Cortez would probably let me do it, and look pained and indignant the whole time. Switch would take my hand off.

I can't believe there's leftover SuperPAC money. What has he been doing? It's like he's not even trying.

Gawker is taking credit for blowing up the breaded cats last week, but I'm loathe at this point to give Gawker.com more credit than being yesterday's Moylan sperm.

And yet! Still reading! So, joke's on me.

Has anyone ever heard of NetProspex? They somehow got my work email address, and have "report spam" links, but their very business model seems to be spam (get your email address from someone who has you in their contacts, supposedly legitimately, and then go to you for more details. However, when I search their database directly, my name gives no hits, and searching on my company name doesn't show me either (and it does show my old boss, so it's not like it's a *good* resource).

I don't want to reply and verify myself, if they're shady, but if they're a little less shady, that way I won't get any more emails from them.

I'm guessing the Democrats are going to fold on the contraception issue because... well, because they are Democrats.

I do think it's a real can of worms issue. Should an employer be forced to provide coverage for something they fundamentally disagree with on religious issues? Should an employer get a special exemption from a law on religious grounds even though it restricts an employees ability to get important health care?

Personally, I don't think there should be special exemptions on religious grounds for businesses that serve the general public. Would it be okay supermarket to only hire Christians because the owner is a Christian?

Still, I see it being a tricky issue since it can be framed as a matter of religious freedom.

Of course, I also think it's insane that employers are expected to be the providers of something as fundamentally important as health care. It's a burden on businesses and workers alike.

If you take taxpayer $$, are funded by the city, state, federal governments, then you cannot discriminate. You must allow equal protection - including with regard to health matters.

If you want to be privately funded and take no public funds at all, then we can talk about it.

That Muppets Google+ ad makes me want to Google Plus hangout. I am late to the party, and utterly weak. Sheeplish...

I've had this page of leggings open in my browser for days now. I have no idea why. I don't wear leggings, and they're way too expensive. Still, having skeleton legs is almost as cool as a Bat!biker jacket, which I'm still drooling over.

This kind of parenting amuses me. I know parenting isn't supposed to amuse me, and parenting with bullets is a dodgy premise, but, seriously, child? Shut up.

Still, I see it being a tricky issue since it can be framed as a matter of religious freedom.

Unless your religion dictates that everyone you employ must also follow your religion, it's really not.

If you take taxpayer $$, are funded by the city, state, federal governments, then you cannot discriminate. You must allow equal protection - including with regard to health matters.

Um, no. Equal protection is equal protection, whether you take tax money or not.

(And don't think they're not already upping that ante:

The White House is “all talk, no action” on moving toward compromise, said Anthony Picarello, general counsel for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. “There has been a lot of talk in the last couple days about compromise, but it sounds to us like a way to turn down the heat, to placate people without doing anything in particular,” Picarello said. “We’re not going to do anything until this is fixed.”

That means removing the provision from the health care law altogether, he said, not simply changing it for Catholic employers and their insurers. He cited the problem that would create for “good Catholic business people who can’t in good conscience cooperate with this.”

Fuckheads.

There's some level of crisis going on in the apartment next to me. I can hear her yelling at her kids--she was disciplining them, and then something happened, and she's asking for bandaids and asking one of them to get her phone but not come into the room. One on level, it sounds like broken glass, no big worries, but she's really freaking out about getting her phone.

Both her kids are under 6. I hope it's nothing serious, but it definitely sounds like coming to the door to answer an eavesdropper's questions isn't practical right now.

brenda,

thanks for the clarification! of course you are right.