Thank you Heather.
The utter disengagement from the reality of January 6th by the GOP is puzzling. I am reminded of an old lawyer adage, "never ask a question you don't already know the answer to". Is their fear the fact that they know who was involved and when that is uncovered they won't beable to twist the narrative to their advantag…
The utter disengagement from the reality of January 6th by the GOP is puzzling. I am reminded of an old lawyer adage, "never ask a question you don't already know the answer to". Is their fear the fact that they know who was involved and when that is uncovered they won't beable to twist the narrative to their advantage ?
Texas seems to be hell bent on taking away all they possibly can from women's rights to their own bodies to the weekly $300 additional unemployment funds. I thought yesterday's photo op of signing away women's rights a.k.a. abortion bill was particularly biting with the token women smiling in the front row surrounded by the men that did the bidding. What's the word I'm looking for 🤔 ......disgusting.
The solution is for Gov Abbott to get pregnant with already 3 children to feed and shelter on the wages of a employee in the service industry. And be living in Texas.
Oh that’s right. He’s not a woman. He’s a man who thinks he can tell us what to do with our own bizness by signing that nasty bill.
So did her buddy Molly Ivins, who knew just the right words to skew politicians, esp the Texas legislators. A couple quotes: “As they say around the Texas legislature, if you can’t drink their whiskey, screw their women, take their money, and vote against ‘em anyway, you don’t belong in office.” “I believe that ignorance is the root of all evil. And that no one knows the truth.” Once, years ago, I spent an evening drinking with her, listening to her stories. Such a fun, astute woman.
I am so jealous. I saw her speak in Richmond, Virginia, years ago. She was brilliant, even though she had to sit down to take questions. Only the good die young.
I’m jealous of myself. It was a one-night relationship, made possible only because I was responsible for chauffeuring her to and from a speaking engagement. Fortunately, she wanted to find a bar on the way back to the hotel.
Molly was quoting Jesse Unruh, father of the modern state legislature: "If you can't drink their booze, screw their women, take their money and then vote against them with a smile on your face the next morning, you have no business in this business." I had the privilege of working for him for a short while after he made his comeback as state treasurer. A politician of the old mold, of which we could do with a few reincarnations.
The worst aspect of that is that Texas is such a large market for textbooks, the books tend to be written to Texas’ specs. So what Texas wants will be what students in many other states get, too. 😢
The truth is somewhat embarrasing as it contradicts so many myths which are so useful...not only were the key actors on the Texan side of the Alamo supposed to have died....when at least Boone was actually captured by Santa Anna before being executed but they were also slave traders.....as were many of the signatories of the Constitution/Declaration, including Washington. This list can go on as it would also have to include Andrew Jackson in his less "honourable" pre-Presidential persona.
Cambridge University has finally come to its senses on the issue of eradicating the memory of all involved in Slavery and have instituted a "remain and explain" policy with regard to "difficult" previous financiers or indeed College founders. They managed thereby to save the Statue of Rhodes.
How many times have we heard "leaders" in various places around the world make this kind of claim, and then have to outrun the backlash when the "unexpected" but inevitable surge of Covid arises? Ego gets in the way, and people like DeSantis seem to think they can magically escape what others have been unable to. I hope not too many people are harmed by this arrogance.
Often (but not always) people who push abortion restrictions are doing so from a religious standpoint. Why should how you practice your religious faith have ANYTHING to do with MY decisions about my physical health or the size of my family? Talk about infringement on a person’s freedoms?!!!
'The first amendment to the US Constitution states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." The two parts, known as the "establishment clause" and the "free exercise clause" respectively, form the textual basis for the Supreme Court's interpretations ...'
(The Constitution | The White Househttps://www.whitehouse.gov › our-government ).
Your question, JennSH, merits an amendment to the 1st, which would state freedom from religion. Our framers couldn't have anticipated all our sins.
Freedom from religion was exactly the point the framers of the Constitution had in mind. Their concern in separating church and state was to ensure that no church could become an "official" church, with the power to impose their beliefs on others through the government. Their intent was freedom to practice religion as one chose, which meant no religion could be supreme. It protected both religious practice and exploration AND a government free from the coercions of religious test. Remember that these were intellectual people who challenged the religious status quo.
Annie, JennSH pointed out that anti-abortion bills are supported by so-called religious beliefs, and I believe that she is correct. ' In his 2005 book, Jerry Falwell, the firebrand fundamentalist preacher, recounts his distress upon reading about the ruling in the Jan. 23, 1973, edition of the Lynchburg News: “I sat there staring at the Roe v. Wade story,” Falwell writes, “growing more and more fearful of the consequences of the Supreme Court’s act and wondering why so few voices had been raised against it.” Evangelicals, he decided, needed to organize. Some of these anti- Roe crusaders even went so far as to call themselves “new abolitionists,” invoking their antebellum predecessors who had fought to eradicate slavery. But the abortion myth quickly collapses under historical scrutiny. In fact, it wasn’t until 1979—a full six years after Roe—that evangelical leaders, at the behest of conservative activist Paul Weyrich, seized on abortion not for moral reasons, but as a rallying-cry to deny President Jimmy Carter a second term. Why? Because the anti-abortion crusade was more palatable than the religious right’s real motive: protecting segregated schools. So much for the new abolitionism.'
'Today, evangelicals make up the backbone of the pro-life movement, but it hasn’t always been so.' (Polico, 5/2014)
Fern, what you say is true- now. But it really is a fairly recent perspective. Abortion was fairly common in colonial and early republic days. It was considered women's business, and women who knew herbs the providers. One of my 3rd great grandmother's was a "healing woman" and midwife, with a wide following. "Quickening" was usually considered the dividing point (right up until I was a young woman, in fact). Even in my youth, not all states forbid abortion, and there were "workarounds" in others. It was done quietly, listed on the surgical schedule as "routine D&C", reason often simply "polyps" or "gynocological problems." I was then in training to be a nurse (didn't take: I wanted science in its full glory), and this was a common procedure in the hospital I trained at. The rest of what you say is I absolutely agree with. The anti-abortion movement was all about power, and it was used as a political tool, as it is again now. I will say this out loud: if it comes to that, I will be part of an underground railroad to help young women keep control of the decisions about their own bodies.
I am taking that concept from reading the writings of the framers of the constitution, Fern, and from knowledge of the cultural history of the time. It is also useful to know that not everyone were churchgoers during that period: some estimate that only about 25-30% were members of churches (partly because of the persnicketiness of many churches of the time, including, I am sorry to say, many Quakers). Many (probabl the majority) of the founders were deists, and did not consider themselves Christian. Atheism was an acceptable topic of conversation, and educated people even included Islam (by different names), Buddhism and other faith paths in their discussions. They were interested in learning about different ways of thinking. We do need to be careful not to assume that the way people define things now is the way they did then. Or vice versa. Or that everyone thought the same way then.
There are religions - including mine - that do not forbid abortion. Therefore, anti-abortion laws based on someone else's religion interfere with my freedom to practice my religion.
Yes but as far as they are concerned....they know that they are right and you are wrong and it feels so good to them to impose their riteous stupidities on you. That's power and nothing to do with religion. As far as they are concerned, a servant's place is beneath the stairs and women belong in the kitchen.....unless you are one of their chosen few of course.
Especially if you are rich enough to go elsewhere or of an age not to be concerned physically. The moral concern and solidarity with other women is hardly their "forte".
Sadly, Texas has far too many of its own Marjorie Taylor Greenes and Lauren Boeberts. I don't know which is worse - a white male supremacist or a white female supremacist. I stay away from both as much as possible.
Ah, Ms. Ann, you are indeed missed. Your comments on Texan "governance" brought Molly Ivins, another sadly-missed Lone Star daughter, to mind. Commenting on Bush W.'s continual praising of the troops during his disastrous war while at the same time cutting budgets for their healthcare, housing, and education, Molly quoted Lily Tomlin: "No matter how cynical you get, it's impossible to keep up." The only way the Abbott/Paxton clan differ is that they don't bother with the sugar-coating.
Thank you Heather.
The utter disengagement from the reality of January 6th by the GOP is puzzling. I am reminded of an old lawyer adage, "never ask a question you don't already know the answer to". Is their fear the fact that they know who was involved and when that is uncovered they won't beable to twist the narrative to their advantage ?
Texas seems to be hell bent on taking away all they possibly can from women's rights to their own bodies to the weekly $300 additional unemployment funds. I thought yesterday's photo op of signing away women's rights a.k.a. abortion bill was particularly biting with the token women smiling in the front row surrounded by the men that did the bidding. What's the word I'm looking for 🤔 ......disgusting.
You left us too soon Ann Richards.
Be safe, be well.
The solution is for Gov Abbott to get pregnant with already 3 children to feed and shelter on the wages of a employee in the service industry. And be living in Texas.
Oh that’s right. He’s not a woman. He’s a man who thinks he can tell us what to do with our own bizness by signing that nasty bill.
Schmuck.
The party of small government in action. No oversight of corporations, but oversight of the most intimate areas of life.
THIS!!
Schmuck. Ha. I can think of more suitable descriptors, some printable, some not.
Ya, but they all start with F.
Actually, I'd go with "Putz" - "a penis that thinks it's a person."
🤣🤣🤣🤣
So did her buddy Molly Ivins, who knew just the right words to skew politicians, esp the Texas legislators. A couple quotes: “As they say around the Texas legislature, if you can’t drink their whiskey, screw their women, take their money, and vote against ‘em anyway, you don’t belong in office.” “I believe that ignorance is the root of all evil. And that no one knows the truth.” Once, years ago, I spent an evening drinking with her, listening to her stories. Such a fun, astute woman.
I so miss Molly Ivins. I read her stuff faithfully.
Me too!
I thought it was hilarious when she called George W. “Shrub”!
I am so jealous. I saw her speak in Richmond, Virginia, years ago. She was brilliant, even though she had to sit down to take questions. Only the good die young.
I’m jealous of myself. It was a one-night relationship, made possible only because I was responsible for chauffeuring her to and from a speaking engagement. Fortunately, she wanted to find a bar on the way back to the hotel.
Molly was quoting Jesse Unruh, father of the modern state legislature: "If you can't drink their booze, screw their women, take their money and then vote against them with a smile on your face the next morning, you have no business in this business." I had the privilege of working for him for a short while after he made his comeback as state treasurer. A politician of the old mold, of which we could do with a few reincarnations.
I loved Molly Ivin's. What a fireball.
Isn't the state also moving to "re-write" history and insure that any reference to 1619 is eliminated from teachings?
The worst aspect of that is that Texas is such a large market for textbooks, the books tend to be written to Texas’ specs. So what Texas wants will be what students in many other states get, too. 😢
California is fighting back on this with success.
Yes and it needs to stop.
Pam is that "re-write" or "re-white" history?
Good, Linda. Very good
The truth is somewhat embarrasing as it contradicts so many myths which are so useful...not only were the key actors on the Texan side of the Alamo supposed to have died....when at least Boone was actually captured by Santa Anna before being executed but they were also slave traders.....as were many of the signatories of the Constitution/Declaration, including Washington. This list can go on as it would also have to include Andrew Jackson in his less "honourable" pre-Presidential persona.
Cambridge University has finally come to its senses on the issue of eradicating the memory of all involved in Slavery and have instituted a "remain and explain" policy with regard to "difficult" previous financiers or indeed College founders. They managed thereby to save the Statue of Rhodes.
They have a LOT of 'splainin' to do with Leland Stanford.
But at least they are nolonger either denying or whitewashing history.
Crockett, not Boone - you're mixing up your frontier backwoodsmen. :-)
Too true, thanks. But the point was made.
Commissioner of Educ in FL Corcoran and Desantis already have the door wide open for him to legislate it right in.
Here's the latest on our despicable Governor. Let's hope we can get him out of office before 2024!
https://www.cnn.com/2021/05/20/politics/ron-desantis-pittsburgh/index.html
How many times have we heard "leaders" in various places around the world make this kind of claim, and then have to outrun the backlash when the "unexpected" but inevitable surge of Covid arises? Ego gets in the way, and people like DeSantis seem to think they can magically escape what others have been unable to. I hope not too many people are harmed by this arrogance.
Crap
I so loved Ann Richards!
It was a female Texan legislator that introduced it.
Often (but not always) people who push abortion restrictions are doing so from a religious standpoint. Why should how you practice your religious faith have ANYTHING to do with MY decisions about my physical health or the size of my family? Talk about infringement on a person’s freedoms?!!!
'The first amendment to the US Constitution states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." The two parts, known as the "establishment clause" and the "free exercise clause" respectively, form the textual basis for the Supreme Court's interpretations ...'
(The Constitution | The White Househttps://www.whitehouse.gov › our-government ).
Your question, JennSH, merits an amendment to the 1st, which would state freedom from religion. Our framers couldn't have anticipated all our sins.
Freedom from religion was exactly the point the framers of the Constitution had in mind. Their concern in separating church and state was to ensure that no church could become an "official" church, with the power to impose their beliefs on others through the government. Their intent was freedom to practice religion as one chose, which meant no religion could be supreme. It protected both religious practice and exploration AND a government free from the coercions of religious test. Remember that these were intellectual people who challenged the religious status quo.
Annie, JennSH pointed out that anti-abortion bills are supported by so-called religious beliefs, and I believe that she is correct. ' In his 2005 book, Jerry Falwell, the firebrand fundamentalist preacher, recounts his distress upon reading about the ruling in the Jan. 23, 1973, edition of the Lynchburg News: “I sat there staring at the Roe v. Wade story,” Falwell writes, “growing more and more fearful of the consequences of the Supreme Court’s act and wondering why so few voices had been raised against it.” Evangelicals, he decided, needed to organize. Some of these anti- Roe crusaders even went so far as to call themselves “new abolitionists,” invoking their antebellum predecessors who had fought to eradicate slavery. But the abortion myth quickly collapses under historical scrutiny. In fact, it wasn’t until 1979—a full six years after Roe—that evangelical leaders, at the behest of conservative activist Paul Weyrich, seized on abortion not for moral reasons, but as a rallying-cry to deny President Jimmy Carter a second term. Why? Because the anti-abortion crusade was more palatable than the religious right’s real motive: protecting segregated schools. So much for the new abolitionism.'
'Today, evangelicals make up the backbone of the pro-life movement, but it hasn’t always been so.' (Polico, 5/2014)
Fern, what you say is true- now. But it really is a fairly recent perspective. Abortion was fairly common in colonial and early republic days. It was considered women's business, and women who knew herbs the providers. One of my 3rd great grandmother's was a "healing woman" and midwife, with a wide following. "Quickening" was usually considered the dividing point (right up until I was a young woman, in fact). Even in my youth, not all states forbid abortion, and there were "workarounds" in others. It was done quietly, listed on the surgical schedule as "routine D&C", reason often simply "polyps" or "gynocological problems." I was then in training to be a nurse (didn't take: I wanted science in its full glory), and this was a common procedure in the hospital I trained at. The rest of what you say is I absolutely agree with. The anti-abortion movement was all about power, and it was used as a political tool, as it is again now. I will say this out loud: if it comes to that, I will be part of an underground railroad to help young women keep control of the decisions about their own bodies.
True, and those religious beliefs belong to *some*, not all,
religions.
David French wrote an interesting article documenting this change from focus on segregation to abortion in the Evangelical religion/churches. https://frenchpress.thedispatch.com/p/fact-and-fiction-about-racism-and
There is no clause stating 'Freedom from religion' in the Constitution, Annie.
I am taking that concept from reading the writings of the framers of the constitution, Fern, and from knowledge of the cultural history of the time. It is also useful to know that not everyone were churchgoers during that period: some estimate that only about 25-30% were members of churches (partly because of the persnicketiness of many churches of the time, including, I am sorry to say, many Quakers). Many (probabl the majority) of the founders were deists, and did not consider themselves Christian. Atheism was an acceptable topic of conversation, and educated people even included Islam (by different names), Buddhism and other faith paths in their discussions. They were interested in learning about different ways of thinking. We do need to be careful not to assume that the way people define things now is the way they did then. Or vice versa. Or that everyone thought the same way then.
There are religions - including mine - that do not forbid abortion. Therefore, anti-abortion laws based on someone else's religion interfere with my freedom to practice my religion.
Yes but as far as they are concerned....they know that they are right and you are wrong and it feels so good to them to impose their riteous stupidities on you. That's power and nothing to do with religion. As far as they are concerned, a servant's place is beneath the stairs and women belong in the kitchen.....unless you are one of their chosen few of course.
"A woman's place is in the House (of Representatives)"! I actually like being in the kitchen, it just needs to be a choice not a requirement.
For most FundieScum, their "religious freedom" is directly related to infringing on yours, since yours is obviously "wrong."
Thanks, TC, for adding some color to my reply.
Ovaries are, alas, no guarantee of intelligence or empathy.
The same goes for testicles
Especially if you are rich enough to go elsewhere or of an age not to be concerned physically. The moral concern and solidarity with other women is hardly their "forte".
A REPUBLICAN "female" Texas legislator. "She knows her master's voice" as well as being taught from Sunday school about "a woman's place."
Sadly, Texas has far too many of its own Marjorie Taylor Greenes and Lauren Boeberts. I don't know which is worse - a white male supremacist or a white female supremacist. I stay away from both as much as possible.
😓😓😓
Yes.
Ah, Ms. Ann, you are indeed missed. Your comments on Texan "governance" brought Molly Ivins, another sadly-missed Lone Star daughter, to mind. Commenting on Bush W.'s continual praising of the troops during his disastrous war while at the same time cutting budgets for their healthcare, housing, and education, Molly quoted Lily Tomlin: "No matter how cynical you get, it's impossible to keep up." The only way the Abbott/Paxton clan differ is that they don't bother with the sugar-coating.
They don't like wasting the sugar......they need it to become "sugar dadies" à la Gaetz!
Revolting? Repellent? Subservient? Demeaning?
Marty, your right. It could be any of those words.
I wish the companies that moved their operations to Texas, would leave. The CA employees that made the move should be outraged!