Author Archives: pandora

About pandora

A stay-at-home mom with an obsession for National politics.

This Week In Republican Outreach And Re-Branding

Let’s see how things are going with the Republican wooing of gays, minorities and women.

First up, the LGTB Republican love letter – that the Arizona legislature has passed (and sealed with a kiss) and the only thing that may stop Jan Brewer from signing it into law is the threat of losing the super bowl.  Priorities, people.  Anderson Cooper delivered the ultimate smack-down to Arizona state Sen. and gubernatorial candidate Al Melvin.  Seriously, watch the video.  Melvin isn’t the sharpest tool in the shed, but it seems Arizona is full of tools.

Delaware Dem covered the Arizona nonsense here.  And Arizona Republicans aren’t the only ones playing footsie with these types of laws.

Second, how’s the Republican courtship of minorities going?  Well, not to be left out, the Arizona “religious freedom” law would include discriminating against them as well, but we’ll focus on why they can’t stop lying about the Civil War and their love of the Confederate flag, aka the symbol of treasonous losers and of slavery.  (That link takes you to a must see Daily Show video.  Yep, I’m on a video kick today)  Seems like certain people need to display their “heritage” on license plates and they don’t understand why people are upset.

Nine states – Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee and Virginia – offer Sons of Confederate license plates featuring a version of the Confederate flag. Proposed plates in Florida, Kentucky and Texas have been rejected. In 2011, the board of the Texas DMV unanimously rejected a Confederate plate after hearing hours of testimony from opponents who believe the flag perpetuates racism. The Sons of Confederate veterans sued over the decision and the case remains in the courts.

If your symbol of pride and heritage is this flag then your heritage has a big problem.
And not to leave women out of the GOP love fest… I give Virginia State Senator Steve Martin:
You can count on me to never get in the way of you “preventing” an unintentional pregnancy.” I’m not actually sure what that means, because if it’s “unintentional” you must have been trying to prevent it. And, I don’t expect to be in the room or will I do anything to prevent you from obtaining a contraceptive. However, once a child does exist in your womb, I’m not going to assume a right to kill it just because the child’s host (some refer to them as mothers) doesn’t want it to remain alive.
Host?  Like a sci-fi movie?
Told ya they couldn’t shut up… and I didn’t even mention vile Ted Nugent or looney tune Victoria Jackson.  Ladies and Gentlemen, this is the Republican Party of today.  They don’t even know how to play coy.  They also are not one bit serious about changing their ways.  Feel free to add your own GOP outreach fail in the comments.

Missouri Lawmaker Wants To Make Biology Class An Elective

Fact:  You cannot teach biology without evolution.

Several years ago, my 10th grade son was taking AP Bio.  My Bio major (and quite successful immunologist today) brother asked to see his textbook.  When I (art major sister) asked why, my brother said, “Just wanted to make sure the textbook started off with evolution.  It does, so all is fine.”

Which brings us to this nonsense:

A Missouri lawmaker has proposed what ranks among the most anti-evolution legislation in recent years, which would require schools to notify parents if “the theory of evolution by natural selection” was being taught at their child’s school and give them the opportunity to opt out of the class.

The bill had its first public hearing Thursday after being introduced in late January.

State Rep. Rick Brattin (R), who sponsored the bill, told a local TV station last week that teaching only evolution in school was “indoctrination.”

“Our schools basically mandate that we teach one side,” he told KCTV. “It is an indoctrination because it is not objective approach.”

I’ve reached the point with Creationists where my only response is… Show your work.  I won’t hold my breath.  Creationists and Climate Change Denialists never do the heavy lifting – work/research is hard, don’tchaknow.  And given all the focus on STEM lately, it’s scary that a group of people are willing to handicap their children educationally.  Perhaps they really, really believe that the world needs more Communications majors?  (And that’s not a slam against true Communication majors, who are probably equally offended by all the riff-raff in their midst.)

And can we stop indulging people who don’t understand the meaning of scientific theory:

“It’s an absolute infringement on people’s beliefs,” Brattin told the Kansas City Star of requiring schools to teach evolution. “What’s being taught is just as much faith and, you know, just as much pulled out of the air as, say, any religion.”

Why, no.  No it’s not.

Science teacher organizations (what do those people know? Amirite?) weigh in:

The bill “would eviscerate the teaching of biology in Missouri,” Branch said in a statement. “Evolution inextricably pervades the biological sciences; it therefore pervades, or at any rate ought to pervade, biology education at the K–12 level. There simply is no alternative to learning about it; there is no substitute activity.”

So, why not just make Biology an elective?  Because that’s what this bill proposes.

And just to show what we’re really dealing with, HBO has a documentary on Creationists where these words are said:

“If somewhere within the Bible, I were to find a passage that said 2 + 2 = 5, I wouldn’t question what I’m reading in the Bible. I would believe it, accept it as true, and then do my best to work it out and understand it.”

And there you go.

 

Snow Day Tomorrow

Here we go again!  As of now, Brandywine, Christina and Red Clay Schools are closed tomorrow.  Nothing on Appo’s site yet, and I can’t make sense of Colonial’s (horrible site) but it looks like they haven’t called it yet.  Use this thread to keep us updated.  And, no, I’m not looking up 19 flippin’ districts.

Everyone ready?  Milk, bread, eggs? Alcohol?

Oh Look! Conservative Freak Out Over Coca-Cola Ad!

I’m sure Reince Priebus will be demanding apologies any minute!

When I saw the Coca-Cola commercial last night I knew what was coming.  (#BoycottCoke was even trending on Twitter)  And I was correct:

Former tea party congressman Allen West even took time to write a blog post during the game to voice his displeasure. For West, the ad started out strong enough.

“Then the words went from English to languages I didn’t recognize,” a troubled West wrote, calling it “a truly disturbing commercial.”

Michael Patrick Leahy over at Breitbart was offended, too.

Not only did Coke use “a deeply Christian patriotic anthem whose theme is unity – in several foreign languages,” but Leahy noted that the “ad also prominently features a gay couple.”

Fox News commentator Todd Starnes tweeted his heart out!

So was Coca-Cola saying America is beautiful because new immigrants don’t learn to speak English?

Coca Cola is the official soft drink of illegals crossing the border.

I swear, you could set your watch by these guys.

 

The Difference Between Being Broke And Being Poor

Re-posted, in its entirety, with permission by the author, Richard Mayhew of Balloon Juice.  There is a big difference between being broke and being poor.  Keep reading.

 

Being broke is not being poor

 Posted by at 12:15 pm
Jan 282014

 

Paul Krugman is reraising a common and key insight into poverty which is not well captured by federal poverty guidelines:

“By security, I mean that you have enough resources and backup that the ordinary emergencies of life won’t plunge you into the abyss. This means having decent health insurance, reasonably stable employment, and enough financial assets that having to replace your car or your boiler isn’t a crisis.”

There is a clear distinction between being broke and being poor from this insight.  Being broke means having no cash available, but having access to sufficient resources that the every day minor oh-shit moments are not a crisis as resources were available to manage the problem.  Being poor means the minor oh-shit moments can easily become a crisis because there are no resources available.

When I was in college, I was consistently broke.  I lived in a flophouse one summer with anywhere from seven to sixteen other people paying some share of the monthly rent.  The most I paid was $86.75 for August.   I sold myself to science as the pay and food was good, and I knew where there was free food offered by every department.  As a student I was broke and under federal poverty guidelines, I was poor.

However, I had resources.  I had good health insurance through my parents.  When I woke up and my knee was swollen to the size of a grapefruit while the patella had dislocated itself, I swore in pain but not in concern about how to get through the day without seeing a doctor.  I went to student health services after calculas, and then hopped a bus to see an orthopedic surgeon.  She  drained 38 CC of fluid.  I owed $20 in co-pays and had to buy a cane. I would have rather spent the $20 on beer, but oh well, I could walk well enough in three days.   When I was scrambling to come up with a security deposit for the first apartment that I would share with my girlfriend and now wife, I could go to my parents and ask that the security deposit and a good dinner with family be my graduation present.

This is a crucial distinction between being poor where there are few good choices over the long run as people operate from scarcity thinking  and being broke.  I was able to access resources and behave almost a Friedmanesque lifetime income hypothesis individual.  (As a side note, this is why I discount the experiences of the 1% who claim they were poor in college — they might have been broke, but mommy and daddy could take care of anything)  This is a weakness of the poverty guidelines as they are income based and not resources based.  Some people may have rather low incomes but have the ability to call on resources in an oh-shit scenario, and others may have slightly above poverty level incomes but have no resources that turns an oh-shit scenario into a crisis.

Health insurance is one of the most important resource that is an on-call and hopefully not needed resource, so two individuals with the same income but where one has decent health insurance and the other does not have two very different abilities to absorb bad news from a doctor.

This post struck such a cord with me.  I had to contact the author and ask permission to repost.  Luckily, he graciously agreed.  And as the mother of a sophomore in college this post resonates (if you aren’t there yet, just wait!).  Resources matter.  Big time.

Thanks again to Richard Mayhew.

 

State Of The Union Open Thread

Have at it!  I’ll be here all night!

(Am I the only one that loves these things?  Is that wrong? Or really weird?)

[Update from Delaware Dem]: Some excerpts of the speech are starting to leak, as they always do. The White House, all White Houses, do this to prep the ground and give the pundits something to talk about in the run up to the speech. Here is one such excerpt:

“In the coming months, let’s see where else we can make progress together. Let’s make this a year of action. That’s what most Americans want – for all of us in this chamber to focus on their lives, their hopes, their aspirations. And what I believe unites the people of this nation, regardless of race or region or party, young or old, rich or poor, is the simple, profound belief in opportunity for all – the notion that if you work hard and take responsibility, you can get ahead.

Let’s face it: that belief has suffered some serious blows. Over more than three decades, even before the Great Recession hit, massive shifts in technology and global competition had eliminated a lot of good, middle-class jobs, and weakened the economic foundations that families depend on.

Today, after four years of economic growth, corporate profits and stock prices have rarely been higher, and those at the top have never done better. But average wages have barely budged. Inequality has deepened. Upward mobility has stalled. The cold, hard fact is that even in the midst of recovery, too many Americans are working more than ever just to get by – let alone get ahead. And too many still aren’t working at all.

Our job is to reverse these tides. It won’t happen right away, and we won’t agree on everything. But what I offer tonight is a set of concrete, practical proposals to speed up growth, strengthen the middle class, and build new ladders of opportunity into the middle class. Some require Congressional action, and I’m eager to work with all of you. But America does not stand still – and neither will I. So wherever and whenever I can take steps without legislation to expand opportunity for more American families, that’s what I’m going to do.”

“Opportunity is who we are. And the defining project of our generation is to restore that promise.”

Sounds pretty good. I hope the President really calls out the Republicans.

In Case You Were Wondering If Republicans Got Their Act Together And United…

They haven’t.

Here’s who the GOP has responding to the President’s State Of The Union address:

1. The official GOP response is to be delivered immediately after the SOTU by Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA)

2. Americans will also get a rebuttal from Tea Party Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT)

3. Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) will give a pre-recorded address (because he’s psychic?)

4. Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL) announced Monday she will deliver her own State of the Union response in Spanish

That’s four – count ’em, FOUR! – different Republican responses.

Just sayin’

 

Joe Scarborough Thinks He’s Found A Way To Shut This Whole Hillary Thing Down

Yes, I write a lot on women issues.  I’m a woman and I have a 16 year old daughter, so I write what I know.  But I don’t know what to make of this.  Here’s Joe Scarborough pretending to think out loud over whether “invoking Monica Lewinsky against Hillary Clinton could be an appropriate tactic.”

“If Hillary Clinton attacks the Republican Party’s handling of women, and treatment of women and disrespect for women, and suggests they’re misogynists et cetera, et cetera, et cetera, it does seem to be a fair question to ask right now, a few years out, does the media have a responsibility to say, ‘Well, let’s see what happened when you were in the White House, and how women were treated when you were in the governor’s mansion and the White House?’ Is that fair?” the ‘Morning Joe’ host asked Monday morning, as quoted by Mediaite.

[…]

“Does this not compromise Hillary Clinton’s ability to bash Republicans as being terrible toward women, misogynist, et cetera?” he asked.

How exactly would Republicans use Bill Clinton’s infidelity against Hillary Clinton?  How does that look?  Would they say she was a-okay with infidelity because, if she wasn’t then she would have divorced him?  Would they say she’s sexist and misogynist because she’s married to a man who had an affair?  Most likely they would do what they love to do and tell Hillary to sit down and shut up… maybe they could even tell her to go make them a sandwich.

But whatever route they choose they will end up putting forth this message:  Ladies, you are merely an extension of your husbands.  Your opinions will only be considered if they align with your husband’s opinion and behavior.  If they don’t, well… then you may not speak on certain subjects.

How would that work?  If your husband had an affair, then no women issues for you!  If your husband had a drug addiction, then no war on drugs for you!  If your husband is rich, no income inequality speeches from you!

The only way Republicans can put forth this tactic is if they start with the premise that women are not autonomous – that every thought, idea, policy position they have must be linked to their husband’s words or behavior.  They will be judged by their husbands’ actions and then handed a list of issues they will be permitted to discuss… or not discuss.

And Joe Scarborough thinks this might “compromise Hillary Clinton’s ability to bash Republicans as being terrible toward women, misogynist, et cetera?”  Really?  That’s the game plan?

From where I’m sitting I see this tactic making the GOP look more anti-woman than they already do.  (Is that possible?)  In my post about Huckabee’s libido comment, I told you that I thought Republicans wouldn’t be able to censor themselves when it came to women and women issues.  And here we are again.  And I’d bet good money that Scarborough’s pretend musing over this tactic is high up on the Republican talking point list.  It’s no coincidence that Joe picked up the ball Rand Paul tossed onto the field – while pretending he didn’t.

But I’m still wondering what the GOP plan for this attack looks like?  How would it work?  Would Hillary utter the words “War on women” while citing the Republican’s endless attacks on reproductive rights and then the GOP would… what?  Yell, “Foul!”  Seriously, how would they stop her from discussing the war on women? Would they say, “I’m sorry, Mrs. Clinton, but you aren’t allowed to address this issue because your husband had an affair.”  Or maybe, during every interview when they’re questioned on how their policies on women contrast to Hillary Clinton’s they would simply say, “I don’t have to answer that because Bill Clinton had an affair.”

Can you tell I’m lost?  Even better, can you help me out?

 

Those Republican Classes On How To Woo Women Aren’t Working

After the 2012 election, Republicans announced that they would be changing their ways.  Call it outreach, sensitivity training, whatever, they knew they had female problems.  They also have minority problems, immigration problems, LGBT problems, 47% problems, but I’m going to focus on their female problems for this post.  Let’s start with their latest example.  Mike Huckabee.

“If the Democrats want to insult the women of America by making them believe that they are helpless without Uncle Sugar coming in and providing for them a prescription each month for birth control because they cannot control their libido or their reproductive system without the help of government then so be it! Let us take that discussion all across America because women are far more than the Democrats have played them to be,” Huckabee said.

Huckabee argued that Democrats “think that women are nothing more than helpless and hopeless creatures whose only goal in life is to have the government provide for them birth control medication.”

Huckabee also argued that his party is not waging a war on women.

“The fact is the Republicans don’t have a war on women, they have a war for women, to empower them to be something other than victims of their gender,” Huckabee said.

Huckabee’s comments would be shocking if he were an outlier in the Republican party, but he’s not, so they aren’t.  These are the views of the base of the Republican party – you know, the group that will decide who will win GOP primaries.

Take a good look at what Huckabee is saying.  Love the Uncle Sugar term.  It seems he’s comparing purchasing birth control to scoring heroin.  Uncle Sugar is the pusher, getting unsuspecting women hooked.  And, in my opinion, Uncle Sugar was a carefully placed term, designed to call forth the stereotypical image of a Hollywood drug dealer.  Just like the word “thug” is being used today.

The controlling their libido line is Republican gospel.  Good girls control their libido by not having sex, bad girls don’t.  What is it with Republicans and the Madonna/whore references?  They love dividing women into two groups – those that have and enjoy sex and… those that don’t?  Is this based on their own sexual experience?  And I’m not even trying to be snarky with this question.  I simply don’t understand how a person who has any interaction with women could express these views.

The controlling their libidos line is the equivalent of the “hold an aspirin between their knees” comment, and just as offensive.  Why do Republicans always focus on women’s libidos when it comes to sex?  It takes two, don’tchaknow.  Most men have a vested interest in their partners’ birth control.  But in GOP land sex and birth control discussions only seem to focus on those slutty women.  And when you add Huckabee’s (and others) past comments about how wives should “graciously submit to their husband’s sacrificial leadership” it all makes sense.  Men should have control over women’s sexuality.  Men should decide when a woman has sex and when she becomes pregnant.  Basically, men who support contraception aren’t really men – they are either using woman for sexy time or weak for allowing the women in their lives to call the shots.  What’s always missing from Republican discussions on sex is a healthy, functioning relationship.  It always seems to be boys will be boys, men only want women for sex and women are in charge of civilizing men… until they get that ring on their finger, then they must relinquish control and submit.

The reverse psychology bit at the end of Huckabee’s statement is priceless.  Huckabee claims that Democrats are the ones who “think that women are nothing more than helpless and hopeless creatures whose only goal in life is to have the government provide for them birth control medication.”  Really?  This coming from the party that supports waiting periods before an abortion because women have to be told to go home and think about their decision, because abortion is an… impulse buy?  Like shoes?  This is a party that supports invasive, and completely unnecessary, medical procedures before an abortion because women are… “helpless and hopeless creatures” who don’t understand what they’re doing?  It boggles the mind.

He goes on to say, “The fact is the Republicans don’t have a war on women, they have a war for women, to empower them to be something other than victims of their gender.”  Again, really?  This from a party whose latest cry against the ACA is to not only stop contraceptive coverage, but to charge women more than men because women have babies.  Another thing that takes two, and one (baby machine coverage) that you’d think “pro-lifers” would support.

Pay attention when Republicans talk about sex, birth control and pregnancy.  Notice how men are always missing from the conversation?  Me, too.

Keep in mind that Huckabee also supported Akin’s “legitimate rape” comments.  Madonna/whore all over again.  It’s what they really, really believe.  They really believe there’s rape and legitimate rape.  The GOP would just prefer their candidates kept that opinion to themselves, or if women would only take rape lemons and make lemonade.

And no matter how many sensitivity courses the GOP holds, this nonsense isn’t going away.  I doubt they’ll even be able to tone it down.  It’s who the GOP has become, and, truthfully, social issues are all they have left to run on.  Lord knows, they have no interest in fixing the economy.  Don’t believe me?  Go check out the bills they spend their time on.

Rick Santorum ripped the lid off the Republican agenda in October 2011 (not 1911, 2011) when he said:

“One of the things I will talk about, that no president has talked about before, is I think the dangers of contraception in this country.” And also, “Many of the Christian faith have said, well, that’s okay, contraception is okay. It’s not okay. It’s a license to do things in a sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be.”

That was the opening shot toward a subject that wasn’t even controversial – contraception.  I’ve included this because Republicans like to pretend the birth control wars were started by Democrats making it up.  Not true.  The GOP owns the War on Women.  100%.

Santorum, the one who uttered the word “Blah” not black, defended Huckabee.

Former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum (R) said Mike Huckabee would probably phrase his “libido” comment about birth control differently if he had a do-over.

How would one rephrase cannot control their libido?  Slave to their sexy-time urges?  Good girls just say No?  Can someone help me out here?

Now, before reading Santorum’s next whopper, scroll up and reread his “sexual realm” comment.  Okay… ready?  Here’s Santorum today:

“That’s one of the things that’s most frustrating is there isn’t a lot of disagreement on access to contraception,” he said. “Whether the government should pay for it, there is a disagreement.”

That is what’s called lying.  He, and many other Republicans, have a huge issue with access to contraception.  They love lying about it.

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) on Friday repeated the misguided conservative talking point that the birth control coverage rule included in Obamacare forces employers to cover abortion-inducing pills.

This, of course, is false.

Many conservatives, including former presidential candidates Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum, have claimed that emergency contraception causes abortions by preventing a fertilized egg from implanting into the uterus. They argue that a fertilized egg is essentially a person, the same logic that is used to lobby for fetal personhood laws.

But scientists and medical experts have debunked the claim that the morning-after pill causes abortions. The New York Times wrote in June 2012 that “the politically charged debate over morning-after pills and abortion…is probably rooted in outdated or incorrect scientific guesses about how the pills work.”

The contraception fight is on the table.  Republicans have put it there by allowing their true beliefs to take center stage – and they aren’t above lying about how birth control pills and Plan B works to “shut the whole thing down.”  (That phrase never gets old.  It also will never go away!)

So, my prediction is that Mike Huckabee won’t be the only Republican failing the GOP’s sensitivity training course – which only consists of one lesson: Stop saying what you really believe.  Good luck with that.

Wednesday Open Thread (01-15-14)

Delaware Dem is busy in the real world today, so I’m grabbing this.  First up… weekends were always a union plot and must be done away with…

A pair of Republican legislators in Wisconsin are circulating a draft of a bill that would allow a 7-day work week for the state’s workers. According to the Stephen Points Journal newspaper, the two lawmakers are floating the bill on behalf of the state’s largest anti-union business lobby, Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce.

[…]

Republicans say that the bill will expand workers’ opportunities to make money by working unconventional hours. They promise that the 7-day work week will increase productivity in the state and stimulate revenue.

Opponents of the law say that employers would likely use the law as a means of erasing the weekend and forcing employees to work longer hours without rest.

Essentially, the Republican bill would strike down a current law that says all Wisconsin factories and retail stores must give workers at least 24 hours in a row off every seven days.

Isn’t that special.

Moving on… Via TPM:

“President Barack Obama will make a personnel announcement at the White House on Wednesday afternoon, according to the White House.”

The announcement is scheduled for 3:40.  Any ideas on what this could be about?

And here’s a story that makes me hate people.  Just go read the post.  Calling a dying woman’s tweets about her, you know, dying, “deathbed selfies” is vile.  Seriously, what is wrong with these people? If you have other feelings about how people should live or die, you can keep them to yourself, Keller family and mouth-breathers at Fishbowl DC. No one asked you, and no one ever will.

My Pet Peeve Doesn’t Seem To Be Going Away

I really don’t understand why things like this keep happening.

Acclaimed molecular gastronomy chef Grant Achatz caused a stir over the weekend when he took to his Twitter account to ask his followers if a ban on babies was in order at his three-Michelin-starred Chicago eatery Alinea.

The clearly ruffled Achatz paused his dinner service to complain about a couple at his restaurant who brought in an eight-month-old, who promptly started to wail.

“Tbl brings 8mo.Old. It cries. Diners mad,” Achatz tweeted. “Tell ppl no kids? Subject diners 2crying? Ppl take infants 2 plays? Concerts? Hate saying no,but..”

Alinea obviously doesn’t encourage diners to bring their babies — there are no high chairs on site; the baby sat on its mother’s lap — but it doesn’t have a written policy prohibiting their presence.

The establishment uses a ticketing system which requires would-be patrons to reserve, and pay for, their entire meal (minus the drinks) weeks in advance. If something comes up at the last minute, Alinea allows customers to sell their reservations or hand them off to someone else.

Personally, I found Achatz’s tweet extremely reasonable.  I would have kicked the couple out, but I’m mean and this has always been one of my pet peeves.  Yes, Virginia, there are places you shouldn’t take your children.

The story goes that this couple had made reservations and their babysitter canceled at the last minute so… they should what?  If you answered anything that involves taking an 8 month old to Alinea’s consider yourself wrong.  I’m also on the fence about refunding their ticket.  What if you had tickets to a concert or an Eagles’ game and your car broke down, or you got sick?  Would you be entitled to a refund?  How would that work?  What if you took a baby to the symphony or a play or a movie and the baby started crying?  Should you be allowed to stay?

Years ago, when my husband and I were in a wedding (that my back-up sitters (Grandparents!) were also invited) I lined up a string of emergency sitters because we had to be there.  Certain events, like dinner at Alinea’s, require back-up plans.  And, yes, in the past we’ve had sitters cancel – which meant, if we couldn’t find another sitter, our plans were canceled, as well.  That’s the way it goes when you’re a parent.

But this portable child thing is nuts.  Know what it also is?  100% unfair to the child and 100% the fault of the parents who place their child in this situation.  Not the child’s fault.  The parents’ fault.  And it’s been happening a lot, and not only at ridiculously expensive restaurants.  Even at family/regular restaurants some people aren’t watching their children – most seem to watching their phones.  I’ve seen children running around these establishments (which is extremely dangerous given trays of hot coffee/heavy plates, knives, swinging doors, etc.) and going to “visit” other diners.  What is up with that behavior?  Not everyone thinks your kid is adorable.  Hell, not everyone likes kids.  I like mine, on occasion ;-), but that doesn’t mean I want to spend every second with them.  And if I’m out for an evening (with, or without, my kids) I shouldn’t have to engage with your child (that’s your job).

And when you take your children to public establishments the point is to teach them how to behave at those establishments, and if they don’t behave then you leave.  It really is that simple, and I’ve left many family restaurants with doggy bags filled with food that hadn’t yet made it to our table.  In fact, we would have the waiter bring the check immediately after we ordered so we could make a quick get-a-way, if necessary.  My child’s meltdown was not a group project.  My child’s latest knock-knock joke or new Pokemon card was not an open mic night.

The parents who took their 8 month old to Alinea were wrong.  The baby was miserable (duh) and so were the rest of the diners.  And while it’s sad that their sitter canceled, it wasn’t fair to make other diners suffer.  So, I guess I’m voting for the no kids rule.

Health Insurance Cannot Be A La Carte

Health insurance only works if it covers your health care needs and mine.  It only works if the pool is big enough.  It really isn’t a case of priorities, because, if it were, then that numbers game would result in orphan diseases (very rare diseases that only affect a few) not being covered.

And, I sincerely doubt that those advocating for not covering birth control and maternity coverage would be fighting against coverage for Adrenoleukodystrophy and Landau Kleffner syndrome – let alone Viagra.  Know why?  Because the debate now raging isn’t about the ACA.  It’s, once again, about women and sex.  It’s just another branch of the war against women, and the men who love them.

The fact that Republicans, Conservatives and the Christian Right have chosen to focus on birth control and maternity coverage is no accident.  Altho… it is kind of strange that the “pro-life” crowd isn’t fighting for maternity coverage.  No… wait.  It isn’t strange at all when you consider what these two things have in common – controlling women.  Granted, they’re controlling them in different ways, and I’m having trouble making sense of it.  It seems they’re saying… Birth control is wrong/evil/sinful, so it shouldn’t be covered (because they believe it shouldn’t be covered, and that’s the only reason) which will lead to more unwanted pregnancies (that they also don’t feel should be included in the health insurance pool, because… I don’t know… penis?) which then leads to a demand for abortions – and we know they don’t want that covered.  What’s a woman to do?  Demand that any disorder/disease of male sex organs not be covered?  Why not, since that’s what those against covering birth control and maternity are demanding.

When I first took birth control pills, it wasn’t for sex.  I had ovarian cysts.  Later, it was because I didn’t want to get pregnant.  Both are 100% legitimate reasons.  One is not more legitimate than the other.  Go on and read that again.  And again, if necessary.  Birth control pills, etc. are part of woman’s/couple’s economy.  And the reason, any reason, for using them is nobody’s business.  But it seems like a lot of people want to put their sanctimonious noses into other people’s business.

I wrote this post for two reasons.  First, the Little Sisters of the Poor issue.  If you’re not familiar with their tactic of trying to force everyone to follow their religion (guess their message isn’t persuasive enough) here it is:

Does religious liberty extend to the right to not have to fill out paperwork? That’s the latest position religious organizations are taking against the Affordable Care Act (ACA). It’s crazy, yes. But, welcome to the future of “religious freedom” litigation.

[…]

The Little Sisters aren’t paying for contraception even through a third-party-secured insurance plan; they certainly aren’t being asked to distribute it, and Catholic nuns aren’t being force-fed birth control pills. They simply have to sign a piece of paper saying they’re a religious group, and then turn to a third party to negotiate all the details.

Their claim that even this accommodation violates their religious liberty is telling. These ACA-related “religious liberty” arguments aren’t actually about the freedom to exercise your own religion, or the right to be free of doing something that violates your conscience. These assertions are about an overwhelming sense of entitlement on behalf of religious organizations to force anyone within their reach to adhere to their beliefs.

[…]

The Little Sisters case is extra rich because, as it turns out, the Christian Brothers Trust insurance group can refuse to provide contraception and will face no fines or consequences. That’s because the Trust is a self-insured “church plan”, which means that the Little Sisters can designate the Christian Brothers as the third-party administrators, and if the Brothers still refuse to provide contraception coverage, the government can’t fine them (pdf). In other words: the Little Sisters can continue operating exactly as before, and nothing will happen.

Since certain religions look more like political activists it might be time to start taxing them.

The second reason I wrote this post had to do with a discussion on another thread.

It started with this comment from Dave (not trying to pick on you, Dave!):

I think we need people to comprehend that health insurance is not health care and vice versa. This has never been about health care. It’s about how families afford it and pay for it. Engaging in marginal fights over contraceptives when children can’t get treated for serious illness was and is silly and is a no win situation, especially when the public equates contraception with drug store rubbers and the implied purpose of the same. But let’s leave no stone unturned in the Sherman Williams approach (paint covering the world). By God, we are going get everything under the ACA umbrella, even if it affects the core purpose. Outstanding strategic planning and execution! (emphasis mine)

Let’s consider that comment.  I pointed out, that to women, contraceptives aren’t a marginal fight.  To the vast majority of women contraceptives are a daily occurrence.  They aren’t marginal, they are necessary if you don’t want to have 12 children.  And the public, at least those under 70, don’t equate drug store rubbers with contraception.  Yes, they are part of contraceptives, but not the only part and certainly not one that women control.  I was snarky in my reply to Dave, stating, “Leave it to a man to dismiss contraceptives as a marginal fight.”  But, come on!  What part of the public equates contraceptives as drug store rubbers?  Older men?  Certainly not Catholic, Protestant or Evangelical women.  Seriously, this is not a marginal issue.  Take a look at these tables:

Among women who have ever had sex, % that have ever used a contraceptive method other than natural family planning
Protestant
All women Catholic Mainline Evangelical Other None
Yes 99 98 99 100 98 99
No 1 2 1 0 2 1
Population 53,195,675 13,365,042 12,295,740 13,507,644 4,869,328 9,157,921
Unpublished tabulations of the 2006-2008 National Survey of Family Growth.

Current contraceptive use among women at risk of unintended pregnancy,* by religious affiliation
Protestant
All women Catholic Mainline Evangelical Other None
Highly effective methods 69 68 73 74 60 62
   Sterilization 33 32 34 41 23 26
   Pill or other hormonal 31 31 35 28 31 30
   IUD 5 5 4 4 6 6
Condom 14 15 13 10 25 17
Natural family planning 1 2 1 1 1 1
Other 5 4 4 6 5 7
No method 11 11 10 9 9 14
Population 42,711,521 10,635,049 10,017,708 10,992,501 3,744,769 7,321,494
*Refers to sexually active women who are not pregnant, post-partum or trying to get pregnant
Source: Jones RK and Dreweke J, Countering Conventional Wisdom: New Evidence on Religion and Contraceptive Use, New York: Guttmacher Institute, 2011 and unpublished tabulations of the 2006–2008 National Survey of Family Growth.

 

Obviously, the female public doesn’t equate condoms with contraceptives.  If they did, the number using condoms would be higher.  Know what is a high number?  The percentage of women who have used contraceptives.  Like Joanne said in that thread… we aren’t talking about sparse eyelashes here.  In fairness to Dave, he is a huge supporter of contraceptives.  He just seems to be saying we can’t have everything – that we should give up contraceptive coverage so we can treat sick children.  I called that a false choice, because if we really want to go down that path then we would be giving up a lot of health services in the name of children.  It’s Logan’s Run all over again!

When you don’t want or can’t afford having a baby birth control isn’t a marginal issue.  It’s economics 101.

In October 2012, I wrote a post on Joe Scarborough mainsplaining the economy to women.  Here’s the part where my head exploded:

But the comment that actually had me stopping in my tracks was this bit of mansplaining by Joe Scarborough.  Joe was scolding Mika, telling her how abortion wasn’t a big issue outside of Los Angelos and Manhattan, that most women are concerned about the economy.  Here’s who Joe cited to show how unimportant abortion is in this election:

“I talk about the waitresses.  I could talk about the single mom who’s a school teacher in Des Moines who’s raising three kids on her own.”

Take a good look at that example and ask yourself if maybe, just maybe, controlling whether or not she has a fourth child will effect her economy.  Right there – there’s the disconnect.  Access to birth control and abortion are economic issues to women.

Pregnancy and birth control are economic decisions – bigger than the price of gas at the pump.  Just sayin’.

And as I wrote this post another comment appeared on that thread which feeds into this debate.  A suggestion made by commenter, radef16, which states:  “Allow buyers to purchase only the coverage that they want or need.”  No, no, no!  That is not how insurance works.  Perhaps I should have written a post on how insurance works, because some people don’t get it.