Innula Zenovka

__________________

Darik

You think that was bad? Listen to his explanation.

Foster Friess Explains Aspirin Contraception Comment - YouTube

In summary (for those who don't want to hear this idiot again):

* People under 70 didn't get the joke
* It's all about "religious liberty"
* Santorum actually supports birth control for third world nations so women ought to feel good about that
* While Santorum has been crossing his legs on the voting floor, Obama has been pushing his agenda on the poor Catholics.

He said the same thing essentially on his blog. He honestly does not understand why people found his joke insulting. He mistakes the sarcastic comments for taking it literally, while those who speak out against it simply 'didn't get the joke'. He didn't even understand the subtlety of Andrea Mitchell's response

which I nominate for Facepalm of the Week. In fact, I think I'll add it to my sig.

Even as a SuperPAC he's a fail, btw. The main holders in his fund (70%), Affiliated Managers Group, Inc., are Romney backers because the CEO's wife was AG under Romney when he was governor of Massachusetts. Freiss himself only holds ten percent. My guess is - not for long.

__________________

Isabeau Imako

So many times, I find journalists drop the ball. Why didn't she ask, there and then, ''I'm not sure I understand, are you saying that women should stop having sex? Should men use this method, too?'' or even ''Do you realize how offensive that remark is to women, including myself, whether it's a joke or not?'' etc

Why, oh why, did she change the subject?

Brianna Ort

Ah. He'll soon turn 72. His generation invented sex and how to avoid the consequences.

Eunoli Rain

A journalist should never -show- that they've taken personal offense to anything. They are supposed to be neutral.

That said, to let misogynist comments to go by unchalleneged in this presidential season as they have not just in this instance, but in many, is simply poor journalism and I can't help but wonder if there's an extreme amount of pressure being applied to not challenge such statements at the threat of losing access or jobs. Its just sad no one is doing so, anyway.

Isabeau Imako

It's not just in the U.S. I often listen to news reports and am angered by the lack of follow up questions. I certainly can think of a few right away, why can't trained professionals?

Kaimi Kyomoon

I "got it" 50 years ago, the first time I heard it. It was just as offensive and unfunny then. But more people realize that now.

Darik

Or maybe it's because she had been slammed for a comment she made about breast cancer when she herself was the story and held back this time to keep from possibly making the same mistake again. Whether it was shock or whether it was hesitance I really don't think turning it into a mouth-off would have been any better. The GOP is proclaiming her stun as a victory. If she responded to that with fire, the GOP would claim victory in a successful trolling. There's no win here.

Journalism used to be about presenting the story, good or bad. Over the last couple of decades it has become so yellowed you can actually tell the political slant of someone by the paper they carry or whether or not they are paying attention to the TV monitor - or what channel the owner of that monitor has playing. Personally, I miss that. I like having the idea of making my own choices. I don't like the idea of choices being made around me based on ratings and subscriptions. I don't like being told what's news, what's important, and where my moral compass should point as if I was incompetent to make those decisions myself.

So on that matter, I have to disagree. I don't need a journalist to tell me what's right and wrong with society. I just need her to show me and I can take it from there.

Eunoli Rain

A journalist isn't saying what's right and wrong when she follows up an answer like this with "So, you'll go on record that you feel the only valid birth control method for women is abstinence?"

That's not telling anyone what to think. That's getting a candidate to back up their flippant comments with actual...positions.

Alazarin

Eugenics has a bit of a bad rep. We'll just have to pass on that one.

__________________
Interplanetary Rock'n'Roll
My stuff on SL Marketplace:http://tinyurl.com/3dlu25f
My music on SL Marketplace: http://tinyurl.com/3qe5l5f
Bandcamp: http://alazarinmobius.bandcamp.com/

Asher Bertrand

To be fair, I think everyone's been caught flat-footed when they hear something come out of left-field. As a journalist, you go into an interview with an idea of what you want to ask and what you want to get out of it, and when something broadsides you like that, it can throw you for a loop. That was true as a print journalist; I can't even imagine how more true that is when you have a camera rolling.

__________________

Seyla Warden

Kind of going on a tangent here, but IMO there are things that ned to be done whether they're 'economically feasible' or not. Starting a new space program (and eventually off-world colonies) is one of those things. At the very least it avoids the 'eggs in one basket' problem when the next species-killer rock hits us (assuming we don't nuke ourselves to the stone age before then - Hey another good reason for colonies!).

I'm going to run for office on the platform of people having as much sex as possible just because it's fun.

I had to have Plurk explained to me the other day.



If you get pregnant, your ass gets canned and then they can hire someone with less experience to do your job for less money. PROFIT!

__________________

Maggiedoll Alter

That assumes no training costs and off-the-bat productivity. Isn't that not the case for most jobs?

And since having kids isn't something that they can legally fire somebody for, it's not like they can be using that as an excuse to get rid of people and hire cheaper, less experienced workers. I know that doesn't stop them, but it's still nonsensical as a method. They'd have to pretend it was a performance problem just like if they woman hadn't just had a kid, so I don't see how it would make wouldn't make firing her any less dicey.

Darik

Suppose his answer was "yes, Andrea. I'll go on the record saying that."

Then what?

Is she then expected to debate him on that?

Amity Slade

I can think of a few more. One is that not every employer is rational and forward-thinking. A five-dollar cost to them today is easier to deal with than potential thousands of dollars of benefit later on. They focus on keeping down today's costs, and deal with tomorrow's consequences another time.

The second is that, unless the additional cost of providing contraception can be extracted from women only, it gets spread out among everyone's insurance. And of course it's just not fair to make a man pay for some sort of women's issue, now is it?

Ann Otoole

just going to put this out there so maybe people will begin asking questions that need to be asked:

When I first accepted a job with The Walt Disney Company the health insurance was outstanding. $10 copay on prescriptions and top line doctors etc. By the time I left that wretched joke of a cpompany that makes a mockery of gay people the copay was only $25 less than what the prescriptions cost without insurance and the monthly fee for such luxurious insurance had increased by 10 times while the quality of health care went from actual doctors to you had to go to the fucking county health care clinic and sit with the homeless for health care.

Employers don't care. All they want is profit and slaves to work for less.

Eunoli Rain

Nope. She's expected to report that his official position is just what he says it is. Its not for reporters to do more than that. She might ask him if he had details for how he'd implement an abstinence based birth control policy once in the white house, but again - she shouldn't be debating at all.

The QuietOne

I rarely do the tin foil hat thing, but in this case I'm full out convinced the Republicans are using the Catholic Church and all the various old male Christian leaders furor to try and push through Congress something much broader that more than anything will help their Wall Street cronies.

Their bill cites not only denying people insurance coverage for items which they have a religious issue with, but moral. Moral? Well any company and any insurance company can claim a moral outrage with all parts. Diabetes? You should have eaten healthier. Mentally handicapped child? You should have done testing prior to birth. Oh, and we don't cover abortions either. Heart Disease? It's a hell of a slippery slope until our already lackluster health insurance is a complete shell of nothingingness.

But if they can essentially use the religious zealots to stir people up to push it through? They'll try. I doubt it will go anywhere..but... *adjusts hat*

ETA: So basically I don't think it's about the birth control for hardly any of them, but they'll use the opening to slash their health care requirements.

Casey Pelous

If you're not gonna need the whole roll, could I have some of that tinfoil?

__________________
"I am not more than a lossy Human being, and think that we all are equals..." - Wasted Engineer

"Casey, I've already established that you have no idea what you are talking about." - Perphides

Merlynn D

hmmmm, perhaps women world-wide should start practicing abstinence immediately. I'm thinking some attitudes might change with a quickness...

Casey Pelous

Worked for Lysistrata!

Darik

On that I agree. I'm just not understanding how you define poor journalism. Is it because she didn't spotlight the comment or ask for elaboration?

Amity Slade

Andrea Mitchell is experience and knew exactly what she was doing. She had him saying something stupid, she didn't want to give him a chance to clarify or mitigate, and the result is that the instant media got to embarrass Friess with it quite a while before he got the chance to reconsider or mitigate or whatever he wanted to do to take the edge off.

Asking the follow-up question might have been better journalism. But Andrea Mitchell didn't drop the ball, she did what she meant to do. It's what any experienced lawyer knows in cross-examination- when you actually get a great answer out of the other side's witness, you don't give that witness a chance to back off it, you immediately switch to a new line of questioning.

Void

A great many of them.... particular male dominated ones that would love the excuse of the expense of pregnancy to factor into hiring decisions.

__________________
- These eyes can do more than see

Sally Rosebud

Blog for Choice | Tell Anti-Contraception Members of Congress: "I Have a Say!"