Amazingly, More Slime!

You've got to admire their persistence:

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton and other prominent Democrats scrambled to unload thousands of dollars of contributions from one of the party's leading fund-raisers, amid questions about his fund-raising techniques and news that a warrant for his arrest has been languishing in California since the early 1990s.

The Democrats are doing their best to be even more saintly than the usual standards they're held to, and all the media can do is put on their white gloves to test for dirt. Shockingly, any seemingly tangential evidence is turned into a taint that plagues every Democrat - i.e. some guy may have made illegal donations and now all Democrats are guilty by association.

On the other hand, a scandal-ridden Republican? That's not news.

The Slime Machine Continues

This time the article is set up from the get-go to make you think this guy is already guilty of something:

Democratic fund-raiser Norman Hsu pleaded no contest in a court case in California in the early 1990s, according to his lawyer and media reports.

The Los Angeles Times reported in today's editions that Mr. Hsu agreed in 1991 to accept three years in prison for allegedly swindling $1 million out of investors who had backed his plan to resell latex gloves.

And on it goes...

Obamarama

On mortgages.

2 Years Gone

Still a wreck.

Bush's self-proclaimed mission was to keep the American people safe. He couldn't even succeed at that.

Feel the Slime

From the make-a-Democrat-sound-sleazy department:

One of the biggest sources of political donations to Hillary Rodham Clinton is a tiny, lime-green bungalow that lies under the flight path from San Francisco International Airport.

Six members of the Paw family, each listing the house at 41 Shelbourne Ave. as their residence, have donated a combined $45,000 to the Democratic senator from New York since 2005, for her presidential campaign, her Senate re-election last year and her political action committee. In all, the six Paws have donated a total of $200,000 to Democratic candidates since 2005, election records show.

Get ready to party like it's 1998 all over again.

If I Did It

Alberto Gonzales has announced that he has resigned in order to pursue the real culprits in the fired prosecutors and FISA scandals, as well as the numerous lies he told while under oath. Sources say there will be indictments forthcoming for prominent Democrats.

Bedtime for Gonzo

At last:

Bush administration officials say Attorney General Alberto Gonzales will announce his resignation today.

The embattled attorney general has been under increasing pressure by lawmakers in both parties, amid accusations that the Justice Department has been used for political purposes.

Seems like Fredo needs to spend more time with the family.

All You Need to Know About Libertarians

BradRocket:

Megan McArdle, a.k.a. Jane Galt, is up to her usual tricks:

An exchange with a blogger who is apparently a philosophy student at the University of Virginia leads me to believe that many people are still misunderstanding my point about the morality of single payer healthcare. Many people responded to my first post by saying, “But we have a duty to care for the sick!” Trying to make myself very clear, I wrote 2,000 words explaining that even assuming, arguendo, that we have a duty to make sure people don’t die from lack of health care, this is not a good moral argument for single payer. At which point I got more posts, including from said philosophy student, saying “But we have a duty to care for the sick!” Length having failed, let me try brevity:

1) Single payer transfers money from anyone who is young and healthy to anyone who is old and sick, regardless of their need for the money.

Basically, yes.

And as someone who is young and healthy (Really! I go on three-mile runs thrice a week and lift weights twice a week!), I have no problem with this. The reason? Well, because I have no problem paying taxes to help old sick people now, because I’m going to be old and sick in the future. That’s the basic principle involved here. But for peeps like Meghan, whose only thought is “MEEEEEEEEEEE-me-me-me-me-MEEEEEEEEEE!”, this line of thought is deeply immoral.

If McArdle was in, or knew someone in, a similar situation, how do you think she would act? Lack of empathy = psycho.

Be Honest

This is why we are still fighting:

And bring Dick with you. Josh:

His entire legacy as president is bound up in Iraq. Which is another way of saying that his legacy is pretty clearly an irrecoverable shambles. That is why, as the folly of the enterprise becomes more clear, he must continually puff it up into more and more melodramatic and world-historical dimensions. A century long ideological struggle and the like. For the president a one in a thousand shot at some better outcome is well worth it, no matter what the cost. Because at least that's a one in a thousand shot at not ending his presidency with the crushing verdict history now has in store. It's also worth just letting things keep on going as they are forever because, like Micawber, something better might turn up. Going double or nothing by expanding the war into Iran might be worth it too for the same reason. For him, how can it get worse?

And when you boil all this down what it comes down to is that the president now has very different interests than the country he purports to lead.

Still, it's always great fun to have a beer with an incompetent narcissist!

But it isn't just the president. It's also all of the Very Serious People who have no trouble doubling down on their bets again and again. They're playing with other peoples' money and other peoples' lives, and why not wait another Friedman or two to see if that lottery ticket hits.

People will continue to die for their egos.

Party like It's 1970!

Hunter rant.

Guess Where?

We must liberate them!

Baggy pants that show boxer shorts or thongs would be illegal under a proposed amendment to [place]'s indecency laws.

The amendment, sponsored by [local politician], states that sagging pants are an "epidemic" that is becoming a "major concern" around the country.

"Little children see it and want to adopt it, thinking it's the in thing," [politician] said Wednesday. "I don't want young people thinking that half-dressing is the way to go. I want them to think about their future."

The proposed ordinance would also bar women from showing the strap of a thong beneath their pants. They would also be prohibited from wearing jogging bras in public or show a bra strap

Meanwhile,

Nigeria is learning this lesson the hard way. Examples abound: 23 Christian women have been brought before Islamic courts, charged with non-compliance with the Muslim dress code, or prostitution (i.e., being unmarried and older than 13 years). At the University of Maiduguri in Borno state, female students have been forced to adhere to the Islamic dress code in order to sit for exams, and some are being expelled from the university for failing to do so. Eleven female nurses were fired in Azare when they refused to exchange their nurse uniforms for Islamic attire.

Just shut up and do as we tell you.

Vietnam Followup

After you read this you'll be able to scrape your brain off the wall with a spatula and chew it like bubble gum - POP!!!

George W. Bush on Wednesday said the consequences of a US withdrawal from Iraq could echo the “killing fields” genocide that destroyed Cambodia after the US pulled out from Vietnam in the mid-1970s.

In a speech signalling Mr Bush is in no mood to compromise with his Iraq war critics, the US president threw down the gauntlet in advance of Democratic plans next month to revive a congressional vote setting a deadline for withdrawal of most of the 160,000 US troops in Iraq.

Much of Mr Bush’s speech, which was delivered in Kansas City to the US Veterans of Foreign Wars, focused on the history of the US occupation of Japan and Germany after the second world war and on the aftermath of the US military pull-out from Indochina.

“The price of America’s withdrawal from Vietnam was paid by millions of innocent citizens whose agonies would add to our vocabulary new terms like “boat people”, “re-education camps” and “killing fields”, Mr Bush said. “Iraq is a central front in the war on terror. Withdrawal without getting the job done would be a disaster.”

The US president, who appeared to be in ebullient spirits, also reprised his controversial linking of democracy to religious values. “We are still in the early hours of the current ideological struggle,” he said. “Our world will never be safe until the people of the Middle East know the freedom that our Creator intended for all.”

An understanding of cause and effect is necessary for functioning. No wonder we're so fucked. I've mentioned this before, but be sure to read the Harper's article on the Stabbed in the Back myth. It's what Bush is trying to set up for whomever the Democratic president is who takes us out of Iraq. Yes, it will be a disaster, but for Bush to say something like that ignores both his role in creating the disaster and the disaster that will continue to happen whether we're there or not. Yes, it's still a disaster.

The logic is "as long as we're trying we're free from blame, because it implies that we could succeed, which would make everything worthwhile." That is absolutely morally and causally specious logic. Trying? How much? Without a draft? Without properly equipping our troops? Without any plan? How about some other questions like are we making things better or worse? What about the cost? What do the other actors think and why? None of these questions are being asked, not by the administration, the media or the very serious people in our foreign policy community. Just shut up and cheer.

Adding, that last quote is precious. Freedom to do exactly as we tell them.

I'm sure Josh Marshall will have more on Bush's speech later, but he's already got a post up after reading the prepared remarks:

The story of the 'boat people' is unquestionably tragic. And there's little doubt that there are many Iraqis who will pay either with their lives or nationality for aiding us in various ways during our occupation of the country. But to govern our policy on this basis is simply to buy into a classic sunk cost fallacy. A far better -- and really quite necessary -- policy would be to give asylum to a lot of these people rather than continuing to get more of them into the same position in advance of our inevitable departure.

More concretely though, didn't the killing fields happen in Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge rather than Vietnam? So doesn't that complicate the analogy a bit? And didn't that genocide actually come to an end when the Communist Vietnamese invaded in 1979 and overthrow the Khmer Rouge regime? The Vietnamese Communists may have been no great shakes. But can we get through one of these boneheaded historical analogies while keeping at least some of the facts intact?

Not a snowball's chance in hell.

History Major

I don't think it means what Bush thinks it means:

In a departure from his standard Iraq rhetoric, Mr. Bush will directly compare the Iraq conflict to Vietnam -- another long-running conflict where U.S. involvement became controversial and calls for withdrawal ultimately became politically irresistible. But he will make the case that the Vietnam conflict was part of a long and ultimately successful battle in Asia against militarism and communism.

I am oversimplifying, but as a result of Vietnam, we learned that the Domino theory was bunk, since we effectively lost our war in Vietnam and communism did not continue to spread, we destabilized Laos and Cambodia as well as gave China a reason to arm, both of which promoted militarism, and bled our country. Our involvement in Vietnam was irresponsible, immoral and ultimately destructive to all parties involved. If Bush had learned a single thing about Vietnam, as a history major he would not be able to say any of those things.


This book is a good place to start.

Spectator Sport

Leahy fumbles the ball:

"The time is up. The time is up," Leahy announced yesterday. "We've waited long enough."

But what would Leahy do about it? The first questioner riddled Batman with this.

"The full Judiciary Committee will have to sit down and determine whether to seek contempt from the full Senate," said the noncommittal action hero.

Does that mean he would seek a contempt-of-Congress citation? "What I want to do is get the response to these things," Leahy demurred.

Rebecca Carr of Cox News tried again to pin him down, but Leahy continued to escape. "What we have to find out is what happened here," he answered.

How about withholding money from the administration? "Let's take it step by step," he proposed.

Holy incrementalism, Batman!

He had a chance to back up his words with action and demonstrate that Congress still has relevance, but he blew it. I think many of our well-meaning Washington actors do not understand how this sport is played. They think they can say anything or do anything and get away with it. Unfortunately for them, unlike a real sport, there is no coach who decides who to bench and who to field, and there are no last minute comebacks. In this sport, if your fans decide that you are not playing up to snuff they can vote you off the team. Furthermore, politicians words and actions shape their fans' opinions of them. It seems to me that the Beltway crowd views the media and punditry as their coach, which could not be further from reality.

Maybe politics really is a spectator sport after all - but one in which the spectators actually count for something.

Pure Evil

Bush.

The Bush administration, after years of allowing states to cover more children from higher-income families through a popular state-federal health-insurance program, is putting the brakes on expansion.

The policy change will affect states that seek to or already cover children from families with income at 250% of the federal poverty level, or $51,625 for a family of four. (The federal poverty level is $20,650 for a family of four.) At least 16 states had received permission over the years to expand to or beyond that level.

The step will also put the administration on a collision course with Congress, which has approved legislation with tens of billions of dollars to expand the program to cover more children. The House and the Senate are expected to work out a compromise after the August recess.

Administration officials said President Bush will veto the final bill if tighter controls and spending limits aren't enacted. They argue that the program's expansion has gone beyond its original goal to cover low-income children at the 200% poverty level, or $41,300 for a family of four. The expansion, they say, has led some families to drop private health coverage in favor of the program, known as SCHIP, for State Children's Health Insurance Program.

Because children on public, as opposed to private, healthcare are morally decrepit. As for tighter spending? I cannot take someone seriously who spends over $200 million every day in Iraq.

Manamana

Murdoch Goes to Work

WSJ (subscription required):

As a presidential candidate, Democrat John Edwards has regularly attacked subprime lenders, particularly those that have filed foreclosure suits against victims of Hurricane Katrina. But as an investor, Mr. Edwards has ties to lenders foreclosing on Katrina victims.

The Wall Street Journal has identified 34 New Orleans homes whose owners have faced foreclosure suits from subprime-lending units of Fortress Investment Group LLC. Mr. Edwards has about $16 million invested in Fortress funds, according to a campaign aide who confirmed a more general Federal Election Commission report. Mr. Edwards worked for Fortress, a publicly held private-equity fund, from late 2005 through 2006.

...

He also promised to cleanse his portfolio of any investments that may be profiting from their losses. "I am going to divest" from any Fortress funds that have a stake in the subprime lenders that filed the foreclosures, he said in a telephone interview. "I will not have my family's money invested in these firms."

Two weeks after News Corp. purchased Dow Jones, the owner of the Wall Street Journal, the Journal runs a front page hit piece on a top tier Democratic presidential candidate.

I discussed this in an earlier post, but to recap, Edwards is getting slammed because he has done something that supposedly runs counter to the media's narratives of Democrats - "weak, effeminate socialists." If a Republican had done it - Hi Bain Capital's Mitt Romney! - the only narrative it would fit is "a rich Republican trying to screw the poor", which is not news and would not get any press - just see Haley Barbour's latest.

Even though this is a hit piece it is clear that there is no evidence of foul play or hypocrisy on Edwards' part. This is character assassination plain and simple, as they are trying to create an image of sleaze to undermine Edwards' trustworthiness and character. Murdoch has showed his hand.

On Iraq

What Digby said.

Very Smart People

The State Department:

The United States sealed a deal on Thursday to provide Israel with $30 billion in defense grants over the next decade, a 25 percent boost that Washington describes as strengthening a bulwark against Iran.

At a signing ceremony in Jerusalem, U.S. Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns said the United States would help Israel maintain a military advantage over foes ranging from Iran and Syria to their proxies in Lebanon and Palestinian territories.

"There is no question that, from an American point of view, the Middle East is a more dangerous region now even than it was 10 or 20 years ago and that Israel is facing a growing threat. It's immediate and it's also long-term," Burns told reporters.

"The United States faces many of the same threats from the same organizations and countries as Israel does, and so we felt this was the right level of assistance."

These people understand nothing and are wrong about everything, all the time. Even though this decision came from Foggy Bottom, I am sure Fourthbranch had a hand in it.

A large part of the reason so many muslims hate the U.S. has to do with Israel. Is Israel worthy of this level of assistance? I doubt it. Furthermore, as we have learned countless times in the last 5 years, the enemy of our enemy is not necessarily our friend. All this serves to do is galvanize Iran and increase the possibility of a conflict. Why is Iran automatically our enemy? What threat does Iran pose to the U.S.? It is notable that the U.A.E., Dubai in particular, is much more anti-Israel and anti-Jewish than Iran, as well as far more rich and powerful, but you never hear any angry rhetoric pointed at Dubai.

The U.S. should cut most - if not all - of its military aid to Israel. That would be a good first step toward easing tensions with many of our "enemies" and at no cost to us - profit, actually. Israel is not an enemy, but it is not automatically an ally. It is another country and should be afforded the same status as any other country.

Supporting the Generals

What they really mean is supporting Bush. Can we cut the crap now?

Despite Bush's repeated statements that the report will reflect evaluations by Petraeus and Ryan Crocker, the U.S. ambassador to Iraq, administration officials said it would actually be written by the White House, with inputs from officials throughout the government.

And though Petraeus and Crocker will present their recommendations on Capitol Hill, legislation passed by Congress leaves it to the president to decide how to interpret the report's data.

That report is going to be just swell!

No one in this administration has any credibility left and therefore no one should pay attention to anything they have to say.

War?

Oh yeah, that war.

At least 175 people were killed when three suicide bombers driving fuel tankers attacked residential compounds home to the ancient minority Yazidi sect in northern Iraq on Tuesday, an Iraqi army captain said.

Captain Mohammad al-Jaad said at least another 200 people were wounded in the bombings in the Kahtaniya, al-Jazeera and Tal Uzair areas near the northern Iraqi town of Sinjar, close to the Syrian border.

But it's ok because Michael O'Hanlon and Kenneth Pollack tell me that things are looking upbeat and we're making progress.

Centrists vs. Moderates

Somebody gets it.

The first mistake is to believe that a "moderate" and a "centrist" is the same thing. A "moderate" is a person who is neither ideologically left nor ideologically right, but rather has policy positions which set squarely within the middle of the Overton Window of popular political possibilities for the mainstream American public. Thus, a moderate may want lower taxes, be pro-death penalty, and desire slightly stricter controls on abortion, but be fairly progressive on a number of issues where public opinion resides squarely with us--issues from guaranteed healthcare to Iraq to the environment to even national security at this point.

A "centrist", on the other hand, is a person who stands squarely between the two major political parties. A "centrist" is a person like Joe Lieberman, who assumes a smorgasbord of policy positions taken from each of the parties, and has no compunction about trashing his/her own party if it benefits his/her political career. Due to the rightward shift of both political parties over the last 25 years, a "centrist" is guaranteed to stand to the right of the American Public on most issues, while trashing the overall image of the Democratic Party brand. Joe Lieberman is no "moderate"; rather, he's a crazed "centrist."

Read on.

O'Hanlon Gone Wild

Not Serious Person-style, by Glenn Greenwald.

Frogmarch

Leahy:

“Earlier this month, Karl Rove failed to comply with the Judiciary Committee's subpoena to testify about the mass firings of United States Attorneys. Despite evidence that he played a central role in these firings, just as he did in the Libby case involving the outing of an undercover CIA agent and improper political briefings at over 20 government agencies, Mr. Rove acted as if he was above the law. That is wrong. Now that he is leaving the White House while under subpoena, I continue to ask what Mr. Rove and others at the White House are so desperate to hide. Mr. Rove’s apparent attempts to manipulate elections and push out prosecutors citing bogus claims of voter fraud shows corruption of federal law enforcement for partisan political purposes, and the Senate Judiciary Committee will continue its investigation into this serious issue.

“The list of senior White House and Justice Department officials who have resigned during the course of these congressional investigations continues to grow, and today, Mr. Rove added his name to that list. There is a cloud over this White House, and a gathering storm. A similar cloud envelops Mr. Rove, even as he leaves the White House.”

Bring it.

Us and Them

Us:

Jacob Alexander, the former chief executive of Comverse Technology, who faces charges in the United States of options fraud and is regarded as a fugitive, has taken his latest step to fight extradition from Namibia to New York.

Them:

An owner of a Chinese toy factory at the center of a major recall by Mattel Inc. earlier this month committed suicide, according to a Chinese public security official.

Things don't have to come to death, but can we please be a little more responsible?

All Hail the Mighty Kos

Seriously though, I thought Markos was totally in control of his debate today with Harold Ford (DLC chmn) on Meet the Press and also won the subtext of the debate, which was that "centrism" is nothing more than a lame excuse for "the political views of my friends and me, and everyone should agree with us - if you don't you're part of the fringe." Centrism stands for nothing, but progressivism does.

Progress in Iraq

Is not knowing what the hell is going on:

As the secretive, $40 million deal neared completion, Italian authorities moved in, making arrests and breaking it up. But key questions remain unanswered.

For one thing, The Associated Press has learned that Iraqi government officials were involved in the deal, apparently without the knowledge of the U.S. Baghdad command - a departure from the usual pattern of U.S.-overseen arms purchases.

Why these officials resorted to "black" channels and where the weapons were headed is unclear.

But Joe Lieberman tells me things are going well. Hooray!

Very Stupid People Who Think They're Very Smart

Michael Ignatieff.

In a 3-page piece on Iraq, he spends maybe 10% of the time discussing it. The rest is just total I'm-oh-so-smart-and-like-stroking-myself fluff.

My opinion of Canada just dropped. This guy is up there with Bryan Adams.

Very Stupid People

"Centrist" Democrats:

With President Bush and the Republican Party on the rocks, many Democrats think the 2008 election will be, to borrow a favorite GOP phrase, a cakewalk. Some liberals are so confident about Democratic prospects that they contend the centrism that vaulted Democrats to victory in the 1990s no longer matters.

The temptation to ignore the vital center is nothing new. Every four years, in the heat of the nominating process, liberals and conservatives alike dream of a world in which swing voters don't exist. Some on the left would love to pretend that groups such as the Democratic Leadership Council, the party's leading centrist voice, aren't needed anymore.

But for Democrats, taking the center for granted next year would be a greater mistake than ever before. George W. Bush is handing us Democrats our Hoover moment. Independents, swing voters and even some Republicans who haven't voted our way in more than a decade are willing to hear us out. With an ambitious common-sense agenda, the progressive center has a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to win back the White House, expand its margins in Congress and build a political and governing majority that could last a generation.

These people should be driven out of any positions of power and no one should listen to anything they have to say. The idea of appealing to the "center" is inherently flawed. The "center" is so named because it is presumed that it lies in between progressive and conservative positions. This is incorrect for the following reasons:

1. All evidence indicates that the country has become increasingly divided. There is no broad, silent, centrist majority to appeal to. However, since most people like to view themselves in the "center" and not too radical on any issue, using the term reflects an attempt to normalize, aggrandize and over-inflate whatever position one is staking out.
2. The "center" stands for nothing. It stands for a complete and utter vacuum of values, ideas and policies. Instead, the word is used as a stand-in for "things that appeal to a majority of people." This represents a total failure of branding on the part of "centrist" Democrats.

People who vote Democratic do not do so because it is in the "center", but because they are Democrats and identify with progressive values and policies. People who prefer to brand Democrats as "centrists" - which, as discussed above, means nothing and furthermore gives conservatives a foothold in the tug of war - as opposed to Democrats or progressives are morons. Democrats should be pushing progressive ideals, narratives and policies instead of retreating to some fictional center. We win people over by standing for attractive, morally upright and responsibly pragmatic values.

To point, even though Hoover was completely out of touch with the country, FDR did not win because he tacked to some mushy center in between progressives and conservatives, he won because he advocated for progressive things that were wildly popular with people. Social security, the NLRB and consumer and worker protections are all proudly progressive positions and represent America at its best. 70 years later, leaving Iraq, universal healthcare, balancing our budget are all progressive - and markedly unconservative - things that a majority of this country wants. To win, and continue winning, Democrats need to embrace and identify with these popular progressive positions and values.

Progressivism is a healthy and much more viable alternative for this country than conservatism is, and our leaders and spokespeople should be making strong pitches for it, not shying away from it.

LithiumCola, who alerted me to this article, over at dkos has more to add.

On Vacation

Permanently.

Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki's unity government plunged deeper into crisis on Monday when four secularist ministers withdrew from cabinet meetings, less than a week after the main Sunni Arab bloc quit.

A total of 17 ministers, nearly half of Maliki's cabinet, have now quit or are boycotting meetings at a time when he is under growing pressure from frustrated U.S. officials to make demonstrable progress in reconciling Iraq's warring sects.

Birth pangs. I really do not want to be around for potty training.

Go, Go, Powerwheels!

I'm glad he's easily amused.

Feel the Hate

YearlyKos Convention, presidential forum.

It's Creepy, Not Cute

So stop it.

It's a girl - again - for the Duggars. Jim Bob and Michelle Duggar welcomed their 17th child, and seventh daughter, into the world Thursday.

...

Less than 30 minutes after giving birth, the Duggars already were talking of having more. "We'd love to have more," Michelle said, adding that the girls are outnumbered seven to 10 in the family. "We love the ruffles and lace."

...

"We are just so grateful to God for another gift from him," said Jim Bob Duggar, 42, a former state representative. "We are just so thankful to him that everything went just very well."

These people are obviously Quiverfull - the AP article reports that all the children are home schooled - as a quick Google shows. These people are fundamentalists of the most ridiculous and scary order. Even without the fundamentalism I would argue that more kids means less free time and love to spend on each one - especially when you get to 17 - but the entrenched patriarchal male and submissive female roles are disgusting and the idea that you need to fight some war is ridiculous. Fundamentalism is about people not being able to brook dissent from what they believe. It is both immature and harmful.

Taking O'Reilly to Town

Chris Dodd.

I am proud to be a Democrat, a progressive and a regular kos reader.

O'Reilly's a little child who has to label everything he disagrees with as hateful and beyond the pale, because otherwise he would actually have to engage it.

People Who Do Not Understand the Value of Infrastructure

Republicans.

And this is for tangible, denotation-type infrastructure, like bridges. Never mind what we get with education, healthcare, etc.

Taxes are good because they are used to help build infrastructure, which is for everyone, not only the rich. Conservatives and Republicans alike do not understand this.

Ledbetter v. Goodyear

Take that, Roberts court.

FAIR PAY ACT PASSES HOUSE. Congress today voted 225-199 to overturn the Supreme Court's May ruling that all claims of pay discrimination must be filed within 180 days of the first pay check at a new salary. The House bill reverts to the accepted interpretation of the Civil Rights Act, in which each pay check is a separate act that can serve as the basis of a discrimination claim.

Bush has sworn to veto the bill, so stay tuned.

I'm sure Bush will veto it, but I'm really curious to hear the rationale behind it. Businesses are people too! Why do you hate people!!!!!