uhm:

Ex-Vice President Dick Cheney claims the Benghazi attack was a “failure of leadership” by the Obama administration, and that the Bush administration would have been ready and would have responded to the Sept. 11, 2012, attack that killed the U.S. Ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens and three other American embassy staff.

“When we were there, on our watch, we were always ready on 9/11, on the anniversary,” Cheney told the U.K.’s Daily Mail. “We always anticipated they were coming for us, especially in that part of the world . . . I cannot understand why they weren’t ready to go.”

maybe you shouldnt be the one weighing in on this, dick

TenuredVulture wrote:The funniest thing about Pac's indignant attitude is it's much like the attitude of the people who advocate abstinence only sex education. "Teaching kids about condoms and birth control will encourage them to fornicate."

yes, pac trying to spell out a fairly progressive, feminist viewpoint on the issue of rape culture is the same as conservatives harping on about same-sex stuff. i mean come on

PA sez:

Currently, health insurance policies generally cover elective abortion, but the state has a longstanding policy against taxpayer-funded abortions.

The proposed legislation would bar coverage of abortions, except in cases of rape, incest or when the mother's life is in danger, under health insurance policies offered in the federally run insurance marketplaces that open Jan. 1. As a result, Pennsylvania residents using their own money would be unable to buy health coverage that includes abortion services through the Affordable Care Act's marketplace, known as an exchange.
"Anyway you look at it, it's taxpayers dollars," Senate Banking and Insurance Committee Chairman Don White, R-Indiana, who opposes abortion rights, said after the meeting. "I'm sorry I have to insult people with the facts in this case."

Opponents call the bill an expansion of restrictions on abortion rights. They say the bill is both unnecessary and potentially damaging to the treatment of women who develop pregnancy-related health problems that may not immediately threaten their lives. The insurance exchange may be taxpayer-funded, but many policies in it will be bought with private money, they said.

in completely unrelated news, the Guttmacher Institute has found that abortion is expensive, the expense disportionately on those with less money, and many women do not even know their insurance covers it, or choose to NOT use the insurance so as to retain anoynimity for this scarlet letter procedure.

In addition to the direct cost of the abortion procedure, many abortion patients also incur ancillary expenses. Two-thirds of study participants reported that they also had to cover transportation costs (on average, $44), while one-quarter reported lost wages (on average, $198) and one in 10 had childcare expenses (on average, $57). Given that most abortion patients already have a child and are poor or low-income—and most are paying out-of-pocket—these expenses can pose a sizeable financial burden separate from the procedure itself.

"The findings make clear that abortion can pose a major financial burden for women seeking these services and is not a decision they take lightly," says Rachel Jones, a senior researcher at the Guttmacher Institute. "Many of these women are poor or low-income, and have to come up with several hundred dollars to pay for the procedure. They rely on friends and family, clinics and abortion funds, and often have to not pay their bills or delay payment in order to do so."

it's a legal procedure. cover it.

td11 wrote:

TenuredVulture wrote:The funniest thing about Pac's indignant attitude is it's much like the attitude of the people who advocate abstinence only sex education. "Teaching kids about condoms and birth control will encourage them to fornicate."

yes, pac trying to spell out a fairly progressive, feminist viewpoint on the issue of rape culture is the same as conservatives harping on about same-sex stuff. i mean come on

Taking a progressive view on rape and implementing programs that support that approach is a great idea. Some people, however, cannot be reached by progressive ideas and will rape regardless. Handing out a pamphlet that gives helpful tips when confronted with such a person is a pretty good idea too.

Trent Steele wrote:

td11 wrote:

TenuredVulture wrote:The funniest thing about Pac's indignant attitude is it's much like the attitude of the people who advocate abstinence only sex education. "Teaching kids about condoms and birth control will encourage them to fornicate."

yes, pac trying to spell out a fairly progressive, feminist viewpoint on the issue of rape culture is the same as conservatives harping on about same-sex stuff. i mean come on

Taking a progressive view on rape and implementing programs that support that approach is a great idea. Some people, however, cannot be reached by progressive ideas and will rape regardless. Handing out a pamphlet that gives helpful tips when confronted with such a person is a pretty good idea too.

The idea behind all harm reduction strategies is that in a perfect world, such strategies would be unnecessary. But we don't live in a perfect world, thus, it makes sense to be prudent. The abstinence only people like to pretend that teens who receive magical "abstinence only" sex education don't have intercourse. Thus, they deny teens information needed to make a less bad choice--that is, protected instead of unprotected sex. Pac would like to pretend that somehow the criminal justice system can stop rape from occurring and thereby deny women the information they need to protect themselves. Pac seems to think that teaching such strategies somehow condones rape, just like the abstinence only people seem to think explaining to teens how to use a condom condones promiscuity. (Or needle exchange programs condone the use of heroin, or that seatbelts condone bad drivers, or locks on doors condone burglary.)

glad to know what i think. and yes, actual, real prosecution of sexual assault would result in fewer of them in the future. and if not, at least those aholes wouldnt be in our military representing us.

that pamphlet was about prevention. the prevention was entirely on the woman's end. that's utterly false.

how about the well-meaning signs that tell me to lock my car doors and not to leave expensive objects or cash in plain view when parking my car?? Are they bad too??

the ideas around prevention of property crime to prevention of violent assault within a government place of work are quite similar and apples and apples.

Pac, your position amounts to ignoring the possibility that people can do things that limit their susceptibility to being sexually assaulted. So, I shouldn't tell my daughter things like "if you ever feel at all uncomfortable in a situation, do whatever you can to leave--you can always call us and we'll come get you no questions asked".

hate to shit out a quick reply from work, but

pacino wrote:the ideas around prevention of property crime to prevention of violent assault within a government place of work are quite similar and apples and apples.

i mean really. Trent, your point is valid and i don't think neither pac nor me asserted that there should not be any training for women or that it should focus only on telling men not to rape. from a practical standpoint, of course it makes sense to make ladies aware of the dangers that surround them. but again, the pamphlet ONLY had tips for women on how not to get raped. there was not anything about the infinitely nuanced situations that arise where the man doesn't feel like he's doing anything wrong but is actually committing a sexual assault. there is a reason college campuses today are rife with the "no means no" rallies and prevention education that focuses on telling dudes that girls are NEVER "asking for it."

for TV to compare it to abstinence only sex education is next-level (and the PSA about locking doors, bucky? really???) please consider what an absurd false equivalence that is. pac at no point said that we shouldn't tell women to be careful. he was trying to point out that the pamphlet puts the entire onus of prevention on the victim. rape victims face tremendous pressure to not out their aggressors and guilt/shame for the horrible things that are done to them. if you go to look up rape stats all of them come with the disclaimer that the #s probably aren't terribly accurate because many rapes are not reported out of shame/guilt/timing. this is not india, this is not saudi arabia, this is not the congo. we are a "civilized" society and should not be putting pressure on women to feel like they constantly need to worry about their outfits or where they are. you guys are turning it into a "well if it was YOUR daughter and she was gonna walk through a rough neighborhood in a mini-skirt, welllllll...." argument but it really is not.

TenuredVulture wrote:Pac, your position amounts to ignoring the possibility that people can do things that limit their susceptibility to being sexually assaulted. So, I shouldn't tell my daughter things like "if you ever feel at all uncomfortable in a situation, do whatever you can to leave--you can always call us and we'll come get you no questions asked".

wow just in time for the last line of my post

also this board/thread is decidedly NOT a liberal bubble. at best it's centrist. jeff was fucking retarded (sorry plz allow it this one time)

pacino wrote:uhm:

Ex-Vice President Dick Cheney claims the Benghazi attack was a “failure of leadership” by the Obama administration, and that the Bush administration would have been ready and would have responded to the Sept. 11, 2012, attack that killed the U.S. Ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens and three other American embassy staff.

“When we were there, on our watch, we were always ready on 9/11, on the anniversary,” Cheney told the U.K.’s Daily Mail. “We always anticipated they were coming for us, especially in that part of the world . . . I cannot understand why they weren’t ready to go.”

maybe you shouldnt be the one weighing in on this, dick

too bad they weren't ready to go when they were told about the possibility of 9/11 before it happened.

td11 wrote:also this board/thread is decidedly NOT a liberal bubble. at best it's centrist.

If your point of comparison is the local chapter of Occupy Wall Street, maybe

i mean it's all subjective, but just based on the amount of shit pac gets when he posts relatively mundane left-leaning articles it is not a liberal board. it leans left but this is not a jacobin discussion board, plenty of people post opposing viewpoints. it's happening right now.

Seriously? I mean, there are a lot of things that should not be but are. It's a pamphlet, with one specific purpose--to provide information on how to avoid trouble. It's not a policy position, or a piece of legislation. It's probably a tri-fold 8.5x11 piece of paper.

You can argue that the military is not doing enough to protect soldiers from sexual assault. But the pamphlet, by itself isn't that argument.

There's a huge difference between taking steps to make yourself safer and blaming the victim.

i didn't realize concepts such as "no means no" and "don't assault drunk girls" needed to be spelled out in policy papers or legislation to make it worthwile. pamphlets seem like the perfect medium to try and educate dudes in the military, i don't think it takes 80 pages to explain the position of not sexually assaulting women. the pamphlet is concerning because the whole thing basically saying "listen lady, you might get raped some time-- here are some tips" instead of "yo my dude, there are many situations where you might think you're not raping a womens.... but you are!"

again, no one has made the argument that we shouldn't tell women to be careful and aware, so i'm not sure why that keeps getting brought up. we are having a men's rights discussion right now basically.

my take it that it's a pamphlet designed FOR WOMEN. That's why there's no men's stuff in there. If you're gonna argue there should also be a men's pamphlet, fine. But that's not what I'm hearing. It's a logic argument, not a politics argument.

Bucky wrote:It's a logic argument, not a politics argument.

Strange bedfellows