Friday, February 10, 2012
Thursday, February 9, 2012
Umm, is there a way @MSNBC can force Chris Matthews to watch his own Network and learn somethin'? (VIDEO)
First Chris Matthews had on E.J. Dionne and Susan Milligan, and barely let Susan get in a word in edgewise:
And then Lawrence O'Donnell had Mark Shields on to pontificate just a little bit more:
And yes, despite Lawrence's admonition, Mark Shields went on and on.
Unanswered was the question, in both segments was this: Why should the Catholic Church be able to enforce Catholic Dogma on it's employees who work for Catholic Organization who are not Catholic.
Instead all we heard was the alleged oppression being put upon the Church, which...if you remember history, is just a damn joke.
Another way to ask the question is: Why should the Catholic Church control the sex lives of Non-Catholic, or anyone else for that matter?
Or how about this one: Mad as I am about the Catholic Sex Scandal, I don't want to pay for Father Donovan's Heart Medication. Can I have a exemption, too? Or is it more important that we have a Civilization here, and pay for each other's stuff...even if we don't use it?
But finally buried in the din...was Rachel Maddow...and Rachel sounding uber-reasonable, and quiet, underhandedly scolding her journalistic colleages (namely Shields and Matthews).
And she did it again, the next night:
And Lawrence had an actual lawyer on (the legendary David Boies) to explain why the contretemps over the Birth Control issue was total bullshit:
Basically, I want two things from Chris Matthews...but expect only one.
It'd be really nice if stop hawking his book on Jack Kennedy every ten seconds, but hey a fella can dream, can't he?
But what I really expect is for Chris Matthews to stop using MSNBC as a personal platform to provide cover for the Church, of which he and I are members. He has not provided an impartial platform and instead used the network to flog and issue that is 110% bullshit.
Ethics, Chris. I thought they were important to Catholics. Maybe that's just lip service.
(Actually, as a Catholic, and knowing our history...yeah, it's lip service.)
And then Lawrence O'Donnell had Mark Shields on to pontificate just a little bit more:
And yes, despite Lawrence's admonition, Mark Shields went on and on.
Unanswered was the question, in both segments was this: Why should the Catholic Church be able to enforce Catholic Dogma on it's employees who work for Catholic Organization who are not Catholic.
Instead all we heard was the alleged oppression being put upon the Church, which...if you remember history, is just a damn joke.
Another way to ask the question is: Why should the Catholic Church control the sex lives of Non-Catholic, or anyone else for that matter?
Or how about this one: Mad as I am about the Catholic Sex Scandal, I don't want to pay for Father Donovan's Heart Medication. Can I have a exemption, too? Or is it more important that we have a Civilization here, and pay for each other's stuff...even if we don't use it?
But finally buried in the din...was Rachel Maddow...and Rachel sounding uber-reasonable, and quiet, underhandedly scolding her journalistic colleages (namely Shields and Matthews).
And she did it again, the next night:
And Lawrence had an actual lawyer on (the legendary David Boies) to explain why the contretemps over the Birth Control issue was total bullshit:
Basically, I want two things from Chris Matthews...but expect only one.
It'd be really nice if stop hawking his book on Jack Kennedy every ten seconds, but hey a fella can dream, can't he?
But what I really expect is for Chris Matthews to stop using MSNBC as a personal platform to provide cover for the Church, of which he and I are members. He has not provided an impartial platform and instead used the network to flog and issue that is 110% bullshit.
Ethics, Chris. I thought they were important to Catholics. Maybe that's just lip service.
(Actually, as a Catholic, and knowing our history...yeah, it's lip service.)
Tuesday, February 7, 2012
Monday, February 6, 2012
As the Catholic Church continues to embarrass itself on Birth Control...
Sarah Kliff, working for Ezra Klein's Wonkbook, published this handy-dandy fact check on the President's new regulations regarding Health Insurance Companies...note: Health Insurance Companies...having to cover contraception under the Affordable Care act.
Religious Institutions who employ people in their religion have an exemption.
Naturally, Religious Institutions who employ people outside their religion are in a snit over the fact that they won't be able to impose their religious values over their employees. (Catholic Hospitals of America...Chris Matthews of Hardall...I'm talkin' to you!)
From today's Washington Post:
Religious Institutions who employ people in their religion have an exemption.
Naturally, Religious Institutions who employ people outside their religion are in a snit over the fact that they won't be able to impose their religious values over their employees. (Catholic Hospitals of America...Chris Matthews of Hardall...I'm talkin' to you!)
From today's Washington Post:
How did this all start?
The health reform law requires that insurance companies cover preventive services for women without any co-pay beginning this summer. It did not, however, specify what services to cover — that was left to the Obama administration. With guidance from the Institute of Medicine on the issue, Health and Human Services published a regulation on Aug. 1, 2011 that included birth control as part of the preventive package. That regulation also had a conscience clause, which allows religious employers who object to birth control — and also primarily employ those of their own religion — to be exempt from the requirement. That would allow churches to opt out of the new requirement.
What’s the fight about now?
Some religious leaders say that the exemption wasn’t wide enough: That the Obama administration should allow all faith-based employers regardless of who they employ, to opt out of the new requirement if they object to contraceptives. This wider definition would exempt, among others, Catholic hospitals. The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops has lobbied aggressively for this wider conscience clause, as have a number of prominent Catholics who supported the health reform law. But in final regulations last month, the Obama administration did not expand the exemption.
Let’s say the Obama administration had expanded the conscience clause. Would that allow Catholic hospitals not to provide birth control to their patients?
No, it would not. This regulation only applies to the health insurance that a hospital, charity or other employer provides for its employees. It does not regulate the care that a Catholic charity provides to its patients. As Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius wrote recently in a USA Today op-ed, “our rule has no effect on the long-standing conscience clause protections for providers, which allow a Catholic doctor, for example, to refuse to write a prescription for contraception.”
What happens next?
Two Catholic universities have already filed lawsuits challenging the mandated coverage of contraceptives as a violation of religious freedoms protected under the First Amendment. The Catholic bishops are also looking to file a similar challenge, and some observers expect these challenges could wind their way up to the Supreme Court.
The new rule is starting to play a political role, too, in the 2012 election. Republican candidates have come out against the contraceptive requirement. Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich blasted it as “a direct assault of freedom of religion.” The Obama campaign and its allies have repeatedly defended the new requirement, attacking the Republican field as anti-contraceptives.
How have contraceptive mandates been handled previously?
Twenty-eight states currently require insurance plans to cover contraceptives, although two exclude emergency contraceptives from that mandate.
Nine states do not have conscience clause. Four states have what the Guttmacher Institute describes as “narrow” exemptions, similar to the federal one, which allows churches and other institutions that primarily employ those of their own religion to opt out. Seven states have “broader” exemptions that cover other religious institutions, but not hospitals. Then eight states have “expansive” conscience clauses that allow at least some hospitals not to provide contraceptive coverage.
What about if you get health care through your employer?
Approximately 90 percent of employer-based insurance plans cover contraceptives, according to the Guttmacher Institute, although many may charge co-pays for birth control, which the health reform law will eliminate.
Matt Lauer's pre-Super Bowl Interview with the President (VIDEO)
...or, what I could find of it.
The President's Super-Bowl prediction (or lack of), and Iran & Israel:
On Iran's Nuclear Program, the Economy and 2012:
Though Matt's question about meeting with Romney was ridiculous. He is aware the President has a day job, right? And for the record, I'm glad the President didn't answer the question (which I took to mean "what's the friggin' point, Matt"?)
And disappointment? You're on that canard, Matt??! Seriously?
Syria, the GOP Primary battles, and his time in the Spotlight:
The President's Super-Bowl prediction (or lack of), and Iran & Israel:
On Iran's Nuclear Program, the Economy and 2012:
Though Matt's question about meeting with Romney was ridiculous. He is aware the President has a day job, right? And for the record, I'm glad the President didn't answer the question (which I took to mean "what's the friggin' point, Matt"?)
And disappointment? You're on that canard, Matt??! Seriously?
Syria, the GOP Primary battles, and his time in the Spotlight:
Did Clint Eastwood just make a campaign ad for the President? (VIDEO)
First off, brilliant ad. But then Chrysler has been making brilliant stuff since their comeback.
Jamelle Bouie from the American Prospect:
Jamelle Bouie from the American Prospect:
[A]s befitting a car commercial, is that it focuses on the revitalization of Detroit as a template for pushing the country forward. This echoes language the president used in his State of the Union last month:
Chrysler has grown faster in the U.S. than any major car company. Ford is investing billions in U.S. plants and factories. And together, the entire industry added nearly 160,000 jobs.
We bet on American workers. We bet on American ingenuity. And tonight, the American auto industry is back.
Not only should you expect to hear more like this as the year continues, but don’t be surprised if the Obama campaign’s positive advertisements look and sound a lot like Chrysler’s.
Friday, February 3, 2012
Thursday, February 2, 2012
Wednesday, February 1, 2012
Michelle Obama's appearance on the Tonight Show (VIDEO)
Part 1 (Michelle saying the President's goregous. President's singing. Mitt's singing):
Just an hour of computer time for Sasha and Malia? Dang.
Part 2 (Malia's cellphone, Politics, and knocking out Al Roker):
Part 3 (Michelle's Book, Let's Move, Jay's vegetable challenge):
Just an hour of computer time for Sasha and Malia? Dang.
Part 2 (Malia's cellphone, Politics, and knocking out Al Roker):
Part 3 (Michelle's Book, Let's Move, Jay's vegetable challenge):
Oh, by the way the President Announces Launch of African Americans for Obama (VIDEO)
Become a "Congregation Captain?" Why...that doesn't sound anti-Christian at all, Newt.
Race Baiting and still more Willing Republicans who go along with it... (VIDEO)
I'm not sure I was with Rachel on this one, but I sure as hell wasn't with Rick Tyler...
I love how Lawrence O'Donnell ended the discussion: Name the program that Republicans passed that helped African-Americans out of poverty.
It wasn't quite crickets, but...given what Rick Tyler vomited up, it was damn close.
Also, I'm getting sick of Republicans trying to pretend racial hostility to this President isn't a dynamic worming its way through this election. Tyler spent quite a deal of time saying that it was MSNBC who brought it up.
Tyler's answer was similar to Kennedy's appearance on the Bill Maher show last week saying that the Brewer-Obama confrontation was about sexism, not racism.
(Editor's note: Of course, I can't find any video to back that claim up. The closest I could find is below, where you can see Kennedy getting revved up.)
Despite the lack of video, Kennedy falls into the Willing category, as in willing to provide cover to enable racist behavior.
Anyway, back to the main subject. That all being said, I wasn't with Rachel on this one. I hate giving anyone a pass, but what Gingrich but it didn't make me cringe. I kinda stared at him and went "Really? That's what you're going with?"
Remember, I'm an expert at what offends African-Americans, given that I'm...you know...African-American.
You want to see what did offend me? The "jig" comment dropped by Jennifer, a questioner on the Google Hangout earlier this week. It was replayed on the Daily Show (wait till about 1:59 into the video):
That made me cringe.
I love how Lawrence O'Donnell ended the discussion: Name the program that Republicans passed that helped African-Americans out of poverty.
It wasn't quite crickets, but...given what Rick Tyler vomited up, it was damn close.
Also, I'm getting sick of Republicans trying to pretend racial hostility to this President isn't a dynamic worming its way through this election. Tyler spent quite a deal of time saying that it was MSNBC who brought it up.
Tyler's answer was similar to Kennedy's appearance on the Bill Maher show last week saying that the Brewer-Obama confrontation was about sexism, not racism.
(Editor's note: Of course, I can't find any video to back that claim up. The closest I could find is below, where you can see Kennedy getting revved up.)
Despite the lack of video, Kennedy falls into the Willing category, as in willing to provide cover to enable racist behavior.
Anyway, back to the main subject. That all being said, I wasn't with Rachel on this one. I hate giving anyone a pass, but what Gingrich but it didn't make me cringe. I kinda stared at him and went "Really? That's what you're going with?"
Remember, I'm an expert at what offends African-Americans, given that I'm...you know...African-American.
You want to see what did offend me? The "jig" comment dropped by Jennifer, a questioner on the Google Hangout earlier this week. It was replayed on the Daily Show (wait till about 1:59 into the video):
That made me cringe.
Tuesday, January 31, 2012
And here we go again: Wisconsin, then Indiana, and now Arizona...
I wish I could be a little more sympathetic, but...do you see know what happens when you vote Republican, or "send the President a message" or sit on your hands on Election Day? You get this:
Look at that last paragraph, Arizona. You were pissed off about the Economy, yet the Electeds have chosen only to hear an anti-Labor message from your Vote in November of 2010.
The question is, are you going to let them get away with it?
With a sweeping series of bills introduced Monday night in the state Senate, Republicans in Arizona hoped to make Wisconsin’s battle against public unions last year look like a lightweight sparring match.
The bills include a total ban on collective bargaining for Arizona’s public employees, including at the city and county levels. The move would outpace even the tough bargaining restrictions enacted in Wisconsin in 2011 that led to massive union protests and a Democratic effort to recall Republican Gov. Scott Walker.
“At first glance, it looks like an all out assault on the right of workers to organize,” Senate Minority Leader David Schapira (D) told TPM on Tuesday. “And to me, that’s a serious problem.”
The bills were crafted with the help of the Goldwater Institute, a powerful conservative think tank in Phoenix that flew Walker to the state for an event in November. Nick Dranias, director of the institute’s Center for Constitutional Government, told TPM he sees Walker as a “hero” but that Wisconsin’s laws were “modest” compared to Arizona’s measures.
“In Arizona, we believe that the political will exists to do even more comprehensive reform,” Dranias said. “The environment, the climate that we face in Arizona is much more receptive to these kinds of reforms than Wisconsin is.”
Look at that last paragraph, Arizona. You were pissed off about the Economy, yet the Electeds have chosen only to hear an anti-Labor message from your Vote in November of 2010.
The question is, are you going to let them get away with it?
AARP acts like it doesn't know that's the exact purpose of VA's Voter I.D. Law
From Think Progress:
Virginia is joining the growing number of states attempting to pass a voter ID bill that could jeopardize the voting rights of millions of minorities, low-income voters, students, and seniors. Today, the AARP — a non-partisan non-profit organization for senior citizens — warned state GOP lawmakers that their voter ID bill could disenfranchise a great number of Virginia’s seniors. Noting that “a good percentage — about 18 percent of people 65 and older” don’t have a photo ID, the non-profit said the bill “could mean a lot of seniors will choose to stay home.” Though the bill allows for a provisional ballot if the voter lacks ID, the AARP says the bill “sends a negative message to a powerful block of voters.” “Older people want to stay connected. That is one of their greatest privileges is to be able to vote. We want them to know their vote counts and to encourage them to get to the polls,” stated AARP. Virginia General Assembly’s black caucus is holding a protect the vote rally today in opposition as well.
Ta-Neishi Coates: "MCs act like they don't know..."
Jonathan Chait:
And, as Ta-Neishi reminded us...
And let's not forget Baltimore, 2010:
The idea that Romney can "think on his feet," and that Obama is all "flash," expresses a common right-wing trope that Obama is actually an idiot: a charismatic speaker but helpless when not reading from prepared text. That is the basis for the GOP's otherwise inscrutable obsession with TelePrompTer jokes - the TelePrompTer is an extremely common political tool, but many conservatives have come to believe that Obama would be helpless without it. That belief accounts for a major portion of Gingrich's appeal -- he has painted an appealing picture of himself exposing the stammering dope in a lengthy series of debates. Among other problems, this fantasy ignores the actual history of Obama's debate performances ...
And, as Ta-Neishi reminded us...
And let's not forget Baltimore, 2010:
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)