On Saturday the NY Times presented a story on the contraception controversy that raised more questions than it answered. However, we see the glimmer of a possible further accomodation by Team Obama that may resolve this puzzle. Organizations that self-insure are subject to Federal, not state law; but the Federal law has not achieved its final finalization. Wiggle room!
Back to the Times:
N.Y. Law on Contraceptives Already in Place, and Catholic Institutions Comply
By JOSEPH BERGER and THOMAS KAPLAN
Although Archbishop Timothy M. Dolan of New York has vociferously argued that a national requirement for religiously affiliated institutions to cover birth control in their insurance plans is immoral and unacceptable, some Roman Catholic organizations in his own backyard have for 10 years been grudgingly complying with a state law making them do precisely that.
Then why, one wonders, are Catholic leaders so wound up now about the Federal rule after suffering in silence for so long? And why do only "some" organizations comply?
Some New York Catholic institutions — including the Archdiocese of New York, led by Archbishop Dolan, and the Diocese of Brooklyn — chose to self-insure rather than pay for contraception after New York State adopted a requirement in 2002 that any insurance policy with a prescription drug benefit provide coverage for birth control.
We hear about California:
One of the most contentious laws was approved in California in 1999; the measure effectively provided an exemption to churches but not to religiously affiliated hospitals, universities or social service organizations. Catholic Charities of Sacramento unsuccessfully challenged the law in court.
“It was pretty much a useless exemption, because the large employers are not churches,” said Carol Hogan, a spokeswoman for the California Catholic Conference. She said many large Catholic institutions in California, like hospitals, have since elected to sidestep the law by insuring themselves.
Self-insurance is the escape hatch, but it may not work at the Federal level; this is from a fact sheet prepared by the office of the Governor of Massachusetts:
State jurisdiction
State insurance laws apply only to the "fully insured" market, which is regulated by the state Division of Insurance. If an organization elects to self-fund its employee benefits plan – i.e., pay health claims from its own resources rather than buy health insurance – that organization is not subject to Massachusetts state insurance laws and would not be required to provide any particular outpatient services.
Some large employers, including municipalities, corporations, hospitals and universities, have their own private agreements with insurers and are considered to be "self-insured." Pursuant to the federal Employee Retirement Insurance Security Act (ERISA), self-insured plans are regulated only by federal law, and would not be subject to Massachusetts health insurance laws. However, both fully insured and self-insured health plans will have to comply with the federally mandated benefits under the Affordable Care Act.
So a Federal rule could eliminate the escape hatch employed by many Catholic entities. But what is the new Federal rule? The latest protest from the bishops hints that the status of self-insured plans is still a bit of a jump ball:
Second, the President has announced some changes in how that mandate will be administered, which is still unclear in its details. As far as we can tell at this point, the change appears to have the following basic contours:
·It would still mandate that all insurers must include coverage for the objectionable services in all the policies they would write. At this point, it would appear that self-insuring religious employers, and religious insurance companies, are not exempt from this mandate.
Hmm. One wonders whether a further compromise might be reached on the topic of the self-insured - perhaps they could be allowed the same escape hatch that has already been adopted in many states. Smaller Catholic entities in the currently free states would be affected (as they have been in New York), but large entities would probably soldier on on a self-insured basis.
Certainly, the President's Immaculate Contraception fantasy - the insurance companies will provide it for free - makes no sense in the context of self-insurance.
First? Gee, with that and a buck I can get a lousy cup of coffee.
Posted by: Mark Folkestad | February 13, 2012 at 12:12 AM
Well, Barry's got himself a crisis. What will he do with it?
Posted by: Frau Argwohn | February 13, 2012 at 12:15 AM
Well, if he keeps us focused on birth control, he can keep his job. For him, this is not a crisis yet, by any means.
Posted by: MarkO | February 13, 2012 at 12:21 AM
So the Times is discovering (a) that state governments are empowered to do some things that the Federal government is not; and (b) given (a), many, but not all, institutions opposed to the state measures find a way to sidestep them.
And from this we are supposed to conclude that no one should complain about the Feds doing whatever they want regardless of the constitution? What am I missing?
Posted by: jimmyk | February 13, 2012 at 12:23 AM
Citzens or Subjects? Damn good slogan. Where's my bumper sticker.
Posted by: MarkO | February 13, 2012 at 12:26 AM
WE always suspected, but as they say were arguing over the price
http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2012/02/media-matters-malevolent-machine-exposed-madness-white-house-collusion-media-coordination-and-cooper.html
Posted by: narciso | February 13, 2012 at 01:19 AM
Narciso,
And when the media aren't corrupt, they're stupid. Have a look at this bear with a salmon in its mouth:
'Woolly mammoth' spotted in Siberia
Posted by: daddy | February 13, 2012 at 02:00 AM
My reaction on learning there are "contentious" state laws with which religious charities can manage no better than "grudging" compliance is to think, "guess we better repeal those too".
I don't think I'm typical of the NYT readership though.
Posted by: bgates | February 13, 2012 at 02:15 AM
Well if John Edward's doesn't have to comply with the Fed's, why the heck should anyone else have to?
Posted by: daddy | February 13, 2012 at 02:53 AM
Encouragement.
More than a quarter of the Indiana House Democrats who unsuccessfully fought passage of the state's new right-to-work law won't try for re-election this year, further boosting the chances of Republicans strengthening their hold on the chamber.
"Democrats controlled the House for 16 of the previous 20 years before Republicans gained a 60-40 majority in the 2010 election and put many Democrats in tougher districts."
Posted by: daddy | February 13, 2012 at 03:43 AM
I love laws where the scope and meaning depends on who's writing the regulations. Why do we pay Congress?
In related news, look who's getting admitted to medical schools )and who is not):
http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2012/02/13/eye-opening-proof-of-discrimination-in-medical-school-acceptance/
Posted by: Clarice | February 13, 2012 at 07:16 AM
"It would still mandate that all insurers must include coverage for the objectionable services in all the policies they would write. At this point, it would appear that self-insuring religious employers, and religious insurance companies, are not exempt from this mandate."
The Southern Baptists self insure BTW.
Posted by: Clarice | February 13, 2012 at 07:22 AM
(Add to last post) And their head says they are affected by the Final regs Sebelius issued so they think it mandates them to provide coverage for abortifacients, birth control and sterilization.
Posted by: Clarice | February 13, 2012 at 07:24 AM
Clarice-
I don't know if you looked at that Crucible Moment link I posted last weekend but page 70 out of 136 talked about a Degree Qualification Protocol being developed with the aid of the Lumina Foundation. I had not heard of them so I looked them up and went to see who was on the Board. The entire board had a common feature and many were wearing African headwear to reenforce the point. I decided the DQP was not going to be about academics.
We really are rolling backwards towards paper credentials of limited meaning beyond door opening.
Plus Obamacare had affirmative action mandates and there is a push to change the nature of med school instruction so things like organic chem being too difficult will no longer be a barrier.
Posted by: rse | February 13, 2012 at 07:29 AM
First we banned employers from using IQ tests, then we dumbed down the SATs and skipped them altogether or put thumbs on the scales to make them less relevant as we dumbed down college and inflated grades, It's the full dumbbell employment plan.
Posted by: Clarice | February 13, 2012 at 07:34 AM
In related news, look who's getting admitted to medical schools )and who is not):
I bet there could be a huge story with "crony educations" too. Affirmative action kids get in, but so do the politically connected. I was surprised at the kids that got accepted into UVA & William & Mary....there had to be connections.
Posted by: Janet | February 13, 2012 at 07:40 AM
Well, there's that, Jane, but it is much harder to document the scope of it.
Posted by: Clarice | February 13, 2012 at 08:05 AM
Good morning. I see Hit is featured and leads Jim Geraghty's Morning Jolt. Congrats, Hit.
Posted by: centralcal | February 13, 2012 at 08:08 AM
The Times has a gauzy look at the Occup movement and their plans for when the weather turns better. May Day! Notice how they soft pedal the arrests-like it is just vandalism-and not murder, rapes, assults. Good grief. And I wonder who payed for the bus they used to go on "a tour"?
And I can't believe that I missed out on meeting up with JOMers this weekend:(
Posted by: RichatUF | February 13, 2012 at 08:15 AM
In retrosspect, it all makes sense now
http://legalinsurrection.com/2012/02/remember-when-no-one-understood-why-abc-asked-about-contraception-at-the-nh-republican-debate/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+LegalInsurrection+%28Le%C2%B7gal+In%C2%B7sur%C2%B7rec%C2%B7tion%29
Posted by: narciso | February 13, 2012 at 08:57 AM
LI makes a great point about battlefield prep with the contraceptive question by ABC.
Like the battlefield prep by the WaPo for gun control laws before F&F broke.
Rich, I emailed you.
Posted by: Janet | February 13, 2012 at 09:00 AM
Oh, Rich, please forgive me. I have not been feeling well and simply forgot when we went thru the list of JOMers.
Posted by: Clarice | February 13, 2012 at 09:06 AM
Clarice:
In related news, look who's getting admitted to medical schools )and who is not):
Sobering, as well as depressing, with my daughter graduating this year with her Biology degree (with Chem minor) hoping to get into med school. Not sure I want to share the link with her although she may be aware of the rough road ahead :(
Posted by: MoodyBlu | February 13, 2012 at 09:07 AM
Now it is all starting to make sense. Why didn't I think of that?
This dovetails nicely with Tucker Carlson's report of Media Matters
Posted by: Jane | February 13, 2012 at 09:08 AM
George Weigel in NRO. I think he's outlined the battle very succinctly:
The Libertine Police State
Posted by: Porchlight | February 13, 2012 at 09:09 AM
I guess when one is 'severely conservative' one has to do this;
http://nicedeb.wordpress.com/2012/02/06/mitts-big-guns-now-trained-on-santorum/
Posted by: narciso | February 13, 2012 at 09:11 AM
In information, and economics, they are very Orwellian, in social policy, they are Huxleyan.
Posted by: narciso | February 13, 2012 at 09:13 AM
I think the bishops are wrong on this point:
Looks pretty near crystal to me. And the Administration's message couldn't be more clear (i.e., "You F'ed up, you trusted us").Posted by: Cecil Turner | February 13, 2012 at 09:15 AM
Hit's observation about Obama at NRO seems very shrewd to me. It goes along with being uncharitable. I once told a shrink friend of mine that the biggest clue to neurotic behavior in my mind was whether or not someone engaged in charitable actions or contributed to charitable causes. People who skip on that--like the Clintons and Obamas--always seem to me to feel they are owed more and are envious of others.
Posted by: Clarice | February 13, 2012 at 09:20 AM
Are you in DC Rich? I didn't know, and it was I not Clarice who was supposed to deal with the list. I really am sorry.
Posted by: Jane | February 13, 2012 at 09:21 AM
ccal:
I see Hit is featured and leads Jim Geraghty's Morning Jolt.
Ha! Hadn't seen it yet,thanks.
In other Geraghty news,I was
sucking up tocasually chatting with him via email and mentioned that Jane mentioned him over the weekend. He asked where on JOM.I quickly replied that if I was getting Jane into trouble for anything . . . that my real name was actually Clarice Feldman.
Not sure if he bought it.
Posted by: hit and run | February 13, 2012 at 09:21 AM
You rascal.
Posted by: Clarice | February 13, 2012 at 09:23 AM
Jane, I did know and should have remembered. Rich and I have tried on a couple of occasions to get together to no end. It just slipped my mind when you asked if there was anyone else.
Posted by: Clarice | February 13, 2012 at 09:24 AM
Well baby steps are appreciated;
http://www.stoptheaclu.com/2012/02/13/obamas-budget-can-be-seen-as-borderline-delusional/
Posted by: narciso | February 13, 2012 at 09:30 AM
Clarice,
And both of them had Mommy issues and step-Daddy issues which is more than coincidental in reference to your observation of charity (which means love). Was that the missing attraction - no love - no charity? Its the unloved at youth that has a hard damn time enjoying it in adulthood.
I think it is this psychosis that leads to the "do as I say not as I do" kind of political behavior currently on display by Dear Leader.
Posted by: Jack is Back! | February 13, 2012 at 09:35 AM
Privately, Obama sees recovery 1-2 years off
Obamanomics seems a bit like communism, it's always over the horizon.
Posted by: Neo | February 13, 2012 at 09:44 AM
I just want to point out that these same people who have little use for private acts of charity are firm believers in state coerced altruism.
Kim-are you monitoring the German brouhaha over the book The Cold Sun?
Have been to Jo Nova's site this morning. Do you follow her?
Posted by: rse | February 13, 2012 at 09:44 AM
Yes, but does that explain Edwards or alt reality star Biden, or our own local ray of sunshine, down here,
http://www.punditandpundette.com/2012/02/obamas-war-on-conscience-contd.html
OT, don't you feel all warm and fuzzy, that
the White House was in communication with such
a nutball/conman David Brock.
Posted by: narciso | February 13, 2012 at 09:45 AM
Minus 13 at Raz today.
Posted by: Danube of Thought | February 13, 2012 at 09:55 AM
Ah, DoT, that's more like it.
Posted by: Clarice | February 13, 2012 at 09:56 AM
Even the Daily News, 'bless their hearts' said
how this could interfere with the positive economic news, they are in favor of it, but you know, 'bitter clingers' and all.
Posted by: narciso | February 13, 2012 at 10:03 AM
Are you guys following Tucker Carlson's reports on media matters? They are pretty damning. The connection with the contraception question should be asked of Stephanolopolus immediately. Let's bring this house of cards down.
Posted by: Jane | February 13, 2012 at 10:06 AM
Obamanomics seems a bit like communism, it's always over the horizon.
Well, it always looked like a 5-year plan.
Posted by: Cecil Turner | February 13, 2012 at 10:11 AM
I've always liked Tucker Carlson and if he's following up his journolist expose with more of the same then more power to him. Taking down the MFM is just as important as voting El JEFe out imo.
Posted by: Captain Hate | February 13, 2012 at 10:12 AM
'Ripley, you'v blown the transaxle, you're just grinding metal:
http://weaselzippers.us/2012/02/12/scientists-on-second-thought-humans-started-causing-global-warming-3500-years-ago/
Posted by: narciso | February 13, 2012 at 10:12 AM
from the Carlson piece - "“The entire progressive blogosphere picked up our stuff,” says a Media Matters source, “from Daily Kos to Salon. Greg Sargent [of the Washington Post] will write anything you give him. He was the go-to guy to leak stuff.”
“If you can’t get it anywhere else, Greg Sargent’s always game,” agreed another source with firsthand knowledge.
Reached by phone, Sargent declined to comment."
Posted by: Janet | February 13, 2012 at 10:21 AM
Yes he is the 'Mikey' of the nutroots, but KLein (either one) or Ygleaias aren't any
better.
Posted by: narciso | February 13, 2012 at 10:25 AM
This turd must have bathhouse photos of lots of people to justify his continued existence: http://theothermccain.com/2012/02/13/the-madness-of-david-brock/
Posted by: Captain Hate | February 13, 2012 at 10:31 AM
Re the link at narciso's 10:12 AM post: I wonder how those ancient Congo folks would have reacted to an officious EPA bureaucrat lecturing them on how their forest clearing practices impact Gaia.
Posted by: Thomas Collins | February 13, 2012 at 10:34 AM
Last year I found myself sharing a table with Brock at a charity dinner, It was a day after his blog attacked me. Fun.
Jane, how do we do that with Steph? Should we all bombard his site with the question? What? Let's have a plan.
Posted by: Clarice | February 13, 2012 at 10:37 AM
Time for Cornyn to spring into action: http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/shrinking-senate-hopes_626641.html?page=1
Posted by: Captain Hate | February 13, 2012 at 10:41 AM
Don't encourage him, Captain, or he'll be making more experiments. with dollar bills.
Posted by: narciso | February 13, 2012 at 10:45 AM
Of course they state a whole lot of facts not in evidence,
Posted by: narciso | February 13, 2012 at 10:47 AM
I was thinking about a contribution in his name to The Human Fund.
Posted by: Captain Hate | February 13, 2012 at 10:48 AM
Saleena Zito writes for a Pittsburgh paper. She seems to think PA is going to be a tall order for Obama. For those of you stuck on Doom and Despair, you might want to read what a PA resident sees and thinks and them contemplate:
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/opinion/columnists/zito/s_781090.html
Posted by: GMAX | February 13, 2012 at 10:52 AM
Capt: Here's what Barnes says about Mandel:
"But let’s not be gloomy about Republican chances. In Ohio, Republican state treasurer Josh Mandel was languishing in his bid to unseat Democratic senator Sherrod Brown. Mandel, who is 34 but looks younger, is the boy wonder of Ohio politics. Now he’s getting traction. In a Rasmussen poll last week, he trailed Brown just 44 percent to 40 percent, with 12 percent undecided."
Cmon Ahians--work for this guy; contribute; he's an ex marine who is right on the issues and a smart, dogged campaigner.
Posted by: Clarice | February 13, 2012 at 10:52 AM
This level of stupidity is toxic;
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/meet-the-press-host-actually-asks-santorum-if-he-will-ban-working-mothers-from-his-administration/
Posted by: narciso | February 13, 2012 at 10:54 AM
In other Geraghty news,I was sucking up to casually chatting with him via email and mentioned that Jane mentioned him over the weekend.
Hit,
I ran into Geraghty twice at CPAC. The first time he was confused (I thought he recognized me but had no idea why) and the second time I said: "I know you don't have a clue who I am" and he said "we talked on the boat after the cruise ended last Nov". So his memory got jogged. I've had a lot more conversations with him than that including dinner with he and his wife a couple of years ago, but I thought that was pretty good since I'm a peon and he is the talent for the most part.
Posted by: Jane | February 13, 2012 at 10:54 AM
It reminds me of Walter Pincus of the WaPo using Sen. Carl Levin's talking points back in 2007 (I believe).
Posted by: Janet | February 13, 2012 at 10:55 AM
Clarice,
WEll for one thing we should make sure Steph never ever moderates a debate again. 2. We should probably all contact ABC. But we need the entire blogosphere to catch on. Can you write something at PJ Tatler?
Posted by: Jane | February 13, 2012 at 10:56 AM
Its almost like George Snuffleupagus got the memo first! Why yes, yes it it. Now who did Snuffy work for in the WH, Democrats you say? HMMMMMMMMM
Posted by: GMAX | February 13, 2012 at 11:00 AM
Let me check and see if anyone else on PJ Tatler has covered this
Posted by: Clarice | February 13, 2012 at 11:01 AM
BTW, I read that Ohio poll as very good news. Mandel is nowhere near as well known as Brown. Brown as an incumbent is stuck at 44% approval? He is quite vulnerable and likely to lose if that level of approval continues...
Posted by: GMAX | February 13, 2012 at 11:02 AM
Is this the best they can do?
http://www.icontact-archive.com/IEMPbEk7Q402s97cOYwonV0RfNf3QaRO?w=1
Remind me why I don't bother enrolling in a party again?
Posted by: Dave (in MA) | February 13, 2012 at 11:06 AM
Jane-
No, don't pull Steph, just prep for the out of the blue stuff with a simple question to the moderator-du-jour, "So, you must be asking me this because it's going to be the subject of next power grab by the White House, right?".
Should get some decent harrumphs in reply.
Posted by: Melinda Romanoff | February 13, 2012 at 11:07 AM
These people apparently do not understand the difference between states and the Federal government.
Posted by: fdcol63 | February 13, 2012 at 11:08 AM
I suggest a blind-trust. That way, their conscience can be clear on their moral precepts. Of course, it won't do anything about a couple thousand years of rape, murder and torture. But the Bishops conscience will be clear on this, most important issue.
Posted by: Benjamin Franklin | February 13, 2012 at 11:14 AM
I am on board with Josh, C; maryrose and I have both made it known for quite a while that defeating Sherrod Brown is statewide job #1 in November.
Posted by: Captain Hate | February 13, 2012 at 11:14 AM
Do the journalists ever get out of their chairs? or are they just fed stuff from the Dem party and the lib. flotsam?
Posted by: Janet | February 13, 2012 at 11:15 AM
Perhaps a regular at Jake Tapper's can ask him to investigate...
Posted by: Christine Ruiloba | February 13, 2012 at 11:20 AM
Janet, I have a hard time assigning weightings for laziness and stupidity.
Posted by: Captain Hate | February 13, 2012 at 11:20 AM
Jane-
Are you in DC Rich? I didn't know, and it was I not Clarice who was supposed to deal with the list. I really am sorry.
Close enough for government work. I have met Janet and her husband and once braved DC traffic to link up with a group of JOMer Tea Party protestors but to no avail. I'm on the night shift now so my week is pretty jammed up.
Posted by: RichatUF | February 13, 2012 at 11:22 AM
Jane, here it is:ttp://pjmedia.com/tatler/2012/02/13/should-republicans-refuse-to-allow-abc-to-moderate-any-other-debates/
Posted by: Clarice | February 13, 2012 at 11:24 AM
Another log for the fire. John J Miller over at the Corner notes a study of Duke students and quotes this part. There is a link for more:
Although black and white students enter college with similar academic interests, 68 percent of black students eventually chose to study humanities and social sciences. According to the study, this is because “natural science, engineering, and economics courses are more difficult, associated with higher study times, and are more harshly graded than their humanities and social science counterparts.”
Posted by: GMAX | February 13, 2012 at 11:25 AM
WEll next time Rich, for sure. You would be my #22, and I have to make sure no one beats my record.
FTR #23 and #24 will be porch and JIB on the cruise. Centralcal, is there a #25 in your future?
WHo else?
Posted by: Jane | February 13, 2012 at 11:25 AM
Let me try again: http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2012/02/13/should-republicans-refuse-to-allow-abc-to-moderate-any-other-debates/
Posted by: Clarice | February 13, 2012 at 11:25 AM
Perhaps they should go to Pitzer where everyone gets an A. Its the Special Olympics College, everyone is a winner.
Posted by: GMAX | February 13, 2012 at 11:26 AM
Brock...Brock...say, was he the one who was involved in the wife-beating thing? No, wait--that was Blumenthal.
Posted by: Danube of Thought | February 13, 2012 at 11:26 AM
Perfect Clarice.
So I think I posted this Friday, altho everything is a jumble at this point, but Breitbart says he has videos of Obama's past and this time we are going to vet him.
I love that.
Posted by: Jane | February 13, 2012 at 11:28 AM
Having "Brock" and "wife" in the same sentence would be oxymoronic unless the left is looking to change more words than "marriage".
Posted by: Captain Hate | February 13, 2012 at 11:29 AM
Gmax, that's true at more than Duke. I read last week that British universities were cutting math courses because they were too hard for both the students and dons.
I hope nothing important breaks down because soon--unless we vastly increase the number of H visas we grant--the country will be too stupid to build or fix anything.
Posted by: Clarice | February 13, 2012 at 11:32 AM
The latest: “The entire progressive blogosphere picked up our stuff,” says a Media Matters source, “from Daily Kos to Salon. Greg Sargent [of the Washington Post] will write anything you give him. He was the go-to guy to leak stuff.”
“If you can’t get it anywhere else, Greg Sargent’s always game,” agreed another source with firsthand knowledge.
Reached by phone, Sargent declined to comment.
“The HuffPo guys were good, Sam Stein and Nico [Pitney],” remembered one former staffer. “The people at Huffington Post were always eager to cooperate, which is no surprise given David’s long history with Arianna [Huffington].”
“Jim Rainey at the LA Times took a lot of our stuff,” the staffer continued. “So did Joe Garofoli at the San Francisco Chronicle. We’ve pushed stories to Eugene Robinson and E.J. Dionne [at the Washington Post]. Brian Stelter at the New York Times was helpful.”
“Ben Smith [formerly of Politico, now at BuzzFeed.com] will take stories and write what you want him to write,” explained the former employee, whose account was confirmed by other sources. Staffers at Media Matters “knew they could dump stuff to Ben Smith, they knew they could dump it at Plum Line [Greg Sargent’s Washington Post blog], so that’s where they sent it.”
Smith, who refused to comment on the substance of these claims, later took to Twitter to say that he has been critical of Media Matters.
Journolist on steroids
Posted by: Jane | February 13, 2012 at 11:33 AM
Brock's SO is a very nice guy who owns two nearby restaurants..no indication of bruises when I met him..
Posted by: Clarice | February 13, 2012 at 11:33 AM
GMAX's 10:54 link jibes with my intelligence from Erie. Heavily Catholic, Democratic and blue collar, Erie is not happy with El Jefe. The latest Go Erie poll about the contraception brouhaha shows about 67 percent opposed to fellow Catholic Sibelius's latest edict after the "accommodation".
Normally, a Dem congresscritter must capture about 65-70 percent of Erie County to overcome predominately Repub Crawford, Mercer, Butler and Warren Counties. That has happened in only 2008 in the past 20 years.
Posted by: Jim Rhoads a/k/a vnjagvet | February 13, 2012 at 11:35 AM
I guess the left can respond by saying that the Bush WH pushed stories to Fox and the conservative media. I don't know if that's even true, but they will assume it is true and equivalent.
Posted by: Porchlight | February 13, 2012 at 11:36 AM
How smart can MM be to put it in writing and in that way for goodness sake?
Posted by: Clarice | February 13, 2012 at 11:36 AM
In related news, look who's getting admitted to medical schools )and who is not):
I'm afraid that's been going on for a long time, Clarice. When my son was applying in the 90s, he teasingly tried to get me to recall having a fling with a minority person nine months prior to his birth. Even then, having to check the Caucasian box on the app was a barrier to acceptance.
Bet there's a similar chart related to sex. Females too, get in with lesser GPAs, lower MCATs and little science in their backgrounds, as medical schools attempt to make the gender split 50/50 in graduating classes.
Posted by: (Another) Barbara | February 13, 2012 at 11:37 AM
Shoulda checked the Trobriand Islander box, AB.
It's time to put an end to all this..
Posted by: Clarice | February 13, 2012 at 11:40 AM
Santorum is the froth in your latte'.
http://consortiumnews.com/2012/02/12/rick-santorums-nightmarish-america/
"Santorum is a self-styled “true conservative,” right-wing, Christian fundamentalist of Catholic background. In 2005, Time Magazine called him “one of America’s 25 most influential evangelicals.” That is still certainly true today.
Rick Santorum posing with his family
Santorum believes that religious values (at least his religious values) should play a large role in shaping government policies. For those not sure what this means, Santorum has a list of examples:
1. Santorum wants “a blanket ban on abortions.” The fact that the U.S. had this very same prohibition up until 1973, and the result was black-market abortions that killed not only fetuses by also lots of pregnant women, seems to have escaped the former senator’s attention.
2. Santorum wants a ban on gay marriages. He would likely bring back antiquated anti-sodomy laws as well. “If the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual [gay] sex within your home, then you have a right to bigamy, you have a right to polygamy, you have a right to incest, you have a right to adultery. You have a right to anything.”"
Posted by: Benjamin Franklin | February 13, 2012 at 11:41 AM
Bet there's a similar chart related to sex. Females too, get in with lesser GPAs, lower MCATs and little science in their backgrounds, as medical schools attempt to make the gender split 50/50 in graduating classes.
There certainly was when I went to law school. I was older and female which helped a lot. I aced my LSAT's which didn't hurt, but I was blown away at the kids right out of college who were in my class. They could run circles around me academically. It was clear I was an AA beneficiary.
Posted by: Jane | February 13, 2012 at 11:45 AM
Get out the goggles.http://www.michellesmirror.com/2012/02/random-walk-random-dance-can-random.html
Posted by: Clarice | February 13, 2012 at 11:46 AM
Jane;
When I read about Obama "truth squads" and the way Media Matters feeds Dionne, Rainey, and the rest of the literate fools their talking points I have to wonder just how freaking dumb the American electorate has become.
We are a nation with the attention span of a gnat and a media that has become an almost pure propaganda machine. At least Fox has countervailing opinions. the tinkerbell promises of the Dems are believed by far too many who should know better. TANSTAAFL used to be a national dictum.Now it's free condoms, money, and houses.
But in the end, it is the sheer fecklessness of Obama and his willingness to indulge in flights of delusion that deeply concerns me. He is Orwellian.
2012 - Serf or Citizen?
Posted by: matt | February 13, 2012 at 11:47 AM
Oh, Jane, I won't be your #25 this year I am sorry to say. I did follow Caro's link to the cruise info and was sorely tempted, but reality set in. With other vacation plans and sundry items planned for this year, I frankly cannot afford the 2012 cruise. Rats!
Posted by: centralcal | February 13, 2012 at 11:48 AM
Centralcal,
I can't afford it either. SOmehow that never stops me. But I do understand.
Posted by: Jane | February 13, 2012 at 11:57 AM
Indian medical tourism..as I said last night it's going to be the way to go.. We'll even fit out the planes so they are fast and super comfy.
Posted by: Clarice | February 13, 2012 at 11:59 AM
More leftwing flotsam propaganda.
Public radio & the group Ploughshares (anti-nuke group).
"In February 2011, public documents show Ploughshares gave NPR an additional $150,000 to cover “Iran, U.S. nuclear weapons policy, and nonproliferation issues.”"
Posted by: Janet | February 13, 2012 at 12:05 PM
El JEFe has released his latest joke of a budget; needless to say it's as worthless as the previous one. McConnell is pushing for a quick vote on this fiasco to put vulnerable pols like Sherrod Brown on the hot seat. 0-97 part deux?
Posted by: Captain Hate | February 13, 2012 at 12:05 PM
Since your sister is on pins and needles waiting to hear from Med Schools...we will NOT be sharing Clarice's link with her, right YL?
Posted by: Old Lurker | February 13, 2012 at 12:07 PM
We'll even fit out the planes so they are fast and super comfy.
Couldn't we simply have our surgery done mid-air, and cut out the India part? I lived in Delhi for a while and became wary of Indian hospitals.
How about cruise ships anchored just beyond Sebilius's grasp, in international waters? Wouldn't that work?
Posted by: (Another) Barbara | February 13, 2012 at 12:07 PM
video of Tucker on Fox & Friends with the Media Matters story.
Posted by: Janet | February 13, 2012 at 12:08 PM