My own healthcare plan is focused around prevention, but maybe I'll be raped? Male, you say? -- I'm male? True, but nevertheless in our egalitarian society of fairness and indiscrimination, I am required to subsidize the possibility. We are all after all equal. No one is any better than anyone else. All equal in the eyes of the law and goddess. Just a matter of deciding who's human, and then we're set for life, cradle to grave if not womb to tomb. Those troublesome fœti, you see, with their irritating pond scum presence. Something should be done, and has been, thank you very much, Occupant, to eradicate those vermin. Babies indeed.
But I digress. What manner of "compromise" is it, where religious institutions are required to provide a service that is contrary to their conscience and convictions? I do not agree with Roman Catholic doctrine re contraception. To prevent conception seems to me like a non-religious issue. Whether through celibacy or Onanism or frottage or orality or interuptus or prophylactics or anality (I had not previously realized the variety!), I see no necessary connection between every ejaculation and the potential for conception. Any more than food must be correlated to nutrition. Sometimes it's just about taste. Until the Churchmen in question also pronounce an Edenic nutritional system ... the Vatican Diet ... The Papal Weight Loss System ... I shall continue to suppose that I see an inconsistency in the catechism. Purity of purpose must be more an angelic than a human attribute.
Understand, of course, since words have meaning, that contraception and birth control or two profoundly different things. No third-party life is involved in the former. The latter, like Pandora's box, hides a multitude of evils. But perhaps infanticide is not an evil? I haven't been keeping up with progressive thought on the matter. Birth control. Heartbeat, life, baby control.
But I digress. It is overtly unamerican to command someone else's conscience. This is exactly what O has done. Well, of course. And to call, declared, denominate, proclaim ... to call this a compromise is almost breathtaking in its cynicism and hack pol manipulation. With whom has O reached an agreement? His toadies? It feels like the kind of rape from which no conception could ever result ... you know what I'm saying, sugar ... the San Francisco kind, and I don't mean ramming it down the throat after the Democrat example of politics. But we're all equal, and our preferences and practices are all equal, and a vagina and an anus are equal, and marriage between one man and one woman and one or more man and/or woman more, it's all good, and equal, and anyone who dissents is a hater and refuses to compromise.
But I digress. That we have a "president" who poses himself in front of cameras and telepronounces his theories about all this free stuff that nobody has to pay for ... golly, why doesn't he just do that with the deficit? If just saying so makes something free, then let's be debt free. And he can fix the economy and cure AIDS and halt Global Warming too. What is not possible, when words are the same as reality? I knew about the Saul Alinsky influence ... I had not realized O was also a disciple of Aleister Crowley. We may have a Mormon in the White House. We do have a Magician there.
This is a character who is at core a dictator. He hates politics, because politics requires real compromise, rather than shoddy cynical ploys merely called by that word. This is a character who does not understand the ethical use of communication. Words are tools for the lowest sort of manipulation. Choose, Dear Reader, any hierarchical organisation of communication, and Obama's style will be at the lowest level. The man is a fœtus. One more example of this, and he will be demoted to the lower case. It is inevitable.