Police Department make any attempt to look at Trayvon’s phone during those three days?
Who made the decision to hold onto Trayvon’s body for three days without identifying him?
What position was Trayvon found in?
Was Trayvon shot in the back or front?
Were any nitrate tests done on Mr. Zimmerman’s hands to determine if he had fired a weapon? If not, why not?
Were any nitrate tests done on Trayvon to determine how close he was to the weapon that killed him? If not, why not?
If the Lead Homicide Investigator was overruled at the scene as to whether or not to charge Mr. Zimmerman with manslaughter, who overruled him?
Who are the eyewitnesses to the assault?
Does the Sanford Police Department have records of testimony from these eyewitnesses to the alleged assault on Mr. Zimmerman?
What was Mr. Zimmerman’s height and weight at the time of the incident? What was Trayvon’s? (Goes to the relative threat Mr. Zimmerman is alleged to have faced).
What is the status of ALL the 911 Recordings from the night of the incident? Will they be released in their entirety?
Do we have a complete timeline of the incident, collating with hard evidence, because even Mr. Zimmerman’s own alleged account seems to leave out about a minute of time.
And because it can’t be asked enough...where is the gun?
If you've got any more, I'd love to hear 'em.
Now, it's also fair to ask Trayvon's parents some questions, but I'm betting I don't know the answer to these out of my own ignorance rather than a concerted effort to conceal them:
When did you call Police to report Trayvon missing?
Did you hear the shots?
Did you notice the Police activity nearby?
How close was Trayvon to getting back to his Dad's Girlfriend's place when he was killed? (I saw the walk through the father gave on Reverend Al's show, but all the distances were relative. I want to know in terms of feet and yards.)
Was the place where Trayvon was shot actually visible from the Girlfriend's House?
UPDATE: 10:54pm Pacific: Well, I got one of the answers. From Joy Ann Reid at the Griot (Thanks Dirk!)
A source with knowledge of the investigation into the shooting of Trayvon Martin tells theGrio that it was then Sanford police chief Bill Lee, along with Capt. Robert O'Connor, the investigations supervisor, who made the decision to release George Zimmerman on the night of February 26th, after consulting with State Attorney Norman Wolfinger -- in person.
Wolfinger's presence at the scene or at the police department in the night of a shooting would be unusual, according to the source. On a typical case, police contact the state attorney's office and speak with an on duty assistant state attorney; they either discuss the matter by phone or the on duty assistant state attorney comes to the crime scene - but rarely the state attorney him or herself.
Quoting @Lawrence, @CharlesMBlow's fury is a magnificent thing to behold (VIDEO)
Again, Lawrence commits another act of Journalism.
First segment:
Second segment, after the lighting was fixed:
The post-mortem afterwards:
Charles M. Blow's port-mortem apology (which I don't think he needed to give):
And Lawrence's Last word:
First segment:
Second segment, after the lighting was fixed:
The post-mortem afterwards:
Charles M. Blow's port-mortem apology (which I don't think he needed to give):
And Lawrence's Last word:
"The member will suspend..." (VIDEO)
Here's Bobby Rush (aka the only man to have ever beaten President Obama in an election) getting thrown off the House Floor for wearing a Hoodie in support of Trayvon Martin.
Typical GOP House.
Typical GOP House.
Tuesday, March 27, 2012
@Lawrence O'Donnell commits an act of Journalism LIVE on air (VIDEO)
For viewing over and over and over again. This is how it's done:
Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
Tuesday, March 20, 2012
The complete Trayvon Martin... (VIDEO)
Video after video after video after video...
One of the earliest segments from MSNBC's Melissa Harris-Perry:
Last night's Lawrence O'Donnell:
And if you thought that segment was good, I thought this one was better:
Big Eddie...
And more Big Eddie...
And Reverend Al's Two Segments:
And Reverend Al's Interview with Trayvon's Father:
One of the earliest segments from MSNBC's Melissa Harris-Perry:
Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
Last night's Lawrence O'Donnell:
Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
And if you thought that segment was good, I thought this one was better:
Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
Big Eddie...
Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
And more Big Eddie...
Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
And Reverend Al's Two Segments:
Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
And Reverend Al's Interview with Trayvon's Father:
Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
Friday, March 16, 2012
Wednesday, March 14, 2012
The President's 2012 NCAA Bracket (VIDEO)
The President's had a rough two years, but that's because I think he's clinging to his Tar Heels and his Spartans, but we'll see.
Behind the Scenes:
And then there's this from the Wall Street Murdoch:
Here’s a clear difference between Mitt Romney and President Barack Obama: Mr. Romney said he won’t be filling out an NCAA college basketball tournament bracket this year.
“I’m not plugged in well enough this year to do that,” Mr. Romney told reporters traveling with him on Tuesday in Missouri, the Associated Press reported.
Mr. Obama, on the other hand, is making his choices public again this year. The First Fan even brought British Prime Minister David Cameron to a “First Four” game in Dayton, Ohio, on Tuesday between Mississippi Valley State and Western Kentucky. ESPN disclosed the president’s Final Four picks — Kentucky, Ohio State, Missouri and North Carolina – and will release his entire bracket on Wednesday.
Was it just me, or was the tone of the piece just a little bit snide?
Thursday, March 8, 2012
Professor Derrick Bell and something called full context. (VIDEO)
Nice try, Andrew Breitbart. You lived as a racist, and clearly you died as one.
UPDATE: 11:19am Pacific:
A reader on the Daily Dish pointed something about this video that pretty much parallels what I thought all day:
When I saw that video making the rounds yesterday, I didn't watch it. Do you know why? I'd already SEEN it. It was part of a PBS Frontline documentary that came out in 2008. It's available for instant streaming on Netflix. Dud, indeed.
Here now is the Frontline Segment that I too saw, and downloaded, YEARS ago:
Hmm. Took ten times the grief from the Liberals on the Law Review than the Conservatives. Now where have I heard that before?
Watch Obama Speaks at Harvard Law in '90 on PBS. See more from FRONTLINE.
UPDATE: 11:19am Pacific:
A reader on the Daily Dish pointed something about this video that pretty much parallels what I thought all day:
When I saw that video making the rounds yesterday, I didn't watch it. Do you know why? I'd already SEEN it. It was part of a PBS Frontline documentary that came out in 2008. It's available for instant streaming on Netflix. Dud, indeed.
Here now is the Frontline Segment that I too saw, and downloaded, YEARS ago:
Hmm. Took ten times the grief from the Liberals on the Law Review than the Conservatives. Now where have I heard that before?
President Obama's speech on American Energy in Mount Holly, NC (VIDEO)
I noticed two things:
One, when the President introduced Heath Shuler, the applause...was a little muted.
Now they know how we Redskins fans felt.
Two, the Dukies got booed, a lot when he mentioned them.
The Road We've Traveled Official Trailer (VIDEO)
Yeah, kinda looking forward to this.
Nice job by Tom Hanks.
Nice job by Tom Hanks.
Tuesday, March 6, 2012
Monday, March 5, 2012
Thursday, March 1, 2012
How Marcel Guanizo and @SenBobCasey embarrassed me to be a Catholic...this week (VIDEO)
Okay, so 1) The Bishops decide to dictate to Non-Catholics whether or not they get access to Birth Control, under the guise of "protecting Religious Freedom". That was sooo last week...
Oh, wait...maybe it's not.
2) Then, Rev. Marcel Guanizo decided to deny Barbara Johnson (no relation) communion at her Mother's Funeral Mass, because Ms. Johnson is a Lesbian.
Rev. Guanizo also got up and left as she gave her Eulogy...again, at her Mother's Funeral Mass. He also refused to attend or say prayer for the funeral for Ms. Johnson's Mother...who, it needs to be repeated, was not Gay.
Fortunately, the Funeral Home Director really stepped up, found a retired Priest to perform the last of the rites that needed to be performed,
Lawrence O'Donnell had her on last night:
And to repeat what Lawrence read in the video the D.C. archdiocese also stepped up and came correct:
Amen, Sister.
But let's be clear, that was full-on, full-throated apology from Rev. Knestout. No "I'm sorry if you were offended". No, this was a "we did wrong, and we will make amends."
Rev. Barry Knestout and the unnamed Funeral Director who came through for Ms. Johnson? You both made me proud to be a Catholic, but that's been tough sledding in 2012.
And now 3) Senator Bob Casey of Pennsylvania decided to vote for the Blunt Amendment, which thankfully failed.
But I want to remind the Senator that then-Senator Barack Obama took a LOT of grief from Pro-Choice Activists in the Party for giving him a prime speaking slot at the 2008 Convention in Denver.
And this is how he sees fit to repay the President.
More to the point, this is how he sees fit to "protect" religious freedom, which I'm sure is his argument. He wants to protect his religious freedom, by screwing you out of yours.
Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, don't even bother calling me. Ben Nelson, Bob Manchin and now Ben Casey are today's reasons I don't give a dime to that organization. I will give money to Democratic Senators directly. I will give money to Senators who represent my interests, and not try to impose their Religious views on Non-Catholics.
Okay, Mother Church. It's only Thursday. What else have you got for me??
Oh, wait...maybe it's not.
2) Then, Rev. Marcel Guanizo decided to deny Barbara Johnson (no relation) communion at her Mother's Funeral Mass, because Ms. Johnson is a Lesbian.
Rev. Guanizo also got up and left as she gave her Eulogy...again, at her Mother's Funeral Mass. He also refused to attend or say prayer for the funeral for Ms. Johnson's Mother...who, it needs to be repeated, was not Gay.
Fortunately, the Funeral Home Director really stepped up, found a retired Priest to perform the last of the rites that needed to be performed,
Lawrence O'Donnell had her on last night:
And to repeat what Lawrence read in the video the D.C. archdiocese also stepped up and came correct:
Late Tuesday, Johnson received a letter of apology from the Rev. Barry Knestout, one of the archdiocese’s highest-ranking administrators, who said the lack of “kindness” she and her family received “is a cause of great concern and personal regret to me.”
“I am sorry that what should have been a celebration of your mother’s life, in light of her faith in Jesus Christ, was overshadowed by a lack of pastoral sensitivity,” Knestout wrote. “I hope that healing and reconciliation with the Church might be possible for you and any others who were affected by this experience. In the meantime, I will offer Mass for the happy repose of your mother’s soul. May God bring you and your family comfort in your grief and hope in the Resurrection.”
Johnson called the letter “comforting” and said she greatly appreciates the apology. But, she added, “I will not be satisfied” until Guarnizo is removed.
Amen, Sister.
But let's be clear, that was full-on, full-throated apology from Rev. Knestout. No "I'm sorry if you were offended". No, this was a "we did wrong, and we will make amends."
Rev. Barry Knestout and the unnamed Funeral Director who came through for Ms. Johnson? You both made me proud to be a Catholic, but that's been tough sledding in 2012.
And now 3) Senator Bob Casey of Pennsylvania decided to vote for the Blunt Amendment, which thankfully failed.
But I want to remind the Senator that then-Senator Barack Obama took a LOT of grief from Pro-Choice Activists in the Party for giving him a prime speaking slot at the 2008 Convention in Denver.
And this is how he sees fit to repay the President.
More to the point, this is how he sees fit to "protect" religious freedom, which I'm sure is his argument. He wants to protect his religious freedom, by screwing you out of yours.
Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, don't even bother calling me. Ben Nelson, Bob Manchin and now Ben Casey are today's reasons I don't give a dime to that organization. I will give money to Democratic Senators directly. I will give money to Senators who represent my interests, and not try to impose their Religious views on Non-Catholics.
Okay, Mother Church. It's only Thursday. What else have you got for me??
"I've got another five years here..." (VIDEO)
Who'd thunk it. Bill Simmons...Bill freakin' Simmons gets a White House interview:
Tuesday, February 28, 2012
Thursday, February 23, 2012
Wednesday, February 22, 2012
When challenged by Buddy Guy, one must rise to the occasion... (VIDEO)
Not quite as good as his previous musical efforts, but hey...unlike Mittens, at least he's trying!
But back to the main point, there was a Blues Concert last night at the White House:
And Michelle doing her bit:
Update: Feb. 22, 2012, 2:51pm: My bad. It wasn't B.B. who challenged the President to sing. (He was seated in the glitter jacket, with Lucille on his lap). It was Buddy Guy.
But back to the main point, there was a Blues Concert last night at the White House:
And Michelle doing her bit:
Update: Feb. 22, 2012, 2:51pm: My bad. It wasn't B.B. who challenged the President to sing. (He was seated in the glitter jacket, with Lucille on his lap). It was Buddy Guy.
Friday, February 17, 2012
A piece of Jon Stewart's Interview with Dave Letterman (VIDEO)
Here's a clip (since they don't have just the interview on the website, like NBC would do):
Thursday, February 16, 2012
TPM: They're recounting in Maine (is Romney about to lose another one?)
In relation to this mess, TPM (via Politico) now reports:
The Maine Republican Party is recounting the vote totals from the Maine caucuses which mostly concluded last Saturday when Mitt Romney was declared the winner, reports Politico. Due to a snow storm, Washington County postponed its caucus and will be convening this Saturday to complete it. The state GOP has come under fire from Ron Paul supporters for declaring Romney the winner before all voting was completed.
Rachel asks...just what the hell is going on in Maine?!? (VIDEO)
Both videos for your viewing...confusion:
Tuesday Night:
Wednesday Night:
Tuesday Night:
Wednesday Night:
RFK's grandson announces bid for Rep. Frank's seat (VIDEO)
Hmmm. I forget. Do people with the last name Kennedy have any problem running in Massachusetts?
Wednesday, February 15, 2012
Is Turkey or "Turkic Peoples" turning into a problem in the Middle East? (VIDEO)
And by Turkic peoples, I mean in terms of Turkic people vs. Perisan people, and the fault lines that aren't necessarily in the same place as borders:
Monday, February 13, 2012
Friday, February 10, 2012
Thursday, February 9, 2012
Umm, is there a way @MSNBC can force Chris Matthews to watch his own Network and learn somethin'? (VIDEO)
First Chris Matthews had on E.J. Dionne and Susan Milligan, and barely let Susan get in a word in edgewise:
And then Lawrence O'Donnell had Mark Shields on to pontificate just a little bit more:
And yes, despite Lawrence's admonition, Mark Shields went on and on.
Unanswered was the question, in both segments was this: Why should the Catholic Church be able to enforce Catholic Dogma on it's employees who work for Catholic Organization who are not Catholic.
Instead all we heard was the alleged oppression being put upon the Church, which...if you remember history, is just a damn joke.
Another way to ask the question is: Why should the Catholic Church control the sex lives of Non-Catholic, or anyone else for that matter?
Or how about this one: Mad as I am about the Catholic Sex Scandal, I don't want to pay for Father Donovan's Heart Medication. Can I have a exemption, too? Or is it more important that we have a Civilization here, and pay for each other's stuff...even if we don't use it?
But finally buried in the din...was Rachel Maddow...and Rachel sounding uber-reasonable, and quiet, underhandedly scolding her journalistic colleages (namely Shields and Matthews).
And she did it again, the next night:
And Lawrence had an actual lawyer on (the legendary David Boies) to explain why the contretemps over the Birth Control issue was total bullshit:
Basically, I want two things from Chris Matthews...but expect only one.
It'd be really nice if stop hawking his book on Jack Kennedy every ten seconds, but hey a fella can dream, can't he?
But what I really expect is for Chris Matthews to stop using MSNBC as a personal platform to provide cover for the Church, of which he and I are members. He has not provided an impartial platform and instead used the network to flog and issue that is 110% bullshit.
Ethics, Chris. I thought they were important to Catholics. Maybe that's just lip service.
(Actually, as a Catholic, and knowing our history...yeah, it's lip service.)
And then Lawrence O'Donnell had Mark Shields on to pontificate just a little bit more:
And yes, despite Lawrence's admonition, Mark Shields went on and on.
Unanswered was the question, in both segments was this: Why should the Catholic Church be able to enforce Catholic Dogma on it's employees who work for Catholic Organization who are not Catholic.
Instead all we heard was the alleged oppression being put upon the Church, which...if you remember history, is just a damn joke.
Another way to ask the question is: Why should the Catholic Church control the sex lives of Non-Catholic, or anyone else for that matter?
Or how about this one: Mad as I am about the Catholic Sex Scandal, I don't want to pay for Father Donovan's Heart Medication. Can I have a exemption, too? Or is it more important that we have a Civilization here, and pay for each other's stuff...even if we don't use it?
But finally buried in the din...was Rachel Maddow...and Rachel sounding uber-reasonable, and quiet, underhandedly scolding her journalistic colleages (namely Shields and Matthews).
And she did it again, the next night:
And Lawrence had an actual lawyer on (the legendary David Boies) to explain why the contretemps over the Birth Control issue was total bullshit:
Basically, I want two things from Chris Matthews...but expect only one.
It'd be really nice if stop hawking his book on Jack Kennedy every ten seconds, but hey a fella can dream, can't he?
But what I really expect is for Chris Matthews to stop using MSNBC as a personal platform to provide cover for the Church, of which he and I are members. He has not provided an impartial platform and instead used the network to flog and issue that is 110% bullshit.
Ethics, Chris. I thought they were important to Catholics. Maybe that's just lip service.
(Actually, as a Catholic, and knowing our history...yeah, it's lip service.)
Tuesday, February 7, 2012
Monday, February 6, 2012
As the Catholic Church continues to embarrass itself on Birth Control...
Sarah Kliff, working for Ezra Klein's Wonkbook, published this handy-dandy fact check on the President's new regulations regarding Health Insurance Companies...note: Health Insurance Companies...having to cover contraception under the Affordable Care act.
Religious Institutions who employ people in their religion have an exemption.
Naturally, Religious Institutions who employ people outside their religion are in a snit over the fact that they won't be able to impose their religious values over their employees. (Catholic Hospitals of America...Chris Matthews of Hardall...I'm talkin' to you!)
From today's Washington Post:
Religious Institutions who employ people in their religion have an exemption.
Naturally, Religious Institutions who employ people outside their religion are in a snit over the fact that they won't be able to impose their religious values over their employees. (Catholic Hospitals of America...Chris Matthews of Hardall...I'm talkin' to you!)
From today's Washington Post:
How did this all start?
The health reform law requires that insurance companies cover preventive services for women without any co-pay beginning this summer. It did not, however, specify what services to cover — that was left to the Obama administration. With guidance from the Institute of Medicine on the issue, Health and Human Services published a regulation on Aug. 1, 2011 that included birth control as part of the preventive package. That regulation also had a conscience clause, which allows religious employers who object to birth control — and also primarily employ those of their own religion — to be exempt from the requirement. That would allow churches to opt out of the new requirement.
What’s the fight about now?
Some religious leaders say that the exemption wasn’t wide enough: That the Obama administration should allow all faith-based employers regardless of who they employ, to opt out of the new requirement if they object to contraceptives. This wider definition would exempt, among others, Catholic hospitals. The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops has lobbied aggressively for this wider conscience clause, as have a number of prominent Catholics who supported the health reform law. But in final regulations last month, the Obama administration did not expand the exemption.
Let’s say the Obama administration had expanded the conscience clause. Would that allow Catholic hospitals not to provide birth control to their patients?
No, it would not. This regulation only applies to the health insurance that a hospital, charity or other employer provides for its employees. It does not regulate the care that a Catholic charity provides to its patients. As Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius wrote recently in a USA Today op-ed, “our rule has no effect on the long-standing conscience clause protections for providers, which allow a Catholic doctor, for example, to refuse to write a prescription for contraception.”
What happens next?
Two Catholic universities have already filed lawsuits challenging the mandated coverage of contraceptives as a violation of religious freedoms protected under the First Amendment. The Catholic bishops are also looking to file a similar challenge, and some observers expect these challenges could wind their way up to the Supreme Court.
The new rule is starting to play a political role, too, in the 2012 election. Republican candidates have come out against the contraceptive requirement. Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich blasted it as “a direct assault of freedom of religion.” The Obama campaign and its allies have repeatedly defended the new requirement, attacking the Republican field as anti-contraceptives.
How have contraceptive mandates been handled previously?
Twenty-eight states currently require insurance plans to cover contraceptives, although two exclude emergency contraceptives from that mandate.
Nine states do not have conscience clause. Four states have what the Guttmacher Institute describes as “narrow” exemptions, similar to the federal one, which allows churches and other institutions that primarily employ those of their own religion to opt out. Seven states have “broader” exemptions that cover other religious institutions, but not hospitals. Then eight states have “expansive” conscience clauses that allow at least some hospitals not to provide contraceptive coverage.
What about if you get health care through your employer?
Approximately 90 percent of employer-based insurance plans cover contraceptives, according to the Guttmacher Institute, although many may charge co-pays for birth control, which the health reform law will eliminate.
Matt Lauer's pre-Super Bowl Interview with the President (VIDEO)
...or, what I could find of it.
The President's Super-Bowl prediction (or lack of), and Iran & Israel:
On Iran's Nuclear Program, the Economy and 2012:
Though Matt's question about meeting with Romney was ridiculous. He is aware the President has a day job, right? And for the record, I'm glad the President didn't answer the question (which I took to mean "what's the friggin' point, Matt"?)
And disappointment? You're on that canard, Matt??! Seriously?
Syria, the GOP Primary battles, and his time in the Spotlight:
The President's Super-Bowl prediction (or lack of), and Iran & Israel:
On Iran's Nuclear Program, the Economy and 2012:
Though Matt's question about meeting with Romney was ridiculous. He is aware the President has a day job, right? And for the record, I'm glad the President didn't answer the question (which I took to mean "what's the friggin' point, Matt"?)
And disappointment? You're on that canard, Matt??! Seriously?
Syria, the GOP Primary battles, and his time in the Spotlight:
Did Clint Eastwood just make a campaign ad for the President? (VIDEO)
First off, brilliant ad. But then Chrysler has been making brilliant stuff since their comeback.
Jamelle Bouie from the American Prospect:
Jamelle Bouie from the American Prospect:
[A]s befitting a car commercial, is that it focuses on the revitalization of Detroit as a template for pushing the country forward. This echoes language the president used in his State of the Union last month:
Chrysler has grown faster in the U.S. than any major car company. Ford is investing billions in U.S. plants and factories. And together, the entire industry added nearly 160,000 jobs.
We bet on American workers. We bet on American ingenuity. And tonight, the American auto industry is back.
Not only should you expect to hear more like this as the year continues, but don’t be surprised if the Obama campaign’s positive advertisements look and sound a lot like Chrysler’s.
Friday, February 3, 2012
Thursday, February 2, 2012
Wednesday, February 1, 2012
Michelle Obama's appearance on the Tonight Show (VIDEO)
Part 1 (Michelle saying the President's goregous. President's singing. Mitt's singing):
Just an hour of computer time for Sasha and Malia? Dang.
Part 2 (Malia's cellphone, Politics, and knocking out Al Roker):
Part 3 (Michelle's Book, Let's Move, Jay's vegetable challenge):
Just an hour of computer time for Sasha and Malia? Dang.
Part 2 (Malia's cellphone, Politics, and knocking out Al Roker):
Part 3 (Michelle's Book, Let's Move, Jay's vegetable challenge):
Oh, by the way the President Announces Launch of African Americans for Obama (VIDEO)
Become a "Congregation Captain?" Why...that doesn't sound anti-Christian at all, Newt.
Race Baiting and still more Willing Republicans who go along with it... (VIDEO)
I'm not sure I was with Rachel on this one, but I sure as hell wasn't with Rick Tyler...
I love how Lawrence O'Donnell ended the discussion: Name the program that Republicans passed that helped African-Americans out of poverty.
It wasn't quite crickets, but...given what Rick Tyler vomited up, it was damn close.
Also, I'm getting sick of Republicans trying to pretend racial hostility to this President isn't a dynamic worming its way through this election. Tyler spent quite a deal of time saying that it was MSNBC who brought it up.
Tyler's answer was similar to Kennedy's appearance on the Bill Maher show last week saying that the Brewer-Obama confrontation was about sexism, not racism.
(Editor's note: Of course, I can't find any video to back that claim up. The closest I could find is below, where you can see Kennedy getting revved up.)
Despite the lack of video, Kennedy falls into the Willing category, as in willing to provide cover to enable racist behavior.
Anyway, back to the main subject. That all being said, I wasn't with Rachel on this one. I hate giving anyone a pass, but what Gingrich but it didn't make me cringe. I kinda stared at him and went "Really? That's what you're going with?"
Remember, I'm an expert at what offends African-Americans, given that I'm...you know...African-American.
You want to see what did offend me? The "jig" comment dropped by Jennifer, a questioner on the Google Hangout earlier this week. It was replayed on the Daily Show (wait till about 1:59 into the video):
That made me cringe.
I love how Lawrence O'Donnell ended the discussion: Name the program that Republicans passed that helped African-Americans out of poverty.
It wasn't quite crickets, but...given what Rick Tyler vomited up, it was damn close.
Also, I'm getting sick of Republicans trying to pretend racial hostility to this President isn't a dynamic worming its way through this election. Tyler spent quite a deal of time saying that it was MSNBC who brought it up.
Tyler's answer was similar to Kennedy's appearance on the Bill Maher show last week saying that the Brewer-Obama confrontation was about sexism, not racism.
(Editor's note: Of course, I can't find any video to back that claim up. The closest I could find is below, where you can see Kennedy getting revved up.)
Despite the lack of video, Kennedy falls into the Willing category, as in willing to provide cover to enable racist behavior.
Anyway, back to the main subject. That all being said, I wasn't with Rachel on this one. I hate giving anyone a pass, but what Gingrich but it didn't make me cringe. I kinda stared at him and went "Really? That's what you're going with?"
Remember, I'm an expert at what offends African-Americans, given that I'm...you know...African-American.
You want to see what did offend me? The "jig" comment dropped by Jennifer, a questioner on the Google Hangout earlier this week. It was replayed on the Daily Show (wait till about 1:59 into the video):
That made me cringe.
Tuesday, January 31, 2012
And here we go again: Wisconsin, then Indiana, and now Arizona...
I wish I could be a little more sympathetic, but...do you see know what happens when you vote Republican, or "send the President a message" or sit on your hands on Election Day? You get this:
Look at that last paragraph, Arizona. You were pissed off about the Economy, yet the Electeds have chosen only to hear an anti-Labor message from your Vote in November of 2010.
The question is, are you going to let them get away with it?
With a sweeping series of bills introduced Monday night in the state Senate, Republicans in Arizona hoped to make Wisconsin’s battle against public unions last year look like a lightweight sparring match.
The bills include a total ban on collective bargaining for Arizona’s public employees, including at the city and county levels. The move would outpace even the tough bargaining restrictions enacted in Wisconsin in 2011 that led to massive union protests and a Democratic effort to recall Republican Gov. Scott Walker.
“At first glance, it looks like an all out assault on the right of workers to organize,” Senate Minority Leader David Schapira (D) told TPM on Tuesday. “And to me, that’s a serious problem.”
The bills were crafted with the help of the Goldwater Institute, a powerful conservative think tank in Phoenix that flew Walker to the state for an event in November. Nick Dranias, director of the institute’s Center for Constitutional Government, told TPM he sees Walker as a “hero” but that Wisconsin’s laws were “modest” compared to Arizona’s measures.
“In Arizona, we believe that the political will exists to do even more comprehensive reform,” Dranias said. “The environment, the climate that we face in Arizona is much more receptive to these kinds of reforms than Wisconsin is.”
Look at that last paragraph, Arizona. You were pissed off about the Economy, yet the Electeds have chosen only to hear an anti-Labor message from your Vote in November of 2010.
The question is, are you going to let them get away with it?
AARP acts like it doesn't know that's the exact purpose of VA's Voter I.D. Law
From Think Progress:
Virginia is joining the growing number of states attempting to pass a voter ID bill that could jeopardize the voting rights of millions of minorities, low-income voters, students, and seniors. Today, the AARP — a non-partisan non-profit organization for senior citizens — warned state GOP lawmakers that their voter ID bill could disenfranchise a great number of Virginia’s seniors. Noting that “a good percentage — about 18 percent of people 65 and older” don’t have a photo ID, the non-profit said the bill “could mean a lot of seniors will choose to stay home.” Though the bill allows for a provisional ballot if the voter lacks ID, the AARP says the bill “sends a negative message to a powerful block of voters.” “Older people want to stay connected. That is one of their greatest privileges is to be able to vote. We want them to know their vote counts and to encourage them to get to the polls,” stated AARP. Virginia General Assembly’s black caucus is holding a protect the vote rally today in opposition as well.
Ta-Neishi Coates: "MCs act like they don't know..."
Jonathan Chait:
And, as Ta-Neishi reminded us...
And let's not forget Baltimore, 2010:
The idea that Romney can "think on his feet," and that Obama is all "flash," expresses a common right-wing trope that Obama is actually an idiot: a charismatic speaker but helpless when not reading from prepared text. That is the basis for the GOP's otherwise inscrutable obsession with TelePrompTer jokes - the TelePrompTer is an extremely common political tool, but many conservatives have come to believe that Obama would be helpless without it. That belief accounts for a major portion of Gingrich's appeal -- he has painted an appealing picture of himself exposing the stammering dope in a lengthy series of debates. Among other problems, this fantasy ignores the actual history of Obama's debate performances ...
And, as Ta-Neishi reminded us...
And let's not forget Baltimore, 2010:
What Colin Powell was in 2008, will Charlie Crist be in 2012?
From Politico:
Former Florida Gov. Charlie Crist said Tuesday he wouldn’t rule out voting for President Barack Obama in November.
Crist — who was a member of the Republican party until 2010 and is now a registered independent — said in interviews with MSNBC and CNN that he would “consider” casting his ballot for Obama on election day.
“Consider? Sure, I would consider that,” Crist said on MSNBC’s “Daily Rundown.” “I really think he’s sincere and genuine. I think we have a lot time, a lot of issues to talk about, but I think, in his heart, he’s trying to do what’s right for the country overall.”
And in an interview with CNN, Crist pointed to the improving economy as a reason he might vote for Obama in November.
Monday, January 30, 2012
I suppose "dogsagainstromney.com" was inevitable at some point...
Great catch by Andrew Sullivan this morning.
The Official Site of Dogs Against Romney(TM) founded 2007. Hi, I'm Rusty. Mitt Romney is mean to dogs. Help me get my message out about the Mitt Romney dog on roof story. Putting a dog on the car roof is abuse. Remember Crate-Gate.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)