Several years ago, I had a living will done up. If the worst should happen, I’m never going to have to concern myself that politicians, like leeches, will attach themselves to my case the way they have with poor Terri Schiavo. Screaming hypocrites who consider all life sacred–unless, of course, we’re bombing it into oblivion or consigning it to death row for execution.
Yes, friends, the US government–the one that the GOP claims they want to keep out of people’s lives–just loves mixing into people’s deaths, setting the calendar on life termination and making sure that no one, absolutely no one, dies before the government is ready to send them to their deaths personally.
I strongly suggest to any and all reading this that you decide one way or the other while you still can. If you want to insist your family takes whatever measures possible to continue your life, even if medical science says it’s hopeless, then make that clear in writing. If, like me, you don’t want to burden your family and force them to watch you lie there like a slab of meat, consigning you all to a sort of twilight zone holding pattern for year after year after year, then make that clear as well.
Don’t leave it in the hands of politicians, lawyers, judges, and, God forbid, a Bush.
PAD
• 
Casey was restricted from speaking at the convention, but it wasn’t because of his pro-life position per se as it was the fact that he wanted to use the forum to protest the party’s position. For better or for worse, convention speeches are not the place to air the party’s dirty laundry. Party members are expected to show unity in their support for the platform and their candidate. It was a scuzzy thing to do to him, but that’s politics.
It’s interesting to note, though, that Casey’s son, Bob Casey Jr. is now seen as the Democrat’s big hope to unseat Rick “So what if my kids don’t actually live in Pennsylvania, fork over the taxpayers’ money” Santorum.
And in fairness it should be noted that Bob Casey Sr WAS allowed a place at a later convention, in the form of a filmed tribute.
It’s regrettable that honest and informed disagreement on an issue that has closely divided the population can be accurately described as dirty laundry. And I’ll note that there have been Republican speakers at their conventions who have defended their pro choice and pro affirmative action positions, without being ridden out of town on a rail.
Tim, I apologize for just tossing out Elizabeth Morgan as though that was a case that everyone would automatically know about. One of my many failings is the tendency to forget that my advancing age and lifelong interest in semi useless trivia is not shared by the world at large. She was a doctor, divorced from another doctor who she said was molesting their daughter. When the court did not believe the charges she smuggled her daughter to New Zealand or someplace and was placed in jail on contempt charges.
It became a cause celebre and, despite the fact that she has crazy eyes she got a number of politicians to help draft the Elizabeth Morgan law which pretty much overturned all the previous court findings and let her get away with it.
I followed the case because it was on eof those where I just wasn’t sure who root for. Dr Morgan had, as mentioned, crazy eyes and just an air of cold blooded creepiness and turned me off…but her ex-husband sent off major creep vibes as well. The law was eventually overruled, the daughter has now grown up to be, judging from the one interview I have read, a very biter unhappy woman. She does support her mother’s version of events but I guess we’ll never know.
Anyway, there is an old saw about “hard cases make bad laws”. Truer words were never spoken.
On the abortion issue…how are Democrats going to begin to win if they try to purge their ranks of however many remaining pro-lifers they have left? This is not a party that can afford to lose too many more constituants. I know that PAD and others have said that 3/4 of the country is pro-choice…I’m not sure if that is accurate, if the gallup polls I have here are true. And it seems like the situation is getting worse, since young people are even less pro choice than older ones.
I’m no fan of the current democratic party but if it self destructs we are in for a bad time. Ditto the Republicans.
Tim, I apologize for just tossing out Elizabeth Morgan as though that was a case that everyone would automatically know about.
No apologies needed — it’s reasonable to expect people to do their own research some of the time, after all. (I do appreciate the extra info, though.)
Anyway, there is an old saw about “hard cases make bad laws”. Truer words were never spoken.
Agreed wholeheartedly.
On the abortion issue…how are Democrats going to begin to win if they try to purge their ranks of however many remaining pro-lifers they have left?
By speaking out strongly and cogently against the fallacy that “pro-choice” equals “pro-abortion”. Clinton was and is pro-choice, but got a very long way by frequently referring to his desire that abortion be “safe, legal, and rare.”
If Democrats can say “look, we want to do all we can to minimize the conditions that make women feel as if abortion is their only option, but we cannot and will not say that we know her fate and her situation better than she and her doctor do,” they can win in landslides, especially when there’s somebody like Tom Coburn in the other corner making an ášš of himself.
The problem with the Democratic party is not that their ideals are wrong — it’s that most of the leadership is a bunch of cowards who aren’t willing to explain clearly and forcefully why they believe what they do.
(That, BTW, is exactly why I think Dean taking over as head of the DNC is a good thing. I know you believe otherwise, but the word “meek” is not a word I associate with Dr. Dean at all. And hey, as a physician he can even position himself as the anti-Frist. I like this.)
If the American public really is too dense to grasp the distinction between pro-choice and pro-abortion when it’s explained clearly … well, then, we’re all pretty much screwed anyway, because that will bespeak equal density on a number of other issues as well.
I was going to save this for another thread, but since you’ve sort of provided a context for it, I’ve been meaning to ask: why DO you self-identify as a Republican? You’ve said you don’t like the current leadership’s stance on deficit spending, you’re clearly against their position on gay marriage, and I can think of several other issues where your position does not exactly link up well with that of most prominent Republicans. So where’s the appeal?
This isn’t an attack, and I’m not trying to peel you away (though I’d be lying if I said I wouldn’t mind that). I’m just curious about where that allegiance (too strong a word, but best I can come up with for now) comes from.
TWL
“The problem with the Democratic party is not that their ideals are wrong — it’s that most of the leadership is a bunch of cowards who aren’t willing to explain clearly and forcefully why they believe what they do.
(That, BTW, is exactly why I think Dean taking over as head of the DNC is a good thing. I know you believe otherwise, but the word “meek” is not a word I associate with Dr. Dean at all. And hey, as a physician he can even position himself as the anti-Frist. I like this.)”
Tim,I couldnt AGREE with you more.The problem I have is too many Dems seem timid and wishwashy to not offend the middle ground voter.I go with Bill Maher who said (paraphrasing)”they either get your message or they dont,but have a message to give”
While I dont like a lot of what the Republicans say they at least have conviction about it.This doesnt mean they are right it just means they believe what they are selling (or at least sound like it).
My only concerns with Mr Dean is that he is still perceived by some as the screaming guy from the election.Hopefully he will stay thinking ouside the box and clearly define the goals of the democratic party and sell them to the voters
Deano 8)
Tim,
A reasonable question. My answer is simply that on the Big Issue I think that the Democrat Party has, by and large, yet to prove itself worth the risk of giving them a crack at leadership. I think–andthere are times when I optimistically think that I may be wrong about this–that we are at a major crossroads in civilization, a point at which the world may either begin an ascent into a technological rebirth the likes of which can only be compared to either the industrial age or the discovery of agriculture. Basically, the Golden Age of our pulp fiction dreams.
Or, conversely, a step backward of a few hundred years.
It could happen through natural means. 4 billion years or so of life and it was only in the last few hundred thousand years that anything with intelligence evolved. I suspect it was because of a very finite window of opportunity, a brief pause in the up to now endless cycle of natural disasters that tend to hit the reset button on the whole game of life. I don’t know what it was that brought the precambrian party to its knees but I know it’ll be back.
What little chance we may have to avoid extinction will come from our technological innovations and I see the republicans, or at least conservatives as much more positive toward industry and innovation. There are obvious exceptions to this generalization. Stem cells spring to mind. The sort of thing I’m thinking here is that, to hear many Democrats talk, there are few industries more evil and insidious than the pharmaceutical industry. Blood sucking parasites, living off the misery of others. Since I owe my life or at the very least my designation as a biped to the invention of Vancomycin (Long story. It involves my cat.) and I owe much the enjoyment of that ife to the inventors of computers and stuff like chocolate redi-whip (seriously–it’s chocolate whipped cream…,i>in a can!) I just have a much more pro business attitude than is often present among some liberal activists.
And as far as foreign policy goes, phew, I’m so far away from what the Democrat party is and where it will be going if you have yopur way that there is just no chance of reapproachment, as far as I can see. Maybe if Hillary gets elected. At the risk of giving my fellow conservatives an aneurism, I have a feeling that she may end up being exactly the kind of unilateralistic ball buster the world needs. They may name nuclear subs after her. Imagine Hillary is in office, first woman president, and the North Koreans start sneering about how they will rain fire down upon us if we fûçk with them. Boom! Thermic mist. She might even invade Vietnam–what the hëll would anyone do about it?
I mean, to give you an idea of how neo THIS neoconservative is, I’d have done Iraq as scheduled only I would have A-bribed as many turk politicians as needed to get the north corridor cleared, B- paved over Falluja the first time, and C- flooded the real pain inthe ášš cities in the Sunni triangle with my newly formed crack Kurd army. My Sudan policy would be to keep assasinating the leaders until we got one who was not in favor of genocide. I’d announce to the world that 50 years of freedom is enough to establish the fact that Taiwan is its own country, as we all know it is, and the Chinese should just learn to deal with it. They’ll get over it, the benefits of taking over what would be nothing more than a bombed out husk would be outweighed by the loss of a few hundred million jobs if we suddenly stopped buying their stuff.
So George Bush is way too meek for me. We’re getting to that point where even pissant countries have nukes and we need to come up with some guidelines, unfair as it may be–I’d like to see the USA, Russia, China, England, Israel, India and a few of the other nuclear powers just announce Hey, that’s it. Clubhouse is closed. And when someone tests their resolve, as someone will…we hope that it’s a country few will miss. I think that the lesson is one that will not have to be repeated.
All of which is terribly unfair and hey, who made us king and how would we like it if a big giant came and yadda yadda yadda. I’ve got 40 maybe 50 years left in me, with a bit of luck. My children, bless them, may live to see the Golden Age, my grandkids almost certainly will. For now, it is my conviction that the people following the conservative line, which pretty much means the Republican Party, are more likely to get us there. When that changes, if it does, I’ll change my affiliation at the drop of a hat.
And my darling daugter is now kicking me off the computer so she can IM her boyfriend. So excuse the spelling errors.
On the abortion issue…how are Democrats going to begin to win if they try to purge their ranks of however many remaining pro-lifers they have left?
That may be a problem for them, but I think they’re waking up to that fact. And I point to the tremendous political support being put behind Bob Casey Jr (whose views on abortion mirror his fathers) as proof.
On the other, the Republicans are also engagin in, if not a purge, then at least a freeze out of all remaining pro-choice members.
The GOP internal memo stating backing this cause would be great for votes in the base displayed what quite a few of these “fine men with noble hearts erring on the side of life” are really looking at here.
Something not widely discussing the in the mainstream media is that the “GOP internal memo” is possibly bogus. It was not on Congressional/Senate letterhead, it was not distributed except to ABC News, it was not signed and is sloppily researched by whoever wrote it. Though it hasn’t been fully discredited as a Republican memo, neither has it been shown to be one.
(http://powerlineblog.com/archives/2005_03.php#009940)
I seem to remember reading a couple of days ago that a few Senate Democrats are even beginning to doubt it and ask for investigations.
Am I the only one amused by the sheer hypocrisy by both major parties?
The Republicans, the “smaller government” party, the party that is all about state rights, now wants the federal government to step in and “correct” the state’s mistakes. And they have done this by giving the federal government even MORE power!
Meanwhile, the Democrats, who are all about the government regulating every facet of our lives, from cradle to grave, suddenly want the states to decide this one thing. (At least they’re consistent in wanting to control the fate of this individual’s life, regardless of what her wishes may or may not be.)
No wonder I hate both major parties.
I think Dean taking over as head of the DNC is a good thing.
I agree. Dean taking over the head of the DNC is a good thing …
For the Republicans.
If the Democrats have any hope of regaining control of Congress in 2006, or even the White House in 2008, they need shun the fringe, lunatic, “Michael Moore” part of their base. Dean is practically the de facto leader of that group.
You will note how Hillary Clinton is slowly moving towards the center as she positions herself for the inevitable run to the 2008 presidential nominationship?
Something not widely discussing the in the mainstream media is that the “GOP internal memo” is possibly bogus.
You know, it’s funny how I always learn about items that aren’t “widely discussed in the mainstream media” by watching the mainstream media.
If the Democrats have any hope of regaining control of Congress in 2006, or even the White House in 2008, they need shun the fringe, lunatic, “Michael Moore” part of their base. Dean is practically the de facto leader of that group.
Not really. While Dean got stuck with that lunatic fringe label, the truth is that he’s actually a very moderate Democrat compared to Moore.
Most hurtful thing to Dean’s bid for the White House? Looping his “war cry” over and over. No one wants a lunatic as President. Which is not to say that, occasionally, one ends up there anyway.
Den,
“On the other hand, the Republicans also engage in, if not a purge, then at least a freeze-out of all remaining pro-choice members”
Which is why Rudy Guliani and Arnold Schwarzenegger were both given maximum exposure at last year’s convention, why the former is a leading GOP candidate for his party’s nomination and why the latter has started a debate withing the party, not merely about his positions, but whether the Constitution should be changed to allow him to run
Deano,
“My only concerns with Mr. Dean is that he is still perceived by some as the screaming guy from the election.”
Whereas my concerns would be that he seems to grate on people even those inclined to support him, through sheer arrogance and nastiness. The people of Iowa had two years to get to know him. At first, they were excited, then that quickly wore off once they got to know him and he lost. Michael Moore was ready to support him, but put his checkbook away because he felt “this guy is kind of a prìçk.” And the one of the few times he was actually challenged during the debates, by Sharpton about minority hiring in his Vt. Cabinet,he was left grasping for words.
“they either get your message or they don’t, but they have a message to give. This doesn’t mean they are right it just means they believe what they are selling (or at least sound like it).”
Yes, they do. Finally. For 40 years, in the aftermath of the New Deal and World War II and through the Cold War, and even Republican presidencies, Congress remained in Democratic hands. Many felt they were doomed to minority status in perpetuity (sound familiar?). The best that could be done, many felt, was elect a Republican president to keep them in somehat restrained.
How did they do this? While Republicans talked numbers on an issue like Social Security or Nedicare, the Democratic Congressional candidate would make an ad that went something like this, “Here’s 86, year-old Mrs. Jones. A great-grandmother of 16, she depends on her Medicare benefit. My opponent wants to take that away.”
The Democrats were great at such images.
The Republicans truly learned the game in 1994, by personalizing the health care debate, and swept in. They have continued to do so and show no sign of losing their edge. Which means Democrats have to put some ideas of their ow on the table, something they have not done successfully.
Dean is practically the de facto leader of that group.
I fail to see how Dean is ‘fringe’. The looping of his “war cry” should alone show how the media isn’t liberally biased (why hurt your own candidates?).
If being on the ‘fringe’ means you’re not a Democrat in Republican’s clothing, then I’ll take Dean any day of the week.
Bill,
“I’m no fan of the current Democratic party but if it self-destructs we are in for a bad time. Ditto the Republicans.”
No. See, I don’t think these are the two parties we are “stuck with” for perpetuity Neither party is entitled to exist. If they slowly lose potency or support, then a party with ideas they are willing to stand up for like the Libertarians or the Greens or one we do not know yet will step in and fill the vacuum.The libertarians have been gaining strength for years, which is a sign the country is definitely tilting “Right”. But they would also be a place for those who are fiscally conservative, yet consider themselves pro-abortion rights and anti-drug war – among many ‘liberal’ positions – to go.
Dean has not been bad so far butthe problem is that his job is to sell the Party, not himself. he can get a crowd fired up but can anyone remember the names of the people he came to promote?
He has one thing in his favor–you have to figure that the Democrats will pick up some congressional seats in 2008. I mean, just the law of averages, there comes a point where you can’t lose any more. casey has a good chance in PA and they are running a Kennedy in Rhode Island (ironically, against the most liberal Republican in the senate).
On the abortion issue…how are Democrats going to begin to win if they try to purge their ranks of however many remaining pro-lifers they have left?
That may be a problem for them, but I think they’re waking up to that fact. And I point to the tremendous political support being put behind Bob Casey Jr (whose views on abortion mirror his fathers) as proof.
On the other, the Republicans are also engagin in, if not a purge, then at least a freeze out of all remaining pro-choice members.
On the Democrats you are correct but I was talking about Tim’s ideas–after the election he was talking about what can only be a purge of people like Lieberman who didn’t fit the image of a more aggressively liberal party (I don’t know that Tim still feels that way–emotions were running high at that time).
On the Republicans…hello? Remember the convention? Rudi, Arnold, Condi–it IS possible to be a pro-choice republican and reach high levels (presidency? We’ll see.). The problem with Specter was that some felt he would refuse to allow any pro-life judges through. Bad enough to have the other party using litmus tests, one can understand how there were some reluctant to allow one of their own to attain a position of power to do it. But, in the end, he became the chairman (so much for being frozen out).
Tim,
My point is that there is just too much unknown (mostly to me, it seems) to come to decent conclusions. I’ve obviously done it badly; limited time and laziness being the reason. I felt this was an imbalanced discussion because so much of what I’ve heard hasn’t been represented (and I haven’t represented it very well). I’m not trying to weasle out of anything, I simply don’t know.
Jerome,
I don’t see either the Greens or the Libertarians ever amounting to much–too single issue, too unrealistic (Libertarianism sounds great if you live in an Ayn Rand novel but I can’t see us succesfully pulling it off at this late in the game).
As a passionate beliver in free market capitalism, I think it’s obvious that if one party weakens too much it will also weaken the dominant party–no competition makes for a shoddy product.
Unfortunately, the solutions to the Democrat’s problems will probably not come about if they let the MoveOn.org crowd hold sway. Those guys (like Dean) are good at raising and spending money. Results? Not so much.
Karen,
“The bottom line is that this decision is a woman’s to make”
First, in all seriousness, thank you for sharing your personal experience. It just proves that what we are talking about here is tough stuff.
But it also brings up an important point I would like to make. What about a male who is in the same position as you were? What about a 16-year old male teen whose hormones were raging and now is obligated to be a father until he is 34? What about a 55-year old who does not have Michael Douglass money suddenly finding out his 22-year old girlfriend is pregnant and he has to worry about T-ball practice and school plays again? What about the many women who “trap” men by getting pregnant. This is often done with pro athletes. Because to get the child support from such a wealthy athlete is akn to hitting the lottery. One athlete spoke about waking up and seeing his date that evening using a turkey baster to retract his semen from his condom he had thrown away and…try to squirt it into herself in an attempt to get pregnant.
But as the law stands now, males have no right in such a situation.
How’s this for “equality”? A woman is deemed to have the right to choose whether she has a child; likewise, the father has the rght to one-month notification, during which time he can choose whether he wants the legal responsibility of being a father. Whether he accepts it or declines would play a role in the woman’s eventual choice.
“Here’s 86, year-old Mrs. Jones. A great-grandmother of 16, she depends on her Medicare benefit. My opponent wants to take that away.” Attributed to democratic campaigns of years gone by.
With the announcement that Medicare will have 0 funds in 20 years, and that this year it will pay out more in benefits than it takes in as revenue, it seems the republican run government has in fact fulfilled that little bit of prophetic campaigning. Not for 86-year old Mrs Jones, maybe, unless she has plans to join the centarian club.
So, is it scare tactics/paranoia if the predictions are correct?
Bill,
” I dont see either the Greens or the Libertarians amounting to much – too single issue, too unrealistic”
Obviously, we disagree. But I DO feel they are gaining ground, and they are each far from ‘single issue’.
As for ‘this late in the game’, well there is no wat to know for certain that these are the two parties that will exist for the rest of the 21st Century and beyond. In fact, I find it unnatural that that would happen.
Just like businesses, political parties must mprovise and adapt. When they fail to do so, they will die. Then another will take it’s place.
THAT is healthy. Maintaining a duopoly bankrupt of ideas and energy is not.
I’m sure there were those who never belived the Whig Party was going anywhere, either.
Yes, we were all impressed with the way that Rudy and Arnold were trotted out in a “see, we’re not all loopy extremists” manner.
When I actually see a prominant pro-choice Republican win the nomination for president, I’ll believe it. The savage attacks on Specter, the freezing of Christine Todd Whitman out of any meaningful policy role in her own agency, the bypassing of Colin Powell in the war planning, and the constant sniping at a host of other moderate Republicans as “RINOs” speak far more then having Arnold talk about economic “girlymen” or Rudy making up things his didn’t say on 9/11.
I find it far more likely that the existing parties will evolve, rather than die. Your point about the Whigs is true but they did not have the advantage of the entrenched structure and media power of the GOP and the Democrats. Hëll, as Nader and Perot discovered, the game is well rigged against interlopers. It seems as though for the last 100 years the only third party movements that went anywhere were pretty much personality driven. Where were the Bull Moosers after Teddy Roosevelt?
Rather than reinvent the wheel and leave one party in power for too long it would be wiser for the samller groups to try to leverage their power from within. (imagine if an African American splinter party could guarantee around 20% of the Black vote to the GOP. What kind of concesions do you think the Republicans would make on affirmitive action if it meant that they would win every presidential election in perpetuity? Converesely, what would the Democrats do to keep this from happening?)
Jerome, there’s nothing “equal” about that suggestion. The problem with all of the “male/fatherhood rights” is that, aside from a sperm donation, there’s no physical risk born by men. My wife’s 10 weeks and 2 days pregnant today (not that we’re counting or anything). I’ve learned more about what physical changes, stress, and risks a woman goes through in carrying a child to term. What you’re suggesting is that a man, who is bearing none of those risks, could void his financial and emotional responsibility. Which means, STDs aside, men would be able to have obligation-free sex all they wanted.
Currently, on both parties’ part, there’s an implied acceptance of the risk of pregnancy in having sex. Even protected sex carries some risk. Those that want to outlaw abortion (and let’s leave it to medically unnecessary abortions for the sake of this discussion) want to put an assumption of that risk onto the act of sex. Meaning, if you want to do the crime, you’d better be ready to do the time, because there’s no getting out of the responsibility. Your suggestion that a man could void his obligation as the father of a child would put all of that risk on the woman…if she wants to have sex, she’d not only be prepared to get pregnant, but to be solely responsible for the child that could result, in addition to the physical risks she’s going to bear. Your suggestion of “equality” actually would move us closer to inequality, and put more women in a position where abortion would seem like a better option.
I have to agree with Bill. Unless the Greens or the Libertarians find a way to reach beyond a narrow niche element. The Libertarians talk a good game, but you aren’t going to win any offices by claiming to eliminate 2/3 of the federal government. There’s a reason that those programs stick around – They’re very popular with many key voting groups. Go ahead, campaign through Kansas and Nebraska about eliminating farm subsidies and see how far you get.
The Greens have a similar problem. Their ultimate goal is the elimination of most private property rights and that isn’t going to fly in this country either.
No, like it or not, the only political philosophies that have any hope of gathering any support in this country are “Regulated Capitalism” and “Slightly Less Regulated Capitalism.” And by sheer coincedence, those as the philosophies of the Democrats and Republicans distilled down to their purest forms.
The Reform party had a good thing going for a while, but once they let Pat Buchanen hijack them, I knew it was over. What do you do when you’re looking at Ross Perot to restore sanity?
Bill,
Karen, I’m not entirely certain I see where you’re coming from…what exactly is the definition of “Abortion on Demand”? My understanding of the current law is that you can get an abortion at just about any time during pregnancy, even the third trimester, as long as a doctor signs off on the pregnancy being harmful to one’s “health”–which can just as easily be mental health as physical health.
I guess we are getting into semantics here, but words have power. The term “abortion on demand” seems to mean to the general population that a woman can walk into a clinic and simply get an abortion at any time she wants for whatever reason. This is not what happens. Most women wrestle with this decision. It is not made lightly. Many factors go into such a decision. Even teenagers, who may not be able to think through all of the ramifications of their decision don’t just saunter in the clinic as if they were having an ingrown toenail seen to. To say “abortion on demand” seems to make the decision something easy or frivolous. A majority of abortions are performed before the third month. Past that time there is more danger of complications the further along a woman is in her pregnancy. No doctor would perform abortions or countenance them for frivolous reasons in the third trimester. An abortion then would be for a serious risk to the woman’s physical health, as any complications that result could be quite serious in themselves. I guess that by trivializing the way these decisions are made, it makes it that much easier to demonize them. Any way, I think the language we use to discuss this issue needs to change. The anti-choice people have co-opted many words that put them in the best light and pro-chice people in a bad light. This is my opinion. I have no research to back me up. Of course I’m sure the PR firms hired by both sides have those facts. I am not always as precise as I would like to be with the language, but I also think that we are all being manipulated in ways we cannot even begin to fathom by those who know exactly what to say to get the emotional reaction they desire.
Jerome,
If a man does NOT want to be a father then he should either NOT engage in sex, or use birth control. You talk as if he has no responsiblility for the act. If a woman does not want to become a mother she should NOT engage in sex, or use birth control. Once a woman is pregnant, it is she who must decide whether she has the means, both physically, mantally, and emotionally to care for a child. Why? How many single mothers are there compared to fathers? How many court cases are there to try and make fathers pay their child support? Men “decline” responsibility all the time. This is not about sex. This is about a woman’s rights to make decisions about her body and her future. The man can make decisions also. See the first sentance above.
Bill,
What little chance we may have to avoid extinction will come from our technological innovations and I see the republicans, or at least conservatives as much more positive toward industry and innovation
We aren’t anti-business. We are anti- greedy corrupt corporations who take advantage of it’s employees and customers. (Enron, anyone?) For example, I love Costco and their business model.
Karen, your post highlights exactly why this is the huge problem it is today. Because while many, if not most or even almost all decisions to abort a pregnancy are health related, and made only after an agonzing decision process that includes the family and the health care staff, it’s not all. And the state of our law today does in fact allow the base concept of abortion on demand, provided you can find a willing doctor to perform it. Which, of course, we should know that there are enough doctors around that will (this will be true whether the law changes or not…there will always be someone willing to perform this procedure for money. Whether they’ll be licensed, practiced doctors is another matter).
This is where the pro-life folks get off saying that those of us that aren’t with them support the idea of abortion on demand. Roe v. Wade makes it very clear that the government does have the authority to regulate abortion, and even prohibit the procedure to a limited degree. It does not say that we have to have unregulated abortion, or no abortion. This latter is stane advocated by most pro life supporters, to outlaw it altogether. Which of course ignores or simply discards those cases where an abortive procedure is mediacally necessary to provide for the health of the mother.
No law that we have is absolute. And programs that are absolute (zero tolerance in school disciplinary cases) often results in punishments seen as too harsh for the actions taken. The world is not composed of starkly “good” and “bad” actions/decisions. Killing somone is normally a crime, but when done in self defense? Not a crime. Why should the solution to abortion be an all-or-nothing issue? That kind of thinking ignores too many realities to allow for a fair and just application.
I’ll borrow a current favorite line of thinking of Bush’s. We (those in favor of some form of abortive procedure) are willing to consider any suggested regulation of abortion, except an outright ban. We’re waiting to see what this (now 2 term) republican government has to offer us.
What little chance we may have to avoid extinction will come from our technological innovations and I see the republicans, or at least conservatives as much more positive toward industry and innovation
Whether that is true or not, it is more that countered by what I see as a growing anti-science tide among conservatives. These innovations can only happen if scientific knowledge is allowed to thrive and we are increasingly becoming a society where willfull blindness is considered a virtue.
Alright, last post for now, you all are proably getting sick of me.
Jerome, Bill, and Den,
Both arguments about the two party system are valid. I think it would be wonderful if we had more choices, and I also think it is entirely possible that if the Dems don’t wake up and start being Dems, instead of Republican-lite, that the party could become increasingly irrelevant and another party will rise to take it’s place. The entrenchment of the Democratic party is a reality, though. Many of the problems the party has today are because of those entrenched interests unwilling to give up the money and power they have accumulated, but also unwilling to confront the new challenges ahead. But, Bill, eventually, they will dry up and fade away as we lose more and more congressional seats. Whether a new party is the result, or a revitalized Democratic party is anyone’s guess at this point. Den, the Reform party came out of nowhere with a charismatic (if not quite balanced) leader. This could happen again if enough people are fed up.
Bobb,
Congratulations on your happy news. I wish I’d read your post before I wrote mine. I seem to have echoed some of your points. Many men seem to believe that women only want to “entrap” them. It may happen occasionally, but in this day and age I think most women are choosier and would not want a man just for the sake of having a man. Not to mention having the responsibility of raising a child. Jerome, are we that vapid?
Den, the Reform party came out of nowhere with a charismatic (if not quite balanced) leader. This could happen again if enough people are fed up.
Aside from the fact that you described how Hitler rose to power, the problem with any movement that depends on a charismatic leader is that, if they lose the leader, the movement is essentially dead. Once Perot lost interest in running for president, the Reform Party floundered.
I think the two party system is too entrenched in our politics for there to be room for a significant third party. The only way for a third party to rise to prominance is for one of the two major parties to fade away, as happened when the GOP rose to fill the vacuum left by the demise of the Whig party.
But for those who think the Democrats are dead in the water, don’t count them out. It is possible for them to recover. Remember, after Hoover took the blame for the stock market crash in 1929, the GOP were so discredited that they were lost in the political wilderness until 1952. That’s five consecutive presidential elections with GOP losses (32, 36, 40, 44, and 48). So it is possible for a party to recover.
Getting back to the topic at hand, I think polls are now showing that the Shiavo case is turning out to be a gross miscalculation on the part of the GOP. Most Americans don’t want the federal government interfering in end-of-life decisions that belong in the realm of the family, even when there is strong dispute among family members.
If the Democrats are smart, they should keep their heads down until the dust in this case settles and then come out in 2006 (without mentioning the Shiavo case) as the party that will empower families to make their own decisions about health care issues.
My only fear about the GOP handling of the Schiavo case is that they are still strongly motivating the conservative religious part of their base. Since this went a long way toward votes in this past election, I’m not sure this is such a miscalculation. They have shown a large voting block of people that they care about their issues, even though they didn’t really accomplish anything. This builds strong party loyalty. I am afraid to underestimate them. They have done more with less.
We aren’t anti-business. We are anti- greedy corrupt corporations who take advantage of it’s employees and customers. (Enron, anyone?) For example, I love Costco and their business model.
and
Whether that is true or not, it is more that countered by what I see as a growing anti-science tide among conservatives. These innovations can only happen if scientific knowledge is allowed to thrive and we are increasingly becoming a society where willfull blindness is considered a virtue.
Although the anti-stem cell position of many on the right has gotten a lot of attention, it would be hard to argue that the extremists on the left who have fought against bioengineered food and animal testing–two technologies that have had tremendous success–has been far more damaging to our advancement.
It isn’t the far right that thinks the idea of Utopia is a return to those carefree days of yesteryear, before machines and medicine turned life into this awful condition of longevity and leisure.
Also, wasn’t Enron brought down during conservative control of the govenrment? What was happening when liberals were in charge?
As far as a new thried party rising, it will either take people away from the republicans or from the democrats. Neither oarty will fade away, so such a division will only empower the other party. Hard to see that lasting very long before people decide that half a loaf is better than none and decide to compromise. (One reason I don’t favor the European model is that it allows minority view wackjobs to stay insane and still get a bit of power in government, which they can use to gain power they could not otherwise earn without some level of moderation.
Although the anti-stem cell position of many on the right has gotten a lot of attention, it would be hard to argue that the extremists on the left who have fought against bioengineered food and animal testing–two technologies that have had tremendous success–has been far more damaging to our advancement.
I’d agree. That’s the demonization of concepts that plagues human of whatever political vent; I get irritated when simple caution gets ramped up into hysterical panic.
Also, wasn’t Enron brought down during conservative control of the govenrment? What was happening when liberals were in charge?
Well, depends on which level of government you’re talking about. Certainly, the local government here was yelling and screaming about Enron fraud early and often. And the poo-poohing of energy market manipulation is not the finest hour for anybody….
Also, wasn’t Enron brought down during conservative control of the govenrment? What was happening when liberals were in charge?
Enron was brought down? Last time I checked, Ken Lay was still walking around a free man.
Silly me.
For bioengineered food and animal testing, not going to argue with your there. But while that is the extreme left, the anti-environmental agenda, anti-stem cell agenda has moved the mainstream of the Republican party.
“Last time I checked, Ken Lay was still walking around a free man.”
And, uh…underindictment and waiting for the trail to begin that could send him to jail for the rest of his life.
A tad, just a nubbin different from being the chairman of the 7th largest company in America, no?
Yeah, and if you believe he’ll actually serve a day in jail, I’ve got some swamp land I’d like to take look at.
Funny how it took three years to indict Ken Lay, but Martha Stewart was investigated, indicted, tried, convicted, went to jail, and was paroled in that same time period.
About the movement that only lasts as long as the charismatic ruler… you guys are more up on this stuff than I am: does Fidel Castro fall into that group? Will Cuba remain communist long after his death?
Funny how it took three years to indict Ken Lay, but Martha Stewart was investigated, indicted, tried, convicted, went to jail, and was paroled in that same time period.
Does Bernard Ebbers ring a bell?
Lay will get his.
Does Bernard Ebbers ring a bell?
MCI, not Enron. Ebbers made the mistake of not renting out the Lincoln bedroom.
Lay will get his.
Not in our lifetime. He’ll get off on a slap of the wrist and fine.
About the movement that only lasts as long as the charismatic ruler… you guys are more up on this stuff than I am: does Fidel Castro fall into that group? Will Cuba remain communist long after his death?
A good question. Certainly, there are thousands of Cuban-Americans in Miami who have spent the past few decades waiting for him to kick off. I think it’ll all depend on who succeeds him and whether they can hold the country together by their force of personality the way he has. Remember that the majority of Cubas alive today only know about life under Castro, so his death will really shake things up.
Robnn said: [i]About the movement that only lasts as long as the charismatic ruler… you guys are more up on this stuff than I am: does Fidel Castro fall into that group? Will Cuba remain communist long after his death?[/i]
I’m not Cubano, but I’ve visited the country a few times. From talking privately with people, I think it’s a good bet that Communism there won’t last long beyond Castro’s death. The folks really don’t like the system that much, but they [b]do[/b] regard Castro as a good man and a hero. I got the impression that Castro himself really doesn’t have a succesor in mind- certainly, there wasn’t anyone being portayed as his trusted second or anything of the sort in the papers or on the radio.
Well, this makes for quite a set of headlines on Yahoo:
Add * Jesse To The Rescue * on drudgereport.
This is where someone with a Michael Moore mentality will say something like “If you mange to unite Randal Terry and Jesse jackson against you, you know you’re doing the wrong thing.”
I’d be tempted to argue the exact opposite but it would still be a dumb piece of logic.
Wow…. a well-respected professor from a local college here in northeast PA was arrested in Florida as he attempted to break into the hospice where Terri is in a reported attempt to provide her with a drink of water. Regardless of where you stand on this and the medical impossibility of hand-fed water for her at this point, you have to respect the guy’s convictions.
Fred
Hopefully his conviction wil get the whack-job a few years in prison…in her condition she could choke on the water and die…
Wow…. a well-respected professor from a local college here in northeast PA was arrested in Florida as he attempted to break into the hospice where Terri is in a reported attempt to provide her with a drink of water. Regardless of where you stand on this and the medical impossibility of hand-fed water for her at this point, you have to respect the guy’s convictions.
I respect that he’s an idiot who got himself arrested doing a pointless grandstanding excercise for the TV cameras that wouldn’t have made any difference if he had gotten to her bedside anyway.
Den:
>>Wow…. a well-respected professor from a local college here in northeast PA was arrested in Florida as he attempted to break into the hospice where Terri is in a reported attempt to provide her with a drink of water. Regardless of where you stand on this and the medical impossibility of hand-fed water for her at this point, you have to respect the guy’s convictions.
>I respect that he’s an idiot who got himself arrested doing a pointless grandstanding excercise for the TV cameras that wouldn’t have made any difference if he had gotten to her bedside anyway.
Which proves you speak out of turn and about a person that you no nothing of, at least in this case. The guy is a professor with a Ph.D. I have spoken with this man on numerous occassions in professional settings and, while I disagree 100% with his actions on both a practical and even moral level, I can tell you with solid confidence that this guy did not do it to grandstand and only out of what he believes was a moral course of action.
“.in her condition she could choke on the water and die…”
Not that I support this guy…but so what?
Assuming she can feel no pain–which had better be the case–I’m not so sure that a quick end to this circus would be so bad a thing.