Matt Ortega

Watching the Arizona Diamondbacks and Colorado Rockies play Game 4 of the National League Divisional Series, this commercial aired between innings. It is the single most absurd commercial ever and you probably know why.

Do people on the dole have a reasonable expectation of privacy vis-à-vis their financial affairs?

No.

–Amy Ridenour
(Townhall.com, 10/11/07)

Ridenour did stipulate that wasn’t her answer “all the time.” Apparently, that’s reserved for anybody getting in the way of the political agenda.

The obligation to be self-sufficient when possible had been reversed: Now the self-sufficient are obligated to assist those who are not, and it is considered bad form for the donor to question if the charity is misplaced.

“Questioning” now includes stalking 12-year olds and their families these days.

Think Progress obtained an e-mail from inside the office of Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Kentucky) sent by a staffer, Don Stewart, that propagated the smear campaign against the family of a 12-year old supporting the S-CHIP reauthorization in the Democratic Radio Address last week.

In the email, Stewart attacks Democrats for allegedly doing a bad job “vetting this family.” That effort to blame Democrats for the smear campaign seems to have swayed some reporters, as CNN this morning claimed that the real story is that “the Democrats didn’t do as much of a vetting as they could have done.”

The New York Times reported yesterday that “an aide” to Sen. McConnell “expressed relief that his office had not issued a press release criticizing the Frosts.” No, what the McConnell staffer did was worse — he used the power and privilege of the Senate office to secretly propagate a baseless smear campaign against a 12-year old boy and his family simply because they disagreed on policy.

At the very least, Stewart should be packing up his desk right now. Senator McConnell’s culpability in this little scheme to defame a 12-year old is unclear but don’t be so quick to rule it out just yet.

Faiz Shakir, Think Progress editor, noted that conservative blogger Michelle Malkin scoffed at the suggestion McConnell’s office had anything to do with the campaign against the Frost family. Per usual, Malkin was wildly off the mark.

Traditional media types — this means you, Howard Kurtz — take note. Malkin and her allies’ persistent invasion of privacy and utter depravity in personally attacking this kid and his family for their political argument on children’s healthcare is not the exception, it is the rule, in conservative blogging circles.

The Moderate Voice’s Joe Gandelman laid it all out:

That is the way American politics now operates.

IGNORE the issue. IGNORE the debate on facts, figures, trends and what often-contradictory experts say.

Go after the people who dare to differ with you personally. If you can’t destroy then, then discredit them. Negatively label them in public, or send emails to others to try to get them to go after you. [...]

… [I]t’s easier to go after a 12 year-old. After all, these days, anyone who is in the way of an agenda has to be discredited so that no one listens to them anymore. [Ed. note: See Joe Wilson.]

Yet, once upon a time, American society would pull out all stops not to go after a kid. The bar has been lowered yet again.

This time it has been lowered so far, it has struck oil amid the sleaze.

This is how they operate and it is an attack plan supplemented with the standard Republican projection strategy: claim the other side is doing what you have been doing all along.

The outrage Malkin and her ilk sparked, she claims, is an attempt to “silence the right.” But that is precisely what she and her acolytes are trying to do to the Frosts in order to score a political victory and provide cover for President Bush on children’s healthcare; and doing so by stalking the family at their home, places of business, the children’s schools and who knows where else.

Air America Radio host, Rachel Maddow, welcomed Graeme Frost and his family to a long list of Americans undeservedly attacked by the likes of Michelle Malkin.

Blogger Ezra Klein, who writes and focuses on healthcare policy quite extensively, challenged Malkin to debate the issue — she declined.

In the recent S-CHIP reauthorization, several Democrats voted against the bill in the U.S. House, prompting liberal blogger Matt Stoller to post an update on the “Bush Dogs” and the vote.

Also listed in the post, separate from the Bush Dog pack, was Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D-Cleveland, Ohio). Stoller wrote:

I’m glad Kucinich is getting a primary challenger. His time is over.

It sparked some reactions in the comments and elsewhere.

I don’t agree with his vote, but apparently now Dennis Kucinich is not progressive enough and must be challenged in a primary. Because he voted against the bill because it was not liberal enough. Dennis Kucinich.

Yes, that Dennis Kucinich. If Dennis Kucinich ain’t pure enough for these liberal purity purges, these folks are going to end up with a really, really, really small Democratic party.

Kucinich’s vote did not prevent the passing of the S-CHIP reauthorization, so this allowed Kucinich to vote in protest of the Democratic leadership’s yanking of the ICHIA provision. (ICHIA would have made legal immigrants and pregnant women eligible for health services.)

“I cannot support legislation which extends health coverage to some children while openly denying it to other children,” Kucinich said. “This legislation is woefully inadequate: and I will not support it.

“Legal immigrant children deserve the same quality health care as other children receive. It is Congress’ responsibility to address the main difficulties that prevent legal immigrant children from gaining access to health care. Today, we did exactly the opposite.”

As to Kucinich’s motives, they could be construed in any number of ways: support for the immigrant community, pandering for presidential primary support, another opportunity to talk about the cornerstone of his White House bid — single-payer healthcare, or a combination. (To be honest, I am not sure which one it is exactly. I am not too familiar with Kucinich’s voting habits to make an accurate judgment.) That motive would be tested should the Democrats in the House seek to override a Bush veto.

Either way, there are likely some in the immigrant community that are just pleased someone made including legal immigrants in the authorization an issue regardless.

Today, September 27, is my mother’s 52nd birthday.

She died of cervical cancer in November 1992.

So last year, when news broke that Merck produced a potentially life-saving vaccination, Gardasil, against the human papillomavirus (HPV), a leading cause of cervical cancer, I cannot describe the joy I felt at the thought of future families not having to bury 37-year old mothers of four like mine did.

Meghan O’Rourke, writing at Salon today, picks it up there.

So when Merck announced that it had a created a drug that could prevent some 70 percent of cervical cancers from developing, you would think Americans would rejoice. Instead, there was a backlash. Last February, Republican Gov. Rick Perry signed an executive order that would have made Texas the first state to mandate the vaccination of schoolgirls against HPV, the sexually transmitted virus that is a frequent cause of cervical cancer. He promptly came under fierce attack. The Texas Legislature expressed its deep reservations about the vaccine, and the media reported that Perry had received a campaign contribution from Merck prior to signing the order. Ultimately, the order was vetoed by the legislature. Earlier this year, 24 states were contemplating making Gardasil—as the cervical-cancer vaccine is known—a mandatory vaccination for young women. Today, only one state, Virginia, has such a law, and it leaves a loophole for parents to opt out.

In one sense, this reluctance seems understandable. Merck is the same company that made headlines in 2004 for failing to disclose that its painkiller Vioxx raised the risk of cardiac arrest and stroke in patients. Gardasil is a brand-new drug, and the company has conducted only limited testing on it. Though the pre-release studies suggest it is highly efficacious, the vaccine’s long-term side effects are not fully known. What’s more, the vaccination comprises three painful shots, at an estimated cost of $360. Given all this, it is hard to blame parents who resist putting their daughters on the drug’s front line, preferring to wait until more is known about it.

That is a totally understandable, precautionary skepticism that any responsible parent would display. Just as O’Rourke points out, it is the other argument pushed forward by opponents that is problematic.

Much less understandable, though, is the position taken by many opponents: namely, that a cervical-cancer vaccination would “promote promiscuity” among teenage girls. Implicit in this argument is the assumption that good girls don’t get cervical cancer; only “loose” ones do—and they may get what they deserve. Earlier this year, State Sen. George Runner of California told the Los Angeles Times that American money would be much better spent on other types of vaccines, since cervical cancer is a result of lifestyle choices, rather than bad genetic luck.

O’Rourke notes the rank ignorance of proponents of this absurd argument. With this logic, cancer research — namely, much needed governmental funds — should be chauffeured away from deadly illnesses such as AIDS/HIV and lung cancer caused by emphysema.

Also, State Senator George Runner (R-Los Angeles) doesn’t seem to realize that HPV can be caused as easily as casual skin-to-skin contact or environmentally, notes Wikipedia. Ever take a shower in a college dorm with a community bathroom? It is that easy.

In fact, most Americans don’t even know they have it, and can unknowingly pass it along to others. O’Rourke notes the troublesome data:

The CDC reports that at least 50 percent of Americans are infected with HPV over the course of their lives, and a whopping 80 percent of American women are infected by age 50. Admittedly, the chances are slim that HPV would lead to cervical cancer: Only a small portion of HPV infections become cancerous. Still, according to the National Cancer Institute, roughly 11,000 women will be diagnosed with cervical cancer this year in the United States. Nearly 3,700 women will die. If you are one of those 3,700 women, you might feel that a vaccine could have changed everything. And—contrary to Runner’s insinuations—you needn’t be a slut to be among them: You could have married a guy who slept with just one other girl. Or, of course, you could be one of the approximately 13 percent of American women who, according to a 2003 study, are or will be a victim of rape over the course of their lives.

Sluts, all of them, according to George “the Cruel.”

Disgraceful.

[This post is not endorsing a mandate for Gardasil, but I do hold out hope for its potential in sparing families the pain that mine went through. The medical evidence is not all in, and skepticism is healthy, especially given Merck's history. But the rhetoric of those like Runner has no place in this debate. At all.]