HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » PeaceNikki » Journal
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 Next »


Profile Information

Gender: Female
Current location: Wisconsin
Member since: Sat Apr 14, 2007, 05:49 PM
Number of posts: 25,417

Journal Archives

The Catholic takeover of healthcare is dangerous.

You shouldn't go to a Catholic hospital and expect you will get decent care.

At all. Especially if you're a women or might be facing end-of-life decisions. In fact, try, at all possible costs to avoid one. Tell your loved ones and put in advanced medical directives that you want nothing to do with them. The problem is that many poor have no choice so dogma is given priority over your health.


This is such an important issue. The ACLU is suing other catholic hospitals for this as well.






It always cracks me up when people use this as a response to archaic misogynistic doctrine

"No, no, no, just ignore what we think is the bad stuff anyway!!"

That reeks of such privilege and is so selfish I can't stand it. OK, you ignore it and defy the teachings for your own lives while supporting the message and efforts to impose them on a literal global scale. Plus, while you ignore the stuff liberals think is bad, the right ignores the few liberal messages in literally the exact same manner.


I refuse to think they are ignorant or stupid or assholes or Republican operatives or part of a false flag operation.

I think they're angry and scared and hurt at what's happening to their brothers and sisters and children and friends.

They're trying to affect change. Sanders and O'Mally now have comprehensive plans laid out regarding racial justice. Neither did before these disruptions. And that's all they are is minor disruptions. Yeah, they said some nasty hurtful shit but they've heard it all themselves their entire lives. They're pissed. I get it. People are dying and they're asking to be heard.

We should listen to them. They have life experiences we don't.

The problem with #AllLivesMatter is that it's an attempt to stop conversation about race

It is time we, as a nation, have a real conversation. We need to discuss institutionalized racism. The #AllLivesMatter campaign isn’t about having that discussion. It’s about not having that discussion.

The #AllLivesMatter campaign is narcissistic and blind. It’s about inserting one’s own agenda. Case in point, this Blaze columnist who made it about abortion. Yes, really.

This particular fight is about one thing and one thing only. It’s about the fact that unarmed black men are being killed by the people who are supposed to protect them. It’s about the fact that to society, black people are far more disposable. Young black people are treated as convicts-in-waiting. These facts are a societal sickness and to treat that sickness would be to help save white lives as well.

Maybe white people would be a bit more understanding if the campaign was #BlackLivesMatterAsMuchAsWhiteLives, but that’s hardly pithy. Really, though, that’s all black people are saying. Their lives are as important as white lives and if you want to shut down that discussion, we will never grow as a country and people of all races will continue to die unnecessarily.


What does abortion have to do with climate change? You’ll have to ask Pope Francis.

Buried in Pope Francis’ encyclical on climate change, released Thursday, was a bold exhortation that pro-life conservatives support action to stop global warming on moral grounds.

“oncern for the protection of nature is also incompatible with the justification of abortion,” he wrote. “How can we genuinely teach the importance of concern for other vulnerable beings, however troublesome or inconvenient that may be, if we fail to protect a human embryo, even when its presence is uncomfortable and creates difficulties?”

The line seemed out of place in an American political context, where anti-abortion Republicans are on the opposite end of the spectrum from Democratic environmentalists, but the pope is only the latest in a growing number of Christian conservatives who see a connection between pro-life views and environmentalism.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/06/what-does-abortion-have-to-do-with-climate-change-119192.html#ixzz3dnFkVdGB

So, yeah, bury your head in the sand, Frank and preemptively give a middle finger to those of us who support choice and how keeping women reduced to nothing but broodmares DIRECTLY contributes to poverty and overpopulation.

I am so freaking sick of him being lauded as some fucking liberal hero.

Here are links to all of the source articles I post here. It's a work in progress, feel free to add your own!


You shouldn't go to a Catholic hospital and expect you will get decent care.

At all. Especially if you're a women. In fact, try, at all possible costs to avoid one. Tell your loved ones and put in advanced medical directives that you want nothing to do with them. The problem is that many poor have no choice so dogma is given priority over your health.


This is such an important issue. The ACLU is suing catholic hospitals for this.





It's all part of some core tenets of Christianity.

Women are dangerous.

“And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. But women will be saved through child-bearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety. (1 Timothy 2:14-15… As a good Christian woman, the last thing I wanted was to be accused of having a “Jezebel Spirit”!! Jezebel is the bossy, bold and dominating woman, who ‘wears the pants’ in the family, and in the Bible account, things ended badly for her: “’Throw her down’Jehu said. So they threw her down and some of her blood spattered the wall and the horses as they trampled her underfoot.” (2 Kings 9:33)


Here, Socialism meant honest, frugal government

Sanders' entry in the race and identification as a Socialist, combined with a thread about Milorganite got me thinking about a wonderful piece by a great local historian. I fully support Sanders, especially his alignment with Socialism. Full disclosure: I also support Clinton. I think that either would make a great POTUS, likely for different reasons. But, I digress... as the RW demonizes and completely mangles the definition of the word yet again, I thought this is a great piece to revisit.

"Are We All Socialists Now?" That was the plaintive title of a panel discussion at the recent Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington. The word "socialist" is being heard all over America these days as the federal government takes over banks, tells automakers what to do and tightens regulations in an effort to pull our economy out of its current tailspin. The label is not generally intended as a compliment. To many Americans, socialism means being governed by the government - suffocating under layers of bureaucracy that sop up tax dollars and smother individual initiative.

And that's the positive view. Some critics carelessly lump socialism together with anarchism or even communism. After invoking the "s" word at the recent conservative conference, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee said, "Lenin and Stalin would love this stuff." He conveniently forgot, or perhaps never knew, that most American socialists were sworn enemies of Soviet Communism.

The view from Milwaukee is radically different. I'm not a socialist and never have been, but I can testify that Socialism - with a capital "S"- was one of the best things that ever happened to this city. Without realizing it, even the most red-blooded capitalists are enjoying the fruits of their efforts, from spacious parks to clean streets and from a working infrastructure to an expectation, however frequently disappointed, of honest government.


Underlying their notion of public enterprise was an abiding faith - curiously antique by today's standards - in the goodness of government, especially local government. The Socialists believed that government was the locus of our common wealth - the resources that belong to all of us and each of us - and they worked to build a community of interest around a deeply shared belief in the common good.

The results were plain to see. After years in the political sewer, Milwaukee became, under "sewer Socialists" Seidel, Hoan and Zeidler, a model of civic virtue. Time Magazine called Milwaukee "perhaps the best-governed city in the U.S." in 1936, and the community won trophy after trophy for public health, traffic safety and fire prevention. The health prize came home so often that Milwaukee had to be retired from competition to give other municipalities a chance.


The Socialists governed well, and they did so without breaking the bank. Contrary to another popular myth, these were not tax-and-spend radicals intent on emptying the public coffers. They were, in fact, every bit as frugal as the most penny-pinching German hausfrau. The Socialists managed civic affairs on a pay-as-you-go basis, and in 1943, Milwaukee became the only big city in America whose amortization fund exceeded its outstanding bond obligations. It was, in other words, debt-free.

More at link: http://www.jsonline.com/news/opinion/42448437.html

Gurda also wrote: Socialism before it was a four-letter word and is interviewed here in John Gurda on How the Socialists Saved Milwaukee

I am pro-abortion, not just pro-choice: 10 reasons why we must support the procedure and the choice

I believe that abortion care is a positive social good -- and I think it’s time people said so ~VALERIE TARICO

Recently, the Daily Kos published an article titled I Am Pro-Choice, Not Pro-Abortion. “Has anyone ever truly been pro-abortion?” one commenter asked.

Uh. Yes. Me. That would be me.

I am pro-abortion like I’m pro-knee-replacement and pro-chemotherapy and pro-cataract surgery. As the last protection against ill-conceived childbearing when all else fails, abortion is part of a set of tools that help women and men to form the families of their choosing. I believe that abortion care is a positive social good. I suspect that a lot of other people secretly believe the same thing. And I think it’s time we said so.

As an aside, I’m also pro-choice. Choice is about who gets to make the decision. The question of whether and when we bring a new life into the world is, to my mind, one of the most important decisions a person can make. It is too big a decision for us to make for each other, and especially for perfect strangers.

But independent of who owns the decision, I’m pro on the procedure, and I’ve decided that it’s time, for once and for all, to count it out on my 10 fingers.

1. I’m pro-abortion because being able to delay and limit childbearing is fundamental to female empowerment and equality. A woman who lacks the means to manage her fertility lacks the means to manage her life. Any plans, dreams, aspirations, responsibilities or commitments–no matter how important–have a great big contingency clause built: “until or unless I get pregnant, in which case all bets are off.”


2. I’m pro-abortion because well-timed pregnancies give children a healthier start in life. We now have ample evidence that babies do best when women are able to space their pregnancies and get both pre-natal and pre-conception care. The specific nutrients we ingest in the weeks before we get pregnant can have a lifelong effect on the wellbeing of our offspring. Rapid repeat pregnancies increase the risk of low birthweight babies and other complications. Wanted babies are more likely to get their toes kissed, to be welcomed into families that are financially and emotionally ready to receive them, to get preventive medical care during childhood and the kinds of loving engagement that helps young brains to develop.

Much more that has me applauding in agreement here: http://www.salon.com/2015/04/24/i_am_pro_abortion_not_just_pro_choice_10_reasons_why_we_must_support_the_procedure_and_the_choice/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=socialflow

Abortion: a moral & positive choice that liberates women, saves lives, & protects families

Go to Page: 1 2 3 4 5 Next »