Good letter.
Be prepared for a thrashing from the "I'm a capitalist BUT" crowd.

I can't wait for JDR to jump in on this one. IMO if the CEO is contributing to the profitability of a company, he/she deserves to be well rewarded.

The critics focus on abuses only, such as former Home Depot CEO Nardelli, rather than the thousands of CEOs who actually produce.

http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/home-depot-chief-nardelli-resigns/story.aspx?guid=%7B66FE1A6C-9057-4A4E-9200-E6BC2BCACA66%7D

$210 in severance for a non performing CEO. That's where the system breaks down.

$210 million that is.

well let's see, Dan .. in the past 30 years, and all from memory so don't pounce on the details.

High School drops out rates up from 5% to 30% nationally, meanwhile they number of kids over 18 still living at home has dramatically increased. I say these two are directly related to the disappearing manufacturing base.

CEO pay up from about 40X average worker to 440X average, meanwhile Federal Debt from .5 trillion to 8.5 trillion.

but the one that has me most concerned:

Manfacturing Base down significantly - btw, that's the REAL "core of the American economy", unlike the vague "industry" referenced by the LTE writer.

Sorry - CEO pay is rape and plunder, because most CEO performance is focused on raising the stock value of the corporation - typically though buying another company or lowering costs by offshoring jobs. Both are non-value adding to America. Very rarely is "innovation" part of the equation and frankly that is "where it's at" .. or at least where it needs to be.

Go raise your flag.

ps. define "well rewarded". I do not disagree .. but at what point is enough enough?

“…why (are) athletes and actors… paid the kind of money as CEOs of industries that provide actual goods and services in the society, given the irrelevant and unnecessary nature of their ‘jobs’ to the well-being of the nation.”

High praise indeed when you look at some of the people who provides these services (Enron, KBR, etc.) and who are willing to do anything legal or illegal to enhance the bottom line and increase their own salaries. The LTE also argues that athletes and actors (who also answer to CEOs) are irrelevant compared to those who provide “actual goods and services”, which apparently doesn’t include movies or other entertainment. These actual services would include such things as Krispy Kreme doughnuts, McDonald burgers, Playstation, IPods, Max Factor makeup, and the other “relevant and necessary” goods so important to the “well-being of our nation”.

If a CEO is overpaid it is the fault of the board of directors. Like any employee a CEO’s pay will be based on what the company thinks he is initially worth. If he is overpaid it is the fault of the board of directors who answer to the shareholders. Later, he will be rewarded if he performs well and usually fired if he fails (but usually with a golden parachute he contracted for going in). His fate can also be affected by the market if people won’t buy because prices become too expensive, the product can’t compete, etc. The CEO will (or should) rise or fall as the stock rises or falls.

This is no different from athletes and actors. As long as fans buy tickets and people go to movies and games, owners make profits, and TV deals remain profitable, the high salaries will be paid. If people stop going to games and movies due to the cost or if TV can no longer make money from broadcasting rights, it will be reflected in the salaries. Michael Jordan was so valuable because he put butts in seats and sold millions of tennis shoes. People will go to Julia Roberts movies simply because she’s in it.

There is no real difference between how CEOs, athletes and actors are paid relative to their worth. If they cause the enterprise to be profitable they are worth the money to those that pay them. Neither have high minded goals. They are strictly interested in the bottom line.

"Sorry - CEO pay is rape and plunder, because most CEO performance is focused on raising the stock value of the corporation - typically though buying another company or lowering costs by offshoring jobs. Both are non-value adding to America. Very rarely is "innovation" part of the equation and frankly that is "where it's at" .. or at least where it needs to be."

I'm glad somebody said it.

LastVOR:

An old and very-off-color joke:

Did you hear about Helena Rubinstein?
Max Factor.

I have no problem considering the "work" produed by athletes and actors as Relevant and as “actual goods and services”.

I also do not think some folks not going to games or movies will hold back the pay of Michael Jordan or Julia Roberts ... and I do not have a problem with them "holding out" for as much as they can get.

The income laws were originally intended - at least as it was explained to me by a wise and very republican mentor .. to put a soft top on the amount being paid. Indexing the original bottom line - which was $3000 in 1913 - shows that everybody currently making under $50,000 would be exempt from all taxes. The rates started applying then and were 7% for those making over about %10 million (today's money).

To pay for WWI, the top rate quickly rose to 73% for those making $15 million (today's money). Those making over $2,000,000 (today's money) had a rate of 60%.

In 1922, the top rate was lowered to 58%, but it caught everyone making over $2,000,000 (today's money). Bet the folks making over $2,000,000 were sad about that (sarcasm).

By 1924, the top rate was lowered to 25%, catching everyone making over $1,200,000 (today's money). Beginning to see a pattern?

In 1932, the top rate was raised to 63% for those over $13,200,000 (today's money). Now my guess is this is where the rail against tax and spend Democrats began, but tell me how many folks were making $13,200,000 annually? Here's a hint: 25% unemployment, and brother can you spare a dime.

Top rates crept up 30's .. by 1941 it was 81% for those making over $72,000,000 .. but after the War started, the top rate went to 88% then 91% starting with those making $2,300,000 (today's money).

Interestingly - and the point of all this .. is that rate: 91% for those making over $2,300,000 (today's money) ... stayed in effect until 1963 - .. and Holy Moly the economy didn't collapse. Hard for the whiners of today to accept, but true. In 1963, "Jack" lowered it to 70% for those making over $650,000 (today's money) - and it stayed that way until "Ronnie" lowered to 50% for those making over $100,000 (today's money).

fwiw, right before Ronnie's "Tax Equity and Responsibility Act of 1982", those making over $100,000 (today's money) paid about 59%. Again a little savings for all and a BIG boon to those who were in the 70% bracket. Of course Ronnie sold the "... Responsibility Act of 1982" on "Responsibility", the proceeded to raise the federal debt 183%. Thank you Ronnie.

I know my efforts alone will not change things, but I always vote my stock proxies "AGAINST" how the companies suggest shareholders vote on compensation issues. The only place I vote "FOR" is the appointment of the auditors.

The "soft top on the amount being paid" - as it was explained to me by a wise and very republican mentor:

With really high brackets on really high salaries, there is a dis-incentive to pay it. At some point the board says, "Mr. CEO, you're doing a damm fine job, but if we pay you more, most of it goes to the g-men, so we're gonna ask you to be happy with a mere million a month. OK?

Now the CEO makes his choice to stay or go, but with all the other companies having the same limits (set by high upper tax brackets), MAYBE the CEO will stay where he enjoys the work. Imaging that concept.

FWIW,
This LTE is a load of crap! Mr. Coltrane you are no different than our "Idiot-in-Residence" who can't post two sentences without "liberaL" or "left wing agenda" etc. etc.
If you think the Democrats are "anti business" and the GOP is for balanced budgets then you, sir, have not been paying attention.

Wow... I think I just agreed with LC.

Conservatives hate equality, democacy ... and everything America stands for.

"Conservatives hate equality, democacy ... and everything America stands for."

I think you have that confused with Republicans.

More evidence that conservatives hate equality, in addition to hating democacy ... and, in fact hating everything that is good about America -- including the Bill of Rights and every other freedom we possess -- with the exception of the right to bear arms.

I'd be willing to bet this letter writer is a wage earner. More evidence of how well the corporate advertising and public relations machine has done its job over the past 50 years -- warping minds and convincing chumps to be consumers first and citizens last, and vote against their own interests. My sister-in-law, who never worked a day in her life; who inherited a bundle and feels she "deserves" every penny she has because Jesus has "blessed" her, expressed the new empty, soulless America recently. When it was pointed out that her grandchildren would be paying the national debt with slim chance of social security or health care, she cackled, "I've got mine, let them get their's" . It's really true what they say about Republicans. They really do eat their own children! Class warfare? You bet. Bring it on, chumps.

"Conservatives hate equality, democacy ... and everything America stands for."

Welcome Laura, never seen a post from you before, but you sure started with a broad generalization of a varied group of people.

Then you cite one personal example as justification for your broad statement. Hey, everyone is entitled to his/her opinion but methinks you overgeneralize.

How about if I said all Liberals want to kill unborn babies, think the govt. is the solution to all problems, hate the military, worship the environment as a religion, seek a totally secular society devoid of God, and seek perfect economic equality through income redistribution?

I would expect someone to call me on it for the BS that it is. But hey, it may apply to a guy like George Soros.

So how about toning down the hate rhetoric a bit and the generalizations hmmm? If you want to back up your statement with a little more factual evidence other than the anecdote of your selfish sister in law I'd love to see it.

Children are best boiled in cream and served with creamed spinich...

Laura,
As you can see from the two posts after yours, the "moralist" and the "idiot" had to prove your point!

"Hate the military, worship the environment, seek perfect economic equality through income redistribution"...

Pretty much hits the nail on the head from what I've seen of the liberals. What's to 'call'?

And then there's THE LIBERAL CANADIAN playing the part of the monkey while someone else cranks the organ...pitiful.

Neo, go read the marijuana LTE. Demon Deacon morphs pot smoking into abortion and then, in his infinite wisdom, proclaims:

“Dan is ready to tell you how a fetus has the potential to become a human being!”

He also compares unborn humans to acorns.

As Demon Deacon often says.....you can't make this stuff up.

“Dan is ready to tell you how a fetus has the potential to become a human being!”

The WF wonder boy is probably referring to the baby that has an icepick jambed through it's skull, or is facing the vacuum tube of the abortionist, as this would greatly reduce the 'potential' of it to become a human being.

He's fun to play with, but sometimes I feel as if I'm toying someone who is to be pitied, rather than laughed at.

RED FRIDAYS ----- Very soon, you will see a great many people wearing Red every Friday. The reason? Americans who support our troops used to be called the "silent majority". We are no longer silent, andare voicing our love for God, country and home in record breaking numbers. We are not organized, boisterous or over-bearing. We get no liberal media coverage on TV, to reflect our message or our opinions. Many Americans, like you, me and all our friends, simply want to recognize that the vast majority of America supports our troops.

Our idea of showing solidarity and support for our troops with dignity and respect starts this Friday -and continues each and every Friday until the troops all come home, sending a deafening message that.. Every red-blooded American who supports our men and women afar will wear something red. By word of mouth, press, TV -- let's make the United States on every Friday a sea of red much like a homecoming football game in the bleachers.

If every one of us who loves this country will share this with acquaintances, co-workers, friends, and family. It will not be long before the USA is covered in RED and it will let our troops know the once "silent" majority is on their side more than ever; certainly more than the media lets on.

The first thing a soldier says when asked "What can we do to make things
better for you?" is...We need your support and your prayers.

Let's get the word out and lead with class and dignity, by example; and wear something red every Friday.

IF YOU AGREE -- THEN SEND THIS ON.
IF YOU COULD CARE LESS THEN HIT THE DELETE BUTTON --- IT IS YOUR CHOICE.
WE LIVE IN THE LAND OF THE FREE, ONLY BECAUSE OF THE BRAVE.
THEIR BLOOD RUNS RED---- SO WEAR RED! --- MAY GOD HELP AMERICA TO BECOME ONE NATION, UNDER GOD.

HAVE A GREAT DAY

"He's fun to play with, but sometimes I feel as if I'm toying someone who is to be pitied, rather than laughed at."

Agreed, he is pathetic, but you have to read the comparison of unborn humans to acorns, it's hilarious:

"I would say, that a potential person is not an actual person. If A has the potential to become B, then it follows that A is not B. An acorn is not an oak tree." Demon Deacon.

Like I said, I try to prove him wrong only weekly, to do more would be unjust. However I did it twice this week, couldn't help myself.

Demon Deacon, in his infinite wisdom, proclaimed that the "conservative" Supreme Court ruled in Kelo vs New London, in that private property owners could have their land confiscated by developers to build more valuable property. Damn those conservative justices!!!

I proved with a roll call that the more liberal justices are the ones who ruled for Kelo, while the more "conservative" justices, Rehnquist, Thomas, Scalia and even O'Connor ruled against Kelo.

What does Demon Deacon do in response? He switches to the CURRENT Supreme Court in it's decision on partial birth abortion!!

I'm still trying to figure out what land rights have to do with partial birth abortion.

This quote is still priceless:

“Dan is ready to tell you how a fetus has the potential to become a human being!”

Dan,
This letter is one that concerns things quite foreign to you. But I see you can't help yourself and you HAD to post. And because you got your ass handed to you on another thread, you had to come crying "BOO HOO" to neocon for some help.
Do you see how sad you appear? Your narcissism is incredible. You are totally impervious to insult, or too dense to know that you don't know. How do I know this? Because you immediately post AGAIN, as if to mimmick Fredo from Godfather II, saying "I'm smahhrt! I'm smahhrt! Not like everyone says!"

***************************************
Grownups:

As to CEO compensation, responsible companies should require that the Executive Team not be paid more than
X times the lowest paid employee. If you want to see a company whose stock would be much, much higher than it currently is, then look no further than RF Micro. The executive compensation, with stock options, and bonuses paid out have diluted the stock price egregiously if not criminally! Krispy Kreme is another example of corporate rape of the stockholders by management. What did they do? They fired the CEO, then put him on as a consultant for $47,000/month!
It's the "Good old white boys" network that hides behind mom, apple pie, and gets away with it!
The last Republican that ever understood that was Teddy Roosevelt! Last Democrat that ever understood that was Kennedy.
(As to the chatter above, sorry to have to waste time with bottom dwellers, but this blog attracts some real doozies!)

Laura,
As you can see from the two posts after yours, the "moralist" and the "idiot" had to prove your point!

Posted by THE LIBERAL CONSERVATIVE [TypeKey Profile Page] | June 15, 2007 7:16 PM

A very sage post by the same Demon Deacon in another thread:

“Dan is ready to tell you how a fetus has the potential to become a human being!”

Whoooooo, that is profound.

Anyone who can't realize a fetus has the potential to become a human being is going to lecture us on world finances?

For the uninitiated, let's bring back Swanks.

TLC (Demon Deacon),
Once, in a blue moon, you actually raise a cognizant thought and make me think that your drivel is worth slightly more than the excrement on the bottom of my shoe.
Then, however, you go and make a series of posts that make me somewhat angry at myself for being lulled into a sense that you may be taken seriously someday.
Your partisan tripe is what is laughable. Is it such a foreign concept to you that other people's lives revolve around more than just what political party they are? Have you ever given any thought to the concept that another person is just as entitled to their ideas as you are? Is it completely impossible for you to engage in any semblance of a sane and rational conversation for longer than a single post?
Have you ever wondered why you are one of the few posters that seems to be ignored on a regular basis, except for the posts, like this one, that are in direct opposition to you?
DD, I have no idea who you are, nor do I can to know. But one thing that I do know about you, and I know it as well as I know my own name, is that the DD in person is far from the DD you portray yourself as on these blogs.
Here, you are able to insult, annoy and act like a general buffoon without regard to anything. In person, you would never speak to anyone like you do here. You are but a sad little man who must retreat into the cyber world in order to be the bully, as you are unable to stick up for yourself in the real world. Alligator's mouth and a hummingbird's ass.
I especially find it ironic that you mention this is the greatest country in the world after you had previously, proudly announced how you cowardly sewed Canadian flags on your AND YOUR FAMILY'S luggage when traveling abroad. If you really thought this country where so great, then you would have no reason to be ashamed of it, other than a fear of what other people may think about you.
So go ahead, little man, sit there and stew about the comeback you want to make against me. I know that you will have a hard time formulating something new and not bastardizing someone else's ideas (JDR's "little kitty and your own moniker as examples). To keep it simple, stick to your old standard comebacks which include, but are not limited to:
1) ask me about my name
2) tell me I come from the shallow end of the gene pool
3) ask about the wheels on my trailer home
4) call me a rabid partisan (such delicious irony makes this one my personal favorite)
5) tell me to watch more than just Sean Hannity and listen to more than Rush

By this point, despite myself, I am starting to feel more than a little pity for you. So go ahead and craft your comeback. Say what you want about me and I will not respond to it. Call me anything you want and I will not respond to you on this issue, at this time.
Instead, I will let all the other posters read each of our posts and they can make their own judgments about us.
I am not afraid of peer review, DD. Are you?
Posted by swanks | May 12, 2007 11:21 AM

How about that eeeeeevvvvviiiill "conservative" court that ruled in favor of Kelo? Can you tell us about that Demon Deacon?

Facts got you tied by the tongue?

Dan:

Are you talking about the decision to 2005(?) decision to allow the private home owner property be condemed so private commercial developers could created a bigger tax base for the city?

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=04-108

Maybe there's another "Kelo" ??

Yes JDR, Kelo v New London. Demon Deacon blamed a "conservative" Supreme Court for that decision when the fact is the more conservative members of the court ruled against it.

Thanks

I wonder where this LTTE writer has been for the past 25-30 years. He certainly could NOT have been in the USA.

TLC, the proposal in your 11:20 PM post regarding compensation sounds good in principle.

Shalom

Darryl,
I'm glad you read my post to the "grownups". Poor little Danny resorts to his "archives" or Canadian flags when he has no abilities to write about the issues posed to him. He's STILL dodging the issue because he just can't understand it.

Danny,
Here it is again for you...really slow, now:

"Is the acorn a tree or does it just have the potential to BE a tree?

Is the fetus a human being or does it just have the POTENTIAL to be a human?"

Guess he couldn't get any Priest Websites to help him with that one! LOL!

C'mon Danny try to answer the question you've kept dodging.

Dan,
Once again we note what a narcissist you are because you immediately post AGAIN, as if to mimmick Fredo from Godfather II, saying "I'm smahhrt! I'm smahhrt! Not like everyone says!"

That's odd... I didn't think "grownups" went around name-calling. Debate and argumentation are usually the tools of "grownups."

I still find it amusing that blanketing all Conservatives (Republican or not) as "haters of equality" and "haters of democacy" (Democracy perhaps?) is supposed to be a valid argument. As I recall GW Bush made similar statements about those who opposed his new war. Perhaps you could enlighten me as to why I personally, "hate equality and democacy?" (I'm still going to go with Democracy here)

I see nothing but moral posturing, name-calling, and hate-speech coming from both Laura and LC. If you could give me a solid reason other than calling me a "narcissist," portraying me as a moron, insulting your own family members, or similar behavior; such as you two have done with other members of this forum I would love to hear it.

Just because I tend to favor traditional views and values, prefer to avoid excess government spending, and tend to prefer the conventional does not mean I can't change my mind based on new information. It doesn't mean I "hate equality and democacy."

What it does mean is that with regard to some political issues, Liberals and I will disagree on occasion. But you know... that's OK. Different ideas bring about necessary change. Slavery was strongly opposed by Radical Republicans, they made their voices heard. Changes were made. Democrats helped ensure that women would have the right to vote.

I'm glad that we can have disagreement in this country. What I oppose is the labeling, name-calling, and dehumanization of folks when they do disagree.

Bishop,
I have no problem with your brand of conservatism--trouble is, it does not exist today.

Gleaned from an article about Ron Paul:

"I tell you I've never raised money as efficiently as that, in all my years in Congress, and all I'm doing is speaking my mind."

That means saying again and again that the Republican Party, especially when it comes to government spending and foreign policy, is in "shambles."

---
Alan Simpson, Barry Goldwater, Nelson Rockefeller, and many others fought to keep the government out of our lives--they have my admiration and respect. Today's GOP has gathered a strange coalition of folks wanting to place government in the middle of our lives. I'm not talking social programs to help uplift a nation, but everything from wiretaps to gag rules on doctors.

No Bishop, you, or anyone else who posts here (except Neocon) is not like Dan. One minute he's for decriminalizing marijuana and the next minute he's arguing that the government should step right in and tell a man and a woman what they can and can't do--just an extension of his Catholicism which still holds women as second class citizens.
No, Bishop. My words were not aimed at you, but rather that hypocritical narcissist.
Note: He can't let this pass. He's so enamored with himself that he HAS to post.
Like Fredo, he has to utter "I'm smahhrt! I'm smahhrt! Not like everyone says. I'm smahhrt!"

Bishop: "That's odd... I didn't think "grownups" went around name-calling."

Agreed Bishop. Read on:

No, Bishop. My words were not aimed at you, but rather that hypocritical narcissist. (that's me)
THE LIBERAL CONSERVATIVE June 16, 2007 6:35 PM
****************************************

Once again we note what a narcissist you are because you immediately post AGAIN, as if to mimmick Fredo from Godfather II, saying "I'm smahhrt! I'm smahhrt! Not like everyone says!"

THE LIBERAL CONSERVATIVE June 16, 2007 11:19 AM

***************************************

You are totally impervious to insult, or too dense to know that you don't know.

THE LIBERAL CONSERVATIVE June 15, 2007 11:20 PM

*****************************************
(Joke for Today: Heard Dan's Priest goes both ways---men and small boys!)

THE LIBERAL CONSERVATIVE June 16, 2007 6:18 PM

****************************************
Guess you just don't have the gray matter to answer.
It's okay Dan. The world needs all kinds of people.

THE LIBERAL CONSERVATIVE June 16, 2007 11:02 AM

*************************************

Sorry Dan, but to quote your hero, "I've taken you apart with half my brain tied behind my back"!! LOL

THE LIBERAL CONSERVATIVE June 15, 2007 10:53 PM

(Note: the "hero" is Rush Limbaugh, however the correct Rush term is "Half my brain tied behind my back just to make it fair".

****************************************

Bishop: "That's odd... I didn't think "grownups" went around name-calling."

These quotes are only from the last TWO days. In fact, they are relatively tame as compared to many others. Facts are facts.

Here is the best one however:

"Oh, and don't come after my patriotism Dan, you little tin horn flag waver. I have a right to disagree just as much as you have a right to stick your nose up George Bush's ass!"
Posted by: DemonDeacon at June 12, 2006 05:34 PM

One time he was chastised by Yvonne and tried to mend his ways:

"Thanks Yvonne.
I will watch my own words more carefully, as I have entered the gutteral areas heretofore held firmly by the right wing."
Posted by: DemonDeacon at June 26, 2006 01:31 PM

That lasted maybe 12 hours but as you can see......

Bishop, enjoy the kind words while they last. Once you cross Demon Deacon (his previous name on the blog) you too will be the target of such "grown up" language.

Poor little Danny. He never got much attention from his Mommy, so now he KEEPS ARCHIVES to show those bullies who picked on him!

With every post, Dan screams out,

"I'm Smahhrt! I'm smahhrt! Not like everyone says! I'm smahhrt!

Laugh OUT LOUD!

Did the Priest(s) tell you to keep an archive? You'd better do what the Priest told you to do, or you're going to hell!
You are one narcissistic little man.

"Bishop: "That's odd... I didn't think "grownups" went around name-calling."

**************************************

Did the Priest(s) tell you to keep an archive? You'd better do what the Priest told you to do, or you're going to hell!
You are one narcissistic little man.

Posted by THE LIBERAL CONSERVATIVE June 17, 2007 3:02 PM

Yet one more.

Well, you just as much as admitted you have no answer to my question. You're an inch deep and a mile wide, little Danny.

Slower for you, now:

"Is the acorn a tree or does it just have the potential to BE a tree?

Is the fetus a human being or does it just have the POTENTIAL to be a human?"

Gosh, I can't make it any simpler for you, Danny.

I'll copy my answer from the Marijuana LTE Demon Deacon. Note: Abortion has NOTHING to do with CEO pay or legalizing marijuana. I don't get this obsession with abortion. You brought it up as well in an LTE about landowners rights.

Please try to stay on topic or submit an LTE about abortion so we can discuss the appropriate topic of the LTE for a change.

"You miss the point. An acorn is an acorn. I can leave an acorn on my desk and it will continue to be an acorn in perpetuity. An unborn child continues to grow each and every day unless the abortionist intervenes. A heartbeat starts at five weeks, right around the time a woman may realize she is pregnant.

First of all your comparison of a plant seed to an unborn child isn't biologically correct as described above, yet it reveals your callousness in comparing a human being to a plant seed."

There is the answer to your question. I could say you are comparing apples to oranges, but that is incorrect as at least they are both fruits. An acorn and an unborn child are two entirely different entities.

Danny says,
"First of all your comparison of a plant seed to an unborn child isn't biologically correct as described above, yet it reveals your callousness in comparing a human being to a plant seed."

THE Liberal Conservative points out,

"Some abortion opponents may then try to claim that the murder is cold-blooded, that the malice involved is really a callous, unfeeling disregard for human life. But, any woman who has gone through an abortion will tell you that it just isn't so. They are fully aware of what they are doing and the moral implications of it. All would prefer not to go through the abortion, and feel sorrow and regret for having to do so. But they ultimately decide that the abortion is for the best, that they are not ready for the even greater moral responsibility of bringing a child into the world. Christian conservatives may question the wisdom of such a choice, but they can hardly question the emotions behind it."

Bottom line:
It is about "birth" not about life. The Catholic Church seeks and has always sought, "CONTROL" as it is the source of their power. Rational people would ask, "If you are against abortion, then surely you'd have no problem with birth control?"
But, no! The Catholic Church and the "Pro Birth" shills are even against birth control AND Plan B contraception!!
It is all about control of people, especially women.

Nice cut and paste, is that from NARAL? I'd like to see the proof that every woman is aware of the moral implications of abortion. Please cite facts to prove this.

The Catholic Church isn't the only entity opposed to abortion, so don't make it out to be a Catholic agenda.

To make you feel better, I don't agree with the Church on the issue of contraception.

Note of interest, no woman is forced to join the Catholic Church. True or false?

I always laugh when you shoot blanks at the Catholic Church regarding control of women, yet Islam always seems to get a pass in your book.

Tell me Demon Deacon, are women more free under Islam or Catholicism? Speak my mind please.

Danny boy, point me to the many muslims in Greensboro, that you must feel are "worse" than the Catholics. Where are these hordes of folks? St. Pius? St. Benedicts? OLG?.....

Yes, once again you try to deflect from the real issue---build your strawman little Danny boy....

Here's my empirical backup:

One of the most faulty arguments against abortion is that it causes severe depression and trauma to the mother. Abortion opponents even claim that women may even suffer Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder -- five, ten or even twenty years later. Pamphlets handed out by pro-life protesters at abortion clinics usually start out with lines like "You're hurting."

The experiences of these women are not to be trivialized; most struggle with the decision to have an abortion, and most feel sorrow and regret. But the statistics overwhelmingly refute the claim that these women go on to suffer severe trauma. The predominant response to abortion is relief. This is confirmed by dozens of studies that have researched women's reactions to abortions (for example, Adler, 1975; Burnell, Dworsky, and Harrington, 1972; Lazarus, 1985; Payne, Kravitz, Notman, and Anderson, 1976; and Smith, 1973.) (1)

In one famous study, 90% of the women surveyed said their abortion was the right thing to do. (2)

C. Everett Koop, the Surgeon General under Ronald Reagan, conducted a study that tried to learn everything it could on abortion and concluded that the number of women who suffered from post-abortion trauma was minuscule. (3)

Apparently, a small percentage of women who are hurting in their ordinary lives decide to have abortions, and link any later trauma to this experience, but it is clear that abortion is not the primary source of their problems. As noted psychiatrist Nada Stotland observed, "There is not one piece of evidence for such a syndrome." (4)

Footnotes:
1. Patricia Lunneborg, Abortion: A Positive Decision (New York: Bergin & Garvey, 1992), p. 92, citing Adler, Nancy E., "Emotional Responses of Women Following Therapeutic Abortion," American Journal of Orthopsychiatry 45, 1975, 446-454; Burnell, George M., Dworksy, William A., Harrington, Robert L., "Post Abortion Group Therapy," American Journal of Psychiatry 129, 1972, 134-137; Lazarus, Arthur, "Psychiatric Sequelae of Legalized Elective First Trimester Abortion," Journal of Psychosomatic Obstetrics and Gynaecology 4, 1985, 141-150; Payne, Edmund C., Kravitz, Arthur R., Notman, Malkah T., Anderson, Jane V., "Outcome Following Therapeutic Abortion," Archives of General Psychiatry 33, 1976, 725-733; Smith, Elizabeth M., "A Follow-up Study of Women Who Request Abortion," American Journal of Orthopsychiatry 43, 1973, 574-585.

2. Henshaw, Stanley K., Martire, Greg, "Abortion and the Public Opinion Polls: Women Who Have Had Abortions," Family Planning Perspectives 14, 1982, 60-62.

3. "More on Koop's Study of Abortion," Family Planning Perspectives 22, 1990, 36-39.

4. "Abortion Refusals Seen as Traumatic," Seattle Times, May 4, 1991, p. A5.
**************

So Danny, there you have it. Your experts on female health--Catholic Priests, or my citing of legitimate third party sources? Sorry Dan, but...you lose, again.