This is not about the blocking the availability of contraception, it's about not having it as a mandatory part of a healthcare plan.

What I don't get here why should any contraceptive, especially one that provides no protection against STDs be on any healthcare plan at all?

I know the pill has other uses and I don't object those being covered by healthcare, but contraception is a low, predictable and avoidable cost compared to things like heart surgery and chemotherapy, which is where insurance is really needed. It's not like a woman suddenly finds herself being in a long-term monogamous relationship where she must use oral contraception and is suddenly is bankrupted by the cost of the pill. At the very least her husband/boyfriend can keep using condoms, or she could buy a diaphragm, or the couple could practice non-penatrative, oral or anal sex until they've saved up enough money for a month's worth of pills, or any of the myriad other solutions to this problem. Contrast this to traditional healthcare costs where the patient gets an unforseen issue and will regress, become disabled or die unless they are treated at great cost. Healthcare should cover those the things that a normal person could not afford or predict, stuff like contraceptives, and even worse running shoes, sports products and other "free stuff to keep you healthy" that so many plans provide can be anticipated for and are not that expensive for the type of people who can buy healthcare anyway and should be user pays.

Getting back to other contraceptives, condoms are inconvenient, uncomfortable and un-romantic and sexual deprivation is even worse, so I don't see why non-sexually active people and people who use condoms should not have to subsidise this cost for those lucky enough to have regular un-protected sex. Furthermore, if a woman's on the pill, she's less likely to demand a man wears a condom, since she does not have to worry about pregnancy. Now, the most common STDs like gonorrhoea, chlamydia and even syphilis may actually be cheaper to cure than prevent (1 course of antibiotics vs a decade's supply of condoms), but some of the more exotic STDs like Hep-C and HIV are extremely expensive to treat and could cost the insurance provider millions, paid for by other customer's premiums. Now, people are generally stupid enough to risk a 1 in 10,000 chance of catching those two nasty things for a night of passion. But give them a ~30% chance of conceiving a child and they might think enough to go and buy some rubber, which reduces Hep-C/HIV, keeps more folks healthy and makes insurance cheaper for all.

Don't get me wrong, I love the pill. I just still think 1) oral contraception is against the interest of the healthcare system 2) sex with neither condom nor pregnancy is a privilege worth paying for.

ITER is an initiative 45% funded by the EU and 9% funded by the US, that Americans repeatedly complain about sucking away all of America's money, even though it was America's idea to build it in the first place, America gets an equal share of the knowledge gained and America only has to pay one 11th of the cost, despite having the largest economy out of the participants.

...won't fix. Time-Warner and T-Mobil just need to pony up, and then the crony capitalist decision-making will kick in ala Solyndra, GM, CGI and Serco...

OK, assume for a minute he is right.

Then from this, take a further leap into wild and fanciful speculation and assume that:

"Had this not been in place in 2012 and 2013, then another 9/11 would have befallen us".

What can we now infer?

If these systems were not in place in 2012 and 2013, 3,000 people would be dead and 317 million people would be free from government surveillance.

Compare this to US involvement in WWII where 418 thousand Americans died and managed to free France, Scandinavia, the Low Countries, South Korea and some of South East Asia (just over 200 million people all up), with the rest being taken by equally-oppressive Communism and it sounds like incredibly good value for human life.

Microsoft should extend support for XP...but only on a cash-for-patch basis. Sell patches at $5 a pop for XP user's, or a one Year Security Update Subscription for $20.

It's a win-win situation....

This would not be the first time. Earlier this year, the Extremely Vocal Minority had Locus Online take down my April Fools piece.

Original feminists had real complaints. Third Wave/Race Critical Theory/Victimhood Identity Politics feminists seem to believe that they have a right not to be offended.

In the United States, Antisemitism overwhelmingly comes from the political left, both the Occupy Wall Street crowd and the victimhood identity politics left that regard Islamists and Palestinians as protected species.

There are also significant amounts of Antisemitism among liberal black politicians. Indeed, Jesse Jackson seems to have lost no political influence after calling new York City Hymietown.

A square mile, and a square mile with a permanent population of 7000 people at that, a small, third rate town.

The courts and laws are still the Queen's, so they can't simply seize you and lock you up if they feel like it. Is this a toothless dictatorship or what?

If you cannot stand their silly "city", don't move there or invest there.

...the word "jobs" typoed "orcs."

So, Microsoft finally does something no geek could object to and the FSF's response is "even if this looks like a good thing, this can't be a good thing because it's proprietary". It just makes me wonder why they bother making a statement; it's proprietary, it always is and it always has been.