1) The binder "controversy". At first I didn't understand and I thought it was a joke. I am still shaking my head that the press and radical feminists could make something out of the statement by Mitt Romney that he looked through "binders" of women's resumes to be sure to hire women for his administration in Massachusetts. Can the left truly be that desperate to smear Romney, to the point that they make no earthly sense? I mean, I don't know a person alive who did not understand what he meant by "binders of women" in the context of all he said. Having heard the story, who could construe it as anything other than good for women?
As my incredulous 18-year-old daughter said to me: "Where else would resumes be?"
Would it have been better if the resumes were in files or boxes? Would that have been less "hateful" toward women?
Is the Romney-hating left this far gone, this unhinged?
But then again, these are the Democrats -- who are not offended by true degraders of women such as Bill Clinton or any number of Kennedys. Those men can treat women like dirt, or, like Bill Maher, they can use shocking and filthy terms for women, and they get a pass. Why? Because those men worship at the altar of Abortion on Demand. That makes them champions of women. That's the formula.
But has any radical feminist every wondered why womanizing, objectifying, and misogynistic males love abortion so much? It really isn't hard to figure out why a cad might champion abortion more than would a noble, honorable man.
Anyway, the left can keep on making an issue out of "binders" as far as I am concerned, because that type of lunacy shows them to be more and more irrelevant.
2) I love this clergyman. He is courageous, and he exhorts black Christians to be loyal to Jesus Christ, not Barack Obama:
Amen!!
3) Oh my gosh, this is so funny. Trust me, you need to watch this to the end; you will be laughing and loving every minute! I adore our seminarians! Those of you who are not yet Catholic, what are you waiting for? We have so much fun!
4) Aaaaaaand... by way of utter contrast, we have these angry and seemingly miserable celebrity woman who think and vote with their "lady parts" -- but presumably only on the condition that their lady parts are objectified and sterile. Shiver. Does this attract anyone to their cause? Who would want to be like them? I honestly hope they can find peace with their own biology someday, and realize that they were "fearfully and wonderfully made" by a God who loves them. Ladies, this is no way to live.
Maybe I should spew out another rant after Monday night's debate?
6) A very important prayer request from a member of our Bubble family.
You all know "college student" (now graduated and known as "CS"), and you know of our contentious history on this blog and how often we have sparred. CS emailed me a few days ago, humbly asking for our prayers for her beloved father, who has just been diagnosed with cancer. Her father is a good family man -- married to her mother for 33 years, the proud father of two daughters -- and CS is understandably scared. She is also hopeful that her dad will be around for many more years to see her and her sister married and settled with families of their own. Please pray for a good prognosis for Michael. CS is eternally grateful for those prayers ascending to Heaven. She knows that God is working in all of this.
7) This orphan report is a rough one. The Lost Boys are the hardest to write about or even think about, so I will keep this portion of it brief. I wrote a post about Heath, Sasha, and Hanson here:
 |
| Heath has over $21,000 in his grant! Money is not an issue! |
 |
| Click my photo for more information! |
 |
| Never mind my clothes, I am a boy! And I need saving! |
Please, read my post here, and spread the word as best you can. One person alone cannot save the Lost Boys. We really have to work together to get the word out to potential families.
In fact, we have seen what happens when we all work together to save a special needs orphan! Remember Malcolm?! His soon-to-be parents have touched down in Moscow within the past hour and will be meeting him for the first time this week! Praise God for this blessing. They still have a few months to go to bring him all the way home, but before long he will be an orphan no more, thanks in large part to you!
Have a great Sunday!
Thanks to Jen for hosting Quick Takes!
Invasive ultrasounds!!! Redefining rape!!! Overturning Roe v Wade!! NOOOOooooOOooo!!!
ReplyDeleteDude. What is UP with these people? I hope one day they see themselves and shudder, because it's truly scary.
Will be praying for CS.
#4 Ignorant. Cancer screenings? LOL
ReplyDeletePraying for CS
I loved your rant! :)
Looking fwd to Monday night! I already voted! Woooo!
ReplyDeleteI may be wrong, but i believe women were far more upset by Romneys remarks that gun violence could be caused by single mothers.
ReplyDeleteWill be praying for CS.
Because ultrasound is so much more invasive than the knife and suction up your "lady parts"! It is so sad and scary this is how they think! St. Michael, Defend us in battle! Love your blog, Lelia! I pulled my kids out of school and homeschool now! Pray for me!
ReplyDeleteI LOVE that video of the seminarians dancing! Where do you find this great stuff Leila? :-) (Hee,hee!)
ReplyDeleteDefinitely will be adding CS father to the list of prayers, for his physical, emotional and spiritual care. Hang in there CS!
I thought the binder jokes were just that--jokes. Simply another jab at Romney's awkward phrasings. If anyone was seriously offended, that's obviously a problem.
ReplyDeletejosephg, seriously? I certainly don't remember that type of phrasing. I am pretty sure that he was lamenting the breakdown of the nuclear family and the social ills that come from that. Are you disputing that? I've said it before: The single biggest indicator of poverty is not race, it's single motherhood. If women marry first, then have children, their odds of living in poverty go waaaaaaaay down. I don't want politicians spouting platitudes to make folks feel good about themselves, I want a politician to tell the hard truth, for our own good. That fact, about poverty and family breakdown, is the truth. I am so glad Romney had the guts to say what no one else will. Imagine if Michelle Obama had chosen to promote strong families and marriage rather than exercise and food police? She has such influence with the black community, and it would have helped start an important conversation. People might have actually started talking about it again (the way Bill Cosby so bravely did, and was vilified). She missed her chance, sadly, to really help uplift the black community and those in poverty everywhere (white or black). Wow, that is a subject I could rant about…
ReplyDeleteAnd, I never heard about that backlash against Romney anyway, so were women really offended? All I heard about was the desperate "binder" comment.
Becky, ha ha!! I must give credit to you, my love! You found that video for me, and I had another nudge from Acts of the Apostasy's blog. Sometimes I need reminders. :)
Chris, I wish they were jokes! Check this out….
ReplyDeletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CA1XtohKwaw
Watch at least the first few minutes. It's funny as well as sad.
DeleteIn the liberal community yes that was definitely a big problem. When you're asked a question about gun violence and you dont answer about guns and instead place the blame on families headed by single women, people are going to be offended.
ReplyDeleteno question, the nuclear family is important, but i think the question was asking more about his thoughts on gun control. I think the outrage was fair. from what I can tell, the binder stuff was mostly just that it sounded funny. For sure his other comments on women (the gun stuff, and the equal pay question) where more important to women than the binder comment.
Jeez.
ReplyDeleteIn talking about this, we're all forgetting that Obama's answer to the question was to name a specific policy he championed, while Romney's was an anecdote about his personal version of affirmative action.
josephg, thanks. I don't personally think the outrage was fair at all, though. Why was there outrage that he spoke the truth? Why is there gun violence in the inner cities? Is it because guns are there, or is it something deeper? I have never owned a gun (though we are finally considering it!), but I am pretty sure every single one of my friends and associates owns one. I never really realized how many of my friends and neighbors own guns (sometimes many multiple). But gun violence is non-existent in their families/lives. My question for you (or anyone) is why? If guns are the cause of so much violence, where is the violence among certain gun owners vs. other gun owners? My point is, it cannot just be the gun. There is a deep moral problem (and a problem of hopelessness/poverty) that goes with the gun violence. Why not address the real problems, and not just try to get rid of all the guns (futile anyway, as we have learned)? I don't get the "dancing around" the deeper social issues. Thoughts?
ReplyDeleteChris, I don't mind someone personally deciding to push a private type of affirmative action (though I doubt I would do it), as that is preferable to a government mandated one. I am for freedom over government force and mandates. So, Romney's answer was a thousand times more agreeable to me.
ReplyDeletei think the connection Romney made was very loose. For sure its important to look at underlying causes, but without making the connections or sufficiently addressing gun control he came across as dumping a lot of unecessary blame on women. That also implied that they're doing a bad job of raising their kids/can't do a good job (even if thats not what he meant) so i think the outrage was understandable.
ReplyDeleteI think a combination of helping to reduce poverty whatever peoples family sitautions might be along with gun control would be a more concrete and doable plan. I don't think you can make serious progress and ignore the problem of the guns themselves. http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/07/mass-shootings-map (look at stats on the weapons being legal/illegally obtained)
Why are you thinking about getting a gun? I personally would never own one (except maybe for hunting), and I don't think most people I know would even consider it. maybe its a northern thing...
josephg, do you see any hope here?
ReplyDeletehttp://www.childtrendsdatabank.org/?q=node/196
The Mother Jones article (not my favorite source, but let's go with it) is about "mass shootings". I think there was one in Sweden recently, no? They have tons of gun laws, I believe? Anyway, mass shootings are not the inner-city crime type shootings that we are talking about. The kind that go on in Chicago every day. It's like a third world situation on the streets there. And who runs that city? Liberals! I'll never understand why they are not to blame for their failed policies of several decades running. Also, don't those cities generally have strict gun laws?
Again, if the biggest single indicator of poverty is not gun ownership but single motherhood, then why are we not addressing that single biggest factor? I'm honestly asking… why wouldn't we address the root of what is really harming children? No one is saying that there aren't many great single moms (I know many). Romney made that point, too. But why are we denying the truth about what puts and keeps folks in poverty? How does that help anyone? I believe in telling the truth, not making people "feel good" to their own destruction, esp. when children are involved.
Do you not agree that there is a moral issue involved, and that citizens are not acting the way that they should? Is any of it the responsibility of the citizen himself, or the family, anymore? Do you think if all the guns magically disappeared, all would be well? I think that folks who shoot others will find a way to stab others. You did not address my point that we don't see gun violence around here, even though all the conservatives I know own many guns. I'd love your take on why that might be.
Yes, Arizona has guns, perhaps more than up north, it's true! People apparently love to shoot and hunt, but they also have them for home protection (this is a very large city, so it's not just that we are out in the sticks). Again, I've never owned or wanted one (nor my raised-Jewish husband from up north!), but we both are seriously considering it due to the climate in this nation these days, and the loss of my religious freedoms should HHS stand. Family protection is very important to us, and getting more so. I'm realizing more and more why there is a 2nd amendment.
Correction, the mass shooting was in Norway, not Sweden. I apologize for the mistake.
DeleteThe question was about policy and Romney dodged it with a personal anecdote that had nothing to do with policy. That's my point.
ReplyDeleteI think its more than single motherhood (I mean, obviously it can't just be one thing). What do you make of these stats? http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/07/23/six-facts-about-guns-violence-and-gun-control/ Also you can legally regulate guns but not single mothers, so thats something to remember too.
ReplyDeleteGun control cant fix everything, but it should be obvious that its not useless. And I don't think that gun ownership automatically (hah, pun) means that your going to have gun violence. But limiting supply has to help. Think of abortions - we want them banned even though there will still be abortions, because it will decrease their number. Right? Seems like the same thing.
Im not seeing the HHS connection...how would having a gun protect your religious freedom??
Chris, I think that's because Romney does not want more gun policies in place, for the very reason that he stated (the problem is not guns).
ReplyDeletejosephg, of course it's not just single motherhood, but the point that I've made more than once is that that is the single biggest indicator of who is in poverty. If we don't tackle that (did you see the stats I linked? Non-partisan), nothing else will make much of a difference. Did you see any hope in those stats?
Right, morality cannot always be legislated, but we can have a cultural expectation of certain ideals, can't we? The left says we shouldn't, because that would be "judging". It's like the sex educator that I spoke to who said that she does use the word "marriage" when speaking to disadvantage kids because that word is "judgmental" (???!!!)
Where have all the grown-ups (and common sense) gone?
The Ezra Klein/Wash. Post article won't load for me, but it's sort of like Mother Jones, in that it's not exactly a balanced source. Can you tell me what the other side (NRA, maybe?) has to say, and then we will get a more fair picture? I will try to load the article later and I promise to read it.
You can't equate abortions with gun ownership, because there is no intrinsic evil in owning a gun, whereas abortion is intrinsically evil.
As for the HHS connection: If centralized government continues to grow and continues on the path of denying first freedoms, the civil unrest will grow. There is a very fine line between stable society and one that becomes unstable. Surely history bears that out, and we are only immune to the extent that we honor the Constitution and first freedoms. When that goes, instability comes. I would not want to be caught in an unstable society without protection for my family and my husband feels the same. We should all have a healthy fear of an ever expanding, usurping federal government. The Founders did, and that is why the 2nd Amendment was born.
Sorry, should say, "The sex educator DOESN'T use the term "marriage" when she speaks to underprivileged kids. Too "judgmental".
DeleteI was still talking about equal pay, not gun laws.
ReplyDeleteChris, sorry! I misunderstood. I think it would have been great if Romney would have debunked the "unequal pay" thing (which actually has been debunked long ago, including by the Labor Department):
ReplyDeletehttp://townhall.com/columnists/julieborowski/2012/06/15/obama_exploits_phony_wage_gap_statistic_for_political_gain/page/full/
This one speaks to it more succinctly, as well as exposing the Lilly Ledbetter issue:
http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/101812-629933-obama-white-house-pays-women-less.htm
No, no, I know poverty is important and the problem of single motherhood is very important. but my point in mentioning abortions is that there are certain things we want reduced (broadly, deaths), and if we limit the means, we can limit the ends. I wasnt saying they were equal, but the ideas I think are analogous, and to me thats just common sense. having cultural standards is for sure important, but we're talking about things that can be legislated. We cant legally do anything about single motherhood or people having sex who don't want babies, but we can do somethng legally about making it hard for the bad results to happen.
ReplyDeleteI'll copy and paste the points in the article:
1. America is an unusually violent country. But we’re not as violent as we used to be.
2. The South is the most violent region in the United States.
3. Gun ownership in the United States is declining overall.
4. More guns tend to mean more homicide.
5. States with stricter gun control laws have fewer deaths from gun-related violence.
6. Gun control is not politically popular.
there are graphs/sources for all of those too.
if you want unbiased, the NRA is definitely not the place to look!
Seems to me that your being way too paranoid about the HHS mandate. For me, I would never keep guns in the house because having one would make me more nervous than feel safe. The chances of me being in a situation where 1 I feel threatened enough that I'd like to shoot and 2 could even shoot effectively without my own gun being turned against me seem so slim that having one would make no sense. Also I'm just generally sickened by stories of people wrongly shooting suspected criminals (like Trayvon Martin) and so I would literally never feel comfortable owning or using a gun even in self defense.
need to stop commenting and go to work! but I hope youll consider some of the points in that article if you can get it to load.
Leila, so many thanks for all your work - this time special thanks for the Lost Boys! It's fantastic news that Malcolm will soon be with his family! I had the privilege for a few years of leading a global organization providing families for children who'd lost their parents - my area of responsibility was the Middle East, where I lived for a number of years. But adopting these boys is something else, and I bow my head to those who adopt them (and help in my own tiny way).
ReplyDeleteBut the main reason I write today is to wish well to CS' father, and to say that of course we are praying for him. I'm so glad to know that you appreciate the importance of the prayer! God bless
Women tend to hold lower ranked jobs in the White House than men do, which is why they are statistically paid less overall. This situation occurs in most places, and there's not really anything the law can do about it (except in the cases where purposeful discrimination is going on).
ReplyDeleteThe equal pay issue, on the other hand, is for women and men doing the exact same work (it's true that the 73% number is misleading, but there is still an actual problem, as exemplified by Ms. Ledbetter's experiences). Rejecting Ledbetter's problem, as both you and Governor Romney do, is ignoring a real issue that some women face. If you don't think the new law is helpful enough to women experiencing pay discrimination, then you should support an alternative. Unfortunately, Romney won't do that, which is why he supplied his personal tale of binders and women.
josephg, I finally got it to load. Wow, those are some vague points, and even the article admits that. For example, the more "violent" south part speaks of "assaults" but not gun deaths? I thought we were saying that guns were the problem, not fists? Unless I am missing something in the article. Also, it does not zero in on anything at all. What of the fact that my (more pro-gun) neighborhoods in suburban Phoenix (which contain many guns) are much, much, much less likely to see regular bloodshed than the much more gun-regulated inner cities?
ReplyDeleteMany unanswered questions. I was suggesting the NRA not for unbiased sources, but because it was the counterpoint to a biased source like Ezra Klein and the WP. :) Both are on opposite extremes.
As for legislation, we already have tons of gun laws. Why not enforce the ones we have, and not introduce new ones? Also, cars kill many, many folks, as do pools. We could legislate them out of existence (or make them very hard to get/use), but that would be silly. Again, none of those issues are like abortion (a true, intrinsic evil). And, gun ownership is different in kind, as it is explicitly protected by our Constitution. Question: Why is your understanding of why the Second Amendment was put in place?
I totally respect your right not to own a gun. I have had the same reasons on my lips for years, which is why I don't own one. I would never try to convince you to own a gun if you prefer not to, or if you are opposed to them.
to be continued...
You may think I am way too paranoid about the expansive power of the government, but honestly just a cursory look at history should give us all a healthy fear of what happens when the government starts pro-actively taking away first freedoms. My freedom of religion, my Catholicism, is much more important to me (and to many others) than being an American. And because I adore my country and love being an American (my dad didn't immigrate here for nothing!), that's saying something. I don't see the nation going in a good direction, and I see Catholics being further marginalized as secularists expand their power. Maybe you don't have the same facebook and blog debates I have, ha ha! They truly do not care about religious freedom, and in fact, they say that it is the Church who is infringing on their rights (to get free contraception, apparently), and that the Church must be stopped and silenced.
ReplyDeleteThis is just a small sampling of what normal citizens have said to me, in great anger and rage, within the past few days alone (in response to my calmly stating the Church's case):
"Tell your Congressmen and women and religious leaders to stop fighting the contraception mandate of the ACA."
Can you imagine?
Yes, in the middle of her diatribe about the evils of teaching abstinence, and how we need more birth control for all and more Planned Parenthood funding, she told religious leaders to "stop fighting" -- give up religious freedom, and commit mortal sin. Sell out our conscience and beliefs for her $9 pack of Pills. Give in to what the government is forcing us to do, under threat of fines, jail, ruin.
They really believe we must!
And this, from another woman who wants free birth control from Catholics, or else:
"I support the right to be free from your religious beliefs - and that's what religious freedom meant to those who founded this country. Bye!"
They don't care about our religious freedoms. Each comment that slammed the Church and religious liberty was given multiple "thumbs up" by the other women in the facebook thread.
Do you not see what is all around us? Hatred for the Church, and a reverence for abortion and birth control, and a desire to see the government force the Church into compliance and silence. If you don't see it, then you need to take another look at the videos I post, or the articles I link, or else start some conversations of your own with those on the left, regarding this issue.
You will be shocked at the anger and rage against the Church just wanting the status quo, and to continue on as she always has….
If you think by my experts that these women are calm and rational, but just disagree, you are wrong. For example, one of the ladies, who doesn't know me at all (I've never heard of her before), wrote this to me when I objected to the Church being forced into the HHS mandate. Please note that I used an unemotional tone, just stating the facts. I made sure she understood that no one was blocking her access to contraception and she could go ahead and use it as she always has. I explained that she was free to continue with her sex life as she pleased as well:
ReplyDelete... if using contraception in unthinkable for you, then don't use it. End of story. But you cannot use your religion to dictate my sexual activity. YOU ARE NOT ALLOWED. If you want to repress your sexuality and say that you will only have sex with the full intention of becoming pregnant, go for it. If you want to refrain from having sex with your husband because you're done having children, go for it. But that is not a choice I make. I choose to enjoy myself and my husband. And I choose to not have more children. I choose to use contraception to prevent pregnancy. And I pay for my health insurance; it had better cover that contraception.
You need to move out of the 11th century way of life. There are more non-Catholics than Catholics in this world. Religion does not dictate the course of life for a great many people, and those who do follow religion closely do not follow the exact path you take. You can make choices for you; you are not allowed to make those same choices for me.
I notice that as a "devout Catholic woman" you neglected to say anything about what happened to me. You degrade me because I choose not to be Catholic (why would I choose to be a part of something so degrading toward women and children?), but you have no compassion. You have no empathy towards the suffering of others. You do not tend to the sick and the poor. You cannot avoid judging and preaching about how holy you are to others. You cannot walk a mile in someone else's shoes. You do not turn the other cheek. You do not follow Jesus' teachings. You are NOT Catholic. You are just someone who attends church and mouths the "right" words. I've met real Catholics and I've met real Christians who weren't Catholic. You are nothing like them.
Note the straw men, the ad hominem (she doesn't know me from Adam, and I never gave her any details of my private life!), the slam at my Faith. All for opposing the HHS mandate. These folks are everywhere, and frankly, it's unnerving.
And please note that it's the Democrat Party that is formally pushing these scare tactics about "taking access to contraception away from women". This is unconscionable. That's why I find Obama and the Dems to be some of the most frightening folks, and if they have political power, they are to be feared -- and voted out of office.
Holy Typos, Batman!! It should read: "If you think by my excerpts that…"
DeleteAbout the binders: I was watching O'Reilly and he asked his guests if they thought women were truly offended by the binders comment: They said absolutely not, and if they were they would also be offended by Bill Clinton and Jay Z and all of the men who have objectified women openly and deliberately. I agree 100% and if there is any woman out there offended by the binders comment I would be interested in hearing why.
ReplyDeleteLol. Definitely got ahead of myself there. Should have kept reading..
DeleteSebastian, how wonderful! Thank you for your service for children and families.
ReplyDeleteChris, I am confused… I never said that there was pay discrimination that needs to be "corrected" and legislated by government. So would not put any policies into place. I don't see it as ignoring a "real issue" that women face, because I think the pay disparities are due to factors other than discrimination. I can't speak for Romney.
Maybe this brief video analysis will make my point more clearly:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EwogDPh-Sow
Manda, I agree. This is "faux rage" by the feminists. Totally manufactured. But my point is that they were not "joking" about it. They whipped this up because they are desperate and they want to convince folks that Romney thinks badly of women. They make up an offense and then run with it, making it into a narrative. It's craziness.
ReplyDeleteLol. Definitely got ahead of myself there. Should have kept reading..
ReplyDeleteManda, no worries, I should have been more clear. And, I think that there are women who have convinced themselves that they are now offended (or who are just listening to the outraged feminists, maybe never having seen the debate, and so they believe they should be offended).
Sorry, with that last part I was more responding to the second piece you cited, which critiques the law for having more to do with lawsuits than anything else. Paul Ryan also said something to that effect. I responsed to that instead of to your position, I guess.
ReplyDeleteIf Romney doesn't think there's a problem, he should have said so. If he thinks there's a problem, he should have suggested policy, or else stated that that wasn't something for the government to do. He didn't do any of those things.
You say you can't speak for Romney. That is a problem. It means you don't know what he thinks about an issue. You should, though. Romney was asked about the issue, after all, giving him ample time to describe his position.
Honestly, the equal pay thing has always made sense to me (that there is not a discrimination crisis). So, I figured that as a Republican for less government, Romney is not for more policies about that. I don't think I'm wrong. I am pretty sure I knew his general feeling about equal pay laws before he went in. So, I don't see that as a "problem". When I said that I can't speak for him, I was only alluding to the fact that you and I are having this conversation, and I thought you assumed that I assumed that there was a "real problem" with equal pay-equal work. I am guessing Romney is not too concerned about that being a true discrimination problem, but again, it's not a big issue to me -- I just did not want to pretend to speak for him.
ReplyDeleteHope that makes sense. Sometimes in my need to be clear, I go into overkill.
As for Romney "saying so" in a two-minute question: Can you imagine him saying there "is no problem" with equal pay to a liberal press who will take that and blow it up to the proportion of an atomic bomb in scope (look at what they did with "binders", or with "he wants to take away your contraception!")? With not nearly enough time to actually CORRECT the misconceptions in a debate like that? I wouldn't have attempted to touch that with a ten foot pole, not in that forum!! He was smart! Wow, who would open that can of worms in a two-minute townhall forum with Candy Crowley moderating?
Romney won't ever take a stance on that issue, no matter what venue he's in. As I said, Paul Ryan did in fact criticize the law itself recently. That's what Romney could have done. He could have said:
ReplyDelete"The Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act is just a set of expanded rights for lawyers. Only about 30 successful lawsuits have been filed as a result of it, and that's for a national law that's been on the books for several years. Since the law has been such a gigantic failure (considering how little it's actually done for American women), I don't think that a Romney Administration would fare any better at the liberal game of trying to fix problems through government. However, I DO know that my pro-growth policies will raise everyone's salary in time, whereas this president has only taken more and more out of everyone's paychecks, including the paychecks of American women."
He could have expanded, obviously. But I think a quick criticism of the LLFPA, and then a pivot to generic economic policy with a reference to women thrown in, could have declared a position (that he wouldn't do anything) tastefully, while sounding good to voters and not saying anything about binders full of women.
No, the problem was that he really doesn't have a declared position at all. Romney's plans have been in Schrodinger's box all year, and it doesn't look like they'll come out before election day.
Here's what I mean. Even his own staff members don't know.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57535145/from-romney-camp-conflicting-remarks-on-fair-pay-act/
The only thing they can agree on is that he wouldn't repeal it, and I don't think anyone is advocating for repeal (although some say it wasn't needed in the first place).
Chris, yes, he could have said that! Would that that had been on his lips. You should be his advisor, because that is good stuff. :)
ReplyDeleteSince it's not my issue (other than limiting government, which I support), it really did not seem like a big deal to me at all, and I thought his story of seeking out women employees was a great thing. Really, I had no issue with any of what he said, nor am I conflicted about whether he or Obama is the candidate who wants more limited government. I think it's safe to say that Romney is closer to my values on that. That fact is not "unknown" to me at all. So, it was the hysterical "binder" reaction that got my attention, because it was so off the wall.
On pretty much any issue, I know that Romney will be closer to my own values than Obama. And that's how I vote.
One more take on the "binders" head scratcher (it made me laugh):
ReplyDeletehttp://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2012/10/17/Romney-binders-full-of-women
Now, the second part of that article talks of the "hostile work environment" in the Obama administration. Can you imagine for one stinking second if that was alleged by the women of a Bush or Romney administration? What the press and the left would do with that?
But it goes to show that what I said above is true:
[Liberal] men can treat women like dirt, or, like Bill Maher, they can use shocking and filthy terms for women, and they get a pass. Why? Because those men worship at the altar of Abortion on Demand. That makes them champions of women. That's the formula.
I'm starting to think that the Romney campaign strategy is to deliberately make comments that will cause Dem women to make utter fools of themselves. First you had women dressing up like packages of BCP and vaginas; now they're dressing up like binders.
ReplyDeleteI had a lib friend on FB claim that Romney hated women, etc. I posted a link to a news story regarding the female former employees of Romney who praised him to the skies. She responded that the women probably didn't exist but was unable to prove her assertion. I posted another article and asked how two different news sources could come up with the exact same "imaginary" story. She changed the subject. Par for the course these days, sadly.
CS-I am so very sorry to hear of your dad's recent diagnosis with cancer. In the past year, I have also experienced cancer threatening the life of a loved one. It is a difficult and heart wrenching situation, to say the least. I hope your dad wins this fight and has the best health insurance available. And I hope you find solace and comfort with a loving and supportive circle of family, friends and now internet friends too. Please know I am thinking of you and your family.
ReplyDeletewith love,
gwen
Gwen, that is very difficult and I'm sorry. I hope your loved one is okay now.
ReplyDeleteForgot to add earlier - CS, my thoughts and prayers are with you and your family.
ReplyDeleteThat video from the minister was pretty great. I love that he doesn't have fear to bring up how planned parenthood and comparing gay marriage to black civil rights are not helpful to the black community.
ReplyDeleteAnd! The fact that he alludes to people "worshipping" Obama as their God! So glad that people recognize that!
CS -- I am so sorry to hear about your father! We know exactly how you feel. My father-in-law was diagnosed with cancer and then he also suffered a stroke. We have lived through this roller coaster for the last five years, and we are thankful for every day and every sign of progress. We have also faced cancer with other family members, and I know the anxiety, fear, and sadness, as well as some unexpected blessings and peace. We will definitely be praying for you and your family -- for healing and peace and anything that you may need.
ReplyDeleteOn gun control -- Violence in the U.S. is not caused by gun ownership or lax laws. We have some other fundamental problems that lead to higher violence, whether that violence be via guns or other means. Take a look at this article on the Swiss. Even mainstream media discusses the reality that gun ownership in Switzerland cripples the argument that gun ownership by private citizens leads to higher gun violence. They even own the big, scary guns!
http://www.stephenhalbrook.com/articles/guns-crime-swiss.html
To add to this argument and to show that the Swiss are not anomalies, take a look at this map. It shows average firearm ownership (per 100 people) and gun homicide rate (per 100,000 people) by country. Unfortunately, they don't have a set of data on every country for each category, but you can do a nice comparison with the available data.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/interactive/2012/jul/22/gun-ownership-homicides-map?fb=native
Just FYI -- the stats in the first article are from the 90's, so they don't perfectly match the stats from today. The concepts still apply. Switzerland consistently ranks in the top four in the world for guns per capita. If you see a world list of rankings, you will find a lot of variability in the relationship between guns per capita and actual violence/gun violence, etc. Many factors contribute to gun violence, or any violence for that matter, and removing and restricting guns will not solve the root problems. As discussed earlier, guns contribute to increased safety and protection of the innocent and, of course, as a measure against tyranny.
ReplyDeleteElizabeth, once again, you say this more eloquently than I! Thank you!
ReplyDeleteOh, no, Leila -- I can barely keep up with you! I still haven't read all the comments yet, so I better get on that :). I try to read all of them before typing, and so many great topics are covered in your posts and in the comments.
ReplyDeleteJust for fun:
ReplyDeletehttp://imageshack.us/a/img29/857/allthedebates.jpg
Chris, LOL!!!
ReplyDeletePrayers up for CS, her father and her family--that God will give the doctors wisdom in their diagnosis and treatment plan, that God will work His miraculous power to heal her father totally, and that her family will draw closer together and grow in their love for each other during this difficult time.
ReplyDeleteKara, Sew, Josephg, Becky, Sebastian, Miss G, JoAnna, Elizabeth, Benesford, Leila of course, and anyone else who was kind enough to think of my family.
ReplyDeleteI want to sincerely thank you all for your thoughts, prayers, and well wishes. My father is a very strong man in the very early stages of diagnosis. It doesn’t look like the cancer has spread to his bones, and we are extremely thankful for that. Now we are praying that the additional tests reveal it hasn’t spread anywhere else, because how contained his cancer is, is a one of the biggest measures for how treatable or deadly it might be
Thank you profusely for your continued support and prayers.
Gratefully,
CS
Sorry about your father, CS. Hang in there.
ReplyDeleteOf course, CS. Please keep us posted. We will be sure to continue to pray.
ReplyDeleteDon't know if you are still around Josephg, but here are a couple of articles worth considering:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/12/03/truth-about-costas-belcher-and-guns/
http://www.wtop.com/120/3131395/Gun-violence-in-Va-falls-firearms-sales-up