🔥 Popular | Latest

Golden Globes, Hillary Clinton, and Memes: ENTERTAINMENT GOLDEN GLOBES Jan. 9 'La La Land' wins seven Golden Globes, Meryl Streep attacks Trump during acceptance speech La La Land dominated last night's Golden Globes by winning seven awards including wins by stars Ryan Gosling and Emma Stone. Moonlight won best picture for drama. _ Worth noting, Meryl Streep, who was honored at the Golden Globes with a lifetime achievement award, took to the stage to denounce President Elect Donald Trump. The actress denounced Trump’s campaign rhetoric and criticized him for mocking a disabled reporter. “There was one performance this year that stunned me… “Not because it was good; there was nothing good about it. But it was effective and it did its job. It made its intended audience laugh, and show their teeth. “It was that moment when the person asking to sit in the most respected seat in our country imitated a disabled reporter,” she said, referring to a speech by Mr. Trump in 2015 seeming to mock a disabled reporter for The New York Times _ In an interview this morning, Mr. Trump said “I was never mocking anyone…I was calling into question a reporter who had gotten nervous because he had changed his story… People keep saying I intended to mock the reporter’s disability, as if Meryl Streep and others could read my mind, and I did no such thing,” he said in the interview. “And remember, Meryl Streep introduced Hillary Clinton at her convention, and a lot of these people supported Hillary." _ Despite receiving a large applaud for her remarks, many conservative reporters criticized her for bringing politics into the show.

La La Land dominated last night's Golden Globes by winning seven awards including wins by stars Ryan Gosling and Emma Stone. Moonlight won b...

Save
Bodies , Drugs, and Jesus: Anonymous said: I don't have tumblr so I had to ask this account. You just posted about hobby lobby on your other account. I just don't understand why providing the means to contraception is so wrong. Regardless of whether or not contraception is okay, giving someone the option isn't forcing them or necessarily endorsing it. HL pays their employees money and the employees could use that money to buy drugs or hire prostitutes. But that's their choice, not HL's. Contraception doesn't seem so different to me Anonymous said: Their salary is the means by which they can buy things that HL may or may not agree with. The health coverage is the means by which they access health care that HL May or may not agree with. It just seems like it's not HL's choice at all. HL can't directly pay their employees rent and grocery bills to keep them from buying, say, excessive amounts of alcohol. So why should they be able to or argumentative. Thanks! <p><a class="tumblr_blog" href="http://orwellianlegacy.tumblr.com/post/90384882296/hi-anon-this-is-a-good-question-because-theres">orwellianlegacy</a>:</p> <blockquote> <p class="MsoNormal">Hi Anon,</p> <p class="MsoNormal">This is a good question, because there’s a lot of misinformation about this case floating around.</p> <p class="MsoNormal">I’ll do my best to explain the situation, as I understand it…</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><strong>It’s not just about “contraception.”</strong></p> <p class="MsoNormal">Hobby Lobby’s issue isn’t with contraception in general. It’s with abortifacient contraception in particular.</p> <p class="MsoNormal">The Affordable Care Act includes a “<a href="http://rare.us/story/malkin-thank-you-hobby-lobby">‘preventive services’ mandate, which forces the Christian-owned-and-operated business to provide, without co-pay, abortion-inducing drugs including the ‘morning after pill’ and ‘week after pill’ in their health insurance plan.</a>”</p> <p class="MsoNormal">Regardless of where you stand on abortion, I think we can all recognize that it’s a huge social issue that people regard with strong, ideological convictions.</p> <p class="MsoNormal">So there’s a lot more at play here than the simple word “contraception” fully conveys.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><strong>Paychecks and Health Insurance are different.</strong></p> <p class="MsoNormal">A paycheck represents a single exchange: Employees provide time and labor to Hobby Lobby, and Hobby Lobby compensates employees with money.</p> <p class="MsoNormal">That is the end of the exchange. What an employee chooses to purchase with their paycheck is no longer Hobby Lobby’s concern. Hobby Lobby isn’t directly involved, so it isn’t responsible.</p> <p class="MsoNormal">Health insurance represents a different exchange. Hobby Lobby offers the benefit of a healthcare plan to employees, and the employees can accept or reject it.</p> <p class="MsoNormal">But in this case, the Hobby Lobby is providing an ongoing service to the employee. So the nature of the health care provided is very much Hobby Lobby’s concern. Hobby Lobby is directly involved, so it is responsible.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><strong>Employee options aren’t at stake.</strong></p> <p class="MsoNormal">Hobby Lobby isn’t trying to prevent its employees from seeking abortions. It just doesn’t want to be forced to pay for those abortions.</p> <p class="MsoNormal">And, contrary to the conclusion many jump to, that doesn’t actually restrict the freedom of anyone working for Hobby Lobby. Freedom isn’t about what our employers allow, it’s about what our government enforces.</p> <p class="MsoNormal">So Hobby Lobby’s employees still have several options if they want these kinds of contraception:</p> <ol><li><span>As you said, they can spend their paycheck however they choose. So if they choose to spend it on an abortion, they’re free to do so.<br/><br/></span></li> <li><span>They can also choose not to participate in Hobby Lobby’s employer-provided healthcare plan and instead find a private healthcare plan that provides their desired contraception. (The Affordable Care Act has created huge obstacles to this option, but that’s the government’s fault, not Hobby Lobby’s.)<br/><br/></span></li> <li><span>Or if employees really want an employer-provided healthcare plan that includes their desired contraception, they’re free to find a new employer that provides it. Job searching sucks, but nobody is being </span><em>forced</em><span> to work for Hobby Lobby or for any other company that provides a healthcare plan they don’t like.</span></li> </ol><p class="MsoNormal">The Supreme Court’s decision doesn’t actually restrict Hobby Lobby employees’ healthcare options. It’s just restricts <em>one method of paying for a specific option.</em> </p> <p class="MsoNormal">Hobby Lobby doesn’t want to stop employees from doing what they want to do. It just doesn’t want to be a part of it.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><strong>People should be free to run their businesses as they see fit.</strong></p> <p class="MsoNormal">So long as an employer has control over the design of the healthcare plan they offer and employees are given the option of accepting or rejecting it, everything is voluntary.</p> <p class="MsoNormal">But the Affordable Care Act effectively removed Hobby Lobby’s voluntary involvement. The benefit Hobby Lobby once offered is now an entitlement the government requires it to provide.</p> <p class="MsoNormal">And, while Hobby Lobby could once design its healthcare plan however it saw fit, it is now forced to provide a government-regulated plan — one that included drugs it considers morally compromising.</p> <p class="MsoNormal">At this point the debate usually arises about whether corporations have rights.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span>Corporations aren’t people, they’re property.</span><span> So</span> corporations don’t have rights, but their owners still do.<span> </span><span>And the way a corporation like Hobby Lobby operates is an extension of its owners’ economic and religious liberty.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal">So when the government forces a corporation to operate against its owners convictions, the government is infringing on the owner’s liberty.</p> <p class="MsoNormal">And corporate owners don’t have the option of going another route the way their employees do. Owners either comply with government dictates, or they close their businesses.</p> <p class="MsoNormal">Thankfully, because the Supreme Court has chosen to protect the economic and religious rights of business owners, Hobby Lobby won’t have to do either …and that’s good news for its employees.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><strong>Everyone wins when liberty is protected.</strong></p> <p class="MsoNormal">It’s easy to see the Supreme Court’s decision on this case as a win for conservatives or corporations or the pro-life moments. But the reality is that this is a win for everyone.</p> <p class="MsoNormal">Because the case was only about pro-life, corporate and conservative rights <em>this time. </em>Next time might be different.</p> <p class="MsoNormal">If the Supreme Court had forced Hobby Lobby to adhere to the contraceptive mandate, it would have set a precedent for favoring government regulation over economic and religious liberties.</p> <p class="MsoNormal">And that could just as easily work against liberal, non-profit or pro-choice rights. Ideologies shift, but power doesn’t.</p> <p class="MsoNormal">So the decision today wasn’t one ideology winning over another. It was liberty winning over tyranny.</p> <p class="MsoNormal">Individual employees should be free to do what they want with their money and their bodies. Corporate owners should be free to do what they want with their money and their businesses. And the government shouldn’t be allowed to dictate how either one operates.</p> <p class="MsoNormal">I hope that explanation makes sense. Thanks for getting your question to me — and for asking it so politely.</p> <p class="MsoNormal">Peace, love and Jesus,<br/> -James</p> </blockquote>

orwellianlegacy: Hi Anon, This is a good question, because there’s a lot of misinformation about this case floating around. I’ll do my best...

Save