A Moment: All too Soon Lost in Time?

Leap Year Day ... A moment all too soon to be lost in time?  "Time's hands held in perpetual blind" for the next four years ... Hmmm ... What will you do with your 'extra' day, I wonder?  Will you  embrace the everyday and mundane yet again?  Or will you do something wild and crazy ... color outside your lines for a change?

Me?  Well, I am working up the courage to follow through on a wild and crazy idea I had almost a year ago to this day.  So it would seem that perhaps timing is everything.  It has something to do with my own personal religion, in a manner of speaking. It will be slightly painful, but I am tired and numb these days anyway (with extreme, prolonged lack of sleep), so perhaps I shan't really take notice of the pain? Physical pain is fleeting anyway when compared to emotional pain, is it not?  


Here's a clue for my wild and crazy about to do  ...

Well here's to you:  I'm blowing a heartfelt wish your way, for you to find courage to embrace your unknown and color outside the lines.  Have a Happy Leap Year Day whatever you happen to do with this extra day.  Leave me a comment and share your wild and crazy, if you dare. 


Peace & Love. ♥

~Isa



P.S.   I just learned that the Catholic Church is even venturing to color a bit outside its own lines, in a manner of speaking, by announcing today that it will be releasing 100 documents from the Vatican Secret Archives for viewing by the general public starting March 1, 2012 and running through Septemember 2012.  Most intriguing, wouldn't you agree?  The student of history in me thinks it might be time to venture on over to Italy once again. 


[Too bad I am not really in a mood to travel via commercial air anytime soon.  My last experience with TSA security, on my way to Hawaii, was not at all pleasant. It will take quite a bit for me to muster the courage up to go through that anytime again soon. I even have a free airline ticket just waiting to be used too ... Wouldn't be so bad if I actually felt that all of the TSA infringements actually made airline travel truly any safer. Perhaps TSA would do well to heed my advice to Republican Presidential Candidates: "Let's keep our eye on THE ball." ... I think, right now, the TSA is trying to juggle too many balls. One of these days --in the very near future-- I fear that they will drop one. ]

Politics of Perception: Choose Your Battles Wisely ...

I'll say it again:  TIMING IS EVERYTHING!


Rick Santorum's statements regarding contraception have said --during the course of this current campaign-- that while he personally does not believe in contraception an individual has the right, under our constitution, to make that decision for herself [“right to choose”].  Santorum also made another profound statement in one of the earlier debates, where he stated that when he voted against some bill mandating 'right to work' in his state.  He had done so not because he disagreed with the bill in principle, but he voted the "will of the people" that he represented at the time. It was very refreshing to hear a politician recognize and affirm this: "the will of the people" ... so many elected officials seem to forget this when they go to Washington. These two statement by Rick Santorum were among the main reasons --along with his other economic ideas (e.g., his plans to return manufacturing jobs from overseas back to America)--  I began to consider Rick Santorum as a viable candidate for President of the United States. Santorum’s statements, coupled with his Senate voting record, illustrated to me that he clearly understands the true nature of our Representative Democracy: "a government of the people, by the people and for the people." 

Rick Santorum is obviously a man of devout faith, which is a good thing. It seemed to me, however, that Mr. Santorum clearly understood the difference between holding a personal (moral) conviction and the infliction of those convictions upon others. The ability to make this sort of distinction is critical for the success of any elected politician in effectively serving his constituents … be they a congressional district, a home state or the entire United States of America.

Image Source

The fact that we are such a diverse nation, with a corresponding diversity in our religious beliefs and practices, is why our Founding Fathers built a "Separation of Church and State" into our United States Constitution. I agree, this provision was not put into place in order that we would become a secular nation, as is the interpretation of the current administration and its supporters. The latter being said, I don't think that this issue should be at center of campaign narratives in the current Republican Primary.  To me, a candidate who ventures into this ideological argument runs the risk of getting off message and losing potential voters in the long run.


You should  be proud of your faith, Mr. Santorum.  To many, your faith will serve as evidence of your moral character and your ability to be trustworthy and ethical in your execution of the office of President of the United States. The latter being said, I don't think faith vs. secularism in government should be a critical issue of your election campaign. You have to get into office before you can effect change in the latter respect. Once in office, the change in attitude will naturally occur by the type of administration you put into place, appointments you make and the people that you will choose surround yourself with. I fear, however, if you start an ideological campaign on the issue of faith vs. secularism in government you might just loose the votes of mainstream American voters who may misconstrue your current focus for an inability to address the real concerns facing our nation:  sky-rocketing gas prices, no true energy-independence, people who have given up looking for work to give a false sense of "true unemployment", a soaring national debt, and weak foreign policy posturing that now heralds a potentially nuclear Iran.


Maybe, to quote your own words, Mr. Santorum ... You need to "take one for the team" and refocus your campaign narrative back onto the BIGger issues concerning all Americans.


3/2012 Update:  Rick Santorum's Plan for His First 100 Days in Office

For a Friend ...

All the positive little things when consciously reflected upon with gratitude can truly change our perspective and brighten our days, I think.

"Easter Reflection"

Copyrighted Photo, 2010.  All Rights Reserved.

Peace & Love, My Friend. ♥

Games People Play ...

"Games People Play"

Wonder if there is some religion to be found in here?

Song:  "Gates of Istanbul", By Loreena McKennit.  Album: "An Ancient Muse."

Let's Keep Our Eye on the Ball Republicans!

[Yes, another blog entry finds me tired and yet again sleep-deprived.  That being said, I feel these things need to be said.  I will revisit and proof after some hopeful sleep. Peace, Love & Stay informed.]

I did not like the format of last night’s Republican Primary debate at all.  Seeing the Presidential candidates seated informally next to one another, in such close proximity, did not bring out the best of these candidates to either the voting audience or the rest of country.  The candidates did not look at all Presidential in this 'relaxed' debate format, nor did they appear to be comfortable.  Quite frankly, seeing the Presidential candidates seated in such an informal forum, while attempting to discuss serious issues such as the very real threat of a nuclear Iran was almost laughable.  Perhaps this was yet another ploy by the liberal media to further diminish the Republican Presidential candidates in the eyes of potential voters for the upcoming November 2012 general election?

I DID happen to like the question from an on-line submission near the end of the debate: “What one word would you use to describe yourself?” Ron Paul answered with a predictable “consistent” ... albiet an out-in-left-field consistent. Santorum took a line from his own campaign mantra in focusing on “courage [courageous]." I had to smile at Romney’s adjective for himself: “resolute." Romney's deliverance of that word itself was resolute, as if to say “Hey, I’m not going anywhere anytime soon. I am going to ride this election cycle through to the very end and win [unspoken explicative].” But it was Newt Gingrich’s jovial laughter in conjunction with his chosen adjective that I felt was perhaps the adjective that all of the candidates would do well to adopt at this point in the campaign: “cheerful.” Why? Because, last night's debate was perhaps the height of the hammering performances given by the candidates in a debate setting to date. It was almost too painful to watch the Republican candidates continue to tear one another apart in an effort to take the lead in the polls heading into the Arizona and Michigan primaries, with "Super Tuesday" just around the corner. At least, there was some concession and agreement --near the end of the debate-- on the very real threat of the nuclear Iran and what should be done with regards to current and future potential situations arising in the Middle East.

The Republican Presidential candidates REALLY NEED to start defining the narrative for the upcoming general election, instead of letting the media and the Obama Administration continue to dictate their narrative for them. The Republican Presidential candidates cannot afford to keep tearing one another apart, while simultaneously giving Obama a free-pass until after the August Republican National Convention. John King’s lead-in to one of the questions last night was “Since contraception seems to be a hot issue right now …” Why weren't rising gas prices and the fact that our current President vetoed the Keystone Pipeline a hot topic worthy of a formal question in this debate? Well now, let's see: contraception ‘seems to be a hot issue’... because the current administration has made it a hot issue in order to provide smoke and mirrors for the real issues facing the country right now. The Obama campaign gambled that the conservatives in the Republican Party would consume themselves with the "contraception issue" and they were right; that's exactly what the conservative base has done. We’ve “taken our eye off the ball”, so to speak, by continuing to let contraception remain THE issue. The candidates continually taking the media bait by attempting to explain their current and past statements/positions on contraception and other related social issues isn’t helping either. Enough already! Let it go and let’s keep our focus on the real issues facing our country right now (e.g., nuclear Iran, soaring gas prices, floundering economy, high unemployment, mounting national debt). Let’s keep our eye on the political ball so to speak. Now is NOT the time to focus on social issues and platforms.  Save the social issues for the party platform building at the National Convention in August!  Right now, our country has bigger problems; let's keep the campaign narrative focused on these.

[Side Note: You really have to stop for a moment here and give the current Administration credit for steering the election commentary towards the issue of "contraception", don't you?  Can you now, perhaps, see who the President really does not want to run against?  President Obama would love to have this campaign not be about the economy, sky-rocketing gas prices, no true energy-independence, people who have given up looking for work to give a false sense of "true unemployment", a soaring national debt, and weak foreign policy posturing that now heralds a potentially nuclear Iran.]

[Hah! Will that Blue Ball fit through the hoop? ; ) It's late and I'm tired ...

Not my best graphic, but it serves its purpose.]

Rick Santorum seemed to be the one taking the biggest beating in last night’s debate and inevitably so as he is currently the newest Republican front-runner.  I would hope, however, that voters seriously begin to question the merits of a candidate whose only strategy to date seems to be pointing out the negatives and shortcomings of others instead of offering meaningful solutions for the problems currently facing our nation.  No politician is perfect.  They all have probably voted for something in their past that they now regret.  In light of the ongoing negativity in this Republican Primary, it is imperative that voters be informed (i.e., get the whole story on negative attacks, verifying authenticity and context) and look at the big picture of a candidate's overall voting record.  Quite frankly, to me, the focus on negativity and tearing opponents down in order to get ahead is reminiscent of the type of campaign that Obama ran in the last presidential election ... offering intangible, nebulous "hope and change."  Look where that has gotten us.  Is that really where we want to go as a party?  Maybe, Rick Santorum is onto something when he refers to Mitt Romney as "Obama-lite."


Hopefully, Santorum can regroup and refocus after last night’s debate and get his 'A-game' on heading into the upcoming 14-state election primary contests that will unfold over the course of the next two weeks. Santorum absolutely has to keep his eye on the ball and stop taking the bait to steer his campaign commentary back towards social issues which in last night's debate started to paint him as a staunch (intolerant) social conservative. Social issues will wind up being Santorum’s Achilles heel if he keeps allowing his campaign to be defined by them.  Go ahead and court the conservative evangelical base, Rick, just be careful not to alientate the more moderate factions of your party, independents and the rest of the country. You have to keep your focus on the general election now. Your voting record speaks to your understanding of and willingness to embrace the "will of the people" ... use it; don't make excuses for it.

Image Source

[Side Note:  I sincerely hope that Rick Santorum doesn't jump on the "all contraception is bad and promotes immoral behavior" bandwagon.  This is just where the liberal left and his current rivals for the Republican Presidential Nomination want Rick Santorum to go. To jump on this bandwagon would be such a sad, not to mention quick, way to derail a truly promising campaign. Don't bite, Rick! Stick to your previous position --from the beginning of your campaign-- when you stated that you "don't personally believe that contraception is right, but that you support an individual's right to choose for themselves."  And then remind everyone that your voting record in the Senate clearly supports the latter statement. Don't make excuses for your voting record.

Rick Santorum's statements in tonight's debate seemed (to me) to be an attempt to perhaps rally the evangelical conservative base of the Republican Party … And this is a legitimate campaign strategy. Whichever candidate decides to court this segment of the Republican base, however, should tread very, very carefully --in my humble opinion (myself being an Independent Republican)-- lest said suitor jeopardize their entire campaign by alienating the rest of the potential voting base in the short term … and the rest of the country in the long term.  The evangelical base of the conservative party can conceivably be rallied to support a given campaign (candidate) without said campaign having to back itself irreversibly into a staunch, rigid, self-righteous corner. Any suitor of the evangelical base should exercise extreme judiciousness in making public statements on sensitive issues like contraception. They should keep the primary focus of the campaign on the bigger issues facing our nation and go after the true culprits of the 'moral decline in our society' … if they must go after them at all. Ron Paul makes a very valid point: contraception is not the root of the problem. Society's attitudes towards pornography, prostitution, drugs and the like … not contraception … are at the heart of moral decay in our society. Any candidate with sights beyond the Republican Primary would be wise to make the latter distinction early on, and make it forcefully. ]


Rick Santorum's statements regarding contraception have said --during the course of this current campaign-- that while he personally does not believe in contraception an individual has the right, under our constitution, to make that decision for herself [“right to choose”].  Santorum also made another profound statement in one of the earlier debates, where he stated that when he voted against some bill mandating 'right to work' in his state. He had done so not because he disagreed with the bill in principle, but he voted the "will of the people" that he represented at the time. It was very refreshing to hear a politician recognize and affirm this: "the will of the people" ... so many elected officials seem to forget this when they go to Washington. These two statement by Rick Santorum were among the main reasons --along with his other economic ideas (e.g., his plans to return manufacturing jobs from overseas back to America)--  I began to consider Rick Santorum as a viable candidate for President of the United States. Santorum’s statements, coupled with his Senate voting record, illustrated to me that he clearly understands the true nature of our Representative Democracy: "a government of the people, by the people and for the people." While Rick Santorum is obviously a man of devout faith, it seemed to me he clearly understood the difference between holding a personal (moral) conviction and the infliction of those convictions upon others. The ability to make this sort of distinction is critical for the success of any elected politician in effectively serving his constituents … be they a congressional district, a home state or the entire United States of America.

A few weeks back, Rick Santorum seemed to emerge as the candidate that not only could beat Obama, but THE candidate that would also be best for the country serving as President of the United States.  Voters in the Republican Primary no longer felt compelled to settle for the candidate being pushed by establishment politicians and the media (conservative and liberal alike) as "the only viable candidate" who would be able to secure victory against the incumbent President Obama. Republican voters just aren't happy with a 'middle-of-the-road' Romney. With Santorum's 3-state sweep, Republican voters embraced a new-found realization: they had another viable choice for the Republican nominee. As the latter realization quickly spread, Rick Santorum finally began to energize what had previously been an overwhelmingly unenthusiastic Republican party. Hopefully, this Santorum-energy will continue as voters head to the polls in the upcoming election primaries of “Super Tuesday” and the like, because regardless of who will be our Republican Presidential cadidate the Republican Party will need an energized party in order to bring voters to the polls in November or there will be no defeating the incumbent President Barak Obama.



[ Alright ... I'm exhausted.  I may have to take March off too?  I've said my political piece.  Going back to focusing on images once again.  The current state of our country and the problems facing our nation has inspired me to attempt a read "The Federalist Papers" in their entirety ... We shall see how far I get.  Peace, Love and Get to the Polls to VOTE! ]


2/24/2012  http://video.foxnews.com/v/1471930214001/santorum-romneys-attacks-are-laughable/?playlist_id=87937

3/2012 Update:  Rick Santorum's Plan for His First 100 Days in Office

I found a piece of home ...

This image came up as a search tag for my blog?  Such a beautiful painting, is it not?  Wonderful illuminating vision by the artist, Elizabeth Osborne.  She surely transports me right into the middle of this field of glorious poppies.  I love poppies.  They are so wild and free.  One of my favorite flowers.  I have many wonderful memories of running through fields of these beauties ... barefoot of course ... chasing after ladybugs and butterflies.  This was during my days in northern California at about 9-11 years of age.

Image Source

I saw this painting and instantly felt such an overwhelming sense of peace.  This scene was a piece of home for me, a piece of me ... my own personal religion.  Think, this Spring I will have to drive down to California, kick off my shoes and go running through a field of poppies once again.  Been awhile since I went chasing after butterflies.  This will definitely be a photo capture for inclusion in my "finding my religion" photo series.

I did finally sleep and last night I dreamt of Syria.  I was a young mother, living there with small children ... My dream was so very real:  It was as if I was seeing the nightmare currently unfolding in the real world, in Syria, through the eyes of another.  In my dream it was the French who stepped up to the plate and finally got the ball rolling with respect to actually helping these people by sending in ground troops with NATO backing. We shall see if my 'vision' comes to pass?  In the meantime, I am still diligently and wholeheartedly praying for the women, children and men of Syria.  May God Bless them, each and everyone, and keep them safe until the rest of the world finds the courage to finally take decisive and meaningful action.

For a Beautiful Soul ...

God Bless you ... Fare thee well, sweet and beautiful soul.  All will be well here in this life.  Go in peace, onward to embrace you next great adventure.  Carry not sorrow, nor regret, but thankfulness for blessings you were so fortunate to have shared on this leg of your spiritual journey.  Somehow, I sense this is a song you wanted to hear.  I had never listened to the music of Joan Baez.  Thank you for the introduction.  Peace, Love and Be Well, my friend.  My thoughts and prayers will be with you and with your loved ones still to complete their journey in this here and now.  Know that our loved ones are never truly far from us in the presence of spirit and in our hearts.


Song: "500 Miles", Sung By Joan Baez



 "Love to Pinky. ♥"



God Bless the song poets who find the words for us.  Your song will forever resonate in our heats, echos of the LOVE that is you.

Contraception Mandate: "Fear is not an effective choice or method for enlightenment of the soul."

Today, there are no images ... only much soul searching which has evolved into words ...

I know, I said that I would be gone for the rest of this month ... focusing on images rather than words, but the current controversy over the Obama-care "contraception mandate" has been weighing heavily on my mind and my spirit.   Thus, I seem to have been compelled by my spirit to find my words to speak.  If you read nothing else in this post, please read at least the very last paragraph (of the initial post) ... Thank you.

Obama-care rears its ugly head yet again?  This time the controversy stems from a newly unveiled aspect of Obama-care in which government has mandated the requirement that coverage for contraception medications and procedures be provided as standard provisions in healthcare coverage offered by employers.  Exemptions are provided for religious institutions (churches, synagogues, etc.) whose primary function is that of religious worship.  This exemption provision, however, is not extended to secondary institutions run by religious institutions such as hospitals and universities.

Naturally, leaders of religious institutions that are "morally opposed" to contraception in any form immediately took issue to this recent government mandate.  The largest and loudest complainant has come from the Catholic Church.  The Catholic Church and other supporters of "religious freedoms" claim  that government is overstepping its constitutional authority by forcing religious institutions --even at the secondary level of religious run hospitals and universities ...many of which receive government funding-- to provide for services which they find "morally reprehensible."   

I suspect that the above religious institutions do indeed have a legal, constitutionally-backed argument to support their claim as outlined above.  While I am opposed to government stepping on an individual's or institution's right to exercise religious freedom in any instance :   I do happen to approve of the government providing for  inclusion of contraception medications and procedures as standard provisions for healthcare coverage.  Contraception coverage, whether religious opponents like it or not, is a vital part of women's health in this day and age.  A woman being able to choose when she will have children and how many children she will have has revolutionized the lives of women and their families for the better.  Women can now have careers, choices and interests beyond bearing and raising children.  Contraception has also helped to greatly reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies, which has reduced the number of instances where a woman would even want to contemplate abortion.  I do not like that the 'morning-after pill' may be included in this contraception coverage, as I am personally opposed to abortion ... but once again it is an individual decision and also an individual freedom to choose whether or not to use contraception medications and procedures.  The individual will have to weigh the moral implications, if any, of the contraception services that they personally will choose to use for themselves.  I, personally, find the attempt by some on the religious right to lump all forms of contraception into the same category as abortion "morally reprehensible."

[ Side Note:   The argument that women (and men) can simply go elsewhere to get the contraception medications and services that they need is ludicrous.  Costs for medications and services not covered directly by primary healthcare insurance in the United States, in this day and age, are undeniably outrageous.  It makes me a bit angry to hear prominent individuals dismissively claiming that individuals can get contraception medications "for free" elsewhere if these medications are not provided for by their comprehensive healthcare insurance.   The news commentator Bill O'reilly, of FOX News, said on his broadcast just yesterday that birth control pills can be gotten "at any clinic [by anyone] for free."  Mr. O'reilly should verify his facts before he rattles off statements such as this as fact.  I was unable to obtain birth controls for free when I was in college, because I worked my way through college and made "too much money"  to qualify for "free pills."  My HMO insurance did not provide coverage for contraception services at the time.  The $60.00 a month cost for the pills was a heavy burden for me as a struggling college student. Coverage for birth control pills under my health insurance plan would have lowered the price that I had to pay out of my pocket quite considerably. While it is true that some low-income individuals will be able find clinics that will provide birth control pills at little to no costs, this option is not available for most moderate income earners where the cost of about $60.00 per month equates to a daughter being able to take dance lessons, children learning Taekwondo or Karate ... a child learning to play a musical instrument.  These are real choices facing real people.  .  For me, as for many women, becoming pregnant before I finished my degree would have most likely meant that I would not have completed my degree (and yes, I was married in college).  And as for the argument:  "if you don't like the rules, then don't play" (go get a job with another employer or attend another university) ... In this lousy economy of the past four years the ability to "play" somewhere else has been severely limited for many. 

Based on recent comments by Bill O'reilly and his surrogates (specifically, Laura Ingram): It seems to me that the "no-spin zone" of the "O'reilly Factor" has lost some of its credibility lately in neutralizing 'spin'.  Laura Ingram's interview with the Reverend Katherine Ragsdale, President of Episcopal Divinity School of MA, was so blatantly biased and disrespectful.  I have to give Reverend Ragsdale credit for not biting on Ingram's pointed jabs and line of irrelevant questioning in an effort to discredit this guest in the eyes of the viewing audience.  Reverend Ragsdale made some very well articulated and valid points in this interview, despite Ingram's repeated attempts to derail her.   I know that the issues relating to religious freedom can lead to heated discussions, but I found Lauren Ingram's behavior in this interview to be highly unprofessional.  I will be writing a letter to FOX news about this interview.  ]

Today, the Obama administration issued a statement declaring that religious secondary institutions (e.g., Catholic-run hospitals and universities) will no longer be required to provide the mandated "contraception coverage" as a part of their comprehensive healthcare packages.  The contraception coverage will now be offered separately to employees directly from (and exclusively through) the insurance provider itself, with funding for the services coming from the government and/or savings resulting from the issurance companies not having to cover costs associated with unwanted pregnancies and additional dependents. In this way, the individual can choose for themselves whether or not they want to have the contraception coverage without having to involve the perceived sanctioning of contraception services by religious institutions themselves. 

In sum, religious entities such as the Catholic Church now have their "freedom of conscience" and the additional exemption from the mandated compliance for their secondary institutions.  Sadly, I suspect that even this concession will not be sufficient for the Church and other religious opponents to contraception.  Constitutionally and legally --though the courts will likely have the final say on this-- the Catholic Church and other religious entities now effectively have what they wanted:  the right to exercise their "freedom of religion" and "freedom of conscience."  What will they do next?  Will the self-righteousness of religion rear its ugly head by continuing to press for further concessions (i.e., insistance that contraception services will not be made available to the employees at their hospitals and universities under any circumstances)?  Perhaps, Obama-care will wind up being repealed in the near future and all of this will become a mute point?  Though, I do hope that the inclusion of access to contraception medications and services in standard healthcare coverage will remain in place or be addressed through subsequent, separate legislation.  I strongly feel that the availability of contraception coverage in standard healthcare insurance is an important issue facing women and their families.  I applaud the current administration for having the courage to address this need for reform even though their timing may have been politically motivated and the manner of implementation could have been better thought out before its unveiling.

While I do concede that our U.S. Constitution guarantees that our government cannot be allowed to force the Catholic Church, or any other religious institution, to provide* for "contraception services" :  It seems somewhat ironic to me that religious institutions and individuals fail to make the distinction between holding a moral convinction or belief and the infliction of those convinctions upon others (e.g., pharmacists who refuse to dispense prescribed birth control pills to patients).  In my humble opinion, being a former Catholic --baptized, raised and married in the Catholic faith, who had all three of my children baptized in the Catholic Church-- the biggest shortcoming of the Catholic Church, and many other religions, is their ongoing failure to recognize that the role of the Church should be to provide spiritual guidance not to pass judgment or to coerce the behavior of individuals by using fear (of social reprisal or "eternal damnation") or by withholding medical services in order to conform to the Church's standard of a perceived moral code.  Ultimately, the decision of whether or not to use contraception should be between the individual ... the conscience of the individual ... and God.  We are each of us on a spiritual journey in this life, here to make our own choices to the best of our individual abilities based upon our own experiences, interpretations, and a relationship with God, our Creator.  The choices that we make directly translate into the ongoing evolution of our spiritual being and ultimately determine the state of our immortal soul. No one can make the choices for us ... Our choices have to be fully processed, embraced in the heart, mind and soul and fear is not an effective choice or method for enlightenment of the soul.

Perhaps, we would all do well to stop for a moment and consider the contraception aspect --the constitutional aspect being momentarily set aside-- of this debate from another perspective:  "What would Jesus do?" Would Jesus pass judgement and condemn?  Is there a single direct Biblical instance of Jesus ever inflicting His personal beliefs or convictions forcefully upon another? 

*[It looks as if it will likely be left to the courts to determine the legal and constitutional definition of "provide".]





1/11/2012   ... I do not deny that the unveiling of this mandate at this point in time and in the fashion in which it was done was a politically motivated tactic by the current administration in a effort to galvanize Obama's voting base (women in particular) for the upcoming November 2012 Presidential Election.  That being said, if the Catholic Church is wise: they will take their first amendment victory that was conceded by the Obama Administration yesterday and let this debate cease right here and now.  The latter will effectively take the wind out the Obama's campaign sails.  Then, if needs be, this issue can be taken up in the courts after the election.  There is also the distinct possibility that Obama-care will end up being ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court or repealed by a newly elected Republican President.  If either of the latter happens all of the debate with respect to this specific mandate and its method of implementation becomes a mute point.


1/12/2021 ... As I have said before, "It's still not about class warfare.  Just like its not about a perceived moral victory" (re: Republican Presidential Primary). And for the time being, maybe it should not be about a woman's right to "pursue, Life, Liberty and happiness" by being guaranteed unhindered, affordable access to basic contraception medications and services?  The politics of polarization and division have brought this country to its knees. Obama, I think, is hoping to cash in on the ongoing divisions in our country in order to benefit his re-election campaign by using the strategy of "Divide and Conquer." What we've been doing these past 3++ years hasn't been working; It's time to try something NEW!  It's time for us to throw down our sticks and to extend our hands towards one another in an a concerted effort to try to find common ground so that "We the People" can save our country from its final demise.  We have real issues facing our nation (as I've outlined in previous posts) and ... We need real solutions to implement that will unite us as a strong nation in order to get America back up on its feet again and stave off looming disaster.  "United we stand; Divided we [shall innevitably] fall."


1/14/2012 ... While the Catholic Church and others opposed to the "contraception mandate" have argued forcefully, repeatedly, and rather dismissively that this is "not about contraception": IT IS. For the Church and its champions to dismiss the medical aspect of this legislation entirely is rather an arrogant and dangerous posture to assume ... especially in light of the upcoming 2012 Presidential Election.  The contraception mandate legislation, while controversial and inflammatory in its initial wording and method of implementation, does addresses a vital problem facing women (and men) in healthcare today:  unhindered access to affordable contraception medications and procedures as fewer than 28 states have any sort of law requiring inclusion of contraception medications and services in standard healthcare insurance. The Obama-care Contraception Mandate addresses access and affordability requirements across the board for ALL employers in the United States --NOT JUST THE CATHOLIC CHURCH AND OTHER RELIGIOUS EMPLOYERS-- in an effort to include a vital aspect of healthcare as standard in healthcare insurance packages offered by employers to their employees.

 The "First Amendment" issue, now being rallied around, was a subsequent issue that has evolved from this contraception mandate legislation, but the underlying need and principle healthcare issue still remain.  The Catholic Church, religious right and conservatives news commentators need to show a bit more sensitivity (i.e., acknowledgement for the legitimacy of the underlying healthcare issue) to the principle issue from a healthcare standpoint lest their words, arguments and actions further fuel the stereotype that so many Americans already have of these religious groups and thereby the Republican Party itself by default ... That is to say, that while political posturing around the First Amendment issue may rally the conservative base:  the blatant and arrogant dismissal of the underlying issue (medical need) will simultaneously trumpet a timely reminder to moderates, independents and the rest of the country that they should remain fearful of any leadership (presidential candidates) coming from a political party comprised of persuasive religious factions whose actions and words, now and in the past, have caused the conservative base and its party to be perceived as being the party of  "fiercely rigid inflexibility, narrow-mindedness, intolerance and arrogance [self-righteousness]."

In sum Catholics, religious conservatives and others championing the First Amendment infringement of the Obama-care contraception mandate should tread carefully.  At present, your actions and words are just fanning the Obama re-election campaign momentum.  I'm not saying that you do not have a legitimate First Amendment argument; I am simply pointing out the need to show some genuine sensitivity for the other side of the issue.  Unfortunately, this is not simple mathematics where two negatives multiply for an end positive result. Two infringements ... "two wrongs, do not make a right."  


One last thought:  timing is everything.




Additional Thoughts on the "Contraception Issue" with respect to party politics & losing women voters:

"Where Have All the Good Men Gone?"
"Follow-up: Where Have All the Good Men Gone?"
"Contraception: A Possible Win-Win ..."   (summary and final basic conclusions)

Do As the Church Says ... Not as I Do?

I know, I said that I would be gone for the rest of this month ... focusing on images rather than words, but the current controversy over whether the U.S. Government is overstepping its constitutional authority by requiring that institutions run by religious entities (i.e., Catholic Church) --where the primary purpose of the institution is not directly dedicated to the purpose of worship-- must provide heallthcare insurance coverage for contraceptive medications and procedures has been weighing heavily on my mind.  The government has already consented to an exemption for religious institutions dedicated to the "sole purpose of worship."  The controversial mandate is directed solely towards secondary institutions  (e.g., hospitals and universities) that are run by the religious entities such as the Catholic Church.  Apparently, this is the first wave of "Obama-care" coming into play?  It does seem odd to me that the Obama Administration would choose to unveil this aspect of the Obama Healthcare Plan in an election year?  Perhaps, the Obama campaign hopes to gain women voters with this issue?

Political designs and agendas aside, I have been extremely frustrated in discussing this issue with the men in my life because they are so quick to dismiss this issue and side with the church.  I guess, it's easy to label this as a non-issue if you aren't the one left carrying a child for 9 months, having your life completely and forever altered in one of  the most (if not, the most) profound ways? Access to birth control and being able to exercise some control over our own individual reproductive health has truly changed the lives of millions of women for the better.  We now have some say in choosing when we will have children and how many we will have. Because of the latter, women can now aspire to have careers and interests beyond merely bearing and raising children. Contraception is in a very real sense liberation for women.  The denied access to contraception coverage also affects men (and their families) with respect to having access to affordable medical services for vasectomies.  How many marriages would legitimately survive prolonged abstinence, I wonder?

The argument that women (and men) can go elsewhere to get the contraception medications and services that they need is ludicrous.  Costs for medications and services not covered directly by health insurance in the United States in this day and age are undeniably outrageous. Contrary to what news commentators like Bill Oreilly of FOX News say: you can't just go out and "get birth control pills for free."  Some low-income individuals can find clinics that will provide birth control pills at little to no costs, but this option is not available for most moderate income earners where the cost of $60.00 per month equates to a daughter being able to take dance lessons, children learning Taekwondo or Karate ... a child learning to play a musical instrument.  These are real choices facing real people.  And as for the argument:  "if you don't like the rules, then don't play" ... In this lousy economy of the past four years the ability to "play" somewhere else has been severely limited for many.  

The above arguments aside, I don't like the idea of the government stepping in to mandate this insurance coverage for contraception medication and services ... even for secondary institutions that are "not directly places of worship."  Given that the Catholic run hospitals and universities are secondary institutions, providing services and acting as employers to lay people: it would be best if healthcare coverage for contraception medication and procedures were provided on a voluntary basis by the given institution, as was previously the case.  This would  maintain the illusion of upholding the "freedom of conscience" clause ... although, to me the freedom of conscience should belong to the woman (or man) and not her employer.  Perhaps, government should adopt a transparent policy of  not allowing  government funding (or tax exemptions) to go to institutions that choose not to offer a comprehensive, non-discriminatory healthcare insurance coverage to their employees or students.  Government could then use the funds no longer eligible for institutions that choose not to comply with the contraception mandate to offer a government sponsored healthcare coverage add-on option for employees (or students) that are denied contraception healthcare insurance coverage by a given religious-run institution.  The Obama administration could also look into the feasibility of making birth control pills an over-the-counter medication --with ID check for age 18 and over-- which would greatly bring down costs and increase access.

I was raised a Catholic and one of the reasons that I left the Catholic Church was the Church's rigid, and somewhat hypocritical, stance on birth control among other issues.  The Catholic Church has a long history of injustice where women are concerned; I don't suppose that they would choose to change now?  I also find it rather amazing that so many Catholics are up in arms, siding with the Catholic Church on this issue when the Obama Administration has given a clear exemption to churches, synagogues and all places of worship ... especially when such a large percentage of  Catholics use some form of contraception themselves.  It's not okay to infringe upon the beliefs of the Catholic Church, in a secondary, for profit setting that receives government funding in many cases ... but it's okay to allow the church to step on the reproductive rights of those that they employ and serve?  I'm just still trying to wrap my mind around this ... (I am tired.  Have not slept yet.  Going to try to find some elusive sleep. I will proof this later and perhaps delete?).

Finding My Religion ...

"When words become unclear, I shall focus with photographs. When images become inadequate, I shall be content with silence."   ~Ansel Adams

"Mt. McKinley, Wonder Lake", By Ansel Adams

Image Source

The above photograph is one of my favorite Ansel Adams images.  Per the quote:  that is what I am doing these days ... being quiet and focusing on images rather than words.  I am currently focused on taking some photos for my "finding my religion" series ...

Me doing what I LOVE : )

Peace and Love and I'll probably be back next month if all goes well. ♥

Happy Groundhogs Day Ya'll!

Well the famous Punxsutawney Phil did see his shadow today.  Apparently that is supposed to mean another 6 weeks of possible winter?  Felt like the high here in Seattle today was about 38 deg. F, so that prediction feels right ... maybe?  I mean the Seattle area was hammered by days of snow totaling nearly 2 feet just over a week ago (the last of which just melted in our yard on Monday).  Then I talk to my family in Texas and they tell me it is a rather warm winter there this year. That they hit near 80 deg. F. a few days ago and over night lows have been in the 60's.   A friend in Massachusetts tells me that this time last year they had over 80" of snowfall by this time of year.  This year, thus far, they have had only 8" of snowfall.  So it seems this is the year for unpredictable, I guess.  All bets are off ... Just like the Republican Presidential Primary:  Expect the Unexpected.

Here's my prediction ...

"Melting Snow"

@Copyrighted Photo:  All Rights Reserved.

I predict that winter will try to throw one last temper tantrum, but I don't feel winter sticking around another six full weeks this year.  My track record for predictions this year, thus far, has been pretty good ... but the year is still young so take my prediction for what you will.  Whatever the weather: get out there and enjoy it! =) Seasons come and go ...

[Please excuse my many typos and grammatical errors in posts of late ... these days I am lucky to sleep 2 hours total on any given night.  Things are starting to become one BIG blur ... typos aside though: "it's all good."]




2/3/2012 Strange weather indeed?!  Just heard on the news that parts of the Sahara desert are presently receiving snow and that parts of Europe are being hit by a monster snow storm.