« Iran's Power Structure | Main | The Egyptian officers and the NGOs »

05 February 2012


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Maureen Lang

Whale watching trip with visiting friends & relations in the morning, Super Bowl bbq in the evening with brats, linguisa, corn, peppers, split romaine on the grills right now...

Hoping all at SST have a very enjoyable Bowl Sunday.


NE 10, NY 9 at the half. Clicked on EPSN[dot]com to learn this.

Maybe I'll turn on the TV in about an hour and a half.

Or maybe not...

Townie 76

Clint Eastwood commercial for Dodge, off the charts, very powerful.



Morocco Bama

I didn't watch. Who won? The Mullahs or the Likudniks?

William R. Cumming

Eastwood and Fiat dominate ads IMO!

Charles I

Man I hate it all, only game I watch all year, my team drops the ball. Still on a 60 inch surrounded by friends and food it was a very exciting game. Unbelievable catch there in the last few minutes.

Which made for a bitter defeat, Jonst!. Until those 2 Patriot incompletions at the end, I had big hopes.


Best add was M&M's Ms. Brown, as loyal Dolphin fan had to for Giants...lol

Morocco Bama

Official Iranian sources indicate that Ahmadinejad and The Mullahs agree that the halftime show was "fantabulous" (their exact words in farsi). They are all huge Madonna fans, and are particularly fond of her smash hits, Like A Virgin and Material Girl.



I did not expect to get flipped off by the Tamil Tigers at halftime.


A quote from an NYT article on halftime performer MIA:

“Frankly, she’s very lucky to get away with supporting, even indirectly, perhaps the most ruthless terrorist outfit in the world,” said Suresh Jayawickrama, a songwriter based in Colombo.



The not too subtle message of Eastwood's Chrysler commercial was vote for the guy who saved the US auto industry or the guys who wanted to sell its assets to the Chinese or Bain Capital or whomever. "It's halftime, America," you going to win or lose this game?

Great game! Missed some of the commercials due to clicking to the Puppy Bowl.


Since this is the most recent 'open thread' what are your thoughts on chaplain conduct?



According to the news tonight 98% of Catholics use some form of birth control. My youthful studies I performed on Catholic women confirm this--the sponge being the most popular. The old men in charge of the church are completely out of touch with reality and their own parishioners. Letting the Catholic church deny its employees birth control is no different than letting Santeria practitioners sacrafice goats at the crossroads. Superstitious bunk.


Fred, I should clarify: The study group was small,controls were lax,no notes were taken, in fact, scientific method went out the window. For much larger databases I refer you to Wilt Chamberlain, Joe Namath and, this is discouraging, Woody Allen.



I am more interested in the conduct of Chaplains on active duty, not in teaching or promoting of Church doctrine, but in the apparent disobedience to orders. The law in question does not require Catholics to take birth control, it requires the inclusion of medication coverage in insurance. Those are far different things. The actual utilization of a medical treatment is not required.

To paraphrase an executive I heard discussing just such issues at a conference on ethics at the University of Notre Dame :'the employee has an invitation from God and a job offer from this company' he (or she) has to determine which one is more important to him.

Surely someone who believes alcohol is against their faith isn't going to apply for a job at a bar - however it doesn't give them a right to refuse ringing up a six-pack if they are a cashier at Wal-Mart. Or ringing up 'plan B' if they are a pharmacist.



I have been avoiding discussion of condomgate, but your statement, "The law in question does not require Catholics to take birth control, it requires the inclusion of medication coverage in insurance," has smoked me out. Your point avoids the Catholic Church's position which is that the Church should not be required to fund activities that that it teaches are sinful. There are many things about the Church that I do not like; the lack of regard for lay opinions, the monarchical papacy, the hypocrisy and deception of the way the hierarchy and clergy tolerated and obfuscated the issue of clerical sexual abuse of young boys, (only rarely girls), nevertheless, in this matter I think the hierarchy is correct. The people who want the Church to surrender in this matter are people who do not believe in the teaching authority of the Roman Church and who are often hostile to religion in general. There should be no compromise on this with civil authority or on any other core teaching of the Catholic Church. There are a number of such issues. It would be preferable for Catholic teaching, charitable and medical institutions to foregoe government money rather than surrender to Caesar. pl



Thank you for your response. I am always guaranteed a clear and concise answer without the b.s. I hope to one day write as succinctly. I will give what you have expressed more consideration. (I wish our politicians would do the same.)


In my somewhat rabid expression of my belief in family planning as atool for countering the adverse effects of over population, I disregarded the constitutional protection of religion. Obama has backed down a little.

Morocco Bama

This "controversy" could have been avoided with the implementation of a Single Payer System, but the Poseur In Chief and his sponsors wouldn't even allow the notion to be debated as one of the possible options.

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo

August 2020

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15
16 17 18 19 20 21 22
23 24 25 26 27 28 29
30 31          
Blog powered by Typepad