Focused on the Family, Vol. 4

Or An Open Letter to a Daughter.

Twenty years ago, at this very moment, I was a nervous 23 year-old, sweating bullets.  My life was about to change forever and I had no idea what it would mean.

I had been to war.  I had moved form Philadelphia, to West Columbia, South Carolina, then on to Texas.  I'd been to Saudi Arabia and Spain.  I'd been engaged once, married once -- to different women.  I'd suffered the loss of a parent, delighted in the love of a woman.  Still, nothing prepared me for what was going to happen.

I'll be honest, I prayed daily for your demise in the initial weeks of the pregnancy.  I mean, your mother and I had decided pretty early on that abortion was absolutely off the table.  Adoption, in the eyes of our selfish youth was also not an option.  "We couldn't handle knowing our kid was out there...".  So that left keeping you.  Still, if God wanted to go another route, I was cool with it.

These were clearly the freaked-out thoughts of a guy WAY too young to be doing this and I never actively prayed for harm to come to you.  I just left God the option.

He demured.

I thank Him.

Right about now, we were two hours from meeting you.  We didn't even know if you were a boy or girl.  I've told you the story of how I had recorded two greetings on our answering machine, then turned it off.  After you were born, people would either hear the opening notes of Gloria Estefan's "Bad Boy", then me proclaiming, "It's a Truman!" or, as it turned out, Billy Joel's "Uptown Girl", with my announcement that, "It's a Chelsea!".

It was a long day.  Your mother didn't sleep much the night before and, as a result, neither did I.  Then I had to be at work at 5:45am.  Being young and broke, and not knowing when you would be coming, taking the day off was not something I could do.  Since there had been an incident at work the week before, involving an employee's family throwing down in the break room, resulting in a ban from them entering the building, I left your poor mom out in the car, in what turned out to be the early stages of labor.

About 11:00 than morning, she said it was time.  I left work and we went to the hospital.  They sent us home.  By 5:00 we were back and it was go time.

I never understood just how much I could love another human being until I saw your little head pop out, then the shoulders, then -- BAM!  (It makes total sense but I didn't expect that after the shoulders, you'd just fly out of there.)  The doctor held you up -- leg, leg, chord, penis -- wooHOO!  It's a bo...(took another look -- wait, where did it go?!?!)...girl.  It's a girl.

The doctor asked if I wanted to cut the rope and I said "hell no!".  They cleaned you up and I was pretty cool.  Then I went into the hallway to tell everyone and just lost it.  I was so overcome with emotion -- with pure, absolute joy.  When I think of that night, twenty years ago, I still get that feeling.  I still feel so joyful that you were brought into my life.

 I hope I have served you well these two decades.  I hope I was at least half the father mine was to me, though I cant imagine I was.

Giving justice through word to everything, "from the high to the low to the end of the show", in these twenty years would take words I simply do not possess.

We've had those highs:  The night you were born; your first step; your first word: Tiger; watching DVDs in bed and playing with Pablo the Cat; Isabella being born.

We've had the lows:  My move to South Carolina then California; the teen years; my cancer.

Though all of that. the one thing that has remained consistent is that I love you more than I could ever love another person.  The big days, the vacations and created memories were all great.  What was always more important to me though was the everyday stuff.  Perhaps because I was a single parent sharing custody, making dinner and watching tv with you and tucking you in, getting you up and ready for school the next day -- those were the important things.  The things that mattered.  Because that's where the relationship happens.

You are the best thing that ever happened to me and regardless of what you do or where you go, I will always be proud and thankful to call you my daughter.  Nothing will ever change that.

The only two things I ever ask in return -- as I have your entire life -- are:

Remember who you are.

And always -- ALWAYS,

Keep the Faith.

I love you Chelsea.

-Dad

Focused on the 2012 NBA Finals

Someone's getting their second ring, although the argument can be made that it'll be the first.

The Oklahoma City Thunder franchise won the NBA Championship in 1979 as the Seattle Supersonics.  The Miami Heat, by most independent observations, were the beneficiaries of a title stolen by referees (one of whom ended up in prison) from the Dallas Mavericks, in 2006.

Either way you look at it, Kevin Durant or LeBron James will stake a claim to Best Player on Earth.  How will it play out?  Here's our take:

Point Guard

Mario Chalmers vs Russell Westbrook

Not even close.  Westbrook is a Batman playing Robin because he is paired with a better Batman.  Chalmers is the Penguin.

Advantage: Thunder

Shooting Guard

Dwayne Wade vs Thabo Sefolosha

Sefolosha absolutely shut down Tony Parker in the Western Conference Finals.  However, to paraphrase the late Lloyd Bentsen, I've seen Dwayne Wade and Parker, sir, is no Dwayne Wade.

Advantage: Heat

Small Forward

LeBron James vs Kevin Durant

The stuff of barroom arguments.  They are both incredible players and have both been absolute studs in the 2012 playoffs.  To be honest, we have this one as a dead heat but if we have to pick one...despite LeBron's absolute domination of the East bracket, we simply trust Durant more with the rock in crunch time, both from the field and the line.  We also trust him to get his teammates involved as a part of his natural game, not something he has to consciously do, as is the case with LBJ.

Advantage: Thunder

Power Forward

Chris Bosh vs Serge Ibaka

Of the three Heatles, we think Bosh has the most heart.  That's not saying much in comparison to the other two but if Miami wins this series, Chris Bosh will be the primary reason.  His ability to draw defenders -- particularly shot-blocking machine Ibaka -- out of the lane and free up space for Wade and James to do their thing, if successful, will be the key to this series.

Advantage: Heat

Center

Udonis Haslem vs Kendrick Perkins

The series will not be won or lost here.  Neither scores much but both defend and rebound well.  We think this series will be decided in the field not the paint.  Haslem is the marginally better shooter, so he gets the nod here.

Advantage: Heat

Bench:

Joel Anthony, Norris Cole, Mike MIller and Co.  vs James Harden, Nick Collison, Derek Fisher and Co.

Anthony and Collison cancel each other out.  Cole is a fine young point guard with a bright future but we'd still take 374 year-old Fisher over him with a game on the line.  Mike Miller might go for 20 on a given night but we pretty much expect it from Harden, right?

Advantage: Thunder

Coaching:

Erik Spoelstra vs Scott Brooks

Spoelstra has an extraordinarily hard job.  He has to manage the egos of Wade and James, while working in the shadow of Pat Riley.  Putting all of that aside, we just don't think he is a very good in-game manager and at times seems overwhelmed in late-game situations. Scott Brooks completely revamped the Thunder's approach, after his team had fallen behind 2-0 to San Antonio in the Western Conference Finals.  OKC ripped off four wins in a row and it was over.  When Miami found itself in similar circumstances, Spoelstra changed nothing and relied on Wade and James to save the day.  The argument can be made that both strategies were effective.  The difference here though is that Miami does not have the clear talent and youth advantage it had over the Boston Celtics.

Advantage: Thunder 

What does it all add up to?  We are very hesitant to ever predict a short Finals series and with the closeness of this matchup on paper, it would seem even more prudent to go six or seven with our pick but we are really feeling five is the right number here.  The advantage in heart, quality of opponents in getting here and just the feel we get screams five.  Still, we're going to go

OKLAHOMA CITY THUNDER in 6


Until next time,
Keep the Faith

Focused on Jesse Helms

We're off!

Item:

We came within a Derek Rose ACL and Clippers upset of running the table in our Round 1 NBA Playoff picks.  Here's how we see Round 2 shaping up:

(editor's note -- the analysis was done before the series started.  as usual, we've just been lazy in posting.)

EAST

(1) Miami Heat vs (3) Indiana Pacers

Miami had no trouble with the Knicks in the first round.  That's because the Knicks suck.  The Pacers disposed of Orlando in 5.  We're just not convinced the Heatles are as good as they think they are.  Add in a Pacers coach from Philly and we smell an upset.

Pacers in 6


(4) Boston Celtics vs (8) Philadelphia 76'ers.

We love Sixers coach Doug Collins.  We think the Sixers are a talented, exciting team with youth on their side.  We think the C-men have their best days behind them.  We think their age will eventually catch up with them, after this hyper-speed season.  There are so many reasons we want to pick Philadelphia.  Still...

Celtics in 6

WEST

(1) San Antonio Spurs vs (5) Los Angeles Clippers

The Spurs swept Utah but we're still not sold on them.  We had the Clips losing to Memphis in 7 but they won that road game 7 and face San Antonio.  We originally had The Grizz beating the Spurs in 7.  We think the LAC is still a year away, even against the cast of Cocoon.

Spurs in 6

(2) Oklahoma City Thunder vs (3) Los Angeles Lakers

The Thunder swept the World Champion Dallas Mavericks out the door and didn't break a sweat after Game 2.  The Lakers went seven to beat Denver.  We see no way the Lakers win this series, barring catastrophic injury to Westbrook and Durant.  The Lake Show will be ending shortly.

Thunder in 5

FURTHER DOWN THE ROAD

We'll revisit after this round but right now we see it going down like this:

Pacers over Celtics
Thunder over Spurs

Thunder over Pacers

~~~
Item:

Here's some food for thought.

Seriously, North Carolina?

Far too often in today's political climate, we tend to label folks on the other side of a given issue pejoratively.  Be it evil, stupid, power-hungry, hypocritical or selfish, we tend to disparage others, rather than tote the benefit of our own view, much less try to understand the other side's.  Here at FfF, we make a sincere effort to understand all sides of an issue, then lay out our case and let the chips fall as they may.

But this one?

Now, we completely understand the opposition to gay marriage.  We do not agree with those who are against it but we get it.  We follow the logic and can see how those who think this way get from point A to point B in their logic.  That logic, of course, is that marriage is between a man and a woman and anything else -- any broadening of scope, if you will -- will dilute the institution and have negative repercussions.  This, of course ignores the fact that the implementation of "no fault" divorces has done more harm to the institution than any one single thing, thus removing the social stigma of divorce and leaving us with about a 50% rate of failed marriages.

Then there is the spiritual component: the bible says homosexuality is wrong, thus making gay marriage legal goes against the bible.  Now, it is all well and good to base your personal candidate selection and voting on but the government has no place using the bible as its rule book.  That's pretty cut and dry. 

Still -- we get those arguments, despite what we feel are gaping holes therein.

However.

The civil union is the perfect solution.  It grants the couple all of the legal rights of straight couples.  They can make end of life decisions and get the tax benefits and all the inheritance issues and all of the other things that make marriage worth doing legally.  It also encourages lifelong commitment, which I would think we're all in favor of and can see the societal benefits of.

The thing a civil union does not do is make it a marriage.  What's the difference?  Legally, nothing.  Semantically -- it makes all the difference in the world.    It allows all those opposed to gay marriage on moral grounds an out.  It allows for compromise.  Homosexuals get equality under the law and those not ready to accept the concept yet get to keep the word marriage.  It is a true compromise, in that nobody gets everything they want but no one gets shut out completely.  In ten years, when everyone realizes there's no real difference, you change the word. 

What North Carolina has done though, seems particularly mean spirited, if not outright cruel.  Although gay marriage was already illegal in the state, they went one (major) step forward and actually amended the state constitution to declare that that the only valid "domestic legal partnership" in the state is a marriage between a man and a woman.

Why?

Why go out of your way -- why go to such lengths -- just to block homosexuals from equality under the law?  Morality, sanctity of the institution of marriage -- we get all that.  This amendment does nothing to further any of that.  In fact, we make the argument that is is in direct conflict with Christian morality.  Going out of your way to take away someone's rights just because you can and want to is absolutely NOT "what Jesus would do".

If the people of North Carolina were literate enough to read this, I would tell them to be ashamed of themselves.

Alas, even that would be wasted.  They're clearly not capable of shame.

~~~
Fare thee well, Donna, we'll see you on the Other Side. Save us a Last Dance.

~~~
Item:

Recent iTunes Purchases:

Rufus Wainwright, Out of the Game -- LP, 2012
  Catchy pop stuff with ok lyrics. 
  ***(of 5)

Glen Frey, After Hours -- LP, 2012
  Cleanly-performed, if not groundbreaking collection of standards.
  ***

Keane, Strangeland -- LP, 2012
  Echoes of The Killers' Hot Fuss, with a disturbing Coldplay vibe that kills it for us.
  **

Willie Nelson,  Heroes -- LP, 2012
   Old school C&W set is easily one of the best albums we've heard this year.  The voice is starting to slip a bit but the lyrics are strong and the playing superb.  Kris Kristopherson sounds terrible in his cameo but all other guests (Merle Haggard, Sheryl Crow, Billy Joe Shaver, son Lucas Nelson and Snoop Dogg) absolutely bring it.
  **** 1/2

Alanis Morissette, Guardian -- Single, 2012
  The first single from her forthcoming album, it has solid verse lyrics (you who has smiled when you're in pain...who has soldiered through the profane) that are undone by a weak chorus both lyrically and musically. (I'll be your keeper of life as your guardian; I'll be your warrior of care, your first warden).  What the hell does that even mean?  Is it supposed to be a play on prayer warrior?
  **


~~~
Quote of the Week:

“Always end the name of your child with a vowel, so that when you yell the name will carry."
            --Late Beastie Boy Adam Yauch

~~~
Internet Video of the Week:

Sleep well, Adam.

~~~
Ridiculous Story That Actually Appeared in a Publication of the Week:

Here.

Let. It. Fucking. Go!

~~~
Idiot Criminal of the Week:

Scott Miles of Syracuse, NY.

Here's why.

Dude -- you might not want to hook up with mom after raping her son. 
~~
Parting shots: Between the Lakers and Clippers making it to the second round of the NBA Playoffs and the NHL's Kings on the verge of winning the Western Conference, you think Staples Center operators AEG are making a little coin this spring?...Interesting side note to the North Carolina amendment:  anyone who received domestic partner benefits at work -- even the straight ones -- just lost them, too...While searching for things to hyperlink for this post, we came across this great headline...

And with that, we bid you adieu.
Until next time,
Keep the Faith

Focused on the Association -- The 2012 NBA Playoffs

We're off!

We've learned a few things during this bastardized, truncated, lockout-shortened season.

--Playing 66 games in 89 days is reckless.
--Playing 66 games in 89 makes for some exciting playoff races.
--Letting five guys walk in free agency is a poor title defense strategy.
--Los Angeles has two NBA teams.
--Charlotte still lacks one.
--The playoffs will be fun!

The Awards:


MVP

As much as we want to give it to Kevin Durant -- or anyone else -- we've got to give it to:

LeBron James, Miami Heat


GARY'S MVP

Vince Carter, Dallas Mavericks

We grunted when he was acquired this summer.  He proved us wrong.  Vince the Malingerer no longer, he is henceforth The Malingering Menace!


ROOKIE of the YEAR

Kyrie Irving, Cleveland Cavaliers

And it wasn't even close.  Sorry, Ricky Rubio.


SIXTH MAN

James Harden, Oklahoma City Thunder

Again, not even close.  There's not even anyone close enough to apologize to for not selecting.


MOST IMPROVED

A strong case can be made for Ryan Anderson and Marcin Gortot (we told you that guy has skills).  Andrew Bynum took a smaller step forward, as did Nikola Pekovic.

But.

If you say you knew who Jeremy Lin was before this season started, you're a damned liar.

Jeremy Lin, New York Knicks

Yeah, we know he got hurt and missed games but there was a lockout, so everyone missed games.


DEFENSIVE PLAYER of the YEAR

Tyson Chandler, New York Knicks

A guy who cashed in on a free agent contract and delivered the goods.  Serge Ibaka also had an excellent defensive season.


COACH of the YEAR

All props to Frank Vogel  and the job he did in Indiana aside -- you lead the cast of Cocoon to the league's best record, you get Coach of the Year.

Greg Popovich, San Antonio Spurs


PLAYOFF PREDICTIONS

EAST

(1) Chicago Bulls vs (8) Philadelphia 76'ers

Philly started the season strong then faded.  Chicago steamrolled to the league's overall Number One seed.  Doug Collins might be able to coax one win out of his group.  But we doubt it.

Bulls in 4

(2) Miami Heat vs (7) New York Knicks

We'd love to see the Heatles flame out in the first round but it ain't gonna happen.  They are sufficiently weak-minded to lose a couple of games but the talent level is just too disparate to warrant an upset.

Heat in 6

(3) Indiana Pacers vs (6) Orlando Magic

Poor Ron Jeremy.  Dwight Howard is faking hurt for the playoffs and his team is in a tailspin.  The underrated Pacers will make quick work of them, with the talents of the aforementioned coach willing the Magic to any wins they get in this series.

Pacers in 5

(4) Boston Celtics vs (5) Atlanta Hawks

This is a reputation pick.  We hate the Hawks and their fans.

Celtics in 5


WEST

(1) San Antonio Spurs vs (8) Utah Jazz

Utah played over their head all season and surpassed their talent on paper. Tyrone Corbin picked up right where Jerry Sloan left off as the coach you don't bet against.  That'll get them a win.  Maybe.

Spurs in 5

(2) Oklahoma City Thunder vs (7) Dallas Mavericks

Records be damned, this series is still overwhelmingly tilted toward the Thunder.  The Mavericks have looked old and uninspired all season long.  We don't believe there is a "switch".  Having a ring helps.  Being the obstacle OKC needs to get past, a la the Pistons to Jordan's Bulls, the Spurs to Dirk's Mavs helps, too.  But those teams eventually got past their obstacles.  Will it take OKC two or three years?  Our bet is on two.

Thunder in 6

(3) Los Angeles Lakers vs Denver Nuggets

The Lakers will be missing Metta World Peace and the Nuggs are always tough in the playoffs.  Still, we're gonna give another reputation win here. in a long series.  If there's one we're gonna be wrong on though, this one's it.

Lakers in 6

(4) Memphis Grizzlies vs (5) Los Angeles Clippers

Hands-down the first round series we are most looking forward to.  Lob City vs the proverbial Team No One Wants to See in the First Round.  Griffin and Paul will do something Amazing and Vinny the Hair will get outmaneuvered by Lionel Hollins.  It'll be a long series and there will be no blowouts.  We cannot wait to watch this series.

Grizzlies in 7


FURTHER DOWN THE ROAD

Bulls over Celtics, Pacers over Heat
Bulls over Pacers

Grizzlies over Spurs, Thunder over Lakers
Thunder over Grizzlies

Bulls over Thunder.

But we reserve the right to update these after the first round.  :)

Also -- after the shit the Lakers pulled by sending Lamar Kardashian to the Mavs as a double agent, if Derek Fisher "blows an ACL" against LA in the second round -- or misses a key free throw -- or is hit by a fucking bolt of lightning, we are DONE with the NBA.  Forever.

Enjoy the playoffs!

Until next time,
Keep the Faith

Focused on The Hilltop

We're off!

Item:

We're doing the happy dance here in Dallas, for the Greatest Basketball Mind of Our Time has signed on as head coach of the men's basketball team at SMU.  We'll be able to literally walk to see our basketball idol do his thing.  Welcome to Dallas, Mr. Brown!

~~~
Item:

Here's some food for thought.

If Mitt Romney is elected President in November, the poor will not be cast out to starve in the streets, women will not be stripped of all their rights, the environment will not spontaneously explode and rich people will not get over on the rest of us...well, ok, they will -- but they will no matter who is in the White House.

Conversely, if Barack Obama is reelected to another term, we will not go bankrupt the next day, the government will not show up at your door to take your guns, gas will not cost $37.00 a gallon and there won't be people who game the entitlement system...well, ok, there will be -- but there will be no matter who is in the White House.

The point is, don't let the radicals on either side scare you.  We have had great presidents and we have had horrible presidents -- and none of them has managed to take away all our problems or drive us into ruin.  So take a deep breath, do your own research and vote accordingly.

And most importantly, don't be a douche.  Get behind whoever wins -- even if he wasn't your guy.

~~~
Fare thee well, Mr. Clark, we'll see you on the Other Side. Save us a teenager.

~~~
Item:

Our buddy Michael Hahn turned us on to this article.  It's a good breakdown of why North Korea goes pretty-much unchecked, despite all the saber rattling of the West.

~~~
Quote of the Week:

“You people take your shit way too seriously -- you're a bag of meat and fluid, you eat, shit, piss, fuck, sleep, and die.  Anything outside of that is a bonus and you should be happy for it."

                                                       --Responsible Johnny front man Rob Michaud, on entitlement.
~~~
Internet Video of the Week: 

We don't know whether he's funny, brave, racist, insane or absolutely correct.  You decide, here.

~~~
Ridiculous Story That Actually Appeared in a Publication of the Week:

Here.

Because that's just what elected officials should be focusing on -- proposing satirical bills.

BONUS!

Here.

Paging Slut, party of one.  Well, now two.

~~~
Idiot Criminal of the Week:

Lawrence Deptola, of New York City.

Here's why.

~~~
Vintage Album Review of the Week:

Janet Jackson
Control
1986

Coming next week.

Until next time,
Keep the Faith

Focused on The Arena, Vol. 1

We started to make this simply part of a regular posting but quickly realized the Political Rant deserves its own category.  We know we can get wordy.  We also want to make them easy to skip for those uninterested  :)


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

So we're trying to follow Vice President Joe Biden's logic here.

As almost everyone now knows, President Obama signed an Executive Order requiring that any entity receiving federal funds also offer healthcare insurance to its employees and that coverage include free contraception for women.  Many people -- granted primarily (but not exclusively) Republicans -- are against the EO, for a number of reasons, highest among those being concerns about its constitutionality and potential infringements upon religious freedom.  According to the Vice President, this constitutes a, "war on women's rights".

Huh?

Let's look at each of the primary concerns some folks have with this EO and see if we can make sense of Mr. Biden's claims.

CONSTITUTIONALITY

The Executive Order is a powerful tool in the hands of the president.  Although never explicitly granted in the Constitution, the power has traditionally been an accepted implied power, derived from Article II, Section1, Clause 1 therein, which states the President will, "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed".  As such, a Presidential Order is generally deemed to be acceptable if it either clarifies a law or dictates a procedure for the following of a law.

This commonly-accepted definition was clarified in the 1952 US Supreme Court Ruling in Youngstown Sheet & Tube Company v. Sawyer, in which the Court struck down Executive Order 10340, signed by President Truman, ruling that the Order, which would have placed the nation's steel mills under federal control, would have made new law, not clarify or assist in the enforcement of an existing one.

While most Executive Orders barely merit a blip on the political radar, there are exceptions -- both beneficial and shameful.  Integration of the Armed Forces was enacted by President Truman via Executive Order, as was desegregation of public schools (Eisenhower) and the creation of interment camps during World War II (Roosevelt).  All three were major changes to policy and were viewed by some to be circumvention or actual creation of new law.

A presidential Executive Order is almost impossible to reverse.  The Supreme Court has only struck down two in its history and even strengthened the Executive Order in a 1983 ruling in Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Chadha, where the Court essentially removed the ability of Congress to pass a law that conflicts with an EO, without a supermajority vote of 60%.  The Court's reasoning was that the EO is a de facto Presidential veto, so the supermajority would eventually be required nonetheless.

So political game playing ensues.  Congress cuts off funding for programs effected by an EO and the President calls them out on it.  In the end, while not the most popular of tools in the President's box, it is amongst the most powerful

How does this apply here?

Pretty much like it does in all other cases.  The President will claim he is merely clarifying that which was originally intended in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and the opposition will claim he is overreaching.  Considering Congress was overwhelmingly Democratic at the time of its March 2010 passage and that contraception and abortion rights are primary planks in their platform, chances are President Obama is right on this one and was, in fact, clarifying the intent of Congress.

RELIGIOUS FREEDOM

Here's where it gets a little less cut and dry.

Despite the fact that President Obama sees this Executive Order as a mere clarification of a law passed by Congress, that does not mean that an Executive Order pertaining to the law -- or the law itself -- is constitutional.

We'll leave the second question out of it for the purposes of this conversation and focus n the first: is the Executive Order constitutional? A strong argument can be made that it is not.  Again, for the purposes of this conversation, we're going to focus on the Roman Catholic Church's opposition to the EO, as that has been the most-publicized.

The Roman Catholic Church is morally opposed to artificial birth control.  It's as simple as that.  Whether it is a man using a condom or a woman popping the pill, the Church is morally opposed to contraception.  It doesn't matter whether you or I are opposed to it.  The Church is and as such, feels that the government compelling them to provide contraceptives to its female employees is in direct violation of the First Amendment to the US Constitution, which states the government shall not pass any law, "...impeding the free exercise of religion...".

The Church believes that by invoking this Executive Order forcing them to offer health insurance plans that provide contraceptive services to its female employees, the government has violated the Constitution.  That is the argument in its entirety.

And we agree.  This executive Order clearly compels the Roman Catholic Church to provide services it is morally opposed to.  In our opinion, this clearly unconstitutional..

Getting back to the Vice President's remark, how exactly does this constitute a, "war on women's rights"?

Exactly -- it doesn't.  This is blatant pandering to the hard left, twisted into a women's rights issue, which makes absolutely no sense.  No one is taking away the rights of a single woman.  Show us where in the constitution that contraception is a right.  It's simply not.  If one wants contraception, they are free to pay for it themselves -- or get a job that has an insurance option that covers it.

The irony here is that, if anything, men would be the ones discriminated against if this EO were to stand.  While women get free birth control pills, there are no such provisions in the EO for men's condoms.  The way it reads, women's reproductive rights are more important than those of men, by Presidential Executive Order.  This, of course also makes it unconstitutional but we'll stick to our original premise here.

Most problems in life -- including political ones -- really can be solved with a little common sense.  The simple fact is, if you accept a job at a Catholic institution, you should assume there are going to be policies and procedures within the workplace that you will be expected to conform to, specific to that Church's beliefs.  If you work at your local JCC, they'll probably not have pork chops in the employee cafeteria.  If you teach at a Baptist elementary school, you'll probably be signing a morals clause upon hiring that will make such things as extramarital affairs terminable offenses.  If you are unwilling to conform to these restrictions, then you are welcome to seek employment elsewhere.

The bottom line here is that health insurance is a benefit.  An employer can choose to offer whatever benefits they want -- or none.  Potential employees are free to choose a job that offers the benefits they desire and turn down offers that are not up to their standards.  That's how the system works.

Now, here is the truly sad part of all this -- if the executive order is to stand, the Church will be left with three choices:

1) Stop offering health insurance to its employees.

2) Stop accepting federal funds. Sounds good, right?  Well those federal funds are Medicare dollars, which are paid for services rendered at a rate of about 10 cents on the dollar compared to what the actual rates for the services are.  It's not like the Church is making money on the transactions.  But the Veep didn't  mention that, did he?  

3) Compromise its principals.

An often-used argument in favor of the President's order is that birth control pills are sometimes prescribed for purposes other than contraception and that taking that away would be a disservice to women.  We agree.  So does the Catholic Church -- which is not opposed to the prescribing of these medications for the treatment of conditions such as endometreosis.    As a Roman Catholic, the Vice President knows this and should be ashamed of himself for contributing to the deliberate  spread of misinformation.

This is not a women's rights issue.  This is a religious freedom issue.  You may not have a dog in this particular fight but some day soon, a similar fight just may come along where you do.

Do you want this to be the precedent your fight is decided on.

Until next time,
Keep the Faith