Update: The Weasely Republican Mind Continues to Know No Shame

By Quill

(UPDATED BELOW)

I got the answers to my questions about the failed vote on the Lily Ledbetter Act.

Apparently, Harry Reid voted "no" on the act as a tactical move that would allow him to bring the bill of for cloture at a later time (and let's make sure that he does, folks).

Also, I found out why the Republicans wanted to block the bill from coming to a vote in the first place.

Via CNN.com:

The bill that stalled Wednesday would have reset the clock with every paycheck, with supporters arguing that each paycheck was a discriminatory act. But Sen. Johnny Isakson, a Georgia Republican, said the bill would allow retirees drawing pensions to sue their old companies over allegations of discrimination that happened decades ago.

"We're about having integrity in the system, so we have timely complaints, we have timely evidence, and the parties that are there can quickly be remedied," Isakson said.

Republican logic never ceases to boggle the brain. A retired employee who has been discriminated against for years of hard work and now has to live off a smaller pension and social security benefits than their former co-workers due to discrimination should have every right to sue their employer for back pay owed to them. That's their basic right, assholes.

Also, how else to you expect to hold corporations responsible for their illegal actions if they can't be brought to court? Sure, there's a time period in which you can (180 days after your first unequal paycheck), but that is totally unrealistic. In Lily Ledbetter's case, it took almost 20 years for her to discover that she was getting shafted.

The paltry excuse the Republicans offer only further reveals their true motives:

1)Protect the corporations.
2)Keep women in their place.

I guess they saw the opportunity to kill two birds with one stone Wednesday night.

Update:

Echidne of the Snakes has a very informative, insightful 3-part-series on the "gender gap" here. It's definitely worth your time.

Thanks to the amazing m for the tip.

Report: US Lawmakers in Bed with Defense Companies

By Quill and Farol

A new article in the International Herald Tribune sheds some light on congressional investing practices. Surprise, surprise: it turns out members of the U.S. Congress have about $196 million invested in defense companies. Which might just explain the prolonged dragging-of-feet on the part of Congress in getting us out of the quagmire that is Iraq.

Something that actually comes as a shock, however, is that Democrats have significantly more investments in defense companies than Republicans ($3.7 million vs. $577,500, respectively).

Clearly, Democrats who go along with Bush policies regarding "national security" or the "war on terror" (see "Feinstein, Dianne") don't do so because they are afraid of looking "soft" on terror and/or national security.

The truth is that Congress has too much invested in the ongoing occupation of Iraq to do anything to mitigate it. The only possible way the US will ever end the occupation is if the people demand it—and, according to polls, they DO demand it. Too bad our egomaniacal press corps still has its head too far up its ass to relay that demand.