TriGirl

So the embryo just successfully implanted after 28 years in storage has missed out on 10 years of elections, 12 years of driving, and seven years of drinking/gambling. OTOH, they will always win at the carnival when someone tries to guess their age.

And back to the topic at hand... Evan McMullin was on Chuck Todd's podcast last week. If anyone has heard him discuss issues, can you imagine him in an election debate with Pete Buttigieg? [sigh]

Wow. OTOH, imagine how painful it would be had Herschel Walker actually participated in any debates against Raphael Warnock in Georgia. Walker can’t even finish a coherent sentence when he’s in a one-on-one conversation with a FOX anchor (presumably with the questions provided in advance). At least the yahoos in the WY event (mostly) had their talking points ready and could form complete sentences — even if those sentences were patently false.

They currently are not bound by the state employment rules, and curriculum only to the point of a minimum for accreditation (a pretty low bar). I agree that if someone tried to sue for the other issues you mention, they will scream "religious freedom" and get away with it.

If any of those organizations want to establish a private secondary school and get it accredited, I absolutely advocate for them doing the exact same thing. The quickest and surest way to get these fundies to lose their minds though is by setting up the counter example with a religion they actually take seriously. It's also the only way it gets due consideration by the courts, unfortunately.

I'm a little concerned about the just-released opinion on using public funds at religion-sponsored schools. The people who brought the case chose the right example -- Maine has failed to provide public options for all students, and so in some places the parents have only two private options: the secular school which can be funded by vouchers, or the sectarian school that can't. I think the real complaint should have been against the state of Maine for not providing sufficient public options for more students. Unfortunately, at least according to the coverage playing at my office on FOX (CNN is across the room), it's being hyped as saying (all) parochial schools should be eligible for vouchers the same as secular private schools. If this is in fact the decision by the SC, we're in trouble. However, if the majority decision was written in a way to highlight that in THIS case (due to lack of available options for publicly funded education), the religious schools should be eligible for vouchers, but that in general, religious institutions are still not eligible for public funding, then I imagine the FOX analyst is being deliberately selective in her summary. And I actually would be okay with that decision if it is followed up with a timeline or other requirement for Maine to get their affairs in order and establish a few more schools in more rural areas. Otherwise, I would recommend Jewish and Muslim organizations quickly establish similar education institutions and petition for vouchers to support "school choice" and see what happens.

I have known that the commentary shows on FOX Prop at night are insanely skewed (Tucker, Judge Jeanine, etc). That’s fine, because it’s commentary. I have seen as well some partisan disingenuous crap spewed during the day as well, but at least the news programs try to do better. Now this weekend: I’m visiting my dad, who tends to watch an awful lot of FOX. Last visit he couldn’t keep from parroting the crap, but he’s been much better during this visit. However, he just turned on this show I hadn’t heard of called “Life, Liberty & Levin.” Wow. This guy spews out crap in the style of Donald Trump. Misstatements delivered at the cyclic rate, moving from false premise to outright untruth with little if any thread of logical connection. I have a deal with my step-mother that I will refrain from trying to refute (or at least, keep from arguing). So far Dad has still refrained from speaking up while this show is going on, but the fact that he loves this show and watched every Sunday evening is concerning. Note: I put this post in the Jan 6 thread because the first 10-12 minutes of the show was this guy’s diatribe against the Commission, Nancy Pelosi, Jaime Raskin and the hearings (totally mischaracterizing the purpose of the hearings as the premise of the digs at the individual characters, including how Michael Luttig’s testimony was crap because he isn’t really a lawyer — huh?). Anyone else familiar with this show?

I wish. Here in the UK we're about to hit £10 per gallon ($12.30). A significance in impact being that the UK has much better public transportation options around the country, and particularly in the densely populated areas, than the US does. I have no doubt that this is not perfect, but I can guarantee it beats options available in the US. Had areas like California, Florida and Texas initiated rail systems supporting and connecting major population centers when we had these fuel hikes 13-14 years ago, the current situation wouldn't be nearly the issue (especially for lower income citizens) that it is now. Unfortunately, at least here in the Tampa area, right when proposals were up for consideration the prices came back down, so the ideas were put in a drawer. Now we're back where we started with no new infrastructure to support a different response.

Unfortunately, as far as I can tell, they have only been advertised since he left office (someone please correct me if I'm wrong).

He actually does commercials on FOX News channel for a similar illustrated book about "all the good things Trump did for America!" It supposedly covers how the government works, the three branches, etc. -- but all the illustrations have the former president and his people. It's scary.

I heard on a podcast today that the apathy response is, "it's in the past, it didn't ultimately change anything, let it go." Though I will allow that perhaps your comment refers to the top 10 things US citizens care about on a day-to-day basis (think pocketbook/kitchen table issues), if by chance it instead follows the "it's in the past" mindset, this is a sad state of affairs on multiple levels. Social Studies and Civics need to be restored to the public school curriculum through Grade 12 (local government, federal government, history, comparative politics, geography, legislative process, etc). Those who really don't care, who are truly apathetic because it's "in the past" have no idea just how precarious our democratic model is, and what is at stake should it be dismantled. I for one am impressed that the committee considered the NHL playoffs and other broadcast events when scheduling the public hearings, so that the electorate can actually watch the hearings themselves instead of relying on their favorite news channels to summarize and tell them what they should take from the proceedings. (recall the Republican woman who attended the Mitt Romney town hall who later commented that she had not idea, had never heard, that anything had been reported against President Trump from the Comey investigation).

... run by someone who may not have had the experience, but who stepped up to try to contribute. Oh, and they filed their taxes and made public their operating costs -- unlike the inauguration committee from the last administration.

Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (1996). From the CDC website, it is

Yeah, that's also very scary.

Thanks, Jerrry, You just gave me the context, which provides the thesis. I still don't think it's a commentary on abortion, but on their reasons for their style guide. Again, that's fine. You have explained that it is something this organizations does regularly. I personally like that, and have not seen it before. It's a great way to educate the readership on journalism practices (we definitely need more of that!). T

The title of this thread is misleading. I t isn't a commentary about abortion, but about the terminology that news conglomerate chooses to include in its style guide (and subsequent reporting), and why. I wonder whether they are trying to preempt criticism from readers from all sides of the issue, or are answering criticism already received. As an outside reader, I find the piece on its own lacking thesis.

Hey, Joe, RE the highlighted portion of your reply -- agreed. But it's just sad that the is level of gaslighting will likely succeed.

I just found his "11-point plan," and all I can say is, Wow. https://rescueamerica.com/11-point-plan/ There is just too much bullshit in both premise and goals to know where to begin. Just one example: I think someone needs a cognitive function test. Or a drug test. Or both.

Looking at their practice I absolutely agree with you. But when they're called on it they cry "religious persecution!" I like to say it out loud as often as possible.

I have the distinct misfortune of having the FOX News station on the TV screens closest to my desk (CNN is across the room). I'm watching all the criticism of the demonstrators at Alito's house (and other justices' homes), and the DOJ for not addressing these demonstrations. I do most certainly object to demonstrations crossing the line of civility -- from blocking the street to threatening or encouraging violence. My opinion is that the excessive behavior takes away from the legitimacy of the message (I encourage the demonstrations in a peaceful, respectful manner). However, where was the outcry from the FOX crowd for the past several decades as "demonstrators" harassed people as they sought healthcare (abortion providers), all the way to threatening, encouraging and perpetrating violence against the lawful conduct of healthcare? Yes, I know the answer -- this is just me shining a spotlight on the hypocrisy. [/rant]

#ShariaLaw

So ... win-win!

I got the impression he was doing that to his incapacitated buddy. e.g., sexual assault. Did I get that wrong? I could not care less what this guy, or any other consenting, cognizant adult, does in the bedroom. If his buddy was part of the "crass" activity willingly, this video means nothing to me. If, OTOH, the buddy was unconscious or incapacitated, we have evidence of a crime.

I have no religion, so in order to support the distinction (prior to same-sex marriage being legalized), I had always planned to apply for a civil union if I ever was motivated to get married. Along the same lines, I support adults' rights to enter into a plural marriage within the structure of their religion -- as long as they don't try to apply for the civil benefits to support more than one partner. If they can afford it, and all are willing adults, I could not care less how they form their family units.

This is one reason we have gerrymandering in the US. The elected officials claim that they ARE voting in support of the majority of their constituents.