jayt @
43

Oklahoma kiddo @ 39

Can someone explain to me in simple terms why it’s right for Israel to engage in nuclear enrichment, but for Iran it’s not?

Iran didn’t buy their stuff from the right people – er, us.

There is also the fact that we are the final defender of Israel the next time the Arabs attack and try to destroy the nation, while we expect Iran to be one of the nations doing the attacking.

I hope to God we are getting somewhere near the point of understanding that to criticize Zionist Israel is not equivalent to being anti-Jewish.

President Carter has made a modest effort at educating the public, and he sure ate Timmeh’s lunch last Sunday.

Today is December 7, and as a Navy vet, I again ask all to remember the Liberty.

I believe that this is where the special treatment accorded Israel first began, and that has now grown beyond control to the detriment of the US and Israel both.

jayt @
43

Oklahoma kiddo @ 39

Can someone explain to me in simple terms why it’s right for Israel to engage in nuclear enrichment, but for Iran it’s not?

Iran didn’t buy their stuff from the right people – er, us.

There is also the fact that we are the final defender of Israel the next time the Arabs attack and try to destroy the nation, while we expect Iran to be one of the nations doing the attacking.

I hope to God we are getting somewhere near the point of understanding that to criticize Zionist Israel is not to be anti-Jewish.

President Carter has made a modest beginning. He sure ate Timmeh’s lunch last Sunday.

Today is December 7, and as a Navy vet, I again urge you to remember the Liberty. I believe that this is where the special treatment accorded Israel began, and it has grown to where it is now manifestly out of control and is harmful to the US and Israel both.

Oklahoma kiddo @ 39

Can someone explain to me in simple terms why it’s right for Israel to engage in nuclear enrichment, but for Iran it’s not?

Iran didn’t buy their stuff from the right people – er, us.

There is also the fact that we are the final defender of Israel the next time the Arabs attack and try to destroy the nation, while we expect Iran to be one of the nations doing the attacking.

jayt @ 32

RevDeb @ 29

Watching KO.
I’m loving David Gregory more and more every day.

and hating Tony Snow more in much the same way.

Never liked Snow to begin with.

Saving my major contempt for LIEberman as is punaise et al.

I give. What is “punaise”

the red herring discussion of when life begins.

except that…. there is so much biological evidence that a person is NOT created at conception that it boggles the mind that we’re even still debating it. yeah well… we’re still debating evolution and global warming – so what the hell do i know. but if keenan does believe that a human life begins at conception (as it looks like she may), then having her running NARAL is like having senator inhofe in charge of lobbying for limiting CO2 emissions.

I don’t take it that the intelligent side of the argument is about when life begins – I believe it obvious that the zygote is living,
else it could not go on to become en embryo – but about when that life becomes a person, potentially or otherwise. Not recognizing this is what leads to the “take no prisoners” approach on both sides of the issue.

Personally, I don’t see how even a a pro-choice
Catholic could head an organization as NARAL, for rather obvious reasons.

It is different for an elected pro-choice Catholic public official. There are retrograde bishops, like at St. Louis, San Antonio and Nebraska, who do threaten to use, excomunication for pro-choice Catholic public officials. Happily, they are in the minority. Even the current “guide” for “conscientious Catholics” in the matter of voting recognizes that abortion is one of many issues and encourages Catholics to vote only after thoroughly examining all sides of the issues, including official church issues,

and then voting according to their conscience, including public officials.

How are the directors of NARAL chosen? How can we get Nancy Keenan and her supporters out and replace her with somebody effective?

As part of the “culture of corruption” Republican Party’s plan over the past three decades to takeover America for their nefarious purposes, they’ve resorted to totalitarian tricks practiced by authoritarian regimes throughout history.

One of these is to infiltrate their “opposition” and subvert their “opposition” from within, planting their “operatives” in strategic positions so they can undermine the “opposition.”

Thus, the Democratic Party and other “liberal” organizations have been filled with right-wing “moles,” like Keenan.

The Democratic Party? Just look at the Democratic Leadership Council. Right-wing “moles” one and all. Steering the Democratic Party toward “culture of corruption” Republican Party positions on issues…undercutting our liberal democracy one step at a time…choosing right-leaning and outright-conservative candidates to run for political office as pseudo-Democrats.

Our public educational system? Right-wing “moles” throughout, espeically in administrative positions. Why isn’t civics being taught in schools anymore? Because our nation’s children might be taught in civics classes about our being a liberal democracy, with freedom and justice for all? What about “shop classes” being taught anymore in public schools? Were these discontinued because students who learned a trade in “shop classes” might join a union?

In other words, the attack on our liberal democracy by the “culture of corruption” Republican Party is much more extensive and goes much deeper than most people suspect or can even imagine.

Our liberal democracy is in grave danger. And even with the huge Democratic Party win on November 7th, there are enough right-wing “moles” who have been “planted” in the Democratic Party, “moles” who will do everything they can to thwart any intensive and thorough investigations into the “culture of corruption” Republican Party.

Except, of course, the “culture of corruption” Republicans, and their right-wing Democratic “moles” didn’t foresee the emergence of the liberal blogosphere, as a counterbalance to the slanderous, lying propaganda machine the Republicans worked so hard on establishing over the past several decades.

FDL ROCKS!!! Keep up the good work.

Unfortunately, NARAL is in a nasty situation if they decide to clue in now. Could they really fire somebody for exercising their Catholic beliefs? They would have to build a strong case that the work Keenan has done has been sub-standard or didn’t make benchmarks if they were going to avoid the charge of religious bias.

Nor could they really hire someone because of their religious perspectives, either. Very sticky.

We have two options as I see it:
1) Begin a concerted grassroots campaign that communicates to NARAL that Keenan’s position is unacceptable and interferes with a woman’s decision process — without mentioning in any way that religious perspective is an issue.
2) Kill NARAL funding — starve it to death by getting to its donors and asking them to fund another and better organization.

I think the first of the two would be harder to do, we grassroots being the difficult-to-herd cats that we are.

So? Did I miss any other options?

How about an ActBlue solution? $ to *state* NARAL, if they are with the program, and zero $ to NARAL national. Also, does this woman not have some sort of review from time to time? Also, look for *funding conflicts* at the national level a la the NSTA. BTW, neither NARAL’s website nor Sourcewatch list funders for Naral. Members, should we be asking them?

After rereading Jane’s post, her statement goes to the “wisdom” of NARAL allowing itself to be represented by someone who might be subject to an internal conflict. That’s a valid point whether or not Ms. Keenan actually has 100% moral integity. Those who support NARAL with money etc have a right to expect that the organization is responsible in selecting its officers. It’s not clear why Keenan/NARAL took the position they did, but the fact there is an apparent conflict would be a concern for any Bd of Directors, and red flags should go up when repeated actions suggest that the conflict has come into play.

I don’t think she should have been disqualified from the search because she was Catholic, esp. in view of her expressed opinion vis-a-vis her bishop. But the *second* she upheld the NARAL endorsement of JoeLieberman in the face of legitimate objections from the CT NARAL — she’s in ‘this explanation better be *real* good” territory. She needs to have the hell confronted out of her, at the least. Probably her resignation requested. BTW, despite being the ‘president’ she is not, apparently, elected. So who does she report to? IRRC, the National Science Teachers had some similar issue?