Source

Have you read Charles Schumer and Lindsey Graham's "bi-partisan" framework for Comprehensive Immigration Reform? Here's a taste:

Last week we met with President Obama to discuss our draft framework for action on immigration. We expressed our belief that America's security and economic well-being [1] depend on enacting sensible immigration policies.

The answer is simple: Americans overwhelmingly oppose illegal immigration [2] and support legal immigration. Throughout our history, immigrants have contributed to making this country more vibrant and economically dynamic. Once it is clear that in 20 years our nation will not again confront the specter of another 11 million people coming here illegally [3], Americans will embrace more welcoming immigration policies.

Our plan has four pillars [4]: requiring biometric Social Security cards [5] to ensure that illegal workers cannot get jobs; fulfilling and strengthening our commitments on border security and interior enforcement [6]; creating a process for admitting temporary workers [7]; and implementing a tough but fair path to legalization for those already here [8].

Mindboggling is the only word that comes to mind. I have no words for what Frank Sharry, the Executive Director of America's Voice is lauding as a a positive step forward. Really Sharry? Having every single American hand over control of their identity and who they are "data-wise" to the government and some employer in the name of immigration reform is a step forward?

Let me breakdown that paragraph so you'll understand my outrage:
 more this way»

As we noted before, 64 Democrats voted against women's right to health insurance funded abortion procedures. Many of these Democrats have claimed the ultimate fallacy: That proponents of forced pregnancy shouldn't "pay with their tax money" for abortions because it infringes on their civil liberties. As if anti-war activists and pacifists could claim the same when it comes to funding the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and any other wars they oppose.

Yet I'd like to focus on the "hispanics" that voted against women's rights. Long-time readers now that even though I am a proud  Puerto Rican and blatina, I've never been one to shy away from writing about the ugliness and even atrocities perpetrated by Latin Americans. It should come as no surprise my willingness to call out these so-called Hispanics and Latinos of dubiosity. Particularly since in Latin America and the US Latino community we have to still wrangle with the social and political consequences of the machismo and marianismo myths that permeate the cultures of Latin America.

Am listing all seven members of the Congressional Hispanics Caucus for a variety of reasons: If you are not looking closely, some of these votes do not make sense given the previous voting record of people like Costa ad Rodriguez. After all, wasn't Ciro Rodriguez a darling of the netroots? And yet when you look closely at their lists of donors, their votes actually become not just sinister but cynical as well (as in the case of John Salazar). So we can't just blame it on the fact that all of these guys happen to be Roman Catholics or members of the Blue Dog Coalition. It's those donors lists for 2008 and 2010 that really paint a clearer picture of their "conservatism".

Last but not least, compared to the Congressional Black Caucus, the CHC delegation voted atrociously : Artur Davis was the lone member of the CBC who voted for Stupak. Why couldn't the CHC conjure such discipline when voting a measure that would basically kill women's right to an abortion? Or are their votes exactly correlated to the 2007 "whore" scandal that rocked the CHC thanks to John Baca's leadership in disrespecting the women of the caucus?

Let's take a quick look at the faces of Los Siete Infames (the infamous 7) :
 more this way»

What am I missing with this political coat-hanger remedy to health care reform?

Here are the Democrats who voted to eliminate all insurance coverage for abortion procedures. Here are the Democrats who voted against health care reform. The following are the names that overlap:

1. Altmire
2. Barrow
3. Boccieri
4. Boren
5. Bright
6. Chandler
7. Childers
8. Davis (TN)
9. Gordon (TN)
10. Griffith
11. Kissell
12. Marshall
13. McIntyre
14. Melancon
15. Peterson
16. Ross
17. Shuler
18. Skelton
19. Tanner
20. Taylor
21. Teague

If denying women health care coverage for abortions was necessary to pass the bill, how come 22 of those 65 Democrats who voted against the Stupak-Pitts bill still voted against PelosiCare? I am missing the logic behind the need to throw women under the bus. After all, only 1 Republican voted with the Democrats.

Another roll call for tonight's vote on "PelosiCare" or the HR3962: Affordable Health Care for America Act. 39 Democrats voted against the measure. Many of these same people voted for the Stupak amedment; which blocks insurance companies from offering coverage for any abortion medical procedures.

I've bolded the names of the double negative voters for your convenience:

Adler
Altmire
Baird
Barrow
Boccieri
Boren
Boucher
Boyd
Bright
Chandler
Childers
Davis (AL)
Davis (TN)
Edwards (TX)
Gordon (TN)
Griffith
Holden
Kissell
Kosmas
Kratovil
Kucinich
Markey (CO)
Marshall
Massa
Matheson
McIntyre
McMahon
Melancon
Minnick
Murphy (NY)
Nye
Peterson
Ross
Shuler
Skelton
Tanner
Taylor
Teague

Hot off the Congressional record, here are the names of the 65 democrats who thought it made sense to throw women under the proverbial Health Care Reform bus for the sake of getting the bill into conference.

These Democrats voted for the Stupak-Pitts amendment which would:

• Prohibit individuals who receive the affordability tax credits from purchasing a private insurance plan that covers abortion, despite the fact that a majority of health insurance plans currently cover abortion.
• Result in a de facto ban on private insurance companies providing abortion coverage in the health insurance exchange, since the vast majority of participants would receive affordability tax credits.
• Prohibit the public option from providing abortion care, despite the fact that it would be funded through private premium dollars.

The names of these champions of women's rights are found after the jump:
 more this way»

Besides making a point about the state of healthcare in the US today, my friends and I created the video above as a form of “digital storytelling”, using new tools to share an age-old content delivery system. Do you think facts and figures have worked better?

I’ve been hearing a lot more about storytelling these days. For example, in a recent NPR segment about storytelling at the Edinburgh festival, an audience member said in her Scottish burr, “We’ve been so clever about computers and pushed entertainment as far as we can, we’re going back to the original art form”.

This might help explain the increased buzz around great user-generated events like the Moth StorySlam and Mortified and radio shows like This American Life and now the Moth Radio Hour. There is something old-fashioned, comforting and even primal about storytelling.

While this supposedly new-found interest in storytelling coincides with increased interest in digital social media, I don't see it necessarily as a denunciation of technology.
 more this way»