While a valid case may yet be made that the SuicideGirls website is detrimental to women engaged in the punk movement, these women are not voiceless. They are perfectly capable of communicating with the readers of the site, and do so to a degree vastly greater than that found on most standard pornographic websites.

Perhaps a more accurate explanation for why meaningful women punk rock musicians are so rare is that the punk movement itself- like all noncorporate, non-Clear Channel corporate rock music- has been steadily and relentlessly suffocated in the past two decades. When was the last time a new song had a truly terrific solo? When was the last time guitar playing- or the playing of ANY kind of instrument- was the main focus of a song played widely in the popular media?

Punk itself could be considered a reaction to the corporate rock movements of the past, but much of modern corporate music represents a hyperstylized, "safe" version of the punk asthetic, separated from any kind of musical skill whatsoever. It is hard to rebel against overly complex music and hyper-stylized fashions when the music is no longer an issue and the hyper-stylized fashions are already ripping YOU off.

The idea that Harry Reid is ready to "give up on" the public option is disingenuous in the first place, because it assumes that Harry Reid has not been actively opposing the public option from the very beginning.

Reid is and always has been a so-called "Blue Dog Democrat"- actively working to ensure that Republican corporate initiatives pass over the objections of the vast majority of Democrats. Indeed, he himself is more responsible than any other Democrat for selling the myth that 60 votes are required in the Senate before a bill can pass (as opposed to the 51 votes required by the Constitution). Of course, this requirement tends to disappear whenever the bill in question is Republican-sponsored.

I don't get it? Are you arguing for us to ignore this crime, or to take steps to insulate the victim from poisonous scrutiny?

I can understand the latter. As to the former, I feel obliged to point out that intimidation is a classic method of silencing the victims of rape. In fact, it is such a persistent and effective method that laws are now being passed specifically to ensure that the victim's cooperation is no longer a necessary element of a rape prosecution. Material witness statutes were designed precisely to prevent this, so that future victims did not have to suffer for the successful intimidation of past victims.

So basically Byrd argued that homosexuality is synonymous with pedophilia.

That is not a new argument. In point of fact, it is one of the staple arguments which has always been used against homosexuals. And it is not surprising in the least that the men who used it to prevent homosexuals from working openly in the US military would present it behind closed doors.

So in other words this plan provides the same meaningless "guarantees" of mandatory coverage which not providing the the single absolutely essential mechanism for penalizing companies which violate these guarantees. It provides no public option- or if it DOES provide a public option (as the New York Times currently suggests), then it deliberately waters down its effectiveness to ensure that it can never compete with the private version.

This is utterly worthless.

Mr. Schaller, it is time for you to face the reality that Barack Obama never intended for there to BE a public option in whatever bill he passed. You can figure that out by the simple fact that the people whom he has consulted most on the issue of health care reform- Tom Daschle, Rahm Emmanuel and Max Baucus- all have a direct financial stake in ensuring that the public option does not pass, because it would harm the health insurance companies who contribute to their campaigns.

Obama willingly opened his doors to these people- appointed one of them his Chief of Staff (Emmanuel), conducted secret negotiations with others in violation of his own directly stated campaign promises, and flatly refused to put a public option in writing and posted in public. These are all clear indications- along with the incessant leaks describing the public option as "negotiable", "not essential", or "subject to compromise"- that he intended to have any public option pass in the first place.

But could he have gotten it if he wanted it? That's an excellent question. Is it possible for a president who controls a vast majority in both Houses of Congress to get legislation enacted against a concerted opposition which nonetheless does not have more than 49% of each House's votes?

Unequivocally YES. When last I checked, the exact amount of votes necessary to pass any given bill in the Senate was 51. Not 60. Not 75 or 85. Fifty-one. Even without the six Blue Dog Democrats, that gives us 54 votes to 46. That is a majority. Besides which, George Bush, despite holding minorities in both Houses, nonetheless succeeded in passing FISA immunity legislation despite massive opposition in both Houses and from the public. And when more than 650 votes could not be bribed, threatened, or cajoled out of the Senate Democrats, he just convinced Harry Reid to drop the 60-vote requirement.

So yeah, Obama could have gotten it. That he did not is, more than any other reason, because he did not want to give us the public option. Not couldn't. DID NOT WANT TO.