Well, where to start? After Rush Limbaugh's non-apology apology for calling Sandra† Fluke a "slut" and a "prostitute," he tried to make excuses for himself for why he used those words, and tried to compare his profession to that of a rapper.
“Talk about a double standard,” Limbaugh said on air Monday, according to Dylan Stableford. “Rappers can say anything they want about women [and] it’s called art. And they win awards.”
Whether you like rap music or not, it's considered an art form because it's something that is created. When has Rush created anything other than a shitstorm of hate? Sorry, Notorious D.I.C.K., you're not a rapper.
And good for Sandra Fluke to reject Limbaugh's non-apology. He said he was sorry for using those words, but I don't remember him saying he was sorry for wanting to see sex tapes of Fluke in return for something he's not paying for, which also seems to be overlooked by those covering this story. In fact, calling her a slut and a prostitute was tame in comparison to the other things he said.
*One more thing: Did anyone notice that last all week, Limbaugh was pronouncing Fluke's name "Fluck" as in rhymes with "Fuck"? Only today has he been pronouncing her name correctly.
(† A previous version of this post mistakenly named Ms. Fluke as Sarah, and has been corrected.)
There must have been a major shitstorm in RushWorld after advertisers started pulling their spots from Limbaugh's show because of the crude, misogynist remarks he made toward Georgetown Law student Sandra Fluke and her Congressional testimony. His "slut" and "prostitute" remarks were not based in any reality whatsoever. Advertisers let him know by pulling their ads and it looks like he was either scared enough or pressured enough by ClearChannel to actually apologize in a statement.
For over 20 years, I have illustrated the absurd with absurdity, three hours a day, five days a week. In this instance, I chose the wrong words in my analogy of the situation. I did not mean a personal attack on Ms. Fluke.
I think it is absolutely absurd that during these very serious political times, we are discussing personal sexual recreational activities before members of Congress. I personally do not agree that American citizens should pay for these social activities. What happened to personal responsibility and accountability? Where do we draw the line? If this is accepted as the norm, what will follow? Will we be debating if taxpayers should pay for new sneakers for all students that are interested in running to keep fit?In my monologue, I posited that it is not our business whatsoever to know what is going on in anyone's bedroom nor do I think it is a topic that should reach a Presidential level.
My choice of words was not the best, and in the attempt to be humorous, I created a national stir. I sincerely apologize to Ms. Fluke for the insulting word choices.
But of course! Calling someone a slut and a prostitute is the height of humor. Ask and comedian and they'll tell you there's nothing like misogyny to get a crowd rolling in the aisles.
But this website apology only proves that Limbaugh never actually bothered to listen to or read Sandra Fluke's statement, and that he really doesn't understand how contraception works. So I'll try to explain in an attempt to make Rush and any dittohead understand what it is that he's railing about without any grasp of reality.
"I think it is absolutely absurd that during these very serious political times, we are discussing personal sexual recreational activities before members of Congress."
I think it would be absurd too, Rush, but that's not what they were talking about. If you bothered to educate yourself and actually listen to what they were talking about, you'd know they were speaking not of sex or sexual recreational activity (I know you're disappointed) but of the medical necessity of contraception. What about the woman who needs birth control to regulate her hormones because of endometriosis? What about the woman who suffers from polycystic ovarian syndrome, as Sandra Fluke testified?
"I personally do not agree that American citizens should pay for these social activities."
We're not. Georgetown University is a PRIVATE school buying insurance plans from PRIVATE insurance companies on which students PAY premiums, just like anyone else who has an insurance plan. Taxpayers are not paying for this. In fact, the mandate the Obama administration put forth in their compromise which effectively took the church off the hook required the INSURANCE COMPANIES to provide free contraception (i.e. prescription meds, not condoms because it's not about sex) should the religious institutions have a moral dilemma with it.
But since Rush and Co. don't understand how contraception works, this is falling on deaf ears. Some are moronically still insisting that this is about sex and crunching the numbers to calculate how much sex women are having per day depending on their contraception costs.
"...it is not our business whatsoever to know what is going on in anyone's bedroom nor do I think it is a topic that should reach a Presidential level."
Once again, Rush, it's not about nosing into someone's bedroom - and the only reason it reach the Presidential level is because it was you who made it about the private affairs of someone's bedroom even though it isn't about sex. President Obama actually called Ms. Fluke to support her after your misogynist attack. Do we see a pattern here?
"...what will follow? Will we be debating if taxpayers should pay for new sneakers for all students that are interested in running to keep fit?"
Do I even have to go into comparing prescription medication to sneakers?
Rush doesn't understand. Rush will never understand. And the only reason Rush apologized was because he realized his words are hurting his wallet.
U.S. District Judge Richard F. Cebull, Montana's chief federal judge, sent an e-mail to some old buddies with a joke that implied President Obama was the offspring of his mother and a dog...
The message's subject line was "A Mother's Memory."
The Great Falls Tribune, which obtained the forwarded message, published it in its entirety:
"Normally I don't send or forward a lot of these, but even by my standards, it was a bit touching. I want all of my friends to feel what I felt when I read this. Hope it touches your heart like it did mine.
"A little boy said to his mother; 'Mommy, how come I'm black and you're white?'
"His mother replied, 'Don't even go there Barack! From what I can remember about that party, you're lucky you don't bark!'"
This is a US Federal judge. But hey, it's okay right? We're in a post-racial nation now that we have a black man as president! How can you claim there's ANY racism in this country when we have a black president?!!
Since I've been working a lot more and blogging less these past couple of months, I didn't have a chance to express my thoughts about Breitbart's death until now. I did have a chance to read Chez Pazienza's well written post although in my opinion he was way too diplomatic. My co-blogger Jennifer tweeted"I'm not going to act like Breitbart over Breitbart. But I don't think he's equivalent to Anthony Shadid so I'd be OK if coverage were less."
For the most part, I agree with them both. But here's the thing: why is it that I should have any compassion for a man whose very existence in public life was nothing but the height of vileness? He walked the earth with the sole purpose of pushing his political ideology not by extolling the virtues on his own party, but by vilifying the opposition though lies and deceit. Why should I "mourn the man and not his deeds"?
He was complicit in destroying ACORN by flat out lying about them. Should the thousands of people who lost their jobs because of his doctored videotape mourn his loss? He set fire to the career of Shirley Sherrod and slandered her name with accusations of racism, then tried to wash his hands of it because he claimed didn't know that the "evidence" against her was edited as well. And I'm supposed to feel some kind of sympathy?
If someone makes their living as a flamethrower then they can't gripe when its turned on them. Live by the cheap shot, die by the cheap shot. In fact, Breitbart himself showed no respect after the passing of Ted Kennedy:
Andrew Breitbart, a Washington Times columnist who oversees Breitbart.com and BigHollywood.com, tapped into the anti-Kennedy vein in the hours after the senator’s death was announced, posting a series of Twitter messages in which he called Kennedy a “villain,” a “duplicitous bastard” and a “prick.”
"I'm more than willing to go off decorum to ensure THIS MAN is not beatified,” Breitbart wrote. “Sorry, he destroyed lives. And he knew it."
Sorry, Breitbart certainly destroyed lives. And he most certainly knew it.
Did I wish him dead? No. But neither am I saddened by his passing. There are still plenty of blowhards to fill the gaps. He won't be missed.
My son divided his stuffed animals into two groups: those who like President Obama and those who don't and he articulated the differences. Pretty spot-on for a kiddo. We did a few of these because he likes watching them on the computer afterward and I decided not to post the one where he said the ones who don't like President Obama steal his underwear and pants.
So many times I have great discussions with other Democrats and inevitably someone says something to the effect of "Republican women won't stand for that" or "Republican voters are sick of this". But when we step back and think about it, we are applying Democratic values, perceptions and priorities to their thinking.
For example, Democrats were sure that Republican women would be offended by the war on women being waged over the past year by their own party. But why? Why would we think that? Republican women don't think like Democratic women. It's not that they love their kids less or that they are heartless bitches. But, really, Republican women have different views than we do. So why would we expect a Republican woman to see the contraception debate the way a Democratic woman would? We see it as an assault on our rights. They see it as an assault on their rights. But we each have a focus on different sets of rights.
Then take Ron Paul. Democrats were convinced his newsletters would be the end of his campaign. Why? Why would we think that Republicans would see the newsletters the way we see them as opposed to the way Paul sees them? Do we think they'll all of a sudden think like us because it's such a big deal issue? No. Republicans aren't going to drastically change their life experiences and conclusions taken from them just because WE as Democrats are offended by something. There's no sensible basis to expect it. So why do we?
Today Democrats are outraged by Rush Limbaugh and his vile comments about a college girl who stood up for a woman's right to have access to birth control. He implied she is paid for sex, is a slut and apparently he wants to watch sex tapes with her in them. Democrats are appalled for good reason. But here's the deal, I don't know any Republican who listen to Rush who will say "that crossed a line". The people who listen to Rush have crossed that line plenty of times before and don't care. They do not care. So, as offended as I am by this, I wish Democrats would stop pretending we'll get through to a certain voting block by assuming they can possibly see it our way just because we think it's a big fucking deal.
Folks, if these people could see things our way, they'd be Democrats.
What would you do if your boss said he was morally opposed to providing health care plans that cover pregnancy if you are in your second marriage because you were divorced from your first? And then you got pregnant with your new husband. Would you have to quit your job? Find a private policy to cover your health care? Scrape the money together? What if a female business owner thought prostate cancer was something she didn't want to cover in her company-provided plans? What would her male employees do? This Blunt amendment could mean YOU don't get health care coverage through your job. So, where ya gonna get it?
For the first few hours, the GOP Michigan primary was too close to call. Mitt Romney, who was raised in the state and whose father was a former governor, was neck and neck with Rick Santorum. Then the call was made: Romney was declared the winner of the Michigan primary. But did he really win?
Rick Santorum claimed a partial victory Wednesday when final results showed he and Mitt Romney evenly split Michigan' s 30 delegates, even though Romney got more overall votes in the Republican presidential primary Tuesday.
The latest estimates from CNN showed both candidates with 15 Michigan delegates, while Romney was ahead in the popular vote with 41% to Santorum's 38%.
If you strictly look at the numbers, then yes, Romney won the popular vote and the delegates were split 50/50 because the race was so close in a state in which he should have cleaned up. But in a state in which he should have cleaned up, was this really a win for Mitt Romney? Yeah, I don't think so either.
HuffPo: The Monkees singer Davy Jones has died at the age of 66, TMZ reports. A rep for Jones revealed that he passed away Wednesday morning after suffering a heart attack.
“Six months before this thing got going, every Republican I know was saying, ‘We’re gonna win, we’re gonna beat Obama.’ Now even those who’ve endorsed Romney say, ‘My God, what a fucking mess.’”
Here's my governor (unfortunately) with full pomposity on display on Morning Joe clashing with Jonathan Capehart over the issue of gay marriage among other things. Good luck trying to stomach the 20 plus minutes of video.
That would be completely wrong. But did you actually expect it to be correct?
"...multiple studies have found that the opposite is true — including the one that Santorum has reportedly been referring to.
A studypublished 2007 in the journal Social Forces — which PBS reports that Santorum’s claim is based on, although his spokesman didn’t respond to TPM’s request for confirmation — finds that Americans who don’t go to college experience a steeper decline in their religiosity than those who do."
I just can't understand Santorum's latest crusade against a college education when studies in fact do show that a college degree does lead to a more successful career. But I suppose it's all part of the Republican attempt to dumb down America. How else would they get votes? And when all else fails, use the indoctrination boogeyman.
"President Obama once said he wants everybody in America to go to college. What a snob. There are good, decent men and women who go out and work hard everyday and put their skills to test that aren't taught by some liberal college professor that [tries] to indoctrinate them."
At least he called him, "President Obama." But it's funny, I don't remember anyone railing against "indoctrination" in our nation's schools until we had a Manchurian Candidate, Kenyan anti-colonialist, illegitimate President. But Santorum goes on.
Pressed by moderator David Gregory whether he encouraged his children to go to college, Santorum said he encouraged them "to get higher education." "In fact, if college is the best place for them, absolutely, but you know what? If going to a trade school and learning to be a carpenter or a plumber or other types of skills or an artist... or musician, all of those things are very important and worthwhile professions that we should not look down our nose at."
Who said anything about looking down our nose at those who don't go to college? And "higher education" is what the President exactly said.
George Stephanopolous: All he said was he wants, quote, "every American to commit to at least one year or more of higher education or career training."
Tuesday, Gordon Warren Epperly filed a lawsuit in Alaska challenging President Obama's inclusion on the 2012 presidential ballot. What's Epperly's beef? Apparently, he feels Negroes and mulattoes can't be president because they aren't really citizens.
“I love this country. Actually I love this state,” he said in Detroit Friday. “This feels good, being back in Michigan. You know, the trees are the right height. The streets are just right. I like the fact that most of the cars I see are Detroit-made automobiles. I drive a Mustang and a Chevy pickup truck. Ann drives a couple of Cadillacs, actually. And I used to have a Dodge truck, so I used to have all three covered.”
Again with the tree height? What does that even mean?! And what an awesome way to show how much Mitt relates to the Average Joe. Four cars (at least) and two of them are Cadillacs. The other is a sports car. And the other other is a truck. I wonder what the Romney household(s) fuel consumption is?
BAGRAM, Afghanistan— Word that NATO personnel had burned an undisclosed number of Korans and were preparing to dispose of many more by incineration set off an angry protest here on Tuesday. NATO officials rushed to apologize publicly and profusely, trying to head off what they feared could be a nationwide outburst of violence as news of the burning was gradually broadcast across the country.
This is why we'll never take the next step as a society of humans. When we realize that for some, this has all become some sick, goddamned crusade in the guise of a "war on terror" the sooner we will all be better for it. How often has religious descrimination and book burning worked? Answer: never.
Gallup: Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum are now statistically tied for the lead in Republican registered voters' preferences for the 2012 GOP nomination -- 32% to 30%, respectively.
Wait, I'm wrong. I can't possibly blame GOP voters for these numbers with the disgusting clown car of candidates that I'd have to choose from were I in their shoes. The only thing I can blame them for is the fact that they vote GOP at all. Luckily, I have a brain and don't have to choose between these morons.
Remember when the GOP and Republican talking heads went apeshit when the Obama administration decided to try Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, AKA "The Underwear Bomber" in federal civilian court? Remember when Senate Minority Leader Mitch "The Jowel" McConnell said President Obama was acting “as if [Abdulmutallab] had robbed a convenience store”?
There was a time when the circumstances surrounding Abdulmutallab’s arrest were part of a lengthy national debate about the best way to handle terrorism cases. There were letters, television appearances and press releases calling on the Obama administration to reverse its position and send Abdulmutallab into the military tribunal system due to perceived weaknesses in the civilian court system.
Now that he’s locked up for life, it’s pretty much radio silence. A search for press releases mentioning Abdulmutallab from members of Congress this week turns up just one, from Rep. Adam Smith (D-WA), who said the sentence ‘demonstrations that our federal court system is fully capable of bringing terrorist to justice.”
Yeah, they trusted our judicial system so much, they insisted he be sent to a military tribunal. Why do Republicans hate America and its justice system?
*Note: I know Joe Lieberman also insisted on a military tribunal for Abdulmutallab too, but really, let's not delude ourselves for a second that he was ever really a Democrat or even an Independent.
Like many people, I was actually a little saddened when I heard about the loss of Whitney Houston, not because I was a huge fan, but because I felt it was a shame that another talent (and she was talented regardless of whether you liked her music or not) had fallen to drug addiction. It really is a shame.
So I thought, okay, we'll get a day of nonstop Whitney coverage with speculation of what happened and how. And I tolerated Day Two of "Whitney Still Dead" news analysis. But I thought it was a little much when I came across "Breaking News" while channel surfing Monday night, with live helicopter coverage of the convoy of vehicles transporting Houston's body from Teterboro Airport to Newark, New Jersey.
And then Jabba the Governor decides to fly flags at half-staff in New Jersey in her honor. Seriously? Was Whitney Houston a former President of the US and I hadn't noticed? Is being known as the "Queen of Pop" considered official royalty in this country and worthy of that honor?
If someone had mentioned Whitney Houston the day before her death, you'd mostly likely think of her as a joke. They'd call her a crack addict, an alcoholic, someone who'd destroyed herself, someone who succumbed to her demons. Those woulds were self-inflicted, yet somehow it seems all of that was forgotten in lieu of some feel good, she-was-so-great story. Yes, what happened was sad and tragic. But can we keep things in perspective?
First they came for gay marriages by I am not gay so I did not stand up.
Then they came for abortions but I was not pregnant so I didn't stand up.
Next they came for voter rights but I had a driver's license so I didn't stand up.
Finally they came for birth control and I STOOD UP AND I FOUGHT!
The GOP finally picked the one fight most Americans won't back down from. So I love that we are standing up! I love the men who are standing with us! This is the NEW Year of the Woman and we will elect Democrats who have stood and who will continue to stand for our rights.
This is Foster Friess. Foster Freiss is not really a billionaire. Foster Friess is a multi-multi-multi-millionaire. Foster Friess is pouring millions into backing Rick Santorum's run for the Republican nomination for President. Foster Friess thinks all the hoopla over the contraception issue is much ado about nothing because it's "so inexpensive nowadays."
“You know, back in my days, they used Bayer aspirin for contraception. The gals put it between their knees, and it wasn’t that costly.”
That only scratched the surface. If you didn't see the whole interview (I didn't, but do I really need to subject myself to that?), read the highlights at the Politico link.
If Santorum doesn't distance himself from those comments for being crude in the least, and he won't because he need's Freiss' money, you can witness his downfall in the polls within a couple of weeks.
NY TIMES: Gary Carter, the slugging catcher known as Kid for the sheer joy he took in playing baseball, who entered the Hall of Fame as a Montreal Expo but who most famously helped propel the Mets to their dramatic 1986 World Series championship, died Thursday. He was 57.
The cause was brain cancer, which had been diagnosed last May. Carter had been treated with chemotherapy and radiation, but his daughter Kimmy Bloemers said in mid-January that new tumors had been discovered.
1986 was a magical year for the Mets and for me as a Mets fan. I remember watching Game 6 holding my breath with two outs in the ninth and down two runs, and it was Gary Carter who singled into the outfield to start that improbable comeback.
Earlier, I posted a Planned Parenthood screen grab of the Darrell Issa hearing on "freedom of religion" where only men representing religious leadership were testifying. Many took to the Twittah machine to express outrage that only men were invited to speak about contraception. A friend of mine called Darrell Issa's office to express that frustration, only to be told the hearings were not about "birth control" but were about "religious freedom." I called his office and said that if the hearing is about religious freedom, then there should be women testifying about THEIR religious freedom. I suggested Representative Issa release a public statement explaining why he didn't think women had a say in the first amendment. I suggested that a table full of men talking about religious liberties implies he doesn't think women have any. The staffer told me that these were leaders and that their hierarchy is only men. I asked if there weren't ANY religious institutions that had women in leadership roles and she said, "I guess not." I told her that was incorrect and that there is even a prominent nun who actually sides with the White House plan for contraception coverage. I asked why she wasn't there today. The staffer even thought only Catholics were on the panel, despite there being a Jewish Rabbi.
So, we all freaked for good reason. Only one gender and only one view was represented in a hearing about the FIRST AMENDMENT -- you know, that amendment that allows for multiple views. Of all discussions, this should have had a variety of testimonies. There should have been at least one person on that panel testifying on behalf of the religious freedom of women to choose what to put in their body and to be allowed the same access to rights given to other men and women, despite their boss having a "conscience" problem.
But the second half of the testimony did include two women -- both representing religious university administrations. So, they had women testifying on a "religious freedom" panel and yet, they don't represent members of any religious belief -- they represent universities. Universities that are not legally allowed to deny employment based on a person's faith or "conscience." They are not allowed to force a religious mission, philosophy or doctrine on any employee. Therefore, what these women have to do with another woman's religious freedom to choose to take birth control is beyond me.
What's most troubling is that one of the women who testified is a medical doctor. And she has a problem with birth control.
Folks, we have a serious problem here. Women's rights are being taken away -- prods are being rammed up women's vaginas to forcibly, against her will, influence her not to abort something that looks like a dot on a screen and doesn't have a heart beat. Women are being denied equal access to universal preventative care because of who their boss is. Voter ID laws are limiting how many women can vote. Previously apolitical charities are hiring ideologues to limit Planned Parenthood's impact on women's health. And the Boehner House has spent more time on abortion and Planned Parenthood than creating jobs.
So what are we going to do about it? Are we going to keep getting mad? Are we going to keep fighting this crap? Or are we going to get out the vote and kick these assholes out of office?
Suggestions appreciated in the comments on ways to stand up and create shock and awe!
Today a hearing is taking place on Capitol Hill regarding contraception coverage in health insurance plans. Planned Parenthood posted this picture of the hearing. Notice the absence of relevant witnesses?
Had it been up to Mitt Romney, we would no longer have an American auto industry. Here's what he wrote in his New York Times op-ed back in November of 2008, two months before President Obama took office:
IF General Motors, Ford and Chrysler get the bailout that their chief executives asked for yesterday, you can kiss the American automotive industry goodbye. It won’t go overnight, but its demise will be virtually guaranteed...
...A managed bankruptcy may be the only path to the fundamental restructuring the industry needs. It would permit the companies to shed excess labor, pension and real estate costs...
...In a managed bankruptcy, the federal government would propel newly competitive and viable automakers, rather than seal their fate with a bailout check.
Seal their fate with a "bailout check." "...it's demise will be virtually guaranteed." The Bain way, apparently. Maybe the only way Romney knows. Take over a company, bankrupt it and reap the profits.
So here we are, a little over three years later, and GM is back on top as the world's top auto manufacturer. So of course, you'd expect Mitt would think that perhaps even if the government didn't go about it the right way in his opinion, at least a million plus jobs were saved and Detroit is alive again. ...Nope. He doubled down.
The indisputable good news is that Chrysler and General Motors are still in business. The equally indisputable bad news is that all the defects in President Obama's management of the American economy are evident in what he did.
Instead of doing the right thing and standing up to union bosses, Obama rewarded them.
Blame the workers. Nice going, Mitt. Never mind that the UAW took significant cuts, in pay, benefits and pension to keep their jobs and keep the auto industry alive in this country.
Now, the US Treasury still owns about one-third of GM's stock and is holding off on selling it until it can at the very least, minimize losses. But what would Mitt Romney do?
The Obama administration needs to act now to divest itself of its ownership position in GM.
The shares need to be sold in a responsible fashion and the proceeds turned over to the nation's taxpayers.
Yes, if Mitt Romney were President, he would sell the shares of GM... at a massive loss.
Taxpayers have recovered roughly half of the government’s $49.5 billion investment in GM through stock sales and loan repayments.
To break even on the GM bailout, the Treasury Department would have to sell its remaining one-third stake in the company for roughly $53 a share. GM stock is trading at about half that amount, so the government would lose about $14 billion on the deal if those shares were sold today.
Something tells me that unless Ronmey is dealing in vulture capitalism, he really has no idea what he's doing.
Jon Stewart came back from vacation with guns blazing regarding the whole contraception debacle, and in regards to the previous post by JHW22, I'd thought I'd add it here. Brilliant.
Let me start by saying I love the men in my life. I respect them and they respect me. So when I make the following statement, please know I am only making it about CERTAIN men. Ready? Men need to SHUT THE FUCK UP about birth control! Now, when I see the majority of male pundits and commentators and journalists (or whatever the hell we're supposed to refer to them as these days) going ON AND ON about freedom of religion in regards to contraception, I want to yell loudly enough so that each one hears me: "WHAT ABOUT MY FREEDOM OF RELIGION!?!?!"
I appreciate the women, especially the Catholic women, all over the teevee and radio and blogs and articles standing up for a woman's right to choose what to put in her body to prevent the arrival of something unwanted in her body. I love that the women's groups, on the heels of the Koman disaster, are Fired Up! Ready to Go! But even these wonderful women, speaking on my behalf and many of yours, are missing the KEY POINT in the debate. This isn't just about health care or access to preventative care or a woman's right to equality in benefits no matter where she works. This absolutely IS a debate about religious freedom: WOMEN'S.
I would appreciate it if more of us started nailing this very crucial point: the Bishops are NOT the only ones in the debate with religious freedom to protect. Let's keep the focus on the sacred first amendment (one I believe in to my core). As an atheist and a strong supporter of the separation of church and state, I think it's a vile offense of a woman's religious freedom to have her employer impose HIS religious beliefs on HER health care. I don't care if the female employee is a Catholic and that 98% of Catholic women use contraception. I don't care what the numbers are. I wouldn't care if only 2% of Catholic women used it. What I care about is that NO WOMAN be denied access to basic health care because some MAN doesn't like her ability to regulate her own menstrual cycle based on HIS, not HER, religious beliefs.
So, data aside, health reasoning aside, this debate should be about religious freedom and we should be reminding the world, that we, as American women, are entitled to this very freedom and stop letting the debate sound as if only men have the right to practice their faith. These men to keep their religion in their pants, not mine!
Is this how it's going to end for the Republican Party?
TPM: Not satisfied with President Obama’s new religious accommodation, Republicans will move forward with legislation by Sen. Roy Blunt (R-MO) that permits any employer to deny birth control coverage in their health insurance plans, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) said Sunday.
Currently, 28 states mandate that employers' health insurance cover contraception for its employees, eight of which require it regardless of whether they are religiously affiliated or not. Many Catholic universities and hospitals already provide the coverage. The Obama administration's religious exemption is far broader than current law and actually a loosening of restrictions. But for some reason, GOP leaders think they have a dog in this fight and are betting that this will be wedge issue to sway Catholic votes away from the President in the upcoming 2012 election. This despite the fact that 58% of Catholics believe that employers should be required to provide their employees with health care plans that cover contraception, and that 62% of women overall, a huge voting block to be sure, agree as well.
So not only are they tying one end of the Blunt Amendment rope around the Catholic opposition rock, but they're tying the other end around their necks with a flawed "religious freedom" argument and attempting to roll back existing law for employers whose businesses have nothing to do with religion, and tossing it off the wingnut bridge.
“The fact that the White House thinks this is about contraception is the whole problem. This is about freedom of religion, it’s right there in the First Amendment. You can’t miss it — right there in the very first amendment to our Constitution,” [Senate Minority Leader Mitch] McConnell said. “What the overall view on the issue of contraception is has nothing to do with an issue about religious freedom.”
McConnell went on to embellish the argument, claiming Obama is being “rigid in his view that he gets to decide what somebody else’s religion is.” He said that “this issue will not go away until the administration simply backs down.”
How can a career politician of McConnell's stature get the First Amendment so wrong? It's because he is ginning up another empty attack on President Obama. He just can't help himself. Let's review:
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
No law "respecting the establishment of religion..." - meaning that the government will not make any one religion the official religion of the country. "...or prohibiting free exercise thereof." - meaning that you are free to practice any religion you choose without fear of reproach from the government.
So, no, Senator McConnell, it's not "right there" in the First Amendment. Just because you are free to practice religion as you choose and follow its supposed moral values, does not mean you can arbitrarily ignore the laws of the land thereby causing an infringement on another person's rights. It's a far, far stretch to say that requiring an employer to cover contraception in its health care benefits for their employees, even if that employer is the Catholic Church now playing a role in the secular world, is a violation of conscience. It is up to the individual in question to face their moral conscience when it comes to the usage of contraception made available at no cost via their health insurance plans. Catholics who work outside the realm of the Church as their employer have that health care right. They also have the right not to use it - because of their religious beliefs.
In fact, I believe that in this particular case, it is the Catholic Church that is in violation of the very thing it protests. If the employee in question is not of the Catholic faith, why should he or she be discriminated against and not have the same health care benefits they would have if they didn't work for a religious organization? Is that not an infringement of their rights? If the government favored the religious institution's view, would that not be a violation of the First Amendment, namely "respecting the establishment" of their religion in lieu of federal law? If this were the case, could a Catholic secretary working for an Orthodox Jewish lawyer bring a ham and cheese sandwich to the office for her lunch in clear violation of her employer's Jewish beliefs?
I happen to be indifferent on the exemption to churches that President Obama offered. But when the church clearly steps in to the province of secular business, whether it be a hospital or a school in which people of all faiths are accepted, then they should and must follow the rules and regulations of the secular world. You can't claim religious exemption when it suits you. In this contraception coverage "nontroversy," the majority of Catholics are right, it's the Catholic Church and the "anything anti-Obama" GOP that are wrong.
ADDING... Rachel Maddow had a great piece on this issue last Thursday night. Along with exposing the Republican candidates fighting it out for the Presidential nomination, she also took a swipe and the 60-something, white male Beltway pundits who seem to think that it's the President who is looking bad on this issue even though he's with the majority of Americans. I think she may have been referring to Chris Matthews.
ABC News: Whitney Houston, who ruled as pop music's queen until her majestic voice and regal image were ravaged by drug use, erratic behavior and a tumultuous marriage to singer Bobby Brown, has died. She was 48.
Houston's publicist, Kristen Foster, said Saturday that the singer had died, but the cause and the location of her death were unknown.
It's a sad thing what addiction can do. Cause of death is not determined yet, but years of drug and alcohol abuse can't be ignored. Tragic.
Many on the left have set their hair on fire over President Obama's solution to the conflict between religious institutions, primarily the Catholic church, providing health care coverage which includes birth control to women and the teachings of the church. One would have to be in the wildest parts of Siberia to have missed this controversy, so I will not recount the drama that has unfolded.
However, once again the ubiquitous word "cave" has appeared in association with this decision. There was a time when this would infuriate me, but now I laugh at the predictability of the critical left. Of course, if you dare disagree with them, then they launch into name calling that would make any junior high student proud. I think one reason for their childish, often surly, reaction is their unstated, unreasonable expectations of President Obama. It's as if some on the left have never listened to his speeches, press conferences, or town halls because if they had, surely they would have some understanding of the man.
For example, Barack Obama is a man who truly understands the art of politics better than any of his critics on the right or left and certainly any of the ideologues. Plenty of evidence exists to support this as he brings home one victory after another for the American people in spite of seemingly insurmountable odds. Certainly many do understand him, calling him the chess master while his opponents are merely sitting in the park playing checkers. But time after time those of us who have defended the President are called idiots, morons, Obamabots, etc. in spite of the fact our defense of President Obama has been well-founded and well-placed. But the critical left still doesn't get him.
As an example of the obtuseness of President Obama's critics on the left, let me take you back to the time when the second budget agreement was finalized. Remember Boehner bragging about how he got what he wanted? Remember Cenk Uygur and others of his ilk screaming that the President got rolled? A couple of days later, Boehner was whining that the Republicans had been rolled, but "’we won't be rolled again.’" Yet they were . . . again and again.
The very same scenario played out during the debt ceiling negotiations and agreement. As we watched this unfold, what became clear to most of us but not to the angry left and the Republicans was that the President had boxed the opposition into a corner with no escape. In their eagerness to out-fox the President and race to the microphones, the Republicans again overlooked the long-term results. Thus, after the Super Committee failed and the Department of Defense cuts were activated, the Republicans were not crowing but eating crow . . . again. And again the the critics on the left either didn’t notice or were too prideful to admit they had misjudged Barack Obama.
And now again in the debate over women's health, the Republicans have been rolled and although we have ample evidence that the President knows more about negotiating and political maneuvering than anyone in D.C., the angry left is still as dense as ever. And for the umpteenth time they and the Republicans look like fools. As a wise man once said, “‘there’s a saying that says, fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again.’" Okay, forget the wise part.
When the uproar broke this week over mandating religious institutions offer women's preventative care coverage, we saw a replay of every other drama over important issues about which we liberals care deeply. The debate over this issue was couched as either a violation of religious freedom or women's right to unfettered access to birth control. Most of the proponents of the religious freedom argument were white Catholic male pundits, such as Chris Matthews and Lawrence O'Donnell, who frankly couldn't see past their white privilege to see the true issue here. But I digress.
The Republicans came out with their usual hysterical rhetoric, providing further evidence to the American people just how extreme they are. However, in an unusual display of unity, Democrats held firm and stayed on message. What's that message? Women have a right to preventative care coverage by any employer, regardless of secular or religious foundation. So yesterday, when President Obama announced a way to provide the coverage that the Catholic and religious institutions could accept, he was accused of caving or bending because by some on the left who lost sight of the goal.
Those critics on the left who just don't get Barack Obama do so because they lack vision, subtlety, and nuance. Most importantly, the critical left always loses sight of the goal. The goal was not bringing down the Catholic church but to provide the best possible preventative care for women without the co-pays many women cannot afford.
May I offer this extended metaphor. Again those critics on the left are painting by numbers, showing their lack of creativity, imagination, impatience, and foresight, while President Obama is the great master, bringing all of his creativity, imagination, and patience to the canvas. He has a vision for his painting, but he realizes that he is working with a wet canvas requiring layers of paint. To rush through his creation would only leave a muddy mess, not a grand work for generations to appreciate and enjoy.
So I guess the President did cave to those who wanted to launch a war against religion, but for the women of America, who never lost sight of the real goal, it is a grand victory.
"There is no spin in that ad. On this I am certain," [Clint] Eastwood said in a statement to Fox News. "I am certainly not politically affiliated with Mr. Obama. It was meant to be a message about job growth and the spirit of America. I think all politicians will agree with it. ... If Obama or any other politician wants to run with the spirit of that ad, go for it."
Exactly right, Clint. This is about an entire industry, and the people who work in it, scratching and clawing its way back from the dead.
Whether you are pro auto "bailout" or not (and I use the word 'bailout' loosely since it was actually a loan which has been mostly paid back despite the whining lies of Karl Rove), how do you criticize the fact, THE FACT, that the American auto industry was saved and is now back on top due to the loans to keep them afloat while they reorganized and restructured? Not to mention a minimum of one million jobs saved because of it.
For all the shouts and fist shaking of the GOP against President Obama and what they deem to be worse off than we were three years ago, despite proof to the contrary, it is amazing to me that anyone would claim to be pro-America, yet rail against a commercial touting the resurgence of the American auto industry and the resurrection of a major American city... all because they're rather scorch the earth than run against their preposterous narrative for the sake of winning back the White House. And these are the chest thumping America lovers?
The U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit says NOPE to Prop 8! The court finds it unconstitutional to strip rights away from people because they're gay, despite what the majority of stupid voters say.
What a good news day. Anyone know what Obama has Seal Team Six doing today?
Karen Handel, the right-winger who was hired by Komen just before all hell broke loose, resigned today. Is it just me, or is her resignation letter a bit much? It's dramatic, written for us and not the recipient, and loaded with seeming contradictions, defensiveness and a denial that by making the decision to defund the "controversial" Planned Parenthood, Komen did something even more controversial.
Brother.
February 7, 2012
The Honorable Nancy Brinker
CEO, Susan G. Komen for the Cure VIA EMAIL
5005 LBJ Freeway, Suite 250
Dallas, Texas 75244
Dear Ambassador Brinker:
Susan G. Komen for the Cure has been the recognized leader for more 30 years in the fight against breast cancer here in the US – and increasingly around the world.
As you know, I have always kept Komen’s mission and the women we serve as my highest priority – as they have been for the entire organization, the Komen Affiliates, our many supporters and donors, and the entire community of breast cancer survivors. I have carried out my responsibilities faithfully and in line with the Board’s objectives and the direction provided by you and Liz.
We can all agree that this is a challenging and deeply unsettling situation for all involved in the fight against breast cancer. However, Komen’s decision to change its granting strategy and exit the controversy surrounding Planned Parenthood and its grants was fully vetted by every appropriate level within the organization. At the November Board meeting, the Board received a detailed review of the new model and related criteria. As you will recall, the Board specifically discussed various issues, including the need to protect our mission by ensuring we were not distracted or negatively affected by any other organization’s real or perceived challenges. No objections were made to moving forward.
I am deeply disappointed by the gross mischaracterizations of the strategy, its rationale, and my involvement in it. I openly acknowledge my role in the matter and continue to believe our decision was the best one for Komen’s future and the women we serve. However, the decision to update our granting model was made before I joined Komen, and the controversy related to Planned Parenthood has long been a concern to the organization. Neither the decision nor the changes themselves were based on anyone’s political beliefs or ideology. Rather, both were based on Komen’s mission and how to better serve women, as well as a realization of the need to distance Komen from controversy. I believe that Komen, like any other nonprofit organization, has the right and the responsibility to set criteria and highest standards for how and to whom it grants.
What was a thoughtful and thoroughly reviewed decision – one that would have indeed enabled Komen to deliver even greater community impact – has unfortunately been turned into something about politics. This is entirely untrue. This development should sadden us all greatly.
Just as Komen’s best interests and the fight against breast cancer have always been foremost in every aspect of my work, so too are these my priorities in coming to the decision to resign effective immediately. While I appreciate your raising a possible severance package, I respectfully decline. It is my most sincere hope that Komen is allowed to now refocus its attention and energies on its mission.
In all the discussions of the Clint Eastwood Chrysler "Halftime in America" ad, all the pundits keeps leaving out the fact that Clint is a big-time Republican. The fact that he did that ad, supporting Obama's policy on the auto bailout, and mimicking Obama's messaging from the State of the Union on "teamwork", says a lot. It says that some Republicans are ready to bring their party back from the fringes and work with the President for a better future. More of that sanity, please.
As most people, I was a little shocked and pretty stoked when I heard that the Susan G. Komen Foundation had reversed its decision to not grant Planned Parenthood future funds due to the political hackery of it's Senior VP, Karen Handel, despite its denial that the decision was politically based. Handel was on the losing side of a election for the Governorship of Georgia and ran on defunding Planned Parenthood. You'd have to be an idiot not to see that this was strictly a political move. If there's any doubt, why did Komen stop funding to institutions which also happened to be research centers for embryonic stem cells and not only looking for a cure for breast cancer?
But while I was initially pleased that they backtracked after the avalanche of shit that they brought upon themselves, I wasn't exactly thrilled about their statement. This particularly comes to mind:
...We will continue to fund existing grants, including those of Planned Parenthood, and preserve their eligibility to apply for future grants...
Continue "existing grants"? That was never in question. In fact, when they released their initial defunding statement, they make the claim that the existing grants would be honored, just not new grants. And as far as applying for future grants, why would that be in question if the organization will basically continue what it's currently doing? Why would they be denied future grants?
Maybe I'm reading too much into it. Maybe it's the pulled funding to other facilities and research centers that also are at odds with the pro-life agenda that has me concerned about the sincerity of this statement. The only thing that would make a difference for me personally, would be if the foundation canned Karen Handel as a gesture of good faith that they really are just looking for a cure since their entire organization now seems to be in question.
DALLAS - February 3, 2012 - We want to apologize to the American public for recent decisions that cast doubt upon our commitment to our mission of saving women’s lives. The events of this week have been deeply unsettling for our supporters, partners and friends and all of us at Susan G. Komen. We have been distressed at the presumption that the changes made to our funding criteria were done for political reasons or to specifically penalize Planned Parenthood. They were not.
Our original desire was to fulfill our fiduciary duty to our donors by not funding grant applications made by organizations under investigation. We will amend the criteria to make clear that disqualifying investigations must be criminal and conclusive in nature and not political. That is what is right and fair.
Our only goal for our granting process is to support women and families in the fight against breast cancer. Amending our criteria will ensure that politics has no place in our grant process. We will continue to fund existing grants, including those of Planned Parenthood, and preserve their eligibility to apply for future grants, while maintaining the ability of our affiliates to make funding decisions that meet the needs of their communities.
It is our hope and we believe it is time for everyone involved to pause, slow down and reflect on how grants can most effectively and directly be administered without controversies that hurt the cause of women. We urge everyone who has participated in this conversation across the country over the last few days to help us move past this issue. We do not want our mission marred or affected by politics – anyone’s politics.
Starting this afternoon, we will have calls with our network and key supporters to refocus our attention on our mission and get back to doing our work. We ask for the public’s understanding and patience as we gather our Komen affiliates from around the country to determine how to move forward in the best interests of the women and people we serve.
We extend our deepest thanks for the outpouring of support we have received from so many in the past few days and we sincerely hope that these changes will be welcomed by those who have expressed their concern.
ShareThis