Today's edition of quick hits:
* If the right was outraged by the patriotic message in Clint Eastwood's Chrysler ad, conservatives will be looking for the fainting couch after seeing Bruce Springsteen's new video.
* Progress in Greece is far from assured, and the deal for a bailout has not yet been reached.
* Violence in Syria rages on: "Explosions in the northern Syrian city of Aleppo struck two targets associated with the military and police early on Friday, Syrian state television reported, as the central city of Homs was reported to still be under siege with sporadic tank fire ripping into contested neighborhoods, pinning down residents in their homes."
* The federal budget deficit was $27 billion in January, roughly half of what it was in January 2011.
* Bloomberg News reports that consumer confidence reached its highest level in a year last week.
* The statement on contraception coverage from the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops was interesting to the extent that it did not include reflexive opposition.
* There's plenty of worthwhile commentary on the contraception compromise, but I liked Amanda Marcotte's take on why Republicans have apparently "been punked" by the White House, and Greg Sargent's argument on why the controversy has become a wedge issue to be used against, not by, the GOP.
* Major news organizations should pause to ponder why men were the dominant voices in the contraception discussion.
* President Obama today signed Gabrielle Giffords' final bill into law, and it wasn't just some symbolic measure -- the Ultralight Aircraft Smuggling Prevention Act "gives authorities greater powers to crack down on smugglers using low-flying, single-seater aircraft to slip drugs across the U.S. borders from Mexico and Canada."
* The payroll tax break continues to be in big trouble.
* Adam Serwer has an interesting report on the "reengagement" rate among former detainees at Guantanamo Bay: "Democrats argue that the actual 'reengagement rate' under Obama is three percent, not 7.5 percent. A Defense Intelligence Agency report published by McClatchy last year identified the rate for detainees transferred or released during the Bush administration at almost 15 percent."
* And Ari Shapiro captures this image of Rick Santorum visiting with the one outlet that's arguably his archenemy: Google.
Anything to add? Consider this an open thread.
Leave a Comment:
Two questions on the contraception/"moral conscience" issue: 1. Do these institutions insurance plans currently provide coverage for erectile dysfunction drugs? If so; 2. Are they required to provide proof of their marital status to fill this prescription? What documents are required and how often do they have to be provided.
If there IS coverage and there is no requirement that the beneficiary be married, it ENDS the moral objection.
One more question on the contraception/oral conscience issue: vasectomies are a form of birth control. Somehow this issue has been overlooked. Do these institutions insurance plans currently provide coverage for vasectomies?
Compromise was terrific. Despite the fact that the Catholic Hospital Association and Catholic Charities seem to be on board, the Bishops may be looking for a loophole so that they can sustain their objections and support the Republican agenda. The Bishops are Republican, powerful, political, avaricious and arrogant. Abortion is the only issue they care about-- not children's welfare, not capital punishment, not hunger etc. The Bishops advise their flocks to vote only for pro-life candidates. Their friends and contributors are among the 1 percent. They appear to have failed or partially failed on the issue of contraceptives. Their goal is to unseat President Obama. The Bishops don't reflect the thinking of Catholics, whether cafeteria or otherwise, who care deeply about the poor, the sick, and the downtrodden and work to make our world a better place.
Wonder how much ins cos will jack up rates to cover this??
Drives down insurance costs as BC is cheaper than pregnancy and childbirth and all pre and post birth medical costs. Insurance companies should offer discounts !!
Remind me again of how opposed the Catholic church was when Mormons were denied the privilege of practicing polygamy.
Any chance anyone will ask Mitt Romney about the war on religion from his grandfather's point of view?
President Obama is getting better and better at letting the GOP walk way out on the branch before he suddenly pops up with saw made up of a resonable policy that clearly is anchored in the mainstream of public support.
Another massive fail by the GOP as it panders to the right wing zealots. The scales fall away from the eyes of the electorate as President Obama defines the truth of the GOP
The GOP should love gay people. They don't use contraception either. Rachael I am glad your are alive.
I find it hypocritical that while the church does not want to pay for contraceptives at one time they benefited financially from holding shares from a pharma that manufactured birth control.
Bernardino Nogara (June 17, 1870 — November 15, 1958) was the financial advisor to the Vatican between 1929 and 1954, appointed by Pope Pius XI and retained by Pope Pius XII as the first Director of the Special Administration of the Holy See. According to historian John F. Pollard, Nogara laid "the foundations" for "one of the biggest pillars for the Vatican's post-Second World War financial strength."
Nogara was a controversial figure with the Roman Curia because many of his investments were perceived to violate the church's doctrines. For example, Nogara purchased a controlling share in Istituto Farmacologico Serono di Roma, Italy's largest manufacturer of birth control products
Why ARE men the dominant voice regarding contraception? I'd like to hear more from Melissa Harris Perry on the subject ~ she began to broach it on UP With Chris Hayes ~ basically, birth control emancipates women, who are needed by men to carry on their names and fortunes. If this sounds antiquated - and one guest visibly shrunk in dismay from the conversation - I think it is still timely, and believe she is on to something. Even Mr. Hayes wasn't open to her argument. Please consider having her on, Rachel, so we can explore this further, flush out how this is all still very relevant today. Loved your segment.
Actually us guys should never be allowed to vote on issues such as birth control and abortion, since we ain't never gonna use either. Just like you never see a man's right to have a vasectomy put up for vote by the country's women. We got be fair fellas. Right?
Does anyone else have a problem navigating this site? It may be Mozilla, or me or a Yahoo conspiracy against 63y/o computer novices.
No, you aren't the only one. And Safari also makes things difficult, not just Mozilla.
The payroll tax break continues to be in big trouble...
because Republicans want to sabotage the economy.
Springsteen's video will be construed by the right as being partisan. But it has nothing to do with video. He has been vocal anti-war activist against the Bush administration and has expressed support for the Dems.
There's plenty of worthwhile commentary on the contraception compromise, but I liked Amanda Marcotte take on why Republicans have apparently "been punked" by the White House, and Greg Sargent's argument on why the controversy has become a wedge issue to be used against, not by, the GOP.
I was prepared to be angry about any compromise. It turns out, however, that I'm not just relieved by it...I'm actually happy about it.
I find it interesting that the men were by far consulted on the contraception issue than the women were, but in a way I can almost understand why, even if I do not agree. And to be clear this something that one of my more conservative, religious friends brought up to me- to her it made absolute sense that men were consulted on a regular basis, even more regularly than women. I will try to explain it here, although, I disagree, so it might come out funny. Here it goes:
Religious conservative Christians tend to believe (according to her) that the men are the head of the househould (they function much as the pastor, etc. would in a Church. There is actually a passage in the Bilbe that she pointed to that this is the way that it should be for all "real" Christians. I cannot remember what it was however). They are responsible, in a way, for their family's religious well-being. Also, (and I knew this, but had kind of discounted it since the population is in the 6-7 billion range on the Earth) the Bible does say that God told Adam and Eve to go forth and multiply, (and subsequently Noah, etc) and that might cause some men(and women) to believe that not doing that would be a problem (contraception clearly gets in the way of that). When you take that into consideration, as a subconsciously more traditional viewpoint in the culture (maybe) it might help explain why men were taken into consideration here. Also, I might add, that in a marriage, it takes two to create children. Contraception does apply to them, too, if in a more roundabout way.
Overall, I have to say, I am VERY pleased with President Obama's compromise, and thought it was done on purpose BEFORE the above mentioned article. He is definitely a chess player and is in his prime element right now. This allows him to be seen by reasonable conservatives as listening, and conceding, a religious point of view AND lets women have free contraceptive, etc. coverage. I agree that it puts Republican candidates, and even current politicians, in a tricky spot for the election year when it comes to those ever important Independent votes (me included). Well played, President Obama. Well played. :)
I like the Bruce Springsteen's new video, but prefer Nanci Griffith-- "Hell No (I'm Not Alright)"video more, maybe not as as the Clint Eastwood's Chrysler ad. Your appreciation may vary.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gDj0-VNvySM
4
Back To Top | Front Page
Discuss this post
TVButler
Two questions on the contraception/"moral conscience" issue: 1. Do these institutions insurance plans currently provide coverage for erectile dysfunction drugs? If so; 2. Are they required to provide proof of their marital status to fill this prescription? What documents are required and how often do they have to be provided.
If there IS coverage and there is no requirement that the beneficiary be married, it ENDS the moral objection.
#1 - Fri Feb 10, 2012 5:57 PM EST
judyinohio
Remind me again of how opposed the Catholic church was when Mormons were denied the privilege of practicing polygamy.
Any chance anyone will ask Mitt Romney about the war on religion from his grandfather's point of view?
#2 - Fri Feb 10, 2012 6:30 PM EST
Pat P11111
President Obama is getting better and better at letting the GOP walk way out on the branch before he suddenly pops up with saw made up of a resonable policy that clearly is anchored in the mainstream of public support.
Another massive fail by the GOP as it panders to the right wing zealots. The scales fall away from the eyes of the electorate as President Obama defines the truth of the GOP
#3 - Fri Feb 10, 2012 6:36 PM EST
nomoremagicalthinking
The GOP should love gay people. They don't use contraception either. Rachael I am glad your are alive.
#4 - Fri Feb 10, 2012 7:25 PM EST
Barb-2711013
I find it hypocritical that while the church does not want to pay for contraceptives at one time they benefited financially from holding shares from a pharma that manufactured birth control.
Bernardino Nogara (June 17, 1870 — November 15, 1958) was the financial advisor to the Vatican between 1929 and 1954, appointed by Pope Pius XI and retained by Pope Pius XII as the first Director of the Special Administration of the Holy See. According to historian John F. Pollard, Nogara laid "the foundations" for "one of the biggest pillars for the Vatican's post-Second World War financial strength."
Nogara was a controversial figure with the Roman Curia because many of his investments were perceived to violate the church's doctrines. For example, Nogara purchased a controlling share in Istituto Farmacologico Serono di Roma, Italy's largest manufacturer of birth control products
#5 - Fri Feb 10, 2012 7:26 PM EST
Iris -4611260
Why ARE men the dominant voice regarding contraception? I'd like to hear more from Melissa Harris Perry on the subject ~ she began to broach it on UP With Chris Hayes ~ basically, birth control emancipates women, who are needed by men to carry on their names and fortunes. If this sounds antiquated - and one guest visibly shrunk in dismay from the conversation - I think it is still timely, and believe she is on to something. Even Mr. Hayes wasn't open to her argument. Please consider having her on, Rachel, so we can explore this further, flush out how this is all still very relevant today. Loved your segment.
#6 - Fri Feb 10, 2012 7:28 PM EST
nomoremagicalthinking
Does anyone else have a problem navigating this site? It may be Mozilla, or me or a Yahoo conspiracy against 63y/o computer novices.
#7 - Fri Feb 10, 2012 7:32 PM EST
CJ in Atlanta
The payroll tax break continues to be in big trouble...
because Republicans want to sabotage the economy.
#8 - Fri Feb 10, 2012 7:43 PM EST
Mike Paganucci
Springsteen's video will be construed by the right as being partisan. But it has nothing to do with video. He has been vocal anti-war activist against the Bush administration and has expressed support for the Dems.
#9 - Fri Feb 10, 2012 7:45 PM EST
CJ in Atlanta
There's plenty of worthwhile commentary on the contraception compromise, but I liked Amanda Marcotte take on why Republicans have apparently "been punked" by the White House, and Greg Sargent's argument on why the controversy has become a wedge issue to be used against, not by, the GOP.
I was prepared to be angry about any compromise. It turns out, however, that I'm not just relieved by it...I'm actually happy about it.
#10 - Fri Feb 10, 2012 7:47 PM EST
SRA1984
I find it interesting that the men were by far consulted on the contraception issue than the women were, but in a way I can almost understand why, even if I do not agree. And to be clear this something that one of my more conservative, religious friends brought up to me- to her it made absolute sense that men were consulted on a regular basis, even more regularly than women. I will try to explain it here, although, I disagree, so it might come out funny. Here it goes:
Religious conservative Christians tend to believe (according to her) that the men are the head of the househould (they function much as the pastor, etc. would in a Church. There is actually a passage in the Bilbe that she pointed to that this is the way that it should be for all "real" Christians. I cannot remember what it was however). They are responsible, in a way, for their family's religious well-being. Also, (and I knew this, but had kind of discounted it since the population is in the 6-7 billion range on the Earth) the Bible does say that God told Adam and Eve to go forth and multiply, (and subsequently Noah, etc) and that might cause some men(and women) to believe that not doing that would be a problem (contraception clearly gets in the way of that). When you take that into consideration, as a subconsciously more traditional viewpoint in the culture (maybe) it might help explain why men were taken into consideration here. Also, I might add, that in a marriage, it takes two to create children. Contraception does apply to them, too, if in a more roundabout way.
Overall, I have to say, I am VERY pleased with President Obama's compromise, and thought it was done on purpose BEFORE the above mentioned article. He is definitely a chess player and is in his prime element right now. This allows him to be seen by reasonable conservatives as listening, and conceding, a religious point of view AND lets women have free contraceptive, etc. coverage. I agree that it puts Republican candidates, and even current politicians, in a tricky spot for the election year when it comes to those ever important Independent votes (me included). Well played, President Obama. Well played. :)
#11 - Fri Feb 10, 2012 8:20 PM EST
Earl Bockenfeld - Leave a Comment:
You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead.
You are posting this comment to a publicly viewable discussion.
Post to my Facebook Wall
Newsvine Privacy Statement
advertisement
RSS
Twitter
Account Account
Recent tweets
Watchparty!
Don't tweet alone! Tag your tweets with #Maddow and join the online watchparty.
Archives
By Month:
By Tag:
Show archives
Contact us
Follow us on Twitter
Fan sites
Maddow mobile
advertisement
Bruce Springsteen
No right is absolute. You can't yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater when there isn't one or use profane words many places in public or on TV/radio, which limits the right of free speech. We have many laws regulating/limiting your right to bear arms. We even have laws limiting religious freedom. judyinohio mentions above how we barred Mormons from practicing their religious belief in practicing polygamy. Religions are prohibited from performing human sacrifice and generally from using illegal drugs. We even prosecute parents whose children die because they believed in the power of prayer over seeking medical attention. The brouhaha over birth control is especially ridiculous as an example of trampling on religious freedom. It tramples on NO ones rights but protects the rights of individuals. Face it, other than a minority of hard-core Catholics and the old men who dictate to them ( who, since they are supposed to be celibate, have no need for birth control), is there anyone who really believe this is a bad thing? The affected entities were not religious institutions but BUSINESSES, that while perhaps owned by a religious institution, do not cater exclusively to members of their own religion, nor are their employees exclusively members of their religion. In fact, I dare say that most of their clientele and employees are NOT members of their religion.
This of course as described by your post would be a case of discrimination on the business side and thus would void tax exempt status on those funds.
Santorum
"I see Jesus in my lap top screen."
Is that Jesus Christ or Jesus Gonzales? Is there an illegal border crossing in that lap top?
I have Elvis on my carpet--funny how dog pee can dry into such a shape.
I will address why this morning's announcement by BHO is but a fig leaf,
but first ...
It seems strange and analytically suspect to conflate churches and the
religions they represent with schools and hospitals they establish and operate.
Even if those churches engage in the latter activity as a result of religious
principles they hold, they do conduct them differently than they conduct the
churches and they conduct them separately. Would a Catholic archdiocese that
faced legal claims for sexual abuse have been willing to include the balance
sheets of the separate schools and hospitals operated by it as a potential
source for payment of claims? Would a Catholic archdioces have been willing to
allow the balance sheet of the archdiocese serve as a potential source for
payment of malpractice suits at a hospital it operated or of discriminatin
suites at a school it operated. There is a reason the schools and business have
been established as separate legal entities. It is hypocritical (and
analytically indefensible) to assert now that all of such operations should be
amalgamated unter the same roof as the church itself.
It is also deeply troubling to assert that the separate schools and
hospitals should be able to ignore a law that is othewise applicable to all
other schools and hospitals. Could one of them, for example, similarly be
exempted from antidiscrimination laws applicable to sexual orientation
(including same-sex marriage) because the church to which it was related
held that status to be in conflict with its doctrines? This is a classic
"wedge" issue in the original meaning of the term: it is the nose of the camel
under the tent. It surprises me that groups other than the one that would be
hurt if contraception was not available to all on an equal basis) have not
voiced outrage that the hypocrtical assertions of one-ness of churches and
schools/hospitals they operate would be just as applicable to situations in
which they would be the injured class.
The foregoing points have NOT been vititated by the modification announced
today. In any event, it seems patently unfair to place the social cost of a tug
of war between religion and equal application of the law of the shoulders of the
insurers ... or provide them with a windfall. It seems non-credible that the
insurers would not account for the will charge the employers the same premium
regardless of wether the group policy covers contraceptive drugs. It seems even
less credible that the insurers will eat the difference. So, instead, what will
happen is that the insurers will provide the limited group coverage at the price
of what full coverage would have cost. The church leaders surely must know that
(1) they will still be paying for the coverage, and (2) the insurers will make
more profit than if the original plan had been implimented. My bet: the church
leaders will not complain about the latter because they have a fig leaf for the
former.
Los Angeles
Regardless of the message of Springsteen's song, I personally think the musical artistry is lacking and lyrics severely simplistic. Pretty terrible. Sorry Bruce....
Not to be Pollyannish....
I sold my WMT stock (I felt dirty inside) and went hunting for alternatives and no major index stock... no large cap stocks were standout bargains. Fairly valued, sure.
I was forced to go to mid-caps or small caps if I wanted to expect a good dividend with potential upside.
The big money has bought in and the smaller companies are going to see some action.
That may mean they start to hire....
Furthermore, people with retirement funds that may be heavy with small and mid caps will start to plump some and those people will spend a little more readily.
I smell recovery unless Congress acts now. (Lord knows we know they want to. If unemployment hits 7.9% before the Democratic Convention, we can start looking for a meat thermometer for Romney.
Killed Bin Laden, fixed the George Bush Recession.
Game match set.
Steve, it looks like you're slowing down in your old age. Here it is Saturday night and nothing since yesterday.
Reminds me of a true story I once was told. The hired man on a dairy farm hadn't missed a milking in over 20 years (two times, morning and night, seven days a week) and at some point he got hurt and was sent to the hospital. When he was fixed up, they had a godawful time getting him to leave. It was the first time in his life he had had a respite from work.
"Yet you tell me you don't believe we're on the eve of destruction"