text:
Otter Box Commuter Series for iPhone 4- accessory review
The Otter Box Commuter Case for iPhone 4 is a well constructed hard-shell case with a silicone layer underneath and screen protector. It provides a no-slip grip while keeping the thin iPhone 4 form factor we love.
Reviewing cases can be tough; there are a lot out there. I think it's fair to say most cases I review are rather good. I haven't really come across the "perfect" case yet, but I might be close with this one. Why? Well, it's the perfect compromise between slim and protected and it's by Otter Box, an industry leader in hardcore protective cases.
What makes this case unique among its competition is that the silicone is very well constructed. The the hard shell outer case and the silicone literally work in concert to protect every aspect of your iPhone 4. The silicone covers everything from the headphone jack port across the top of the device to the 30-pin connector slot on the bottom. Each is protected with a flip-out plug. What is so great is the headphone jack is protected without the sacrifice of blocking the second mic; it's still uncovered. I am very impressed with Otter Box's design work.
The hardshell is pretty solid. The only way I could envision it breaking is if it was frozen to -30 degrees then smashed with a hammer. I seriously feel very secure with it.
Here is something else I like about the case; by now you may know how much I like raised edges on cases for the iPhone, as it protects the screen if it is laid on its face. With the Otter Box, I feel I am getting an extra .5 or 1mm additional height and the hardshell meets the height of the silicone on the top, bottom and sides of the device. This means that if placed face first and any weight is placed on the device, it is still not likely to scratch. That is great design work and my kudos to Otter Box.
If you need your iPhone protected, look no further than the The Otter Box Commuter Case for iPhone 4 to have a good looking case while keeping it safe. Available now from the TiPb iPhone 4 Accessory Store.
- Awesome protection with little sacrifice for thinness
- Throughly protected, yet access to all ports, even the mic!
- Included screen protector
- Durable silicone skin
- Polycarbonate outer shell
- Though relatively easy to take on and off, not really meant to be removed
- Lint tends to stick to the silicone, but this is an issue with every silicone skin I have come across
- No color selections other than black
- Can't place in dock with case on
[gallery link="file" columns="2"]
Have something to say about this story? Leave a comment! Need help with something else? Ask in our forums!
Reader comments
Otter Box Commuter Series for iPhone 4- accessory review
I really wanted to like this case - I had a Commuter TL for my 3GS. However, after less than 2 months of usage, the silicone part has stretched and become loose to the point that it's more annoying than anything else. The silicone bulges out from the sides at the bottom, and if I push on it to make it sit flush with the phone, the strip under the home button sticks up. I don't know, maybe it was just the specific one I got, but I was nowhere near as impressed with this as my previous Otterbox case.
I found that it was easier to put on when I placed the silicone inside the hard shell, then put the phone inside.
When I put the silicone on the phone, then attempted to put the hard shell over top, it was more aggravating attempting to get all the smaller pieces to fit properly, like the thin piece over the 30 pin.
Also, on the inside of the hard shell, you'll see grooves for the silicone to sit in. It's a lot easier to put the silicone in these grooves without a phone in the way, making it more secure and less likely to bunch up as other users have said.
I used the commuter on my 3GS and after a year when I sold the well used 3GS on Ebay it looked BRAND NEW. I'm not a big phone dropper but I do drop it from time to time and it only takes once to kill it.
I am using it on my iPhone 4 now and love it. I know that a minor drop is not nearly as likely to kill my phone as it would be with an iFrog or bumper case.
@Kris, I have never had any kind of echoing problem.
Chad HAS got to get a Christmas card this year from Otterbox. THIS CASE SUCKS!! The "silicone liner" is a joke. The plastic back does not stay on. Bought this POS after getting ripped off on the Defender. Silicone cover will not stay on it. And, it is not just me. Emailed Otter to see about the cover coming off my blue case. Was told they are aware of the problem and will replace the silicone with a new one. It is a design flaw. Campare the way the 3G Defender / Commuter fit your phone. My 3G Commuter almost could not be taken off. This one you can just pull the phone out. Looks like Otter tried to hurry these out. They were late to the party on the 4, and it does not appear they cared what they released, as long as they got out SOMETHING.
I absolutely love this case. I bought five from all major brands, but this was perfect in both form and function. Also, while in the UK I dropped my phone in water!! I had the case on and main connector plugs in, etc. The phone was totally fine in a few hours and I attribute it to the water not being able to have a free for all inside the phone. I highly recommend giving it a try.
I can't recommend this case to anyone. It has some design flaws. The top plastic has a somewhat sharp edge on it so it scratches your ear when you hold up the phone to talk. The silicone was fine for me, but I can see why people would say it stretches out. No cover for the logo on the back. I didn't use it for long. Go with the SGP Neo Hybrid Matte. I haven't looked back. BTW TiPB doesn't really make great reviews. There should be a place (sticky thread) where readers can submit their own reviews for any accessory. Kinda like Larry Greenberg's thread, but always on top. Usually those reviews are more in depth and realistic (not sponsored).
I own 2 of these cases...AND THEY SUCK!!! i had bought my first one and was disappointed right from the beginning. The silicone is extremely loose and thin, it doesn't fit the phone snugly like the one for the 3GS did (which i loved), so it just wants to pop off. Second, the earphone jack cover wants to pop open all the time and the silicone wants to pop off the corners. I had purchased the 2nd case thinking maybe it was just a flaw with my first case. I DONT RECOMMEND THIS CASE!
Luvin this case!
My case fits worse all the time. The silicon seems to grow every day. It hardly fits the bottom at all and I can no longer keep the plug for the charging port in. It also is very easy to peel away from the sides. I saw, above, where someone said Otterbox admitted the design flaw and gave them a new case. I am going to contact them. For forty dollars I think my case should be a perfect fit. If they can't make it right it's probably time for me to find a new brand.


text:
Arts & Culture
With over 10,000 art objects and some of the best onstage performances, Texas A&M provides excellent opportunities to experience the arts. On-campus galleries and museums house collections of art and sculpture ranging from American Impressionists to English cameo glass, and host a number of traveling exhibits each year. Numerous sculptures, fountains and outdoor art of all types also beautify and add interest to the campus landscape. In addition to on-campus performances from the Academy for the Performing and Visual Arts, the A&M Bands and the Aggie Players, Texas A&M is the crossroads for everything from Broadway shows and the ballet to brown bag concerts and "battles of the bands."
- MSC Forsyth Center Galleries
- J. Wayne Stark University Center Galleries
- MSC James R. Reynolds Student Gallery
- Wright Gallery
- M. Benz Gallery of Floral Art
- Cushing Memorial Library and Archives Online Exhibits
- L.T. Jordan Collection
- MSC Visual Arts Committee Exhibits
- Outdoor Sculptures
- VizaGoGo (Texas A&M Visualization Laboratory)
- George Bush Presidential Library and Museum
- Cushing Memorial Library and Archives
- Sam Houston Sanders Corps of Cadets Center
Performing Arts
- MSC Opera and Performing Arts Society (OPAS)
- MSC Town Hall
- A&M Bands
- Academy for the Visual and Performing Arts
- Singing Cadets
- Century Singers
- Women's Chorus

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Quick Links
Shop All Jewelry
ERZ10205 In Stock
As if found dangling from the outstretches branches of a diamond tree, these designer inspired cubic zirconia feathers earrings shimmer with an almost magical light. The sterling silver that makes up the earrings adds its smooth silver luster in-between the dazzling 2mm white diamond cubic zirconia stones. The CZ's themselves catch the light with such alacrity as to make you think that they create their own source of light. With a total carat weight of 2.95 carats, these CZ feather earrings a pair to adore.
Eve's Addiction.com wants you to be a happy customer. We want you to be completely satisfied with the sterling silver jewelry that you receive from us, as we only sell high quality silver and cubic zirconia cz jewelry. We do understand that you may not like your purchase for some reason.
You may return or exchange your jewelry within 60 days of purchase if you are not satisfied with it. The jewelry must be returned in its original condition for a refund or exchange. Engraved, personalized, photo, monogram, name and initial, chocolate and clearance items are not returnable or exchangeable.


text:
Click Here to Watch the Whole Video in HD at Broke Straight Boys
These boys are very hot and very straight but most of all they are broke. Rather then lose their apartment, girlfriend, etc. they do sexual things with other guys for some quick cash.
The scenes presented should only be used for fantasy and members should not deceive themselves into thinking that "everyone is doing it." Further, no one should assume that just because you see photos or film content of barebacking that sexually transmitted diseases have been miraculously cured. HIV and other sexually transmitted diseases are very real and potentially lethal. Please practice safe sex in your own life and educate yourself regarding the dangers of not wearing a condom before having sexual encounters. Visit AMFAR for more information about safer sex.
Pixels: 320X240 | Bitrate: 350K
Pixels: 640X480 | Bitrate: 700K
finally Jason in a scene with someone who can fuck


text:
Q&A with Mark Clayton
2014-08-06 00:00:00
We caught up with ex-Arlington Sam Houston and Oklahoma WR Mark Clayton
One of the most feared wide receivers in Big 12 history, Mark Clayton made his mark on college football in a major way for Oklahoma in the early 2000s.
Clayton, known for his highlight reel grabs and yards after the catch, shattered school records en route to being named a two-time All-American and helping the Sooners reach the 2005 national title game.
The Arlington Sam Houston product went on to be taken in the first round of the NFL Draft by the Baltimore Ravens. Clayton also played with the St. Louis Rams before injuries ultimately cut his pro career short.
Our EJ Holland recently caught up with Clayton, who is now an entrepreneur and wide receiver trainer.
EJ: We're going to start way back during your high school days at Arlington Sam Houston. Do you a favorite Friday night memory from your time there?
MC: "Well, I love Coach Ken Ozee. He's an amazing coach and a very passionate guy. My favorite memory though is Coach Flowers always talking about the towel. I was a quarterback at the time, and he said if I didn't have a towel, I was ready to practice or play. If I didn't come out with a towel, he would say, "Clayton, come on son! Where is your towel!?" and he would send me back to the locker room to get it. I would religiously get hassled about not having a towel. It was a swag thing. Swag was even around then, or at least the word, but it was an unspoken confidence or style for a quarterback. Also, Coach Ozee used to ride in a cart often because he was a bigger guy, and one of our quarterbacks threw a ball and it sailed and one of the receivers smashed into his cart. It was classic."
EJ: What was it like making the transition from quarterback to receiver?
MC: "It was interesting. I played quarterback on junior varsity, and I didn't play very much at all my junior year on varsity. Towards the end of the year, we had a couple of injuries. Our starting and backup quarterback both got injured. At that point, they brought me up to play quarterback against Duncanville. It was terrible. We probably crossed the 50 one time. After that game, the coaches said they were obviously not going to have me play quarterback. They wanted to try me at receiver. I played one or two games there, but in the offseason with 7-on-7 oandhow Texas high school football is, it just became like clockwork. I learned it like the back of my hand, and I started to get recruited in the summer thanks to the state 7-on-7 tournament at Texas A&M. It just snowballed after that."
EJ: As mentioned, you're originally from the Dallas-area. Why do you think the state of Texas produces so many top-notch wide receivers?
MC: "I think it's just the culture. It's a football culture. You just get it. You grow up around it and when you're immersed in it, even your not so best player can go somewhere and be a contributor. It's just the culture. We breed football players in general. It's a football state."
EJ: Well, you actually decided to leave the state and go to Oklahoma. Why did you spurn some of the in-state programs to go play for the Sooners?
MC: "I had to get out of my house (laughs). My mom was an overbearing mom, so I wanted to be out of there. I wanted to go to places like Georgia Tech, Minnesota and USC. As the recruiting process went on, I started looking more at Oklahoma. I have a lot of family there, and they threw the ball a lot with Mike Leach. I never got to play for him because left for Texas Tech, but I just thought it was a great place for me."
EJ: I'm sure it would have been fun to play for Leach. But you did get to play for Bob Stoops. How would you describe his coaching style?
MC: "Stoops is a general. He's a lieutenant. At that time, he ran a really tight ship. For him, he was coming in to change the whole culture of the program. He wanted to bring back the Oklahoma tradition of dominance. With that, there wasn't a lot of time for BS. He didn't play. A lot of our training and the way we practiced spoke to that. It was National Championship or bust. He conditioned our minds to expect to be great. He wasn't necessarily friendly. He wasn't going to sit down and be your best friend. But at the end of the day, he was a good ball coach."
EJ: One of the biggest games in this state is Texas vs. Oklahoma. Can you just talk about playing in the Red River Rivalry and the atmosphere around the game?
MC: "It's simply amazing. It's the best. The whole split stadium thing is the best in college football period. Having the state fair around it is great. Just walking out of the tunnel at the Cotton Bowl with my teammates, you can't even put it into words. The whole deal is amazing. I really enjoyed my freshman year because it was the first big game where I got to make plays. I was a key factor in us winning a game. I was almost like a scared kid. I just got the ball and didn't want anybody to hit me. In doing that, I made people look silly. It was really the beginning of everything."
EJ: Speaking of Texas, did Mack Brown try to recruit you?
MC: "Well, they had three receivers come in, and their names were Roy Williams, BJ Johnson and Sloan Thomas. They were the top three receivers in the country, I believe. So the answer is absolutely not (laughs)."
EJ: Well, things worked out great for you at Oklahoma. By the way, we have the Sooners winning the Big 12 this year. We do, however, think Baylor could repeat as champs. Are you sweating the Bears?
MC: "Art Briles has done a tremendous job with Baylor, man. It's really amazing to see how he's turned that program around. But you know, there is always good competition in the Big 12. We need that. At the end of the day, Oklahoma is going to show up, they are going to play defense and try to put as many points on the board. So will Baylor. And we'll see who is the best at that."
EJ: After Oklahoma, you were selected in the first round by the Baltimore Ravens and went on to play for the St. Louis Rams a few years later. Looking back on your career, what were some of the best moments from your time in the league?
MC: "Playing with Steve McNair was probably the most fun I ever had. It was the biggest statistical year I had, but Mac was just a different kind of guy. He was a country, home cooking kind of guy. He'd hunt. He was just a good ole' country boy. The way he'd carry himself was always like things are not so bad. You're going to be all right. That's kind of how he led us. We could mess up, but we were going to be fine. I had the greatest time playing with McNair. The craziest moment in a game was I had a teammate poop his pants. I'm not going to say his name, but there was stain, and we knew what that color meant. He got roasted after the game (laughs)."
EJ: A lot of players say retiring is the hardest decision they've made in their entire lives. How hard was it for you to hang up the cleats?
MC: "It was hard. Ever since my rookie year, I had started. You know you have the ability and you can do it and do it really well, but when you have the injuries take place, you don't feel as stable. That really bothers you. You have to take into consideration your health in your 40s, 50s and 60s. It's a really tough decision. I had three surgeries in three years. I didn't feel like I could really protect myself at the end of the day."
EJ: Even during your playing days you were an entrepreneur. You started your own T-shirt company and are in the process of launching your own headphones, right?
MC: "Yeah, My Christian T was our clothing line. Playing football was cool, and I was focused on being the best wide receiver ever. But I was asked what I wanted to do outside of football. I talked about T-shirts. I've always loved T-shirts. I would even get in trouble for wearing T-shirts on the plane. I set out to do that with high school friends. But none of us had experience selling T-shirts, so that was a problem. But we learned a lot about business and entrepreneurship. It did well, but when infrastructure is not solid, you implode. We grew, but we couldn't support the growth. It was a learning process. Now, I'm part of a team that developed active, over the ear headphones. Imagine running, getting up and tumbling without the headphones going anywhere. That's what we do. They're called Livv. We want to give athletes the freedom to live their lives the way they should. It's about doing your workout full speed without having your headphones moving around or falling off."
EJ: Other than starting your own business, I'm sure one of the neatest off the field experiences you had was participating in Pros for Africa. Can you tell me a little bit about your time in Uganda?
MC: "Amazing. Those couple of weeks impacted my heart more than a lot of my life. Getting to see what we saw and how people engaged us was amazing. It was a mission trip, and we wanted to share love. For us, it was like God has loved us so much, so we just want to love people. They don't have much materially, so we brought a ton of medical supplies and clothes. But at the end of the day, they served us. It was unbelievable. They were so solid from a relational standpoint. They don't have a lot of stuff, but their relationships are awesome because of that. They don't have a lot of distractions or a lot of competition between them. It was so genuine and pure. It was a beautiful experience."
EJ: Now that your playing career is over, you're starting to help out high school wide receivers at different camps. Are you enjoying it so far?
MC: "Yeah, it has always been a passion for me to work with young men, especially at the middle school and high school level. Retiring in 2012 and now moving back to Texas, I knew I had to get involved and be a part of it. I wanted to see what I could do as a teacher and a coach, and this has been a really awesome platform for me to jump start something that I'm really passionate about."
EJ Holland is the associate editor of Dave Campbell's Texas Football and TexasFootball.com.
He can be reached via e-mail or on the DCTF Facebook page.
If you would like to report inappropriate behavior within the Facebook commenting system, please email email@example.com and we will review your request.


text:
Top Posts & Pages
Recent Posts
- Top searches on the night of the Houdini movie
- The Hand of Isaac Fawkes: Quicker than Hogarth's Eye?
- Houdini Now and Then – Caught on the Web
- RIP, Hasan Niyazi
- Unformed Thoughts on the Shape of Blogging
- Bring Me The Red Pages
- Sidney Hollis Radner, 1919-2011 – A personal remembrance
- Dogged determination
- Between a Rock and a Void Place
- Unable to flip the bird
- This Is My Body
- A stitch in time
- The New Leonardo is a Three Pipe Problem
- Connoisseur, d'après xkcd
- Till we have faces
Art Blogs
- Alberti's Window An art history blog by Monica Bowen
- Art Daily Art News
- Art History Today Art News, Connoisseurship Issues, Exhibitions and General Musings on Art History by David Packwood
- Art Journal's Blog Central Art Journal's Blog Central – Visual
- ARTINFO "The premier site for news about art and culture around the world"
- artknows Tom Flynn – Comment and opinion on art and its markets
- BmoreArt Showcasing and reviewing the visual arts in Baltimore
- Colossal Art & Design Colossal Art & Design
- Culture Monster Art News Aggregation at the LA Times
- Medieval Hungary Thoughts on medieval art by Hungary's preeminent art historian, Zsombor Jékely!
- Rose's Art Lines Rose Welty's close-to-daily efforts to learn from artists of the past and present
- The Schwartzlist Gary Schwartz on Netherlandish Art & Culture
Tag Archives: Rodin
In the previous post in this series, I considered how the pose and three-dimensionality of a figural sculpture support its interpretation. I noted that representational sculptures reside at the intersection of what is actual and what is virtual. Because it … Continue reading
Posted in Formal Analysis Tagged Rodin, sculpture 1 Comment


text:
Friday, April 11, 2014
Ashley Ridge High School will host its first spring-break soccer tournament next week.
The Swamp Foxes have invited seven other teams to compete in the Lowcountry Cup soccer tournament scheduled for April 15 and 16 at the AR stadium.
The tournament will feature four teams form the Lowcountry plus four teams from the Upper State, Ashley Ridge coach Nate Harris said. We have a number of 3A schools coming but they all play with 4A teams during the season so it should be competitive.
Class AAA teams participating are Walhalla, Seneca and RB Stall. Class AAAA participants include Ashley Ridge, T.L. Hanna, Summerville, West Ashley and White Knoll.
Walhalla is ranked ninth among the states 3A teams and Stall is ranked 14th.
Each team will play at least three games over the two-day period. The consolation finals are scheduled for 4 p.m. Wednesday and the championship game will follow around 6 p.m.
One-day passes will be available at the gate for $6 each and two-day passes will be available for $10.
The Journal Scene is pleased to offer readers the enhanced ability to comment on stories. We expect our readers to engage in lively, yet civil discourse. We do not edit user submitted statements and we cannot promise that readers will not occasionally find offensive or inaccurate comments posted in the comments area. Responsibility for the statements posted lies with the person submitting the comment, not The Journal Scene.
If you find a comment that is objectionable, please click "report abuse" and we will review it for possible removal. Please be reminded, however, that in accordance with our Terms of Use and federal law, we are under no obligation to remove any third party comments posted on our website. Read our full terms and conditions.
© 2015 The Journal Scene an Evening Post Industries company. All Rights Reserved.
Registration on or use of this site constitutes acceptance of our Terms of Service, Privacy Policy and Parental Consent Form.


text:
What bishops want.
Grant Gallicho February 7, 2013 - 6:55pm
Today, Cardinal Timothy Dolan released a statement outlining the USCCB's objections to the Obama administration's revision of the revision of the contraception mandate. The new rule scotches the previous iteration's much-maligned four-part definition of "religious employer," and proposes arrangements to make sure religious employers -- including colleges, hospitals, and charities -- won't have to pay for or refer for contraception coverage in their employee health plans. In other words, the Department of Health and Human Services listened to its critics and attempted to allay their concerns.
As the editors ofCommonweal put it, "This will do." The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops disagrees.
First, a word of praise for the tone of Cardinal Dolan's statement. It avoids the hyperbolic rhetoric that has characterized this debate for far too long. The cardinal states that the bishops are open to further discussion. He acknowledges that the Obama administration "has heard some previously expressed concerns and that it is open to dialogue," and promises "additional, careful study." He notes that the new proposal does away with the "exceedingly narrow" definition of "religious employer," which, the bishops claimed, "created a 'second class' of citizenship within our religious community" -- subordinating Catholic charities to Catholic parishes. But apparently that's not enough for the bishops.
"The administration's proposal maintains its inaccurate distinction among religious ministries. It appears to offer second-class status to our first-class institutions in Catholic health care, Catholic education, and Catholic Charities." Yet Dolan fails to mention what replaced the four-part definition. The USCCB had called that definition "unprecedented" in federal law. So HHS lifted the revised definition from something with plenty of precedent: the federal tax code. According to the new rule, any religiously affiliated employer that has nonprofit status simply has to self-certify with HHS in order to opt out of the contraception mandate. If the employer pays an insurance company for employee health coverage, it has to notify the insurer that it doesn't want contraception included in the plan, and the insurer in turn automatically enrolls employees in a separate plan at no cost to them or to their employer. If the objecting employer is self-insured, it just has to inform its plan administrator, which will arrange for free contraception coverage for employees.
(This is where it gets complicated. "Self-insurance" is a misnomer. Rather than pay an insurance company premiums, some employers prefer to pay directly for their employees' health care. This requires a lot of cash. Such companies typically pay an insurance company to handle administrative tasks. The administrator generates "insurance cards" for the employees, and every time a worker incurs a medical expense, the administrator handles the paperwork and bills the employer for the service, according to an agreed-upon fee schedule. Administration fees are much lower than insurance premiums, so requiring administrators to cover the upfront costs of contraception would be unfair. They'd be paying for savings that accrue only to the "self-insured" company -- covering people who don't want babies is cheaper than covering those who do. That's the financial incentive for insurers to give away contraception to people they already cover. In order to make it worthwhile for administrators of "self-insured" plans, HHS proposes to reduce fees insurance companies will have to pay in order to sell their plans on the new health-care exchanges. Either way, the idea is that no religiously affiliated employer will have to contract for, pay for, or refer for contraception coverage.)
So why does Cardinal Dolan say, "there remains the possibility that ministries may yet be forced to fund and facilitate such morally illicit activities"? No arrangement proposed by HHS would oblige a Catholic institution to fund contraception coverage. But what about "facilitate"? This is the next line of defense. A bishop might argue: Sure, HHS may say that religiously affiliated employers won't have topay for contraception, but there's no getting around the fact that our employees wouldn't receive that coverage if they didn't have the insurance policy we provide. But the Affordable Care Act mandates that everyone have a health-insurance plan -- regardless of employment status. So even if a scrupulous Catholic employer canceled its employee health-care benefit (likely replacing it with cash payments), its workers would still need to buy health insurance -- insurance that would certainly include contraception coverage. The facilitation argument doesn't withstand scrutiny. What's to keep employees from using their salaries to engage in morally illicit acts? Think of all the illicit acts made possible by gainful employment. This is the slipperiest of slopes.
The Catholic tradition developed categories of "cooperation with evil" to help us think through this kind of problem. Without intending the employee to use contraception, without securing or paying for contraception coverage for its employees, a Catholic institution is not involved in a morally illicit act. If an employee wants to use free contraception provided by a third party, that's on her. There's no way to wall off an employee's moral agency. Yet Cardinal Dolan protests that the new proposed rule "would require all employees in our 'accommodated' ministries to have the illicit coverage -- they may not opt out, nor even opt out for their children -- under a separate policy." Cardinal Dolan seems to say that contraception coverage is itself illicit, but the Catholic moral tradition doesn't hold that things in themselves are licit or illicit. Acts are. So Catholic teaching would say that forcing a bishop to provide contraception coverage may be morally illicit. Just as it would say that using contraception is illicit. But the coverage itself has no moral character. It's like saying a drug store shouldn't be selling contraception in a Catholic neighborhood. The availability isn't the problem. An employee may or may not use the free contraception coverage. Until she does, nothing illicit has happened. And if she does, it's not the employer's fault.Cardinal Dolan also expresses his displeasure with the fact that the revised rule does not address the complaints of for-profit employers who have religious objections to the mandate. They "have no conscience protections at all," Dolan writes. Matt Boudway covered this question earlier this week. Should any employer be able to opt out of federally established basic health-insurance benefits because of religious objections? Matt writes:"It would logically lead to a situation they couldn't possibly wish for. Should an overzealous Jehovahs Witness be able to get a group plan that excludes coverage for emergency blood transfusions, even if none of his employees are coreligionists?" The bishops tend to treat conscience claims as though they outweigh everything. In fact, conscience claims must be balanced against state interests (whether the contraception mandate advances a legitimate state interest is another question).
"Throughout the past year," Cardinal Dolan writes in the concluding paragraph, "we have been assured by the administration that we will not have to refer, pay for, or negotiate for the mandated coverage. We remain eager for the Administration to fulfill that pledge." As the bishops continue to study HHS's new proposals, I hope they come to realize that the Obama administration has done just that.
Follow up: Matthew Franck has responded to this post with something shy of full understanding of health insurance. Here's my reply.
Commenting Guidelines
What the bishops want is pretty simple -- to impose their archaic view of catholic morality as the law of the land. Make artificial contraception illegal -- after all, it is "intrinsically evil," or so they say. Make homosexual acts illegal -- same rationale. The catholic church -- the people of God -- soundly reject the bishops and their 17th century views. The rest of the country should do the same.
Grant:"so requiring administrators to cover the upfront costs of contraception would be unfair." So the heck what? THAT is none of Dolan's business.Moreover, non-profits and especially religious non-profits and ESPECIALLY Catholic non-profits shouldn't be allowed to self-insure anyway.If you'd like to know why, ask the creditors who got screwed in the San Diego, Portland, OR and Milwaukee (Cardinal Dolan's old see) diocesean bankruptcies because of inadequate or non-existent liability insurance.Clearly, this isn't about "religious liberty" anymore (not that it ever was). It's about the Catholic Church trying to retain their perverted patriarchical control over women's sexuality.BTW, a warning for Dolan and the rest of the USCCB: This is like the FIFTH time Obama has employed this same negotiating strategy and when he whips Dolan it'll be the fifth straight win. Obama gives ground, the left shrieks, the liberals coo, the conservatives reject it and the right-wing smells blood because they think Obama is an easy mark. Obama gives more ground, more shrieking, cooing, rejecting and blood-smelling. He gives even more ground and just when it looks like Obama is about to defeat himself, the right-wingers are flat on the ground smelling their own blood, the conservatives have nothing to reject, the liberals are dumbfounded and the left slinks off to find something else to shriek about.Dolan would have been well-advised to take this deal. Since he didn't, he should brace himself to be destroyed.
"Dolan would have been well-advised to take this deal. Since he didnt, he should brace himself to be destroyed."I don't think he's rejected the deal. i agree with Grant's comment about he tone of the statement.The article on th USCCB website summarizes his issues as follows:
Cardinal Dolan highlighted problems with the proposed "accommodation.""It appears that the government would require all employees in our 'accommodated' ministries to have the illicit coveragethey may not opt out, nor even opt out for their childrenunder a separate policy," he said.He also noted that "because of gaps in the proposed regulations, it is still unclear how directly these separate policies would be funded by objecting ministries, and what precise role those ministries would have in arranging for these separate policies. Thus, there remains the possibility that ministries may yet be forced to fund and facilitate such morally illicit activities."Cardinal Dolan also said the proposal refuses to acknowledge conscience rights of business owners who operate their businesses according to their faith and moral values.
My guess is that the first issue is mostly about Catholic parents being able to block their children (who may be covered until they are 26 years old) from getting free contraceptives. Otherwise, the employee could just not use contraceptives her/himself even if she/he automatically received a policy. They may have a chance of getting this change. This is a new issue that they haven't brought up before. The second issue doesn't object to anything that has been proposed - just says we need to see all the details before we endorse this - to be sure we're not paying or facilitating the coverage. The third point is the Taco Bell/Hobby Lobby proposition. I suppose they felt they had to express solidarity with them but I think there is about zero chance that they will get this. It will be resolved by the Supreme Court , someday.
I may be completely at sea here, but is it possible that the bishops see their fighting the HHS mandate, raising issues about religious freedom, etc. as a way to encourage and show solidarity with those Catholics who use Church-approved NFP techniques? What seems to be happening, though, is that position of the bishops seems to irritate the larger number of Catholics who use contraception counter to Church teaching and apparently hold it as morally neutral for husbands and wives as those in Protestant denominations. NFP may be perfectly effective, but the fact that it is promoted by a Church that bans every form of artificial contraception is enough to make many folks hinky about it.Am I wrong to wonder whether the bishops are just trying to ensure that they aren't cooperating in sin? Or whether they're also sending a message to those Catholics who aren't in line with contraceptive teaching? And, if the latter, is this an effective mode of faith formation? Or does it merely separate those in the small, pure Church from those who try to be Catholic have a harder time reconciling Church teaching to modern practicalities?
John Hayes:"I dont think hes rejected the deal."With all due respect, hogwash: "At the same time, we will continue to stand united with brother bishops, religious institutions, and individual citizens who seek redress in the courts for as long as this is necessary." That means he's continuing his opposition unabated.In fact, Dolan has INCREASED his demands, since he's now thrown in with the secular for-profit employers also trying to impose their personal patriarchial control of women's sexuality. Just like those blood-smelling right-wingers I mentioned above, Dolan is under the mistaken impression that Obama is being rolled. He's not. The Church is about to get rolled--and they won't see it coming anymore than the Republicans saw Heath-Care passage coming, or Hillary or Romney saw defeat coming, or Boehner saw the sequester coming.I hope you're right, but I believe you're wrong. This is a fight the Bishops CANNOT win, and the sooner they realize that, the better for everybody.
Jean Raber:"raising issues about religious freedom, etc. as a way to encourage and show solidarity with those Catholics who use Church-approved NFP techniques"That is an interesting observation, one that I would never have thought of and I have not seen it expressed enywhere else. Cynic that I am, I would say that such a motivation is far down on the totem pole. A more likely motivation might be to save face for all the money put into Ad Hoc Committee on Religious Liberty, Fortnight for Freedom, law suits and lawyers.
The new rule scotches the previous iterations much-maligned four-part definition of religious employer, and proposes arrangements to make sure religious employers including colleges, hospitals, and charities wont have to pay for or refer for contraception coverage in their employee health plans. The proposed new rule limits the exemption to "churches." If colleges, hospitals, and charities can be squeezed into that definition, if they can be characterized as "churches" themselves, then they will be exempt. Problem is that many of these agencies cannot be characterized as "churches," especially when the Notice itself expressly states that it does NOT contemplate that the proposed new rule will expand the number of entities that will be able to claim the exemption.
This is a Becket Fund talking point. The bishops asked that religiously affiliated employers not be forced to contract for, pay for, or refer for contraceptive coverage. The new proposal does that. If the bishops want to argue that no employee of a Catholic hospital should be able to get contraception coverage arranged by the government and paid for by a third party, even though many of those people aren't Catholic, they'll have a tough time winning.
I must be very cynical because I think what the bishops want is to display their power. I read a news article in which some bishops said they would be willing to go to jail rather than comply with the HHS mandate. An empty assertion - they know Obama would never do that - he instead tries again and again to compromise. If only just one of the bishops had the integrity to be willing to go to prison for speaking the truth about the sex abuse cover-ups. But no.
I don't know if it's power the bishops want to display so much as rectitude and firmness. Their moral authority is at at a low point now and still ebbing with every page of documents released in Los Angeles, and who knows where else. They need to show resoluteness about something larger than their own perks and privileges. If they can be seen by some people as scourges of evil and stout defenders of freedom, although as unreasonable and ridiculous by others, it's a victory for them, whether or not they ultimately lose the legal and regulatory cases. Or especially if they lose, if it gives them another chance to rail against overreaching government and the onset of tyranny. What is more satisfying than a bloodless martyrdom?So I don't expect the bishops will ever say, "All right, Mr. President! You've answered all of our concerns."
I wish the bishops would so robustly defend individual conscience protections for taxpayers with moral objections to the wars we're currently financing. That seems a little more important.
The Bishops' selectivity in their defense of individual conscience rights undermines any effort to pose as "stout defenders of freedom." Their wall of silence on abuses of power within their own ranks speaks for itself. History is not likely to be kind to them.
I noted, as well, the more measured tone of Cardinal Dolan's current statement. That's a good thing. But I couldn't help wondering if last year's heated rhetoric wasn't politically motivated--at least in part. "If we can get people angry enough, we just may get him voted out of office." Well, that's no longer an option, so there's no need to sound so angry.
It seems to me that the position of the bishops has shifted from not wanting Catholic organizations (and private businesses) to be responsible in any way for providing their employees with insurance coverage for contraception to wanting Catholic organizations (and private businesses) to be able to prevent their employees from getting insurance coverage for contraception.
"In fact, conscience claims must be balanced against state interests"I don't quite know what "balanced" means here. The way I'd express it, if I could have my druthers regarding religious liberty and conscience protections, is that conscience claims should always prevail over state interests (that seems to be the point of religious liberty protections), unless the state interest is deemed to be sufficiently compelling. Not all state interests are particularly compelling. Free contraception for women of voting age would be one example of a not-very-compelling state interest.
It may be that Cardinal Dolan sees the long game oh how this country is going. It seems by a stroke of the pen, HHS can change wording of a document to make or unmake religious institutions doctrine. By adding more regulations, making the government controller in chief, the ability of this country to compete in the world is slowly dwindling.While all these social "regulations", & entitlements, like SS, Medicare & Affordable Medical Care, may sound great, the country going deeper in debt to other countries. Kind of like the old pusher, "the 1st ones free" mentality. Unfortunately there is no free lunch, & someday History may not be kind to these generations.
"Yet Cardinal Dolan protests that the new proposed rule would require all employees in our accommodated ministries to have the illicit coverage they may not opt out, nor even opt out for their children under a separate policy."This claim confuses me. Is the intent of the proposed rule that all employees will be issued a policy for free contraceptives, and the employee has no right to refuse the policy? I suppose there are all sorts of things that can get issued to a person but never used - people can get driver's licenses but never drive - but I wouldn't want to be bound by an insurance policy - a contract - without my consent.John Hayes' point is astute about the hypothetical employee with a conscientious objection to contraceptives who is also a parent with daughters in their teens or early-mid 20's. It's a fine reason to scrap this whole HHS contraption and replace it with a direct government entitlement. I can't imagine many 25 year old women want mom or dad's permission to have a sex life.
"I dont know if its power the bishops want to display so much as rectitude and firmness."Yes, I guess that's how I see it, too. I'm either not cynical enough about or engaged enough in the Church to see carping about HHS contraceptive mandates as a diversionary tactic from sex abuse cover-ups or church-state wrangles."I wish the bishops would so robustly defend individual conscience protections for taxpayers with moral objections to the wars were currently financing."Yes, agree here, too. The bishops, in their rejection of various accommodations perhaps feel that this is a way to let the faithful know they're dead serious about the "pelvic rules" in the CCC--and they risk making themselves look overly preoccupied with them. Certainly, there was a distinct difference between our old, Vat2 bishop and his current JPII successor. Voter's guides used to cover a wide range of issues with helpful explanations of Catholic doctrine. In this past election, the only non-sexual issue covered was immigration. Explanations were less helpful.
I am most probably going to have to deal with this issue with some parishioners and possibly the RCIA group this Sunday. Grant (and maybe David Gibson), here is a question that if you had an answer I think it would be most helpful to me:Who do you really think is advising Dolan on this which seemingly is leading him to take such an intransigent position? Do you surmise it is the likes of Robby George, George Weigel etc? Is there any evidence that the some bishops may be more amenable to a compromise?
Anthony Andreass:The USCCB can't let go of this. They have too much invested in it. I will eat my hat if they eat crow (agree to the compromise).
Its a fine reason to scrap this whole HHS contraption and replace it with a direct government entitlement. I cant imagine many 25 year old women want mom or dads permission to have a sex life.Jim,If a 25-year-old woman is covered by her parents' insurance, they are paying for it, and if they say she can't use the coverage to pay for contraception, she has to live with that. The parents, as the owners of the policy, will be the ones dealing with the insurance company. They don't need a way to "opt out" of the coverage for their daughter. They just have to tell her not to attempt to use the coverage for contraception. I don't understand the idea that it is so horrible to make people complicit in providing contraceptive coverage for others, that the government just ought to provide it for everybody! Contraception is so damaging and so sinful, and causes cancer, and causes men to lose respect for women, etc., etc., so the solution is for the government to provide it to all women for free!
The bishops of the USCCB are acting like a bunch of Lord Granthams from Downton Abbey. Robert Crawley, the seventh earl of Grantham, the messed up pretty badly. He lost his wifes inheritance with a bad investment and had a significant part in the death of his daughter. Shouldnt he feel a bit of guilt? Not at all. He is seen in last weeks episode ranting about bringing his grandchild up as a Catholic and berating his wife and daughters for being served lunch by a reformed prostitute - all the while living a rather luxurious life.A bit of displacement?Meanwhile his wife and daughters are daring to contradict him.Milord, (which by the way is how the British address bishops) Grantham, methinks you are losing power, authority and credibility.
"I will eat my hat if they eat crow (agree to the compromise)."I'm not sure if it's really for the bishops to agree. The mandate is a fait accompli. I'd think that, according the standard political calculus of the sort used all the time by the White House and Congress, the bishops are basically an interest group, lobbying for more favorable treatment.
"If a 25-year-old woman is covered by her parents insurance, they are paying for it, and if they say she cant use the coverage to pay for contraception, she has to live with that. The parents, as the owners of the policy, will be the ones dealing with the insurance company. They dont need a way to opt out of the coverage for their daughter. They just have to tell her not to attempt to use the coverage for contraception."I'm confusing myself even more here.The question on the table seems to be: would a parent/policy holder of the contraceptive coverage, whether the benefit is part of the employer's group policy or via a special exemption policy issued directly by the insurance company, have the ability to prevent his grown daughter from receiving the benefit?
"I dont understand the idea that it is so horrible to make people complicit in providing contraceptive coverage for others, that the government just ought to provide it for everybody! "Well, my own preference is "none of the above" - consumers can just pay for their own contraceptives, and deal with the consequences, without needing to involve her parents, the parents' employer, the parents' employers' insurance carrier, or the government in the decision But that ship probably has sailed.
Everyone knows what the bishops want. As Abe Rosenthal puts it on his blog today:"From the start, the Church has used the mandate controversy to try to get the government to do what it has failed to do through preaching and dictates from the Pope prevent Catholic women from accessing birth control to manage their reproductive lives so they can bear children when they choose and, equally important, participate in the work force."http://takingnote.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/02/08/the-church-and-the-mandat...
After looking around, i found the exact language of the third-party contraception coverage here, on page 64https://s3.amazonaws.com/public-inspection.federalregister.gov/2013-0242...
(2) A group health insurance issuer that receives a copy of the self-certification described in paragraph (a)(4) of this section with respect to a plan for which the issuer would otherwise provide coverage for any contraceptive services required to be covered under 54.9815- 2713(a)(1)(iv) must automatically provide health insurance coverage for any contraceptive services required to be covered by 54.9815-2713(a)(1)(iv) and identified in the self- certification, through a separate health insurance policy that is excepted under 45 CFR 148.220(b)(7), for each plan participant and beneficiary....An issuer providing contraceptive coverage arranged pursuant to paragraph (b) or (c) of this section must provide to plan participants and beneficiaries written notice of the availability of the contraceptive coverage...."You and any covered dependents will be enrolled in this separate individual health insurance policy at no additional cost to you".
There seems to be an inconsistency between the last sentence, which implies that everyone in the family is included in one policy and the earlier sentences which suggest the each person gets an individual policy and notice (employed mother with three daughters = 4 policies and 4 notices. It seems that what Cardinal Dolan wants is that the notice would allow the employed woman to accept or reject he coverage for herself and for her daughters. I suppose that would lead to a discussion of whether it's "opt-in" or "opt-out" and whether it's all daughters or whether adult daughters could make their own decision to accept or reject.My guess is that the number of people who would reject would be rather small, but the bishops might put on a campaign to urge people to reject.
It is worthwhile to recall that even prior to the Supreme Courts decision in Griswold v. Connecticut, the Catholic Church did not oppose the Massachusetts Legislatures lifting of the ban on the sale of contraceptives. In a submission to the Legislature in 1965, Richard Cardinal Cushing stated that I as a Catholic have absolutely no right in my thinking to foist through legislation or through other means, my doctrine of my church upon others. It is important to note that Catholics do not need the support of the civil law to be faithful to their religious convictions. I devoutly wish that the current USCCB would embrace the spirit of Cardinal Cushings 1965 remarks. Employers compensate employees for their labor. That compensation is paid in the form of salary and benefits. Our civil law permits the sale and purchase of contraceptives. The choice as to whether to purchase contraceptives is left to the individuals conscience. The employer no more facilitates the purchase of contraceptives by providing an insurance benefit to an employee than it does by providing a salary to an employee. The current federal proposal goes even further in removing an employer from the employees decision to purchase or not purchase contraceptives. The USCCB should accept it.
The answer to the inconsistency may be that the "separate health insurance policy" may be just one policy (covering only contraception) that covers all employees of that firm rather than a separate policy for each employee and beneficiary. People would then be enrolled in that plan, just as they are in the employers regular plan
Charles jacobs. Cardinal Cushng asked John Courtney Murray for advice before making his statement Here is Murray's memo to +Cushing.http://woodstock.georgetown.edu/library/Murray/1965F.htm
Find this whole reply to be interesting because it reflects much of the debate in the 4th session of VII over Dignitatis Humanae.From John O'Malley,SJ's book and paraphrasing:"John Courtney Murray,SJ as the council was closing put his finger on a *the issue under the issue* - development of doctrine. In his words, it was the problem of elaborations of church teachings that went beyond, or even contradict, previous teachings. i.e. the problem of change.Murray went on to elucidate the repeated condemnations of *the separation of church and state*; *conscience*; *religious liberty*; etc. as pronounced by popes since the 18th century. And this topic was a bitter struggle and yet, Murray's ideas prevailed.He noted that in this council struggle on *religous liberty* the US bishops came in full force. Yet, this support echoed the American experience - US church did not live in the 19th century European mindset which can be summarized as - if the majority of a state's citizens are Catholic, then the state must profess being Catholic and was duty bound to suppress other religions; even denying their civil rights. If Catholics are a minority, then the state mus tolerate and guarantee free practice of religion.His views prevailed and can be summarized as - religious liberty and the rights of religious bodies in society; as well as the legitimate limits to expression of religious liberty, must be made evident and as appropriate for the good of society.It is interesting to note the change via the current USCCB on this issue. In tone and approach, the USCCB appears to reach back to the 19th century mindset; to echo the fierce objections about Murray's ideas from Rev. Joseph Fenton. Why? Because Dignitatis Humanae lays down two basic foundational principles - the every individual has the right to use conscience to choose and that no government has the right to obstruct this so long as it does not infringe on the right of others or hinder the common good; second, that this human dignity can not be coerced.Realize that terms such as common good and access to contraception can be argued but my point is that the USCCB appears to be operating with a new foundational principle - US government must allow the Catholic Church its preferences and anything less will be a loss of religious liberty. Appears to ignore the foundational principles of Dignitatis Humanae - fact that in a civil society there are diverse and multiple religious bodies or secular views that must be respected and protected. Sorry, USCCB seems to be recycling Fr. Fenton.
"It seems that what Cardinal Dolan wants is that the notice would allow the employed woman to accept or reject he coverage for herself and for her daughters."It's complex.Wearing my dad hat: I view my parental prerogatives in this regard differently with respect to my 15-year-old teenager than I do to my 25-year-old daughter. (I don't really have any children those ages, I'm just speaking hypothetically here). I'd have no problem whatsoever in laying down and enforcing the family law for the 15 year old (the pertinent family law being, No sexual activity, period), and I wouldn't want my employer or its insurance company - or the government - circumventing my parental authority by essentially giving away contraceptives to my 15 year old against my wishes. I think the case for the 25 year old is harder. Frankly, unless she is in medical school or some such, I don't want my 25 year old to be dependent on me for anything. She's an adult, and I want her to be responsible for her life by then. If she comes to me for advice - well, that's no problem, folks around here know I have no trouble telling others how to live their lives. But if she is dependent on me for health care under ACA rules, and she wishes to take advantage of the free-contraceptives benefit, does that make me complicit to her presumably-sinful behavior in some way? There are two possibilities for complicity: (1) she would need my express permission as policyholder to take advantage of the free-contraceptives benefit. If I give her permission, that seems pretty cut-and-dried complicity on my part. Or, (2) she is able to take advantage of the free-contraceptives benefit without needing my permission; essentially, she can fill her prescription, unbeknownst to me, and even against my wishes, because I've arranged for her to have an insurance card (which she would need, not just for contraceptives, but for all sorts of virtuous health care needs). In that scenario, I don't think I'm complicit.
It seems to me that having an opt out option for contraceptive coverage creates a very real danger that a Catholic-associated employer could call a meeting of their staff, pass out the forms to opt out, and tell the staff "you are expected to sign this and turn it in to your supervisor- we will mail them to the insurer". Even if this was in a grey area legally it would be very hard for the employees to prove this wasn't voluntary, and they might reasonably fear their jobs were at risk if they refused to sign. Also, shouldn't the bishops consider that someone who opted out of contraceptive coverage would be taking a huge risk if she (or an adult daughter) developed one of several serious medical conditions which are treated using the pill? I'd be particularly concerned about minimum wage employees where the cost of getting the pill with their own money might be prohibitive.
Evidently The Tim is still keeping his name in the papers on this:http://whispersintheloggia.blogspot.com/2013/02/they-did-or-did-they.htmlHe seems to be emulating Chris Christie these days.
If there ever was an argument for Single Payer healtcare in this country, this entire brouhaha is the sterling argument.
Jim Pauwels, i think it's your (2) but the insurance she automatically got from the third-party (not your employer) as your dependent only covers contraceptives. I think that's what the bishops would like you to be able to opt her out of. The issue of whether a young girl could get a doctor to write a prescription for contraceptives without your knowledge may depend on your state laws. I'm not sure I remember the age correctly, butI think that once she becomes 18, she has a legal right of health privacy and her doctors can't discuss their dealings with her with you without her permission.
Jim Mvrea:Perhaps I was too hasty. It appears Dolan does know that Obama is not the rollee but the roller.In the best sense of the term, the Cardinal is most politic.I was going to try to use the term "Politese" but the association with the Rolling Stones would have been most impolitic of me.
Jim P: as a former benefits manager I know of no circumstances in which an employee duly enrolled her/his dependants under health plan coverage and retained the rights to determine which, if any, of the plan's provisions said dependants could use.I don't think that there would be a practical way for any plan administrator to verify that each and every use of the plan by a dependant has the prior or expressed permission of the employee.
jfxgillis: I think you were addressing your comments to someone other than to "Jim Mvrea" whom I take to mean me.??
"The issue of whether a young girl could get a doctor to write a prescription for contraceptives without your knowledge may depend on your state laws. Im not sure I remember the age correctly, butI think that once she becomes 18, she has a legal right of health privacy and her doctors cant discuss their dealings with her with you without her permission."I'm sure you're right about 18 year olds.Regarding younger teens: I just did a very little roaming around on Google, and it seems that the general rule of thumb is that teens who are mobile without their parents and are sufficiently motivated can get both non-prescription and prescription-only birth control without their parents' consent. This site, which for all I know may know what it's talking about, says the following:"In the United States, some contraceptives are easily available such as male and female condoms and sperimicides, and minors may legally purchase them without a prescription. Other contraceptives require a prescription or are supplied (i.e. Depo-provera injection) by a health care provider. In most states, contraceptive counseling and distribution is confidentially available to minors (i.e. there is no parental notification requirement). Some states do have restrictions which may or may not be enforced."http://www.pediatriceducation.org/2011/01/24/what-are-the-laws-regarding...
"as a former benefits manager I know of no circumstances in which an employee duly enrolled her/his dependants under health plan coverage and retained the rights to determine which, if any, of the plans provisions said dependants could use."Right, Jim McC - you're saying that, once the dependent is enrolled in the benefit, the whole benefit is available to the dependent. But, if I take Dolan's meaning correctly (and I may not be), his scenario is slightly different. His scenario would work like this:* Parent works for an employer, like a Catholic hospital, for which the Obama Administration is now carving out this special exemption.* Parent enrolls dependent children (up to age 26) in employer's group health plan, which does not include contraceptives.* Pursuant to new HHS mandate exemption rules, parent's employer's insurance company proactively issues a special policy that covers only contraceptives, to the policy holder and his dependents.Cardinal Dolan's question is, can the parent refuse this coverage, on his own behalf, and on behalf of his dependents?
The simplest solution to the issues raised by the U.S. Catholics bishops regarding the HHS regulations would be for all Catholic institutions to stop paying for health-care insurance for their employees and instead pay their employees a cash payment equivalent to the employer's share in the insurance coverage.It would then be up to the employees to secure their own health insurance and pay the premiums.
In case you didn't follow the link in Jim McCrea's post of 3:25 pm, here's what +Dolan wrote:"Yesterday, I issued a statement in my role as President of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops on the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking regarding the HHS mandate. Unfortunately, there were some news reports today that claimed the bishops rejected the White House proposal, ignoring the fact that we bishops said, we welcome and will take seriously the Administrations invitation to submit our concerns through formal comments, and we will do so in the hope that an acceptable solution can be found that respects the consciences of all.I'm glad he clarified that the bishops haven't rejected the proposal. I saw that "rejected" headline in a lot of places yesterday.
Thomas Farrell, it would be the simplest but it would be very expensive ofr the Catholic institutions. To remain competitive with non-Catholic institutions they would have to increase salaries enough to cover what their employees would actually have to pay for the insurance plus the additional taxes the employees would have to pay on their increased salaries. The employer would also have to pay a tax penalty of $2,000 per employee for not providing insurance.And the end result would be that the employees would have insurance covering contraception.
Ow! Ow! No Downton Abbey spoilers without a warning, please!
Jim Pauwels:If that's Dolan's question, he's stupider than I said to the other Jim (and yeah, Jim McRea, I made a typo in my salutation to you), because the way to "refuse" a benefit from an an insurance policy is to NOT CLAIM THAT BENEFIT.Like a whole bunch of this supposedly "complicated" issue, and as I said in a different context above, this is not hard.The only reason this is "complicated" is if the Church hierarchy's hidden agenda is to impose Catholic sexual doctrine on the United States Government's mandated standard benefits package for health insurance.
Lisa Fullam;So Sorry, Milady.
The next person who mentions 'Downton' in one of my threads gets banned.
How about this, Grant? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FKCnHWas3HQI realize that the spelling is not quite the same, though.And, yes, I'm old enough to remember when this was in the Top of the Pops.
Raber and I are speculating about how his Amish relatives will handle Obamacare.The Amish pay their taxes ("render unto Caesar") as required by law, but do not register for the draft, serve in the military, apply for Social Security or Medicare, or purchase health care insurance. You get sick, they take up a collection in the community to defray your expenses. His guess is that the Amish will simply pay the opt-out penalty.In the Amish view, we "English" take their money, and they give it up to stay out of jail. But what sins we commit with the money we take from them by force (as far as they're concerned) is no affair of theirs; bishops in many ordnungs, Raber believes, will just counsel the Amish to simply not buy into the latest benefit.Can anyone imagine the Catholic bishops telling the faithful, "Pay your taxes, stay out of jail, but don't accept health care from your employer if it includes contraception coverage. We'll pay for you if you get sick."


text:
TRAINERS: Bring the 2009 NFPA 70E® Seminar DVD on board for live-video sessions with top instructors.
Provide your team with the best electrical safety training, in your own time frame! The NFPA 70E: Standard for Electrical Safety in the Workplace® Seminar DVD combines visually-rich training with live-audience segments and motion graphics to teach employees why electrical contact injuries are so serious, prevalent and costly -- and how compliance with the 2009 NFPA 70E and OSHA protects staff and reduces liability and operating costs.
NFPA's video seminar gives employees a critical understanding of:
Electrical hazards are invisible on the job site, and they're deadly.
In fact every year, some 8,000 workers are treated in emergency rooms for electrical contact injuries, with one fatality each workday on average. That's why this video seminar is a must-see for business owners, safety directors, facility managers, and staff. Material is presented in self-contained training modules for more flexible training in specific areas. (3 hours, 52 minutes, DVD)


text:
I have to admit - when I first looked at the title of this thread; I thought "Who is Byron Will"...
2015 NFL Draft
1) Shane Ray-OLB
2) Quintin Rollins-DB
3) Tre McBride-WR
4) Jeff Heuerman-TE
5) Senquez Golson-DB
6) Kyle Emmanuel-OLB
6) Matt Jones-RB
7) Gerod Holliman-S
When they asked Byron if he can win a SuperBowl after Ben went down, Byron looked cool as a cucumber. He's not Ben, but we all know that including him. He'll make plays. He's a pro. He knows the standard is the standard.
I'm with Tomlin. The standard is the SuperBowl. Byron's the next man up and he can take us there if need be.
There's less pressure on Byron than any of these other QBs. He'll be fine. He'll do his job. I believe in him.
Our run game is not independent of our passing game. It was the need to defend Ben that let Redman, Dwyer, et al. excel.
I'd expect the box to be loaded against us on just about every play, until Lefty/Batch show they can hit our guys downfield. If we can't, then we will have one mighty tired D.
We got our "6-PACK" - time to work on a CASE!
With 8 or 9 in the box, that leaves 2-3 guys to cover Wally, Manny, and Heeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeath. I'll gladly take that and I bet the Steelers will too.
In fact, I would be surprised if Haley doesn't let Byron pass more on 1st downs to try to make it easier and avoid 3rd and longs.


text:
TIPCAT Catalog | For You | About Us | Mobile Apps
Find Good Books
Book Groups
Staff Picks
© 2015 Tippecanoe County Public Library
Joomla! is Free Software released under the GNU General Public License.
Mobile version by Mobile Joomla!
Detect Version | Mobile Version | Standard Version | Smartphone Version | iPhone Version | WAP Version | iMode Version


text:
MUSEHEAD - World's ONLY Muse/ Radiohead Tribute -
Sunday, February 10, 2013 at 9:40 PM (PST)
Who's Going
Loading your connections...
3 of your friends are going. Share it to get more people on board! Share
Sara Haughty
San Francisco, California
San Francisco, California
Luke Picard
London, United Kingdom
London, United Kingdom
Rick Vespucio
Florence, Italy
Florence, Italy
Event Details
MUSERS and Radioheads come out and party with MUSEHEAD. Acoustic set in downstairs lounge at world famous Viper Room in West Hollywood.
Have questions about MUSEHEAD - World's ONLY Muse/ Radiohead Tribute -? Contact Carl
When & Where
The Viper Room
8852 West Sunset Boulevard
West Hollywood,
Sunday, February 10, 2013 at 9:40 PM (PST)
Add to my calendar


text:
Wednesday, March 27, 2013
This summer, instead of building campfires, why not build on your creative potential at Summer Studio? Not your typical summer camp, Summer Studio puts students in a hands-on, collaborative environment, where they learn new skills in the fields of design, culinary, media arts or fashion.
This four-day summer program at The Art Institute of Charleston, a branch of The Art Institute of Atlanta, is open to high school juniors and offers these workshops: Culinary Arts, Design (graphic, web and interior design), Fashion and Media Arts (film and photography). Under the direction of Art Institute of Charleston faculty, students will work on exciting real-world projects and use professional-grade tools and technology to see if a creative college like The Art Institute of Charleston is right for them.
Summer Studio at The Art Institute of Charleston runs June 16-19. To enroll or for more information, visit www.summerstudio.com/charleston or call 843-727-3509.
Moultrie News is pleased to offer readers the enhanced ability to comment on stories. We expect our readers to engage in lively, yet civil discourse. We do not edit user submitted statements and we cannot promise that readers will not occasionally find offensive or inaccurate comments posted in the comments area. Responsibility for the statements posted lies with the person submitting the comment, not Moultrie News.
If you find a comment that is objectionable, please click "report abuse" and we will review it for possible removal. Please be reminded, however, that in accordance with our Terms of Use and federal law, we are under no obligation to remove any third party comments posted on our website. Read our full terms and conditions.
© 2015 Moultrie News an Evening Post Industries company. All Rights Reserved.
Registration on or use of this site constitutes acceptance of our Terms of Service, Privacy Policy and Parental Consent Form.


text: On or off-road, you need to protect your head. We have lightweight and comfortable helmets in a variety of styles and colours designed specifically for men, in smaller fits for women, and – to make sure they get into good habits early on – for children as well. If you need specialist protection for BMX, jump or downhill racing, then we also have full-face helmets designed for maximum coverage and protection.


text:
Lacoste Classic Fit Chino Pants
$76.99 Original Price $110.00
Savings: $33.01 (30%)
- 100% Cotton
- Machine Wash
- Imported
Shipping & Returns
Shipping your purchase is easy on belk.com. Depending on the destination of your package, you can expect it to arrive within 4-7 business days. Shipping Information
Returns are easy on belk.com. Easy returns


text:
Global Ink Industry Leaders Face New Challenges
Declining crude oil costs don't necessarily translate into lower prices for ink manufacturers. Here's why.
The evolution of the packaging market is a boon for ink manufacturers.
Digital printing continues to expand, with gains being made in commercial, textiles, ceramics and labels.
Resins are a key ingredient for inks, and suppliers report there are opportunities ahead for resin production.


text:
The Scottish Public Pensions Agency (SPPA) is an Agency of the Scottish Government. Its principal role is to administer the pensions, premature retirement and injury benefits schemes for employees of the National Health Service in Scotland (NHSSS) and for members of the Scottish Teachers' Superannuation Scheme (STSS).
The Agency also has responsibility for providing policy advice to Ministers on public sector pensions for these schemes plus those for Local Government, Police and Fire; for developing the regulations for each of these schemes; and for determining appeals made by members of these schemes. It also provides a pension calculation service for the Legal Aid Board for Scotland and the Scottish Parliament.
Latest News
23 July 2015, 12.57
29 April 2015, 08.55


text:
August 4, 2015
Marijuana, mushrooms, prescription drugs and cash, all found inside one home in College Station. The three men living there are under arrest.
22-year-old William Rivers was arrested and charged with Manufacturing and Delivery of a Controlled Substance, Possession of a Controlled Substance Group 2 and Group 3 and Possession of Marijuana.
22-year-old John Oswald was arrested and charged with Possession of a Controlled Substance Group 3. 21-years-old Clark Oates was arrested and charged with Manufacturing or Delivery of a Controlled Substance Group 2 and Possession of Marijuana.
According to College Station Police, a search warrant was being executed in the 100 block of Forest Drive when the drugs were found. Officers found over a pound of marijuana, adderall, anabolic steroids and mushrooms.
They also discovered packaging material, digital scales and records revealing that Rivers was selling high grade marijuana
Rivers is in jail on $37,000 bond. Oates is in jail on $12,000 bond and Oswald is in jail under $8,000 bond.
To comment, the following rules must be followed:
Comments may be monitored for inappropriate content, but the station is under no legal obligation to do so.
If you believe a comment violates the above rules, please use the Flagging Tool to alert a Moderator.
Flagging does not guarantee removal.
Multiple violations may result in account suspension.
Decisions to suspend or unsuspend accounts are made by Station Moderators.
Questions may be sent to email@example.com. Please provide detailed information.
Click Here to access the online Public Inspection File
Viewers with disabilities can get assistance accessing this station's FCC Public Inspection File by contacting the station with the information listed below. Questions or concerns relating to the accessibility of the FCC's online public file system should be directed to the FCC at 888-225-5322, 888-835-5322 (TTY), or email@example.com.


text:
Roberto Mancini is ready to make a £40million summer bid for Liverpool striker Luis Suarez.
Peter Odemwingie last night accused West Brom of hypocrisy and insisted the club gave him the green light to join QPR.
Rio Ferdinand says Manchester United are bigger than England.
Andre Villas-Boas has given up on landing Brazil ace Leandro Damiao - but insists his attacking options are as good as Arsenal's and Chelsea's.
David Moyes shrugged off his transfer-window woes to insist Everton are still top-four contenders.
Paul Lambert has hit back at critics of his low-key January signings by asking: Who was I meant to sign...Lionel Messi and Xavi?
Peter Odemwingie is vowing to fight any punishment by West Brom after boss Steve Clarke branded his Deadline Day trip to QPR "total lunacy".
Hull boss Steve Bruce blasted QPR striker DJ Campbell for 'nipping out for lunch' and walking out on a major deal.
Andre Villas-Boas has defended Tottenham's last-gasp tactics after missing out on Leandro Damiao.
Harry Redknapp bristled at the suggestion his monster £34million deal for Chris Samba has mortgaged QPR to the hilt.
Paolo Di Canio has threatened to walk out on Swindon after Matt Ritchie was sold on the quiet.
West Brom put the blame firmly on Peter Odemwingie yesterday after the striker's transfer deadline day dash to London ended in huge embarrassment for all concerned.
Sir Alex Ferguson took on the FA yesterday by deciding to fight allegations that he questioned the integrity of a match official.
Fulham hope to resurrect a deal for Roma keeper Maarten Stekelenburg this summer.
Free agent Nigel Reo-Coker is being lined up for a surprise move to West Brom.
Blackburn boss Michael Appleton hopes to complete a deal for West Brom winger Jerome Thomas, as well as QPR striker DJ Campbell, next week when the emergency loan window opens.
Paul Lambert says Aston Villa's lack of action in the transfer window was because the club can't compete with Premier League rivals over pay.
Former Manchester City striker Mario Balotelli last night took a swipe at life in England following his move to AC Milan.
West Brom striker Peter Odemwingie was branded a lunatic by his own boss last night.
Stoke admit Jack Butland's arrival is insurance as they brace themselves for summer bids for £15million-rated goalkeeper Asmir Begovic.
Roberto Mancini is considering a £40million summer bid for Luis Suarez to fill the gap left by Mario Balotelli.
Harry Redknapp denies he is mortgaging QPR's future with his spectacular spending.
Harry Redknapp insisted yesterday that no-one at Queen's Park Rangers told Peter Odemwingie to make his now notorious trip south from the west midlands to Loftus Road on Thursday night.


text:
From iRedMail
Revision as of 06:28, 7 May 2013 by ZhangHuangbin (Talk | contribs)
This tutorial describes how to upgrade iRedAPD to the latest stable release, iRedAPD-1.4.0. It's applicable on all Linux/BSD distributions supported by iRedMail.
Important notes:
- Since iRedAPD-1.4.0, we use Python source file as config file, not '.ini' format anymore.
- We don't need second instance, iredapd-rr, anymore.
- Download the latest stable release here: http://iredmail.org/yum/misc/ For example, iRedAPD-1.4.0.tar.bz2.
- Upload it to your iRedMail server. Assume it's /root/iRedAPD-1.4.0.tar.bz2 on the server.
- Extract downloaded package and move to /opt/.
# tar xjf /root/iRedAPD-1.4.0.tar.bz2 -C /opt/
You get a new directory: /opt/iRedAPD-1.4.0/.
- Set correct owner and permission:
# chown -R iredapd:iredapd /opt/iRedAPD-1.4.0 # chmod -R 0700 /opt/iRedAPD-1.4.0
- Generate new config file from sample file, and set correct file owner and permission.
# cd /opt/iRedAPD-1.4.0/ # cp settings.py.sample settings.py # chown -R iredapd:iredapd settings.py # chmod -R 0600 settings.py
WARNING: Config file /opt/iredapd/settings.py contains sensitive infomation (username, password), please don't make it world-readable. Permission 0600 is the best.
- Please open /opt/iredapd/settings.py, and sync settings with old iRedAPD config file /opt/iRedAPD-[OLD-VERSION]/etc/iredapd.ini.
- In old version of iRedAPD, all parameters under "[ldap]" section are now new parameters start with ldap_.
- In old version of iRedAPD, all parameters under "[sql]" (or "[mysql]") section are now new parameters start with sql_.
- Remove symbol link of old release:
# rm -i /opt/iredapd # <- Don't not end with '/'.
- Create symbol link to the latest release:
# cd /opt/ # ln -s iRedAPD-1.4.0 iredapd
- Copy new RC script for your server. We have scripts for different Linux/BSD distributions. Please copy the proper one for your server. For example:
- /opt/iredapd/rc_scripts/iredapd.debian: For Debian and Ubuntu.
- /opt/iredapd/rc_scripts/iredapd.freebsd: For FreeBSD. Please copy to /usr/local/etc/rc.d/.
- /opt/iredapd/rc_scripts/iredapd.gentoo: For Gentoo Linux.
- /opt/iredapd/rc_scripts/iredapd.openbsd: For OpenBSD. Please copy to /etc/rc.d/.
- /opt/iredapd/rc_scripts/iredapd.opensuse: For openSUSE.
- /opt/iredapd/rc_scripts/iredapd.rhel: For Red Hat, CentOS, Scientific Linux.
# cp /opt/iredapd/rc_scripts/iredapd.rhel /etc/init.d/iredapd # chmod +x /etc/init.d/iredapd
- Restart iRedAPD service:
# # ---- On Linux ---- # # /etc/init.d/iredapd restart # # ---- On FreeBSD ---- # # /usr/local/etc/rc.d/iredapd restart # # ---- On OpenBSD ---- # # /etc/rc.d/iredapd restart
- If you don't have file /etc/init.d/iredapd-rr on Linux, or /etc/rc.d/iredapd-rr on OpenBSD, or /usr/local/etc/rc.d/iredapd-rr on FreeBSD, it's safe to ignore below steps. But if you have it, please stop service iredapd-rr, then move all enabled plugin names listed in /opt/iRedAPD-[OLD_VERSION]/etc/iredapd-rr.ini to our new config file /opt/iredapd/settings.py, in parameter plugins = .
# /etc/init.d/iredapd-rr stop # rm /etc/init.d/iredapd-rr
Check whether you have check_policy_service inet:127.0.0.1:7778 in Postfix config file /etc/postfix/main.cf (Linux/OpenBSD) or /usr/local/etc/postfix/main.cf, if you have it, please remove check_policy_service inet:127.0.0.1:7778, then restart Postfix service.
That's all.