After the dust settled from Friday's rehash of religious persecution, abortion, and the first amendment of the United States constitution violation, I heard these discussions presented in a more civil fashion than we did at the VA. That shouldn't be surprising.
I'm going to dust off my old strategy book (not really a book) I used on my opponents at work. In fact it was the same tactics I used for parenting. First, we got to lay down some ground rules like staying on subject and not drifting off or trying to rehash old arguments.
I'll start off with the recent ruling requiring all nonprofits to comply with the new healthcare law. The catholic churches are nonprofit, but it is exempted from implementing anything they goes against their religious beliefs. Anyone working directly for the Catholic Church falls into that category. Catholic charities and hospitals do not, so they are under the same rules as anyone else under the healthcare law. I was watching and listening to Joe Scarborough and Micah Brzezinski agreeing with each other that this action by the government would alienate catholic voters. Their next guest, Governor Malloy, shot that theory in the water. He said it's already been approved by 28 states including Mitt Romney's Massachusetts's healthcare plan. Of course Joe Scarborough couldn't take no for an answer, so he started talking about the lunch bucket Reagan democrats up in the Philadelphia suburbs who will not vote for Obama. He doesn't have the slightest idea on what people do, when they close the curtain to vote. He's always saying "according to the democrats I spoke to" but name some names Joe, so it sounds more believable. The governor said that catholic charities receive the most of their money from Medicare and Medicaid. That lit a fire under Joe Scarborough, he then said the obvious" if you don't take Federal money then you won't be she subject to religious persecution." There are just some people that are locked in their beliefs.
Howard Kurtz of CNN’s "Reliable Sources" tried to have a civil discussion about the recent Susan G. Komen fiasco but you can't really separate ideology from the discussion. Mr. Kurtz said " if it was political to give to Planned Parenthood, then it's political to withdrawal that funding." He mentions that two of three times and I agreed at that time but in I thought about it. The funding should not have been political because even though Parenthood is the largest provider of abortions, according to their website they provided" doctors and nurses teach patients about breast care, connect patients to resources to help them get vital biopsies, ultrasounds, and mammograms, and follow up to make sure patients are cared for with the attention they need and deserve." Now we all found out that "Karen Handel, Komen's staunchly anti-abortion vice president for public policy, was the main force behind the decision to defund Planned Parenthood and the attempt to make that decision look nonpolitical." What a clever scheme they used, they had Congressman Cliff Stearns start an investigation of Planned Parenthood and then conveniently say that the new Komen policy was not to give money to those organizations that are under investigation. I was reminded that Dick Cheney fed information to NYT's Judith Miller about Iraq's WMD program and then go on "Meet the Press" and say the New York Times just printed an article about Iraq's WMD. The Susan G Komen foundation should be able to fund any organization they want to but if they are going to use ideology as a guideline, they should let their contributors know.
Another topic I'm itching to get into is "fracking" but I can see where the usual suspects have already demonized the environmentalist and one called them carpetbaggers or as they used to say in the south “outside agitators." This too is about ideology because some will fight tooth and nail for the retention of fossil fuels; as though it is an infinite energy source with no impact on the environment.