The Women's March Is Crucially Important, And... And But...

I don't go in for identity politics at all. Voting for someone because they were born a woman, gay, of any particular religion, Asian or black, for example, is not my cup pf tea. Nor is voting for someone who is a veteran, a scientist, a doctor or part of any age group. Take women. Women make up 51% of the population but just 22% of the Senate and 19% of the House. That's outrageous. And that's why when when two candidates-- one man and one woman-- are equally good, I'll vote for the woman. But, not all women candidates are good candidates or good political leaders. Some are absolutely horrible in fact. Look at the House. Arguably, the very best member of the House is Pramila Jayapal, a woman elected from Seattle. Katherine Clark (D-MA), Judy Chu (D-CA), Jan Schakowsky (D-IL) and Yvette Clarke (D-NY) have fantastic voting records too. And you want to find incredible leadership and courageousness in Congress? Look no further than Elizabeth Warren in the Senate and Barbara Lee in the House. Bad news though. The absolute rotgut worst Democrat in the House is a woman: Kyrsten Sinema, the head of the Blue Dogs who represents a nice blue district in the Phoenix area. And she isn't the only Democratic woman who is so horrible that no one who believes in Democratic values should support her. Stephanie Murphy (Blue Dog-FL), Cheri Bustos (Blue Dog-IL), and Jacky Rosen (NV) have amassed voting records that no one but Paul Ryan and EMILY's List could possibly like. In the Senate, the worst Democrat is Heidi Heitkamp-- yes, my friends, even worse than Joe Manchin. And who voted to throw the DREAMers under the bus-- or in this case onto a bus headed for Mexico or El Salvador-- Friday night? Heitkamp and Claire McCaskill (as well as Manchin and Joe Donnelly).

Among candidates for Congress this cycle, people such as Nina Ahmad (D-PA), Katie Porter (D-CA), Jenny Marshall (D-NC), Lisa Brown (D-WA), Jess King (D-PA), Antoinette Sedillo Lopez (D-NM)... are simply the best people running for Congress. It's stupid to call them the best woman candidate when they are just the best candidate, period. I remember how Joni Mitchell used to curse critics at reviewers who called her the "best woman songwriter." You can't imagine how offended she was by that. She was the best songwriter-- end of story. How about that? Those candidates are not the best women candidates; they are the best candidates. Period. You could say Nina Ahmad is the best woman candidate born in Dacca and, technically, you'd be correct. It makes more sense to say she's the best candidate running for Congress. Someone might want to argue with you-- maybe, say, proponents of Randy Bryce or Marie Newman, who might say one of them is better-- so fine, make the argument... but it's not about anyone's plumbing.

Another awesome congressional candidate, a woman, running in the Houston area, is Dayna Steele. She's amazing and would make a fantastic member of Congress with a unique and much-needed perspective. Yesterday she emailed he supporters about the woman's march: "One year ago, I marched with my husband and youngest son in downtown Houston. Expecting to see maybe 500 people, I was stunned to find over 30,000 women, men, and children. That scene repeated itself all over the world, where people gathered to take a stand.  When the march was over my young son asked 'What good will this do? What will you do moving forward?' After much thought and counsel, I decided to run for Congress. Today, with the government shut down because folks like Brian Babin won't do their job, I’m marching again with my husband and youngest son, this time as a candidate for the 36th district of Texas. If you support women’s rights, equal rights, healthcare for all, quality public education, DACA, CHIP, and making people‘s lives better, I’m asking you to support our campaign today." Support her here.



"Activists," wrote Michelle Price and Anita Snow, "are returning to the streets a year after a million people rallied worldwide at marches for female empowerment, hoping to create an enduring political movement that will elect more women to government office... A rally Sunday in Las Vegas will launch an effort to register 1 million voters and target swing states in the midterm elections. The 2017 rally in Washington, D.C., and hundreds of similar marches created solidarity for those denouncing President Donald Trump’s views on abortion, immigration, LGBT rights and more. Afterward, a wave of women decided to run for elected office and the #MeToo movement against sexual misconduct became a cultural phenomenon. 'We made a lot of noise,' said Elaine Wynn, an organizer. 'But now how do we translate that noise into something concrete or fulfilling?' Linda Sarsour, one of the four organizers of last year’s Washington march, said Las Vegas was slotted for a major rally because it’s a strategic swing state that gave Hillary Clinton a narrow win in the presidential election and will have one of the most competitive Senate races in 2018. Democrats believe they have a good chance of winning the seat held by embattled Republican Sen. Dean Heller and weakening the GOP’s hold on the chamber."

Too bad [male] puppetmasters Harry Reid and Chuck Schumer handpicked one of the worst Democrats in the House, Jacky Rosen, as the Democratic candidate for that Senate seat. I'd vote for a pool of puke on the street before voting for Jacky Rosen. And the DCCC just endorsed a garbage candidate for Rosen's seat in the House, an incredibly wealthy, Mafia-connected socialite-- and Pelosi crony-- Susie Lee. If you want horrible-- albeit horrible without a penis-- you've got two to support right there in Las Vegas. And then you can feel like you've been cheated next year when they start voting like Heitkamp and McCaskill.

Instead, we should be putting our energy into electing great candidates-- many of whom are women-- who are shunned by corrupted slime like Reid and Schumer and the DCCC. Another Blue Dog in the House who is beyond horrible is Chicagoland walking garbage pile Dan Lipinski. He joined Paul Ryan to speak at the counter-rally against Choice on Friday. And his opponent is not just better than he is; his opponent is fantastic and someone who will make Congress a better place. Oh, and she happens be a woman: Marie Newman. Robin Marty, writing for Right Wing Watch wrote about that anti-Choice movement's rally and the horror of what's behind it. This is a lot more salient than electing crap candidates in Las Vegas.

When tens of thousands of abortion-rights opponents gather in Washington, D.C., this week to protest the 45th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, many will be lobbying the Trump administration and Congress on measures that they hope will chip away at and ultimately lead to the repeal of Roe. But a smaller group of activists are taking a much more direct approach to their efforts to stop legal abortion. Quietly, the anti-choice “rescue” movement has been trying out new tactics to test the limits of the FACE Act, the 1994 law that stopped them from physically blocking the entrances of abortion clinics in order to deny women access.

“Rescues” or abortion clinic sit-ins, are nothing new to the anti-abortion movement. In 1991, as many as 500 protesters a day gathered in front of abortion clinics in Wichita, Kansas, blocking patients from entering the buildings. The anti-abortion “rescue” movement was at its height then, with thousands gathering at national events to shut down clinics, while dedicated local activists focused on regular daily or weekly “rescues” that involved barricading elevators, blocking the vehicles of abortion providers, even locking themselves to buildings, cement blocks or cars so they couldn’t be removed from the premises.

The FACE Act put an end to almost all of those tactics. Signed into law in 1994 by Democratic President Bill Clinton, FACE (Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances) made it a federal crime to physically obstruct a clinic entrance or use force, threat of force or intimidation against anyone attempting to provide or procure an abortion, or to intentionally damage or destroy the property of a reproductive health services facility. (FACE’s rules also applied to anyone trying to block access to a place of worship.)

The FACE Act brought a quick end to the rescue movement as it existed in its heyday, ending the ability of anti-choice activists to physically prevent women from accessing abortion. But the strength of the law depends on how aggressively the federal government is willing to enforce it. In the five years that the FACE Act was in effect under President Clinton, the administration used it to file charges in 46 criminal or civil cases. During the two-term presidency of Republican George W. Bush, on the other hand, the Department of Justice had a 75 percent drop in criminal FACE Act violation charges, and filed just one civil case in eight years. Aggressive enforcement began again with the election of Democratic President Barack Obama, whose administration prosecuted 11 criminal and nine civil FACE Act violations in his first term alone.

With another Republican president in the White House-- one who anti-abortion groups worked zealously to get elected once they accepted the fact that he would be their inevitable nominee-- it is still unclear how aggressively the Department of Justice will enforce the FACE Act. Last year, the Trump Justice Department showed that it was willing to prosecute the most flagrant FACE violations after the radical anti-choice group Operation Save America attempted an old-school clinic blockade in Louisville, Kentucky. Police arrested 11 anti-abortion activists associated with Operation Save Americain May after they sat and directly blocked the front doors of the only abortion clinic in the state. Ten of the activists were ultimately charged with civil FACE Act violations, and a temporary restraining order was issued to keep them from the clinic property when they returned for a national event two months later. A full trial on the charges will occur this spring.

Whether the Trump administration will pursue less clear-cut cases remains to be seen. In response, anti-abortion activists appear to be nibbling around the edges of the law, trying out new strategies to test how far the Justice Department will allow them to go.

...More anti-abortion activist groups are staging marches and protest events like this outside abortion clinic doors to thwart patients from obtaining legal abortion care. If a patient approaching a clinic for medical care is confronted with a sea of thousands of protesters, that can hardly be seen as anything other than intimidation of a person attempting to access an abortion. Yet these marches, because they are currently being organized in a permissible way in public thoroughfares, often come with the assistance and tacit support of local government and law enforcement agencies.

While the Trump administration is in power, it remains very unlikely that we will see many activists charged with FACE Act violations-- that is, unless we see more blatant Operation Save America-style clinic-door blockades like we saw in the spring of 2016. But as for, more tentative steps into potential FACE violations pacifist clinic trespasses, city-issued and permitted mass marches and similar tactics-- it is safe to expect these to multiply, especially as federal authorities stick their heads in the sand and local law enforcement provide little more than wrist slaps in response.

And considering that this was how the original rescue movement grew from local nuisance to a national threat to access, that could be the most alarming development of all.

This is Dan Lipinksi's world. Last Thursday, when the Republicans brought up the enabling legislation for another of their ugly and vicious anti-Choice bills, the so-called Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act, only two "Democrats" voted with the Republicans to allow the bill to move forward, vile Blue Dogs Dan Lipinski and Collin Peterson. The DCCC will never quit Dan or Collin. But supporting Marie Newman and helping her replace Lipinski is a far more effective way to bring about real change than backing Reid's, Schumer's and the DCCC's godawful women candidates in Nevada. We're not asking you to support Marie Newman because she's a woman-- although I'm happy she is and that's a crucial part of who she is-- but because she is the best candidate and because will make Congress a better place because of what she's got between her ears. If you click the ActBlue congressional thermometer on the right, you'll find Marie Newman... and a whole slew of awesome women candidates-- and awesome male candidates. These are the people we should be supporting if we want a better country, not Jacky Rosen, not Kyrsten Sinema and not Susie Lee.

The choice couldn't be more clear

Melania In The News Again-- And Then There's Jim O'Neill: Sex And Drugs, No Rock'n'Roll

Trump's lawyers threatened to sue DWT if we didn't take down our Melania-was-a-hooker post-- so we did. Oddly enough, the Russian version of DWT still has it up, something we don't understand, although, as that O'Reilly character on Fox said-- and Trump tacitly acknowledged-- "Putin is a killer." In any case, this week all the papers were reporting that Melania is suing UK newspaper, the Daily Mail again. It's her third suit against them for the prostitution accusations. This one though, has a distinctly Trumpian twist.

The New York Daily News report starts with a paragraph reminding readers about the controversy: "Melania Trump's 'fitness to perform her duties as First Lady of the United States' has been undermined because the Daily Mail wrongly smeared her as an 'elite escort' in an article last August, a new $150 million lawsuit alleges. Melania claims the Aug. 19 article titled 'Naked photoshoots, and troubling questions about visas that won't go away: The VERY racy past of Donald Trump's Slovenian Wife,' contained bogus and defamatory claims-- hurting both her reputation and many business interests."

The new series of newspaper reports wasn't about her exploits as a hooker in Slovenia or as a high priced call girl once she left her homeland, but about how the Daily Mail ruined her business opportunities. No, not the call girl business, obviously-- everyone acknowledges she doesn't do that since marrying Trumpanzee-- but the business she intended to set up selling garbage and trinkets to fans of President Trump. "Melania Trump," reported the New York Post, "filed her third defamation suit against the Mail Online over an August 2016 article that accused her of having once been a prostitute, arguing for the first time that it ruined her 'once-in-a-lifetime opportunity' to cash in on the presidency. Can you imagine a story like this about Nancy Reagan, Barbara or Laura Bush or Michelle Obama? This is the kind of garbage milieu that Trump brings with him to the presidency!

The suit, filed in a Manhattan court by her attorney-- Charles Harder, who won Hulk Hogan a $140 million verdict against Gawker in a Florida case financed by billionaire Trump supporter Peter Thiel, the guy who recommended Jim O'Neill to head the FDA-- states that "Mail Online’s conduct was extreme and outrageous in falsely making the scurrilous charge that the future First Lady of the United States worked as a prostitute... Plaintiff had the unique, once-in-a-lifetime opportunity, as an extremely famous and well-known person… to launch a broad-based commercial brand in multiple product categories, each of which could have garnered multi-million dollar business relationships for a multi-year term during which plaintiff is one of the most photographed women in the world. These product categories would have included, among other things, apparel, accessories, shoes, jewelry, cosmetics, hair care, skin care and fragrance."

Originally, The Mail reported-- and then, in the face-off a law suit retracted-- that "the future First Lady masqueraded as a model in New York in the 1990s, when she really worked for an escort agency that catered to wealthy men." she denies she was ever a prostitute.

“As a result of defendant’s publication of defamatory statements about plaintiff, plaintiff’s brand has lost significant value, and major business opportunities that were otherwise available to her have been lost and/or significantly impacted,” the suit says.

As for Thiel's pick to run the Food and Drug Administration, Jim O'Neill, he's as loony as the rest of Team Trump-- maybe more so. First, take a look at this report from Rachel Maddow on this freak Monday night:



The Boston Globe was as concerned about the FDA pick as Maddow was, although less about the quirkiness of the prospective head and more about the quirkiness of the prospective head's dangerous ideas. O'Neill's claim to fame-- aside from being a crony of Thiel-- is that he insists "companies should not have to prove their drugs work in clinical trials before selling them." You know how hypocritical Republicans in the pockets of Big PhRMA are always opposed to drug re-importation from Canada because they claim it wouldn't be safe for American consumers? Check this out:

If the most significant proposals are adopted-- many would require an act of Congress-- they would reverse decades of policy and consumer protections dating to the 1960s. Congress toughened drug approvals after a worldwide crisis over thalidomide, which caused severe birth defects in babies whose mothers had taken the drug in pregnancy. Since then, the FDA has come to be viewed as the world’s leading food and drug safety watchdog.

Trump’s most recent statements have reverberated in the medical and pharmaceutical industries. Supporters of deregulation have long wanted to reduce bureaucracy and lessen oversight of drugs and devices, while critics say the market for drugs could be destabilized and the door opened to unproven products.

“Everyone depends on the agency, from the drugs in our medicine cabinet to the food on our dinner table, to our blood supplies,” said Dr. David Kessler, FDA commissioner during the presidencies of George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton. “We are the envy of the world because our honey is our honey. Our foods are not laced with pesticides. Our drugs work.”

Trump said he was close to naming a “fantastic” person to lead the agency. In addition to O’Neill, candidates whose names have surfaced include Dr. Scott Gottlieb, a former FDA official with longstanding ties to pharmaceutical and biotech companies, and Dr. Joseph Gulfo, a former biotech and medical device executive.

All three have called for streamlining drug approval, but O’Neill’s stance has drawn the most attention. He is a managing director of Mithril Capital Management, an investment firm Thiel cofounded, and previously led the Thiel Foundation, Thiel’s philanthropic organization.

In the George W. Bush administration, O’Neill held roles at Health and Human Services including principal associate deputy secretary, where he worked on policy, according to his LinkedIn profile.

In 2014, O’Neill advocated something he called “progressive” approval, in which drugs that were proved safe-- but not effective-- could be allowed on the market. “Let people start using them, at their own risk,” O’Neill said. “Let’s prove efficacy after they’ve been legalized.”

Companies have been required to prove that their drugs work since 1962. Laws force companies to rigorously test their products, running them through a gantlet of clinical trials whose results are then vetted by the FDA. Ninety percent of drugs that enter clinical development fail these trials. (The FDA also regulates medical devices, but they undergo a separate approval process.)

As a result, drugs can take years to reach the market.

“When you have a drug, you can actually get it approved if it works, instead of waiting for many, many years,” Trump told pharmaceutical executives. “We’re going to be cutting regulations at a level that nobody’s ever seen before, and we’re going to have tremendous protection for the people.”

“We’re not selling Coca-Cola and Pepsi, where patients can taste the Coca-Cola and decide if they like it,” said John M. Maraganore, CEI of Alnylam Pharmaceuticals, a Massachusetts biotech firm. “Our products are lifesaving medicines.”

Resist! Trump isn't making America great again; he's already turning the country into a hellhole in his own perverse, tawdry image.

Can You Imagine Lady Gaga Playing A Republican Convention-- Neither Could She, Despite The Million Dollars They Offered

Mitt wanted his convention to look hip and happening. They got Journey instead

When I was first coming up in the music business I avoided the whole idea of ever being forced to sell out by starting my own independent label. Others used to have to ponder the age-old question, "what if someone asks you to work Journey, Foreigner or REO Speedwagon?" In the world of progressive activism I was aghast when "liberal" politics operatives would explain how they had to go to work for a Blue Dog or New Dem-- or even a Republican-- because they had to feed their family. What a horrible position to be placed in!

Lady Gaga didn't face that kind of stark choice when she decided to turn down a million dollar payday from the RNC last year. But I've watched dozens of progressive musicians sell out to corporations, wealthy slobs who wanted a rockin' bat mitzvah, and even murderous tyrants trying to impress friends with how cool they could be in off hours. I've met most of those musicians who played for the Qaddafi clan but I never met Lady Gaga and I have no idea if she's a politically partisan person. I know she stands for deeply held values and principles-- and that those values and principles are at odds with what the Republican Party stands for... to put it mildly.

But Republicans don't want to be the "uncool" party and more than the Qaddafi clan did-- and, lets's be real how many times can you have miserable has-beens like Ted Nugent, Hilary Duff, Meat Loaf, Gene Simmons, Kid Rock, the remnants of Lynyrd Skynyrd, Sammy Hagar and Alice Cooper be the entertainment? Johnny Ramone isn't just dead, he would never have been able to persuade Joey Ramone to play for a bunch of reactionaries and fascists. And Republicans don't grok Prodigy or Lee Ving. So why not wave around a big check and go for the gold multi-platinum?

As a party that seems stunningly out of touch with the diverse and rapidly changing demographics of this great and grand country of ours, the GOP continues to operate in ways that solidify their brand as narrow, stodgy, intolerant, and clueless about modern culture. This would extend, it seems, to the people with whom they choose to affiliate, right down to those they ask to entertain at their conventions.

For example, anyone who knows or pays a modicum of attention to the performer known as Lady Gaga, knows she is devoted to her wildly diverse fan base (lovingly called her “Little Monsters”) and takes a very high-profile and proactive stand on gay rights. Juxtapose this against a political party known to be largely and loudly anti-gay when it comes to issues such as the Defense of Marriage Act, Proposition 8, even the happily retired “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy in the military, and it should come as no surprise that when the organizers of last summer’s Republican National Convention invited the Lady to sing for their Convention, she said, “no.” She declined a $1 million payday because, considering the passion of her fight for equality, nothing could be more wrong than singing for the right. From the Washington Examiner:

The snub by the pop star is included in a lawsuit filed by a powerful Republican nonprofit fundraising organization, American Action Network, against a vendor whose job was to stage entertainment just outside the doors to the GOP’s convention in August.

Documents filed with the lawsuit show that other entertainers also said “no thanks” to appearing at the GOP convention including Dolly Parton and the rapper Pitbull, who Republicans hoped to feature at an event for the Hispanic Leadership Network.

Many entertainers, including Journey and Lynyrd Skynyrd, agreed to perform at the convention, but Lady Gaga’s offer was the most lucrative, according to an email sent last summer by AAN’s director of development, Pete Meachum.

Which, for anyone who holds political convictions or admires a person who can reject money for the sake of principle, raises the estimation of a certain Lady. In fact, more than the million was dangled; lawsuit documents include correspondence between Meachum and Rob Jennings, head of Cater America (which was involved with planning RNC events) that details other enticements waved in front of the iconic entertainer:

Meachum, who is a former aide to House Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy and is now chief of staff for Rep. Sean Duffy, R-Wis., wanted Lady Gaga to perform on Monday, Aug. 27, the evening of the convention’s first official day.

“Also, tell them that $150,000 will go towards a domestic violence shelter,” Meachum further instructed Jennings in an effort to make the offer harder for Lady Gaga to refuse.

But she did-- and they were stuck with Journey and Skynyrd. And Skynryd canceled due to Hurricane Isaac and refused to give back the $350,000 advance. Several of them are suing each other and Journey says they were never paid the half million dollars they claim they were promised.

Does Lady GaGa know (or care) when "teh gay" is taken out of "Born This Way"?

by Ken

I don't know how closely everyone has been following the curious story of the use on both Glee and Good Morning America of edited versions of Lady GaGa's "Born This Way" which by curious coincidence omit the same section of the song. Here's Lisa Derrick's HuffPost report (there are video screen shots and additional links onsite):

Lady GaGa "Born This Way" LGBT Lyrics Omitted on GMA, Glee

Lisa Derrick
Posted: 05/29/11 04:58 PM ET

In both Lady Gaga's live appearance on ABC's Good Morning America and in the version sung on Glee the following lyrics to "Born This Way" are omitted:

No matter gay, straight, or bi,
Lesbian, transgendered life
I'm on the right track baby
I was born to survive

You can watch the versions with the omitted lyrics here.

One could argue time restraints on GMA caused the singer to shorten the tune. But Glee? Really?! Glee certainly has plenty of gay, lesbian and bi-sexual story lines, and infamously used the pejorative term "tranny" in the Rocky Horror Picture Show episode, so it's not like the program is unfamiliar with transgenders. Or unwilling to acknowledge they exist, even though it's with a slur.

Both Malaysian and the Philippine radio station snipped the LGBT lyrics from "Born This Way;" the Malaysian edit was government mandated. In the United States, a song released to radio could have several different versions, including a shorter radio edit ( the album cut of "Born This Way" clocks in at 4 minutes 20 seconds); a "clean" version which could omit the F and S bombs and/or explicit references to sex and/or drugs; and the regular album version. Radio stations can also edit tracks themselves to suit their playlists and listener profile.

So was Lady GaGa's shortened GMA performance of "Born This Way" simply to fit into the amount of time allotted? And what about the Glee cast's version?

And are there shortened versions, omitting LGBT references being played on your local radio stations? Do you think this edits dilutes the song message, or is it better ot cut the references in order to reach a larger audience who may then buy the original and potentially get illuminated?

Meanwhile a colleague calls attention to an On Top magazine report on an interview in which the lady herself told actor-writer-director and interviewer Stephen Fry that "sexuality is just one very small part" of the Born This Way album:

Lady Gaga Tells Stephen Fry That 'Born This Way' Not Only About Being Gay

BY ON TOP MAGAZINE STAFF
PUBLISHED: MAY 28, 2011

Pop singer Lady Gaga says sexuality is just a small part of what her new studio album Born This Way is about.

In a wide-ranging interview with Stephen Fry for Britain's Financial Times, the 25-year-old Lady Gaga tells the UK's most popular openly gay entertainer that her album is about rebirth.

“[T]his new album [Born this Way] is about being able to be reborn, over and over again throughout your life,” Lady Gaga said.

“Oh?” Fry replied. “I thought the meaning of the title track was that 'I was born this way – gay, straight, bi, lesbian, transgender, whatever,' and that you were affirming that . . .”

“No, in fact, sexuality is just one very small part of it … it's so interesting to see how people latch on to words,” Lady Gaga responded. “You say the word 'gay' in a song and suddenly all the other words float away.”

“I'm happy people did focus on that word, though, it's an important word to liberate,” she added. “But the album is about rebirth in every sense. It's about being reborn again and again until you find the identity inside yourself that defines you best for who you are and that makes you most feel like a champion of life.”

Howie may be able to add some perspective on this process of circulating multiple, mutilated versions of songs. I know he's talked about how record companies actually issue commercial albums with censored versions of songs to accommodate squeamish "partners" (clout-heavy vendors like WalMart, for example -- and then of course there are the government-mandated edits cited by Lisa Derrick in her report), so I'm assuming that such practices are fairly standard, but that still leaves the question of who exactly has to sign off on this. Does the artist have any say? I'm assuming that this depends on the clout of the particular artist, in which case you'd think Lady GaGa, even if she doesn't have final say, is listened to.

Very curious.

#

Streams Of Consciousness- Nov. 30

Let's Start With A Message From Lady Gaga



And On To The Senate's Hectic Schedule

Today the Senate passed S. 510, Richard Durbin's FDA Food Safety Modernization Act, 73-25. Only 25 hard core obstructionist Republicans, led by DeMint and Miss McConnell, opposed it. Crossing over to the saner side of the asylum were many farm state Republicans like Burr (NC), Grassley (IA), Johanns (NE), Kirk (IL), LeMieux (FL), Lugar (IN) and Voinovich (OH). Before the Senate could vote on it, though, they had to reject a couple of frivolous Coburn amendment, one of which to enforce an earmark moratorium, which only got 39 votes (it needed 60). Miss McConnell was working from behind his closet door to sabotage it. Although they've opposed ending earmarks in the past, cowardly Republicans facing teabagger primaries in 2012-- Kay Bailey Hutchison and Olympia Snowe-- both voted YES this time. Evan Bayh led 7 Democrats across the aisle to vote with the GOP.

Mark Foley Must Be Bored With His Life As A Socialite And Realtor

Perhaps he's feeling empowered by the swearing in of his old crony and fellow congressional closet queen Mark Kirk as a U.S. Senator yesterday, or by the rapid rise of his irresponsible page scandal enabler, John Shimkus, but Mark Foley has been dropping hints again that he wants to run for office. The plan is to run for mayor of West Palm Beach and than use that to... sit down for this... leverage another run for Congress! Presumably he wasn't talking about pages when he told a right-wing blogger today that "my passion has always been in D.C.... I have never closed a door that I wasn't able to re-open."

With about 1.3 million dollars residing in his federal congressional campaign account (money that could only be utilized for federal elections), Foley has the means to mount a comeback.  The open questions are-- does he truly have the desire to return, and will he be embraced by the public once again after leaving Congress under such ? Either way, Foley is considering  the notion of returning to Congress.

After reapportionment, there's no telling who he would be running against, but newly elected homophobic maniac Allen West is one possibility-- at least for a fun primary. As for the City Hall run, there's still a month to go before the filing deadline and Foley says he's waiting 'til the last day before announcing his intentions (December 27). "I do have the luxury that I can be the last man to file if I choose to, and still have the name ID," Foley told a local reporter. County Commissioner Jeff Koons might have been the favorite to win but he was recently convicted of extortion


Blue Dogs Behaving As Badly As Ever

Yesterday Ed Perlmutter (D-CO) introduced a resolution providing for consideration of the Senate amendments to H.R. 4783 to accelerate the income tax benefits for charitable cash contributions for the relief of victims of the earthquake in Chile, and to extend the period from which such contributions for the relief of victims of the earthquake in Haiti may be accelerated. Today Republicans voted against even allowing the resolution to come up for a vote, although it passed 223-168. Nine conservative Democrats, all but one members of the devastated Blue Dog Caucus, crossed the aisle to vote with the Republicans, including recently-defeated reactionaries John Adler (NJ), Bobby Bright (AL), Scott Murphy (NY), and Stephanie Herseth Sandlin (SD). Retiring alcoholic Marion Berry (AR), driven by his psychotic hatred of Barack Obama, also voted with the GOP and the other miscreants, who will need to be dealt with in the future, were Dan Boren (OK), Joe Donnelly (IN), Jim Matheson (UT), and Heath Shuler (NC).

When the actual amendments themselves came up for a vote late in the afternoon, it passed 256-152, 16 Republicans abandoning Boehner/Cantor obstructionism, while 3 ridiculous Blue Dogs, Gene Taylor, Jim Cooper and, as always, Bobby Bright, voted with the GOP minority.

Kentucky Gov. Steve Beshear Isn't A Blue Dog But...

Even if you didn't read Charles Pierce's brilliant book, Idiot America, just the graphic on the cover (on the right) would give you a good clue about the contents, particularly the riveting introduction, "Dinosaurs And Saddles," the story of the creationist theme park in southern Kentucky. I guess Kentucky thought everyone was laughing with them. Today the state's governor, a Democrat, announced that the museum's builders, Answers in Genesis, are building another creationist theme park, Ark Encounter, this one in northern Kentucky.

The attraction is envisioned as a full-scale wooden ark that would include associated museums, theaters, amenities, event venues and outdoor parking.

Preliminary indications are that the attraction could draw as many as 1.6 million guests per year and would cost at least $24.5 million to complete.

Answers in Genesis is an Apologetics Ministry that focuses on the absolute truth and authority of the Bible.

The Creation Museum, opened in May 2007, was estimated to draw about 250,000 visitors per year, but surpassed one million visitors in less than three years.

Its controversial exhibits represent the views of the ministry, including the belief that the earth is only about 7,000 years old and that dinosaurs were among the creatures on Noah’s ark.

...Beshear’s participation in the announcement suggests state incentives for the project may be included.

And... From The Ridiculous, To The Sublime