HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » McCamy Taylor » Journal
Page: « Prev 1 ... 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 Next »

McCamy Taylor

Profile Information

Member since: Tue Nov 9, 2004, 06:05 PM
Number of posts: 17,859

About Me

Here is my fiction website: http://home.earthlink.net/~mccamytaylor/ My political cartoon site: http://www.grandtheftelectionohio.com/

Journal Archives

Guns Don't Kill People. Hoodies Kill People.

As long as there have been victims, there have been people blaming the victims. You don't think it's fair that I kicked your teeth in with my steel toed boot? Why did your teeth get in the way of my steel toed boot?

Victims get victimized all over again by society---police, lawyers, the press---when they are told "Didn't you realize that wearing____ could get you killed???" Sometimes, society seems so eager to blame the victim---and defend the perp---that it comes up with fashion rules that would make the Taliban proud.

The classic example---and still used by defense attorneys in courtrooms to this day---is the old "Men don't rape women. Short skirts rape women." A woman walking down the road in a short skirt is just asking to be attacked. If she left her panty-hose at home, she is practically begging to be assaulted. Doesn't matter if the young woman in question is a minor. Doesn't matter if the rapist is someone who should know better, like her priest. That's because the man didn't do the crime. The short skirt did.

Meanwhile, according to prosecutors, in his cell before his arraignment, the Catholic Church’s Father Duenas said, “She didn’t protest to getting a massage. She was wearing short skirts.”


http://thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/archbishop-dolan-bashes-church-rape-victims/news/2012/01/09/32869

Guys, whatever you do, don't wear skinny jeans. Skinny jeans will get you beaten with a baseball bat.

http://www.carltonjordan.com/2012/02/08/attacked-for-being-gay-brandon-white-speaks-out/

Lesbians, that short hair will get your head slammed on a pavement.

http://www.starobserver.com.au/news/australia-news/victoria-news/2008/12/17/lesbian-attacked-in-street/36635

In the wake of 9/11:

In Alabama, women in traditional Islamic garments were jeered and spat upon.


http://www.wsws.org/articles/2001/sep2001/atta-s15.shtml

There is something very wrong about a member of the press telling us that we are not free to choose our own clothing. This is the same press that defends its right to free speech the way that a mother bear defends her cub. I own three hoodies and none of them has a big red target on the back. What's more, if I walked down the street wearing all three of them, one on top of the other, I would not be shot by some trigger happy community watch--because I am short, female and white.

So how can Geraldo say that the hoodie is as responsible as the gunman? Even he admits that is the Black or Latino youth inside the hoodie that is responsible....

"I am urging the parents of black and Latino youngsters particularly not to let their children go out wearing hoodies. I think the hoodie is as much responsible for Trayvon Martin's death as much as George Zimmerman was."


http://content.usatoday.com/communities/entertainment/post/2012/03/geraldo-rivera-blames-hoodie-for-trayvon-martins-death/1

You heard it from Geraldo. Whatever you do, don't get caugt walking outdoors in America wearing the wrong color skin.
Posted by McCamy Taylor | Sat Mar 24, 2012, 09:04 PM (6 replies)

Three Old Dudes Desperately Seeking (to Be) Ronald Reagan

Romney says “I don’t see how a young American can vote for a Democrat.” Why is Romney appealing for the support of the section of the population that votes the least? Trick question. He isn’t. Dear old Mittens wants to appear hip, trendy. He wants Republican voters to recognize the star appeal that will help him breeze through the general election---even though he is limping through his own party’s primary.

“Young” in politics mean “maverick”. It means “glamour.” It means “I’d offer that guy a beer.” It was what Reagan was able to project through his two term presidency even as he slipped into dementia. Because face it, there will always be something intrinsically “hip” about an actor president who can count of the support of Hollywood’s A List. “Cowboy” never really goes out of fashion.

Romney is trying his best to acquire a thin veneer of “style over substance.” He is not alone.

Standing before the statue of a young Ronald Reagan on horseback, Rick Santorum repeatedly drew parallels to the “insurgency” both represented in the Republican Party, and he called on Illinois voters to give him an upset victory in the primary on Tuesday.
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/03/19/santorum-sees-parallels-between-him-and-reagan/

Insurgency. Oh yeah, baby. The man who wants to return to the dark ages of back alley abortions and burning homosexuals at the stake is telling us that he is a rebel. Practically James Dean.

Is there room for three on the Ronald Reagan bandwagon? You bet!

“In the increasingly rough Republican campaign, no candidate has wrapped himself in the mantle of Ronald Reagan more often than Newt Gingrich,” writes Elliot Abrams in the National Review.
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/289159/gingrich-and-reagan-elliott-abrams

How is Newt like Ronnie Baby? Let me count the ways. Ummm… they both have a Y chromosome. Other than that, I can’t think of two politicians within the same party who are more unalike. Romney was able to court crossover voters with his “I’m just one of you” style. Newt, if nominated, will mobilize Democratic voters, too. They will come to the polls in record numbers to cast straight party Democratic tickets as their way of thumbing their nose at a guy who is only just barely tolerated by his own party and despised by everyone else.

Show of hands. Who here wants to kick back on the porch and drink a beer with Newt? With Rick? With Mittens?

Forget substance for a moment. We are talking style here. Who is the candidate with the Hollywood A List support? Who is the one who can say (with feeling) “I know where you’re coming from. I’ve been there, too”? Who is the one who would not look like an idiot riding a Harley-Davidson? Answer those questions and you will know who gets the all-important working class “I won’t vote for a guy I wouldn’t drink a beer with” vote this fall.
Posted by McCamy Taylor | Mon Mar 19, 2012, 07:22 PM (1 replies)

Healthcare resources being wasted on pre-abortion ultrasounds could be better spent....

.... making birth control more affordable so that fewer women will have unplanned pregnancies that require termination.

...on dental care for the millions of Americans on Medicaid who can get their hearts fixed but lose all their teeth.

...on school fitness programs to combat the epidemic of juvenile onset Type 2 diabetes.

...educating young people about the dangers of tobacco.

...handing out condoms to prevent the spread of Hepatitis and HIV.

....providing mental health care to folks BEFORE they decide to go on a wild shooting spree.

....on school meals for kids who do not get enough to eat at home.


Right now, in your Texas city, there is at least one man with excrutiating abdominal pain due to gallstones who can not get his problem diagnosed (much less treated) because there is no law requiring that he be given an ultrasound----and he can not afford to pay for it out of his own pocket.

Right now, in your state, there is a woman with a gynecologic tumor who can not afford the tests that would identify her problem early, before it has spread. Where is the Texas state law that insists that she be given an ultrasound?

Right now, in your neighborhood, there is someone who needs a stress echocardiogram (another kind of ultrasound) to figure out why he is having chest pain. But he doesn't have health insurance, so good luck with that.

If Texas state legislators were really "Pro-Life" they would not turn down federal money to help women get breast and cervical cancer screening. They would not cut Medicaid benefits for cancer patients and disabled children. Their governor would not call for the end of Medicaid---the health insurance program that takes care of so many pregnant women and their children.
The state would not rank near the bottom in percentage of people insured---

Infant mortality rates for some groups in some parts of the state are in the double digits. If Texas legislators love life so god damned much, why aren't they doing more about that?







Posted by McCamy Taylor | Sun Mar 18, 2012, 12:24 AM (3 replies)

18 cents: Why Our Wombs are a Political Battlefield

"Men do not leave their jobs to have children and are less likely than women to leave their jobs to care for their children. In addition, men are less likely to move if their spouses are forced to relocate for professional purposes. All of these are reasons why turnover rates for men are lower than turnover rates for women. One study using Department of Labor reports estimates that the median number of years men stay on their jobs exceeds that for women by 77-100 percent."
Cato Institute paper, 1984
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa038.html


In the 1960s, before birth control became safe and legal, women made 59 cents for every dollar men made. Employers justified this wage discrimination by citing the unreliability of female workers. Women got pregnant. Women had children. Women with kids missed work. Women could not devote themselves to their companies the way that men could, therefore they did not deserve promotions. Women’s “delicate condition” rendered them unfit to do high paid factory and construction work, though no one seemed to mind when they worked long, grueling hours in the pink collar ghetto, scrubbing floors, canning fish or sewing in sweat shops.

Women in the workplace were shamed for doing what they had to do to support their families. A woman who could not hold onto a man with a high paying job was deemed a failure. With her self-esteem battered and bruised, the female worker did not dare raise her voice to demand a better wage or better work conditions. She was just there “temporarily”, said her boss. The minute she got a man, she would quit. The minute she spread her legs and conceived a child, she would demand maternity leave. Or get a back alley abortion and die and leave her employer in the lurch. She was a liability. The boss only kept her on out of a sense of charity. She didn’t deserve more than 59 cents on the dollar---

Then came safe, legal birth control. Then came the right to (safely) terminate an unwanted pregnancy. And suddenly women could say, with confidence, “I can do the same job a man can do.” As a result, the wage discrepancy between women and men has been declining in the last few decades. The change has been slow. Women have gained a half cent a year, so that by 2010 we were making 77 cents compared to the dollar men made for comparable work.

http://www.pay-equity.org/info-time.html

Doesn’t sound like much, I know, but when you are living on the edge of poverty, that extra 18 cents an hour can mean the difference between food on the table and none. It can enable a battered wife to break away from her abusive spouse. It can pay the tuition for night school, so that women can climb out of the pink collar ghetto.

Eighteen cents is chump change to the employers of this country. And yet, they begrudge it to the women who raise this country’s children. And they dread having to hand over that other 33 cents that they currently pocket as profit. The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009, enacted by the Democratic Congress and signed into law by President Obama is a thorn in the side of the Right. The National Association of Manufacturers lobbied against it, on the ground that existing legislation was more than adequate to protect the rights of women---even though existing legislation still left women in this country 33 cents short.

http://www.nam.org/~/media/1C646E08B3F5440AAE75145BCB33689A/NAMLedbetterOppositionLtr7Jan2009v4.pdf

Dixie Cup, aka the Koch Brothers, aka the Cato Institute declared that the law was a “Sword of Damocles” that threatened the economy----because, apparently, the economy only thrives when women do the same work as men for a fraction of their wage.

http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/fair-pay-act-will-only-further-damage-economy/

In the face of federal legislation that makes it easier for women to sue for past wage discrimination, what is the right wing to do? Answer, strip away the reproductive rights that women have gained. Deny women birth control. Force them to give birth to children they cannot afford.

Then, the Dixie Cup manufacturers of this nation can assert, with confidence, “I don’t need to pay that woman an equal wage. She will just get pregnant and leave me in the lurch. Seventy-seven cents is too much for her. She should be happy with the 59 cents her mother made.” Never mind that single mothers in this country are overwhelming working mothers and that maternity leave is a luxury almost unheard of in the U.S.A.

The Koch Brothers don’t give a damn about your unborn child. Newt Gingrich could care less that your IUD may prevent implantation. Mitt Romney does not lose sleep at night knowing that your employer sponsored health insurance pays for your birth control pill. What they really care about is that 18 cents that women’s reproductive rights have cost them---and the 33 cents they stand to lose if the current trend continues.

And for all you guys out there, remember. When the wages of women and minorities are kept artificially low, all workers get paid less. Law of supply and demand.

“Needless to say, sexism emerged as a source of outrageous super-profits for the capitalists.”
Angela Davis Women, Race & Class

Posted by McCamy Taylor | Sun Mar 11, 2012, 05:23 PM (11 replies)

Grown Ups Don't Shoot Laptops

For over a week I have resisted watching Tommy Jordan’s You Tube rant about his daughter. From the descriptions I read, I figured this guy got about 15 minutes more fame than he deserved. Today, however, an editorial writer in the local paper had this to say….

I understand exactly how Tommy Jordan feels, how desperate, how angry, how helpless. As a parent, I've questioned my role, my methods of discipline, my children's disobedience and defiance -- my very ability to guide them. I've been known to pinch, to yank, to holler, to tear through drawers and closets, and read diary entries.
http://www.star-telegram.com/2012/02/22/3755173/ana-veciana-suarez-you-tube-parenting.html#storylink=cpy

Oh my! “Read diary entries”? Anyone who reads someone else’s diary entry without permission deserves every ounce of hurt they get. Because people---especially young women---use their diaries as therapy, to express the anger that society does not give them leave to express in real life. Oh, and by the way, ever wonder why girls get eating disorders and cut themselves and attempt suicide? It is because they are not allowed to express their negative emotions in this fucked up “Boys can’t cry and girls can’t get mad” society we live in. And when you deny anyone the right to express their emotions, you are telling that (usually young) person, “You are not good enough the way you are.” Which leads to self hatred, self abuse and years of psychotherapy as an adult.

Speaking of money, I hope that the Ms. Jordan sends her dad a bill for her shrink when she has to spend a couple of years figuring out why it was ok for her dad to curse her on YouTube, but it was not ok for her to curse her dad on Facebook. And before you say “That’s different, he’s he grownup” I want to add this:

When a parent acts one way and expects his child to act another, that parent is trying to be the child and trying to force his kid to be the adult.

Yeah, yeah. Bitch and moan about how much you have sacrificed for the kids, about how hard you work, about the six hours you wasted and the loss of $130. Tell us that you are deserving of unconditional love from your child, because of all the things you have done for her. Get it off your chest. But for Christ’s sake, do it in private or in the company of like-minded adults. Because here is a little secret. Your (still minor) child does not owe you a damn thing. When you decided to become a parent, you made a contract with that baby to love it, care for it, support it financially as well as emotionally. You did not sign on for a cruise on the “I love you daddy” Boat. We owe our kids unconditional love. If we do not get the kids we thought we deserved, we make do with the ones we have. And we love them for all the things they are---the pissed as hell as well as the sugar and spice, the tears and wails as well as the puppy dogs tails.

I decided I had to see for myself why a grown woman was proudly telling the world that she sneaks and reads her kid’s diary. So, I checked out Tommy Jordan’s rant. Here are the highlights:

First, bonus points for waving a cigarette around as he tells his daughter how she ought to act. Yes, in real life he probably cusses out his girl while smoking. But what kind of parent does it on YouTube? Answer: a parent who is proud of his faults. A parent who is telling the world (in its face) this is how I am, love it or leave me alone. Which raises the question, what kind of kid writes a Facebook entry about how mad she is at her family? Answer: a kid who is trying to tell the world this is how I am, love it or leave me alone. Hmm. A chip off the old block. You’d think the father would be proud that his daughter is following in his footsteps.

Double bonus points for doing exactly what the daughter is accused of doing---telling the public how angry he is at his family’s failure to communicate. When a girl child does it, she is unnatural. When the “grown up” dad does it, he is cool. A cult figure. Gotta admire a man who is not afraid to act like a whiny brat in public!

Triple bonus points for telling us that he grounded his daughter for three months---no computer, no Facebook, no cell phone---for telling the world how mad she was. As a writer, I hate---no, despise censorship in any form. As a mother and a doctor, alarms go off in my head whenever someone brags about how they placed their steel toed boot squarely on their child’s negative emotions, nipping those dangerous things right in the bud.

Quadruple bonus points for starting off his rant with the assurance that he must love his daughter and supply all her needs, because he spent six hours on her computer yesterday and 130 bucks. At this point, I can already see the problem. Dad here does not think he owes his daughter six hours or $130. He thinks he made a deposit in the Bank of “I love you daddy”, and he expects a return on his investment. So, when the daughter does not pay up, he figures he needs to Occupy YouTube, in order to let the public know that he has been ripped off---

Good lord, man! You’re supposed to be happy if your daughter is healthy, reasonably well balanced and not sniffing glue. Good parents do not keep a ledger. Good parents expect only one thing of their children---that they treat other people with the same degree of love and respect that their parents have shown to them.

Ok, on to the “tough love.” I won’t recap the whole thing, just the highlights.

“Are you out of your mind?”

“You won’t get off your lazy ass to look for a job.”

“I blew half my day upgrading your laptop.”

“I don’t know how to say how disappointed I am with you…”


This one deserves special comment. Obviously this dad is not a fool. He knows that his family has serious communication problems. That is why his daughter is telling her Facebook friends about her problems rather than sitting down with the family to work them out. And guess what. If there is a communication problem, it is not the kid’s fault. Because she is not the parent, no matter how much her parent may wish that his daughter could be the perfect mother-surrogate that he thinks he deserves. Yes, he does think he deserves it. The rant about how bad he had it as a kid and how he had to leave home and work and put himself through college is supposed to prove to the world that he deserves a chance to be a child finally. But, in order for him to be the kid, his child has to be the parent. What kind of unnatural daughter objects to being told to drop what she is doing and get Dad some coffee? June Cleaver had orgasms when Ward asked her to do the same. She felt fulfilled when she could bake cookies with a big smile plastered across her carefully made up face. I am going to go out on a limb and suggest that Tommy Jordan’s parents were not the Cleavers. And he still has not forgiven them for that sin.
OK, back to the video.

“You got it easy…” More self pity. We know you suffered, dude. You want to make someone pay, and your daughter is the easiest target. Man, you look like you are having some fun as you tell viewers to “Put a boot up their own kid’s ass”---right before you complain about her use of “curse words.”Note to everyone. If you cuss, your kids will cuss. Cussing is not a sin. It is natural language. If you want your child to develop the ability to express emotions with accurately---like saying “I feel that you have belittled me with that comment. I have value too” rather than snapping back with “Fuck you, ass hole”, you need to teach them those words.

The rest is history. “This right here is my 45.” And “These are exploding hollow point rounds. You have to pay me back for them…” And, most disturbing of all, (because I am a bit sexist, I admit it. Even when the dad insists upon playing the role of the child, I expect the mother to make an effort to be a parent) “Your mom said to put one in from her…”

Since no story is complete without the back story, here is my own back story. My dad was much too young to be a parent. He wanted my mother to be the perfect mother he never had. He did not want to share her with needy little kids. He came home drunk and waved a gun around and scared the kids(me) half to death and his wife, very sensibly, left him. Good for her. It was one of the best things she ever did for me (her child) and I am grateful as hell, even if he did continue to bitch and moan to his dying day about how much he loved and missed my mother. Another thing I am grateful for---when I was a kid crying in the backseat of the car and my father yelled back at me to shut up, my mother said “She has a right to cry. Leave her alone.” Now, that is good parenting.
Posted by McCamy Taylor | Sun Feb 26, 2012, 04:04 PM (53 replies)

Operation "Screw Up Google's Data Mining"

There is one reason Google (and other internet search engines) record our seach history. They use the information to create consumer profiles that can be sold for lots of hard cash to advertisers and others who want to target their online ads. Say you regularly visit a site with pop-ups. Why should P&G pay to have you listen to an ad for a tampon when you are a guy who will never use a tampon? Maybe that time could be better spent advertising Trojans.

Say you do a search for erectle dysfunction. That is the cue for Cialis and Viagra to start targetting you with direct to consumer ads. All they have to do is pay someone (like Google) to tell them which Americans are concerned about "erectile dysfunction."

Now, if you value your privacy, but you do not feel like logging on anonymously at the public library every time you need to do a web search, there is hope. I call it "Operation Fuck Up Google's Data Mining." It is very, very simple.

First, pick a book. A dictionary is best. It does not have to be an English dictionary. It could be some other type of book, as long as it is a book about something that you do not really give a damn about. So, for example, you could pick up one of your grandmother's gardening books. Pick a page at random and then find a random word. Search the random word. Do a few related searches. Bookmark one of the sites under your favorites. Every time you log on after that, be sure to open that "favorite" page. Say the word you chose was "hydrangeas." Soon, Google will become convinced that you are a gardener with a passion for hydrangeas. You will start getting targetted advertising from nurseries. You will laugh to know that Calloways is wating its money.

Do this often enough, and the "data" that Google "mines" will become so worthless, that no one will pay for it. Better yet, write software that will do random searches and create randon profiles for anyone. Suddenly, the mayor is deeply interested in suitcase bombs while the local crack dealer is a committed Tea Party member. Even the U.S. government will not be able to spy on you. Give said software away for free. Call it "Privacy Protection."

Ok everyone. You know what to do. Get out the phone book or the cookbook or the dictionay and get to work creating your fake profile. Drive the folks at Google insane trying to figure out what kind of person loves combustion engines and Hello Kitty and the Killing Fields of Cambodia and treatment for hoof and mouth disease.
Posted by McCamy Taylor | Mon Feb 20, 2012, 08:59 PM (31 replies)

Ever Wonder WHY The Banksters Mitt Romney Represents Want Your Mom To Die?

No, they do not have billions of dollars invested in Coffins R Us. At least, I don’t think they do. Not yet.

First, a pop quiz. When bundled mortgages turned to liquid shit in 2008, investors were desperate to find something to sell the suckers----uh hum, excuse me, their clients. What did they sell?

If you answered ”Their souls” you are wrong. They sold those years ago. In 2009, they decided to start selling investors death. As in the early death of your Mom and Dad.

The bankers plan to buy “life settlements,” life insurance policies that ill and elderly people sell for cash — $400,000 for a $1 million policy, say, depending on the life expectancy of the insured person. Then they plan to “securitize” these policies, in Wall Street jargon, by packaging hundreds or thousands together into bonds. They will then resell those bonds to investors, like big pension funds, who will receive the payouts when people with the insurance die.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/06/business/06insurance.html

Oh my! Betting on death! What a great idea? Death, unlike rising real estate value, is inevitable. What could possibly go wrong with a scheme like that? From the NYT link above:

The earlier the policyholder dies, the bigger the return — though if people live longer than expected, investors could get poor returns or even lose money.


What is your worst enemy if you are an investor who has sunk millions into death? Effective, affordable health care. What do the majority of over 65 year old Americans have in common? Medicare, currently the nation’s premiere (and only) single payer universal comprehensive health care plan. How do you, the bankster who has invested in death, deal with that pesky Medicare (without denying your own mother her dialysis?). You get the GOP House to abolish Medicare and replace it with vouchers that rich Americans will use (along with some of their own money) to buy platinum plated health insurance, while poor, elderly Americans use the vouchers to buy cat food so they do not starve. And then, you approach the poor, no longer starving but still in dire need of health care seniors and tell them “Hey. Yeah, you. Tired of eating cat food? Want to dine on steak instead? Sell me your life insurance policy, and I will make your last few years on earth golden years.”

What a great idea! No wonder investors in other countries are hopping on the Death to Elderly Americans bandwagon!

A cursory glance at the returns achieved by funds across a variety of sectors in the UK reveals that investors are being hit no matter where they hide.
Those looking to branch out can of course opt to invest in overseas equities, but for investors who are fearful of placing yet more of their assets into stockmarkets, life settlement funds could provide the diversification they desire.
The latest results from EEA Fund Management’s Life Settlements Fund, designed to deliver an annual return of 8%, reveal it has met its goals, posting 8.7% in the twelve months to the end of January and 20.97% over two years.
The strategy is of course controversial. The fund achieves returns by buying life policies in the US from individuals with a maximum life expectancy of 8 years, before cashing them in when policy holders die
.
http://www.citywire.co.uk/new-model-adviser/traded-life-policies-are-controversial-but-they-are-proving-their-worth-in-the-crunch/a299873

The key letters in the excerpt above are UK as where the investors live and US as in where the old folks will die. Which makes sound business sense. British banksters can lobby Congress to abolish Medicare without touching their own cherished National Health Service.

What could possibly go wrong with making bets that some old person you do not know or give a rat’s ass about will die prematurely? The British know.

Indeed, the historical background of the insurable interest laws goes back to what were known as the "death pools" of Victorian England. Then, bettors would speculate on when a particular person would die, and later started taking life insurance out on their lives without them knowing about it or giving their permission. When later the "accidental" death rates of such persons started to rise, the English Parliament basically forbid SOLI by requiring that the purchaser of a life insurance policy have a recognizable interest in the person being insured. By waiting the two years before buying the policy, the investors in life settlements skirt these rules but the underlying concerns are still there.

http://quatloos.com/life_settlement-life_settlements.htm

Scary.

We all know where Wall Street is giving its money. To the Republican Party. And we all know what the Republican Party wants to do, because last April all the Republican House members (except four) tried to do it----abolish Medicare.

So, you tell me. Do you want decisions about your mother’s health to be made by a bunch of guys in London who really, truly need to make the payments on their Mercedes? If so, vote Romney and vote Republican.
Posted by McCamy Taylor | Sun Feb 12, 2012, 03:23 PM (10 replies)

Why Do the Catholic Bishops Hate Rick Santorum?

Someone has to ask this question, so I will. But first, a pop quiz:

What is the number one defining characteristic of Americans?

No, it isn’t their appetite for greasy, fast food. No, it is not their love of NASCAR. If you said “Being proud of being dumb,” you are close. The answer is: Americans do not want anyone telling them what to do. Especially not members of the clergy of some religion to which they do not belong.

So, what do the nations Catholic Bishops decide to do just as their man (the Catholic) pulls ahead of the Lutheran turned Southern Baptist turned Catholic (Newt), the Mormon (Mittens) and the Libertarian? They start acting like the Vatican is now in control of the White House. You know, what we were warned would happen when JFK was elected, but it didn’t, because he was a Democrat first and a Catholic second.

They won’t make that mistake again. Rick Santorum is a Catholic First and a Republican second. To quote the Catholic press, Rick is a "complete Catholic candidate."

http://www.catholicvote.org/discuss/index.php?p=17854

With their man riding high in the Republican polls, the Catholic Bishops have made up their mind that they do not intend to wait for January, 2013. They plan to push through their religious agenda now, whether American voters like it or not. And they are going to rub our faces in it, too, just to prove that they can. And by the time they are done, every Protestant, Atheist, Agnostic, Hindu, Buddhist, Shamanist and Other American is going to know exactly what a Rick Santorum Presidency will be like----

It’s going to mean a knocked up daughter, a son on the line for child support for the rest of his adult life, a mom dead from a pregnancy her body could not handle and a lifetime of rubbers, because no insurance plan in the country will pay for a vasectomy.

Way to go, Catholic Bishops! Keep up the good work! Who needs freedom of religion when we can have a German bachelor living in Rome making all our important family decisions for us!
Posted by McCamy Taylor | Sat Feb 11, 2012, 11:50 PM (7 replies)

Catholic Church versus Health Insurance Industry….and States Rights

To hear some Republicans talk, Obama is about to force all the nation’s private insurers to offer coverage for contraceptive services, radically altering health care in this country. This is not true. As of 2004,

Nearly nine in 10 group insurance plans purchased by employers for their employees now cover a full range of prescription contraceptives.


http://www.guttmacher.org/media/nr/2004/06/15/index.html

Contraception is a no brainer for an insurance plan. Pregnancy---and especially the cost of a complicated pregnancy which could soar into the millions if a premature baby requires NICU care---is expensive. Birth control is cheap.

From an employer’s point of view, a woman using contraception is much less likely to take sick time, request maternity leave or decide to quit work and stay at home.

Here is something that some folks may find even more surprising:

Currently, the majority of private health plans cover abortion care as part of a broader health care package.


http://www.plannedparenthood.org/about-us/newsroom/press-releases/abortion-care-coverage-health-care-reform-getting-facts-straight-29733.htm

Why do a majority of private plans cover abortion? Do they hate life? No, they realize that an elective termination is cheaper than pregnancy, particularly an unplanned, potentially complicated pregnancy.

The Catholic Church wants the federal government to allow employers to “opt out” of contraception coverage. This is not simply the Catholic Church versus the Feds. This is the Vatican versus Your State’s Rights. Because a majority of states now require that employers sponsored health insurance include birth control coverage.

At least 26 states have laws requiring insurers that cover prescription drugs also provide coverage for any Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved contraceptive. These states include: Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Missouri, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, West Virginia and Wisconsin.



http://www.ncsl.org/issues-research/health/insurance-coverage-for-contraception-state-laws.aspx

What happens to California’s birth control mandate if the Catholic Church succeeds in getting the federal government (say under a Rick Santorum administration) to make contraception coverage “optional”? Which way would the (Catholic dominated) Supreme Court lean if asked to consider this states rights versus federal rights issue? Hint: the SCOTUS threw states rights out the window in Bush v. Gore. And then what happens if the Church launches a boycott of employers who voluntarily offer contraception coverage? Not all at once. One at a time, picking off easy targets in order to pressure struggling businesses across the country to shed birth control coverage for its employees?

It is always depressing when we have to go back and defend one of the milestones in the road for equality. We should be plowing forward, not losing ground.


Posted by McCamy Taylor | Fri Feb 10, 2012, 12:33 PM (7 replies)

If your Catholic Employer can deny you contraception insurance...

...then your Jehovah's Witness employer can demand that your health insurance exclude blood transfusions.

The employer who belongs to the Church of Scientology can strip your insurance of mental health coverage.

Your Jewish employer can deny porcine (pig) heart valve replacements.

Your Muslim employer can say "no" to treatment for alcohol abuse on the grounds that alcoholism is a sin and not a health problem.

And your Christian Scientists employer can use this as an excuse to deny you any health care coverage at all.


Further...

....since health insurance is something that we all pay for ourselves (i.e. it is deducted from our wages), if your Catholic Employer can tell that you can not spend your money to buy health insurance that covers birth control, he can also demand that you not spend any portion of your salary for condoms.

Your Jewish employer can insist that the wages he pays not go towards the purchase of bacon.

Ditto for your Muslim employer, and you can't buy any beer, either!

Your Christian Scientist employer can put a tag on you with an alarm that goes off if you get within 100 feet of a CVS Pharmacy.


And since it would be a violation of religious conscience to give money to someone who is going to tithe it to the wrong Church, Synagogue or Mosque, your employer can demand that you adopt his religion. If you refuse, he can fire you immediately, and he will not have to pay unemployment, since that would be giving money to a cause that is not in keeping with his faith.

If you can see what is wrong with the last ten scenarios, then you should be able to see what is wrong with the first.

Posted by McCamy Taylor | Thu Feb 9, 2012, 09:07 PM (53 replies)
Go to Page: « Prev 1 ... 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 Next »