The ABC's of Brit Hume

Brit Hume gives advice to Tiger Woods on Fox News Sunday and shows how arrogant and bombastic he truly is.

The extent to which he can recover seems to me depends on his faith. He is said to be a Buddhist. I don't think that faith offers the kind of forgiveness and redemption that is offered by the Christian faith. My message to Tiger would, 'Tiger, turn to the Christian faith and you can make a total recovery and be a great example to the world."

Arrogant, Bombastic and a xenophobic Creep! Shame on Fox News...

Make a Resolution!

Arianna Hoffington and Rob Johnson think you should Move Your Money To Community Banks.

Too-big-to-fail banks are profiting from bailout dollars and government guarantees, growing bigger.

The big banks on Wall Street, propped up by taxpayer money and government guarantees, have had a record year, making record profits while returning to the highly leveraged activities that brought our economy to the brink of disaster. In a slap in the face to taxpayers, they have also cut back on the money they are lending, even though the need to get credit flowing again was one of the main points used in selling the public the bank bailout. But since April, the Big Four banks -- JP Morgan/Chase, Citibank, Bank of America, and Wells Fargo -- all of which took billions in taxpayer money, have cut lending to businesses by $100 billion.

Meanwhile, America's Main Street community banks -- the vast majority of which avoided the banquet of greed and corruption that created the toxic economic swamp we are still fighting to get ourselves out of -- are struggling. Many of them have closed down (or been taken over by the FDIC) over the last 12 months. The government policy of protecting the Too Big and Politically Connected to Fail is badly hurting the small banks, which are having a much harder time competing in the financial marketplace. As a result, a system which was already dangerously concentrated at the top has only become more so. [...]

The idea is simple: If enough people who have money in one of the big four banks move it into smaller, more local, more traditional community banks, then collectively we, the people, will have taken a big step toward re-rigging the financial system so it becomes again the productive, stable engine for growth it's meant to be. It's neither Left nor Right -- it's populism at its best.

Consider it a withdrawal tax on the big banks for the negative service they provide by consistently ignoring the public interest. It's time for Americans to move their money out of these reckless behemoths. And you don't have to worry, there is zero risk: deposit insurance is just as good at small banks -- and unlike the big banks they don't provide the toxic dividend of derivatives trading in a heads-they-win, tails-we-lose fashion.

So WATCH filmmaker/author Eugene Jarecki's amazing video, then go to www.moveyourmoney.info to learn more about how easy it is to move your money. And pass the idea on to your friends (help make this video -- and this idea -- go viral!).

Put action into your hands! Support the George Bailey's of this world.

Big Banks Helping Only Themselves

The nation's banks will be bombarding customers with new fees and products in 2010.

The nation's banks will be bombarding customers with new fees and products in 2010 as they try to replace more than $50 billion in revenue wiped out by new rules that clamp down on certain business practices.

So far, the changes are mostly concentrated in checking accounts and credit cards. In addition to attaching new fees to old products, banks are introducing new types of accounts that they hope will reel in new customers and reduce their funding costs. [...]

In addition to the credit-card rules, the government will crack down next year on ways banks charge overdraft fees, which are assessed when a customer overdraws an account. [...]

Other banks are expected to eliminate free checking completely, raise fees on safe-deposit boxes and charge customers more for issuing a stop-payment on a check.

Arianna Hoffington and Rob Johnson think you should Move Your Money To Community Banks.

It's still a Jungle in the Food Industry

Jennifer Poole at Daily Kos has the story about how the Bush Administration and the meat industry lobbyists turned ground beef into a slime of chemicals.

You're not going to believe what you've been eating the last few years (thanks, Bush! thanks meat industry lobbyists!) when you eat a McDonald's burger (or the hamburger patties in kids' school lunches) or buy conventional ground meat at your supermarket:

According to today's New York Times, The "majority of hamburger" now sold in the U.S. now contains fatty slaughterhouse trimmings "the industry once relegated to pet food and cooking oil," "typically including most of the material from the outer surfaces of the carcass" that contains "larger microbiological populations."

This "nasty pink slime," as one FDA microbiologist called it, is now wrung in a centrifuge to remove the fat, and then treated with AMMONIA to "retard spoilage," and turned into "a mashlike substance frozen into blocks or chips".

Thus saving THREE CENTS a pound off production costs. And making the company, Beef Products Inc., a fortune. $440 million/year in revenue. Ain't that something?[...]

Bush's U.S.D.A. also allowed these "innovators" to get away with listing the ammonia as "a processing agent" instead of by name. And they also OKd the processing method -- and later exempted the hamburger from routine testing of meat sold to the general public -- strictly based on the company's claims of safety, which were not backed by any independent testing.[...]

U.S.D.A. department microbiologist, Gerald Zirnstein, who called the processed beef "pink slime" in a 2002 e-mail message to colleagues, represents the situation better: "I do not consider the stuff to be ground beef, and I consider allowing it in ground beef to be a form of fraudulent labeling."

What does Poole offer as a advice?

I've been thinking about an action item on this issue, and I've got three ideas:

1. Write Michelle Obama through this web form: http://www.whitehouse.gov/... or snail mail: The White House, 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20500;

2. Print out the NY Times article and give it to the manager of your local supermarket, and ask them if they sell any kind of ground beef that doesn't contain this "pink slime" or if their butchers will grind meat fresh for you;

3. Just stop buying the damned stuff altogether.

For those beef lovers, try organic meat.

Politically Correct Food in Britian

Is a new trend developing?

 

From foie gras produced without making birds suffer to “sustainable” fish, British retailers and restaurants are fast embracing politically correct food, helped by celebrity-fueled pressure.

Faux (false) gras is the ethical answer to the foodstuff which has been the bane of campaigners for decades for the way it’s produced: force-feeding ducks or geese to create engorged livers that yield the creamy pate.

A darker colour than the real thing, faux gras is made from about 50 percent liver from free-range poultry blended with goose or duck fat.

“It is only a matter of time before foie gras is relegated to the history books where it belongs,” said Sam Glover of lobby group PETA.

While the day that five-star establishments abandon such foods seems some way off, restaurants in England do seem to be turning towards “green” alternatives.

Acorn House, in the King’s Cross district of London, claims to be the “first truly eco-friendly” restaurant in the capital.

The duck it serves comes from birds raised in a “positive” way, without cages and without antibiotics added to their food; its food deliveries are made in vehicles using biofuel, 80 percent of its waste is recycled, and its roof is a herb garden.

French celebrity chef Raymond Blanc, the holder of two Michelin stars at his renowned restaurant Le Manoir aux Quat’ Saisons near Oxford, has embraced a campaign to use fish certified by the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC).

This label guarantees that the fish has been obtained from sustainable stocks.

Those are just a few ways restaurants can "adopt a more ethical approach to their food." When will the US follow this trend?

It Looks Like a Conflict, Smells Like Conflict...

It is a Conflict of Interest!

Elaine Thompson/Associated Press

The Washington Post has an article about Michael Chertoff, the former Homeland Security secretary, and his relationship with the Chertoff Group, his security consulting agency.

Since the attempted bombing of a U.S. airliner on Christmas Day, former Homeland Security secretary Michael Chertoff has given dozens of media interviews touting the need for the federal government to buy more full-body scanners for airports.

What he has made little mention of is that the Chertoff Group, his security consulting agency, includes a client that manufactures the machines. The relationship drew attention after Chertoff disclosed it on a CNN program Wednesday, in response to a question.

The only criticism of Chertoff comes from the group FlyersRights.org.

An airport passengers' rights group on Thursday criticized Chertoff, who left office less than a year ago, for using his former government credentials to advocate for a product that benefits his clients.

"Mr. Chertoff should not be allowed to abuse the trust the public has placed in him as a former public servant to privately gain from the sale of full-body scanners under the pretense that the scanners would have detected this particular type of explosive," said Kate Hanni, founder of FlyersRights.org, which opposes the use of the scanners.

In the name of 'Homeland Security,' money is a mighty motivator.

Are We at the Point of Accepting the Unacceptable?*

Health insurance coverage is only one aspect of the health care crisis that Americans are facing. The healthcare legislation passed by Congress mandates insurance for every citizen. But questions still remain regarding what will be covered and if it is affordable.

Marcy Wheeler at FireDogLake looks at how this legislation will affect a family of four making around $66,000 a year (three times the poverty line).

Here’s a version of one family’s total household costs under the plan: a middle class family with two cars and some child care costs. Note, in this scenario, I’m assuming the middle class family will pay 7.9% of its income for health insurance premium, significantly less than the 9.8% the plan assumes that family could pay to get the subsidies available. This, then, shows what a family would be required to pay (or incur a penalty) under the 8% opt-out rule.

301% of Poverty Level: $66,370

Federal Taxes (estimate from this page, includes FICA): $8,628 (13% of income)

State Taxes (using MI rates on $30,000 of income): $1,305 (2% of income)

Food (using “low-cost USDA plan” for family of four): $7,712 (12% of income)

Home (assume a straight 30% of income): $19,275 (30% of income)

Child care (average cost for just one pre-school child in MI): $6,216

Health insurance premium: $5,243 (7.9% of income, max amount before opt-out w/o penalty allowed)

Transportation (assume 2 cars, 12,000 miles each, @IRS deductible cost of $.55/mile): $13,200*

Heat, electricity, water: $1,500

Phone, cable, internet: $1,200

Total: $64,276 (97% of income)

Remainder (for health care out-of-pocket, debt, clothing, etc.): $2,091

In other words, assuming this family had no debt (except for that related to the two cars), no clothing costs, and no other necessary costs–all completely unrealistic assumptions–it would be able to incur just $6,970 of medical care out-of-pocket costs before spending all that $2,091 and going into debt (the opt-out is based on an insurance plan that provides 70% of costs, so this assumes the family will pay 30% of health care costs). Yet that family would be expected to spend up to $5,882 more out of pocket before the “subsidies” started picking up its out-of-pocket expenses. (If the family paid the full 9.8% of its income on premiums–at which point it would become eligible for subsidies under the plan–it would have just $825 left to spend on all other expenses, including health care out-of-pocket expenses.)

This family couldn’t even go through a normal childbirth without going into debt.

Nate Silver at Five-Thirty-Eight takes issue with Marcy's analysis. He believes the healthcare plan passed by Congress will be beneficial to most low or middle income families.

First of all, several of of Marcy's cost estimates are on the high side.

As Marcy points out, her assumptions may be favorable to this family in other ways -- her family doesn't have any debt, for example. Nor do I doubt that there are some families who would fit Marcy's template almost perfectly (although they should still be able to take advantage of the significant tax breaks that Marcy hasn't accounted for). But in general, this is significantly more than most two-child families will be spending on these services -- probably by a margin of $10,000 or so.

Nevertheless, that's not really the most important point. Rather, what is this family spending on health care now? ...if the family isn't buying insurance, their health care costs certainly shouldn't be figured as zero.

Frankly, unless they're living in New York or the San Francisco Bay or some other place where the cost of housing is very high, the family that Marcy draws from -- one which pays $1,600 per month for rent but does not buy health insurance for themselves or for their children -- does not have a reasonable and responsible gameplan to begin with. If they can't figure out how to squeeze out $430 per month in insurance premiums, what are they supposed to do in the status quo when somebody actually gets sick? You can object to the Senate's health care bill on libertarian/paternalism grounds, but it will leave the overwhelming majority of low- and middle-income families better off.

Yet Jonathan Cohn at The New Republic looks at what families can actually afford. He believes that the Senate bill is worth passing yet the reform is not good enough. He supports his position by acknowledging the dichotomy of his assessment.

Without reform, this family would either be uninsured altogether or paying high premiums for coverage that is, most likely, far less comprehensive that what the Senate bill would guarantee them. [...]

Families dealing with serious medical problems, particularly chronic diseases that require ongoing care, have enough problems without having to sweat out every penny. And even the best insurance policies leave people on the hook for expenses that fall outside of covered benefits and, as a result, don’t even count towards out-of-pocket limits.

Making those two arguments simultaneously is not easy. It's the political equivalent of walking and chewing gum at the same time. But if progressives can figure out a way to do it, the people that already stand to benefit from reform will benefit even more.

The sad part about all this analytic journalism is that if you need to pick through and parse out the benefits versus the disadvantages of the bill, then maybe the complexity is itself a detriment of this legislation.

For progressives, the answer lies in the clarity and simplicity of a single-payer, not-for-profit system. Of course, a public option or Medicare for all would be acceptable. No matter how many ways you look at it, this healthcare bill is not!

*UPDATE!!!

J. Lester Feder at the Nation has a review of the pro & cons of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act passed by the Senate. The Senate's draft of the bill must be merged with the much more progressive version passed by the House. Feder believes that despite very serious shortcomings of the Senate bill, it is necessary to pass healthcare reform now otherwise "another generation may pass before another chance will come to try again."

Despite these very serious shortcomings, however, the bill the Senate passed would reduce the number of uninsured Americans by 31 million by 2019. The Medicaid program will be open to new ranks of the country's poorest residents, and the near-poor and middle class will get subsidies to buy insurance. The Senate also advanced some important delivery system reforms that could chart a path towards reining in costs.

As disappointed as progressives are with the compromises Democratic leaders made to get this bill through the Senate--and as tempting it is to believe they may have gotten a better deal if they'd pursued a more aggressive strategy--they are on the verge of doing many other lawmakers have tried and failed to do. And if this effort fails, another generation may pass before another chance will come to try again.

Lester's view is common among people who feel defeated on the healthcare issue but who think this is the best that could be achieved. The attitude is "something is better than nothing."

Was that Ben Nelson's attitude when he fought against abortion funding? Was that Joe Lieberman's attitude or Max Baucus' position when they fought against the public option?

Hell NO!!!

They stood their ground and fought for the position they were espousing.

There wasn't one Senator that stood his/her ground on support of the public option. They all caved in. Do you really think any of the Representatives in the House will fight for 'The People'? Or will they allow the bullies of Congress to dictate from the moneyed corporate pulpit?

Politicizing National Security

In the after-math of an attempted terrorism attack on a a trans-Atlantic flight from Amsterdam to Detroit on Christmas Day, the Republicans are lining up to slam the Obama Administration on its soft stand on terror.

Republicans Pete Hoekstra, ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee, and Rep. Peter King of New York joined Sen Jim DeMint of South Carolina to lay some blame on the Obama administration.

The attack should remind everyone “that soft talk about engagement, closing Gitmo, these things are not going to appease the terrorists,” DeMint said on “Fox News Sunday.” “They’re going to keep coming after us, and we can’t have politics as usual in Washington, and I’m afraid that’s what we’ve got right now with airport security.”

Wouldn't these Republican Congressmen also be critical of the the administrator of the Transportation Security Administration? Probably they would, if there was an administrator to hold accountable. But that position remains vacant because of Sen. Jim DeMint.

Obama nominated Erroll Southers — a former FBI special agent, the Los Angeles World Airports Police Department assistant chief for homeland security and intelligence, and the associate director of the University of Southern California’s Center for Risk and Economic Analysis of Terrorism Events — to run TSA in September. Southers’ nomination was approved by two Senate committees, but Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC) has placed a hold on Southers “in an effort to prevent TSA workers from joining a labor union."

The post remains vacant because Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C., has held up President Barack Obama's nominee in opposition to the prospect of TSA workers joining a labor union.

Thom Hartmann asks if there is really a choice between terrorists and unions?

The TSA – which keeps us safe from airplane bombers – is without a director. Why would one of our most vital security agencies be headless?

Well, it’s actually quite simple.

President Obama nominated a very highly qualified candidate, former FBI special agent Erroll Southers, but Southers has expressed his support for federal employees being able to be members of unions – which most are.

Senator Jim DeMint, the Republican from South Carolina who’s also a member of the notorious Washington DC Christian Taliban cult “The Family,” thinks that having our baggage screeners have better pay and working conditions is a bad thing, so he put a hold on Southers nomination, effectively blocking it in the Senate.

Jim DeMint is more concerned with destroying unions and good wages for working people than he is with whether or not your next flight is blown out of the air.

You may want to consider calling his office and letting him know what you think of that, after you write a letter to the editor of your local newspaper and tell everybody you know what an enemy of the American working class multimillionaire DeMint is.

Do Republicans really want to politicize national security?

Steve Benen notes that a "variety of congressional Republicans seem awfully anxious to play partisan games with the terrorist threat, and exploit the Abdulmutallab plot for electoral gain."

However, if the Republicans want to "turn the attempted terrorist attack into a partisan fight" then the Democrats should "welcome the opportunity."

There is, for example, the fact that the nominated head of the TSA can't get confirmed because of Republican obstructionism. Then there's the fact that congressional Republicans also opposed funding for the TSA, including money for screening operations and explosives detection systems.

And then there's this unpleasant tidbit.

Two of the four leaders allegedly behind the al Qaeda plot to blow up a Northwest Airlines passenger jet over Detroit were released by the U.S. from the Guantanamo prison in November 2007, according to American officials and Department of Defense documents. Al Qaeda claimed responsibility for the Northwest bombing in a Monday statement that vowed more attacks on Americans.

American officials agreed to send the two terrorists from Guantanamo to Saudi Arabia, where they entered into an "art therapy rehabilitation program" and were set free, according to U.S. and Saudi officials.

As Ron Chusid put it, "Just imagine the Republican response if Barack Obama or Bill Clinton had released prisoners to enter an 'art therapy rehabilitation program.' This sounds almost as silly as an American president sitting and reading a children's book while the country is under attack."

Yes, just imagine....

What We'll Get...

From Thom Hartmann's blog, Healthcare: First They Came For The Banksters

With apologies to Pastor Niemöller*:

First they came for the banksters, and showered them with money and put them in the Administration in a way that was not change we could believe in.

Then they came for the military industrial complex, and sent more and more of our children to die in faraway lands that had never attacked us in a way that was not change we could believe in.

And now they’ve sold out our hope for a national health care system not run by millionaire gangsters in suits. And who is left to speak for us?

President Obama is playing the Bill Clinton game of throwing people a bone and telling them it’s steak. Perhaps he’s doing it because he thinks it’s his only choice; perhaps it’s because he’s surrounded himself with Bill Clinton advisors (and Hillary as Secretary of State); whatever the reason, while it worked for Clinton, it won’t work for Obama.

It worked for Reagan, and for the first Bush, and even worked somewhat for George W. Bush.

But it won’t work anymore. Here’s why. [...]

He’s betting that he can do like Bill Clinton did to us with NAFTA and the World Trade Organization – hand us a turd and tell us it’s gonna blossom beautifully if we’ll just wait a year or three or five. Rahm’s betting that if he can “deliver health care reform” – even if the fundamental system of gangster corporations standing between us and our doctors while skimming 40 percent off the top for their mansions and private jets is intact – we’ll be all excited at his “victory” and elect more Democrats in 2010 and reelect Obama in 2012.

Ditto for cosmetic repairs of the banks, which is really just trickle-down Reaganomics on steroids. Rahm and his DLC buddies truly believe that this “change” brought to us by Bush’s man Tim Geithner or Clinton’s man Larry Summers is something we’ll “believe in.”

We don’t.

We oldsters of the Vietnam era, and the youngsters coming up who see how college loan banksters are screwing them as badly as their Clinton-era parents were screwed by the mortgage scammers, are all now fully awake.

President Obama, sir: Meet what is in large part your own creation – the High Information Voters of 2009/2010.

We’re awake, we’re mad as hell, and we’re not going to take it any more. Natalie Portman to Matt Taibbi to Arianna Huffington to Bill Moyers represent the span of our four awakened generations; generations who have figured out how the game is played. And don’t like it.

First Obama continued Bush’s policy of giving the banksters money, and we protested feebly.

Then he expanded Bush’s wars, and we protested more loudly.

Now he’s going to force us to give trillions to the gangsters who run the “health insurance” companies (while they promise to behave nicely in return) and thinks we’re going to go along with it and it’ll get him re-elected.

He’s wrong.

Please, President Obama, step up and lead. We’d like some that “change we can believe in” that’s actually the real thing.

Kill the bill.

*"First they came ..." is a popular poem attributed to Pastor Martin Niemöller (1892–1984):

First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a communist;
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a trade unionist;
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew;
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak out for me.

"Traditional Marriage" GOP Style

Glenn Greenwald has an interesting article about "traditional marriage" and Republican hypocrisy. Apparently, Karl Rove was recently granted a divorce in Texas.

Karl Rove is an outspoken opponent of same-sex marriage, citing "5,000 years of understanding the institution of marriage" as his justification. He also famously engineered multiple referenda to incorporate a ban on same-sex marriage into various states' constitutions in 2004 in order to ensure that so-called ""Christian conservatives" and value voters" who believe in "traditional marriage laws" would turn out and help re-elect George W. Bush. Yet, like so many of his like-minded pious comrades, Rove seems far better at preaching the virtues of "traditional marriage" to others and exploiting them for political gain than he does adhering to those principles in his own life:

Karl Rove granted divorce in Texas

• Continue Reading

Karl Rove, former senior adviser to President George W. Bush, has been granted a divorce in Texas after 24 years of marriage, a family spokesperson said. Dana Perino, the spokesperson, said: “Karl Rove and his wife, Darby, were granted a divorce last week. The couple came to the decision mutually and amicably, and they maintain a close relationship and a strong friendship. . . . A family friend told POLITICO: “After 24 years of marriage, many of which were spent under incredible stress and strain during the White House years, the Roves came to a mutual decision that they would end the marriage.

Rove obtained his divorce under Texas' "no-fault" divorce law, one of the most permissive in the nation. That law basically allows any married couple to simply end their marriage because they feel like it. Texas, needless to say, is one of the states which has constitutionally barred same-sex marriages, and has a Governor who cites Christian principles as the reason to support such that provision, yet the overwhelming majority of Texan citizens make sure that there's nothing binding or permanent -- i.e., nothing traditional -- about their own marriages. They're willing to limit other people's marriage choices on the moral grounds, but not their own, and thus have a law that lets them divorce whenever they feel like it. That's the very permissive, untraditional and un-Christian law that Rove exploited in order to obtain his divorce. [...]

I've long thought that the solution to the cheap, cost-free moralizing that leads very upstanding people like Karl Rove to want to ban same-sex marriages (which they don't want to enter into themselves, and thus cost them nothing) is to have those same "principles" apply consistently to all marriage laws. If Karl Rove, Newt Gingrich, Rush Limbaugh and their friends and followers actually were required by law to stay married to their wives -- the way that "traditional marriage" was generally supposed to work -- the movement to have our secular laws conform to "traditional marriage" principles would almost certainly die a quick, quiet and well-deserved death.

Greenwald has a point. Let's not allow those who are opposed to same-sex marriage the ability to espouse rules that they don't follow. They should live by the rules they force unto others.

Al Franken Amendment Protects Rape Victims

Sen. Al Franken's (D-MN) first piece of legislation is a "rape amendment," which withholds defense contracts from companies that "restrict their employees from taking workplace sexual assault, battery and discrimination cases to court."

Yesterday, it was signed into law. The Yea votes came from all Democrats , except Byrd (D-WV) and Specter (D-PA) who were not present for the vote. Also voting Yea were 10 Republicans and 1 Independent.

There were 30 Senators who voted against the Amendment (Franken Amdt. No. 2588 ). All who voted Nay were [male] Republicans. Which means that 75% of the entire Republican Senate caucus -- voted against this.

Digby had an interesting comment on this.

The reason I think it's good news isn't just on the substance (which it certainly is) but on the politics. Franken's amendment is driving the Republicans crazy because they basically voted to protect rapists and are now paying a political price for that. And now they are whining that Franken was somehow "uncollegial" because the amendment put them in an embarrassing position (which makes me wonder how many other things issues are swept under the rug because it would make members of the opposition uncomfortable.)

That's the kind of thing the Democrats should do more of. Expose the Republicans' hypocrisy and cruelty by forcing these issues on to the agenda.

Steve Benen notes.

WHATEVER IT IS, THEY'RE AGAINST IT.... It's tempting to think a measure like this one would pass unanimously. After all, it's not as if voters would elect monsters to the Senate, right?

In 2005, Jamie Leigh Jones was gang-raped by her co-workers while she was working for Halliburton/KBR in Baghdad. She was detained in a shipping container for at least 24 hours without food, water, or a bed, and "warned her that if she left Iraq for medical treatment, she'd be out of a job." (Jones was not an isolated case.) Jones was prevented from bringing charges in court against KBR because her employment contract stipulated that sexual assault allegations would only be heard in private arbitration.

Sen. Al Franken (D-MN) proposed an amendment to the 2010 Defense Appropriations bill that would withhold defense contracts from companies like KBR "if they restrict their employees from taking workplace sexual assault, battery and discrimination cases to court."

All Franken's measure would do is allow victims of rape and discrimination to have their day in court -- not exactly controversial stuff. When Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) accused Franken of pushing a "political attack directed at Halliburton," the Minnesota senator explained that it would apply equally to all defense contractors.[...]

When the Senate considered a measure yesterday to give rape victims who work for U.S.-subsidized defense contractors a day in court, 30 out of 40 Republican senators said, "No."

The notion that the majority should be able to reach constructive, worthwhile compromises with this minority is clearly ridiculous.

AVATAR, the Movie...

AVATAR is a must see!!! It is visually expansive, emotionally energizing, intellectually refreshing, politically relevant and an edge of your seat experience.


Official Avatar Movie

Money...Money...Money...

"What are we making Weapons for?

"What are we making Weapons for?" is the sub-title for the song written by John denver, "Let us Begin".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QgMRrqeXe5A

We all know the answer!

The Anniversary of...

Rep. Eric Massa (D-NY) says there's "a sad and ironic twist" to Christmas Eve.

As we begin our deployment of 30,000 additional troops to Afghanistan, this Christmas Eve will also mark the 3,000th day of the war in Afghanistan and the 30th anniversary of the initial Russian invasion of Afghanistan in 1979. Thus far, this war has already cost the American taxpayer a minimum of $300,000,000,000 according to the Congressional Research Service (and that's just the funding that's "on budget").

Sadly, the fact that we're spending about $101 million per day in this war is the good news. The financial cost of this war is nothing compared to the fact that 937 American troops have been killed, and 4,434 have been wounded (and that's not counting the thousands more that will carry the memories of this war for their entire lives).

That is why Rep Massa, a 24-year retired military officer and former special assistant to the then Supreme Commander of NATO, General Wesley Clark, has called for "an end to this war of occupation and attrition."

As Massa says, "Let's declare that enough is enough on this 3,000th day of the war in Afghanistan. It's time to bring our troops home."

ReThink Afghanistan From Brave New Foundation
WATCH: