Politics: J'accuse!

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by sgtclub
It does? I'm not all that current on the issue, but this is news to me.

Unless they are delusional (which may be a considerable proportion of the GOP), they must accept that it IS now a federal issue, even if they believe it OUGHT TO BE a state issue instead. This makes their position on abortion really very different from their position on marriage, which they now believe SHOULD BE a federal issue, even though in most ways it IS currently a state issue.

Hope you don't have to work all weekend; you seem like you need to rest.

[Diane_Keaton]

Originally posted by sgtclub
http://www.drudgereport.com/rcka.htm

[This time on abortion]

Oh come on. The guy said abortion "should be" the "very last thing" "if it has to be anything." It's pretty hard to flip or flop from something that flippy floppy.

Just as meaningless is: "It's a tragic day in the lives of everybody when abortion is looked on as an alternative to birth control or as an alternative to having a child. I think that's wrong." It's "wrong"? Well, that wouldn't seem to bootstrap him on a particular point either.

What IS annoying is his patronizing bullshit. Um....yeah, most would say it's wrong to use abortion as an "alternative to birth control" but come on, there is not a significant problem with women foregoing birth control for the sole reason that they can always just go ahead and get pregnant, wait 8 weeks to have an abortion (most patients need to wait this long so the doc knows the procedure worked) while they suffer morning sickness during the time and then endure a painful costly procedure that will among other things require significant "down time".

No - this is just the type of statement that pandering pro-choicers give to pacify the pro-lifers ("Oh, dear! Killing all those babies is wrong and I'm against using abortion as birth control"). I'm not aware of any law or movement claiming the virtues of abortion as a great form of birth control. It's just nonsensical pandering at it's worst. As is his statement that he's also against "abortion...as an alternative to having a child." Well, that would seem to mean you're against abortions altogether. Could someone explain to Kerry that you can't have an abortion and still "have the child." Kind of like that old adage that everyone always confuses, "You can't eat your cake and have it too."

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
Unless they are delusional (which may be a considerable proportion of the GOP), they must accept that it IS now a federal issue, even if they believe it OUGHT TO BE a state issue instead. This makes their position on abortion really very different from their position on marriage, which they now believe SHOULD BE a federal issue, even though in most ways it IS currently a state issue.

Hope you don't have to work all weekend; you seem like you need to rest.

I took Burger's statement to mean that the question (of whether abortion is legal) should be decided at the federal level.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by sgtclub
I took Burger's statement to mean that the question (of whether abortion is legal) should be decided at the federal level.

Hence my observation that you need some rest.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

In the early months of the (second) Bush Administration, a career diplomat and former advisor to Ronald Reagan on counterterrorism told the media that the new administration wasn't taking terrorism seriously enough:

• "It is the media's responsibility, and an important one, though very uncomfortable for people in government, to put a very strong spotlight on the government's policies and practices on terrorism, especially given the current disorganization of the federal government's fight against terrorism. In this area, the federal government is in complete disarray. There's been remarkably little attention to the major recommendation the Gilmore Commission made for a substantial reorganization of the government's approach to terrorism. Journalists shouldn't let politicians get away with that.
  
  "The new administration seems to be paying no attention to the problem of terrorism. What they will do is stagger along until there's a major incident and then suddenly say, 'Oh, my God, shouldn't we be organized to deal with this?' That's too bad. They've been given a window of opportunity with very little terrorism now, and they're not taking advantage of it. Maybe the folks in the press ought to be pushing a little bit."

The speaker? The man currently running Iraq, Paul Bremer.

link

Weird, huh?

[Not Me]

Originally posted by sgtclub
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...ts_1&printer=1

[soldiers reinlisting in strong numbers]

Did you read my article about the NFL player who left a multi-million dollar contract to be an Army Ranger?

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Not Me
Did you read my article about the NFL player who left a multi-million dollar contract to be an Army Ranger?

I'm well familiar with the story, and Peggy Noonan wrote an exceptional piece on it a year or 2 ago. Read about his death this morning in the WSJ - very sad.

[Not Me]

http://news.findlaw.com/ap/o/1110/4-...013007_05.html

• Victims of Lutheran Abuse Win $37M Award
  
  By BOBBY ROSS JR. Associated Press Writer
  
  MARSHALL, Texas (AP) - Dozens of blue notebooks, thick with child porn images by the hundreds of thousands, fill a law office a block from the East Texas courthouse where victims of sex abuse by a former Lutheran minister won a jury award of nearly $37 million.
  
  The notebooks were taken from the parsonage of former minister Gerald Patrick Thomas Jr., attorneys said. Two poster-size photographs of Thomas, one showing the minister with his arm around a victim, also sit on the law office shelves.
  
  For three years, the office has served as the "war room" for the plaintiffs' attorneys as they built their case that Thomas had accomplices - namely, the Lutheran authorities who ordained him and assigned him to Marshall despite accusations of past inappropriate behavior.
  
  On Thursday, the jury agreed, awarding nine plaintiffs amounts ranging from $50,000 to $9.8 million, depending on their medical needs and the level of abuse suffered.
  
  The awards bring the total payout in the case to about $69 million. . . .

[Not Me]

Originally posted by sgtclub
I'm well familiar with the story, and Peggy Noonan wrote an exceptional piece on it a year or 2 ago. Read about his death this morning in the WSJ - very sad.

It is very sad, but what an amazing guy.

I think those people who think that the all-volunteer US military is filled with people who had no other economic options really don't understand who these people are who enlist. And it is insulting to them to say things like that about them.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Apropos of our recent discussion, what about when your doctor refuses to treat you because of who you are? And what about when the state says it's OK?

• Doctors or other health care providers could not be disciplined or sued if they refuse to treat gay patients under legislation passed Wednesday by the Michigan House.
  
  The bill allows health care workers to refuse service to anyone on moral, ethical or religious grounds.
  
  The Republican dominated House passed the measure as dozens of Catholics looked on from the gallery. The Michigan Catholic Conference, which pushed for the bills, hosted a legislative day for Catholics on Wednesday at the state Capitol.
  
  The bills now go the Senate, which also is controlled by Republicans.
  
  The Conscientious Objector Policy Act would allow health care providers to assert their objection within 24 hours of when they receive notice of a patient or procedure with which they don't agree. However, it would prohibit emergency treatment to be refused.

link

[notcasesensitive]

Originally posted by Not Me
It is very sad, but what an amazing guy.

I think those people who think that the all-volunteer US military is filled with people who had no other economic options really don't understand who these people are who enlist. And it is insulting to them to say things like that about them.

Is it more or less insulting than it would be to, say, assume that black men who date or marry white women are filled with self loathing? I'm putting together my continuium of insults. Thanks.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
Hence my observation that you need some rest.

I believe you are projecting

Even the GOP now believes that regulation of abortion is a federal issue.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by notcasesensitive
Is it more or less insulting than it would be to, say, assume that black men who date or marry white women are filled with self loathing? I'm putting together my continuium of insults. Thanks.

If the reason the black man chooses white women over black women is because of self-loathing, then it is not an insult, rather it is a painful truth.

If it were true that the people who enlist in the US armed forces do so largely because they have no other economic options, then saying that would not be an insult. It would be a statement of fact. I don't think it is an accurate reflection of the majority of people who enlist. I am sure that there are some who enlist for that reason, but I think it is insulting to the majority of people who enlist because it is not true for them.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
Apropos of our recent discussion, what about when your doctor refuses to treat you because of who you are? And what about when the state says it's OK?

• Doctors or other health care providers could not be disciplined or sued if they refuse to treat gay patients under legislation passed Wednesday by the Michigan House.
  
  The bill allows health care workers to refuse service to anyone on moral, ethical or religious grounds.
  
  The Republican dominated House passed the measure as dozens of Catholics looked on from the gallery. The Michigan Catholic Conference, which pushed for the bills, hosted a legislative day for Catholics on Wednesday at the state Capitol.
  
  The bills now go the Senate, which also is controlled by Republicans.
  
  The Conscientious Objector Policy Act would allow health care providers to assert their objection within 24 hours of when they receive notice of a patient or procedure with which they don't agree. However, it would prohibit emergency treatment to be refused.

link

I wonder how this square with the hypocratic oath?

[Not Me]

Originally posted by sgtclub
I wonder how this square with the hypocratic oath?

About as well as only accepting patients who have insurance or refusing to take low reimbursement Medicaid patients.

I don't think many doctors in Michigan will refuse to treat gays because of this law (assuming the gay has insurance, of course).