That'll Teach 'Em!

Whatever else may be said about yesterday's "Day Without Women" (and many people amply covered the fact that it was more a day without privileged women, as working class stiffs and single moms needed their pay and possibly had to scramble for childcare due to closed schools and such), I'm just not sure women are good at protest.

When we want to protest the objectification and sexualization of women, we go topless through the streets or wear vaginas on our heads.  And when we fear that Trump is going to roll back women's rights and return us to stereotyped gender roles, we... stay home and let the men handle things?

Ok, then. (It was sort of refreshing to have the most self-righteous voices on my FB wall silent for a day, though.)

Carcass, Venezuela

It's about a decade too late to do any good, but nevertheless it is astonishing to me that this piece ran in The Guardian.  It's about the devastation of Venezuela -- and the Western morons like Oliver Stone and Sean Penn who helped. 

The show is over now. Their fantasies fulfilled, the western tourists have left a ruined country behind without a guilty glance over their shoulder. Venezuelalooks as if it has been pillaged by a hostile army, though there has been no war.

And: 

Never underestimate the power worship of those who claim to speak for the powerless, or the credulity of the supposedly wised-up critical theorist. 

And:

The thoughts of Venezuelans, who watched as westerners treated their country as an ideological playground, cannot be dismissed lightly, either. “There should be a special circle in hell for them,” Thor Halvorssen, the founder of the Oslo Freedom Forum, told me. The regime shot his mother and jailed his Venezuelan father. It holds his cousin, the opposition leader, Leopoldo López, as a political prisoner because he had the nerve to oppose it. Halvorssen thinks the Chavistas would not have gone so far in debasing the constitution and looting the state if it had not been able to count on a herd of bovine leftists mooing down all who raised concerns about fundamental rights.
These are the worst leftists imaginable as they show solidarity with oppressive states rather than oppressed peoples. So they stayed silent when Chávez – in the words of the International Trades Union Confederation – engaged in persistent discrimination against organised labour. They neither knew nor cared that corruption is the most brutal of burdens on the poor because the poor cannot pay bribes to obtain the services they should receive by right. 

P.S.  Shouldn't Oliver Stone & Sean Penn and Danny Glover and Harry Belafonte and Noam Chomsky go visit Venezuela NOW and do something to feed the people?

Hillary Sends Us Kids to Camp

Mrs. Clinton thinks adults don't have enough fun and proposes adult summer camp to remedy the situation. To be fair, she was addressing a group of camp counselors, so labored camp analogies were to be expected, but Hillary's earnest and mandatory approach to filling the "fun deficit" sounds decidedly un-fun.
 
For example, I think she was trying to be humorous here, but she lacks a light touch and it just falls like a SCUD: 

“We could have the red cabin, and the blue cabin have to come together and actually listen to each other. Wouldn’t that be a novel idea,” she said. “We really need camps for adults.”

 Prof. Ken Masugi (whose heritage is Japanese) remarks on his FB wall: "FDR sent my parents to a camp in northern California."

Quite. 

Can't Take Any Ayn Anymore

Does Ayn Rand have any actual disciples today?

I'm aware that Alan Greenspan was once in her thrall and her literal circle of admirers and I know that people like Clarence Thomas & Paul Ryan confess Fountainhead or Atlas Shrugged had an impact on them in their youth, but they say it in precisely the way other people say they loved Zen & the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance. It's understood they've moved on, and it would be backwards not to have moved on.

When people denounce Conservatives because they like Ayn Rand, isn't that a straw man? Who actually does like Ayn Rand?

Apropos of having seen the umpteenth blog post on Ayn Rand, I have to say I immediately assume anyone who writes such a post does not follow or understand a thing about politics. Am I wrong?

WaPo Editors Don't Know What an Idiom Is

Surely the stupidest thing WaPo has ever published is this bit of old tosh on the Maryland state motto. Some dude who proclaims himself a translator says it is "sexist in any language." The motto in English is "Strong deeds, gentle words," but the author has himself in a snit because the Italian original is "“Fatti maschii, parole femine."

“Fatti maschii, parole femine” (the second word is pronounced with a hard K sound, “mask-ee”) is an old Italian proverb. According to the state of Maryland, the phrase translates to “strong deeds, gentle words.” Yet this is willfully misleading. The direct translation is hardly gentle: “Manly deeds, womanly words.” I’m a professional literary translator of Italian, but don’t just take it from me.
Giuseppe Patota, the director of the Garzanti Italian Dictionary in Milan, says that the phrase “has distinctly sexist connotations, and the translation proposed by the state of Maryland misses its literal meaning.”

The first comment on the piece gets the only possible reaction just right: "Oh fer crissakes."

Misses the literal meaning? Or accurately translates the meaning of an expression? Have we fallen so far that a linguist, a professional translator and whatever editors might exist at WaPo online can't recognize an idiom when they see it?

Next installments from this guy:

• Midwesterners are backwards and don't understand biology: elbows don't really have grease. 
• "To be caught red-handed" is an anti-Native American slur.

The author is said to be working on a book on translation. Oy!

Give The President What He Needs

...to destroy himself and his Obamacare.

OMG, Republicans. When your political enemy is flailing, don't rescue him. Obamacare is an unmitigated disaster. WaPo knows it, and Bill Clinton and others are stating it all but openly. There is every reason to believe that come January, millions more people will be uninsured than before the law took place and people hate it and recognize that the President knew this would happen --people losing their insurance plans is a necessary step in getting them into Obamacare-- and straight-up lied about it for years.

Sen. Landrieu has proposed a "fix" that will kill the program, as that link above explains. (Or here's an explanation from the Conservative perspective -- either way.)

For the love of all that is holy, GOP-ers, do NOT oppose the Landrieu bill and propose your own alternative as this article says you are doing. If you do, the President will go the American people and claim, "We're trying to fix it, and Republicans don't want to help you at all."

Shut up, behave in gentleman-like manner, and tell the President, "Whatever you want to do to make good on your promise people can keep their plans, we will give you, as long as it doesn't raise taxes and government doesn't subsidize insurance companies, we are with you."

The Dems passed Obamacare without a single GOP vote, let them own it fully.  For once in your paltry, self-centered little lives, focus on people and families and not on your friends at the insurance companies  -- who were all eager to belly up to the Obamacare cronyism trough. Let everyone lie in the bed they made and just defend little people.

You are not going to do anything serious about Obamacare until you retake the Senate and/or the Presidency. Focus!

 Image shamelessly pinched from American Digest

Update: Different point, but I am too lazy to do a separate post, and it's still about Obamacare. In this case, how they're trying to sell it to young people (at least in Colorado) with a revolting series of ads. So revolting that even the local Planned Parenthood assumed they were parody. Simcha Fisher with good commentary on that.

most amazing of all?  These ads are not fake. Not satire.  Not a mean-spirited dig meant to rub dirt in the wounds of real people with real needs.
Planned Parenthood of Colorado, however, assumed they were. 
They indignantly sputtered on Twitter:

Unfortunate that anti-obamacare folks are #slutshaming #women who use #birthcontrol  #GotInsurance #ThanksObamacare http://twitpic.com/dkxrep

So there we are, folks.  Things have gotten so awful that even the awful people can't tell if the other awful people are being awful on purpose in a good, compassionate, progressive awful way, or in the old-fashioned, mocking, whatevershaming awful way, because THEY'RE JUST ALL SO AWFUL.  Oh, sorry, am I awfulpersonshaming?  Am I moronshaming? Hey, give me a break.  It's been a tough year, and I'll take what I can get.
Race to the bottom, folks.  If you're lucky, you'll only be paying 300% more for your insurance when you hit the floor.

Worst case scenario? Obamacare is repealed by 2014 so the Dems have a chance to win re-election. Best case scenario? It stays and destroys our healthcare system and closes all Catholic hospitals (because what no one has focused on is there's not just the HHS mandate, there's also the massive regulatory burden on not-for-profit hospitals that is going to kill them all anyway, even if we win the right not to pay for anyone's abortion or casual sex in court).  Then a series of free clinics run by nuns will spring up in response to exactly the same kinds of needs that sparked Christians to create the very first hospitals -- and there will be a vocations boom because people will see that they are needed and want to give themselves out of love. And in 50 years, a re-birth of freedom!

Grown Ups Ruin Everything

WSJ has a story this morning on kids and the sugar in Halloween treats. On the one hand, I love it because if offers scientific evidence (or rather, lack thereof) of an opinion I have long held: that there's no such thing as a sugar high.

There is controversy, too, over whether children really experience a sugar high, possibly followed by a sugar crash, after eating too many sweets. Many parents and teachers might swear the phenomenon is real. But scientific studies have failed to find consistent evidence.
The body's ability to increase its tolerance for sugar might explain why some people experience a sugar high and others don't, suggests Dr. Lustig. "You don't see a sugar high in adults," he says.
Marion Nestle, a professor of nutrition, food studies and public health at New York University, says the idea of kids experiencing a sugar high is largely anecdotal.
"People swear by it, that if a lot of sugar is coming into a little body at once, that kids are bouncing off the walls," says Dr. Nestle. "But I'm not aware of any documented evidence." 

On the other hand, here's another article documenting the lengths uptight, killjoy adults will go to suck the fun out of any feast day. Here are dentists buying back Halloween candy, parents sanctimoniously parcelling out one candy at a time, and worst of all: leaving the candy out by the jack-o-lantern overnight, when the tooth-goblin-fairy replaces it with a gift. Thanks be to God the Weedlets are getting a bit long in the tooth for trick-or-treating, but I hope that doesn't catch on. Just what every busy parent needs: another gift-buying occasion, when part of the fun of Halloween is FREE treats and no shopping beyond the usual grocery run.

The piece tells us all the dangers of sugar -- but for crying out loud, they are dangers of prolonged and regular sugar use, not one feast day's indulgence. Use the scary information to revamp your eating habits the rest of the year long and let the feast days be treat days as intended. I don't understand people who let their kids lead sedentary lives and serve dessert every night and then suddenly on Halloween, Thanksgiving & Christmas get the idea they should limit sweets. Or who, on the contrary, lead health-conscious lives all year long and can't let an occasional day be special. Can't think of a better way to fail to teach moderation than to spoil every holiday with unnecessary disciplines and be undisciplined all year long. Nor can I think of a better illustration of our culture's dysfunctional relationship with pleasure.

Some families have extended their anti-candy inclinations to the trick-or-treaters coming to their door. Ms. Brekke-Hutchings, in Seattle, says she has purchased 96 glow sticks to hand out on Halloween. As for the candy she buys from her own children, "We just throw it away," says Ms. Brekke-Hutchings. "It feels wasteful, but if it's not good enough for my kids, why should I give it to someone else?"

I don't mind the glow-sticks. Glow-sticks are fun. But throwing away purchased, still-wrapped food? If you feel that strongly about it, why trick or treat at all? Have the courage of your convictions and throw a party instead or admit that Halloween doesn't mean anything to you. But collecting treats from neighbors who gave it to you to enjoy and throwing it out instead of allowing someone to enjoy it is indeed wasteful. And a few other choice words.

Update: My spy in NY sent me a link to a British blog writing about an effort to ban candy bars at grocery check-outs. Someone in the story has to say the obvious: "there's nothing wrong with sweets."

Junk food at checkouts under fire as new health minister says she wants to stop parents being pestered by children

So politicians are going to stop children pestering their parents, are they? Good luck with that. How about we have politicians that stop pestering us?

Years ago grocery stores stateside instituted -- not in response to government regulation, but in response to parents tired of candy-pestering at the end of a grocery run-- a candy-free check out aisle. It was supposed to be family friendly: no candy bars, no fashion magazines with lewd covers and headlines. That was fun while it lasted. Now, however, those aisles are filled with over-priced "healthy" organic juice-sweetened snacks, over-priced electrolyte & acai berry infused flavored waters, little junky toys, and everyone seems to have forgotten about the no-Cosmo-for-kids rule. The stores are going to sell you something --and whatever it is will probably be less worthwhile than a Butterfingers bar.

Here's a thought about parental pestering: parents could learn to say "no."

The Stupid Party Strikes Again (Or: Syriously?!)

Can someone explain WHY on earth John Boehner is supporting strikes on Syria?

• It's not moral. As my twitter friend says:

Nowhere on the list of conditions required to prosecute a just war will you find...Face Saving. #Syria
— Stephen Hollingshead (@PolicyDr) September 2, 2013

What Just War DOES require is "proportional response" -- meaning proportionate to a moral end. Obama's own words "shot across the bow" tell us this strike isn't intended to DO anything, it's just for show.

• Moreover, strategically, such a strike will either do nothing whatever OR what if by some fluke it were to actually take out Assad and even further chaos were to descend? Then we're drawn into a war and for what? Who are we supposed to side with? Al Qaeda? Iran? There are zero good outcomes for us in Syria. And a "shot across the bow" is liable to embolden our enemies, not teach them a lesson, as Marc Theissen argues in the link just above. 
• Politically, what does the GOP gain? A share in the blame for a stupid -- and enormously unpopular on a bi-partisan basis-- policy. It's important the President take all the blame for this policy if he's going to go through with it. 

Immoral, politically and strategically stupid..... why?

More and more the GOP just seems like an unthinking caricature of itself. Tax cuts and military tax cuts and military tax cuts and military. Anyone thinking about how to apply principles in specific situations?


I suppose what they think is they are going to prove they aren't obstructionists. Fine fellas, but not even of wicked deeds?

Sigh. Neither the cause of peace in the Middle East, nor the country, nor the party, nor any individual politician stands to gain anything from supporting the strikes in Syria. So why?

Update:  Eliot Cohen makes as good a case FOR the Syrian intervention as can be made (subscribers only), but he front-loads all the counter-arguments, which to my mind outweigh the alleged good which he states as follows (link is to a Weekly Standard excerpt of the full piece:

[A]s a practical matter, critics can ask why the U.S. should intervene after a massacre, however hideous, of some 1,400 Syrians, when America has refused to act over the slaughter of 100,000 in the preceding two years. And, even if the U.S. strikes at Assad and helps bring about his downfall, the danger is real that having administered a defeat to the regime and its sponsor, Iran, America will hand a victory to al Qaeda.
These are all serious arguments. But weightier are the counterarguments. For better or for worse, the credibility not only of this president, but of America as a global power and a guarantor of international order, is on the line. If the U.S.—after its president said two years ago that Assad must go and then, a year later, drew a red line at Syria's use of chemical weapons—now does nothing, profound conclusions will be drawn by a China ready to bully its neighbors, by a North Korea whose scruples are already minimal, and by an Iran that has already killed many Americans in a covert war waged against us in Iraq and Afghanistan.
America's friends will realize that its word means nothing. As a result, they will either abandon us, or arm themselves with nuclear weapons. And these countries will be increasingly willing to wield them in a world in which they have no great ally who may be counted upon to stand by them in an hour of need.

I say it's too late for that. The world already knows we're unserious and not going to stand by our friends because we elected Obama twice: Obama who needlessly insults our allies; Obama who turned victory in Iraq into defeat and Obama who is busily withdrawing from Afghanistan by blowing up our own materiale we're leaving behind in our haste to exit. And Obama who, as Cohen points out in earlier 'graphs, declared a red line, declared he was going to strike and then:

On Saturday, when President Obama overruled his advisers, reversed his own policy, and declared that he whould not act against Syria until Congress had its say, he did not -- as he might have-- recall Congress for that purpose. Instead, Mr. Obama said he would wait for 10 days or more. Then he promptly left the White House for the golf course. Later this week, he'll travel to Stockholm and then to St. Petersburg, Russia, for a G-20 Economic summit. 

To make a serious point about America's policing the world, you have to BE serious, and if your little message has unforeseen consequences, you have to do serious follow up on the mess you make, which Obama won't. It is not possible for Obama to command the respect of the world; he isn't a serious person, he has no commitment to this task, and the American people are tired of war and he is not the man to rally us. So, even though I take the point about our standing in the world and see that he has made things more dangerous for Americans everywhere, still no. Because he is not the man for the job and is just going to make things worse. A "shot across the bow" invites more mockery and looks just as weak if not moreso than doing nothing.  And there's a serious chance of turning Syria over to al-Qaeda.

Update 2: Heh. Similar points but oh so deliciously expressed. 

We Are Just So Dumb

The Marines are opening infantry training to women.

We've gotten to the point where there is no telling anyone anything, you just have to shut up and let people be stupid and reap consequences (more about that later with respect to another topic; I'm writing about this not because it's deepest on my heart but because it's quickest to discharge what I have to say).

Either the standards will drop (which is what happened in the Army infantry) or in 10-15 years' time we will be telling sad tales of woe about how the Marines used women and have lawsuits against the government being  filed by female veterans whose joints have all broken down under the wear and tear. The female hip and knee joints were not engineered for this and are not going to weather it well. It takes no special wisdom to see that coming.

Leaving aside the mindless egalitarianism that insists equality is sameness, isn't this a further sign that we are fundamentally un-serious as a nation? We can't imagine we need to defend anything -- not really-- so we are fine with playing games with our armed forces. Nor do we recognize our enlisted men and women as that -- men and women, persons. If I had a buck for every time in the past decade I had heard or read someone saying, "Well, they volunteered," as if people's volunteer status obliterated humanity, absolving us from the duty to honor their sacrifice by not throwing their lives away lightly, I could send my kids to college. In a free nation with a volunteer army, when a person says, "I will live in crap conditions and sacrifice some of my freedom and lay my life on the line for you," that is a sacred trust and the nation says in return, "Thank you. I will never put you needlessly at risk."

This decision is like the internet meme "first-world problems." Some decisions you make only because you are wealthy and complacent and can -- and can't imagine things could ever be any different than they are.

I Think Fr. Frank Just Won

After Gramma Pelosi proclaimed (or appeared to proclaim) late-term abortion "sacred," Priests for Life founder Fr. Frank Pavone called her out, asking her to have the decency to renounce Catholicism instead of pretending to be "devout" (though any practicing Catholic would tell you that no actually devout Catholic would ever refer to himself as devout; saying that of yourself is de facto proof it ain't true).

In an interview with Think Progress she laughs his challenge off -- says if it had been more "intellectual" and less "hysterical" she might have taken it seriously. But I think she also admits she's not Catholic here.

I grant the Church where they are on abortion. That’s where they are, that’s where they have to be. But my faith isn’t about what their position is.

It's a bit ambiguous. Possibly the "they" is Priests for Life since she denounces them before and after. But she seems to say here that her faith has nothing to do with what the Church teaches.

The interview is revealing, not only because it shows she's as ignorant as she appears, but because it demonstrates what's not even on her radar. Here 's what she says about Roe v. Wade (note her dismissive referral to the March for Life as a "parade"):

I’m not sure that the Republicans actually want Roe v. Wade to be struck down. Their base does. But from their standpoint, they’ve had plenty of opportunities to strike Roe v. Wade. They have these parades every year on the anniversary of Roe v. Wade, but they have not acted in a way that would take it to the courts. Now, other people outside have their cases and all that. But President Bush, with a majority in Congress and a court inclined to strike down Roe v. Wade, he didn’t need to do it. And that should tell you something. They want the issue. Better to have the issue. Because if they strike it down they will have such a backlash in the country. [Emphasis in original.] 

Nancy Pelosi --former Speaker of the House-- does not value the authority of Congress! She thinks Republicans aren't serious (some of them certainly aren't, but that's another story), and her evidence is that they haven't done what Lefties do, which is try to impose their views through judicial diktat. It does not even occur to her that there could be any other way to function. Similarly, look at how she speaks of Bush "striking down" Roe, as if that were a Presidential power or as if the President has any control over the SCOTUS. (Makes you wonder what the relationship between Dem presidents and their appointees is, doesn't it?)

This calls to mind John Allen's piece about Christians in Nigeria wanting to be peaceful, but not able to bring the Muslims to the table until they fought, because Muslims could only understand non-violence as weakness. Legitimate legislative processes that honor the Constitution and the will of the people are so far off Pelosi's radar, she can't recognize that her opponents are working within them. Honorable politics are a cipher to her!

Kindness Requires A Permit

This kind of thing makes my brain explode. A guy's been giving homeless people haircuts for 25 years -- even was honored by his city for humanitarian work not too long ago-- and now he's been forbidden by city officials to keep going.

The justification for our massive government is that people aren't taken care of without government programs. But then when individuals step up with charity-- of a kind that's much more of a balm to the human spirit because there is human interaction involved-- they're forbidden by the government to do so.

Plus, you know, DUMB. Wasn't there a crack house the police could have raided instead?

I Think The Bishop of Horace Mann Should Resign

Horace Mann Apologizes for Abuse but Won't Start New Inquiry

Horace Mann, the elite Bronx private school, said on Friday that it would not commission an independent investigation into allegations of widespread sexual abuse there over several decades, even as it issued a public apology to victims. 

If only teachers were allowed to marry.

Bishop Jeffords-Schori: Demonic Posession Is A Spiritual Gift

In case you missed it, the woman America's Episcopalians elected their primate went down to Venezuela and preached an interesting sermon -- one in which she rebukes St. Paul for his masculine presumption in stealing a possessed girl's "spiritual awareness" from her.

Paul is annoyed, perhaps for being put in his place, and he responds by depriving her of her gift of spiritual awareness.  Paul can’t abide something he won’t see as beautiful or holy, so he tries to destroy it.  It gets him thrown in prison.  That’s pretty much where he’s put himself by his own refusal to recognize that she, too, shares in God’s nature, just as much as he does – maybe more so!

Just to be clear, the passage from Acts 16 describes Paul casting a demon out of a slave girl whose masters are using her possession to make moolah. The possessed girl is holier than St. Paul, according to the chief bishop of the Episcopal Church in the United States.

I wonder if she is also holier than Jesus, who was known to cast out a few demons himself? Is he too guilty of not being able to recognize "beauty" which is "different"?

As Simcha Fisher says, please, Episcopalians,

get out now.  Your church is bonkers.
I'm not even kidding.  If you read your bishop's sermon and a cold horror came creeping over your mind, please remember:  the Catholic Church is here.  We will always be here.  We will always be waiting.  We have a couple of insane bishops, too, but they hardly ever get interviewed by the New York Times, and many of them are actually decent scholars, and faithful and courageous guys.

Indeed. This is what Benedict XVI made the Anglican Ordinariate for. 

Fred Phelps Is A Democrat

The money quote in this story about one of the Westboro Baptist girls leaving the cult and becoming a gay rights activist is this:

In the old days, Gramps was a Democrat and a civil rights lawyer. He ran for governor in the ’80s. I remember driving around in his red truck in parades, throwing candy and stuff. We would have these big barbecues in the backyard. Al Gore came to my house for a fund-raiser once.

Naturally. You've gotta be Progressive to hate like that.

Almost On to Something

Photo credit: facebook page of "Liberal Ladies Who Lunch (TM)"

Here's another supposedly devastating sexually progressive poster that proves the point of traditional morality (see this one). The Liberal Ladies Who Lunch are not going to sleep with you for a whole eight days until you stand up for them in favor of making those mean old bishops pay for their IUDs.

Not sure how convincing an 8 day sex strike would be, but focus. So...they are convinced that the sexual behavior of females has a profound effect on that of males and therefore women are the custodians of culture?

I can swing with that. Imagine what will happen the day these lunching ladies let the implications of that power really sink in?

Gramma's At It Again

Pelosi says the Church hasn't enforced its contraception ban, so now it wants government to do it.

Yes, dear.

(Because if I refuse to buy you a drink, I'm making it impossible for you to have one.)

I'm pretty sure if the Church were in the enforcement business, Pelosi wouldn't dare say such a thing.

The amazing thing is that she defends HER support of contraception on the ground of individual conscience rights!

Curtsy: CMR

Why People Don't Trust Psychiatry

...and further evidence of Fox News' continuing collaboration in the pornification of America. One Dr. Keith Ablow, a psychiatrist and life coach, argues that not only should we overlook Gingrich's two marriages, but they actually give him a character advantage as President.

After all, three women have wanted to spend their lives with him. He can connect with many voters.

And he's had to be the bearer of bad news to two wives, so he'll be able to tell Congress things it doesn't want to hear, too.

Two women—Mr. Gingrich’s first two wives—have sat down with him while he delivered to them incredibly painful truths: that he no longer loved them as he did before, that he had fallen in love with other women and that he needed to follow his heart, despite the great price he would pay financially and the risk he would be taking with his reputation.

Conclusion: I can only hope Mr. Gingrich will be as direct and unsparing with the Congress, the American people and our allies. If this nation must now move with conviction in the direction of its heart, Newt Gingrich is obviously no stranger to that journey.

Hey, maybe divorce should be a pre-requisite for the presidency from now on. 

This is why, except for Brett Baier, I hate Fox News.

Happy Meals Return To San Francisco

You're not going to believe this.

Come Dec. 1, you can still buy the Happy Meal. But it doesn’t come with a toy. For that, you’ll have to pay an extra 10 cents.
Huh. That hardly seems to have solved the problem (though adults and children purchasing unhealthy food can at least take solace that the 10 cents is going to Ronald McDonald House charities). But it actually gets worse from here. Thanks to Supervisor Eric Mar’s much-ballyhooed new law, parents browbeaten into supplementing their preteens’ Happy Meal toy collections are now mandated to buy the Happy Meals.
Today and tomorrow mark the last days that put-upon parents can satiate their youngsters by simply throwing down $2.18 for a Happy Meal toy. But, thanks to the new law taking effect on Dec. 1, this is no longer permitted. Now, in order to have the privilege of making a 10-cent charitable donation in exchange for the toy, you must buy the Happy Meal. Hilariously, it appears Mar et al., in their desire to keep McDonald’s from selling grease and fat to kids with the lure of a toy have now actually incentivized the purchase of that grease and fat — when, beforehand, a put-upon parent could get out cheaper and healthier with just the damn toy.

Why, it's almost as if bureaucratic intervention served no purpose but to raise the price of a good and cause the very behavior it was supposed to solve!

This Is Not An Answer In Good Faith

I wrote my senators and congressmen as I do a couple of times a year, this time asking them to co-sponsor the Respect for Rights of Conscience Act. That's the legislative effort to nullify proposed HHS regulations which force religious institutions to fund abortifacients and voluntary sterilizations or confine themselves to treating only their own.

I always write short, polite, factual letters and refrain from insulting people or telling them how to do their job. For my pains I have a string of the most preposterous and insulting "bug off" letters back from purported public servants.   Here's the latest.

Senator Mikulski just wrote me back on conscience rights. Her response? I can't defend your right of conscience, or insurance companies will stop covering blood transfusions.

Here's her letter in full:

Thank you for getting in touch with me to express your support for the Respect for Rights of Conscience Act of 2011 (S. 1467). It's good to hear from you.

 

I want you to know that I have given the abortion issue very serious consideration. As someone who represents such a diverse constituency, I support respecting the individual conscience, so that each woman can decide for herself whether and when to have a child. I also support respecting the rights of medical students and doctors in their choice whether or not to perform abortions. Provider conscience protections allow health care workers to refuse to provide health care services based on moral or religious objections, and I have voted in favor of these protections.

 

I am, however, concerned about the scope of S. 1467. This legislation would allow any health care insurer or institution to refuse to cover or provide any health care service based on the beliefs of an individual affiliated with the institution. This goes much further than protecting the rights of an individual medical provider. This could result in health insurance plans refusing to cover a range of medical services – from organ transplantation to blood transfusion to family planning services – because of the beliefs of one individual.  Similarly, this legislation could result in a hospital denying a woman needed medical care in the event of a life-threatening pregnancy. 

 

I appreciate knowing of your support for the Respect for Rights of Conscience Act of 2011 (S. 1467).  This legislation is currently pending in the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP).  I will keep your thoughts in mind should this legislation come before the Senate.

 

Thanks again for writing.  Please let me know if I can be of assistance in the future. 

Sincerely,
Barbara A. Mikulski
United States Senator

Blood transfusions? Seriously? (Actually, I would have no problem if the Jehovah's Witnesses ran an agency if they refused to cover blood transfusions for their members presuming that policy was fully disclosed. Nothing requires a person to work for a church group.)  The stupider accusation is that a single member of a company  can block care for anyone on a whim; that's not what we're talking about here. We're talking about the right of a free association of people not to be complicit in actions they find morally odious.

Senator Mikulski "respects" the "conscience right" of a woman to abort her child, and believes Church groups have no right not to participate in that act.

Says The Man Who Smooches Castro

Carter says religious leaders discriminate against women.

Former President Jimmy Carter says much of the discrimination and abuse suffered by women around the world is attributable to a belief "that women are inferior in the eyes of God."
Carter said such teachings by "leaders in Christianity, Islam and other religions" allow men to beat their wives and deny women their fundamental rights as human beings.

I think you can leave the Christians out of that, thank you very much. I grant there are some traditionalists who are a little too selective in their reading of Ephesians 5, focusing on wifely "submission" to husbands while ignoring the husbands giving up their lives in service to their wives part. (Elsewhere described as "mutual submission in the Lord.") But that is in no way of the same order as the Islamic consideration of woman as of the devil.

If Carter imagines himself to be defending women against radical Islam and feels he needs to toss Christianity in there so as not to inflame the hyper-sensitive, fine, but where do you get off talking human rights at all after locking lips with the Castro brothers for days and days, with nary a word about political prisoners in Cuba? 

I guess Marxism fares better because it represses men and women equally?