The more we read about the shadowy “C-Street” religious group, the more questions that are raised.
Rachel Maddow did an interesting interview with an expert on the group, a non-profit that provides cheap rent for religiously like-minded Congressmen, prayer breakfasts, “counseling” for members to assuage their guilty consciences after straying from their marriage vows, and above all, secrecy. Lots of secrecy.
The group is models itself on the Mafia, or on dictators like Pol Pot, Stalin, and Mao. It apparently on a mission to form an international alliance of Old White Christian Men in Power, to turn the world into a neat Christian theocracy where everything is black and white. Of course “rules” only apply to other people.
Members of the group apparently have had no qualms about visiting to meet with leaders of other countries to missionize on the taxpayer’s dollar.
Mark Sanford was a member of this group. He spoke of going abroad with other men recreationally, without his wife, to “blow off steam”. He says that while there he had “inappropriate” relationships with other women besides his Argentine paramour, although he claims he never did anything more serious than “dancing”.
Come on, guys. Did the taxpayers pay for Mark Sanford and other politicians to have international sexual tourism and missionizing trips?
Well, well, well. It turns out that our friends at the Department of Homeland Security have been posting anonymous racist comments to newspaper stories about immigration. How clever. Keep it classy, guys.
Not really, but Yahoo Answers is like a game where the con-trolls try to defeat the libs, who are, despite actually being a minority there, doing a pretty good job of manning the barricades.
I get picked Best Answer by a lot of Askers. But I also get a fair number of voters who choose me after the Asker has not chosen a Best Answer before the question expires and goes into voting. So a lot of the time I end up with Best Answer even though I totally take a stand for what is Right and Good, against the Powers of Evil and Ignorance. In other words, the fact that the original questioner has not bothered to select a Best Answer him or herself means that I end up scoring points while writing something they are completely opposed to.
Inspired by an article in Salon entitled “What’s wrong with the new pro-lifers” by Frances Kissling, a woman who appears to be opposed to abortion but has lots of issues trying to reason her way through the sticky issue.
Twenty-eight pages of letters later, I came to a comment by keenplanner, who stated
The New Anti-choicers
Same as the old anti-choicers.
The bottom line is that abortion will never dissappear, even if it is made illegal. What will dissappear are clinically safe abortions performed by medical profesionals.
Over 40,000 women all over the world die from botched abortions. Do these anti-choice religious fanatics and bigots want the US to join the ranks of countries with filthy, illegal, back-alley abortion providers?
This movement should not be called anti-choice, and it’s far from pro-life.
They should be called pro-coathanger.
I responded (and have expanded):
If you hang out where anti-abortionists feel free to speak their minds, you will find that actually many of them do feel that the punishment for abortion should be death, even if that means that 1/3 to 1/2 of women would die.
Of course, you can’t tell by looking at a woman whether she is one of the guilty ones. But that simply means that in their minds, any woman they meet could already be a murderer, and every woman of childbearing age, given the “choice”, could become one with her next act of moral agency. This dovetails nicely with their notion of the nobility of women dying as a result of a doomed pregnancy.
They honestly believe that late term termination of healthy pregnancies is so frequent that it is a huge problem, that it is the natural tendency of women to change their minds in the last week of pregnancy for no reason whatever, and that women who do this have no problem finding doctors to accommodate them.
Step back and you see that men who lead the movement are arguing that women are morally inferior. Women made the “choice” not to “keep their legs shut”, and therefore, should be forced (but not “punished”) to bear and raise the baby at their own expense (unless of course it is marketable for adoption). It annoys them to no end that there is no stigma to this.
They see abortion as enabling women to “get away with” sex. They think that not only should women be forced to bear any such child conceived out of wedlock (or within a marriage that she should have known in advance was going to end), but that women who do end up raising such children should be punished by society with poverty, as should their bastard children.
Let’s look at the religious issue here that is never spoken, as the argument implies that sex is a moral choice for women but not for men. It’s just the old garden-of-eden story claiming that wicked women tempt men, who are too weak morally to resist. Therefore, women deserve to be punished for tempting men to have sex, but men can’t help themselves.
If men are truly morally inferior, then they have no business lecturing women about moral choices. How about this imperative for moral choices by men: Men who are opposed to abortion can end abortion now just by keeping their pants zipped up.
It’s Health Care Week! We bloggers are supposed to blog about health care every day to get everybody informed and with the program. Here goes…
Last week I heard that my Senator, Olympia Snowe, was unwilling to support any public option for health care unless there was a trigger. To say the least, I was disappointed.
Surely you’ve heard about this. It’s kind of like public health insurance. It would be a choice for those who can’t afford private insurance, or who are uninsurable because of pre-existing conditions. People who decided that the public option was a better choice could choose it over their private insurance.
Health care is when you get medical services to get you healthy. It should not be confused with health insurance, which is no guarantee that any health care will be received.
This would be give the insurance companies another chance to make health insurance and health care available and affordable to all.
They would have a decade or so to decide how they were going to accomplish that goal delay until they managed to get it removed from consideration by a subsequent administration or Congress they had bought out.
Okay, I was really displeased about the situation. For me, the public option is not even really adequate, but it’s the only thing on the table that seems to be a step in the right direction.
Other suggestions have been exceedingly reactionary, such as taxing health insurance benefits and forcing the uninsured to buy junk insurance.
There are those who say that any reform is better than no reform, but I am not one of them. I think that a “reform” whose net result is making health care scarcer and more expensive for those who need it most is no reform at all.
But today I heard that Sen. Snowe is going to strongly support the public option. I don’t have to go to her office now to talk with the good-looking young men who work there, but maybe I will stop in anyway to say “Thank you!”
Maybe Susan Collins will come over from the dark side now. But probably not.
All right, so I was beside myself today when I read that someone asked Sarah Palin how she was going to withstand ethics accusations as President, if she couldn’t take them as Governor.
And she said that the “Department of Law” would look at those complaints and throw them right out.
Like, excuse me? The what? Now I am really, really glad she is completely out of politics. Seriously, gladder than ever.
And did you hear the one about how some Alaskan has filed another ethics complaint against her? Remember back when it came out that she had charged the state a per diem for staying at her own house in Wasilla and showing up to work at some random state office building in Anchorage, when the state capital is actually Juneau? And they made her pay back taxes on the money, as income?
The new complaint says that it was not legitimate income, that she should never have gotten it in the first place, that the only reason she did it was to pad her salary. Because no other employee of the state of Alaska would have been permitted to receive that money or keep it, especially since the “commute” to Anchorage is 45 minutes and the minimum to receive any expense money is 50 minutes.
Anyway, the complainant wants her to pay back the ill-gotten gains. That’s all. Sounds reasonable enough to me. They’d have made me pay it back. I’m pretty sure about that.
But rather than photoshop another face on Sarah’s head or another head on her shoulders, I thought you might like to see this cute video of a black woman doing a spot-on impression of Sarah Palin.
She’s going to sue everybody who photoshopped her pictures after she whined that her wingnut talk show host supporter ended up on one. Especially the one who put two heads on her body.
The woman has always had issues with the concept of “truth”. Her story changes as often as she needs it to, and she expects us to accept her version with deference. It is disrespectful to question Sarah dearest, or to check the facts. Most often, she does not seem to be aware that people are capable of checking what she says to see if it is reality-based or non-reality-based.
To speculate on Sarah dearest, her shadowy past, her present, her future, her work ethic, her motives, etc., is illegal, or it ought to be. Sarah dearest is the law. There will be no other laws above her. Oops, does that sound like a Commandment?
According to a commenter to the story in the Anchorage Daily News,
Question_Assumptions wrote on 07/05/2009 08:58:12 AM:
If a rumor-monger only writes about and forwards negative rumors and doesn’t make an attempt to prove or disprove their veracity, that should be sufficient to prove “malice”. Slander and libel are not free speech and never have been.
My goodness. It looks like they’d have to reinstitute the Fairness Doctrine and eliminate hate radio to satisfy that condition.
Too bad she’s incapable of taking advice, or she might have learned some skills years ago that would help her cope with criticism, which is part of being a public figure—which, by the way, she intends to continue being. Sarah dearest is the gift that will keep on giving and giving…
She might also have attempted to learn some facts about, oh, everything. Knowledge does not seem to be her strong point. And while she was at it, she could have picked up some creative writing skills. That speech Friday was atrociously badly written. She has a degree in journalism? Her alma mater should rescind her degree.
So sue me.
Somethingawful.com has offered a non-apology for making Sarah dearest resign. Warning! Offensive!