And the Circus Begins

This morning marked the beginning of the confirmation hearings for Supreme Court Nominee, Sonya Sotomayor, and it seems that we're in store for some serious political theatrics. Already, just in the opening statements from a number of Senators from each party, a marked difference in the tone and tenor of their remarks.

While each side has congratulated her on her nomination, it pretty much stops there for the Republicans. Where Democrats have praised the depth and breadth of her judicial experience and record, the Republicans are trying to paint her as an activist who is not qualified to sit on our nation's highest court.

• Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) implied that she would substitute her own beliefs in deciding cases, thus corrupting our legal system with her empathy. He further went on to state: "I will not vote for—no senator should vote for—an individual nominated by any President who is not fully committed to fairness and impartiality towards every person who appears before them. I will not vote for—no senator should vote for—an individual nominated by any President who believes it is acceptable for a judge to allow their own personal background, gender, prejudices, or sympathies to sway their decision in favor of, or against, parties before the court. "Sen. Sessions also indicated that looking at judicial opinions is not a good test, because Supreme Court Justices cannot be reversed. I beg to differ with that statement. A perfect case in point is that of Lilly Ledbetter, where Congress just passed legislation that reversed the opinion of the Supreme Court ... and that legislation was recently signed into law by President Obama on January 29, 2009.
• Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) implied in his remarks that even if she has an impressive legal record and a superior intellect, he fears she will use her "empathy" to legislate from the bench ... that she would be "a creative jurist who will allow his or her background and personal preferences to decide cases."
• Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ) condemned her experience from the appellate court by claiming that "... she appears to believe that her role is not constrained to objectively decide who wins based on the weight of the law, but who, in her opinion, should win. The factors that will influence her decisions apparently include her 'gender and Latina heritage' and foreign legal concepts that get her 'creative juices going." He also implied that she may not be able to "...faithfully interpret the laws and Constitution and take seriously the oath of her prospective office ... Until now, Judge Sotomayor has been operating under the restraining influence of a higher authority—the Supreme Court. If confirmed, there will be no such restraint that would prevent her from—to paraphrase President Obama—deciding cases based on her heart-felt views."
• Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) implied that, if confirmed, she would steer the Court in the wrong direction limiting the fundamental rights of generations of Americans stating, "Judge Sotomayor: some of your opinions suggest that you would limit some of our basic constitutional rights – and some of your public statements suggest that you would invent rights that do not exist in our written Constitution."

Judge Sotomayor is a restrained and moderate jurist who was put on the bench initially by Republican President George Herbert Walker Bush. She dilligently reviews all relevant information before her in making a decision. In fact, her decision on the appellate court regarding the New Haven firefighters (which was recently overturned by the Supreme court and which the GOP seems to want to rant the most about about) was one that clearly followed precedents set in earlier court rulings ... the exact kind of rulings that conservatives purportedly claim to embrace. In defense of Judge Sotomayor, Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI) took exception to some of the political theatrics stating: "Mr. Chairman, every senator is entitled to ask whatever questions he or she wants ... Judge Sotomayor will finally have an opportunity to answer some of the unsubstantiated charges that have been made against her. One attack that I find particularly shocking is the suggestion that she will be biased against some litigants because of her racial and ethnic heritage. This charge is not based on anything in her judicial record ..."

But, Sen. Ben Cardin (D-MD) said it best today, "Nominated by both Democratic and Republican presidents, for 17 years she has been a distinguished jurist and now has more federal judicial experience than any Supreme Court nominee in the last hundred years. "

Let's all hope the political theatrics affecting this confirmation are minimal and that Judge Sotomayor's confirmation happens quickly.

Too Much Heat in the Kitchen

It appears that Alaska's Governor Sarah Palin has found that there is too much heat in the kitchen and has opted to leave ... mid-term. Citing in her resignation speech the amount of negative attention she has received since accepting to run as McCain's running mate, she condemned those who participate in the "politics of personal destruction."

She made two claims (watch the video): (1) that this undue attention has cost Alaskans thousands of hours and approximately $2M dollars to defend her against 15 frivolous etchics violation allegations, and (2) that it will personally cost she and her husband $0.5M to set the record straight. So ... what's her solution? She won't run for re-election. Oh ... but that creates a "lame duck" situation. Oh, no problem, she'll just resign so Alaskans don't have to endure her lame duck status over the next 18 months. And since everybody believes in freedom, Alaskans are then "free to progress" as is she.

To her, the circular reasoning is flawless. But, in announcing she wouldn't seek re-election, she herself created her "lame duck" status, which she then exploited to justify quitting mid-stream. Well Sarah, Americans don't look too fondly upon quitters. I seem to recall that quitting mid-stream didn't work so well for another political hopeful (Ross Perot). When the flames got to hot, he got out of the pot and he never managed to find a way back in. I, personally, hope that proves to be the case for you as well. You're the last person we ever need to see sitting in the oval office making decisions that will affect each and every one of us.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Palin resigns in Alaska, fuelling rumours of 2012 run (ctv.ca)
• Dick Morris Says Palin Made a Mistake (NewsMax)
• Palin's Abrupt Resignation: It Would be Irresponsible Not to Speculate... (emptywheel.firedoglake.com)
• Palin Prognosticating, Speculating and Opinionating (Desert Beacon)
• Bailout, Palin-Style (Washington Post)

Conscience Rule Still on the Books

Like Barbara Coombs Lee of the Huffington Post, I cannot be silent about the fact that the Obama Administration has not yet rescinded this onerous regulation, that puts the consciences of anyone working in and around the medical fields above those of the women of this nation.

"Most physicians believe that even if they object to a legal treatment, they still have a duty to tell the patient it is available. After all, how can patients make informed decisions about their various treatment options if their doctors refuse to disclose all treatment options? But a good number of morality-driven doctors said they don't tell patients about the treatments they find morally objectionable. The HHS authorities (under Secretary Leavitt) clearly wanted to protect them by establishing a provider's right to withhold crucial information.

Before this rule went into effect, it was unlikely that people with strong objections to certain medical treatments would choose to work in a hospital or clinic where the treatments occur. With the "conscience regulation in place, that may no longer be the case in that the rule may now urge ideologues into action. It encourages them to go to work where they can impose their beliefs on the maximum number of medical patients."

With all the attention on the economy, not much is being paid to whether our new HHS Secretary, Kathleen Sebelius, is taking any action to rescind this regulation. A search on Google, however, reveals that those who wish to impose their religious ideologies on others are quite active in their attempts to retain the regulation on the books.

I'm sorry, but I personally view Leavitt's "conscience regulation" as not just a threat to the reproductive health of women, but a first step in the subjugation of women in our society. This regulation is far too broad and affects more than just the singular issue of "abortion." It impacts the full range of women's reproductive health issues, from the ability to obtain effective contraception, to seeking invitro fertilization, to obtaining information about alternative reproductive treatments, to family planning counselling, to the "morning-after" pill, to obtaining tubal ligation procedures, to stem cell research, to referrals, to you name it.

A number of Federal rules/regulations already shield health care workers from participating in services they find objectionable. They're able to step back and let another staff member take their place in handling objectional procedures. However, using the new regulation protections, they can now impose their religious beliefs on others, by denying treatment, by denying information, by denying coverage, and by denying access to prescriptions. Something's very, very wrong with that premise and that's not what I grew up believing America was all about.

The deadline for submitting comments related to the rescission of Leavitt's "conscience regulation" expired on April 9, 2009. Today is June 7,2009. I wonder how long it's going to take them to make their decision?

ACLU Challenges Patents on Human Genes

Image via Wikipedia

Got this one in my email today ... and I have to agree with their stance:

There is something fundamentally wrong with companies being able to own the rights to pieces of the human genome. Yet more than 20% of the human genetic code has been patented.

Last Tuesday, the ACLU and the Public Patent Foundation (PUBPAT) filed a groundbreaking lawsuit charging that patents on two human genes (BRCA1 and BRCA2) associated with breast and ovarian cancer are unconstitutional and invalid. These two genes, the patents on which are controlled by Myriad Genetics, a private biotechnology company based in Utah, are responsible for most cases of hereditary breast and ovarian cancers.

For the past 20 years, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office has been issuing patents on human genes -- the segments of DNA that we all have in our cells -- giving private corporations, individuals, and universities the exclusive rights to those genetic sequences, their usage, and their chemical composition. There is something fundamentally wrong with companies being able to own the rights to pieces of the human genome.

This raises serious civil liberties concerns because the government is essentially giving patent holders a monopoly over these genes and all the information contained within them. Patent holders have the right to prevent anyone else from testing, studying, or even looking at the genes. The ACLU believes this is a gross violation of First Amendment rights: individuals’ rights to know about their own genetic makeup, doctors’ rights to provide their patients with crucial medical information, and scientists’ rights to study the human genome and develop new treatments and genetic tests.

As a result of the U.S. Patent Office granting patents on the BRCA genes to Myriad Genetics, Myriad's lab is the only place in the country where diagnostic testing can be performed. And, because only Myriad can test for the BRCA gene mutations, others are prevented from testing these genes or developing alternative tests.

Myriad's monopoly on the BRCA genes also makes it impossible for women to access other tests or get a second opinion about their results and allows Myriad to charge a high rate for their tests -- over $3,000, which is too expensive for many women to afford."

Patents are meant to protect inventions, not things that exist in nature like genes in the human body," said Chris Hansen, a staff attorney with the ACLU. "Genes isolated from the human body are no more patentable than gold extracted from a mountain."

>>Learn more about the case and the plaintiffs.

>>Watch the video and learn why it is important that we stop the government from allowing companies like Myriad to own our genes.

>>Take Action: Sign a message of support.

Oil Imports

"Right to Refuse" Rescission Up for Comment

Posted on Regulations.gov on March 10, 2009 is document HHS_FRDOC_0001-0050 which describes the process for submitting comments relative to the rescission of the Regulation entitled "Ensuring That Department of Health and Human Services Funds Do Not Support Coercive or Discriminatory Policies or Practices in Violation of Federal Law."

SUMMARY: The Department of Health and Human Services proposes to rescind
the December 19, 2008 final rule entitled "Ensuring That Department of Health
and Human Services Funds Do Not Support Coercive or Discriminatory Policies or
Practices in Violation of Federal Law.'' The Department believes it is important
to have an opportunity to review this regulation to ensure its consistency with
current Administration policy and to reevaluate the necessity for regulations
implementing the Church Amendments, Section 245 of the Public Health Service
Act, and the Weldon Amendment.

DATES: Submit written or electronic comment on the regulatory changes
proposed by this document by April 9, 2009.

CFR Citation 45 CFR Part 88
Page Count 5
RIN 0991-AB49
Fed Register # E9-05067
Date Posted 03/10/2009
Comment Start Date 03/10/2009
Comments Due Date 04/09/2009

You can submit your comments online relative to rescission of this regulation here. All comments must be received by 4/9/2009.

Wake Up Mr. Liddy ... Kill the Bonuses!

The 'bonus' situation on Wall Street, and more particularly with AIG is beginning to seriously anger American taxpayers, especially since we are the ones who enabled them to remain in business and not go under. It's like a slap in our faces that they hand out unwarranted and outrageous bonuses to poorly performing executives. Must be nice to be able to receive a bonus for unsuccessful performance. Only on Wall Street!

AIG, along with other Wall Street and Banking Corporations, need to fire their Human Resource Compensation staffs and replace them with people who understand how to create equitable compensation and incentive packages. Bonuses should not be payable just because there is a warm butt in a chair on a certain date. Bonuses should be payable only when certain parameters are met that positively impact the bottom-line effectiveness of the firm. Various factors (multipliers) should be assigned and assessed that can have a range of from ZERO to some number (e.g., 0-10%) that when multiplied against base salary determine whether and how much of a bonus is warranted for the performance.

When the bottom line is ZERO or in negative numbers, the performance factor would also be ZERO ... thus yielding ZERO bonus ... since we all should readily understand that ZERO times any number would yield ZERO dollars bonus.

Having worked in Human Resources during my working career, I understand how compensation packages work and fault the HR-Compensation group and the upper executives of AIG for designing such a faulty compensation mechanism that rewards ineffective and destructive performance of not just it's executives, but by extension, all of its employees since those executives will then lead their departments in ways to maximize their own personal compensation package ... at the expense of the health and welfare of the overall firm.

Edward Liddy, AIG's CEO, claims his hands are tied in that the employee contracts require him to pay out these bonuses. Um ... that didn't stop the Auto industry to renegotiate their labor contracts to restrict auto workers' compensation packages! If the taxpayers hadn't stepped in with bail-out money ... I doubt he'd be paying out those bonuses ... or that employees would prevail in bankruptcy court in recouping any bonus compensation. I simply cannot fathom how these executives (toxic assets, themselves), who amassed such toxic assets (loans and other illiquid assets) for a firm that needed to have taxpayers bail them out, could themselves worthy of any form of additional compensation for their outrageously ineffective performance?

Mr. Liddy also claims that if he doesn't pay the bonuses, he'll be "unable to retain talented staff members." Excuse me? Sounds like his staff has a talent he could afford to lose. Not only that, where exactly, in this pitiful economy does he expect that his 'talented' staff is going to go? Has he looked at the number of truly talented people who are currently out there desperately looking for positions and who are eager to do a wonderful job for employers willing to give them a chance to once again bring home enough money to put food on the table and to pay the mortgage?

Apparently the term "toxic assets" no longer describes just bad loans and financial instruments. It now extends to those people on the payroll who created them in the first place. Maybe, just maybe, Mr. Liddy ... you should seriously consider ridding AIG of some of the toxic personnel assets now found in your HR-Compensation group and executive ranks who may be preventing or inhibiting a turn-around in AIG's bottom-line performance!

Related Posts:
• AIG Bonuses 'Staggering' in Size (ABC News)

Ensign Touting GOP Line Against EFCA

I'm not a fan of organized unions, but that's another discussion for another time. However, I do draw the line at the tactics now being used by Senator Ensign to promote the Republican line against the "Employee Free Choice Act" ... dubbing it the "Employee NO Choice Act." Clearly, he doesn't know how the current union certification process actually works (or doesn't work), and he hasn't taken the time to read the proposed EFCA for himself to see what it 'really' says.

Here's his latest video release essentially ranting that he'll oppose this act to his last dying breath:


A quick read on Wikipedia reveals:

In order for a workplace to organize under current U.S. labor law, the card check process begins when an employee requests blank cards from an existing union, and requests signatures on the cards from his colleagues.^[3] Once 30% of the work force has signed the cards, the employer may decide to hold a secret ballot election on the question of unionization.^[3] In practice, the results of the card check are not presented to the employer until 50 or 60% of employees have signed the cards to help ensure winning the election.^[3] If the majority of votes favor the union, the National Labor Relations Boardwill certify it as the exclusive representative of the employess for the purpose of collective bargaining.

Under current labor law, workers can select union representation either through an election process or through majority sign-up (also known as “card check”). However, the U.S. National Labor Relations Board will certify a union as the exclusive representative of employees only if it is selected by a secret ballot NLRB election. Such an election is held if more than 30 percent of employees in a bargaining unit sign cards asking for representation by a union. Yet a company can refuse to bargain with a union chosen by workers through majority sign-up, even if 100 percent of the workers want to be represented by the union. The choice of whether to use an election process or majority sign-up to form the union is now exclusively controlled by companies. If enacted, the Employee Free Choice Act would require the NLRB to certify a bargaining representative without directing an election if a majority of the bargaining unit employees signed such cards through the majority sign-up process.[1]

If enacted, EFCA would require the NLRB to certify the union as the bargaining representative without directing an election if a majority of the bargaining unit employees signed cards;^[1] however, employees may still request a secret ballot election if 30% of employees petition for one.^[3]The EFCA would "allow the employees—rather than the employer—to decide whether to hold a secret-ballot election."^[3][emphasis added]

So Mr. Ensign ... yell at the wind all you want. Employees WILL have a choice ... it's just that it's the EMPLOYEES, not the EMPLOYERS, who will have the choice in HOW their union is certified.

Related articles by Zemanta

• "Secret Ballot"? Or Opportunity for Intimidation? (dailykos.com)
• Card check (washingtonmonthly.com)
• Human Rights Watch: Employee Free Choice Is a Human Right (oxdown.firedoglake.com)

They Raised the Debt Ceiling Again!

I find it interesting that in all that we heard about HR 1, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (the stimulus bill), we never heard the media telling us about the provision that raised our US Debt Ceiling, this time to $12,104,000,000,000.00.

HR 1; Subtitle G - Other Provisions; Section 1604 - Increased the public debt limit to $12.104T.

Must be nice to be able to merely vote to increase the value of your available credit limit whenever you like. As ordinary citizens, we don't have that opportunity and can't spend more than what is available in our personal bank accounts. If we start spending money we don't have, a lawman picks us up and throws us in the pokey ... but if Congress wants to spend more money than they're taking in, they just throw a provision in whatever bill is currently being considered to raise the debt ceiling and wallah ... they can spend even more of taxpayer's money on every whim of fancy they can dream up!

Change We Can Believe In?

Today... President Obama has earned his first Flip-Flop award for flip-flopping on his campaign promise to change how business is done in Washington through vetoing bills with excessive earmarks. Behind closed doors, he signed the $410 billion omnibus budget bill that provides as much as 8-10% in increased funding for a number of governmental agencies through September of this year. The omnibus budget bill also contained more than 8,500 earmarked projects that will cost taxpayers more than $7.7 Billion ... that's Billion with a B ... not pocket change by any measure of the word.

At a time when middle income taxpayers have had to tighten their belts to make ends meet, and when those same taxpayers are worried about whether they'll even have jobs by the end of the week/month/year, Congress as well as the President apparently don't understand that it's no longer "last year" ... that economic conditions have taken a severe downturn ... and that the spending they just approved was excessive and totally inappropriate.

Spending earmarks that don't have a corresponding budgetary offset should be outlawed!