And there’s that matter of abortion

The health care revamping has been on my radar mainly for its cost and its dumbing down, as it were (groping for another term), of health care itself; but the abortion business might be its big achilles heel:

(CNSNews.com) – Rep. Bart Stupak (D.-Mich.), co-chairman of the House Pro-Life Caucus, told CNSNews.com that Democrats who oppose government funding of abortion will try to block the health care reform bill from coming to a vote on the House floor unless House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D.-Calif.) allows a floor vote on an amendment to explicitly prohibit abortion funding in the bill.

Meanwhile, the RC bishops have not yet dropped the ball on this one and find fault with Obama, the sweetheart of Notre Dame:

(CNSNews.com) – One day after the White House contradicted an assertion by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops that all current versions of the health-care bill permit funding of abortion, the Catholic bishops declared they would “vigorously” oppose the bill if it was not changed to include language to prohibit abortion funding.

Meanwhile, Mayordaley II of Chicago has shown Obama and all other pols the way to true honesty, in an abortion-related context:

“My religion is very personal. …Religion does not play a part when I make a decision on behalf of the people of Chicago. It is a decision I have to make as mayor, not as a Catholic. …That is separate for me,” he said.

He’s one of the few — I’d guess the only one — who have declared themselves politically irreligious as a matter of policy.

Later, D., picking up on Daley as irreligious: That’s probably why there are so many crooked deals made in Chicago — because Thou Shalt Not Steal is the 7th Commandment — the religion thing again. So what DOES Daley base his decisions on — the rules of Parcheesi??

Me, moved to respond: No morals in politics, only expediency.  — V.I. Lenin.  Not kidding.  Got it as a Fenwick senior in religion class, from the late James Regan, O.P., 1948–49 school year.  Thus politicsprofessor.com and Time Mag, 11/17/1947, where Fr. Regan read it, I bet: he went regularly to Time for such items, remained an avid consumer of current events reporting to his final days nine years ago, at the Dominican Priory in River Forest.

Email old hat?

Reading at The Daily Beast that email is being (has been) overtaken by Facebook and Twitter, for its instant-communication factor, this man or woman spoke from the heart.

As one over 40, I’m still trying to get a handle on Facebook & Twitter. Negatives re Facebook: too many relatives have too much time on their hands and clog up my wall; relatives who send personal emails via facebook which requires me to then log on to facebook to respond [not that hard] and who knows who all will see my response.

Seems easier and more personal to send regular email [or snail mail?] when contacting one person direct. I don’t have much to say that I need to broadcast to everyone (except when I’m commenting on articles like this!)

As one friend said, facebook can be a real time suck. [Hear, hear!] 

Facebook positive: easy to see what’s going on with friends and family.

Email negative: can’t really think of any, other than you can’t really post a photo album for family to easily see whenever they want. [Huh?  I get photos, album or otherwise all the time but have to admit some are not easily accessed.]

The original story is at Wall St. Journal.

MM comments:

Facebook and Twitter: don’t we already waste enough time going through 40 emails a day of cute dog pictures and chain letters?  Now we have to get on the computer and tweat about every little thing we do, and put our entire lives on the net for all the world to see on Facebook?  Riciduluous waste of time. 

I wonder how the younger generation was conned into believing this is a good thing.  Perhaps behind the groovy facade sits the real owner of all these sites: the government!  What a great way for big brother to know everything we do, think, believe in, who we know, where we go, etc.