Weekend Open Thread

 

"World Party" - The Waterboys

Well it's got nothing to do with anything that is real
You just believe in it and it's true

- This article in the New York Times today (pointed out by Paula in comments) is yet another example of how the tea party types are the spiritual heirs to the American right wingers who inspired Richard Hofstadter's essay, "The Paranoid Style in American Politics."  It's kind of a chilling read -- these crazy bastards out in the hinterlands fighting against everything from smart meters on furnaces to bike lanes to anti-sprawl measures, all of which they claim are part of a UN conspiracy to control the lives of Americans.  They are encouraged in their paranoia by shameless cynics like Newt Gingrich and other Republican office holders.   This sort of politics, based as they are on ludicrous fantasies, should and would be laughable -- but it appears that these people are actually having an impact on policy in some of these places.  And that really is scary.

- It is amazing to watch how many members of the media have no sense of what the concept of religious liberty really means.  I have seen a slew of commentary from the likes of Kathleen Parker, E.J. Dionne (shame on him), Mark Shields (ditto), Michael Gerson (to be expected), and Ross Douthat (invevitable) suggesting that the requirement that all employer sponsored health plans (including plans sponsored by Catholic hospitals and universities for their employees) provide coverage for a host of basic services, including those related to family planning, is somehow an attack on religious liberty.  This is patent nonsense.   Catholic universities (I actually went to one for law school) and hospitals (I have been treated at one on multiple occasions) are primarily secular institutions, employing, teaching, and treating a huge and diverse cross section of America, charging fees for the services they render, receiving government grants, contracts, subsidies, and payments.  The employees at these institutions -- the doctors, nurses, technicians, orderlies, janitors, professors, teaching assistants, and clerical workers -- are rarely priests or nuns, they are employed for their technical and professional prowess rather than their spiritual vocation, and many, if not most, are not Catholics.  There is no reason that the employees of these institutions should not be entitled to receive the same basic health benefits as those mandated for all other employer based programs in the United States.  No one is being forced to use contraception against her will or conscience by these regulations.  Quite simply, their employer is not being allowed to impose the beliefs of a handful of unelected old men to deprive them of a medical service that an expert panel, in accordance with its legislative mandate, has deemed an essential health service.  

By the way, I find the notion that this is going to cost Obama the Catholic vote to be laughable.  The vast majority of Catholics reject the Church's teaching on birth control, finding it to be absurd.  Catholics use birth control at rates in excess of the population on average.  The bishops (and their contemptible apologists like Dionne) are deluding themselves if they think that Obama is going to lose any votes on this.

- Many people have already weighed in on the ridiculous claims that the Susan G. Komen Foundation has been bullied by Planned Parenthood and its allies in recent days.  (One wonders, if Komen has been bullied, how would one describe the onslaught to which Planned Parenthood has been subjected by Republicans and right wing media over the last year or two?)  Again, this is a simple matter.  Komen went out of its way to treat Planned Parenthood shabbily, in the process cavalierly disregarding the impact of such a decision on the sizable number of women who receive primary health care at Planned Parenthood clinics.  In so doing, Komen revealed itself to be an organization in which right wing Republican beliefs appear to trump public health concerns, a fact that prompted justifiable outrage.  As a result, many people had their eyes opened to Komen true nature as an institution -- and won't be buying any more hideous pink ribbon merchandise in the future.  

- Romney has notched a comfortable and unsurprising win in the Nevada caucuses.  Nevada's large Mormon electorate made this particularly hospitable territory for Romney, who is well on his way to a double digit victory over Gingrich, who remains his closest rival.  I don't know that there is going to be much more drama in the nomination contest.  Romney's overwhelming advantage in terms of money and organization and Gingrich's almost complete lack of establishment support would seem to preclude a path to victory for anyone but Romney.  The only thing that might give Gingrich a glimmer of hope would be for Santorum to drop out and for that vote to rally to him.   Minnesota and Colorado have caucuses on Tuesday -- if Romney takes both of them his air of inevitability gets overwhelming.

- And as for tomorrow's big game, I will be watching anxiously.  In recent years, the Super Bowl has seemed to go to the team that has been on a roll in recent weeks.  And I would say that that team has been the Giants, notwithstanding the fact that the Patriots have a ten game winning streak.  The Patriots have a great deal of talent, but have not been overwhelming for a team that is 15-3.  I am picking them to win on the hope that Tom Brady will be at his best after a shaky (for him) performance in the conference championship game, but I am uneasy to say the least.  If Gronkowski can play, I say Patriots 27-17.

What say you?      

Comments

[Linkmeister]

I sat in front of The News Hour last night listening to Shields and Brooks and my jaw dropped listening to them. I said "Where is this outrage of which you speak?" Maybe in Catholic newsletters and on Catholic blogs, but certainly not in the major media that I read.

It was bizarre.

[Linkmeister]

Oh, yeah. The game. My heart says Patriots and my head can't decide. Brady can't possibly have two bad games in a row, I don't think, and if his O-line can keep the rush off him I think the Pats will win. I do think the margin will be 3 points one way or the other.

[Eric Wilde]

Nice choice in music. One of my favorite albums.

[low-tech cyclist]

I usually root for the Giants when they get into the Hyperbole, but I think I'm leaning to the Patriots this time. But this is definitely the matchup I was rooting for. I'm sure Tom Brady thinks he has something he needs to prove today.

[beckya57]

I'm sure Belichek and Brady are thirsting for revenge for their shocking loss of a few years ago, and I wouldn't want to face either of them when they're mad. That said, their defended stinks and the Giants are hot, so who knows.

As for myself, we're on our way to Kona for music camp!

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

I like both teams, have been ignoring football in general -- one argument that Deb convinced me about -- and finally got entrapped by the OT game last week. But damned if I know who I'll be rooting for -- and I never watch any of the hype.

On Komen, we have to be very careful not to lose what we won. This -- despite my waffle in the last post in the last thread -- big enough for brunch for all of us -- HAS to remain about Komen, about their whole record, not just the PP Grant, not just the phony re-thinking. It's got to be about their other problems, the political bias, but also the marketing techniques, thhe suing other charities, the money spent in fundraising and administrative cuts. And even if the 'pink gun' wasn't really Komen -- it's such a perfect image I'm not going out of my way to correct those who still think it is.

Once we see we've won, that we've torn too many holes in the rubber doughboy to be patched, then we expand it -- to attacking the lies of the Republican defenders. Again, we want their hearers to start to doubt them. We want, particularly, women who are against pregnancy-forcing, but voted Republican for other reasons and didn't fully realize how strong Republicans -- as a party -- were committed to pregnancy-forcing, to start making this a bigger issue. (THAT is the time to start hitting the point that Roe is really in danger this time -- our 'wolf-crying' will hurt us -- because the majority is so thin, and repeating, barraging people, waking them up to the fact that our keeping the Senators we've got, and increasing them is vital to making sure that Roe (and Lawrence and Griswold) remain precedents.

If we do nothing more than sink the Komen monster, we've still won a great victory -- but we can take it even further, and start turning the battle around on a much larger front.

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

Here goes TP again, forcing me to snip a comment in two that was already a 'first part. *sigh*]
I'd been sorta hoping for a less political OT, and have been hoping to defend television against attacks from wolves and min(n)ows alike. But last night, yet again, I saw what I still think is an obvious point being missed, and I came up with yet another way of saying what I am saying. Even though I'm replying to somments made on the last thread -- and time after time after time before -- I'll respond here, early enough, I hope.

(And please read the comments carefully, fighting through the underbrush of my prose but not misunderstanding. I have deliberately used an ugly image for its shock value, yes, but I am in no way comparing any of you to the image, or implying that you are acting 'like' it.)

Sir Charles, not unsurprisingly, made the 'opposite case' simply and eloquently:

one cannot help but be disappointed that these women -- who at some point in their lives all share these same basic health concerns -- show so little empathy with their fellow women.

I think I feel similar pangs when dealing with the union guy who goes out and votes Republican. How can he not know better?

Simple, obvious, irrefutable? No, disastrously wrong and counter-productive.

(I couldn't decide to start with the image or the 'lesson' so I'll choose the lesson. And even more than 'naturally' I will choose attempted precision over brevity.)

We all have hundreds of different identities -- both group and personal -- and which one is relevant in any given decision is unpredictable and also personal. The 'choice' is usually unconscious, but can be influenced -- but only if the influencer understands the person well enough to know 'which button to push.' (Short example: Sir Charles, you had a Catholic education, as did I, and you've admitted that it is an important factor in your life. But if someone sees your name on an alumni list, assumes you are still a staunch Conservative Catholic, and sends you a letter that is '99 and 44 hundreths percent Douthat,' he will be appealing to a part of your 'identity' that he misunderstands and presumes 'should' be relevant to your political decision.)

And while I'll just brush past it, the oddest personal quirks can affect an opinion more than they should, more than the person wants, or even realizes. Damnit "all other things being close to equal, a bridge player will vite for another rather than for a non-player." And I'll be the example here, admitting that seeing Bill Clinton carrying a Sara Paretshy book gave him a slight boost in my admiration -- but one stronger than it 'should' have.

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

[Part Two of Part One OY!!!!]

Let's look at an example in close detail. Case in point, Joey Balzic over there. Joey is

Half-Italian
Half-Serbian
A Baptist who converted from Catholicism
A union member
A homeowner -- in-laws paid the mortgage as a wedding present
A parent of two, 10 and 7
Female ("Joey" stand for Joanna)
From a 'liberal Republican' family but married a more conservative and active Republican
Lives in a suburb in a red state that votes regularly 65% for the Republican -- but her circle considers politics too boring or dirty to discuss
Has always respected Martin Luther King and has his picture on her walls, but never heard of his leftism, thinks, sincerely, that the battles he fought have 'mostly been won' and resents, more than she realizes, other groups trying to co-opt 'her hero' for their cause
Tries to spend at least an hour a week on the political news -- as a duty -- but has only right-wing papers and tv stations and radio available. (On cable, she doesn;t really follow Fox all the way, she thinks they exaggerate a lot -- but she's turned off by CNN's blahness and is a little scared of MSNBC, and her provider doesn't get CURRENT, which she's never even heard of.)
Is friendly enough with the gay couple who live a block away that she'll use them as babysitters
Is pregnant, and worried about disturbing news from her doctor,
Has some doubts about the political parts of Preacher Jones' sermons, but sees him as a man of God, and blames herself for her doubts
and
Because of an incident in the sixth grade, has always considered herself a poor public speaker and is very timid about doing so, but has no problem on phones or in writing. (The same incident gave her a life-long timidity about being oversure of her opinions and a need to have them confirmed by those of her companions she viewed as 'smarter.' Bith 'self-doubts' are not reflected in fact.)

That's not an over-complex portrait of one voter -- and each of us could draw as long orlonger a self-portrait. Now there are a lot of ways that have a chance to reach her and convince her to vote Republican.

Two that are bound to fail:

Thundering at her that she is first and foremost a Union Member, and that THAT is and should be her main identity, and because it is, that she should...

or
knowing she is a woman and knowing how anti-woman the Republican Party is, especilly their female leaders, assuming she knows what you do and chiding her, or acting scornful or sarcastic or demanding that she change parties because of the Republican record. (It can be a good 'opening gambit' if you are sure she will respond to it rather than reject it, and if, when she asks 'what do you mean' you are prepared to tell and prove it in as much detail as it takes. Merely asserting it will put her off.)

I said I had an ugly but powerful image to make my case. The cats are telling me it goes in the next post -- even if it delays my nap on a catbox night.

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

(Again, please, I deliberately chose a particularly ugly person for my example to highlight how wrong our error is -- and for no other reason. Please don't find a comp-arison to the person in any other way, or find offense at anything else which was neither intended nor said. Sowwy, but after yesteday...)

Okay, we're having a COG get-together. I'm there, so it's gotta be in an atrium or food court in Brooklyn. And, while I realize i actually know the 'races' of only a few of you, though frequently you seem to imply you are "Caucasian," all the attendees at the get-together are Caucasian, and all but me reasonably cnservatively dressed. We're laughing and swapping stories, but our main topic is politics, and our voices carry to the next table.

Sitting there is April Gaede. (Mother of "Prussian Blue" and while the twins have become fighters against racism, their mother's opinions haven't changed.) She sees us, walks over, and begins to harangue us about 'didn't we realize that, first and foremost, we were members of the white race. That should be our primary concern, in supporting and showing solidarity with those who are out front fighting for their fellow whites, like you people -- as hard as it seems to be for you to admit it. The policeis you support might line your pockets, or keep yousafe, but look inside you and you'll see you are, first, and foremost, members of the white race and act accordingly.'

Now our actual response would probably make the papers and the police court blotter, and BBW would be making sure he was able to represent us. But if we could stay calm, and felt like wasting a rational response on someone who could neither hear nor undestand it, we might respond

Our political views have long since been determined by many things. We've been shaped by our work, our life envirnment, our friends and teachers, what we've read, our values, and our knowledge of political events. The one thing that doesn't shape it is the amount of melanin in our skin cells.

Our appeals to 'the working class' or to women are never offensive, as was the hypothetical Mrs. Gaede's. They are even true, which is another difference. But they do have the same inherent flaw, that we choose one of many possible identities, and demand our hearer make that his or her personal identities. Not only wrong, but to some sensitive people, it could appear as if we are totally unconcerned with her being a parent, a consumer, or a religious person, and insist that 'they don't matter.' And that's when she starts tuning us out.

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

Relax, nap time, some shopping, and cat box night -- along with the game. I'm likely to be (relatively) quiet the rest of the day.

[kathy a.]

woo, that UN conspiracy thing is pretty wild. these kinds of environmentally friendly measures actually make it more possible for people to live in sustainable ways -- and less dependent on things like foreign oil -- rather than subjecting individuals to intrusions on their privacy or choices.

i know some people locally are opting out of smart meters, and they are allowed to -- for a price. it's expensive to send the meter readers around, but if you think they're planning to spy or control your power for nefarious purposes, maybe the cost is worth it. (speaking of controlling your power for nefarious purposes, that's what enron did to california. without smart meters.)

just don't understand the flap about insurance coverage for employees of catholic institutions, for reasons stated. nobody's making employees use birth control. as i understand it, a lot of the many catholics who use birth control despite the church's pronouncements consider it a matter between them and their god, period.

becky, have fun at music camp!

[nancy]

Prup --Not only wrong, but to some sensitive people, it could appear as if we are totally unconcerned with her being a parent, a consumer, or a religious person, and insist that 'they don't matter.' And that's when she starts tuning us out.

I'm reminded of Hillary's cracks on the campaign trail in '91 about baking cookies and later on 60 Minutes, Tammy Wynette and man-standing-by. In two fell swoops she managed to alienate a swath of women who needed to hear little else to be persuaded that the liberal intellectual elite were coming, only this time as a two-fer.

Memories are long about those kinds of things I think. Maybe that's why Michelle Obama drew such bizarre criticism about her focus on preventing childhood obesity -- from some quarters it apparently was translated as condescension. Well, the right made that sorta stick as it never stops trying to do, throwing any and all at the wall. Even one news cycle will do for them. Anything to change the subject.

I agree with you about appealing to identities. But I think ltc's right that how one goes about making that appeal is important: Prup - I don't think Democratic candidates should appeal to class solidarity, so much as engage in it themselves.

Democrats, unlike Republicans, can convincingly say: "We know the problems you face, because we've been there. We know you're worried about having a job at all, let alone one that pays decently. We know you're worried about what happens to your health insurance if you lose your job, or if your employer decides to just not pay for it anymore. We know you're worried about your kids' education. And the rest of his comment from Thursday's thread.

Becky -- The uke version of 'Somewhere over the Rainbow' is on my list of songs that are impossible to not love. :) Maybe you know it.

[kathy a.]

here's a nice piece at balloon juice on health insurance coverage and catholic businesses.

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

A safety! A goddamn safety!

And then a fumble negated because of twelve men on the field????

I know I haven't been following football, but I thought last week was the annual 'nobody gives a shit' exhibition game, not this week.

[Sir Charles]

I don't know how many of you are watching the Super Bowl, but I was really puzzled by Belichick's decision to give the Giants the ball first. Deferring receipt of the ball makes some sense if you are playing outdoors and there is an advantage on one end of the field in terms of wind or sun or if your defense if your dominant unit, which is clearly not the case with the Patriots. All it could accomplish is giving Tom Brady one less shot on the filed and expose the defense one more time. It was too clever by half.

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

I ducked in and out, watched most of the end. Well played? No. Brilliant strategy? No. "The" to quote Em, "Silliest Super Bowl of All"? Maybe.

But fun nonetheless, especially for someone who likes both teams.

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

[TP again. Part One]
Back to politics. I generally ahree with the ideas in nancy and ltc's post -- with one important modification, as things we should make sure the voters know we will work for.

But we have to be very careful. Usually 'negative' campaigning is viewed as probably dishonest and dishonorable enough to be 'beneath us.' But this time positive campaigning, concentrating on what we will acomplish, is the truly dishonorable and dishonest one.

We can't promise or be sure of accomplishing anything. That's not pessimism, just harsh realism. We've seen what Republican obstructionism, delaying, filibustering, extortion and hostage taking have done. Unless three things all happen, is there any reason to imagine the Republicans dropping any of these successful techniques? (And an Obama landslide without them might even increase them, because Conservatives would believe the "Romney lost because he was too moderate' argument that is already being made in 'future tense.')

We're stuck with , at best, 'more of the same' unless all of the following happen:

a) we regain the House, and with a substantial majority, at least close to the one we just lost

b) we not merely hold on to, at worst, all but one of the borderline Senate seats we are defending, and win Scott Brown's, but we win one of the unwinnable seats. (Maybe through a Reoublican Castle-O'Donnell blunder, ideally because we are making unexpected unroads

c) we throw such a scare into Republicans in general, and even make credible threats in safe seats, all of which comes from a coordinated anti-Republican campaign, that the scare forces some Republicans into true bipartisanship and not extortion.

Without them, what chance to we have that the Repubicabs will become nore cooperative, or will not, this time, really shoot the hostages? And it could be even worse. We are so used to thinking of the President as the Leader of the Government we forget how little actual power he has, especially against a Congress solidly united against him. We might look at periods of trye Congressional contrp; of governmeny -- and most of them were lessened by the 'party overlap' that no longer exists.

We have to, very carefully, shift their focus to the Republican Party as a whole -- much of what I've been writing about.

But I have one specific suggestion -- even though I said I'd leave economics and jobs to the pros. Stop falling into the trap the Republicans laid and trying to -- or appearing to be trying to -- set the 'working class
against the 'middle class.' Instead stress that, even when they aren't 'the same people' their interests, desires, problems, and particularly their enemies are the same. Don't just work for a uniting of the working and middle classes, make sure they know that the Republicans have been setting each other at our throats -- as a diversionary tactic while they stole from both groups. Harsh? Yes. Accurate? Yes.

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

[Part 2 -- and a pretty good speech in it's own right, I'd think]

One example, simple, obvious, and, sadly, unsaid -- except in 'safe' union districts.

"It isn't the teachers who are responsible for the troubles in your schools. They work there, they want to be safe, under control, and to do the job they sacrificed higher-paying jobs to do. They want your kids to succeed, just as those who are parents want their own to succeed."

If we see past the smokescreens we've been hit with, if the parents stop seeing the teachers as the enemy, and the teachers stop being afraid of their students' parents becoming the enemy, we could see who is really hurting our schools.

See that check the businessman is writing to pay his taxes. I bet you figure it's pretty damn big. You know the rate you pay, so you must guess he pays a lot more, not just in money. He gets so much from the government he has to be paying a high rate. Oh yes, he tells you he doesn't get anything from the government but trouble -- until he needs that road widened so his suppliers can get in, or that abatement that lets the corporate jets land, or he asks the police to send around some extra patrols because he's got a lot of cash in -- would they come to guard your house at payday? And the Mayor was damn nice to relocate that fire escape nearer the business, just in case, and the hospital used those state-funded machines to patch up the guys who got hurt in that accident so good they don't even want to sue, but what's the government ever done for him.

He buys stuff. Sure, sometimes the maid does the shopping, but he pays for it, and he's damn glad tge food, the meat and veggies are safe, and those pills he bought, they contain what they are supposed to and do what they are supposed to. And after that disaster with the unlicensed guy, he's using only licensed contractors around the house, but what does he need the government and all their regulations for? And that big trade conference he had the big display at, the one that got him the business from Germany, okay, so the government did set that up, but what the hell, he deserves something for all the taxes he pays.

So take a look at that check. Hmm, seems like those figures are wrong. Something about capital gains, or delayed compensation, or, hey, he's paying half the rate we are. But that's okay, his company must be... Wait a second, that check's going to the company. They cut such a great deal for moving here they don't have to pay taxes for years yet. Even though those jobs they promised didn't include the guys in the plant, they make stuff in China these days, but those secretaries sure tone up downtown, don't they. And lotsa guys are doing pretty good driving the company limos. And you wouldn't believe what these guys'll pay for food for their meetings, but get a contract to cater them and maybe you won't have to worry about your kid's school so much.

The lege and governor treats them real nice, because 'ooh, somebody might be even nicer and they'll leave.' And since they don't pay most of us enough to even consider leaving -- and we wouldn't want to, with everything we love this place -- the only way of keeping us from noticing who gets or gets to keep the money for our kid's schools is by yelling real loud that we're each other's enemies.

Let's stop being folled by them, and see who are really like us, same problems, same kids, same schools, same worries. Stop fighting, start looking -- then start voting the whole damn party out.

[KN]

From what I have read none of the higher ups at the Komen foundation are at risk of losing their jobs, so the only way to assure that money intended for cancer research is not lavished upon ideologs is to stop funding the organization. They shot themselves in the head.

Contraception. I find it very interesting that the right wing nut jobs are so certain that exercising some decision over whether or not to reproduce is deeply evil, but that a few million unemployed, homeless and starving, are not a problem. The hungry will work cheap.

[low-tech cyclist]

There was some sort of anti-union commercial during the game, early in the 4th quarter maybe, where a bunch of workers were complaining that they never got a chance to vote on whether the union that was taking a bite of their paycheck should be the union representing them, and claiming that few union workers ever did get the chance to vote on their union.

If I were the head of the AFL-CIO, I'd see that as a great opportunity:

"Today, Senator A and Representative B are introducing a bill that would take care of this problem once and for all. It would require that, at every workplace with more than X employees, a vote will be taken every year to determine which union, or no union at all, will represent those workers. Every workplace, same rules everywhere.

"If votes on union representation are what you want, corporate bosses, well, we do too.

"Game on."

[Paula B]

A bit late, but I just ran across this on Twitter, by Washington freelance reporter Marc Ambinder on Feb 1:

In response, the very poor said they were suddenly "very concerned" about Mitt Romney.

[oddjob]

these kinds of environmentally friendly measures actually make it more possible for people to live in sustainable ways -- and less dependent on things like foreign oil

I think it's been clear for a while now that any attempt to be environmentally friendly is regarded as a threat to "the American way of life", and as such is suspect no matter who proposes it.

[Gene O'Grady]

As a Westerner I've heard more of these crazy bastards in the hinterlands than most of you, but I'm not so sure it's crazy to be very nervous about smart meters since I in the utility management business for a large medical center during the California electricity mess and the notion of smart metering (no one ever honestly explained how it was going to be paid for) was an essential element in selling the biggest fraud I've ever been on the fringes. Of course it wasn't the trilateral commission or the gummint perpetrating the fraud it was the Texas boys, with the help of our unmissed "liberal (i.e., pro-abortion, as opposed to pro-choice) Republican governor Pete Wilson.

[low-tech cyclist]

Here's a link to the ad I mentioned above. The link is to the ThinkProgress website which provides some useful context.

[Paula B]

What's the football equivalent of "But there is no joy in Mudville?"

[Sir Charles]

Paula,

I am pretty sure I am feeling it.

Wow, that was a bit of a heartbreaker. As most of the players seemed to say on the Patriots side, the game comes down at a certain point to making plays at crucial moments -- the Giants did and the Patriots didn't.

I think a healthy Gronkowski might have made the difference, but that's life in sports.

[oddjob]

I only watched a portion of the last few minutes (not a big football fan), but every time I watched what I saw was a well executed pass by Brady then dropped by yet a different one of the Patriots' well regarded receivers. That was just about the worst possible time to have your receivers making such a cluster of errors.

[low-tech cyclist]

Funniest play of the game was the one where the Pats deliberately gave up the TD with just under a minute left, because otherwise the Giants were going to run down the clock and kick a FG from extra-point range with just a few seconds left.

The Giants RB, who had a full hit-the-line head of steam, realized what was up just before he crossed the goal line and tried to stop himself, but wound up falling ass-first into the end zone while trying not to score the TD.

[oddjob]

I have seen a slew of commentary ... suggesting that the requirement that all employer sponsored health plans ... provide coverage for a host of basic services, including those related to family planning, is somehow an attack on religious liberty.

Ultimately, the source of the conflict here is in holding simultaneously that health care is a right and that health coverage will be provided primarily by private employers. If you believe both of those things, then you have to coerce private employers into providing coverage that meets some kind of minimal standard.

In our world, where some health care services are deemed morally problematic by some significant private employers, that would mean coercing those employers to violate their consciences. (By the way: what’s special about the Catholic Church in this regard? Does the strictly Catholic sole proprietor of a national pizza franchise lack a conscience? Why is it okay to coerce him into providing services he deems immoral, but not okay to coerce a Catholic hospital?) If you don’t want that level of coercion, then either you need to give up on the idea that health care is a right, or you need to give up on the idea that health coverage will be provided primarily by private employers.

I vote for giving up the second idea.

- Noah Millman (as cited by Sully)

I'm inclined to agree.

[Crissa]

I really notice that the argument against contraception in health care is totally being carried by the nuts, and having nothing to do with actual Catholics. You can see it in who is arguing (your standard non-Catholic ideologues, for the most part) and what their arguments are.

Because yeah, this is no different than any other conflict between business and law - why should a business owner get an exemption from the law because of their religion? They're conducting business, not religion. We don't exempt them from health safety laws, or other labor laws; or let them sell cardboard and call it chocolate. Why should we exempt them from minimum standards of what is considered health insurance?

[Crissa]

You know, your comment system is still popping up the captcha below the bottom of the screen. That would lead me to believe it is reloading the page at an incorrect #index, if at all. The index should probably be anchored to the captcha pane on the post return...

[nancy]

Along the lines of intuition v. reason, my sense is that the Komen exposure practically in sync with the Catholic bishop's coming out of their shoes (along with Mark Shields, for good measure) about workplace health insurance is a marker, a line in the sand as it were, in the conservative war on women in this country. Do read Blue Gal for a succinct summation of the declaration of 'enough', long overdue. Reasonably we should never have allowed this 'movement' to go relatively unscathed until this week, but it did.

And ltc, there's some noise being made that the 'actor' in the ad you referenced is a multimillionaire named Berman. If that turns out to be true that will be interesting to say the least.

[nancy]

I should have written "multimillionaire anti-union lobbying consultant."

[Beckya57a]

I saw most of the 2nd half here in Hawaii (in transit & missed most of the first). The Giants just looked more on & organized; the Pats looked like they were going to take over early in the 2nd half, & then just seemed to lose it. Weird.

I read a book on the plane about the theocratic movement, including the war on women & sexual minorities. Can't remember the title offhand, but the author's name is Sean Faircloth, who's an advocate for secular causes. It was very good & timely given the Komen controversy.

Thanks for the good wishes, nancy, music camp is great!

[paula b]

Wow, ukelele camp in Hawaii. Talk about hog heaven!

[kathy a.]

which side are you on? romney doesn't think komen or the feds should give any money to PP.

[KN]

Take the billions in profits out of the health care system that go to so-called insurance companies, the hospitals, the clinics, and the pharmaceutical companies and level it all off to the point where all the participating practitioners are amply rewarded and you end up with something like affordable health care.

All the bleating by the nut jobs about the sanctity of life is just a grotesque form of lying, what it is really about is punishing women, subjugating women, and making sure there is an overabundance of labor available to be exploited to the greatest possible extent.

When I was just a young pup it was considered conventional wisdom that some things were too important to be left to the vagaries of the "free market". Sometimes these things were called utilities, like electricity, gas, fuel oil, clean water. Now, for some obscure reason, people think that somehow introducing the profit motive can magically transform those vital services into something better by providing an incentive to cut corners, take chances and generally act in the interests of a select few instead of the collective many that these things must serve. It is upside down. How long will it be before the republicans try to privatize air traffic control? They are already creating private armies and private prisons... does anyone here think that either of those are good ideas? I recall one high profile case in PA where judges were taking kick backs from a private prison outfit to convict juveniles to detention. I have a friend who's son got ground up in that kind of system in Orange County CA. Those money grubbing gouls don't give a tinker's damn about the sanctity of life.

All this, everything wrong with the way our system fails to work for its intended purpose can be described in a single word. Corruption. Dealing with it is a little like self-surgery, not very pleasant and with an uncertain outcome at best, but pretending it is not a problem is not an option.

In the next ten months there is going to be a momentous struggle to either change course and try to function as a relatively egalitarian society, or succumb to the seemingly irresistable influence of the oligarchs. I think the people are capable of understanding what the situation is, if it can be explained to them. We cannot rely on any form of mass media to do so because it is entirely captured by, owned by and dictated to by the oligarchy. It is going to be up to us, to talk to everyone we can, and convince them of what is in their own interests.

It seems to me, the way the system works now is that everyone has a price. For most of us that price is very low, while, for a very select few, it is astronomically high. In terms of average wages versus billionaires it is something like 33,000:1. If life is such a precious thing that it warrants blunt intrusion into the most intimate of half the populations personal concerns, how is it reconcilable that one person's existence is only "worth" 1/33,000th of anothers?

I am beginning to sound like Prup, or at least act like him. I don't apply any value judgement to that either way. Perhaps some day we will be able to meet up at Eric's on DeKalb Ave. just a few blocks from Pratt.

Then again, I might just decide to stay here in the forest and be quietly consumed.

[paula b]

Just received email from obama campaign giving rationale for Super PAC. Still, I have mixed feelings about getting down in the dirt with GOP. Bottom line is winning, of course.

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

Before I get into other topics -- if I have time and strength, bad cold making things difficult -- I want to give a further Komen update. I believe I posted my previous letter to the MLBPA here. I wrote the following follow-up and just sent it off.

When I wrote you on this before, all I was aware of was that SGK was a charity that ran events at ball parks, that it worked in the field of breast cancer, and that it had made a very unwise decision that deserved a protest letter.

Since then many other facts about SGK have come out that make me question even more the MLBPA's relationship with the organization. I'd like to pass some of them on. (And while I am not providing links -- many anti-spam programs automatically kick out letters with multiple links -- I will provide any of them on request. Note that I do not pass on the myth that Komen is involved with 'pink guns' which briefly surfaced. The guns do exist and use the same color pink, but they have no relation to Komen.)

First of all, I am reasonably sure that the MLBPA, like most of us, viewed SGK as an inherently non-political charity, devoted to it's field and nothing more. In fact, many of us assumed that the Planned Parenthood blunder was that, caused by their happening to employ someone who had been a Gubernatorial candidate in Georgia who had made opposition to PP part of her career -- and nothing more. But, in fact, SGK was founded by an ex-official high in the Bush Administration, its board has always been stacked with right-wing figures, and they have received major support from the Kock Brothers, the billionaires who are the major money-suppliers for many ultra-right wing (and, more relevant to the MLBPA, anti-union) causes.

They have made other 'political' moves as well, including having an article on their web site supporting the fallacious link between breast cancer and abortion -- it may have been taken down by now -- and cutting support to one University because they were researching fetal stem cells.

But other, non-political reasons came out as well. How many fans who but their souvenir pink hats know that SGK spends over a million dollars a year on suing or threatening other charities that use '...for the Cure" in their name. (As the founder of "Kites for the Cure" -- which involved lung cancer, not breast cancer -- explained, it wasn't so much the arrival of SGK's obviously high-priced lawyer on their doorstep that bothered them as much as needing to spend money they had raised exploring their legal options and position rather than using it for research.)

And I would suggest the MLBPA look into the division of the money in general between 'administrative costs,' 'informational services' and actual research. (And ask yourself -- and them -- how much of the informational services goes to 'informing' the public about SGK -- in short, self-advertising -- and how much goes to information about breast cancer.)

I'm sorry, but as a lifetime baseball fan -- and yes, a lifetime liberal -- I hope I have seen the last time MLBPA members appear swinging pink bats.

If anyone wants to follow my example, I suggest they stress the anti-Union aspect of the SGK backers even more than I did. I felt I was in a position where I had to mention them, but stress the non-political faults more.

[MR Bill]

Here is a good a general purpose link to Karen Handel's backstory, with plenty of links. She rode antigay campaigns into office, and was defeated by the appalling Nathan Deal by a series of ads attacking her former membership in Log Cabin Republicans and once opining that businesses had the right to give partnership benefits to employees...
She's a bad hat.

[kathy a.]

karen handel quit komen today.

[MR Bill]

Cool! Now the question, kathy, is will Komen resume funding for PP, or is Handel the sacrificial lamb?

[MR Bill]

Here's Handel's self justifying resignation letter.

"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."

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

Pleasepleaseplease click through kathy's link if you have any appreciation of irony. This one is delightful. Seems as if
a) Handel ran a strongly anti-gay campaign -- then her previous membership in the Log Cabin Republicans came out, and

b) Handel ran the sort of 'pregnancy-forcing' cmpaign you would have expected -- then was attacked because, on the Atlanta County Council, she voted for a substantial grant to...
Yep, Planned Parenthood -- for non abortion-related services, of course.

Something tells me that even if we reach the global warming apocalypse we should rightly fear, the world will still be supplying us at least one belly-shaking laugh a day as long as it lasts.

[MR Bill]

"I had but one prayer: 'Lord, make my enemies ridiculous', and he did!"-Voltaire

[MR Bill]

And a minor pedantry: Atlanta (and some 13 other municipalities) are in Fulton Co.

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

Yes, MRBill, I know -- I used to watch the Braves on TBS -- but I believe the term was used in the article.

[kathy a.]

PROP 8 UNCONSTITUTIONAL

[kathy a.]

darn, messed up the link.

[kathy a.]

here is a little more info -- 2-1 decision; holding applies only to CA; decision stayed pending appeal.

there will be a lot of commentary once everyone has read the opinion and parsed it out. from this early report, i am guessing this court is being cautious in the sense of trying to make it stick in CA -- and not having it taken up immediately by the big supremes at the moment.

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

On another subject -- a quickie before nap time:

A 'bad person' who unexpectedly does a good thing deserves praise and encouragement -- without a snarky 'that's nice, but it doesn't make up for all the wrong he's donr.' He can be blasted in context later.

On those grounds, here's an unalloyed bow in the direction of Bill O'Reilly -- of all people. He condemned the "Million Mothers"' attempt to get Ellen removed from her commecials as a 'witch hunt' and as 'pure McCarthyism.' Thank you, Bill.

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

WOW! Posted before I saw kathy's.

WOW

[kathy a.]

if you want to read the opinion yourself, here is the 9th circuit opinion page. perry v. brown is the 5th on today's opinion list. the link there will take you to a 128 page PDF -- 80 pages of lead opinion, 9 pages of lawyers who filed briefs, and 39 pages of dissenting opinion.

having only skimmed, the lead opinion seems quite readable, for these things. (i'm a bit blown over by the huge number of briefs filed by a very extensive list of lawyers.)

[big bad wolf]

i've only skimmed it and read the nyt account, but it seems like a very wise, though narrow, opinion. it says you can't take away through initiative petition a right granted, as marriage was in california, without a reason better than we don't like those people and cites the supreme court decision in evans v. romer, which held against a Colorado ballot measure. this approach may seems designed to dissuade the supreme court from taking the case since the opinion doesn't address the broader issue of what is the right to marry and who has it. that means that the opinion provides only, at most, incremental help, beyond securing marriage rights in CA.

[big bad wolf]

i'm not surprised by the number of briefs. lawyers love to be able to say they are/were attached to a big case. law firms go around trolling for groups to write amicus (friend of the court) briefs for. then they brag to the paying or prospective clients about how many big cases they have been involved in and how that shows they are the right firm to hire. i'm not against amicus briefs, and i've seen some good ones over the years, but their numbers have exploded over the past decade without really adding much to the discussions.

[kathy a.]

well, it only applies to CA and narrowed its holding to this particular situation of removing rights previously granted. but that is still a big fat deal.

i love the focus on not taking away individual rights that have been granted already. imagine removing voting rights for women, or re-instituting restrictions on interracial marriages. there is no precedent on moving backwards to repeal rights granted.

in the larger picture -- individual rights are often recognized by SCOTUS only after there has been substantial movement on those rights among the states and in relevant areas. we have seen the repeal of DADT, and the administration's decision to no longer defend DOMA, and we have seen a number of states embrace same sex marriages. california is a big state. our own supreme court found the denial of same sex marriages unconstitutional under our state constitution, even, and this court is overall pretty darned conservative. (let's just overlook for the moment that they caved after prop. 8.) the momentum is on side of fairness and justice.

[kathy a.]

change of topic, back to climate change: this u-tube is really really good. pelosi and newt sit together and advocate solutions to climate change. not making this up!

[Crissa]

Re: Posted by: Prup (aka Jim Benton) | February 07, 2012 at 10:32 AM

You misspelled Koch. Aside from that, fairly well written. Do we get the links?

[Crissa]

Oh, and "How many fans who but" is probably buy.