From Salon:

Rep. Bart Stupak, D-Mich., isn't making many friends with one of his party's key constituencies. The amendment he drafted and got attached to the House's healthcare reform bill, which restricts abortion coverage, has become perhaps the most controversial aspect of the legislation on the left. And now he's taking a tough line on the possibility that the amendment could be changed or stripped altogether.

"They're not going to take it out," Stupak said of Senate Democrats during an appearance on "Fox and Friends" Tuesday morning. "If they do, healthcare will not move forward ... At least 10 to 15 to 20 of us will not vote for it."

Without those votes -- and those numbers about line up with a count that House Majority Whip James Clyburn, D-S.C., has previously offered -- the House can't pass the bill.

I don't know whether to be mildy optimistic that Stupak will manage to kill this terrible legislation with his temper tantrum, or resign myself to Stupak getting his way, others like him getting what they want and further weakening this effort, and the resulting pitifully bad bill sailing on to Obama's desk for signature.

Godwin's Law -- which says that in any sufficiently long online discussion, someone will compare his opponent to Hitler -- is often interpreted to mean that if you do, in fact, start making Nazi comparisons, you've lost the argument and can no longer be taken seriously. I'm all for that. (Does this mean that we should no longer take any significant figure in the Republican Party seriously? Yes, it does.)

But there are a lot of moral equivalents of Nazi comparisons, and they should receive the same treatment. I propose that we officially declare that anyone who

1. Responds to calls for more government action in some area -- employment creation, health care, whatever -- by invoking the example of the Soviet Union

or

2. Responds to suggestions that moderate inflation and/or dollar depreciation is acceptable by invoking the example of Zimbabwe

or

3. Responds to any demonstration that projected debt levels, while high, are within the range advanced countries have successfully dealt with in the past by invoking the example of Argentina

be summarily consigned to the outer darkness.

Make it so.

I'm not biased about this, although I have in the past offered to bear Prof. Krugman's young.

The Law not only makes sense and is a good and fine law -- unlike the dreck we've seen in the Aughts -- it damn well should bear the name of someone who showed true courage as far back as when some nincompoop with a megaphone at Ground Zero was calling it Curge.

I was hoping for a more ignominious penalty than consignment to the outer darkness, namely, one that I could personally witness, awash in pleasure, or even apply myself one-handedly (while enjoying some blini & cav with the other).

   "The inaccuracies on recovery.gov that have come to light are outrageous and the Administration owes itself, the Congress, and every American a commitment to work night and day to correct the ludicrous mistakes.

    "Credibility counts in government and stupid mistakes like this undermine it. We've got too many serious problems in this country to let that happen.

    "We designed the Recovery Act to be open and transparent and I expect the the Recovery Accountability and Transparency Board, who oversees the recovery act web site and data to have information that is accurate, reliable and understandable to the American public. Whether the numbers are good news or bad news, I want the honest numbers and I want them now." link

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid met on Monday night with a group of Senate Democrats who urged him not to back down from his decision to put a public option in health care legislation.

Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) requested the meeting, saying that progressive lawmakers had concluded that they had compromised enough.

"Most of us in the caucus want a strong public option, support the Reid way of doing it," he told the New York Times. "And we're confident that over time, as the debate unfolds and we take amendment after amendment after amendment, that we can get 60 votes."

link

.....says veteran New York City divorce attorney Raoul Felder. "This is one of the dark sides of women's accomplishments in the workplace -- they're getting a raw deal in custody cases, while men are being viewed more favorably."

Or is it a raw deal? Is it not, in effect, the same presumption -- the parent who works harder, parents less -- that men have faced for years?