February 10, 2012

Obama’s grand compromise

Obama shifts the object of his imperial mandate. The problem is, rules or laws that provide exemptions to specific identity groups are ripe for corruption — and there’s no more reason that the federal government should be able to direct insurance companies to provide free contraception that it should the Catholic church. And by making the accomodation a waiver or derivation, Obama is still asserting his own Executive authority to tell private companies how they must spend.

Catholics shouldn’t have to go on bended knee before the State and beg for a conscience exemption for providing the kind of coverage it wishes to provide. And the State should not have the arbitrary power to pick and choose who must follow laws, who gets waivers and exemptions, and so on.

Obama’s “accommodation” is meant solely to hide his underlying power grab: namely, the unstated authority of the State to set these kind of dictatorial demands on private industry, and by extension, on individuals.

Agreeing not to use your powers in particular instances as a show of benevolence is not the same as acknowledging that you aren’t an all-powerful king granted the power to direct markets by mere whim.

Posted by Jeff G. @ 12:11pm
210 comments | Trackback

Comments (210)

  1. I will not rest until my local mosque provides a bacon healthcare benefit! I get nosebleeds, and I vote!

  2. I wonder when all of the hyperventilating about “the imperial Presidency”, will resume in earnest?

    Silly question; right after Obama is voted out :)

  3. And, dammit, I want the bacon grease back in my cartridges!

    Bacon! Is there anything it can’t do?

  4. Ace illuminates the lie behind the compromise:

    So here’s how this works.

    I’m an insurer. Here were your two options, before Obama’s brilliant solution:

    I could cover your employees for x dollars.

    If you want birth control/abortifacient coverage, we’ll add that rider for y dollars. So this option is x + y dollars.

    Obama’s genius solution is:

    Hey, we’ll cover your employees for x + y dollars as a baseline. But we’ll toss in abortifacient coverage for 0 dollars.

    Uhhh… That x + y is what it cost to have base insurance + birth control/abortifacient coverage. All that’s being done here is that people are lying about the costs — now the insurer and the contracting party lie and pretend the base insurance cost is x + y (which it isn’t; it’s x) and also pretend the cost for the birth control coverage is 0 (which it isn’t; it’s y).

    All Obama’s doing is mandating that employers enter into a contract with insurers in which both parties pretend that the base cost of the service is higher than it is, and that abortifacient coverage now costs zero dollars.

    I’m sure Obama has played these kinds of games many, many times in his life: just pretend that it’s a particular way on paper even though we know it isn’t.

    Wink wink nudge nudge. It’s the Chicago Way.

  5. BBL, off to get new skins for the wife’s ride…

  6. Don’t overlook the sly way The Padishah Emperor of the Known Universe slipped in a positive right to birth control there, while also laying the groundwork for the government’s positive duty to ensure preventative care.

    For whatever the Government wants to prevent.

    SLAVERY IS FREEDOM!

  7. Two thumbs up!

  8. But up what? is the question geoff.

  9. With all due respect to Ace, when he writes,

    All Obama’s doing is mandating that employers enter into a contract with insurers in which both parties pretend that the base cost of the service is higher than it is, and that abortifacient coverage now costs zero dollars.

    — this is not so. It isn’t about that.

    What he is doing, in addition to as Ernst notes, asserting a positive “right” to contraception, is asserting the State’s power to mandate, even if in order to do so he can wink wink nudge nudge with those he’s directing, assuring them that they won’t be hurt on the bottom line costs, and that they’ll probably even get some good PR from women’s groups. Win win!

    Meanwhile, the State is directing private companies as to how they must at the very least appear to spend.

    And once that becomes a precedent, the “appear” will be the first thing to go.

  10. Ace is right about the pretending, and you’re right about the motive for pretending plus all the larger implications.

    Even the LA Times calls this compromise “Magical Thinking.”

    Let’s hope there are enough people with enough integrity to flat-out say that the wink wink nudge nudge is risible, ridiculous, transparent, and absurd.

    That the Emperor hasn’t a stitch on; pass the eye bleach.

  11. That the Emperor hasn’t a stitch on; pass the eye bleach.

    But aren’t his privates blessed and comely? A thing to be desired? Sr. Carol Keehan evidently thinks: quite so! More of that, please!

  12. Di, that Banff image opens on my 7″ Kindle Fire at about 5 feet by 3 feet. Vast scrolling fun.

    Firefox for Android needs to do like Firefox for Windows and open giant images by default at screen scale instead of full scale.

  13. I DID say it was hi-res.

    I also have no empathy for hand-held Internet gadgets. They swallow people whole and you never get to have another face-to-face conversation with them again.

  14. #7 was for Jeffs post Ernst. I was pressed for time.

    Since at least the 2010 election Obama has been ruling by asserting that he has some power or authority to do this or that and leaving it to us to make the long slog through the Congress or the courts to show that, no he doesn’t have this power.

    This strategy is similar to the slew of frivolous ethics complaints made by Bonior against Gingrich in the 90s and by the Democrats against Palin. He cares not if they are overturned eventually or if he has to back down.

    It is the right to continue to make these assertions, without their having any foundation in fact, that he and they are/were proving that they have the power, the right, to do, forever.

  15. leaving it to us to make the long slog through the Congress or the courts to show that, no he doesn’t have this power.

    Wearing them down. Rules for Radicals #8 and #10.

  16. …because being opposed to birth control is completely sane…

  17. Hey pill.

    Since you’re new here, either mark your post with <sarc> tags or defend your assertion.

    We don’t take kindly to drive-by trolls.

  18. Yes, I was being sarcastic. You get that being opposed to birth control is bat shit crazy, right?

  19. No, “pill”, we don’t. Esplain it to us, Lucy.

  20. You get that being opposed to birth control is bat shit crazy, right?

    Care to show your work for extra credit?

  21. Is it a drive-by troll? Because that is just too rich. It’s not about the State forcing the Catholic Church (for now) to bend to the Will of the Masses People, it is about opposition to birth control? Ridiculous. BTW the 99% made an appearance in Obama’s speech today, in this case it was 99% of women having used birth control. Which might be considered secondary evidence for the percentage of the population that is strictly lesbian, if every word that left those lips wasn’t either a lie or only incidentally true.

    Back to the minors Pill, you need to up your game.

  22. Abortion trumps the 1st Amendment. And free markets.

  23. Non sequitur, The First Amendment makes no reference to whether or not a religious practice is considered “bat shit crazy” by some person or another. It literally has no bearing on this matter.

  24. Fantastic use of punctuation on my part.

  25. “It literally has no bearing on this matter.”See Wright, Rev.

  26. So Crawford and Silver Whistle think it’s completely rational to be adamantly opposed to birth control. Well, sirs, if you have trouble envisioning the horror that the world would be if there were not, nor ever had been, birth control – well, the nicest thing I can say about you is that you lack imagination.

    BIRTH CONTROL SHOULD NOT EXIST. Completely reasonable viewpoint. Gotcha. And yet you want to be taken seriously.

    #24 – I’m just confirming that in defending the Catholic Church’s first amendment rights, you are, in this specific case, defending the right to act on a belief that’s nuts.

  27. (Just to be clear, the non sequitur comment was to our new friend. I fully approve of playing with him for amusement purposes.)

  28. You have a hard time with logic, argument, thinking and reading, don’t you, pill?

  29. Wow, “pill”, you’re as intellectually honest as you are intelligent: not at all.

    Having shown the level of discourse you’re interested in, go away and suck off a 12-gauge, OK? I’m not interested in arguing with fascist twats like you.

  30. #24 – I’m just confirming that in defending the Catholic Church’s first amendment rights, you are, in this specific case, defending the right to act on a belief that’s nuts.

    My thoughts on birth control are… also a non sequitur to the issue.

    (I have no problem with birth control. It doesn’t matter. Not at all. Not even a little.)

  31. #29 – Well clear it up for me. You believe “Birth control should not exist” is a reasonable belief. Yes, or no? It’s really not that hard. Just think about it and answer.

  32. #30 – Same for you – “Birth control should not exist” is a reasonable belief. Yes, or no?

  33. …envisioning the horror that the world would be if there were not, nor ever had been, birth control…

    “Ogg, me want make coochy-coochy. Go pick rubber off rubber bush.”

    “No, Guh. Rubber bush empty. Need go shake Ortho Tri-Cyclen tree, pills fall. Coochy-coochy for weeks!”

  34. What part of Having shown the level of discourse you’re interested in, go away and suck off a 12-gauge, OK? I’m not interested in arguing with fascist twats like you. don’t you understand?

  35. The pill is a mendoucheous twatwaffle what hates the 1st Amendment.

  36. All I see from pill is assertion, non sequitur and poor reading comprehension. English, motherfucker. Do you speak it?

  37. “Birth control should not exist” is not a “belief”. It’s an expression of desire. As such, and in the face of birth control actually, ya know, existing and all, it falls into the realm of “wishes”.

    Do you want to control people’s wishes, pill? How benevolent of you. I’m sure you’ll let us all know which desires are good and proper for the Benefit Of The All®

  38. Heh. You guys crack me up.

    Time to go deal with some snow. Later.

  39. Hey Pill, why is it my responsibility to pay for your use by a third party regardless of what I believe or don’t believe?

  40. The pill hates freedom of religion

  41. The pill hates free markets, and is an authoritarian cocksucker.

  42. The pill believes that having someone else pay for your rubbers is more important than the Constitution.

  43. So I put DarthLevin in the camp of finding “Birth control should not exist” to be a completely reasonable opinion. And Darth, you still want to be taken seriously, correct?

    I put Crawford and Silver Whistle in the “terrified to answer a simple question” category.

    I’m going to guess that JD doesn’t have the balls to answer either, but lets find out. JD, do you find, “Birth control should not exist” to be a reasonable opinion. Yes, or no?

  44. the pill simply intends to demonstrate it does not know the difference between a question (“Care to show your work for extra credit?”) and a statement of personal opinion (“… Silver Whistle think[s] …), which, when we mull it a bit, is a sort of kindness offered upfront: do not expect discernment from this quarter, it declares!

    This, on the other hand, is about what one would expect from a generic pharmaceutical formula, so it’s not as though there is any tremendous honor to credit to the proposition.

  45. So, yeah, fertility is a disease, the_pill…

  46. If only pills had brains, sdferr.

  47. So the pill has added that he gets to determine what religious beliefs are reasonable. I missed that part of the Bill of Rights

  48. “do you find, “Birth control should not exist” to be a reasonable opinion. Yes, or no?”

    as reasonable as: automobiles should not exist

  49. as reasonable as: automobiles should not exist

    Well sure, but only if the question at hand is “should the government force drivers to drive on crowded sidewalks.”

  50. Hey, a new troll to play with! Neato!

    The issue at hand is not whether birth control should exist. That is what we call a “straw man argument.”

    Can you say “straw man?” Good. Very good.

    The primary issue is that we think that Obama is provably overstepping his authority as president. This has been clearly stated. In his overreach he is mandating that all insurance policies provide birth control whether or not that violates a person’s principles. Hiding it in this manner doesn’t change that fact. People who do not believe that using birth control is proper behavior will be forced to subsidize those who do.

    We believe liberty is of primary importance, and liberty requires that choices not be eliminated in such a capricious manner.

  51. What I want to know is why you guys keep talking about who is going to pay for these contraceptives, didn’t you hear Obama today? They are all free! Weren’t you all listening? I don’t even know how many times he said “free contraceptives”, I couldn’t get my shoes off in time and lost count.

  52. The real irony on this thread is the pill is a pretty damn effective argument for birth control.

  53. Actually, liberty requires that the choices never be eliminated. However, there is always a balance to preserving liberty and preserving society. Requiring that insurance cover birth control doesn’t even come close to passing a sniff test.

  54. Does believing the Himalayan glaciers are melting make you sane?
    Does believing Argentinian cow farts are warming the planet make you sane?
    Does believing Shamu is a slave held against his will make you sane?
    Does believing that driving a electric coal-fired auto helps save the planet make you sane?
    Does believing pregnancy is a disease to be prevented make you sane?
    Does believing that all choices are equally valid and that there are no trade offs involved in the choices we make make you rational, let alone sane?

  55. The pill is a demonic midget clown.

  56. The real irony on this thread is the pill is a pretty damn effective argument for birth control.

    Either that or evidence that people are being lobotomized in secret then turned loose with internet access.

  57. I have no problem with birth control. I think screwing a lot of people is probably not good for you psychologically, but what other people do isn’t my problem either, until they ask me to pay for the consequences of their actions.

  58. Meanwhile, Romney’s only chance is to retrain his super PAC Big Berthas on Santorum and pound away. Making the rubble bounce worked against Gingrich, who cheerfully supplied his own rubble. But most voters are just getting to know Rick Santorum, and I suspect it will be far less effective against him.

    Thanks to Obama’s inability to control his Punahou-bred playground-bully persona — the in-your-face nature of the mandate was too much even for some of his supporters to stomach — he’s put the Patient Ejection and Unaffordable “Care” Act on the front-burner. In the general election, which Republican candidate is in a better position to exploit it?

    Santorum will get precious little help from the sniveling apparatchiks, time-servers, and collaborationists in the “GOP leadership,” but he should pound this issue home at every opportunity and position himself as the champion of the real little guy: not the entitlement loafer whose kids are too dumb to peel their own grapes but the lunch-pail worker who pays for those grapes. This is a fight we’re going to have to have sooner or later, so why not have it now, before the Party of Take completely overwhelms the Party of Give?

    link

  59. If you need £1 for a condom, I could lend you it until payday, cranky.

  60. #52 – I get that you’re defending their first amendment rights take issue with the president overstepping. I’m just wondering if you find the Catholic churches stance on contraception to be ridiculous. That’s all.

  61. Unlike the Pill, I’m not asking anyone to prove a negative.

    I’m reasonable like that. Mostly though, I’m not saddled with a leftist epistemology

    Racism SHOULD NOT exist
    Sexism SHOULD NOT exist
    Inequality SHOULD NOT exist
    Personal Responsibility SHOULD NOT exist.

  62. I’m just wondering if you find the Catholic churches stance on contraception to be ridiculous. That’s all.

    And we are trying to explain to you that it just doesn’t matter. The First Amendment has no qualifiers on rationality. What is really funny is you don’t realize how lucky that is for you.

  63. Maybe it’s only me, but I don’t actually believe that the_pill is “just wondering” anything. I suspect he’s trying to change the subject to something he wishes this discussion were about. I’m assuming a he of course, per the rules of the internet.

    Also his first sentence makes my head hurt.

  64. I get that you’re wondering if we find the Catholic church’s stance on contraception to be ridiculous, the_pill. I’m just wondering if you find Obama’s stance on obliterating prior rights like the 1st Amendment tolerable.

    Or had Catholics just kept their big mouths shut, if the principle of what His Imperialism’s done so many times now would have somehow passed constitutional muster.

    As has been explained, it’s not about their values. It’s about his.

  65. The issue, pill, is not reasonableness. The 1st Amendment does not protect only reasonable beliefs.

    Your position appears to be thst it does, and therefore the Church’s position on birth control can be subjected to a reasonableness test and, if found wanting, be dismissed from the 1st Amendment’s purview.

    If that is your position, you are wrong. And stupid. And unworthy of further attention.

  66. Insanity on Display:

    Today’s injunctions against birth control were re-affirmed in a 1965 document by Pope Paul VI called Humane Vitae. He warned of four results if the widespread use of contraceptives was accepted:

    – General lowering of moral standards
    – A rise in infidelity, and illegitimacy
    – The reduction of women to objects used to satisfy men.
    – Government coercion in reproductive matters.

    Does that sound familiar?

    Because it sure sounds like what’s been happening for the past 40 years.

  67. “I’m just wondering if you find planned parenthood the Catholic churches stance on abortion contraception to be ridiculous.”

  68. One thing my father has said to me many times is, “I don’t argue religion with people. I don’t want to interfere with their chance of getting into heaven.”

    There is at least one biblical passage that could be interpreted as G-d saying that birth control is sinful. I don’t agree that it is, but I wouldn’t call someone ridiculous for believing it is.

    I think a much stronger argument could be made that birth control can be tied to an explosion of sex outside marriage that has had huge ramifications for society. I think one could make a strong case that marriage and therefore families have been hurt by it, and that if contraception did not exist then many of the side-effects wouldn’t exist to the extent that they do. So the Catholic Church might also oppose contraception on the grounds that it tends to promote sinful behavior (i.e. sex outside marriage).

    One thing I won’t do is condemn the Church because they promote a doctrine I happen to disagree with. Just because I don’t believe there is a good reason behind it doesn’t mean they don’t.

  69. “I’m just wondering if you find Muslims’ stance on goat-fucking to be ridiculous.”

  70. However, like everyone else said, it doesn’t matter. Applying a “reasonableness” test to everything would be disastrous for liberty.

  71. I wanna see the pill stroll into a Wahabbist chat room and talk shit about their views on “critical women’s health issues.” Also, how ridiculous their “no bacon” rule is.

    C’mon, pill — show us you’re serious!

  72. If you believe in evolution and that there is no higher being or spiritual meaning for existence, then the sole reason for existing is procreation of the species.

    In which case, then yes, birth control should not exist. It inhibits evolution.

  73. Obama should force Hindus to eat Big Macs, because sacred cows is just stupid.

  74. The pill must have spell-check since he didn’t spell ridiculous as “rediculous” as I often see it spelled by folks who make these kind of arguments.

  75. B. Moe, the Catholic Church is cool with evolution and a higher power. It’s confounding to folks like Mr. Pill who try to pidgeon-hole believers.

  76. Obama should force Hindus to eat Big Macs, because sacred cows is just stupid.

    Ooooh, then McDonald’s could go back to frying their french fries in beef tallow. Mmmmm, those were some good fries. Get a batch of those and a Coke made with real cane sugar instead of HFCS, you got some tasty times going.

  77. “Requiring that insurance cover birth control doesn’t even come close to passing a sniff test.”

    Cranky@50, can we step back one threshold? Requiring individuals to purchase health insurance as a condition of existence doesn’t even come close to passing a sniff test.

    Still, there’s been quite a stench around since 2009.

  78. Pingback: Other Reactions on the HHS Mandate and the “Compromise” | The American Catholic

  79. Makewi – in this case, they should require Hindus to buy Big Macs for non-Hindus. Because of the abortions.

  80. And, by the way, I realize I’m still a newb here, but you didn’t leave anything of The-Pill for me! I have this shiny new Troll Hammer (TM), probably a SquidProduct (TM), that is begging to be used.

  81. The pill is just a parody of a leftist. Has to be. Who was doing that?

  82. #67 – I’m not arguing for a reasonable test, I’m just trying to figure out which of the following statements you’d more agree with:

    1. I find that it’s reasonable for a person or religion to believe and work towards the eradication of contraception. Further, they have a first amendment right to adhere to their beliefs…

    2. The notion that contraception should be eradicated is completely freak’n nuts. However, they have a first amendment right to adhere to their beliefs…

    #70 – They’re also adamantly opposed to using birth control within marriage. We can at least call that crazy, right?

    #68 – The “1965 document by Pope Paul VI called Humane Vitae” means the Pope gets to ban the use of contraception within your own marriage. But hey, reasonable, right?

  83. I wanna see the pill stroll into a Wahabbist chat room and talk shit about their views on “critical women’s health issues.”

    I don’t think anyone here would have any problem doing just that, because those views are crazy and a reasonable person who grew up outside of Wahhabi indoctrination should have no problem recognizing that and saying so. What makes the Catholic stance on contraception different?

  84. So, you’re just a freelance blog comments polling enthusiast? I sorta doubt that was your motivation behind #17. Because you said it like it meant something before you asked if anyone agreed.

    Tell us pill, what does it matter?

  85. Wow. You could make a medium-sized straw village out of #84.

  86. Oh, that was SBP with the ‘hammer, Red. Squid handles pitchforks and Cranky handles cudgels.

  87. Pill, here’s my reply: None of your damn business, since it’s irrelevant to what the grown-ups are discussing. Now go back to the children’s table or it’s no dessert.

  88. “What makes the Catholic stance on contraception different?”

    (raises hand high) Teacher, teacher, I know this one! Please call on me!

    Mr. or Ms. Pill (see I’m enlightened. I didn’t assume your gender status or choice and even used the feminist “Ms.” so as not to offend): What Cranky-d said, but with a twist: It doesn’t fucking matter! Gov does not call the shots on what is whacky or not in religious beliefs. I’m pretty sure that the 1st Amendment, even as interpreted by the courts, is quite clear on that.
    Now, quit trying to get us to bite on examples that we don’t even need to reach. Just refer to: “It doesn’t fucking matter!”

    Hey Squid, I got some stuff on this hammer now. Maybe you make a protective device, like a condom of sorts? I’ll pay for it myself.

  89. The pill is an expert at buggering straw people. And underage non-consensual goats.

  90. And the Trollhammer script doesn’t work anymore, IIRC.

  91. The pill would force Quakers to enlist. And make Hindu’s purchase sides of beef for carnivores. And make southern baptists pay for beers and dance lessons for heathens.

    Because women’s health trumps the Bill of Rights.

  92. Hi pill. You think abstention should not exist. Abstention is a form of birth control, therefore you think birth control should not exist. Therefore you are an idiot.

  93. I don’t get it. The Amish already have an exemption based on religious objections to Obamacare. Catholics and Catholic Healthcare orgs should be able to get the same without much rigmarole. Its already in the damned law anyhow.

  94. 1. I find that it’s reasonable for a person or religion to believe and work towards the eradication of contraception. Further, they have a first amendment right to adhere to their beliefs…

    There you go, mixing oil and water. Those two statements have absolutely nothing to do with each other, including whether either one is true or not.

  95. How come no one with a decent lefty argument ever comes here?

  96. They keep pushing on the door marked “Pull”, Carin.

  97. All my facebook friends have completely avoided this, when last week they couldn’t shut up about Komen and Planned Parenthood.

    I don’t think Obama has the popularity he thinks regarding this issue.

  98. How come no one with a decent lefty argument ever comes here?

    It is a long way from the land of make-believe.

  99. How come no one with a decent lefty argument ever comes here?

    You’re presuming such a thing exists.

  100. How come no one with a decent lefty argument ever comes here?

    can’t bring what don’t exist, would be my guess.

  101. Damn slow-ass Kindle soft keyboard.

  102. soft keyboard

    Is a soft keyboard anything like a floppy drive? :-)

  103. Applying a “reasonableness” test to everything would be disastrous for liberty.

    Funny how I noted to someone at one time that applying a “reasonableness” test to interpretation does the same thing.

    It’s like it’s all coming together!

  104. Because one man’s “reason” is another man’s “insanity”, regardless of whether you’re talking about beliefs, interpretation, or hair style.

  105. The pill hearts the abortions.

  106. “Funny how I noted to someone at one time that applying a “reasonableness” test to interpretation does the same thing.”

    Jeff, we’ve got to the point where literally carving it in stone ain’t enough…

  107. They’re also adamantly opposed to using birth control within marriage. We can at least call that crazy, right?

    That’s not your call, PILL, nor is it mine.

    It’s not crazy from within the initial assumptions that Catholics have about sexuality and reproduction.

    Assumptions that you don’t hold, which is why THEIR conclusions appear CRAZY to you.

    In other words, you have to be pretty damned arrogant about your ability to perceive reality to call someone else’s beliefs crazy and expect everyone else to agree.

  108. means the Pope gets to ban the use of contraception within your own marriage. But hey, reasonable, right?

    If you find the doctrine unreasonable, LEAVE THE DAMNED CHURCH. You’re still free to do that in this country.

    Sheez, dude. If I were able to root around in your head and look at all your assumptions about reality, I’d be able to find dozens—at least—that make no sense to me at all.

    Which would prove exactly nothing outside of the fact that we’re two independent human beings with different brains who’ve had different experiences.

    Your need to get a consensus on what’s crazy and what ain’t strikes me as extremely tribal, as if you needed to reassure yourself that you’re OK because you belong to the Reality-Based Community (aka the Community-Based Reality), which is where anybody who’s anybody resides.

    Can’t stand on your own two feet, secure in your convictions, and be an island of one, can you?

  109. Exactly who at the point of a gun is forcing anyone to be a faithful Roman Catholic or at the point of a gun forcing anyone to work for a Roman Catholic Church owned business?

    No one.

    Who at the point of a gun is forcing the believers in a Church to commit what they see as a mortal sin?

    Obama and the progressive left Democrats.

    Just who is the thug? Who is the bully in this?

  110. [I do not find] “Birth control should not exist” to be a completely reasonable opinion.

    I’m surprised my confreres didn’t land on this one faster: Nobody—not even Catholics—is asserting that birth control should not exist.

    Catholics are asserting that they don’t want to participate in birth control for reasons of conscience and faith. They’re not opining on what non-Catholics ought or ought not do.

    But the fact that you don’t get that means that you’ve bought all the left-wing bilgewater about religion Christians: that they’re positively champing at the bit to force you to live the way THEY see fit, and only the outrageous outrage of the Left is holding the theocrats at bay.

    NO government gets to arbitrate which beliefs are crazy and which are not, because that leads (as it does TODAY) to the government declaring anyone opposed to them as crazy and therefore disposable.

    You must be young: nobody my age has forgotten how they did that in the USSR.

  111. Hey PILL! Who gets to decide whether your ideas are crazy?

    The Taliban?
    The Westboro Baptist Church?

    You want they should take a crack at evaluating you? Think you’d pass muster?

  112. Damnation, looks like a missed a troll bashing…

    come on Pill come back and engage!

    Oh … Catholics are asserting that they don’t want to participate in birth control for reasons of conscience and faith. They’re not opining on what non-Catholics ought or ought not do.

    di, Pill’s unthinking spew is along the lines of people who dishonestly snark eating shellfish being a sin in the Old Testament.

    It is for a Jew that keeps Kosher. Jewish dietary laws were/are for JEWS.

    Last I looked, no one was dragging people off the street to become Jews or Catholics.

  113. You know who I think is crazy, is the ones that need help paying their prophylactic bill. What are they, 75 cents each?

    I mean damn, trying to break Wilt Chamberlain’s record? Let that thang cool down once in a while.

  114. “What are they, 75 cents each? ”

    if you’re a catholic school girl the #ows crowd through them at you

  115. or throw

  116. 98% of Catholics use the pill. Case closed.

  117. Also, this is classic:

    “I’m going to guess that JD doesn’t have the balls to answer either, but lets find out. JD, do you find, “Birth control should not exist” to be a reasonable opinion. Yes, or no?

    Demanding an answer to the unreasonableness of his mis-characterization of a third party’s intent.

    With insults and condescension.

    It’s like the trifecta of trolling!

  118. Dicentra, I was waiting for the pillock to return before playing the “Why are kosher Jews calling for the eradication of the species sus scrofa domesticus?” card.

    I think we were all toying with the poor troll that can’t distinguish between “Carthage is a shithole, dont’t visit” and “Carthago delenda est”.

  119. I had to google that. Would have guessed that pigs would have some recognizable root of porcinis (sp?) in their name.

  120. Scrofulae, on the other hand, would seem to have a piggy link.

  121. Pingback: Unacceptable | Atheists For Santorum

  122. Okay, yeah, that’s it. Scrofa. Sow.

  123. Dicentra, I was waiting for the pillock to return

    You’d have waited forever. It took longer than usual for him to realize that he was out of his depth, but realize he did, and there goes all our fun.

  124. Catholics are asserting that they don’t want to participate in birth control for reasons of conscience and faith. They’re not opining on what non-Catholics ought or ought not do.

    There’s nothing in Catholic theology that says contraception is immoral for Catholics, but fine for non-Catholics. You can look this up, you know.

    That’s not your call, PILL, nor is it mine.
    It’s not crazy from within the initial assumptions that Catholics have about sexuality and reproduction.
    Assumptions that you don’t hold, which is why THEIR conclusions appear CRAZY to you.
    In other words, you have to be pretty damned arrogant about your ability to perceive reality to call someone else’s beliefs crazy and expect everyone else to agree.

    My what a bunch of tolerant relativists you’ve all become. Yes, you can call something crazy because it so obviously is, that it’s effectively beyond debate. A majority of Catholics disagree with the church’s stance on contraception. Here’s one for you to chew on:

    Among all women who have had sex, 99% have ever used a contraceptive method other than natural family planning. This figure is virtually the same, 98%, among sexually experienced Catholic women.

    http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/Religion-and-Contraceptive-Use.pdf

    But those of you supposedly carrying the banner of freedom and liberty can’t even bring yourself to view this policy the way the vast majority of Catholics view it.
    It’s frankly chickenshit, and it then makes you a hypocrite when moan about something that’s truly abhorrent in Islam because, by your own definition, who the fuck are you to say?

    NO government gets to arbitrate which beliefs are crazy and which are not

    I’m not asking the government to arbitrate. I’m seeing if anyone here has the cojones to call a spade a spade. This is apparently, suddenly, a cojone free zone.

  125. “There’s nothing in Catholic theology that says contraception is immoral for Catholics, ”

    yes there is.

  126. No, you value rubbers and abortion over freedom of religion. It is that simple, pill.

  127. “A majority of Catholics disagree with the church’s stance on contraception”

    sure the abortion rights crowd are the go to place for what catholics think. you’re a nozzle of some sort.

  128. Why are you so invested in this, pill? Is it cutting into your revenues or are you just a religious bigot who wants to tell us all how to worship and when, where, with and to whom?

  129. Oh, and the Pope thinks you are a lying liar.

  130. “I’m seeing if anyone here has the cojones to call a spade a spade.”

    i fight for the right for global warming cultists to speak their bs.

  131. Says a guy calling himself a pill

  132. I am sure pill would have been just fine with Bush mandating that Planned Parenthood show videos of partial birth abortions, give parental consent, and counsel on adoption.

  133. Has pill told us why his little crusade here matters yet?

  134. Funny how I noted to someone at one time that applying a “reasonableness” test to interpretation does the same thing.

    It’s like it’s all coming together!

    Well, I am one of you sycophants. It’s only natural that I would parrot back what you’ve said.

  135. Similar trolls are popping up all over.

  136. So which of our long time trolls is this, anyways?

    Just give us your most prevalent name from the past. Do it because your cojones demand it of you.

  137. I’m not asking the government to arbitrate.

    Uh, yes. Yes you are.

    You wish to switch the debate away from that damning seminal point and try to see if you can prod the rubes into showing some sort of wild-eyed creationist bent — or else conclude that they must agree with you, in which case, HYPOCRISY — but nobody here is biting.

    The reason? It’s not the argument.

    What Catholics choose to do in their bedrooms is not my concern. But for a lib, you sure seem interested all of a sudden in what the filthy Papists are doing in theirs — so long, I guess, as it doesn’t involve Andrew Sullivan and a pair of longshoremen. Because who are we to judge.

  138. A majority of Catholics disagree with the church’s stance on contraception

    They should probably take it up with the Church hierarchy.

    Or else start nailing protestations to church doors.

  139. There’s nothing in Catholic theology that says contraception is immoral for Catholics, but fine for non-Catholics. You can look this up, you know.

    Actually Pill, you couldn’t be more incorrect. That God gave man free will is a fundamental underpinning of Catholic theology. And Christ himself said on several occasions in the Gospels (paraphrase) that people had to choose to come to the Father by their own choice, that no one would be compelled against their God given free will to believe…

    This continues to this day, for all facets of the faith. I know this well, as I’m a minister to adult converts to the faith. God calls us all be name, it’s our choice whether to listen or disregard.

    Catholics follow the tenets of their faith because they believe, and they don’t expect non believers to do so, nor accept why the faithful do so.

    So really, unless you can point to part of the Baltimore Catechism that says otherwise, well, then you’re mistaken.

    I hope you’re enjoying trying to play gadfly here; you are aware you’ve been swatted countless times, though, already don’t you?

  140. I disagree. Pill troll doesn’t want the govt to arbitrate. It wants a leftist govt to dictate.

  141. Jesus said that being a Christian would be made difficult at times.

  142. Oh, and Pill,
    That Guttmacher paper you cite? Well, here’s that organization’s “mission statement”:

    An institute seeking to advance sexual and reproductive health through research, policy analysis and public education.

    And Pill, Guttmacher was founded in 1968 and is part of Planned Parenthood. Well what do you know? Abortion rights is part of their self stated mission also !11!1!

    So do you think that they might have an agenda of their own? That they might, perhaps, consider Catholics to be “repressed”, or “crazy”, a priori?

    C’mon man, can’t you find a less biased source to cite?

  143. Pill troll asserts opinion polls as authoritative (Perception is Reality®), and calls the commentariat “relativists”.

    Oooookay, then.

  144. Relativist. That’s me in a nutshell. Just ask anyone.

  145. Pill,
    Let me characterize the core issue in Carville-esque sloganeering style you might understand easier; “It’s the first amendment, stupid!”

  146. The Constitution is what, like, 100 years old? It doesn’t mean anything any more.

  147. Good lord, Pill, who are you to speak for Catholics?

    No, I’m not one, but I was a catechumen and took RCIA when I seriously considered converting.

    But there were somethings, like contraception, I would not be able to personally follow, even as I understood the foundations of the belief (and yes, it is entirely reasonable if you understand the foundations). I didn’t want to be a cafeteria Catholic. The First Amendment protects their right to their religious beliefs…it is freedom of RELIGION not just worship. And Obama’s continued assault on that part of the 1st amendment is unconscionable.

  148. What’s sorta funny is that JD beat pill to the punch at #119. Well played, sir. Well played.

    I was hearing that mentioned on Twitter earlier as well. Guess those are the marching orders. It certainly takes some cojones to dance to the day’s tune, pill. You’re a hero.

  149. The left has overused the hypocrite-in-practice card, drawing mostly yawns anymore, not least because their savior and standard bearer is a master at the deed.

    Barack Obama has a similar flip flop problem. It’s not only on those issues. When he was a senator, he said that we shouldn’t raise the debt limit and then of course he voted against it. And then when he became president, he said we have to raise the debt limit. It’s a regular pattern with Barack Obama. Here is where thing gets even worse when you look at the president and the standard he sets for himself. He said in 2007 about John Edwards’s Super PAC, “You can’t just talk the talk … The easiest thing in the world is to talk about change during election time. Everybody talks about change at election time. You’ve got to look at how they do and how they act when it’s not convenient, when it’s harder.” That’s what he said, and that’s my problem with Barack Obama. He constantly tries to act as if he is somebody special and different when he really isn’t. And then to make it connect to policy, this is also why there’s such a sense of frustration when dealing with Barack Obama on the most important issue of the day, how to reform debt and spending and reduce debt… again, words are wind, making promises, saying things and his actions go 180 degrees against it. His entire presidency, it seems, is about maneuvering and tactical positions to protect and preserve his brand, not to follow through on reform.

  150. I wonder what 98% of Rev. Wright’s congregation might think about various topics. I mean, we’re talking about “bat shit crazy” beliefs right?

  151. too bad axeldude and daily are in chitown. could’ve smoothed the idiot impulses of baracky. you go val gal.

  152. “I mean, we’re talking about “bat shit crazy” beliefs right?”

    god damn amerikka is mainstream. try again mister.

  153. Okay, I’ll try a few more, nr.

    “The government lied about inventing the HIV virus as a means of genocide against people of color. The government lied.”

  154. This one is always fun.

    “Hillary is married to Bill, and Bill has been good to us. No he ain’t! Bill did us, just like he did Monica Lewinsky. He was riding dirty.”

  155. Remember that tape that the LA Times never released from that function that Obama attended? I wonder if it sounded like this.

    “The Israelis have illegally occupied Palestinian territories for over 40 years now. Divestment has now hit the table again as a strategy to wake the business community and wake up Americans concerning the injustice and the racism under which the Palestinians have lived because of Zionism.”

  156. This is fun. I’m glad that pill has alerted us to bat crazy shit going on in churches.

    “Racism is how this country was founded and how this country is still run!…We [in the U.S.] believe in white supremacy and black inferiority and believe it more than we believe in God.”

  157. Bravo, bh.

  158. Some white devils are worse than others though. For instance, the Italians.

    “The Italians for the most part looked down their garlic noses at the Galileans.”

    Garlic noses? That is bat shit crazy, right there.

  159. Sdferr – who would’ve thunk that Ari would be so forceful? Did Burton whine about the Koch’s?

  160. Haven’t seen the vid JD, so dunno about Burton, outside of that he’s a crapweasel of the first order and rank. Ari, on the other hand, doesn’t actually surprise me here, as I’ve seen him upright and on point a number of times in the last year or so.

  161. That was a most excellent analysis, sdferr.

  162. I saw somewhere earlier about his 2009 speech at Notre Dame, and how his words then stand in stark contrast to his actions today.

  163. I forget, did he talk about the white devils and Jews in that Notre Dame speech, JD?

  164. He skipped over that, bh. It was about reasonable exceptions for people of conscience.

  165. And he skipped the part about his bestie Khalidi.

  166. The only bat craziness happening here is in pillbug’s comments.

  167. “pill” was RD-esque

  168. Pill sounded like Dana Ward. The same shit is being spewed all over JOM by him currently. Or his clown car of students that pop in to support him*

    *stupidly giving him the benefit of the doubt that he’s not sockpuppeting.

  169. That’s the semanticleo one, is it Stephanie?

  170. Yep. The “riddle me this” aspect gives him away.

  171. SemenKKKleo is still suffering from PRE traumatic stress disorder, from his imaginary child having to fight in Iraq

  172. Mark Levin’s monolog on the Obama slo-mo putsch. About 10 1/2 mins.

  173. Semanticleo. Wow, that stirs some memories.

    I’m gonna go piss now…

  174. Miss Clio is a flaming fuckstick

  175. Yeah, I don’t think this one is cleo though. Doesn’t have quite enough of the rude, barking sizzzzz of insanity about it.

  176. bh posted on2/10 @ 7:51 pm

    “Remember that tape that the LA Times never released from that function that Obama attended? I wonder if it sounded like this…”

    bh,

    It would be nice if Breitbart’s videos include that one.

    Ya know, if the LA Times thought he had it and was about to release it; they just might try to preempt him.

    Weapons free, Fire at Will!

  177. BTW,

    Anybody have Mr B’s contact info?

  178. Wait one sec, Danger.

  179. Here’s his Twitter account. He’s still fighting the good fight.

  180. Bob Birchell?

    bh,

    I think you got the wrong b, Mr h;)

  181. Oh, do you mean Breitbart?

    Bob actually posted comments here at pw under “Mr. B”.

  182. I blame beer for the confusion. Then you. Then progressives in some vague sense because they suck. Then, but only sorta, me. Because I’m mature and willing to take responsibility.

  183. Bingo!

    I’d really hate to see someone start a rumor that might cause a supremely principled organization feel they have no choice but to act in an unprincipled manner.

    Andrew should be made aware of said rumor so that he will act appropriately…for the principle of course;)

  184. Hopefully beerfusion is not contagious and the rest of you crackers are catching on!

  185. Hey, here’s a song that’s made it on my list for some reason I can’t explain.

  186. Recommended via twitter by Mr. B from CPAC.

    In the case of both Iran and Nicaragua, tangible and intangible tokens of U.S. support continued until the regime became the object of a major attack by forces explicitly hostile to the United States.

    But once an attack was launched by opponents bent on destruction, everything changed. The rise of serious, violent opposition in Iran and Nicaragua set in motion a succession of events which bore a suggestive resemblance to one another and a suggestive similarity to our behavior in China before the fall of Chiang Kaishek, in Cuba before the triumph of Castro, in certain crucial periods of the Vietnamese war, and, more recently, in Angola. In each of these countries, the American effort to impose liberalization and democratization on a government confronted with violent internal opposition not only failed, but actually assisted the coming to power of new regimes in which ordinary people enjoy fewer freedoms and less personal security than under the previous autocracy–regimes, moreover, hostile to American interests and policies.

    The pattern is familiar enough: an established autocracy with a record of friendship with the U.S. is attacked by insurgents, some of whose leaders have long ties to the Communist movement, and most of whose arms are of Soviet, Chinese, or Czechoslovak origin. The “Marxist” presence is ignored and/or minimized by American officials and by the elite media on the ground that U.S. sup- port for the dictator gives the rebels little choice but to seek aid “elsewhere.” Violence spreads and American officials wonder aloud about the viability of a regime that “lacks the support of its own people.”

    I second the recommendation.

  187. And another.

    We could talk about this and I think it could mean something. It wouldn’t just be pop nonsense. It’d be meta pop nonsense.

    She’s that non-dangerous animal using the coloring of a dangerous animal to gain that bit of juice. But, extremely well, really super duper extremely well. Like, so well that it’s hard not to classify her as a dangerous animal. What’s more menacing nowadays than another posing, empty thing, right? She’s a pure Brett Easton Ellis character. But real.

    A super fake real thing.

  188. Money? Vaporized. Done deals? Vaporware.

  189. Was that an intentional juxtaposition?

    Because it fits my mood. We’ve been ironic too long. Things are hollowing out and there is only the surface left.

    Ellis is talking about James Deen like it means something in his post-Empire framework. But it doesn’t mean anything. Things don’t mean anything anymore in that sense. It’s where I can’t help but think Ernst’s view of nihilism ascendant simply is the most likely explanation for all this.

    This is where the French existentialists were lying. They still lived in the old framework where an Arab stabbing you on the beach felt like it meant something even though they labored to show it didn’t. Now it just doesn’t fit in our kulture to even feel that way (which basically sums sdferr’s argument about going down this path).

    Maybe we need to risk being uncool for awhile. Risk taking a non-self-referential view of our surroundings for a bit. Not as a trip back to romanticism but just to take a break for awhile.

  190. Okay, maybe the Arab doesn’t actually stab us. He had a knife though. Been awhile since I read that book.

  191. “Was that an intentional juxtaposition?”It’d be hard since I’ve never read any Ellis. Just happened to be the thread I’d just dropped another half OT comment on.

  192. Oh. I shall now not write an earnest 5,000 word comment as to why he matters in this regard.

    (Thank you.)

  193. No, thank you. I have quite enough reading backed up.

  194. I’ll say this though. Mal the Tert might have it exactly right when he talks about the breakdown of the Enlightenment paradigm. I’m not so sure we have a reformation in our future anymore.

  195. I don’t think I want to live through a 16th or 17th century to get to the 18th. Cutting to the chase would save time and destruction.

  196. No worries. We won’t live through hardly any of even the new 16th century. That’s just how the new 16th century rolls.

  197. Okay, one last try before I go to sleep. We won’t live through hardly any of the new 16th century.

    On that pleasant note, ‘night.

  198. G’nite bh.

  199. Last night bh wrote:

    Ellis is talking about James Deen like it means something in his post-Empire framework. But it doesn’t mean anything. Things don’t mean anything anymore in that sense. It’s where I can’t help but think Ernst’s view of nihilism ascendant simply is the most likely explanation for all this.
    [….]
    Mal the Tert might have it exactly right when he talks about the breakdown of the Enlightenment paradigm. I’m not so sure we have a reformation in our future anymore.

    Allan Bloom made a passing remark in Closing of the American Mind to the effect that Thomas Hobbes so completely altered the terms of the debate that his opponents (some Anglican bishop, chiefly, not going to look it up right now) were incapable of refuting him because they no longer had any ground to stand on. Nietzsche, I believe (based upon what I understand Bloom to have argued) did something similiar.

    The Enlightenment paradigm isn’t collapsing. It’s collapsed. It’s just that nothing has emerged to replace it, and so we continue to pretend that it’s only failing instead of failed.

    We’ve gone from everyman his own priest to everyman his own philosopher.
    The next stop is…?

  200. Huh, I thought we (ha! “we”!, say rather, Rousseau and his acolyte, Manny Kant) eliminated the philosopher and with him, the legitimacy of any philosophy at all, or to say it another way, the legitimacy of any philosophy whatsoever?

    Maybe the orginal project simply over-did the connection between economics and political organization?

  201. Everyman his own priest was the Reformation project. Everyman his own philosopher falls somewhere in the Enlightenment project, doesn’t it.? Maybe Rousseau and Kant are the ones to who slayed him. I don’t know. You’ve thought about this more than I. But it seems to me that Nietzsche is the one who chopped of the philosopher’s head (dead or not yet dead), held it aloft and let out a hellish shreik.

  202. As to Nietzsche, Ernst, I tend to think: he’s just the observant messenger of a world made unfit, one toward which, when we see it too, we are not fond. Something broke long before, and — setting aside who broke it or why — we’re stuck in a swirling mess with no intelligible way out (is the Nietzschean gist, I’m thinking).

  203. “Everyman his own philosopher falls somewhere in the Enlightenment project, doesn’t it.?”

    Here’s something I ran into yesterday:

    Furthermore, in the first wave of modern political philosophy, enlightenment played an absolutely decisive role. One can state this precisely as follows: Self-preservation is the principle, and self-preservation means, practically speaking, the fear of death. What Hobbes says, or presupposes, is fear of death is the greatest power, in human life. And that is by no means necessarily so, as no one knew better than Hobbes, because many people fear punishments after death more than death. So, Hobbes’ doctrine presupposes, in order to become operative, that the fear of punishment after death ceases to be important. And this will cease to be important only by means of enlightenment, by the fact that people learn that there is no punishment after death, in any serious sense. So the enlightenment is absolutely essential for the first wave of modernity. And Rousseau begins his career with an attack on that enlightenment, we must keep this in mind. We must see what this means. There is a connection between Rousseau’s attack on enlightenment and his appeal to virtue, because this teaching of men like Hobbes and Locke degrades virtue to a means for self-preservation. It makes virtue instrumental or utilitarian. Why? What is goodness? Goodness is the habit by virtue of which you have a greater chance to survive! That is not what decent men understand by virtue. And Rousseau reacted correspondingly. So, in this respect Rousseau is simply a protest of, um — Rousseau begins with a protest of moral commonsense against this subversive doctrine. Yet, Rousseau does not simply reject Hobbes, or simply return to Aristotle. He never does that. He transforms Hobbes, on the Hobbean basis, and that is important to understand

  204. How come no one with a decent lefty argument ever comes here?

    Because there are no decent arguments for their positions.

  205. It’s not crazy from within the initial assumptions that Catholics have about sexuality and reproduction.

    Assumptions that you don’t hold, which is why THEIR conclusions appear CRAZY to you.

    In other words, you have to be pretty damned arrogant about your ability to perceive reality to call someone else’s beliefs crazy and expect everyone else to agree.

    You ever notice that the people who natter on endlessly about the need for “tolerance” and “understanding” are the least willing to actually apply either one themselves?

  206. NO government gets to arbitrate which beliefs are crazy and which are not, because that leads (as it does TODAY) to the government declaring anyone opposed to them as crazy and therefore disposable.

    You must be young: nobody my age has forgotten how they did that in the USSR.

    Within the last week I saw a story about some psych guys declaring that fear of the government is a disorder, and a few weeks ago there was yet another study linking “conservatism” with all sorts of dire emotional issues. These are, of course, just the most recent in a seemingly endless series of “studies” by lefties attempting to convince themselves that their opposition is insane, stupid, etc.

    That it lays the groundwork for Soviet-style abuses is just the icing on the cake, I’m sure.

Leave a Reply