It's been a busy week; new job syndrome, new commute, and lots of Scouting, too!
Even though it's snowing slightly, I'll soon be headed out to lead a walk through Rock Meadow in nearby Belmont for the store...we even have folks registered this time.
But on to the matters at hand. There's been a lot of debate this week about birth control. Of course, it's entirely regilious, and the heart of the debate according to the right is whether the President can force religious institutions to abandon their principles for the sake of fairness.
Continue reading...
13 comments(Latest Comment: 02/12/2012 03:05:18 by Raine)
CPAC - the Conservative Political Action Conference - is in town. It's like a circus, except all the animals are elephants, and they're all white (with a special guest appearance by Herman Cain). There's a lot of energy here (relatively speaking, considering the average age), with participants eager to propel the Republican party...um... backwards. But the realities on the ground do not bode well for their agenda, nor their future.
Continue reading...
42 comments(Latest Comment: 02/10/2012 22:36:18 by Raine)
Mother Jones has and excellent essay on the newest fake controversy rumbling around America. This article nailed almost all my points.
Yet in the past six months, social conservatives have widened their offensive, and their new target is clear: Not satisfied with making it harder to obtain legal abortions, they want to limit access to birth control, too.
"Contraception is under attack in a way it really wasn't in the past few years," says Judy Waxman, the vice president for health and reproductive rights at the National Women's Law Center. "In 2004, we could not find any group—the National Right to Life Committee, the Bush campaign, anyone—that would go on the record to say they're opposed to birth control," adds Elizabeth Shipp, the political director for NARAL Pro-Choice America. "We couldn't find them in 2006 either, and in 2008 it was just fringe groups. In 2010, 2011, and this year, it's just exploded."
Even previously uncontroversial ideas about contraception are now being questioned. As I explained in this story about Obama's birth-control policy, most of the administration's recently-issued rule requiring companies to provide birth control to their employees has been widely accepted federal law for a decade. Requiring employers to provide birth control if they provide other preventative services was so uncontroversial that most employers—even Catholic universities like DePaul, in Chicago—simply changed their policies and offered birth control to avoid being sued. The percentage of employers offering birth control coverage tripled in a decade. The national controversy only erupted after Obama issued the new rule in January.
I could go on and on about this utterly horrific attacks on women over the past few years. 28 states already have this requirement -- as do federal employees. That includes elected officials and their wives and children. Continue reading...
74 comments(Latest Comment: 02/09/2012 23:31:35 by Raine)
They're certainly discussion-worthy news items, but I don't know that I can add much to them. Talk amongst yourselves, and if I come up with something profound, I will put it here...
Continue reading...
40 comments(Latest Comment: 02/09/2012 04:42:20 by livingonli)
And you are all more than welcome to begin the countdown to the beginning of baseball season! Throwing this up here whilst I wake up and smack myself. I still can't believe it happened.
That's right, Tri trashed the blog. So I'll go clean it up and will be back.
Or, Why the UN is Trying to Kill all the Old White Teabaggers!
So, you're a Commissioner or City Council member of a town and you want to make it safer for bike riders by building a bike lane? Communist!
Or perhaps you want to steer large developments from building on steep mountains to prevent mudslides and pollutant runoffs to those that live below? Fascist!
Good morning. I've got a couple of disjointed stories this morning, not really enough to write a full blog on any one of them. Nevertheless, you should probably hear about them, so away we go. As always, the usual apologies to Bob Ryan, from whom I shamelessly steal this idea from time to time.
Continue reading...
7 comments(Latest Comment: 02/04/2012 17:37:27 by Raine)
There's a common idea that people shouldn't discuss politics or religion in certain circumstances, lest the discussion become heated and contentious. Put the two together, and you have a real bomb with a lit fuse. This is why the first amendment in the Bill of Rights is so important: religion influencing politics and politics influencing religion are really bad for the country.
The reality, of course, is that it happens all the time. Churches will host political events (I've actually voted in a church on more than one occassion), and politicians will invoke their religion as the driving force behind legislative action (or inaction). When money is added to the equation, it gets really ugly.
Continue reading...
42 comments(Latest Comment: 02/03/2012 22:54:17 by livingonli)
I'm sure by now, you aware that the The Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer Foundation -- officially known as Susan G. Komen for the Cure®, has decided to pull its grant money for Planned Parenthood. This money was given to the organization to help defray the costs of breast cancer screening for women with little or no money. As reported Tuesday afternoon by the AP, via WaPo this was the reasoning:
Komen spokeswoman Leslie Aun said the cutoff results from the charity’s newly adopted criteria barring grants to organizations that are under investigation by local, state or federal authorities. According to Komen, this applies to Planned Parenthood because it’s the focus of an inquiry launched by Rep. Cliff Stearns, R-Fla., seeking to determine whether public money was improperly spent on abortions.
The money the Susan G. Koman foundation gave to Planned Parenthood was to help fund breast cancer screening for women with little to no access to health insurance. It was a partnership that began in 2005. The following is an interview of Representative Stearns with Pat Robertson. They are discussing the issue of money possibly being improperly spent by Planned Parenthood.
Please note that the date is October 2011. Listen carefully. Listen for the mention of Lila Rose. (More after the fold.) Continue reading...
69 comments(Latest Comment: 02/03/2012 18:18:49 by Raine)