Major gender-based pay-equity legislation remains in Committee

Women are still waiting for the Paycheck Fairness Act to become a law. But, since passing by a party line vote of 256-163 in the House on January 9, it remains in the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP).

Unlike the recently passed Ledbetter bill which extends the statute of limitations for everyone in a protected class with a proven claim of pay discrimination, the Paycheck Fairness Act’s aim is to provide women with more effective tools to combat pay inequities based on gender. But, given its overwhelmingly partisan vote in the House, it appears the wait will be a little longer than expected and I don't think the Republicans are the only ones to blame - after all we all know who has the majority. If they wanted it to pass, Republicans alone could not stop it.

According to a January 27 CNBC transcript of a media event held in the Capitol following passage of the Ledbetter bill, Speaker Pelosi’s comments seem to hint it may well be some time before the bill passes.

When asked what the next workers’ rights bill she would attempt to take up, she replied:

” Well, we have paycheck fairness, sponsored by Congresswoman Rosa DeLauro, which Mr. Miller passed out of his committee, and with the leadership of Mr. Hoyer, on the floor passed and was sent over to the Senate. So we hope that eventually that will become law someday, too, because that's the obvious next step.”

If the bill becomes a law, women would be able to sue for unlimited punitive and compensatory damages to include expert fees either individually or as a class. Companies would have a greater duty to prove that job performance alone was the reason for any pay inequities that do exist. Additionally, the bill would usher in a never-before-seen era of wage transparency in our culture by preventing companies from retaliating against employees who share salary information.

The opponents of the bill feel it would strip employers of the right to manage their businesses and lead to more frivolous class action lawsuits. But the sponsors believe its passage is imperative in order to:

• provide a solution to problems in the economy created by unfair pay disparities
• substantially reduce the number of working women earning unfairly low wages thereby reducing the dependence on public assistance
• promote stable families by enabling all family members to earn a fair rate of pay
• remedy the effects of past discrimination on the basis of sex and ensuring that in the future workers are afforded equal protection on the basis of sex
• ensure equal protection pursuant to Congress' power to enforce the 5th and 14th amendments

If implemented as written (guess I should say "if implemented at all), it could either seriously close the gender wage gap, or clog the judicial system to such an extent that no substantive progress is realized. We'd just have to wait and see.

Checkmate Blagojevich!!!

There was never a law requiring the Illinois Secretary of State's signature (as he continually told everyone) on certification papers for Roland Burris. And now that the Illinois Supreme Court has ruled they are in order, the Keystone Cops in the U.S. Senate were forced to do what they should have done all along - seat Burris in the U.S. Senate. And they need to do it - before the inauguration.

Crowing to every willing media outlet that they would not seat Roland Burris after he was appointed - was bad enough. But adding insult to injury, they had him running here, there and everywhere trying to prove that he was "worthy." And most disguting of all, he was forced to stand in the rain after being turned away, while they held the big swearing in of all the other new and only-white senators. They displayed their Plantation Owner behavior for all the world to see. As former NFL coach, Denny Green said once in a beer commercial clip, "They are who we thought they were."

They were wrong. And worse, they came off as megalomaniacs (which many of them seem to actually be). And the President-select was front-and-center on this from Day One, I don't care how you revisionists try to spin it.

I'll bet you a nickel that their apology to Roland Burris will hardly be as public, or as vociferous as was their refusal to seat him. And the media? Well...

I have more respect for Roland Burris and his legal team's "strategy" of knowing the law and using it slap them upside their damn heads, than I have for any of them. Congratulations Sen. Burris (and please, no Stepin Fetchit behavior once you get in there, m-m-mkay?).

"Bruised but not Broken" - Blagojevich a media joke or Rahm's worst nightmare?

For countless media outlets, Gov. Rod Blagojevich was the joke of the day as he responded to his impeachment by the Illinois House today. Seems no one was really listening to what he actually had to say - too busy laughing and asking, "What is this guy talking about?"

He said a lot. To a few people. And in their continued unbalanced, "Obama love" - the media missed it all. Call me a conspiracy theorist, but here's some of what I heard:

Click :38 - "Let me tell you what I'm not going to do. I'm not going to do what my accusers and political enemies have been doing and that is talk about this case in 30 second soundbites on "Meet the Press" or the TV news." (emphasis his) Direct hit - Sen. Harry Reid.

Click :59 – “And I want to assure everyone who’s here and everyone who’s listening, that I intend to answer every allegation that, uh, comes my way. However, I intend to answer them in the appropriate forum – in a court of law.” (emphasis mine) Direct hit - Obama & Co. on that first part. He let them know that he plans to tell it all (unless of course, in requisite Chicago-style, they do something to get him out of this mess). The second part, direct hit - Illinois House. He told them to kiss his behind. He didn't show up to their kangaroo court because a court of law is the finder of fact - not them.

Click 1:46 – "Now I know there are some powerful forces arrayed against me. It’s kind of lonely right now. But I have on my side the most powerful ally there is. And it’s the truth." (emphasis his) Direct hit - Obama & Co. Just a reminder, if it comes down to it, he's tellin' the whole truth.

Click 1:05 - "From the very moment of my reelection, I've been engaged in a struggle with the House to get things done for the people...The House has stood in the way...In my view, those of us who make the rules ought to be able to uh, follow a simple lesson that I was taught to believe in in Sunday school. It's called the Golden Rule. That you do unto others as "you would have them do unto you." That sounded like a veiled threat to e-e-erbody!

When he entered, I said, "Now why did he bring all these people up there?" He answered, here:

Click 3:09 - 4:43 " So the House's action today and the causes of the impeachment (emphasis his) are because I've done things to fight for families who are all with me here today. Now I'm gonna talk about some of the examples that I'd like you-to share with you and some of the counts that the House is actually choosing to impeach me on. For example, The "I- Save" Prescription Drug program is among the things the House said I should be removed from office for. That was a program we began, I believe it in late 2002, or early 2004. That was a program brought to me by then-Congressman Rahm Emanuel (emphasis his) who suggested that since the big pharmaceutical companies had a tremendous amount of sway with the FDA (emphasis his), that too many senior citizens were being forced to ration their medicine or couldn't afford to buy their medicine...that maybe we should try somethin' different and go to Canada. And Go to the place where ya' make the exact same medicines, for the exact same companies only if you have free and open trade (emphasis his) and go to Canada you can help our senior citizens save up 30-40-50 percent on the cost of their medicines. We did that in Illinois, being the first state in America to defy (emphasis his) the FDA and the big drug companies. And I'm happy to say we were joined by the state of Wisconsin, the state of Kansas and the state of Vermont and a lot of senior citizens in Illinois have had the benefit of being able to afford their medicine at prices they can afford. The house is impeaching me for that. Is that an impeachable offense?"

The 11th Article of Impeachment reads, "The Governor's actions with regard to, and responsibility for, the I-SaveRx Program, as more fully detailed in the Final Report at Section IV-F and in the Committee Record as a whole."

The House Committee on Impeachment's report , upon which the articles were based, is a detailed accounting of the governor's alleged, illegal activities involving the I-SaveRx program (Pgs 39 - 42). And Rahm was right there with him. So why is Blagojevich headed to federal court, while Rahm is headed to the White House "Court" to sit at the Changeling's right hand? Will anybody in the mainstream media ask that question? Particularly since there's this pesky, little thing over at the Illinois state government site.

"Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich and Congressman Rahm Emanuel (D-Chicago) were joined by Wisconsin Governor Jim Doyle for the launch of the new I-SaveRx prescription drug importation program -- the first program in the nation to allow Illinois and Wisconsin residents to purchase lower cost, safe prescription drugs from Europe and Canada."

I don't know if it's an impeachable offense or not but, Direct hit - Obama & Co., Senate Dems, Illinois legislature and especially, Rahm Emmanuel! Blagojevich made sure we knew that he and Rahm had been "talking" way before his "President-elect Advisor" status popped up in Fitzgerald's complaint (not indictment as I'd said previously - shame on me for picking up the media's terminology).

And if the President-select's right-hand man was "talking," with the governor for all that time, I'd venture a guess -he was not alone in doing so (no wonder he's all but blended into the background since the story broke. I guess they figure if he draws no attention to himself, no one will ask the important questions). People, we are fiddling while Rome burns.

(Blagojevich - 5/Democratic leadership - 0)

Illinois Secretary of State says, "Don't Blame Me!"

When I first heard Illinois Secretary of State, Jesse White was refusing to certify credentials for Roland Burris, I said, "Man! Is evererybody in on this charade?"

Turns out I was right - and wrong. According to the podcast here, Senate: Burris Needs Sec. Of State Signature {audio}, Mr. White spoke about how "they" had all agreed not to accept anyone appointed by Blagojevich - including Bobby Rush. But then, it became a problem.

I won't spoil it for you. Follow the link, read the article and do listen to the podcast. Jess White knew he'd been had and he wasn't havin' it! Rich!

(P.S. Undying Obamalove reigns at HuffPo as they've now revised history - yet again, crediting Obama for putting an end to this, rather than the law - which Burris used to back those Senate Dems the hell up!)

Burris will be seated

According to a report at Salon about 20 minutes ago, Roland Burris will be seated. Alex Koppelman writes:

"No more information than that is available so far. First impression, though, is that this news just reinforces the impression that the Democratic leadership handled this really, really badly. If they were going to let him in as of Wednesday, why not seat him Tuesday? Why allow the embarrassing spectacle of Burris walking out in the rain after being turned away? Not a good way to start the new Congress." (emphasis mine)

Yes, the Democratic leadership, and I use that word very loosely, handled this "really, really, really badly" - for all the world to see.

The questions are legitimate. But of course, I cannot speak for them. I do believe however, the very simple answers lay in the questions themselves: "let - allow - embarrassing spectacle." The selection of Barack Obama notwithstanding, America's white supremacist capitalist patriarchy believes it is, and always has been, up to them - and them alone - who does what, when and even how in this country, as evidenced by Sen. Reid's statements in the video at my "The Emperor Strikes Back" post. He reminded us, emphatically and repeatedly, "We are the ones that determine" (Read: "Nobody, not even the law of the land, will tell us what to do." - at least that's how I read it.) He went on to say, "So there's clearly, legal authority for us to do whatever we want to and this goes back for generations." (emphasis mine) And therein lies the problem. The "we," of whom he speaks, has been all-white from the birth of the nation up until Reconstruction when Hiram Rhodes Revels (R-MS) was elected to the senate in 1870 - that's 94 years! Here's an ironic piece (as we kick around "barring" and "citizenship" issues this election) from the United States Senate site, Arts & History section:

February 25, 1870 First African American Senator On February 25, 1870,visitors in the Senate galleries burst into applause as Mississippi senator-elect Hiram Revels of Mississippi entered the chamber to take his oath of office. Those present knew that they were witnessing an event of great historical significance. Revels was about to become the first African American to serve in the Senate. Born 42 years earlier to free black parents in Fayetteville, North Carolina, Revels became an educator and minister of the African Methodist Episcopal Church. During the Civil War, he helped form regiments of African American soldiers and established schools for freed slaves. After the war, Revels moved to Mississippi, where he won election to the state senate. In recognition of his hard work and leadership skills, his legislative colleagues elected him to one of Mississippi's vacant U.S.Senate seats as that state prepared to rejoin the Union.

Revels' credentials arrived in the Senate on February 23, 1870, and were immediately blocked by a few members who had no desire to see a black man serve in Congress. Masking their racist views, they argued that Revels had not been a U.S. citizen for the nine years required of all senators. In their distorted interpretation, black Americans had only become citizens with the passage of the 1866 Civil Rights Act, just four years earlier. Revels' supporters dismissed that statement, pointing out that he had been a voter many years earlier in Ohio and was therefore certainly a citizen.

Massachusetts Senator Charles Sumner brought the debate to an end with a stirring speech. "The time has passed for argument. Nothing more need be said. For a long time it has been clear that colored persons must be senators." Then, by an overwhelming margin, the Senate voted 48 to 8 to seat Revels.

Three weeks later, the Senate galleries again filled to capacity as Hiram Revels rose to make his first formal speech. Seeing himself as a representative of African American interests throughout the nation, he spoke—unsuccessfully as it turned out—against a provision included in legislation readmitting Georgia to the Union. He correctly predicted that the provision would be used to prohibit blacks from holding office in that state.

When Hiram Revels' brief term ended on March 3, 1871, he returned to Mississippi, where he later became president of Alcorn College.

Though Sen. Revels was the first Black to serve, he was not the first to serve a full term. That distinction goes to this equally interesting guy, Sen. Blanche Kelso Bruce, another Republican representing Mississippi from 1875 - 1881. The son of a white Virginia plantation owner and a Black house slave, he was (and will forever be) the only freed slave ever to preside over the U.S. Senate in 1879 (for the day, Dad was a stand-up guy). I live two miles from his residence in DC, declared a National Historic Landmark in 1975 (Hm-m-m wonder who lives there now? Think I'll drive by there tomorrow. I'll post a pic. Also going to find this book about him, "The Senator and the Socialite." Can't critically think and form intelligent opinions without a well-rounded perspective right?)

It would be another 86 years ( somebody check me, I hate Math!) before Blacks would have another successful go at a Senate seat. But in 1966, yet another Republican - this time from the North - Sen. Edward William Brooke, III (R-MA) was elected. In 1993, he was followed by Sen. Carol Mosley Braun (D-IL), the first Black Senator from the Democrats and through some strategic maneuvering, Barack Obama (D-IL) in 2005.

That's it people. Only five Black Senators in the almost 233 years this country has been a country - only five (now I have to go back and and check the stats for my Latino, Asian and Native-American brothers and sisters! - ea, got anything?). Sen. Reid was right. Doing "whatever they want" does go back for generations. But, he is incorrect that there is "legal authority" for them to turn the brother away in the rain.

Today, despite Gov. Blagojevich or because of him, the Senate will have to consider what the law and somebody else wants. Now that's "Change We Can Believe In!" - and it had nothing to do with the President-select who supported the barring in the first place.

(Blagojevich - 4/Democratic leadership - 0)

The Fourth Estate...

"Power never concedes anything without a demand.

It never has and it never will."

Frederick Douglass

I found this at once amusing and interesting today. I just wanted to share. Earlier, while reading through the list of blogs I follow, I read this headline at Lynn Sweet's blog:

Burris Enters Capitol peacefully; media hordes greet him." No comment had been posted yet, I left this: Hey Lynn, What did you expect a fight? You do Mr. Burris and Blacks a disservice by using these code-laden words. Just now, after signing in, I went back to Lynn's blog hoping to engage in some intelligent discussion. Instead I found my comment was never posted but now, the headline reads: "Burris Enters Capitol; media hordes greet him." The post is the same, only the headline changed. I left this: Lynn, Since you didn't print my comment (it was the very first one on this post too!) about your "FIRST" headline - "Burris Enters Capitol peacefully; media hordes greet him" - I probably shouldn't expect this one to printed either. But it's worth a shot. I see you DID delete the "peacefully." That's a start I guess. Now, we just have to work on owning our mistakes and asking ourselves why we did them in the first place. What do you think? I'm not telling anyone what they should, or should not do on their own blog, but I have to say -I'm disappointed. I've been reading Lynn Sweet at least since the Changeling threw his hat in ring. I read her because she seemed to be doing what journalists should be doing according to their code of ethics:

• Seek truth and report it
• Minimize harm
• Act independently
• Be accountable (includes admitting mistakes and correcting them promptly and invite dialogue with the public over journalistic conduct)

(Yes I was paying close attention in class!).

Lynn Sweet knew the territory better than anyone else I'd read out of Chicago. Often I would read background information about him in her columns that I hadn't seen anywhere else. She was fair, and gave the reader as balanced a look as possible no matter the player or the issue. And working in the land of Capone, I'm sure that was no mean feat. I liked the fact she'd been around for awhile - "seasoned" as it were.

But since the President-select was selected, I've seen a change and again, I have to say I'm disappointed. I will not stop reading her because of what happened today. It will just be with a more critical eye that I do so.

"Whites Only"- Again

"CHANGE WE CAN BELIVE IN" - YEAH RIGHT

Pre-conditions?? Really??

Since we appear to be in kindergarten... Later, on The Hill...

(Pics courtesy of my sister-in-law Jan, not sure where she got them!)

"Okay, we'll seat you, but only for two years. You have to promise not to run in 2010." What the hell?? Does the Constitution say that??

Will Princess Caroline have those same conditions thrust upon her? How about Michael F. Bennet, appointed to fill the seat being vacated by Ken Salazar? Just because Edward "Ted" Kaufman, is comfortable with stepping down in 2010 after completing Biden's term, does that mean Burris should be "comfortable" with that too? He didn't sound like he was good with that idea today on CNN. I would hope he doesn't cave, but then again, man does have a way of crumbling in the face of 15 minutes (in his case - 2 years) of fame. We'll see.

The Emperor Strikes Back!

Not 43 seconds in, and David Gregory brings up the "defied" word. That just has such a master-subject, elite-commoner, parent-child, unequal connotation to me. This man hasn't even raised his voice, hasn't "performed" like a lot of us say. Gotta keep that Angry Black Man image out there I guess. Now that the white supremacist capitalist patriarchy has their approved-version of a Black man (A "white man" too, as it relates to Blagojevich! Kitty over at Aroo wrote this nail-on-the-head piece about that dynamic), seems there's no intent to suffer any of us fools gladly who don't match those requirements.

~#~

Now Senator Reid, I'm going to be one of the ones to go out on a limb here and suggest there is some very, inherent racial bias, not only in the Burris instance (seeing as you've not offered any reason other than what someone else may have done), but in quite a few things you said. And I assure you, I'm not part of the Blagojevich anything! Just a few examples:

• Click 4:15 - "We are the ones that determine. Democrats and Republicans, determine who's going to sit in the Senate. It's been that way f-f, since before 18(inaudible)." Sounds eerily familiar to "I'm the Decider!" don't you think? And by the way, the "we" looks decidedly different than Burris, or did you miss that?
• Click 6:02 - "We determine who sits in the Senate and the House determines who sits in the House. So there's clearly, legal authority for us to do whatever we want to and this goes back for generations." Exactly the issue, on both counts.
• Click 7:40 - A picture's worth a thousand words, eh??
• Click 9:20 - "I went to the Clark County District Attorney's office to find a nobody, s-s-s-people thought was a nobody to become a federal judge, Johnnie Rawlinson." That'd be the "nobody" on the left of course.

(Judge Johnnie Rawlinson (9th Cir.) (photo left) looks on as Justice Sandra Day O’Connor thanks participants at the Ninth Circuit Judicial Conference last month for the gift of a box of flies. O’Connor is an avid fly fisher. Photo Credit: Ninth Circuit, Office of the Circuit Executive)

And he did that himself ya'll! Please!!!

And Senator Reid? Don't rip your arm out of its socket pattin' yourself on the back there, M-m-mkay?

(Blagojevich - 3/Democratic leadership - 0)

"I Hear You Knockin' But You Can't Come In!"

"You went away and left me long time ago and

Now you come back knockin' on my do'

I hear you knockin' but you can't come in

I hear you knockin', go back where you been"

Okay, so Fats Domino was singing about something else - but the first verse certainly works for this lunacy:


First of all, why did CBS splash that big blue "Corruption Scandal" banner across the screen as Burris got into his car? Why imply he's part of the corruption scandal even though, in this very clip, they said, "...since there's no evidence Burris did anything wrong, there is no taint?" Conflating the two visually will, no doubt, make it so - in the minds of many.

And another thing - why'd the media reach into their "angry Black man" trick bag on Burris? Every description of him, from them - is that he's "defiant," or he "defiantly...," or he "defied..." Why is the brother "DEFIANT??" Must be because he' didn't just shuffle on back to where he'd been, hollerin' over his shoulder, "Yassuh, ya'll sho' is right. I'se gwine now." Sure didn't take long for the media to revert to their Pre-"post-racial" bogeyman antics.

I'm telling you these people have lost their damn minds! What is this, high school? If Roland Burris shows up in Washington this week, the rest of "the class" plans to play, let's ostracize the new kid? Please watch CNN's, "What if Burris shows up?" video (I tried to embed it, but it's not working and I don't know why.) and tell me it doesn't sound like a bunch of kids. And what says the President-select? Well, no big surprise there.

Look, I know what Blagojevich is doing. It's part and parcel of those political games we, the people, tend to watch from the sidelines. But as it relates to Burris - it's the principle of the thing for me, along with a healthy dose of schadenfreude, I must admit. But seriously, here's a "qualified" Black man, a seasoned politician whose hands are clean as far as we know. Why that doesn't work for those Senate Dems is the real question we need to be asking.

And that, "He's a great kid, he just hangs around with the wrong crowd." is just not a good enough answer.

(Blagojevich - 2/Democratic leadership - 0)

"You Must Not Know 'Bout Me!!"

This is just too rich!! I just had to post the whole thing. Either Obama & Co. have forgotten how things go at home, or maybe he just hadn't reached this level of Chicago-style politics before he made his grand leap.

Anyway, after delivering their fox-guarding-the-hen-house report exonerating themselves (I repeat -themselves!), they let their guard down. And Blagojevich said, "Aw-w-w yeah! But you got to do better than those Madigan pawns you threw at me - he with this and she, who, incidentally, is also on the list for the same seat (no conflict there!), with this thing! Okay, let's play! And by the way - Check!" Too rich!

I could be wrong but, legally, since he's not been convicted of anything, doesn't he have every right to do his job - as the governor - and fill that seat? The premature indictment (shouldn't they have waited until some money actually changed hands or something?) is technically, just that - isn't it? Hell, nobody kept William Jefferson from doing a damn thing while under indictment for that $90,000 block of ice in his freezer (among others charges)! She-e-e-et, he's still under indictment more than a year and a half later! Even though he lost, he was allowed to conduct business as usual, trying to get re-elected.

And I wonder now, if my people are having any critical discussions about flocking to the Changeling like some "Great Black Hope?" Seems Bobby Rush is trying to give them something to chew on.

I have no doubt however, with Obama & Co., the Illinois legislature and the U.S. Congress all chomping at the bit to get rid of this guy, there'll be some kind of check-mate coming soon. Unless of course, the governor really has, and intends to use, some of that good, ole Chicago dirt he's saved-up. I don't know what's next, but I've got a huge supply of hot, buttered popcorn for the next installment of, "As the Crooked Obama World Turns."

(Blagojevich - 1/Democratic leadership - 0)