Obama to Cut Budget

[Ziggy Stardust]

Well I don't support public libraries either (though not for the reasons you listed). If you think public libraries are important, then you and like minded folk can use your own money instead of compelling other people to use theirs to open some.

Great idea. Now, lets imagine your idea gets implemented and me and like-minded folks invest in libraries and raise the intellectual level of the population, how do I make sure that you and your like-minded folks do not take advantage of that increase? How to seperate you from the results of my hard earned money which I invested?

And the idea that you need PP to get birth control is just stupid.

Especially since abortions are about 3% of the activities Planned Parenthood is engaged in. They're for instance also in the business of trying to make sure that folks who don't want kids don't spawn them in the first place by making the means and information accesable: http://www.plannedparenthood.org/hea...ntrol-4211.htm.

This image you were forcefed and happily swallowed that PP is all about abortion is utter wank.

[Lewkowski]

Great idea. Now, lets imagine your idea gets implemented and me and like-minded folks invest in libraries and raise the intellectual level of the population, how do I make sure that you and your like-minded folks do not take advantage of that increase? How to seperate you from the results of my hard earned money which I invested?


Especially since abortions are about 3% of the activities Planned Parenthood is engaged in. They're for instance also in the business of trying to make sure that folks who don't want kids don't spawn them in the first place by making the means and information accesable: http://www.plannedparenthood.org/hea...ntrol-4211.htm.

This image you were forcefed and happily swallowed that PP is all about abortion is utter wank.

What percentage of the population do you think regularly uses libraries?

And again - you don't need PP to get birth control.

[Ziggy Stardust]

Didn't answer my question.

Also "Especially ...". One of them big elite words like "average".

[GGT]

And the idea that you need PP to get birth control is just stupid.

And again - you don't need PP to get birth control.

No matter how many different ways you say it, you're still wrong. Sure, anyone can buy a pack of condoms at Walgreens, but that's not exactly comprehensive birth control, family planning, or women's reproductive health.

Where do you propose low income or uninsured women would go without PP?

[Illusions]

Sure, anyone can buy a pack of condoms at Walgreens

In Lewkowskia no one is required to carry anything. So there will be certain people without access to birth control because their local pharmacist will be able to refuse its sale.

[GGT]

In Lewkowskia no one is required to carry anything. So there will be certain people without access to birth control because their local pharmacist will be able to refuse its sale.

I can see it now --- The Moral Majority Medicine Shoppe. No Plan B or Morning After pills, no vaginal spermicides, no birth control pills, no condoms. Just pamphlets on the virtues of Abstinence Only.

Thankfully, our higher courts decided pharmacies in general can't operate that way, even if they hire a few "conscientious objectors" (those Registered Pharmacists who refuse to fill abortive prescriptions). At least that's how I recall the whole Plan B mess turned out......

Now it looks like the ultra-conservative faction of the GOP is going through the back door to defund Planned Parenthood, as their last ditch effort to remove access to safe and legal abortion services. Morons. What really irks me is they also claim to be "pro-life". What they really mean is they're anti-sexual activity, anti-poor, anti-welfare. Bordering on misogyny.

[Lewkowski]

In Lewkowskia no one is required to carry anything. So there will be certain people without access to birth control because their local pharmacist will be able to refuse its sale.

Oh give me a break. Most folks running a pharmacy aren't going to be opposed to carrying condemns.

Nonetheless I find it sad you feel its important for a pharmacist to carry condemns which you don't need a prescription for...

[GGT]

Oh give me a break. Most folks running a pharmacy aren't going to be opposed to carrying condemns.

Nonetheless I find it sad you feel its important for a pharmacist to carry condemns which you don't need a prescription for...

Nice Freudian slip in spelling.

Why are you shying away from my questions, Lewk? Where would low income, uninsured or underinsured women go to find Family Planning, reproductive health services, and physician-prescribed birth control.....without Planned Parenthood?

If you're pro-life, why don't you support reduced-fee clinics whose main priority is to help women AVOID unintended pregnancies, and reduce the number of abortions?

[Lewkowski]

Nice Freudian slip in spelling.

Why are you shying away from my questions, Lewk? Where would low income, uninsured or underinsured women go to find Family Planning, reproductive health services, and physician-prescribed birth control.....without Planned Parenthood?

If you're pro-life, why don't you support reduced-fee clinics whose main priority is to help women AVOID unintended pregnancies, and reduce the number of abortions?

Who needs to go to a "Family planning" clinic to learn how to use birth control/condoms/ect. That whole line of reasoning is stupid. If the other services are so much more important (and I don't buy that) lets just have a seperate organization that doesn't lobby for abortion and doesn't do abortion handle it.

Or as I always look at it: If you think its important YOU fund it. Don't take money from other people to fund your pet projects.

[GGT]

Who needs to go to a "Family planning" clinic to learn how to use birth control/condoms/ect. That whole line of reasoning is stupid. If the other services are so much more important (and I don't buy that) lets just have a seperate organization that doesn't lobby for abortion and doesn't do abortion handle it.

You just don't get it, do you? Women can't just go to a pharmacy and ask for Birth Control Pills or a fitted cervical diaphragm. Women can't just "self-insert" an IUD. Women can't just strap on a condom. Women can't do self PAP smears or cervical checks. Women don't have a visual like a penis with sores or chancres or exudate that signals an STD. Nobody can self-screen *or treat* for gonorrhea or syphilis or HIV without medical tests and professional diagnosis. Your line of reasoning is bizarre.

Or as I always look at it: If you think its important YOU fund it. Don't take money from other people to fund your pet projects.

Then answer my question. If you're "pro-life", why isn't the reproductive life and health of women important to you?

[Lewkowski]

You just don't get it, do you? Women can't just go to a pharmacy and ask for Birth Control Pills or a fitted cervical diaphragm. Women can't just "self-insert" an IUD. Women can't just strap on a condom. Women can't do self PAP smears or cervical checks. Women don't have a visual like a penis with sores or chancres or exudate that signals an STD. Nobody can self-screen *or treat* for gonorrhea or syphilis or HIV without medical tests and professional diagnosis. Your line of reasoning is bizarre.



Then answer my question. If you're "pro-life", why isn't the reproductive life and health of women important to you?

My wife has never had to go to PP for birth control. I don't commonly ask the question but I'm pretty darn sure known of the women in my immediate family or my wife's immediate family have ever set foot in a PP. And the woman doesn't strap on a condom (well they have products for that now too... http://www.avert.org/female-condom.htm ) but its her responsibility to ensure that she is having her partner use a condom. As for all the other medical stuff, PP is certainly not going to the only provider of health services.

[Nessus]

And if he fails in that responsibility? Is her STD or pregnancy punishment for her failure? Do you wish her to inform the child that he or she was, indeed, a divine wind of terror and dismay whose only purpose was to better inform her of her failings on the vaginal arena? Is this the narrative you wish to use?

[GGT]

My wife has never had to go to PP for birth control. I don't commonly ask the question but I'm pretty darn sure known of the women in my immediate family or my wife's immediate family have ever set foot in a PP. And the woman doesn't strap on a condom (well they have products for that now too... http://www.avert.org/female-condom.htm ) but its her responsibility to ensure that she is having her partner use a condom. As for all the other medical stuff, PP is certainly not going to the only provider of health services.

You're basing national public policy on the experiences of your wife, or women in your family that you admit you're ignorant about? That's crazy. You're crazy.

Something like one in every nine American women have used PP at one time in their lives. I'd say it's even higher than that. You're also crazy if you believe male condoms are fool proof. Then you link to female condoms? You've seen those available OTC at Walgreens? Know how much they cost?

Lewk, you're saying it's a woman's responsibility to protect herself, then figure it's all done by men wearing condoms. "All the other medical STUFF" is quite expensive when using private doctors, or paying out of pocket.

You probably have no idea what an OB/GYN charges for an office visit, let alone a complete female reproductive screening, or what lab and cytology costs are on top of that. All you know is you and your wife have employer-subsidized insurance with a low co-pay.

Moron.

[Nessus]

It's all the same stuff, the same inner narrative that drives his hate-fueled life. Pregnancies, beatings and rapes are punishment, decreed by Jesus Christ himself, on people who were dumb or lazy. And everyone who gets a beating, raping or an unwanted pregnancy is dumb and lazy. It's a circular reasoning of moral non-arithmetic where all victims are equally to blame, and equally jailable. Each and every person who has been beaten, or raped, ought go to prison where they can beat and rape themselves, for only that will bring justice and the Lord's grace into the situation. Everyone chooses to be a victim, and their choice labels them with blame that they can never escape; they are no longer human beings fit to walk the Earth.

[GGT]

And if he fails in that responsibility? Is her STD or pregnancy punishment for her failure? Do you wish her to inform the child that he or she was, indeed, a divine wind of terror and dismay whose only purpose was to better inform her of her failings on the vaginal arena? Is this the narrative you wish to use?

I'll go even further and say Lewk and his ilk are not pro-life at all. They are posers, hiding under a "principle" to excuse their loathing for women and children demanding their own self-determination. Too much power for women and children, y'know. Men like that define women as objects and abject failures, and deny that half of the population basic health services, laughing off the notion that women can be subjugated to men and their penii. All the while ignoring or excusing men and their penii.

Quite convenient, for certain men in positions of power, to have it both ways.

[Nessus]

It's not the man's fault his semen is laden with children and STDs, if the whore didn't want those then it was her responsibility to fend him off. If she consents to sex, or is raped, she failed to perform her duty, and deserves what she got. If anyone ends up poor, or homeless, or destitute, they failed and deserve the punishment they are receiving. That is the theology of wealth, the religion of the day.

[Nessus]

I wonder whether the child born out of that rape, or to two poor people, also shoulders their blame and guilt for being unwanted, or poor. Is the child already tainted, as with the primal sin? Either way, the child surely has a duty to earn his or her place in the world; they are not fit for human rights until they show they are worthy. Abortions are to be banned, sure, but what of the children that follow? Is theirs the place of the negro in yesteryear's world? Hated and downtrodden, paraded as examples by the wealthy for all the moral failings of the poor?

[GGT]

I'm not convinced it's the theology of wealth, but men in certain groups trying to hold onto power. Clinging and clawing by their bloody fingernails as they lose what they thought was an ordained and understood power. The power of men. Powers men have lost over the years as women have gained their own strength and legitimacy. Younger males understand the complexities, but our legislators are still predominantly older, white, wealthy males.

[Nessus]

But the guilt and blame associated with being poor applies against all gender divisions; it might benefit the rich white man in the long run, but the ideology is fueled by the idea of poverty as punishment, something people deserved for not being rich, white and possibly male.

[GGT]

I notice Lewk just logs off when things get pointed. He'll probably wait a day or two, and ignore all the questions I posed to him directly. SSDD.

Lest I be accused of picking on Lewk.....can anyone else here defend the "logic" in de-funding Planned Parenthood? Any other social conservatives ready to explain why getting rid of PP is a good idea based solely on their non-federally funded abortion services, even if that means de-funding over 90% of their other services for women's reproductive health and reducing unintended pregnancies? Anyone?

[Nessus]

I'm sure Dreadnaught will be along soon enough to explain how beating black people is a budget priority, and unwanted pregnancies are not. The problems of the poor cannot be disassociated from their poverty, except when they dare infringe on the property rights of the wealthy.

[GGT]

I'm sure Dreadnaught will be along soon enough to explain how beating black people is a budget priority, and unwanted pregnancies are not. The problems of the poor cannot be disassociated from their poverty, except when they dare infringe on the property rights of the wealthy.

Dread did try to defend de-funding PP, when I think back. That was stunning.

But you're right, Nessie. The problems of the poor are related to their poverty! It's not always enough for poor people to rely on their own bootstraps to get out of poverty: developed nations have traditionally recognized that fact, and usually set policy to effect change, from public education to basic healthcare. I'm not sure what's happened in the US recently. But it looks dangerously related to fear, hatred, bigotry, and maybe even narcissism.

[Nessus]

The affluent have fed to the poor an ideology that suits the ends of high capital. "You too are gonna be SUPER RICH, just you watch!", so they can cut down taxation on the few hundred who own astronomical amounts of money. If you just make it in American Idol, you too can partake of that splendor. Or in a cooking show, or whatever; the media narrative is such that anyone can make it, but only one out of a dozen deserves it. Wealth is idolized as a deity, and her wrath is displayed in every reality show where 11 out of 12 are cast out, exiled for not being worthy. This is so removed from the day-to-day problems of the poor that it would be ridiculous, were not nations more inclined to spend money on subsidizing the affluent while the poor freeze to death.

[GGT]

The affluent have fed to the poor an ideology that suits the ends of high capital. "You too are gonna be SUPER RICH, just you watch!", so they can cut down taxation on the few hundred who own astronomical amounts of money. If you just make it in American Idol, you too can partake of that splendor. Or in a cooking show, or whatever; the media narrative is such that anyone can make it, but only one out of a dozen deserves it. Wealth is idolized as a deity, and her wrath is displayed in every reality show where 11 out of 12 are cast out, exiled for not being worthy. This is so removed from the day-to-day problems of the poor that it would be ridiculous, were not nations more inclined to spend money on subsidizing the affluent while the poor freeze to death.

I appreciate your sentiment. One small edit though. It's extreme talent or luck we idolize, which begets extreme wealth. Ask NBA or NFL stars, Snooki, Kardashians, or the latest lottery winner. Talent and luck have become inextricable, interchangeable. Extremes and un-usuals are profitable. See octomom or that show about Kate Plus Eight. Hell, just look at Tiger Woods.

I think it's unfortunate that too many under-priviledged minorities have come to think their only way "out" is being a Rap star or an Elite athlete. That's the stuff that leads to gangs, mafias, violence, and crime. And why wouldn't kids stuck in poverty think that's how our world works, if they don't see their peers going to college and becoming more successful than the corner pimp or drug dealer?

[GGT]

That was sort of my rant and eulogy for mediocrity. Striving to be Average is almost considered a failure these days. All cultural signs point that way. Average is dull, lazy, less than exuberant, settling. Settling for average or mediocre has become the new definition for failure. Settling is the new dirty word. Rather odd and illogical when we consider what average or settling really means.

[Nessus]

Haha, that's right, a thing I didn't think of because it is so personally appalling; Lewk, Dread and Loki would probably all agree that Snooki is both a better person than I, and more worth-while to exist. Because their ideology demands that existence needs justification.

The drug dealer thing was given a good analysis in Freakonomics, but in the language of the New Right: They deserve all the violence, the abuse, everything, because they chose the unchoosable choice, and went into drug-dealing. People in poverty have to choose only those things which will get them votes in American Idol, anything else is blasphemy of the deity Wealth.

Drugs are an awful, life-altering thing, but the New Right chooses to see them singularly as a moral and personal failing of any poor person. It doesn't matter that drugs are physically and mentally addictive, they are a flag, a sign, that this person is unworthy before the altar of Wealth, and should therefore be castigated into the personal, deserved Hell of poverty. Poverty is always a curse laden on those who fundamentally deserve it, and thus even drug addiction must be perceived as both a personal choice and a personal responsibility, a blame, something that makes them less than the good and proper people, those who win at American Idol or those who earn their keep on Wall Street. It is always morally proper to deal in human lives, but dealing with drugs hinges on your clientele; poor customers are loathsome, rich customers are proper libertarians exercising their Randian privileges.

[GGT]

An Ode to Mediocrity, from Old Masters, with visual and sound effects delivered to us from the New Age Masters:

[GGT]

Drugs are an awful, life-altering thing, but the New Right chooses to see them singularly as a moral and personal failing of any poor person. It doesn't matter that drugs are physically and mentally addictive, they are a flag, a sign, that this person is unworthy before the altar of Wealth, and should therefore be castigated into the personal, deserved Hell of poverty.

Unless they have entered the medical field. Then, their paranoias, depressions, neuroses can be treated with a pharmaceutical. A hormone, or some synthetic derivative that can re-wire the brain's chemistry. Poor people self-medicate with booze , nicotine, or opiates exchanged between fellow maniacs. It works until it doesn't work. Then where do they go?

Poverty is always a curse laden on those who fundamentally deserve it, and thus even drug addiction must be perceived as both a personal choice and a personal responsibility, a blame, something that makes them less than the good and proper people, those who win at American Idol or those who earn their keep on Wall Street. It is always morally proper to deal in human lives, but dealing with drugs hinges on your clientele; poor customers are loathsome, rich customers are proper libertarians exercising their Randian privileges.

If you're a member of the elite or wealthy, and can pay for a few months at spa type rehab facilities, you get more chances and forgiveness. Lindsey Lohan, any of the Baldwin brothers, Mel Gibson, Halle Barre, the list is quite long for cultural icons doing the same shit their fans were "crucified" for.....

If you're poor and caught doing the same type of self-medicating or partying our American Idols engage in, you're sent to jail. Can't afford bail? Tough shit. Public defenders barely represent you, you can't post bail or get a decent lawyer unless you're already powerful or wealthy. It's the American Way!

[GGT]

"The rest is just the same, isn't it? But it doesn't really work does it?" Appeasing special interests may sound like pretty music, but it doesn't really work, does it?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ciFT...eature=related

Sorry if I keep using my favorite movie of all time as illustration. There are too many concepts working at once, but that movie seems to capture them all. With music, too.

[Ziggy Stardust]

Or as I always look at it: If you think its important YOU fund it. Don't take money from other people to fund your pet projects.

And when people ask you to flesh out "how you always look at it" you cop out. When I'm funding my pet project, how can I make sure any beneficial results do not benefit those who didn't spend a dime? Since you never answered, I think it's safe to say you understand it's close to impossible. So in effect, you're proposing a policy which you know is unfair to those who fund it, since those who don't fund it, you, will also reap the benefits whether they agree with a program or not, in effect receiving the free lunch you're always so critical of. Would you agree that those who didn't agree to the war in Iraq don't have to pay taxes to fund that war? Let those who were acking to go fund their pet-war. Do you realise the consequences of such an arrangement?