The Catholic church’s position [or any religious denomination], that Catholic legislators should be obligated to support PRO-LIFE political decisions is WRONG.

There should always be separation of State and Church.  And, the Catholic Church needs to avoid pressuring their members to support policy which coincides with Church teaching.  The Pope’s message to Pelosi was inappropriate, and any messages or pressure placed on Sebelius in support of Church doctrine would also be wrong.

De,

I’ve stated here on wOw that I used to be a ‘proud’ member of the EAGLE FORUM, and I was very active in the Phoenix chapter of Phyllis Schlafly’s organization during the early 70’s because I supported many of the issues she stood for respective to family issues, and how the ERA might have a negative impact affecting the stability of what was hailed as the ‘traditional’ family model - as exemplified on 60’s televison shows like Ozzie & Harriet, The Donna Reed Show, and Father Knows Best.  I was an ardent supporter for many years … until the late 70’s and early 80’s.  Yet, I have to acknowledge that much of Schlafly’s ‘prediections’ have proven to be true … but not because of the ERA. 

I agree with you that some of the rhethoric was ’relevant back during the Feminist debate years’.   But those days are long over, and Schlafly’s ideolgy … I agree, is no longer relvant, particularily as it relates to women’s issues and today’s new family structure, which has little resembelance to the ‘traditional’ family model of the 60’s. 

Yet, I’m not entirely sure -  if advancements [achieved through the ERA] have had either a positive or negative affect on today’s ‘new’ family. 

C Hardy,

I agree with most of what you’ve stated. 

I chose ‘other’.  I don’t think she is necessarily insane, however I believe she would benefit from sound counseling.  Most of all, my heart goes out to her 14 children, and I am praying that they will receive the emotional, physical care they will need  … probably throughout their lives.

Mary jo,

I agree that public viewing of coffins should be determined by the wishes of the deceased soldiers family.  And yes.  It makes sense that soldiers have a written statement in their military files indicating their wishes respective to all issues related to funeral plans and arrangements upon their death.

I didn’t see the show because I NEVER watch any programming on FOX.

Yet, it appears that my ‘boycott’ of FOX cost me an opportunity to see wowOwow’s great and fabulous four founders getting the attention they have earned and absolutely deserve. 

Congrats to the fantastic team of women at wowOwow!!

I seldom listen to NPR any more because the programming here in MS is not nearly as good as it was when I lived in the metropolitan Washington, DC area.

My favorite classical station was the former WGMS FM in Bethesda, Maryland.  Yet, the NPR programming, which I liked best of all used to be Sunday afternoon live broadcasts from New York’s LINCOLN CENTER FOR THE PERFORMING ARTS, featuring  great Opera, and excellent classical symphonies with introductions by great stage, film, concert, and media personalities from every specter; including politicians!!!

Wow!  It was wonderful. 

From a business perspective, I understand why the NY-Times would begin charging for an on-line version of their newspaper.  The problem [as I see it] is that many other alternative ’free’ online  news journals will pop-up and compete for individuals who might not be willing to pay for their news via the Internet. 

For these newcomers to ’free’ online news journalism, which might emerge (should many of the major news journals become ‘paid’ subscriptions), this could be an opportunity for healthy competition for presenting national and international top news stories. 

Whatever the precedence established by the NY-Times for ‘paid’ online news subscriptions, I am hoping that there will always be options for finding well-done news features on the Internet, and that surfers will have the right to choose whether to pay for it, or not pay for it.

If one is to define the literal translation of PRO-CHOICE, implicit in that definition is the right to either terminate a pregnancy, or to NOT terminate a pregnancy.  Whether that CHOICE [decision] is right or wrong is another matter entirely.

The question then becomes, but what moral authority should issues of conscience [such as abortion, the death penalty, and ‘just war’] be decided?  Considering that all men are imperfect, and subscribe to different belief systems for spiritual guidance,  it follows that there is no one religious paradigm/model, which ‘owns’ the truth in matters of moral conduct.  I think this is the reason why many women of all religious faiths [Catholic/Protestant, Jewish, Muslims, Hindu, etc.] are in favor of  PRO CHOICE. 

It really comes down to a personal decision based on individual values.  By that I mean, you can be a faithful Catholic, and still choose to have an abortion.  Or, for someone like me who is pseudo agnostic, I consider myself anti-abortion, by choice - not by religious [dogma] conviction.

For a while, I’ve stepped away from commenting on threads, which triggers angry, mean-spirited, and vitriolic remarks from fellow posters.  During these past few months there have been many threads, where individuals seem intent on engaging in angry/heated debated.   I suppose that having an outlet to express controversial sentiment is good in this forum.  However, I choose not to participate because I lack the moxy, aggressiveness, and temperament to fend for myself [and my positions] in a hostile environment.  Simply put, I was never a playground brawler. 

Yet, in this instance, I’ll  allow myself to be open to ridicule and attack, because I need to inject my strong opinion about the Obama Administrations decision to launch Recovery.gov

After reading many of the negative comments about the Obama Administration’s new website - a website that was launched [only yesterday], designed to help American taxpayers better understand how the stimulus package will work … Well, I’m absolutely baffled.  No.  More than that.  I’m stunned.  

When I visited the site, the very first thing that caught my attention was an acknowledgment that complete details and specifics about the stimulus money would be forthcoming overtime, which will account for how the monies [every penny] will be spent.  What I like most about Recovery.gov is  the fact that ANY American taxpayer can track the stimulus monies AND post comments expressing their concerns -pro or con.

Frankly, I find it disheartening and upsetting reading and listening to deliberate [and boastful] hateful pronouncements, sharply attacking President Obama and his administration in their efforts to unravel the enormous economic woes facing this country.  The stimulus package needed to be done - no matter the implicit shortcomings.   And, while there is merit to continual critique and scrutinizing, examining the effectiveness of the stimulus bill which President Obama signed, more time and energy needs to be directed to contacting our lstate and local government officials to assure that stimulus dollars will [in fact] help relieve some of the immediate crisis and burdens facing far too many fellow American citizens in our communities.

I wonder.

What is the purpose of continuing to question President Obama’s citizenship?  Why the snide commentary about whether Recovery.gov  ‘missed the mark’  respective to President Obama’s mission for transparency?  What is the relevance of pointed attacks, evoking speculative theories questioning President Obama’s true [unscrupulous] agenda?

Instead, why not participate in whatever local or national organization or citizens action group [of your preference] to help our President and elected official ‘do what needs to be done’ to germinate real recovery in our states, cities, and homes.

There is a Spanish term, FAENA.  It means, The Moment of Truth.

And, that moment is NOW … for all of us.

In the words of President Obama at the end of an Innaguaration Ball … He said:

"LET’S GO FIX AMERICA!!"

Which means ALL of us.

With high regards to all.

Maizie James

Yes.   I have a nickname, which is very unflattering.  In fact, I’ve always hated it.  Therefore, I’m not telling.  The worse part is that a few family members continue to use it, which I find upsetting. Yet, I try not to make a big ‘fuss’ about it because those who use my ‘nickname’ probably don’t  believe that I rather they didn’t.