There’s A Hot Wind Blowing

Posted: March 5, 2012 | Author: | Filed under: #Occupy and We are the 99 percent!, Anti-War, Austerity, Banksters, Civil Liberties, Department of Homeland Security, financial institutions, income inequality, Russian elections | 8 Comments

There were few surprises in yesterday’s Russian election.  Vladimir Putin won in what he declared a ‘clean victory.’  For his side.

“]

Arrests in Moscow--image via SkyNews

For protestors of the last few months, the White Ribbon movement, opinion was to the contrary, comments generally expressing ‘shame, disgrace, treachery.’  Yet according to official results, Putin pulled a 64% majority, well over the 50%, which would require a run-off vote.  Independent observers, however, reported widespread irregularities, insisting that Putin’s majority was perilously close to the 50% cliff.  According to one observer, Roman Udot, with Galos, a free election watchdog organization, which recorded many cases of multiple voting and voter intimidation:

“It’s one pixel away from a second round.”

What was the reaction to Putin’s victory speech?  Thousands of protestors hitting the streets in Moscow and St. Petersburg.  And combat-style police, 12,000 reported in Moscow alone, on the ready.

One of the details that piqued my interest was the fact that Putin’s support comes heavily from elderly pension holders.  Putin has been wise enough to keep the pension money flowing, even with a slight increase.  For the older generation, Putin is the Devil they know.  For the digital-savvy young?  Not so much.  The educated middle-class have reached a tipping point, disgusted with governmental fraud, corruption and political lip service to democratic principles.

This is not a new phenomenon.  Social uprisings have been springing up all over.  Currently, we’re watching Syria fall apart, desinigrating into civil war.  This is on the heels of insistent calls for change across the Middle East—Egypt, Bahrain, Yemen, Libya—the message of which spread like a virus across Europe, the UK, the United States, Japan, China and now Russia.

Say what the pundits will but just beneath our own political process, the charade of another electoral season guided and shaped by money and corporate interests, there’s a hot wind blowing.  The strident cacophony of the right wing, each member trying to outdo the other with outrageous comments or the pitiful whines of Wall St. bemoaning the decline in kingly bonuses, only underscores the obvious: the self-regulating, free market, privatize-the-world philosophy is a bust.  Fraud is as wide as our broken housing market, the Big Lie deeper than a fracking well.

The intriguing question is what common denominators run through all these movements, despite the vast geographical/political differences?  And why, presumably, did these social/political movements catch so many pundits, experts and leaders by surprise?

These are two of the questions, Paul Mason, a UK journalist and Economics Editor for the BBC attempts to answer in his book: ‘Why It’s Kicking Off Everywhere: The New Global Revolutions.’  Mason brings on-the-ground reporting, essay-like reflections, economic insights as well as a historical perspective to what we read in the headlines, websites and tweets of last year.  And what we might expect coming at us, all of us in the coming months.  He also does an effective job of bringing the pain, the anxiety, the suffering of people caught in the jaws of poverty, austerity and political crackdowns to life. We can see it.  We can feel it and understand that we share more with the rest of the world than we have differences.  This is a shattering truth.

The ‘why’ of the Dissent that Circled the World is intricately tied to the shuddering economic principles of globalization, fueled by a neoliberal narrative, the particular type of capitalism that has been favored and defended for the last forty years and has enriched the top 1% at the expense of everyone else.  This is a system that insists markets are self-regulating, that free, unimpeded markets are the path to Paradise and privatization is always superior to public [government] direction.  It is an ideology that refuses to look at the damage caused to vast swaths of the world’s population–the liberties extinguished, the income inequality produced, the environmental destruction–the very realities which are rejected, even when the evidence is undeniable.  For instance, the global economic collapse and the implications of climate change.

Mason has reduced the drivers of the world-wide pushback to three main factors: graduates without a future, the rise and sophistication of social networks and the change in consciousness those very networks have produced, particularly as it relates to the definition of freedom and what that really means to ordinary people.  Social networks—Facebook, twitter and cell phone usage—have changed the way we see and interact with one another and have fundamentally erased barriers of class, nationality, language and geographical distances.  This is the hum of the hive and it’s growing stronger, which is why it’s regarded as a threat.

Anyone thinking the use of the word ‘threat’ is hyperbole should check the recent bill [HR 347] passed overwhelmingly in the US Congress making it a felony to participate in many of the Occupy Wall Street protests of last year.  In fact, the bill has been coined the ‘anti-Occupy bill.’  Why haven’t we heard about this?  Where is our brave press, the Fourth Estate, defending American liberty?  They claim it simply isn’t relevant—no big deal.  Interesting too–not a single Democrat voted against the bill’s passage. Not one. In fact, it’s reported that only Ron Paul and two other Republicans voted ‘nay.’  The bill’s vague language leaves the discretion regarding events of ‘national significance’ up to the discretion of the Department of Homeland Security.

Why is there a hot wind blowing?  This is why.

“]

Occupy Portland, February 29, 2012--AP photo/Rick Bowmer

Can We Admit That What We’re Seeing Is More Than . . . ‘Weather?’

Posted: March 5, 2012 | Author: | Filed under: Capitalism 3.0, Climate Change, Environment, Environmentalists, ethics, globalization, Rick Santorum, Rush Limbaugh | Tags: , , | 16 Comments

These are some images from my neck of the woods from this past weekend’s round of ‘weather.’

Now granted, I’m not a native of the southeast—South Jersey girl here.  But the locals tell me that vertical winds are a hellva lot different than tornado touchdowns, particularly when you’re living in hill country, in the shadow of the Smoky Mountains.  Locally, this time we were fortunate—some downed branches and yard mess.  The major damage was to the east and south of us.  Last year?  Not so much. 

In fact, last year’s April storm front in the southeast produced 280+ tornadoes in 3 days.  Historic, the headlines screamed.

If this were merely a local event, we could chalk it up to bad luck and Mother Nature in a cranky mood.  But consider that earth-orbiting satellites have been gathering scientific data not previously available, giving us the ‘big picture’, data on a global scale. The following evidence has been accumulated:

  • Sea levels are, in fact, rising, the rate of the last decade nearly double that of the last century.
  • Global temperatures are on the rise, increasing since the 1970s with the 10 hottest recorded temperatures within the last 12 years.
  • The oceans have been warming since 1969, measureable temperatures increasing in the top surfaces [2300 ft] and the acidification of the oceans has increased by 30% since the start of the Industrial Revolution.
  • Glaciers are retreating, the Arctic sea ice is shrinking and the ice sheets of Greenland [36-60 cubic miles per year between 2002-2006] and the Antarctic [36 cubic miles per year between 2002-2005] have declined.

According to NASA data, there are certain facts beyond dispute:

The heat-trapping nature of carbon dioxide and other gases was demonstrated in the mid-19th century. Their ability to affect the transfer of infrared energy through the atmosphere is the scientific basis of many JPL-designed instruments, such as AIRS. Increased levels of greenhouse gases must cause the Earth to warm in response.

Ice cores drawn from Greenland, Antarctica, and tropical mountain glaciers show that the Earth’s climate responds to changes in solar output, in the Earth’s orbit, and in greenhouse gas levels. They also show that in the past, large changes in climate have happened very quickly, geologically-speaking: in tens of years, not in millions or even thousands.

We can take the facts and data of NASA, their orbiting satellites and sensors or we can fall back on the word of say . . . a Rick Santorum, who has proven himself such an expert on other subjects.  According to Santorum in a speech in Colorado:

[Climate change is] an absolute travesty of scientific research that was motivated by those who, in my opinion, saw this as an opportunity to create a panic and a crisis for government to be able to step in and even more greatly control your life. … I for one never bought the hoax. I for one understand just from science that there are one hundred factors that influence the climate. To suggest that one minor factor of which man’s contribution is a minor factor in the minor factor is the determining ingredient in the sauce that affects the entire global warming and cooling is just absurd on its face. And yet we have politicians running to the ramparts — unfortunately politicians who happen to be running for the Republican nomination for president — who bought into man-made global warming and bought into cap-and-trade.

We can argue the merits of cap and trade but I find it comical that Santorum is running around talking about Satan on one hand—a Santorum absolute–while denying climate change on the other.  This is a ‘don’t trust your lying eyes’ moment.  And certainly don’t trust science.  He continued with:

We were put on this Earth as creatures of God to have dominion over the Earth, to use it wisely and steward it wisely, but for our benefit not for the Earth’s benefit … We are the intelligent beings that know how to manage things and through that course of science and discovery if we can be better stewards of this environment, then we should not let the vagaries of nature destroy what we have helped create.

Huh?  I’m not sure what this rambling statement is intended to mean, other than we shouldn’t let nature clue us in that we’re skating on the edge, pushing the health of the planet and its inhabitants to the max.  Full steam ahead with those extractions, boys!

Of course, Santorum is not alone in this type of denial.  Rush Limbaugh, who has had his fair share of attention in the last few days [not of the good kind], had this to say after declaring climate change a ‘hoax’:

I happen to believe in God. I believe in a loving, brilliant – I know that this – there is no way, I don’t want to sound simpleton here, but there is not – it is not possible that we would be created by a creator in such a way that we would destroy by virtue of our created existence our own planet and environment. It just doesn’t compute and yet that’s what these people are trying to tell us. [Premiere Radio Networks, The Rush Limbaugh Show, 2/2/11

All righty then!  God, a loving brilliant God, would not allow us to destroy ourselves.  Scrap all that science and data, the fat man speaketh.

Beginning to see a pattern here?  We can believe in myth—Satan’s going to getcha and/or a benevolent, personal God-creator, who would never allow Man to be stupid enough to destroy His/Her creation.  No problem then.  Keep spewing those toxins into the air, don’t worry about contaminating our water supply and . . . heat?  What heat?

Despite the relentless war on climate data in particular and science in general, it turns out the public is beginning to catch on to all the corporate-friendly tap dancing.  After a dip in public sentiment about Climate Change and the mass investment in misinformation, Americans are using their powers of observation and taking heed to the mounting evidence.  According to the Brookings Institute National Survey, Fall 2011, a strong majority [62%] of the American public now believes that global warming is real and poses a threat to global security.  Observation to local effects of warming temperatures and world-wide reports of floods, droughts, freakishly warm temperatures, melting ice sheets, ocean acidification and the effects on wildlife and fauna are slowly turning opinion.

We cannot wait for a benevolent God-spirit to save us.  We’ll need to do that for ourselves, sooner rather than later.  Because we won’t get a second chance.  As Naomi Klien recently stated any real shift towards climate sustainability means a shift in the entire free-market ethos that depends on continual growth, massive extraction and profit-making over people.

. . . you can’t do it all with carbon markets and offsetting. You have to really seriously regulate corporations and invest in the public sector. And we need to build public transport systems and light rail and affordable housing along transit lines to lower emissions. The market is not going to step up to this challenge. We must do more: rebuild levees and bridges and the public sphere, because we saw in Katrina what happens when weak infrastructure clashes with heavy weather—it’s catastrophe. These climate deniers aren’t crazy—their worldview is under threat. If you take climate change seriously, you do have to throw out the free-market playbook.

In the end, so many of these pressing issues are related to a flawed economic and political model—the current corporate state.  It will be up to us to reimagine a new system or as Peter Barnes suggested in ‘Capitalism 3.0,’  it’s time to upgrade.

Because there’s no place to run or hide.  Earth is the only home we have. Reclaiming the commons isn’t optional; it’s a must.  And personally?  I’m just not into wicked tornadoes.

UPDATE: The Red Cross is now asking for donations for storm ravaged areas in the Southeast.  Contact your local offices for information. Or go here.

In The Land Of The Delusional

Posted: March 2, 2012 | Author: | Filed under: 2012 presidential campaign, Austerity, double-speak, Economy, income inequality, Mitt Romney, religious extremists, Republican presidential politics, the GOP, U.S. Economy, War on Women, Women's Healthcare | 16 Comments

In the Land of the Delusional the Koch brothers are principled citizens who merely disagree with Democratic policy stands and are aghast at the vindictive slurs leveled against them and all other sincere, freedom-loving Republicans.  In the Land of the Delusional, the hate and rage on review is a product of pink-bellied Lefties, Alinski acolytes, looking to take down American virtue and reduce the country’s might and glory.  In the Land of the Delusional bankrupt ideas, economic mayhem and privateering can be obscured by attacks on woman, gays and the down and outers.

March is living up to its reputation—coming in like snarling Lion.  Rush Limbaugh exposed a full Monty of misogyny, his comments on Sandra Fluke provoking even House Speaker Boehner to suggest the diatribe was ‘inappropriate.’  What inspired the outburst?  Several weeks of desperate frontal attacks on women’s healthcare issues, thinly veiled and wrapped beneath ‘religious liberty’ arguments.

Let’s not kid ourselves!  This is little more than shifting the conversation from discussion over economic issues, for which the Republican party has no credible position.  The US Budget Watch has reported that Republican plans to slash taxes on corporations and high-income earners would explode the national debt up to $3 trillion. And for all the ballyhoo by the Norquist group the Washington Post reported [as well as many other sources] that the country’s revenue-collection has eroded to a 60-year low.

From the WP report:

Polls show that a large majority of Americans blame wasteful or unnecessary federal programs for the nation’s budget problems. But routine increases in defense and domestic spending account for only about 15 percent of the financial deterioration, according to a new analysis of CBO data.

The biggest culprit, by far, has been an erosion of tax revenue triggered largely by two recessions and multiple rounds of tax cuts. Together, the economy and the tax bills enacted under former president George W. Bush, and to a lesser extent by President Obama, wiped out $6.3 trillion in anticipated revenue. That’s nearly half of the $12.7 trillion swing from projected surpluses to real debt. Federal tax collections now stand at their lowest level as a percentage of the economy in 60 years.

Trickle Down Economics in Nature

But why let facts stand in the way.  Paul Ryan, the Republican’s designated ‘serious thinker’ certainly doesn’t.

Ryan also complimented Romney’s economic plan. The congressman’s stamp of approval has been important for Republicans since he earned praise last year for his ambitious budget — which would dramatically change Medicare— from strong conservatives.

“Very credible. They are talking about entitlement reform. They are putting specifics on the table on Medicare and Social Security reform. The president, knowing that these are the big drivers of our debt, is ducking it,” Ryan said of Romney’s proposals.

Ah, yes.  The ideologically blind leading those blinded by ambition.  That certainly gives me confidence.

But as Paul Krugman suggested a mere 10 ten days ago, Mitt Romney let slip a truism in the swirl of Michigan campaigning when he said:

“If you just cut, if all you’re thinking about doing is cutting spending, as you cut spending you’ll slow down the economy.”

Over which the ideological purists set the dogs loose.  The Club for Growth immediately denounced the Romney slip, insisting that it was a clear indication that Mitt was an imposter, not a ‘true’ limited government conservative [translation: not willing to drown all government in that Norquist bathtub].

What’s a candidate to do?  Retreat, of course, in the same way Romney flipped on the Blunt Amendment, breaking all records, I would guess. In less than an hour, Candidate Romney twisted from ‘not going to go there’ to ‘of course, I support it.’  Enough to make your head spin.  This is a political party in the death throes.

So, what’s the best way to distract?

Let’s pillory the women, start calling them sluts or suggest they film sexual exploits for the sake of some overweight, mean-spirited shock jock.  Or let’s pretend that the perceived decline of the Nation rests squarely on the shoulders of the Gay Community and their screechy insistence that they too expect and deserve [can you believe the gall of these people] basic civil rights.  And don’t forget the statistics on the ever-expanding numbers of Americans slipping into poverty.  We tried calling them losers and moochers.  How about we deny they exist, the way a North Carolina legislator recently announced.  Yes sir, that’s the ticket!

In the Land of the Delusional schizophrenics rule the day, magical thinking replaces reason and bare-foot and pregnant is a very good thing.  In the Land of the Delusional all things are possible.

Except the truth.

I See Dead People

Posted: February 27, 2012 | Author: | Filed under: 2012 elections, 2012 primaries, corruption, Democratic Politics, Environment, Environmentalists, George W. Bush, Politics as Usual, Republican politics, Tea Party activists | 23 Comments

Maybe this should be the new Republican mantra for a suitable candidate in 2012.  If Republican politicians aren’t conjuring up the ghost of Ronald Reagan every fifteen minutes, they can go back further into the annals of GOP glory and dig up another Republican corpse.  Say . . . Ike Eisenhower.  And lo and behold, that’s exactly what NY Times columnist Ross Douthat attempts in his recent “The Greatness of Ike” piece, which extolls the General’s many virtues, bemoans the fact that Eisenhower is overshadowed by the likes of FDR, ties for twelfth-place in POTUS rankings with Jimmy Carter and is generally under appreciated.

The man may have a point.

I recall Eisenhower’s warnings about the industrial/military complex being aired frequently throughout my living memory.  Yet no one has paid much attention beyond nodding and saying: yes, the man was right.  I suspect the current state of affairs, the country involved in a decade of senseless war, where defense contractors and mercenaries have been made fat and happy, proves the General’s point.  Only problem for the Republicans is that it was likes of George W. Bush, Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld who led the disastrous charge into Iraq on false allegations, hyped-up claims about weapons of mass destruction, and then offered a breath-taking defense of torture for national security purposes.  Even more startling, they got away with it, leaving the country bleeding and bankrupt in their wake.  All in the name of democracy, freedom and ‘shop ‘till you drop’ exhortations.

It was a moment of infamy, as someone once said.

This is why the glance backwards always skips over those inconvenient years of woeful mismanagement and fiscal insanity.  No doubt the current batch of 2012 candidates, the Fearless Four, bring angst to all Republican hopefuls convinced, only a few, short months ago, that a 2012 victory was inevitable, a piece of cake.

A powerful dose of nostalgia makes the medicine go down easier.

Surely, the good ole days seem ever more grand as Rick Santorum raises the flag for a home-grown theocracy and dances with the Devil, Mitt Romney continues to stumble over his own tongue [revealing his wife drives ‘two’ Caddies], Newt Gingrich beats his breast over the secular plot to undermine America and Ron Paul, the cuddly libertarian, begins to look and sound strangely reasonable.

What’s a true-blue Republican to do?

Dig up some corpses.

Am I, a thoroughly disenchanted Democrat gloating?  In a pinch, yes.  In the long-term, no, because I’m stuck with a candidate I did not vote for in 2008, a man who has proven himself less a champion of Democratic principles than even I ever expected.

As a Nation, we are stuck in a rut for which there seem few alternatives.  The legacy parties offer nothing but more of the same—craziness on one side and the uninspiring ‘we suck less than they do’ on the other.  As a voter, I’ve vowed to go 3rd party  in November [unless the Republicans were to choose Santorum, then I’ll vote directly against him].  However, in the larger frame all I see are monied interests, directing and maneuvering what is suppose to be a ‘free’ election.  It has virtually nothing to do with me or my values.  On the contrary, it’s all about the persistence of a political class and their cash-soaked benefactors calling for war and protecting their national interests, the gutting of our social contract; the unwillingness to formulate a sensible energy program sans the giant fossil fuel companies’ interference or address the critical and devastating slippage in education, infrastructure, healthcare and employment opportunities.

We have plenty of money for bombs.  But not our people.  Bailouts are bad.  Unless our representatives are saving the asses of and colluding with the corrupt TBTFs.  Water and food is the stuff of life until there’s a pipeline, gushing with sludgy oil and money, to compromise both.

Ed Rollins, former Reagan strategist, made a statement recently about the 2012 Republican field:

“Six months before this thing got going, every Republican I know was saying, ‘We’re gonna win, we’re gonna beat Obama.’ Now even those who’ve endorsed Romney say, ‘My God, what a fucking mess.’

That about sums it up, not simply about the Republican field but the entire country.  It is an effing mess.  And there’s no savior on the horizon.  In fact, there’s no savior anywhere.  Unless we, the American public, do the saving.  But that means coming together on issues where we can agree.  The gridlock in DC gets us absolutely nowhere.  It’s enough to put anyone into a funk.

But then this morning I read an article about environmentalists and Tea Party activists coming together to fight Keystone XL, the pipeline extension from Nebraska to Texas.  For the Tea Party,  it’s all about individual property rights and the way TransCanada, a foreign company, has attempted to strong-arm property owners.  For the environmentalists it’s about preserving fertile farm land and a major aquifer from the too real danger of irreversible contamination.  The nexus of agreement between these two wildly divergent political groups is this: the Keystone pipeline does not serve the public’s interest.

That’s the winning hand: the public’s interest.  Not the oil companies, not the 196 people funding the SuperPacs, not the banks, not the Democratic or Republican parties.

What serves the public’s interest.

We, American citizens, can find ways to work together or continue to be spectators to the endless political theater, the Kabuki dance we call elections.  And once more we’ll be digging up corpses, which could very well be our own.

Dueling Op-Eds And the Great Divide

Posted: February 26, 2012 | Author: | Filed under: birth control, Congress, Elizabeth Warren Campaign, fetus fetishists, fundamentalist Christians, PLUB Pro-Life-Until-Birth, Scott Brown, The DNC, the GOP, War on Women, Women's Healthcare, Women's Rights | 13 Comments

It will be a fine fight for the Senate seat in Massachusetts and the lead up is not disappointing.  The Horse Race is now turning into a duel at thirty paces.

Elizabeth Warren offered the first volley, making her position clear on the  contentious dispute over women’s access to contraception under the Healthcare Reform Act.  She stated in no uncertain terms that exclusionary waivers for contraception access were outrageous.  She supports President Obama’s compromise and expressed shock at Scott Brown signing onto the Blunt amendment that would allow employers deny coverage for ‘moral or religious reasons.’  Speaking to Greg Sargent last week she said:

This is an extreme attack on every one of us.  It opens the door to outright discrimination. It would let insurance companies and corporations cut off pregnant women, overweight guys, older Americans, or anyone — because some executive claims it’s part of his moral code. Maybe that wouldn’t happen, but I don’t want to take the chance.

Neither do I.

But even if the language in the Blunt amendment were airtight, I’d oppose it and find the suggestion totally unacceptable.  I pay taxes for wars for which I was never consulted and absolutely disagree with.  That’s against my moral code.  Can I get a tax refund now?  I also think giving vulture oil companies subsidies is a ludicrous and immoral practice.  Another refund?  Oh, and those Wall Street bankers, the greed, the fraud that American taxpayers got stuck for?  I want my money back, now.

We can all play this opt-out game.

So, where does Scott Brown come down on the question of women’s healthcare?  Quelle surprise!  He’s rubberstamping the irrational GOP position.  But by doing so, he takes a 180-degree spin from his 2002 vote, when he supported a mandate on contraception, the Church be damned!  Nonetheless, his answer to Warren?  Through spokesman, Colin Reed:

It’s elitist for Elizabeth Warren to dictate to religious people about what they should believe and how they should act. She wants to use the power of government to force Catholics to violate the teachings of their faith.  That is wrong. This issue deals with one of our most fundamental rights as a people — the freedom of religion. Like Ted Kennedy, Scott Brown supports a religious conscience exemption in health care.

Nice going, Mr. Brown.  It’s wrong today but wasn’t wrong in 2002.  The political winds must have been blowing differently a decade ago.  And we’re conjuring up the ghost of Teddy Kennedy?  Shame on you.  But what I really like is the word ‘elitist,’ which is the Republican/Fox News buzzword for ‘those snooty people, who are not real Americans.’  Real Americans drive a truck like Scott Brown–back and forth to a home in Wrentham valued between $1-2.3 million.

Yup, just like average folks!

Lest we forget, there’s a reason Scott Brown was named by Forbes magazine as one of “Wall Street’s favorite senators.”

To be fair, Elizabeth Warren is no financial slouch.  Both Warren and Brown have done extremely well for themselves.  They’re both lawyers, educated, well-heeled professionals, standing on either side of the Great Divide we call politics.  The issue of contraception has been put into play, an issue that according to all polls marks Warren’s position as the undisputed winner.

The Boston Globe ran Dueling Op-Eds on the issue.  Warren’s editorial is here.

She starts with that withering image of the Republican panel that Representative Issa managed to convene—a panel of five poker-faced, middle-aged men discussing contraception and religious rights.  In the optics department it was a devastating image.  Out of touch much?  A prime female health consideration and you fail to have women on the panel?  Says everything we need to know on the Republican mindset.  Elizabeth Warren then takes Scott Brown to task not only for supporting the proposed Blunt bill but fighting to get it passed.

If you are married and your employer doesn’t believe married couples should use  birth control, then you could lose coverage for contraception. If you’re a pregnant woman who is single, and your employer doesn’t like it, you could be denied maternity care. This bill is about how to cut coverage for basic health care services for women.

Let’s be clear what this proposed law is not about: This is not about Catholic institutions or the rights of Catholics to follow their faith. President Obama has already made sure religious institutions will not be forced to cover contraception – at the same time that he has made sure women can get the health care they need directly from their health care insurers. Carol Keehan, the president and CEO of Catholic Health Association, said that Obama’s approach “protects the religious liberty and conscience rights of Catholic institutions.

And Scott Brown’s answer:  It’s a matter of fundamental fairness.  Really?

Here’s the beginning of Brown’s statement:

The new ObamaCare mandate forcing religious organizations to offer insurance coverage for practices that violate the teachings of their church gives the government control over the most personal aspects of our lives. It also erodes one of the basic protections of the Constitution – the right to practice religion without government interference.

The federal government is now saying to religious hospitals and charities, “Just do what you’re told, and leave the moral questions to us.’’ This over-reaching dictation from Washington is one reason I opposed and voted to repeal ObamaCare.

Which, of course, fails to answer the earlier question: why was a mandate A-okay in 2002, yet oh so wrong now?  Possibly because then it concerned RomneyCare.  The name makes all the difference in the world!  Interesting, too, that according to Think Progress:

Brown also voted for a 2005 bill mandating hospitals to offer emergency contraception to rape victims, even after lawmakers defeated his amendment to allow religious hospitals to opt out of the requirement. Brown split with then-Gov. Mitt Romney on the matter and joined the legislature in overriding his veto.

And the American public?  The polling numbers on the issue of contraception and subsequent WH compromise are revealing:

Obama’s compromise takes this politically charged issue off the table for mainstream Americans, most of whom side with Obama. A Fox News poll conducted last week before Obama’s Friday announcement found that 61 percent of voters believe employer health plans should be required to cover birth control for women, while 34 percent disagreed. Among women, two thirds approved of the requirement.

Rush Limbaugh may scoff at the issue.  But for women?  This is a very big deal.  Because birth control means reaching this point in our lives:

When we’re ready.

And Mr. Brown?  You’re not only a hypocrite on the issue, you’re definitely on the wrong side of history.

← Older Entries
Newer Entries →