What’s interesting in the news today?
1. The Navy is having problems retaining officers because they’re too worried about cultural issues and being PC. The weakening of our military continues under this admin.
From TheWashingtonTimes “Cmdr. Guy Snodgrass, until recently a Pentagon speech writer for the chief of naval operations, Adm. Jonathan Greenert, said sailors are becoming fed-up with the constant emphasis on social issues — an apparent reference to gays in the military, women in combat and ending sexual harassment.”
“Sailors continue to cite the over-focus on social issues by senior leadership, above and beyond discussions on war fighting — a fact that demoralizes junior and mid-grade officers alike,” Cmdr. Snodgrass wrote this month on the U.S. Naval Institute website, an independent forum for active and retired sailors and Marines.”
“He says retention racked up its “worst year in history” for the special warfare community, including Navy SEALs, with a record number of lieutenants declining to stay.”
__________________________________________
2. Senator Barbara Boxer would like to explain to you why it’s OK to force Hobby Lobby to violate their religious convictions.
Clueless.
___________________________________________
3. This one is tooooo funny.
From TheDailyCaller “Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, desperately trying to create a conservative bogeyman for the 2014 election cycle, often takes to the Senate floor to lambast the billionaire Koch brothers for their political contributions to conservative groups.
But a George Washington University Battleground poll released Tuesday indicates that more people have an unfavorable impression of the Nevada lawmaker than the Kochs. Thirty-five percent of those polled say they have a negative impression of Reid, compared to 25 percent for the Kochs.”
_______________________________________
4. Another bait and switch. This is how you know the numbers didn’t meet their expectations.
From TheWaPo “The Obama administration has decided to give extra time to Americans who say that they are unable to enroll in health plans through the federal insurance marketplace by the March 31 deadline.
Federal officials confirmed Tuesday evening that all consumers who have begun to apply for coverage on HealthCare.gov, but who do not finish by Monday, will have until about mid-April to ask for an extension.
Under the new rules, people will be able to qualify for an extension by checking a blue box on HealthCare.gov to indicate that they tried to enroll before the deadline. This method will rely on an honor system; the government will not try to determine whether the person is telling the truth.
The rules, which will apply to the federal exchanges operating in three dozen states, will essentially create a large loophole even as White House officials have repeatedly said that the March 31 deadline was firm. The extra time will not technically alter the deadline but will create a broad new category of people eligible for what’s known as a special enrollment period.”
___________________________________________
5. And this is after Sebelius testified to Congress 2 weeks ago that the deadline wouldn’t be delayed or changed.
From TheNYTimes “Kathleen Sebelius, the secretary of health and human services, said Wednesday that the Obama administration would not extend the deadline for people to sign up for health insurance or delay the requirement for most Americans to have coverage.
And she declined to say whether the administration was still committed to its original goal of enrolling seven million people in private coverage through federal and state exchanges by March 31.
Testifying before the House Ways and Means Committee, Ms. Sebelius said categorically that the administration would not delay the “individual mandate,” under which most Americans must have insurance or pay a tax penalty. In addition, she said that officials would not extend the six-month open enrollment period, scheduled to end on March 31.”
They’ve lied repeatedly, under oath too, and will continue to do so.
___________________________________________
Wandering Views 
Hwesseli. To continue our discussion from yesterday, you wrote, “I understand but I find it slightly hypocritical for people to argue for God’s plan for life yet allow for medication to create life when its not necessarily part of God’s plan. We can get involved in solving ED but can’t prevent conception.”
I am afraid that I don’t follow your line of reasoning. Are you saying that the owners of Hobby Lobby are somehow hypocritical for not wanting to provide treatments that kill a fertilized egg, which they view as a human being? If so, how are they hypocritical.
The conscience is especially sensitive about taking human life. As a result, it is especially important to respect the individual conscience in this area. Conscientious objectors should not be forced to take up arms. Pharmaceutical companies should not be forced against their conscience to provide drugs for lethal injection. Employers should not be forced to pay for abortion or other treatments that kill an unborn human being.
LikeLike
Well said.
LikeLike
Ditto.
I’ve been reading about the victory of David Jolly over Alex Sink in Florida’s 13th district. I kep waiting for, but never saw,
“Jolly sank Sink”
😆
LikeLike
Good (and fair) news story on the World Vision issue:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/religion/world-vision-to-recognize-employees-same-sex-marriages/2014/03/25/a377ff8e-b42b-11e3-bab2-b9602293021d_story.html
LikeLike
And now there’s apparently a reversal:
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2014/march-web-only/world-vision-reverses-decision-gay-same-sex-marriage.html
LikeLike
It was a small election to replace a resigning state senator, but the contest last Wednesday in Hopewell Township was won by a write-in candidate. Isn’t that amazing?
LikeLike
I saw this headline and laughed.
“DEEP THOUGHTS BY BARACK OBAMA”
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2014/03/deep-thoughts-by-barack-obama.php
LikeLike
didymus,
my arguments are set in two contexts — first the general push to exempt employers from providing birth control pills as part of the drug plan. In this context, and one you voiced, is that humans shouldn’t interfere with God’s plan for conception and implantation. The hypocrisy in this argument is apparent when no voices are raised in concern to mandatory ED coverage. Now it appears Hobby Lobby is making a different argument claiming life begins at conception without accompanying implantation. The problem with this argument is the sheer numbers of conceptions which are literally flushed away without implantation. Traditionally this is not even considered a miscarriage especially since these eggs are not known to be fertilized. If its not a miscarriage then by definition its not an abortion. Furthermore birth control by preventing implantation merely prevents life from starting and in that way its not any different from condoms or even abstinence.
On a separate note, an issue Hobby Lobby and other corporations need to assert is corporate religious freedom. Do publicly traded for profit corporations have religious freedom? In the US this claim may be easier than elsewhere with the concept of corporate personhood, but its still a stretch that a publicly traded corporation has one voice. Now, I have a certain amount of sympathy for a small business owner who wishes to provide health insurance for his employees without compromising their belief but for large corporations I have very little sympathy. Since I’ve never heard of Hobby Lobby I’ll pass on what I think they should or should not do.
Finally — this discussion once again points to the need to separate health insurance from employment.
LikeLike
In this context, and one you voiced, is that humans shouldn’t interfere with God’s plan for conception and implantation.
Try again.
LikeLike
“Traditionally,” the pro-life position has been that life begins at conception. Sheesh.
LikeLike
HRW, I understand your argument about publicly traded companies. Hobby Lobby is privately owned and not publicly traded.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hobby_Lobby
LikeLike
HRW.
1. Hobby Lobby is willing to provide birth control pills. They just don’t want to provide drugs or treatments that prevent the implantation of a fertilized egg, which they (and I) view as a human life.
2. I pointed out yesterday that your argument about the number of fertilized eggs that naturally fail to implant is irrelevant. Your argument is the equivalent of saying that since a large number of people died in World War 2, they must have been less than human.
3. If someone’s conscience was bothered by providing treatment for ED, I would want to respect their convictions as well.
4. I respect the right of large corporations not to sell medications to those who want to use them in lethal injections on the basis of conscience. I should also respect the conscience of large corporations that do not want to use medications to cause the death of unborn children.
5. Finally, I agree that employers should not be required to provide their employees with health insurance. That is a matter between the employer and the employee, and not one that the government should be involved in.
LikeLike
1. The question then is viewing a non implanted fertilized egg as human life a religious view? Or is the origin of life (before or after implantation?) a matter for science to determine and then once life is determined then religious views on abortion then come into play?
2. I fail to see the effectiveness of this analogy.
3. I don’t think anyone’s conscience is bothered by ED treatment but for many people its seems hypocritical to change God’s intent on male reproductive abilities but not with women’s. In this particular discussion, I’m referring solely to the birth control issue not the morning after pill. Of course, once you have provided birth control improvised Plan B is available — just take two or three pills at the same time.
4. Large publicly traded corporations don’t have a conscience they have shareholders, quarterly reports, branding and marketing plans. If these considerations mean they won’t participate in lethal injections, they won’t. Conscience only plays a role in family or individual run businesses.
5. Compensation is indeed between an employer and employee but the use of the compensation (money, insurance, etc) is at the employee’s discretion. To suggest an employer has a say in how compensation is used is to bring us back to the company store. To avoid employer – employee disputes and to increase the mobility of the work force (an entirely different issue but one related to gov’t health care) I would suggest health care and insurance be administered by the gov’t.
LikeLike
Interesting report of the argumentsl;
http://www.scotusblog.com/2014/03/birth-control-business-and-religious-beliefs-in-plain-english/
LikeLike
Donna J, Thanks for posting the good news on World Vision. This case, the Duck Dynasty case, and the Cracker Barrel case are very interesting. The executives and staff of World Vision, A&E, and Cracker Barrel understood and accepted the view of perversion expressed in American popular culture. However, in each case those same people did not appreciate that a large remnant of orthodox Christians still exists in this country. This remnant has been largely forced underground by policies of governments, major corporations and public educational institutions, but it is still there.
LikeLike
I worked for a ministry that did not require employees to agree with their beliefs. They didn’t even have to be a Christian. However an employ who didn’t would not get into upper management and they were clear and verbal on where they stood on certain issues, including homosexuality. I worked with at least one openly gay person. He was a good guy and a talented employee and didn’t let this become a conflict of interest. I thought it worked out especially since I didn’t agree with them on a number of issues. A minister, a manager, a policy maker, a counselors or a teacher should be on board with the groups beliefs. I just don’t see why a janitor, a cameraman or a web designers should have to but it should be their decision..However again, World Vision’s original decision clearly put same-sex marriage on the same level with traditional marriage, which is unbiblical. I’m glad they reversed it.
LikeLike