Boccieri Wont Say What He Thinks About Bailing
Out Insurance Companies

I wonder if there is a lot of trust among people in Boccieri's district for private insurance companies? Because that's what they're going to be stuck with without a public plan. And it looks like Boccierri will vote for something that is under-funded[...]

Read The Full Article:
http://campaignsilo.firedoglake.com/2009/07/13/boccieri-wont/

Add to del.icio.us   Digg this   Post to Furl   Add to reddit   Add to myYahoo!

Now For Something Really Scary

There are many terrifying things in the world, but for my money the most terrifying news article I[...]

Read The Full Article:
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/OpenLeft-FrontPage/~3/jS63Iyanc6Y/now-for-somethin
g-really-scary

Add to del.icio.us   Digg this   Post to Furl   Add to reddit   Add to myYahoo!

Sotomayor hearings

David Waldman of the Daily Kos and Congress Matters has the best summary of everything Sotomayor.[...]

Read The Full Article:
http://www.whereistheoutrage.net/wordpress/2009/07/13/sotomayor-hearings/

Add to del.icio.us   Digg this   Post to Furl   Add to reddit   Add to myYahoo!

Wash. Times changes word in Sotomayor statement
to call for her defeat

In its July 13 editorial calling for Sonia Sotomayor's Supreme Court nomination to be defeated, The Washington Times falsely claimed that Sotomayor said that " 'inherent physiological and cultural differences' help ensure that a 'wise Latina ... would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male.' " In fact, Sotomayor did not refer to "inherent physiological and cultural differences" [emphasis added], as the Times stated. Rather, in nearly identical speeches she delivered from 1994 to 2003, Sotomayor repeated variations of the following statement: "Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences, a possibility I abhor less or discount less than my colleague [federal district] Judge [Miriam] Cedarbaum, our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging" [emphasis added].

The Times editorial page has distorted these comments in the past. As Media Matters for America noted, the Times falsely claimed in a June 8 editorial that Sotomayor "assert[ed]" in three speeches "that there are 'inherent physiological' differences between the races" and suggested her comments should disqualify her from serving on the court. Additionally, the Times printed an op-ed on July 11 by Jeffrey Kuhner that also misquoted the comment, arguing that Sotomayor "embraces the pernicious doctrine of 'inherent physiological and cultural differences' among groups."

From Sotomayor's 2001 speech at the University of California-Berkeley School of Law:

In our private conversations, Judge Cedarbaum has pointed out to me that seminal decisions in race and sex discrimination cases have come from Supreme Courts composed exclusively of white males. I agree that this is significant but I also choose to emphasize that the people who argued those cases before the Supreme Court which changed the legal landscape ultimately were largely people of color and women. I recall that Justice Thurgood Marshall, Judge Connie Baker Motley, the first black woman appointed to the federal bench, and others of the NAACP argued Brown v. Board of Education. Similarly, Justice Ginsburg, with other women attorneys, was instrumental in advocating and convincing the Court that equality of work required equality in terms and conditions of employment.

Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences, a possibility I abhor less or discount less than my colleague Judge Cedarbaum, our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging. Justice O'Connor has often been cited as saying that a wise old man and wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases. I am not so sure Justice O'Connor is the author of that line since Professor Resnik attributes that line to Supreme Court Justice Coyle. I am also not so sure that I agree with the statement. First, as Professor Martha Minnow has noted, there can never be a universal definition of wise. Second, I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life.

From Sotomayor's 2003 speech at the Seton Hall University School of Law:

In private discussions with me on the topic of differences based on gender in judging, Judge Cedarbaum has pointed out to me that the seminal decisions in race and sex discrimination have come from Supreme Courts composed exclusively of white males. I agree that this is significant except I choose to emphasize that the people who argued the cases before the Supreme Court which changed the legal landscape were largely people of color and women. I recall that Justice Thurgood Marshall, Judge Robert Carter and Judge Constance Baker Motley from my court and the first black women appointed to the federal bench and others who were involved in the NAACP argued Brown v. Board of Education. Similarly, Justice Ginsburg, with other women attorneys, was instrumental in advocating and convincing the court that equality of work required equality in the terms and conditions of employment. Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences -- a possibility I abhor less or discount less than my colleague Judge Cedarbaum -- our gender and national origins make and will make a difference in our judging.

Justice O'Connor has often been cited as saying that "a wise old man and a wise old woman reach the same conclusion" in deciding cases. I am not so sure Justice O'Connor is the author of that line since Professor Resnik attributes the line to Supreme Court Justice Coyle. I am also not so sure that I agree with the statement. First, if Professor Martha Minnow is correct, there can never be a universal definition of "wise." Second, I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would, more often than not, reach a better conclusion.

From Sotomayor's 2002 speech at Princeton University:

In private discussions with me on the topic of differences based on gender in judging, Judge Cedarbaum has pointed out to me that the seminal decisions in race and sex discrimination have come from Supreme Courts composed exclusively of white males. I agree that this is significant except I choose to emphasize that the people who argued the cases before the Supreme Court which changed the legal landscape were largely people of color and women.

I recall that Justice Thurgood Marshall, Judge Constance Baker Motley from my court and the first black women appointed to the federal bench and others of the then-NAACP argued Brown v. Board of Education. Similarly, Justice Ginsburg, with other women attorneys, was instrumental in advocating and convincing the court that equality of work required equality in the terms and conditions of employment.

Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences, a possibility I abhor less or discount less than my colleague Judge Cedarbaum, our gender and national origins make and will make a difference in our judging. Justice O'Connor has often been cited as saying that "a wise old man and a wise old woman reach the same conclusion" in deciding cases. I am not so sure Justice O'Connor is the author of that line since Professor Resnik attributes the line to Supreme Court Justice Coyle. I am also not so sure that I agree with the statement.

From Sotomayor's March 1994 speech at the 40th National Conference of Law Reviews:

In private discussions with me on the topic of differences based on gender in judging, Judge Cedarbaum has pointed out to me that the seminal decisions in race and sex discrimination have come from Supreme Courts composed exclusively of white males. I agree that this is significant except I choose to emphasize that the people who argued the cases before the Supreme Court which changed the legal landscape were largely people of color and women. I recall that Justice Thurmond Marshall, Judge Constance Baker Motley from my court and the first black women appointed to the federal bench and others of the then NAACP argued Brown v. Board of Education. Similarly, Justice Ginsburg, with other women attorneys, was instrumental in advocating and convincing the court that equality of work required equality in the terms and conditions of employment. Whether born from experience or inherent physiological differemces, a possibility I abhor less or discount less than my colleague Judge Cedarbaum, our gender makes and will make a difference in our judging.

From the Washington Times' July 13 editorial:

From numerous speeches, public appearances and writings, all read in context, we know that Judge Sotomayor believes that:

[...]

c Most infamously, "inherent physiological and cultural differences" help ensure that a "wise Latina ... would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male."

Read The Full Article:
http://feeds.mediamatters.org/~r/mediamatters/latest/~3/8fMUIhyj1MI/200907130030

Add to del.icio.us   Digg this   Post to Furl   Add to reddit   Add to myYahoo!

Holder May Investigate Torture -- But Several
Probes Are Already Underway

The pendulum appears to have swung back in the other direction on the issue of criminal investigations into Bush-era torture. It had looked for a while like President Obama's stated desire to look forward not back had carried the day. But now it appears that Attorney General Eric Holder -- independent of his boss's political concerns, which is how things should work -- is leaning back towards initiating a probe. The news was first reported over the weekend by Newsweek, then picked up today by the New York Times and Washington Post.

But whatever Holder ultimately decides, there are already several ongoing government efforts to investigate torture, which figure to substantially fill out our still patchwork understanding of the issue. So as we wait for official word from the Justice Department on a criminal inquiry, it's worth being clear about what those efforts are, and how they relate to each other.

? Perhaps most prominently, there's a CIA inspector general's report on the program. A heavily redacted version of the report was released in 2004. Some Democrats who have seen the report have cited it as offering a key rebuttal to Dick Cheney's high-profile claims that torture is effective. Holder's recent shift toward a criminal investigation reportedly came after reading the full report. The agency has four times delayed the date for the releasing the report -- it's now scheduled to come out at the end of next month.

? There's also a report being compiled by the Justice Department's Office of Professional Responsibility -- the department's internal ethics monitor -- focusing on former DOJ lawyers like John Yoo, Jay Bybee, and Steven Bradbury, who wrote opinions justifying the use of harsh techniques including water-boarding and sleep deprivation. The Obama administration has already released several of those opinions,/a>, whose contents prompted renewed calls for a criminal probe. Like the CIA IG report, the OPR report is expected "by summer's end", according to the Times.

? And there's also a criminal investigation at the CIA, underway for 18 months, into the agency's destruction of videotapes that show torture. Several former CIA officials have testified before a grand jury. The probe is being led by a special prosecutor, John Durham, who has been mentioned as a possible candidate to head up the broader DOJ torture probe that Holder is weighing. It's unclear when, if ever, the investigation's findings will be made public.

Given that the results of two of these probes will -- barring further delays, which are always possible -- be released by the end of August, it's easy to see Holder making a political decision to hold off on making a final decision about a criminal investigation until those missing pieces of the puzzle are filled in.

But he'll have to make the call eventually -- and the fact remains that only a criminal investigation can accomplish the twin goals of forcing us to fully confront what was done in our name, and of holding accountable those who did it.

Read The Full Article:
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/TPMmuckraker/~3/0nEeSGYPS80/holder_may_investigate
_torture_--_but_several_prob.php

Add to del.icio.us   Digg this   Post to Furl   Add to reddit   Add to myYahoo!

Ingraham puts crosshairs on Planned Parenthood:
What are these people at Fox thinking

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player! DOWNLOADS: (28)
PLAYS: (118)

When Laura Ingraham filled in for Bill O'Reilly on Friday's night's O'Reilly Factor, she ran a segment on abortion that was ostensibly an "investigation" into Planned Parenthood. It featured a logo that placed a red set of crosshairs -- the kind you find on a rifle scope -- over PP's logo.

I'd just like to ask one question:

What the hell were these people thinking?

Now, presumably, Ingraham herself did not order up this graphic, or if she did, it at least went through the hands of the show's regular producers and overseers. These are the same people who just went through a well-deserved round of approbation for their role -- in the form of those 28 references to Dr. George Tiller as a "baby killer" -- in the murder of Tiller by an anti-abortion fanatic.

And now they're running a graphic suggestive of what Ann Coulter calls "a procedure with a rifle" -- something, in fact, that Coulter has actually encouraged on The O'Reilly Factor.

Really, I'm serious. What are these people thinking?

Of course, we know all too well that O'Reilly and Co. did their best to disavow any culpability in the matter whatsoever -- somewhat less than convincingly. So maybe the continuing demonization of abortion providers on this program is part and parcel of that defiance.

And the same sort of anecdotal demonization that characterized O'Reilly's attacks on Tiller were similarly at play in this segment on Planned Parenthood. It essentially involved an ambush team using a youngish-seeming woman posing as a 14-year-old entering a variety of Planned Parenthood clinics and recording the responses -- most of which, as described by the fake teen here, actually fit the standard response of most properly run clinics in trying to make sure that younger patients feel at ease.

The overriding message, once again, is that these abortion providers are a pack of morally depraved sickos who deserve to be in the crosshairs. Lovely.

I can think of three possibilities here:

1. Someone just thought putting an organization in the crosshairs was the best way to represent that they were under investigation, and the other implications of such a graphic just didn't cross anybody's radar.

2. They thought about it, recognized that it might not be appropriate, but did it anyway, either out of defiance or simply not caring.

3. They did it with full intent, understanding full well that the suggestion of violence against Planned Parenthood was present, and in fact designing the graphic with that in mind.

Of the three, I think the second is the most plausible. But it's only slightly less appalling, for different reasons, than the other two.

Look, despite what the O'Reillys and Glenn Becks and Laura Ingrahams like to claim, no one is trying to "silence" them for expressing their opinions. This is about being responsible with that big media megaphone they hold. Promoting a violent mindset toward abortion providers, as we have already seen, is profoundly irresponsible. It's long past time that it stop.

Read The Full Article:
http://crooksandliars.com/david-neiwert/ingraham-puts-crosshairs-planned-par

Add to del.icio.us   Digg this   Post to Furl   Add to reddit   Add to myYahoo!

Dr. Regina Benjamin To Be New Surgeon General

Can you name a past US Surgeon General other than C. Everett Koop? David Satcher? Jocelyn Elders? How about the hapless Richard Carmona, censored by the Bush Administration? This is a job needing some invigoration, and what better time than now? How about appointing a community organizer and a strong woman?

The surgeon general is the people's health advocate, a bully pulpit position that can be tremendously effective with a forceful personality.

[Regina] Benjamin has that reputation.

What's she done? It's the opposite of quitting.

Benjamin was the first black woman to head a state medical society, received the Nelson Mandela Award for Health and Human Rights and just last fall received a MacArthur Foundation "genius grant." But she made headlines in the wake of Hurricane Katrina, with her determination to rebuild her rural health clinic in Bayou La Batre, Alabama, which serves 4,400 patients who would be hard-pressed to find care elsewhere.

More from the MacArthur Foundation:

Despite scarce resources, Benjamin has painstakingly rebuilt her clinic after each disaster and set up networks to maintain contact with patients scattered across multiple evacuation sites. She has established a family practice that allows her to treat all incoming patients, many of whom are uninsured, and frequently travels by pickup truck to care for the most isolated and immobile in her region.

Here's a more prosaic look:

A Healing Force

How one heroic doctor is helping her hurricane-ravaged town get back on the map

Want more?

Her extraordinary dedication and self-sacrifice have already won Dr. Benjamin national recognition. In 1995, she became the first African-American woman, and the first person under 40, to be elected to the American Medical Association (AMA) Board of Trustees. Dr. Benjamin also serves on the Board of Physicians for Human Rights.

Dr. Benjamin is a 1998 Mandela Award Winner, a former Kellogg National Fellow, has been featured as ABC Television's Person of the Week, and in 1996 was chosen by CBS This Morning as Woman of the Year.

Here's the official word, via press release:

Today, President Barack Obama announced his intent to nominate Regina M. Benjamin as Surgeon General, Department of Health and Human Services.

President Obama said, "Health care reform is about every family’s health and the health of our economy.  And if there’s anyone who understands the urgency of meeting this challenge in a personal and powerful way, it’s the woman who will become our nation’s next Surgeon General, Doctor Regina Benjamin. I look forward working with her in the months and years ahead."

Having someone intimately familiar with rural issues and access issues, primary care and how the government can help and hinder that care is a real plus.

She joins Margaret Hamburg (FDA), Secretaries Napolitano (DHS), Sibelius (HHS) and Clinton (State) as agency and department heads for a complement of strong, visible and supremely competent women appointed by Obama (Sonia Sotomayor is soon to join them. As of this writing, by the way, none of them have quit their posts.)

We need a Surgeon General to speak for and to the public. Whether it's pandemic preparedness or health reform, someone has to explain where we are and where we need to go. This one shows exceptional promise as a communicator.

I can't wait to hear from this extraordinary and compassionate physician.

More discussion in PerfectStormer's diary.

Read The Full Article:
http://feeds.dailykos.com/~r/dailykos/index/~3/C1nS2k0nEN0/-Dr.-Regina-Benjamin-T
o-Be-New-Surgeon-General

Add to del.icio.us   Digg this   Post to Furl   Add to reddit   Add to myYahoo!

Deeds Announces $3.4 Million Raised in June
Fundraising Period

?We are well on our way?? Says Deeds

Following his come-from-behind primary victory, gubernatorial candidate Creigh Deeds will report raising nearly $3.4 million during the fundraising period ending June 30.

?I?m happy that so many people from all across Virginia have supported my campaign in the past month," Deeds said. "We?ve had support from all areas of the state and from Republicans and Democrats. I?m grateful for the support from business leaders like Ted Leonsis, the help of my primary opponents and a unified party, and grassroots support from thousands of donors across Virginia. The key to winning this campaign will be to show who has the best plan to keep Virginia moving forward, and this month has shown that we are well on our way to having the financial resources to do that.?

A wave of grassroots support marked the latest fundraising period for Deeds, which ran from May 28 through June 30. Deeds received the support of 2,500 different donors during the period, 68 percent of whom were small donors contributing less than $100.

In 2009, 63 percent of Deeds' nearly $5 million raised came from Virginia. By contrast, just 30 percent of McDonnell's 2009 funds to date have come from Virginia, with more than $4 million coming from out of state. [http://www.vpap.org/candidates/profile/money_in_locality1/5666?start_year=2009&end_year=2009&lookup_type=year&filing_period=all]

Deeds? total eclipses the amount raised by Governors Warner and Kaine, Mark Earley and Jerry Kilgore in a similar time period in their gubernatorial elections. In a similar period in June 2005, Jerry Kilgore raised $2.0 million while Tim Kaine raised $1.0 milion. In 2001, Mark Earley raised $1.7 million and Warner raised $1.1 million over the same period of time.

Deeds has also received the financial support of business leaders across Virginia, such as Austin Ligon, Josh Darden, David Goode, Elliot Schewel, and Til Hazel.

The Deeds campaign?s latest report more than doubles the amount Deeds raised for the entire campaign to date. Deeds reported raising $2.8 million to date on his June 1 report.

Read The Full Article:
http://southeastvirginia.blogspot.com/2009/07/deeds-announces-34-million-raised-i
n.html

Add to del.icio.us   Digg this   Post to Furl   Add to reddit   Add to myYahoo!

Hit the Snooze Button

Watching senators making opening statements will make you pull your hair out. So we're posting the texts of the prepared statements. See what your senator is saying. Pick out the themes of the attacks and defenses to come. Much faster than watching the[...]

Read The Full Article:
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/Talking-Points-Memo/~3/bDy7ECWVYUc/hit_the_snooze_
button.php

Add to del.icio.us   Digg this   Post to Furl   Add to reddit   Add to myYahoo!

If the stimulus hasn't worked, then doesn't that
mean the GOP tax cuts are to blame

Reader Jason asks:

Krugman likened the tax cuts in the stimulus as fat, in that it would provide little genuine nutrition to the American economy. Correct me if I am wrong: the vast majority of the spending measures in the stimulus have yet to occur, whereas the tax cut effects were immediate. Right? So when the Republicans are saying the stimulus has failed aren't they really saying the tax cuts have failed? I feel like I am missing something because no one has really pointed that out.

Read The Full Article:
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/Americablog/~3/PRfyZv82eko/if-stimulus-hasnt-worke
d-then-doesnt.html

Add to del.icio.us   Digg this   Post to Furl   Add to reddit   Add to myYahoo!