16 Replies to “What’s The Opposite Of Diversity?”

  1. That real bad thing about this affair is that Seligman, the president of Rochester university, used his office to espouse his views in a political debate, in effect putting the full force of the university administration behind his opinion.

  2. It’s only free speech when you agree with the leftest point of view. If not…PROTEST..

  3. That’s exactly the point. The professor, Landsburg, was absolutely right, to say that the issue is not Ms Fluke, who has the right to say what she wants, but, her point-of-view.
    She has two points-of-view or opinions. The first is that others in the collective (those who pay into the Medical Health Care Policy) should fund the birth control choices of some people in the collective. This opinion deserves to be critiqued and not hidden behind any cover of ‘women’s health’, or misinformation about costs, or references to lifestyle.
    The second is her insistence that a private religious institution, which happens to be Catholic, should contravene its religious principles and ensure that its medical insurance policies cover birth control – even though this contravenes its religious axioms.
    Both demands of Ms Fluke, and the Democrats who share this view, deserve to be condemned for their violation of the fiscal and religious rights of others.
    And thanks, rabbit, for your astute comment on the University president who utterly missed the entire point of Landsburg’s comment.

  4. The University of Rochester is, of course, where they teach you to say “Yes, Mister Benny!” correctly.
    …
    Ok, fine. Be that way.

  6. Gee, it gets scary when even university professors get a glimmer of common sense. Perhaps it was just a Fluke. Or maybe he did the math and said $1000 a month….hey wait a minute” Maybe the attack on the Catholic church ? Nahhh, that would be over their heads. At least there is one. Perhaps somewhere in the country is another one. Wow, wouldn’t that be something. Two professors with common sense?

  7. These klepto-crats don’t believe in the 1st Amendment…
    what they want is ‘freedom FROM religion’ as opposed to ‘freedom OF religion’.
    In short, Ms Fluke is an anti-constitutionalist in law school! LET THE REVOLUTION BEGIN…of course she should know that the revolution always ends up devouring its children.
    Cheers
    Hans Rupprecht, Commander in Chief
    1st Saint Nicolaas Army
    Army Group “True North”

  10. Dear BiB,
    I’m curious about something: Isn’t this whole controversy about the Obama gov’t forcing Catholic institutions to provide birth control to any of its employees who want it? Since this violates a basic precept of the Catholic faith, the Obama gov’t has said that the insurance companies of these Catholic institutions will have to provide it for free. Since they won’t be able to do this, how will the cost be covered?
    That’s my understanding of the facts of the matter. Please correct me if I’ve misstated anything.

  11. Bib – you are the one who is misinforming readers. Kate hasn’t misrepresented Ms Fluke’s position – please show us how she has done this.
    First, as others have noted, Ms Fluke has no legal or moral right to demand that a private institution, a Catholic University, offer a medical plan that covers an action against its religious principles. For some reason, you don’t address this issue. It’s important.
    Second, all of the drugs and illnesses to which you refer are genuine medical problems. Birth control is a CHOICE, not an illness. You don’t address the distinction between an illness and a lifestyle choice. Your attempt to conflate the two, ie, that ‘not all members of the collective are afflicted with these illnesses is invalid, because you are ignoring the difference between an illness and a choice. Why?
    Third, you also fail to address the problem that ‘nothing is free’; therefore, if Ms Fluke insists that a religious institution’s insurance function the same way as a secular institution’s insurance (and she hasn’t proven why this should be so)…then, we come to the next problem. Funding these items-of-choice.
    After all, even the insurance policies have a limit on prescription use, therapeutic coverage, and etc. They cannot go into debt!
    Why should a collective medical plan fund items that are not used to treat a medical illness but are used for lifestyle choices? After all, an insurance plan can’t go into debt; it must cover all costs. This means that the collective pool of money must be used for risk: genuine illness and accidents.
    Could you explain why you support the collective funding the lifestyle choices, not illness or accidents, of some of its members?
    Of course, there are other items to discuss; namely, Ms Fluke’s estimate of costs, which are untenable, but the key issues are her rejection of the religious rights of the Institution and her insistence that the collective pay for lifestyle choices rather than illness and accidents.

  12. You know, if 30 conservative students had showed up to protest some liberal prof, campus security would have tear-gassed the lot of them right down to the ground. Then some covert kicking and tasering back at the holding cells no doubt. “The video was down for maintenance.”
    I see Bonehead from Bahstahn is back for another clue-batting. Hey bib, you should come up to Canuckistan sometime and check out this single-payer government medicare you’ve got such a woody for. I can show you some sh1t that will make every night’s sleep a brand new adventure, and that’s just in the waiting room.
    Sandy Fluke is a Democrat party operative who is being employed to change the subject from the disaster of Obama’s first three years. Everything else about her is completely irrelevant.
    But since you asked: “Does that mean those of us who pay into it are subsidizing the sex life of others?”
    Duh, yes. You are. And the Catholic Church maintains it has the right to decide what its going to subsidize and what it isn’t. Sandy and friends are trying to arrange that they don’t, and as a mere -distraction- no less, not from any profound moral imperative.
    You my friend are a Class One useful idiot.

  13. The first Amendment enjoins that the State will not establish a state religion…..dictating a theological matter to a religiious organization IS tantamount to establishing state religion.
    Therefore this governement mandate applied and imposed upon the Roman Catholic Church is unconstitutional and no amount of sophistry changes that.

  14. I would love to get my hands on statistics for the same coverage imposed on Islamic institutions. Somehow I doubt if Ms Fluke would want to tackle that.

  15. “She wants hers to pay for the same things that plans at other universities pay for. She’s not asking for a cent of public money. But, hey, don’t let the facts get in the way…”
    The real issue, Brainiac, is a lawless president who violated the 1st Ammendment, and when that blew up in his face, he violated the Constitution yet AGAIN by forcing insurance companies to cover the costs. Or is that too complex for you to grasp?
    As for “My medical plan covers Viagra. Does that mean those of us who pay into it are subsidizing the sex life of others?”: yes, that’s what it means if it’s all the same 1-size-fits-all coverage. As they may be subsidizing some of your activities in which they don’t partake. The beauty of private insurance is that if you’re not cool with paying for somebody else’s vice, you can often opt out for certain a la carte coverage, or even shop around for other group policie. Unless the President dictates otherwise, of course.
    Think about the general stupidity of the Left: considering the different diseases that threaten americans (cancer, heart disease, diabetes, etc), they choose contraception as the mandatory health “concern” over which they choose to make their stand? Idiots to the end.
    This non-issue was fabricated by the dems/media to cover for Maobama’s dismal handling of the economy and general tanking in the polls.
    mhb23re

  16. Just taking another smack at the pinata which is binned in boston’s over-large head, the CBO report on Obama care came in at -double- the $900 billion for ten years that Barry said it was going to be. $1.76 trillion bucks baby.
    That’s coming out of Barry’s personal stash, right?
    Are we starting to understand what Barry is frantically trying to distract from with this Sandy The Slut sideshow?

Proudly powered by WordPress & Skyrocket Themes

MENU

Navigation