Wednesday, November 11, 2009 - Posts
-
sponsorship
A post from DoubleX writer Linda Hirshman:
Relax and enjoy it, ladies. Here comes the Progressive Democratic Party with another plan for you to take care of its needs.
I don’t actually care all that much about the women who will have to pay for their own abortions after Representative Stupak and the others added their amendment. There are only a few hundred thousand insured women needing abortions, compared with the millions of really poor women trying to buy their constitutional rights after the (Democratic) Congress took abortion out of Medicaid in 1976 with the Hyde Amendment. Hey, women rich or lucky enough to have private insurance, welcome to the crowd of the people who can’t protect their interests (“women”). Your fate was sealed when the Democrats sold out poor women 30 years ago. And women let them do it ... (Read the rest of this article in DoubleX.)
-
sponsorship
A post from DoubleX writer KJ Dell'Antonia:
Emily and Marjorie,
don't you think we ask ourselves different questions about Major Nidal
Hasan because he wasn't just a Muslim or jihadist, he was also a U.S.
citizen and a member of the armed forces? It's easy to reduce the 9/11
terrorists to pure villains. Because Hasan was truly one of us—born
here of an immigrant family, like 20 percent of the population—this
feels different.
Both Dorothy Rabinowitz and David Brooks
fault the media coverage of the Fort Hood shooting as a willful
avoidance of the obvious. Emily agreed with Rabinowitz, saying that we
as a nation find it "more comfortable to look away from his religious
beliefs for an alternate theory." Brooks claimed that looking beyond
Islamic extremism to the other factors affecting Hasan "sought to
reduce a heinous act to social maladjustment" ... (Read the rest of this article in DoubleX.)
-
sponsorship
In reading all the accounts from fellow pro-choice women—like Emily's from earlier this week—bemoaning
the Stupak abortion restrictions, I noticed that many of the women who
were outraged by the concessions of the health care bill used the terms
feminist and pro-choice almost interchangably. Over at Salon,
Kate Harding writes, "Feminists have been up in arms about the latest
assault on access to abortion," but if you take one look at the website
for the group Feminists for Life, one of the first things you see is the banner proclaiming "Women the Winners in U.S. House Amendment Vote" ... (Read the rest of this article in DoubleX.)
-
sponsorship
Emily,
When you say:
“Surely the general doesn't mean that in our quest for diversity in the
military, we embrace fanatics in our midst,” you're surely not
suggesting, are you, that military generals would purposely sacrifice
the lives of dozens of soldiers, simply for the sake of political
correctness? I mean, there is a middle ground between withholding
judgment and “embracing fanatics in our midst,” isn’t there?
I don’t believe for a minute that these generals would risk the lives of 1.3 million U.S. military personnel on active duty (another 1.1 million serve in the National Guard and Reserve forces.) if they thought Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, or any of the 10,000 to 20,000 Muslims who serve in the U.S. armed forces, posed a terrorist risk ... (Read the rest of this article in DoubleX.)
Join the Fray: our reader discussion forum
What did you think of this article?