The 'Right to Conscience,' Harvey Milk and the Bailout hypocracy

First off... Rachel Maddow is brilliant, as is Melissa Harris-Lacewell. But, to move on to the matter at hand, this policy change newly implemented by the Lame Duck Bush administration is despicable. The 'right to conscience' is an obvious ploy to narrow the rights of women as protected by Roe v. Wade. Giving anyone the option to opt out of legal medical procedures allows an end-run around individual rights. This seems so similar to me of women's health clinics around the country that have no intention to conduct abortions and lie to women until it's literally too late. Why would means such as this be the way that the Republicans try to eliminate a woman's right to choose? Isn't it a crusade put on by the Right? Why not validate that 'moral' position with a popular decision or highly public Supreme Court decision?

Well... just in this past election, two such measures were defeated. One in Colorado that redefined 'personhood' to begin at the moment of fertilization, which was defeated by a double digit margin. And the other, and this one I think is much more indicative, where severe restrictions towards abortions was defeated in SOUTH DAKOTA. I'm sorry, but when abortion can't be defeated by popular decision in a state like South Dakota... perhaps it's just time for the Right to resign themselves to the fact that these rights are popularly supported and leave it be.

Even when I considered myself to be a Republican, I was always a bit concerned with the intrusive nature of Social Conservatism. To me, I always saw it as the majority trying to push their views of morality on society as a whole. I don't believe that this is a Christian nation, and I think that it's a travesty that any individual running for elected office seemingly has to prove to the American people how much faith he or she has and that literally being a litmus test to their electability. Just for argument's sake, why would the fact that Barack Obama's being a muslim (which is completely untrue and no one of true intellect can say otherwise) be a threat to national security? He did not have dual citizenship with any Middle Eastern country, so clearly his religion solely would be the culprit. I reject the assumption that an individual's faith would necessarily paint their judgment (unless that individual claims to talk to God personally... I'm talking to you W.). JFK did not take his orders from the Pope and a muslim leader would not take orders from the Ayatolla.

Speaking of Social Conservatism and its danger, the movie that I am most excited to see right now is Milk. Going through my public education, I was never made aware of Harvey Milk's story and the crusade against Prop 6 in California in the late 70s. For anyone interested, Harvey Milk was the first openly gay elected official in the U.S. He was a City Supervisor for the city of San Francisco. And the battle against Prop 6, which is what the movie revolves around, was a measure that would fire any teacher who was either gay or supportive of gays. It's really quite amazing the parallels that this time makes with the current circumstances after the passing of Prop 8. Fortunately, I was educated on the matter during my first Women's Studies class at OSU and I was amazed by it. Not surprisingly, Harvey was assasinated early in life. But, I am intrigued to see how Sean Penn plays the role of Milk, as well as the parts played by Emile Hirsch and James Franco - I have only heard amazing things about it and I'm sure it will be up for more than a couple oscars.

NOTE - Prop 8 will be defeated and it overturning will be a step towards true equality... How long must we wait?

Finally, the last topic that is on my mind is the matter of the bailout for the auto manufacturing industry in this country. As I have just heard tonight, there will be a loan given which I can only see as good news. Sure, these companies have mismanaged their industry, but showing them a lesson at the expense of one tenth of the jobs in this nation is a price that is far too high to consider. This bailout has been the topic of much disagreement, but I have taken one piece of information out of it. The Big 3 execs have had to grovel and plead and give plans upon plans on how the money will help, all while being brow-beaten by Congress. Romney and other fiscal conservatives have called for no money to be given and to let the companies fail. Much more insidiously, the dreaded unions have been vilified as the reason that GM and the lot are in this mess...

My question is this - why is all of this stringency being placed on the Auto makers but not on the banking industry that we have already given $700 billion (much more than the $25 billion that we're giving Detroit)? This disconnect between those who take a shower before work and those who have to shower afterwards is clear. The banking bailout is being spent on executive bonuses while union members are being blamed for wanting a decent wage and health benefits? Seriously?!

I actually liked the opinion offered by Michael Moore on Countdown the other day... The Big 3 have an actual value of around $3 billion now... why are we going to give them $25 billion more? For that we could buy the companies and nationalize in a way that we the people can determine the future productions - emphasizing hybrid and electric technologies. It won't happen, but hopefully the money we're giving will allow us influence to change the directions of the companies.

Hmm... In conclusion, I'm happy to see that Bill O'Reilly's radio show will go under at the beginning of the year! One down, one more to go :) It's well on its way if Olbermann continues to outdo Billo in the ratings!