Having learned nothing, apparently, from a previous public embarrassment, the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) is again in hot pursuit of leakers. On December 27, travel bloggers Christopher Elliott and Steven Frischling published a new TSA passenger screening directive emailed to them, reportedly, by an anonymous source. The directive described temporary screening measures that would quickly become apparent to travellers, so any security interest was miniscule and fleeting. Nevertheless, two days later, armed TSA agents appeared in the night (after law offices have closed) and menaced the two bloggers with dire consequences if they did not allow the agents to copy information on their computers and cellphones.
Frischling, who was home alone with his three children when the agents arrived, says, “It’s not hard to intimidate someone when they’re holding a 3-year-old [child] in their hands."
Posted by: Deep Harm at 11:50 AM. Filed under: general
• Go ahead:
say your piece
The condescension toward women in the congressional health care “reform” bills is simply staggering. In both the House and Senate versions, poor women are not to be allowed the same freedom as men to make their own health care decisions, at least insofar as they might decide to have an abortion. Instead, congressional Democrats have been busy devising various ways to make abortions as inaccessible as possible to the poor. The idea seems to be that any woman churlish enough to need health care subsidies has to be willing to allow the country’s religious zealots to exercise a veto over her medical care. It’s just a condition of poverty that women become second-class citizens.
True, Democrats in the Senate, taking what they describe as a principled stance on behalf of women’s rights, have come down firmly on the side of permitting poor women to spend their own damn money on abortion coverage, maybe. But that’s only if religious bigots at the state level don’t succeed in banning insurance-exchange health plans from covering abortions altogether. Senate Democrats have decided to allow individual states to do that because, I guess, a woman’s right to have a legal abortion varies from state to state as well as by income level. Who knew?
Soreheads might object that the legislation will effectively help to force some poor women to bear children they can’t or don’t want to rear. Fortunately, Senate Democrats are sensitive to that charge and have thoughtfully added provisions to sweeten the deal for these poor put upon women. They’re going to pay them to have the babies:
In what they described as an effort to reduce the demand for abortion, Democrats would provide money to help pregnant teenagers and new mothers so that they could stay in high school and attend college.
The federal government would provide $25 million a year for a “pregnancy assistance fund.” The money could be used for “maternity and baby clothing, baby food, baby furniture and similar items,” the proposal says.
The provision to subsidize the babies for young girls was added, you won’t be surprised to learn, by that notorious abortion scold, Sen. Robert Casey. The sole purpose of the subsidies is to reduce the number of abortions. In his press release, Casey proudly points to the support his provision receives from various conservative Christian groups ("faith leaders") – because, evidently, their opinions on health care matter more than those of the rest of us.
Oddly enough, however, he says nothing at all about what he or they make of the most astounding aspect of this provision: It encourages teenage pregnancy by offering financial rewards to pregnant teens.
Posted by: smintheus at 10:00 PM. Filed under: healthcare/wellness
• Go ahead:
say your piece
Consider these two starkly juxtaposed sentences from President Obama’s West Point speech tonight:
And as commander-in-chief, I have determined that it is in our vital national interest to send an additional 30,000 U.S. troops to Afghanistan. After 18 months, our troops will begin to come home.
That makes no damned sense, as critics and political opponents will point out again and again in the coming years. If Afghanistan constitutes a “vital national interest”, then the US cannot afford to walk away from the country until all tranquility breaks out.
Posted by: smintheus at 09:44 PM. Filed under: war
• Go ahead:
say your piece