So... "tree full of owls" ain't got nothin' on me. I checked my email, the usual assortment of serious political material, utter political crap, Planned Parenthood mailers (I love those, because they tell me that Rmoney hasn't gotten rid of the organization that is life's blood for millions of American women... yet), etc. One of the Planned Parenthood mailers, from the Action Fund, was Executive Vice President Dawn Laguena's take on Rmoney's truly frightening intentions if he becomes president: I'd rather go through that awful dream a dozen times than have even one woman, let alone millions, subjected to the deliberate evisceration of an org on which she depends for health care. Here's Vice President Laguena, from the letter:
"I don't believe employers should tell someone whether they can have contraceptive care or not." That's our Mitt!Mitt Romney said a lot at tonight's debate that I disagreed with. No surprise there. But I am stunned by this brazen lie:
"I don't believe employers should tell someone whether they can have contraceptive care or not."
I shouldn't be shocked, but I am — I can't believe that Romney would be so dishonest when speaking directly to undecided voters. He has been outspoken in his support for the Blunt amendment, which would give bosses the power to deny women coverage for birth control. And just last month, Paul Ryan was asked about the birth control coverage requirement. His response? "It will be gone. I can guarantee you that."
And tonight Romney went on national television and lied about where he stands. ...
...
In a completely different manner of speaking from that of Mr. Rmoney, neither do I: contraception is absolutely middling, mainstream health care, essential to women in career roles or in stay-at-home Mom roles. This is not rocket science. One way and another, women must have contraception available to them, and as for whether the government should order that it be provided, it should, on a simple economic basis if no other. Contraception costs vastly less money than unintended children... the issue here is that children at the wrong time can disrupt the life of a woman and her entire family. A woman, actually a family, but overwhelmingly an individual woman, must be fully empowered to plan when and under what circumstances she bears children. To deny a woman control of that choice is to impose upon her second-class citizenship... actually, second-class humanity. I wish the fundagelicals would think about that when they proclaim their intention to decide for everyone else whether and when to have children. "In Adam's fall, we sinned all..." unless, just maybe, you don't believe there was an Adam, or was ever a commandment from G*d to do whatever fundagelicals tell you.
But contraception has to do with SEX, and Mr. Rmoney knows his base well: they would never have sex, except to procreate... unless of course it's a second Wednesday night in a month with a full moon; see Rule 142857-B. In any case, SEX is bad, or at least SEX is bad when women or gays or non-Christians or unmarried people or anyone not just like the Rmoneys have it. So they feel called by G*d to stop SEX under those circumstances if they possibly can. One would think that as self-proclaimed Perfect Americans, they would have more commitment to personal freedoms. But no. They don't.
"I don't believe employers should tell someone whether they can have contraceptive care or not."
Mitt is a scary guy, never scarier than when he threatens to intervene in your sex life.
Unlike Mittens, I don't believe employers should tell someone... pretty much ever... that they can't have contraception through their employee medical insurance plan.
There has to be a line in the sand. Restrictions on abortion were probably inevitable (if still deeply, perniciously wrong); restrictions on contraception are outside the pale.
Send Mitt home on Nov. 6. Don't he and Ann have some babies to make, or something?
(Jeebus, now it's almost 5:00 A.M. ...)
Betrayal of Israel by liberal Jews
ReplyDeleteA new American Jewish Committee poll conducted in September found that Israel came in a distant fourth among issues that registered Jewish voters listed as "most important" to them, with 61.5% listing the economy, 16.1% listing health care, 4.7% listing abortion, and 4.5% listing US-Israel relations.
Just 1.3% named Iran’s nuclear program as most important.
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4293150,00.html
No real surprise there, Enfant. I suppose it depends on whom they classify as "liberal Jews." As I have Jewish friends across the Israeli political spectrum, I try in general to stay out of those issues, but "betrayal" seems an excessively strong word to me.
Delete"Iran's nuclear program" is a mirage at the moment, and I don't mean a French military aircraft. According to certain political factions in Israel and the US, Iran is perpetually "five years from having a nuclear weapon." And an indeterminate number of years from delivering it, even within the region. Bibi aches to nuke Iran, but America shouldn't help him unless Iran becomes a lot more belligerent. We have some time on this issue.
Yes, I have listened to the whole Biden-Ryan video, Biden said so..
DeleteHere is an automatic translation via "Le Monde -International"
Israel: Romney pounded Obama again, in vain?
That was the only hint of the second debate. One sentence Mitt Romney under censure General Middle East policy of Barack Obama. Once again, the Republican candidate regretted the host of the White House distanced himself against Israel and its alleged laxity towards Iran.
In September, a survey conducted by the American Jewish Committee had yet shown how these repeated charges did not seem to move U.S. Jewish voters, even if one refers to the Christian fundamentalist vote.
More likely to vote for Obama (64%) and Romney (24%) people have domestic concerns far ahead of the issue of relations with Israel among subjects getting them to vote on November 6.
What concerns?
The economy (61%), of course, health issues (16%), of course, but also that of abortion (4.7%), just ahead of the US-Israeli relationship (4.5%), and the Iranian nuclear threat (1%), which did not sounded good for some.
Enfant, Bibi and Mittens are said to be personal friends, and I can believe that. For quite some time, some American Jewish organizations and one US senator (Lieberman) have lobbied to make "support" of Israel a litmus test for any elected position in the US. For decades, I was inclined to support Israel in the desultory way an individual American supports any nation with which the US has friendly relations. But in the past few years, it seems to me that Israel, with its warlike inclinations, is one of the greatest threats to world peace, and I do not believe the insane Bibi would stick at all-out nuclear war, much in the way George W. Bush would have gladly pursued such a dire course.
DeleteWhatever one thinks of Iran... I think they could have been a lot more trouble for the US and the Middle East than they have been, if they had wanted to... it is clear to me that their desire to acquire nuclear weapons is rational, as long as Israel, with its semi-tame Rottweiler, the US, continues rattling nuclear sabers. To me, it's just more proof that American conservatives don't have a clue about human nature. This isn't rocket science: if you want Iran to stop even thinking about acquiring nukes, make them feel secure enough not to need nukes. It's how humankind has interacted since cave dwellers began piling up rocks for throwing because they saw their neighbors doing the same.