Powerful Florida Republicans say no way to changing their electoral college votes.
Sen. Joe Manchin is working on universal background checks for guns.
Indiana Republicans want to make things even tougher for unions.
Bipartisan group of senators to introduce high-skilled immigration bill.
As expected, gay marriage passes the Rhode Island House.
A Catholic hospital argues that fetuses are not people.
George McGovern fans, take note: his personal effects are up for sale.
Leave a Comment:
I noticed the story regarding the Catholic hospital malpractice case over on Facebook earlier in the week and simply could not wrap my mind around the idea that Catholics would argue that fetuses weren't people. My WTFer overloaded.
In other news - good on Senator Manchin for working on universal background checks for the sale of all firearms! Attaboy, Joe!
Love to watch your show on MSNBC and now Maddow in the morning? Double kewl..
It's no surprise that St.Thoms More Hospital maintained that fetuses are not people when it suited their needs, when their so-called sacred doctrines, their so-called "pro-life" absolitism worked against their interest. But this case is sgnificant for another reason.
The plaintiff here was a married man, suing for the wrongful death of his wife and unborn twins. The religious right's forced-birth fanaticism has no connection to compassion for anyone, nor to any real value they place upon human life. Bible waving forced birth zealots want to re-establish a (fortunately) bygone era, when shame-based religious dogma set the rules for sex, marriage, and relationships between men and women. In this shame-based system, sex outside marriage was fiercely stigmatized, and conformity to this rule was enforced by fear of pregnacy out of wedlock. A child born out of wedlock was used as an instrument of righteous stigmatization (and none of these fanatics gave a damn about it's health or welfare). Abortion and contraception made this system unenforceable, so religious fundamentalists suddenly became "pro-life" and, simultaneously, anti contraception.
In this case, the plaintif and deceased were already married, so there was no need for specious reverence for "unborn persons," and the bottom-line driving force, advancement of organized religious institutions, reared its ugly head for all to see. This is my "shocked" face. :-|
The Malian army took another town yesterday: Hombri
They are reportedly heading toward Gao next. The same day, part of Ansar al-Dine splintered off, condemned extremism and asked for dialogue. They're calling themselves the Islamic Movement for Azawad.
I had the pleasure of meeting Senator McGovern years ago in Stratford, CT and told him he was the first Presidential candidate I ever voted for---1972 was when I was old enough to vote... he was charming, gracious and a very sweet man who was patient and tolerant of me and my friends. A true gentleman.
BlueOpalSpirit: he was my first, too! Ah...youth!
The bipartisan bill expanding H1B visas for educated and skilled workersnot only makes complete sense, it's long overdue. Can there be any downside to letting such people into our country to fill highly skilled jobs that would otherwise go unfilled, forcing technology companys to go overseas? These are the kind of immigrants we want to come here and stay here.
They have been doing that for years in Canada .
Qualified? Educated? Entrepenure
Come on Down .
These people need houses , become consumers , pay taxes...whats not to love
Re: #6
"Can there be any downside to letting such people into our country to fill highly skilled jobs that would otherwise go unfilled, forcing technology companys to go overseas?"
... because enough Americans can't be trained to fill these jobs ... because there aren't enough smart Americans? Really?
Go ahead and let these people in. But let's take a good long look at our education system and figure out why there is such a big need for them.
Dan Rather had a program a year or so ago that highllighted the mega companies bringing "highly skilled" workers to fill positions that 1) displaced existing employees 2) forced those fired employees to train their visa'd replacemernts 3) paid the immigrants far less than the American fired worker had been earning.
To your point about "not enough Americans can't be trained to fill these jobs" - really? Has anyone checked the public and private employment offices for those who have lost their jobs the last five years in some of these same fields? Has anyone checked how many graduates are leaving junior colleges and four-year schools with degrees/skills/training that could be enhanced by these companies IF THEY CHOSE TO? I cannot believe there are not enough people - unemployed Americans - available right now who could fill these jobs. To assume that our education system is not providing that training and those people now is to buy into the corporate pleas to increase the numbers of "highly skilled" immigrants.
So, yeah, I think there might be a downside or two. Klobuchar and Coons need to release information germane to their support that proves the companies are telling the truth about the unavailability of American workers for these positions. Further, they ought to insist that displaced American workers be given first opportunity for training in these positions and at what salary scales will these immigrants be paid?
If you look into it, going through normal channels immigrating to the U.S. is a lengthy and scrutinizing process, with the U.S. choosing all along the way those who will not be a burden to the country but those who will be of benefit to the country. Most countries are that way as well. Is there something wrong with going through normal channels?
We are not as a Nation going to control every woman's decision on should she or shouldn't she ,If so that to me is a form of Dictatorship even if against a Religious Dogma or the 10 Commandment's ,God and the person deals with this .We have no right to judge,only to agree to disagree .At The White Throne Judgement all is handled By our Creator .But ton take away one persons right could eventually take your right away !! Now to Universal back round checks ,Great should had been the norm always!
I wish Manchin success on getting 'background checks' into law, but they will do little good. There are 300 million firearms sloshing around this nation, and people who should not have access to them know someone who does. Thus, a 'free market' is made. From the trunk of a car, or the back of the bar.
I'm reading this summary of the gun control plan
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/docs/wh_now_is_the_time_full.pdf
I think we should remember that background checks for gun purchases were established in '93 with the Brady bill. I think it's quite ironic that the Brady bill wouldn't have prevented James Brady from getting shot by John Hinckley, as he had no prior criminal behavior. He was just crazy.
If the purpose of background checks is to make sure convicted felons don't have guns, then I gotta ask, why are convicted felons free to buy anything? Shouldn't they be behind bars? And if they've gotten out of prison, then doesn't this mean that we're assuming that zero rehabilitation is going on in our prison system, and every felon will have a 100% recidivism rate? If that's the case, then what legitimacy does our system of justice have?
Make no mistake. NRA members like background checks because they believe it will keep guns out of the hands of African-Americans. They support that policy because they are racists. They believe it is a policy that will enforce racism. Progressives support that policy because they don't really believe that gun ownership is a right, but rather a privilege we grant begrudgingly.
I suspect that all of us here would be horrified if we subject other rights to the same caveats. No one here, myself included, would think it's a good idea that women should be subjected to a background check or to see if she's mentally ill before she can have access to her right to have an abortion. I suspect we would all be horrified by the notion that we should be forced to have a background check before we can have access to our rights of free speech, our rights to peacefully assemble, our rights to be free from warrantless searches & seizures, our rights not to be forced to be a witness against ourselves, and our rights to be free from cruel or unusual punishment.
Yet, we think it's just fine when it comes to the right of gun ownership and self-defense.
Alexander Hamilton was opposed to us having any Bill of Rights at all. Not because he didn't believe in rights, but because he believed that it would be interpreted as the only rights we have. In Federalist #84 Hamilton wrote:
This concern lead to the creation of the 9th amendment, which states:
The 2nd amendment does not grant anyone the right to have a gun or to defend themselves. Those rights are inherent. Rather, it prevents gov't from taking those rights away. Thus the reason why the words "shall not be infringed" are used. Similarly, the 1st amendment does not grant you the right of free speech. You inherently have the right of free speech. Rather it prevents gov't from taking away those rights. Thus, why the first amendment begins with the words, "Congress shall make no law".
We're talking about rights here, people. It is a violation of all our rights when Dubya spied on Americans, tortured people, set up Gitmo, put protesters behind barbed wire fences. It is equally a violation of all our rights to enact legislation that turns the inherent right of gun ownership and the rights of self-defense and turn it into a privilege that we grant begrudgingly.
Firstly, I thank you for the first calm, nonpartisan, rational argument against gun control a la background checks for criminal behavior and mental instability that I have ever read. Your points are well taken.
I do disagree, though. For the exact reasons you give I'm conversely an advocate for various forms of gun control. The rights you listed cannot infringe on your neighbor's identical rights in the gruesome way gun ownership can. Yes, you could harm/kill your neighbor in numerous ways and thus unlawfully infringe on his liberty. Yes, "people kill people; guns don't kill people." What that argument lacks is the admittance that such easy to use weapons allow accidents to turn into fatalities--allow small bouts of insane attacks kill to 30 people instead of the maybe 2 he could get with another weapon. Modern guns, with their ease of use and their potential to rack up victims quickly, is precisely why they should be in the hands of law enforcement, military, and otherwise trained professionals. I can't think of any reason why the common man needs so intense a weapon in the face of the quantity of U.S. gun fatalities through accidents, sprees by certifiably insane folks, and small disputes that turned ugly (and could do so quickly because a gun is so effective a killing machine in a moment of passion). So, I circle back to my initial point about my freedoms and those of my neighbor. If my neighbor wants a weapon, I'd rather he have a weapon that won't so easily infringe on my own liberties. If he shoots a gun, it can in many cases go through his walls/yard and kill me. In a moment of passion during a dispute, he could do so much more damage to me than he could with perhaps a less dangerous weapon. It's all about scale. At what point do you continue to allow someone's interpretation of their "well regulated militia" gun ownership "right" to balloon when its scale infringes on others' safety and understanding of their own pursuits of happiness (which, it's understood in general interpretation, come with a reasonable expectation of safety)?
Marpoo, thanks for the civil reply. I agree that we do have some limitations upon our rights. My right to swing ends at your nose. We don't have the right to shout "fire" in a crowded theater.
From this we can establish a principle. My rights end when they directly take away your rights. So, for instance, we don't abridge our rights of free speech because we might shout "fire" in a crowded theater, but only when we actually shout "fire" in a crowded theater.
Secondly, if we say that it's okay for the military, police, and other trained individuals to use firearms, then does that not assume that gun owners are not trained in their use? And would people who don't own firearms have the knowledge to judge that?
There are 79 million gun owners in this country. There are 300 million guns. As a practical matter, I agree this is too much, but it also demonstrates that the vast majority know how to handle a gun safely. While we do have far too many people who die from gun homicides (some 11,000), given the numbers, it means (if I've got my math right) that only 0.034% of of guns are handled in a manner that harms others.
Yes, a bullet can go through walls and harm others. This is why self-defensive gun training instructs people to know what lies beyond your target. Furthermore, this is why people who carry for self-defense purposes will carry hollowpoints. Hollowpoints are specifically designed to lodge in a target and stop moving.
The principle of where gun ownership rights should end is when the particular weapon in question cannot be used effectively by an individual to protect themselves from other individuals. That is why I'm opposed to people owning nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons. I'm opposed to them owning tanks, grenades, and rocket launchers. But when we want to ban a rifle simply for looking scary when many hunting rifles are more deadly, we have ceased to have a rational debate on gun control.
I've said that people who aren't trained in the use of firearms shouldn't make rules governing their use. For the same reason it would be silly to allow the Amish to write our traffic laws.
I believe if the Republicans try to turn the Presidential election into a gerrymander system like they did the House of Reps, I'm going to end up getting on somebody's watch list. THAT, I will not tolerate!
I will not allow a political party to rig our elections.... I'm angry the Republicans have played tricks to make it harder for ordinary people to vote. This started with Nixon breaking into the Democrat HQ offices in the Watergate building way back in about 72. Which caused Republican Pres Nixon to resign and a bunch of his henchmen to do prison time.
Obama needs to press his Justice Department to investigate GOP dirty tricks about registering people. And look as closely at Karl Rove as the GOP did with Clinton, looking for anything they could find to impeach him. Rove needs to go to prison, if they can get something on him that he did illegally.
And Congressmen need to go to prison for voting on behalf of their contributors.... its intended to be bribery but we look the other way. That's not right. They should refuse to vote on issues related to their contributors. When will we get REAL political campaign reform? Only when the Justice Department prosecutes some congressmen for taking bribes for votes.
It's THEN you will see the federal budget get in line. The audacity of Republicans badmouthing the poor for survival foodstamps when they're on the take for MILLIONS in contributions for their partisan votes! HOW DO WE SPELL "HYPOCRISY?"
Time to vote the bastards out in 2014! All of em. Clean house. CLEAN THE HOUSE out. First Republicans who are unabashedly bought out, but also the lifelong Democrats who are TOO!
Kids are practicing lockdown drills in their schools in case something like Newtown happens in their school. My kids told me about the drill they did this week. My son asked me if the door locked from both the inside and outside. Doesn’t this hit home?
how unsuprising for the Catholic Church to now want fetuses not to be "People" when it will cost them money. Yay for hypocrisy and demonstrating that religion has no magical "truths" at all.
Rachael!!! Have you seen THIS?
http://www.alternet.org/wwjd-conservative-christian-radio-host-freaks-out-about-family-destroying-whores?paging=off
The Catholic Health Initiatives group's legal position in the Stodghill case is surprising, indeed. To argue the fetus is not a child is extraordinary, especially in a pregnancy beyond even early viability for the fetus. The hospital staff appear to have been leaderless in rendering appropriate care in this emergency situation. I would have thought doing an emergency C-section would be standard procedure.
What a conundrum for all of us, but especially for the insurance industry and the medical community to argue that malpractice insurance doesn't cover these physicians or medical personnel b/c the "fetus is not a person" and yet, insurance companies cover pre-natal care? Then, additionally life insurance companies do not issue life insurance policies on the fetuses once pregnancy has been confirmed or upon "viability" as so many legislatures are putting into law to prohibit or limit abortion. Every state seems to have multiple laws about this without the same medical standard in place; is viability at 16, 20, 24, 28 weeks or is "life" defined as the legal argument in this case as applying to "those born alive"? So if wrongful death assumes life came first, as so legally defined, how can any of these state laws limiting abortions be legal? If there is neither legal nor medical agreement on the definition of "life", how can these laws stand?
The primary purpose of pre-natal health care must then be included in current coverage to maintain and stabilize the woman's health? Could not the family's attorneys argue that performing a C-section would have relieved the stress on Lori Stodghill's body, possibly allowing her health and well-being to be the focus, and while not likely to save her life, would have given her the medical care she expected? Not using the proper medical interventions to stabilize the patient seems to be the malpractice here, regardless of the definition of life, viability, or religious directives.
We grieve this loss of life.