March 28, 2005
Pro-life ought to mean it
[Missing link added, with apologies] “Much as I deplore the G.O.P.’s willingness to throw federalism and enumerated powers out of the window,” CATO’s Gene Healy writes in a post I wish I had written, “there is something admirable about a political movement that can agonize this much about a solitary human life.” He decries an inconsistent overlap between pro-life conservatism and glib pro-Iraq war conservatism. “If … you’d move heaven, earth, and the federal courts to save [Terri Schiavo], then you ought to feel more than a twinge about a little girl covered in the blood of her dead mother and father, killed by Americans who were understandably frightened and didn’t sign up for this. A twinge for her and for them and for countless others.”
Posted by Matthew Hogan at March 28, 2005 06:07 PMI reiterate myself, Americans rarely pay heed to anything that isn’t staring them in the face. This behaviour is understandable, if a bit hypocritical. Meh.
Posted by: Zeek at March 28, 2005 06:18 PMAbortion. War. Capital punishment. All three willingly take the life of another human being, innocent or not. Sadly, to be “pro-life” means only to be against one of those killers.
Posted by: Ryan at March 28, 2005 06:35 PMTo err on the side of life means to end war, poverty, and unite in our humanity as a community, and as a country. I agree to disagree with politics and urge everyone to love thy neighbor, not be so judgemental and help each other. In the coming times its what will help us all survive. Divided we fall so stand on what unites us. Whatever political party you stand for, whatever religion you are, whatever country youre from, unite in our common threads of humanity.
Posted by: S. Aitken at March 28, 2005 06:40 PMYou forgot to mention the Lunatics who bomb Abortion Clinics and are even now threatening Terri’s Husband. You know its serious and real cause Jeb Bush is already distancing himself. Heh.
Posted by: Aldous at March 28, 2005 07:38 PMRyan,
Your comment is nothing but dramatic overgeneralization. You who are so quick to respond to mis-classifications of your own viewpoints, you are the same as those you berate. There are plenty of ‘pro-lifers’ who are against abortion, capital punishment, and war in general, as I’m certain you don’t need to have pointed out to you.
Posted by: AParker at March 28, 2005 07:41 PM“and didn’t sign up for this”
Assuming Matthew Hogan is herein referring to American soldiers, such a notion is incorrect. There is no military draft as there was with the Vietnam conflict; therefore, our military is currently an all volunteer military. When one signs up for military service, there is an explicit, if implied, understanding that one may be placed into harms way in military action. One cannot reasonably assume that just because one enlists during a time of peace that one will simply put in a couple of years, take the college tuition loans, and live happily ever after. America does not now nor has it ever worked that way.
AParker,
I would consider myself “pro-choice” if I were forced to use such terminology, but I am very much for life and against the use of abortion in most cases. I merely believe that there are cases (incest, rape, danger to the mother) in which the woman should have the right to have an abortion if she so chooses. I have generalized no more than the first post did:
But he notes correctly there is too much inconsistent overlap between pro-life conservatism and glib pro-Iraq war conservatism and even libertarianism.
All I am saying is that of the people who consider themselves “pro-life,” the majority are probably in the Republican party and are in favor of the death penalty and the war in Iraq.
I am quick to respond to what I believe is an unfortunate use of the English language. I see the immense value of life as a gift from God, but because I believe that abortions are allowable in certain cases, people would call me “anti-life.” Because, yes, when in opposition to the term “pro-life”, “pro-choice” can be misunderstood as “anti-life,” which I can assure you, I am not.
I believe “pro-choice” and “anti-choice” are more appropriate, but there are many who would disagree with me.
Posted by: Ryan at March 28, 2005 08:53 PMI don’t understand why so many people want to make a choice like abortion illegal. If you are truly a “conservative” republican, you should be against the government getting in the way of your freedom of choice. You can voice your opinion all you want about it, it’s your right as an American, just don’t stand in the way of other American’s rights
Posted by: Amber at March 28, 2005 09:34 PMThe whole issue about abortion is that we who are “anti-choice” are speaking for the freedom of those who cannot yet speak for themselves.
There is a considerable difference between killing a life that has not yet had a chance to speak up for itself, and killing a life that has chosen to kill others (i.e. the death penalty).
Posted by: nemoy at March 28, 2005 09:59 PMInteresting tidbit: Tom Delay, Congress Majority leader who’s so against pulling the plug on Terri Schiavo, did just that to his dad. Huh. I wonder if this means something?
Posted by: Zeek at March 28, 2005 10:22 PMJust to set the record straight. No one pulled the plug on Teri. She was not on life support. She was not breathing with the help of a machine. I understand Tom Delay’s father was on life support and couldn’t live without the help of a machine! Big difference.
Posted by: marv at March 28, 2005 11:38 PMI have to agree with nemoy.
When someone willfully kills another person, except in self defence or defence of another person, that person gives up his or her right to live.
When an abortion is performed the person being killed has no choise in that matter.
If Teri was on life support machines, and that was the only thing making her breath, then she would already be dead and keeping her on them would be a wast of time and money.
However, sense she’s breathing on her own, SHE ISNOT DEAD!!!!! And taking her feeding tube out and starving her to death is MURDER.
Ron,
What is the quality of that life that Teri now has? Sure, she’s breathing and she’s showing all the vital signs. But she has no brain activity besides those that control the involuntary motions of her heart, stomach, intestines, etc. When doctors (the only authority on this) have said that there is very little to no chance of recovery for her, what is the point of continuing to feed her? I’ll tell you why her parents want to continue feeding her. They just can’t seem to understand why their daughter would die before they do, the natural response of a parent. But to hold onto a shadow of your daughter, to hold onto her body while her mind and soul have long since departed, is to hold onto false hope. Her parents need to accept the fact that their daughter has been mentally dead for years, and she is now physically dying. It’s sad but true, we all die some day. Some can accept that. Some can’t.
Posted by: Ryan at March 29, 2005 12:17 AMWhat is it about food that makes it so different from air? Why is forcing air into someone so much different than forcing food into them? Why is it okay to remove a ventilator, but not a feeding tube? Isn’t breathing even more basic than eating?
But Matthew brings up an excellent point, I am also routinely astonished by how angry people get over errors in spending (Halliburton ripped us off! We are wasting dollars in Iraq day by day!) And these same angry people can be so calm about errors in missiles (Well, what can you do, it was only 5 little girls in a wedding who were accidentally killed by that stray missile).
What is it about Americans that makes us so indignant about people stealing our money, and so complacent about “collateral damage”?
Heh. I suppose you never heard of Stopgap before? The US Military is so hard up that its using an army of Harvard Graduates to find more ways to keep soldiers from quitting.
I hope a Draft will happen soon. There are about 60,000,000 warmongers who would love to go to Iraq.
Posted by: Aldous at March 29, 2005 02:19 AMI’ve just read down through all of the posts before this one, and am amazed at the varying shades of opinions on what oughta be done concerning Terry Schiavo. I’ve been considering all sides, and praying, and something finally dawned on me. Unless you’re a member of Terry’s family, or close friend, your opinion matters only to you. Of course…that’s only MY opinion.
Steroetyping does indeed make for poor analysis. Much of this is due to the media, who may tend to simplify and classify, and in some cases do so inorder to slant a story with rhetoric. For the record, I am a Christian who is pro-life, and by that I mean opposed to the taking of lives from the prenatal, the death penalty, euthanasia, war, and other instances of killing that many mention. There is one overriding principle tiening my positions together and that is that it is just simply not my place or any other mortal’s place to determine when to end a life, which I believe to be the greatest gift from God (twice, ours and his own). I was opposed to the war in Iraq before it started, andhave been opposed to the death penalty and euthanasia (including using starvation and dehydration as the means) consistently. However, I do know that there are good arguments from others who are against abortion and not against the death penalty (the criminal has been found guilty of crime for which he or she knows the potential consequences) and also not opposed to war (a “just war” position of defense) even though these are not my positions. nevertheless, I have a harder time understanding the inconsitencies of those opposed to a jury determining the mortal fate of a killer but believe that the mortal fate of a prenatal belongs in the hands of one person simply because she is the mother. I have hard time understanding how these same people might determine that a mother’s choice can be justified due to the potentially adverse impact a baby might have upon her life, but cannot support a war in defense against enemies that indicate the itent and ability to have devastating impacts on our lives.
At least I can claim one overiding philosophy whether people agree or not. Don’t kill. I see others in conflict with themselves.
Posted by: Ed at March 29, 2005 08:21 AMUnless you’re a member of Terry’s family, or close friend, your opinion matters only to you.
Problems arise when Terri’s family can’t agree on a course of action. That’s when it starts affecting us - if the court decisions had gone the wrong way, millions of us would have been affected by the potential loss of our spouses as default health care proxy.
Posted by: ceejayoz at March 29, 2005 10:20 AMI really don’t see where the hypocritical stance is with most Republicans. I think a better classification is “pro-innocent life”. I am for the most part “pro-life”, but I do not find criminals deserving of the death penalty in that scope, nor terrorist extremists.
I believe this is the stance of most Republicans, and it’s not hypocritical at all, if anything, the pro-life stance is to protect those who are innocent (shiavo, babies), even if that means the death of those who are not (terrorists and murderers). If you look at it that way, it very much makes sense.
Posted by: Lisa Zeimetz at March 29, 2005 10:57 AMEd: Thank you for an interesting post. Sounds like the start of the Religious left.
My question for you concerns resources, which are limited in this world. Taking them away from one place will have negative effects somewhere else.
Sticking with Terri Schiavo; over $1 million was spent keeping her shell alive (remember the courts have consistently decided over years of trials that she is brain dead, with no chance of recovery). Replicate this enough times and soon you’re talking real money. Enough that might pay for proper prenatal care for teenage moms in the entire midwest (saving babies) or provide rehabilitative services to indigent parapalegics in the southeast (all life has value).
We can’t save everyone and the deficit can only grow so much before the system collapses. The decision is life and death, how would you decide? Do you think the law was wrong to allow Terri her choice in this matter?
There are plenty of ‘pro-lifers’ who are against abortion, capital punishment, and war in general
I wish they were the ones on TV speaking on behalf of the ‘pro-lifers.’
skcomm-
The ones on TV are there because the Media conglomerates put them there. I wonder why…
Posted by: AParker at March 29, 2005 01:17 PMHow is it that being for the death penality and against abortion are at odds with each other. One is innocent and one is guilty. Both are rooted in a belief in PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY.
Posted by: Sue at March 29, 2005 01:49 PMI get so weary of this “Freedom of Choice” thing. That applies only to responsible adults, when and IF their action affects no one but themselves. If your action impacts anyone else, in any way, shape, or form you lose that right. COMMON SENSE!!!!
Posted by: Sue at March 29, 2005 02:04 PMWhat about zygotes? Zygotes are the stage of fetal development before the embryo and fetus stages. One thing Anti-abortion advocates need to understand are the differences between the stages of human development: Zygote during the first trimester, Embryo during the second and a baby after birth. I do not approve of the abortion of fetuses, who have a fully developed brain and have the ability to survive outside the mother as in the case of premature births. Zygotes, on the other hand, are just blobs of stem cells about half an inch long that have no characteristics different from the mother.
How about this (somewhat unrealistic) scenario: Let’s say all humans and other animals on Earth instantly died and all fetuses, human and animal, disappeared. The only clues of human reproduction are the zygote’s bodies that remain inside their dead mother’s bodies.
One week after this extinction of humans, highly advanced aliens come to Earth. These aliens are just like humans, but they reproduce by laying eggs and all other creatures they know of also lay eggs for reproduction purposes. After examining the remains of humans, their scientists would have no way of concluding that we reproduced through a live birth process because they would find no cells inside a mother that could be distinguished as being those of her offspring because they are just stem cells; not the heart cells, brain cells, muscle cells ect. they would expect to see of a fetus still inside its mother.
So all the mother is doing when she aborts her zygote is remove a clump of cells that have the potential of developing into a heart, lungs, brain ect. seperate from her own, but have not become these organs yet.
Posted by: Warren at March 29, 2005 02:56 PMWarren,
Unfortunately, you’re a little off. You have a zygote, then morula, blastocyst, and then embryo. (Getting to the embryo stage happens in the first month). Then you get to fetus at the beginning of second trimester (all the basics are there, but not fully formed). At the beginning of the 3rd trimester you have a “finished fetus” (my term). The fetus has finished growing it’s sex organs, brain, and lungs, and everything else.
Anyway, you can look at http://www.visembryo.com to get a better idea of the stages.
Posted by: Julia at March 29, 2005 03:22 PMSorry, but my point still holds; if a developing zygote/morula/blastocyst/embryo/fetus/baby does not have a brain. How can one claim it has a life independnet from that of its mother’s life? My story with the aliens works in that in a pre-embryo without a brain could be considered just a part of the woman’s body that it is inside.
Posted by: Warren at March 29, 2005 04:24 PMWrong about zygotes. They have their own DNA. That makes them unique.
Posted by: Gandhi at March 29, 2005 05:08 PMLisa,
“Pro-innocent-life”: that’s a thought provoking distinction in contrast to death-row murders. And also with terrorist extremists. However, the tragic thing is that it is not just the terrorist extremists that are killed in a war. Some of us are opposed to war because of the thousands of innocent lives that are taken during a war. So I don’t think we are out of hypocritical waters yet if we say we are “pro-innocent life” yet support war.
Posted by: Carrie at March 29, 2005 05:19 PMyou cant always avoid war. sometimes wars must be fought. what about ww1, ww2, the civil war…. you cant avoid war just because someone will get hurt. of course, they will, our enemies and our own. the lives of each ‘side’ are equally as precious. however, sometimes you must make a stand, to right injustices. you have many pictures of the horror the war in iraq has caused. you show no pictures of the happy iraqis however, the marketplaces that are now bustling, life renewed where it was blighted under sadaam. nor, do you mention that much of the violence that continues in iraq today, is because of the violence it’s own insurgents wreak upon the population. you also, show no pictures of the tortures that occurred in iraq under sadaams regime. why not? why, because you would not have been allowed to take pictures of course.
you are allowed that freedom since the americans have liberated the country.
What is all the hoop about abortion anyway. Why not get serious about taking responsibility. How hard is it to prevent pregnancy anyway. Why not harp on this. Start expecting everyone to take responsibility for their actions. Isn’t that what adults are supposted to do anyway. Why take a life when it would only take seconds to prevent an unwanted pregnancy anyway. Or are we all so self-absorbed that is asking to much. We all pay taxes so anyone can receive free birth control. Why do I have to unwillingly pay to kill babies also. Because birth control is not what you are thinking about when you have sex. It would be if you knew it meant you WOULD HAVE to take responsiblily. Why don’t so many realize the real answer is teaching everyone not to do things they are not willing to take the consequences for. That is something that would benefit our country and our personal lives. But all you pro-abortion people. Go on..keep teaching everyone that they can do what they want and get it cleaned up for free regardless of the cost to someone else. AND LIKE IT OR NOT - IF IT IS NOT A BABY….YOU ARE NOT PREGNANT.
Posted by: Sue at March 29, 2005 09:19 PMCarrie,
I understand why many people feel this is an “unjust” war. Although, it is my experience that most (not all) of these people are university students, with no real life experience, especially in the reality of war, and diplomacy.
The real innocent people that died, are those of “9/11”, if that never would have happened, I’m sure we would not be in Iraq now. However, their religion mandates that we are wiped out, only on the premise that we are not like them. If we do not follow Allah, then we are infidels, and need to be killed. So, reality says that this day would have come anyway, only because of who they and we are. Why prolong it, so that yours and mine children must fight a war that really should have occured decades ago? If they would follow a peaceful religion, then nobody would have to worry about any of this.
It’s very difficult to use diplomacy on a people that operate like this, and people forget that we had countless resolutions with Saddam for a decade, that he repeatly violated.
There is no word in Arabic for compromise. It really gives insight into their culture. I’m not being “racist” because I know not ALL arabs want to kill me and my children. But, facing the facts: they have the only religion that mandates violence against others, and they are rewarded with the most asinine “trophies” if they die a martyr.
Diplomacy has been used in this region for hundreds of years, and to the civilized world, they are not “innocent”. The innocent are the children, and the people who can see past the ridiculous teachings of their religion, and if they comply with the US while we are over there dying for their freedom, chances are they will be ok, but nobody is perfect. We go to great lengths to warn civilians of our intentions, even if it gives away our mission and comprimises our own safety. WE care about the “innocents”, not them. We do not slit civilians’ throats to get on TV. WE do not spend $300 million a year to export terrorism that targets our schools.
Do I think this is a just war against “evil” people? You bet.
Gandhi,
Great point. I never thought of it that way before. I have always believed that life began at conception, simply because it has always seemed obvious to me. Conception is the first moment at which the entity has the potential to become a human. A sperm cell on its own cannot become a human. An egg cell on its own cannot become a human. It is only when they are joined that a human can form. The fact that the new cell has its own DNA unique from both the mother and the father should be enough evidence that it is not part of the woman’s body, and is itself a human being.
Posted by: Ryan at March 29, 2005 10:20 PMKaren,
of course not all wars can be avoided. But could this war have been avoided? We have killed more than 20,000 innocent people in the last two years in order to bring Iraqis “freedom”. Perhaps another way of intervening, besides war, would have been a more moral solution. We cannot stop others from taking action which kills innocent people. But we can choose a course of action which prevents us from killing innocent people.
Sue,
I am very interested in this “anyone can recieve free birth control”. I would very much like to know where this free birth control is.
Lisa,
How does your philosophy fits into the idea that we have killed innocent christians in Iraq as well as innocent muslims (via stray bombs and cluster bombs). I also fail to see how a 7 year-old-muslim who is killed by a stray missile is “Not innocent” because he was born into the muslim religion.
I believe the vast majority of muslims don’t murder other human beings, and don’t give money to organizations that justify murder. I’d be interested in your statitistics that show that the majority of muslims condone killing.
If we bought into the argument that no muslim is innocent, then are you saying that all of the indonesian muslims who died in the tsunami had it coming?
In addition, aren’t you now condoning killing based on someone’s affiliation with a religious group? How does this put you on the moral high ground?
Posted by: julia at March 29, 2005 10:46 PMLisa, Sue,
It’s sad that you have bought into this good vs. evil motif that Bush and his cronies have created during his administration. To think that America is truly at war with evil is to think that the streets of America are paved with gold. It is just propaganda.
The real innocent people that died, are those of “9/11”, if that never would have happened, I’m sure we would not be in Iraq now.I completely agree with you there. There is evidence that Bush had already planned to invade Iraq FOR OIL even before the 9/11 attacks. Lucky for him, he was able to use those horrible attacks as bait to draw in the average American into his hegemonic war mongering.
If we do not follow Allah, then we are infidels, and need to be killed.I can assure you that this is not the main reason for the attacks on American soil or for the other Islamic attacks on Westerners. Perhaps the fact that America and its Western allies are constantly pushing further and further into the third world’s resources is a reason for hostility. Perhaps America’s need to be the police of the world is a cause for hostility. Perhaps America’s need to impose its culture and its products on the third world is reason for hostility. Maybe there are some true fundamentalists who have attacked America only because we do not praise Allah, but religion is definitely not the true cause of this conflict. It is America’s hegemonic aspirations that creates the world-wide hostility towards our fine nation. Posted by: Ryan at March 29, 2005 10:46 PM
Lisa,
Another thing.
they have the only religion that mandates violence against othersWhat about the Catholic Church during the Crusades. Were the Catholics then not deceived into thinking that they would be rewarded in heaven for killing Muslims in the Holy Land and becoming martyrs? Posted by: Ryan at March 29, 2005 10:51 PM
Julia,
You should go back and re-read that I said that children and people that turn away the “bad” teachings indeed are innocent.
And no, I do not condone killing for any motive, what-so-ever. I merely pointed out that Muslims are the only religion that does. And, other cultures and religions have fought wars and killed for the sake of their cause, but I again, point out, the Muslims are the only ones the have it written that they will be rewarded for killing people that do not conform to them.
Posted by: Lisa Zeimetz at March 29, 2005 10:54 PMRyan,
My decendants were Templar Knights, and I even have the sword that’s been handed down for hundreds of years.
I do beg for you to read up on the Crusades, because you are in error on your post. I’m very well versed in their cause. You could not be more wrong
Posted by: Lisa Zeimetz at March 29, 2005 10:57 PMLisa,
You say that you “do not condone killing for any motive, what-so-ever”, but are you not supporting the Iraq war right now? Are you, therefore, not supporting the killing that is the means of fighting the war?
Posted by: Ryan at March 29, 2005 10:59 PMLisa,
What, then, were the motives of the Crusaders?
By the way, descendants are your children.
My ancestors were voyagers on the Mayflower. That does not mean that I must honor their killing of Native Americans once they arrived in “the New Zion.”
Posted by: Ryan at March 29, 2005 11:01 PMRyan,
If we invaded Iraq for oil, why is it so darn expensive for me to get gas?
And, why can’t you let me drill in Alaska, so we don’t have to worry about oil from the Middle East?
The “evidence” that President Bush went into Iraq for OIL is really grabbing for straws, in all seriousness. If he planned before 9/11 to invade Iraq, it was probably because cowboys do not feel the need to go through resolution after resolution without results and being attacked to add insult to injury.
I’m proud to have a President that doesn’t leave me (or my children) a sitting duck.
Sorry for monologging- but I used to be a “one-issue-voter”. In 2000, I wanted to vote for Gore, because I was “pro-choice” (in some ways, I still am, but I’m only for restrictive “use”). Since that election, I’ve purchased a home, married a self-employed husband, and had two children. My perspective on the Democrats changed dramatically, and so did my views on our country and its cause. “one-issue-voting” was now not applicable to me, because of the new dynamics to my life.
Five years ago, I might have been a protester on the corner denouncing our President. But, five years ago, I wasn’t “well rounded”. Reality wasn’t there for me. I only thought of “me”, and not how the world really works.
I support our President, and respect him, because I put my trust in him to protect my family, my investments, and our business. I truly believe that we are in Iraq to liberate an oppressed people (with our volunteer military), while also protecting our innocent children at home.
I am so happy we invaded Iraq, and continue to press on in other hot spots, because when the WTC was bombed in 1993, Bill Clinton only responded with a couple missiles, and he turned down Bin Laden in 1996 when Sudan offered him to us. Look what his grievous errors did to the thousands of “innocents” in 2001.
Rest assured, President Bush is making it clear it will not happen again. And I thank him for that, because that secures my family’s future.
War for oil, my dupa.
Posted by: Lisa Zeimetz at March 29, 2005 11:11 PMI have been affiliated with shelters for women and you are able to get free birth control at many clinic’s. Although, I am sure you know this.
Posted by: sue at March 29, 2005 11:13 PMLisa,
Sorry, but your gas price is so high independent of the War in Iraq. I am sure that after the war, once the oil fields of Iraq are into the hands of the great American and British oil corporations, your gas price will go down.
You see, America gets the majority of its oil from Venezuela, but then again, who cares about the oil used in America. The majority of the oil sold throughout the world comes from American companies. Meaning that American companies desire to control all of the oil reserves throughout the world. For what good would come for American corporations if the oil fields in Iraq were owned by Iraq oil companies?
I’m sure you hear this a lot, but I fail to see why Iraq is the prime target of our benevolent military that is only trying to “liberate an oppressed people” when countries such as Saudi Arabia have much worse human rights records. I would hypothesize that this is because Saudi oil is already going through American oil corporations.
And surely you do not feel safer because of this war. Not when the recruiting for Al-Queda has increased since its inception. What exactly has Bush done that is really making America safer. We already know, as his administration has admitted, that Saddam had no WMDs nor any ties to terrorists.
Posted by: Ryan at March 29, 2005 11:24 PMRyan,
As there are errors in my grammar, there are errors in your thoughts.
Keep it real, there’s no need to point my grammar errors out, because I’m sure you understood my point anyway.
In response to the Crusades I offer two links, depending on what your view of the Crusades are (as I have two views, due to my ANCESTORS).
Templar Knights (where they were protectors of those wanted to worship Christianity)
Posted by: Lisa Zeimetz at March 29, 2005 11:25 PMWas this free birth control available to any woman? Because I had a hard time getting birth control when I was younger. I did the planned parenthood $10 a mos, $35 an appointment thing.
And cuold barely afford that.
Julia
Lisa,
Unlike many European countries that were highly intolerant during the Middle Ages, the Islamic world was extremely tolerant to Christians, Jews, and other non-Muslims. While the Europeans inquisitioned and reconquered Spain and had thirty-year wars based on religion, the Arab world was a combination of Islamists, Christians, and Jews that lived in relative harmony compared to Europe. Sure, there was an extra tax on the Christians and Jews, but who would wage a multiple-century war based on taxes. Of course, you might cite the American colonists who revolted because of “taxation without representation.” But that was a war fought by the oppressed. The Crusades were fought by Europeans. The Christians and Jews in the Middle East were content with paying a tax to live there. If the Templar Knights “were protectors of those wanted to worship Christianity”, they were in the wrong place. Christians were safely worshipping in the Holy Land for centuries. Not somethign that could be said for Muslims and Jews in Europe at that time.
Posted by: Ryan at March 29, 2005 11:40 PMLisa,
This debate over the motives of the Crusades will get us nowhere. Sorry I persisted.
I am simply trying to point out that pro-lifers who claim to “not condone killing for any motive, what-so-ever” should be appalled at the waging of this war in Iraq that has costed thousands of American, British, and Iraq military and civilian lives, regardless of whether the motive for the war was oil or the liberation of the oppressed. I therefore find it hypocritical that the majority of those pro-lifers are “so happy we invaded Iraq.” I am sure that you see the paradox of these two positions that you have taken.
Posted by: Ryan at March 30, 2005 12:08 AMwhen the WTC was bombed in 1993, Bill Clinton only responded with a couple missiles…
…which, oddly enough, is still the only time American armed forces have specifically targeted bin Laden.
…and he turned down Bin Laden in 1996 when Sudan offered him to us.
That’s a myth invented by Mansoor Ijaz who had a bunch of Sudanese oil and wanted sanctions lifted. He now works for FOX News.
Sorry, I couldn’t let that go. I still pine for the Golden Age of Clinton. Carry on.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but weren’t the Knight Templars persecuted and murdered during the Inquisition? And didn’t the inquisition go on to condone the murder and confiscation of property of thousands of people in the name of God? And wasn’t the fall of the Knights Templar one of the greatest examples of how far Christianity can be corrupted by greed?
Posted by: Julia at March 30, 2005 02:35 AMJulia & Ryan,
Like Ryan said, this debate is really just wasting space.
My original point was that it is difficult to use diplomacy on a people that use a violent religion to rule. I feel we have given that region enough chances to turn themselves around; and what I mean by that, is they have long threatened our people and flaunted it, and quite frankly, this has been a long time coming.
I’m not saying ALL muslims are bad, just their governments, and in turn, I’m sure their people have been brainwashed as well.
I’m not saying ALL other religions are perfect, either. Of course there are examples of abuse of power everywhere, in religion, and in politics.
The difference is: WE in our country control this abuse by elections. THEY cannot. WE have a government controlled by several branches of elected officials, not by a single religion. And, their religion is the ONLY religion that promotes and rewards violence.
Just as I’ve mentioned the the Arabic language has no word for compromise; they also have the distiguishment of being the only language to have a word for holy war.
I have a hard time thinking that is peaceful, and that we are doing the wrong thing.
Posted by: Lisa Zeimetz at March 30, 2005 09:47 AMAP-
You need to let that one go buddy. Clinton’s denial depends on the what the definition of offered is (or is is). His quote certainly implies that he thought he could have had him if he had the legal basis for taking him:
CLINTON: So we tried to be quite aggressive with them [Al Qaeda]. We got — well, Mr. bin Laden used to live in Sudan. He was expelled from Saudi Arabia in 1991, then he went to Sudan. And we’d been hearing that the Sudanese wanted America to start dealing with them again. They released him. At the time, 1996, he had committed no crime against America, so I did not bring him here because we had no basis on which to hold him, though we knew he wanted to commit crimes against America. So I pleaded with the Saudis to take him, ‘cause they could have. But they thought it was a hot potato and they didn’t and that’s how he wound up in Afghanistan.
Posted by: George in SC at March 30, 2005 09:57 AMOh by the way I agree with Clinton’s decision on that one. It would have made things worse had we or the Saudis taken him into custody…
Hannity would make a great Monday Morning QB
Posted by: George in SC at March 30, 2005 10:01 AMGeorge, the 9/11 Commission thoroughly investigated that myth and debunked it. It’s been relegated to the status of Bigfoot and the Area 51 flying rods. Unless you’re Art Bell, you probably don’t want to touch it. ;)
Posted by: American Pundit at March 30, 2005 10:11 AMI find it hard to believe that people can’t see the connection between why pro-lifers are for this war. A baby in a womb cannot defend itself. People under the rule of a dictator also cannot defend themselves. When women aren’t even allowed to wear whatever they want…then they have no rights. The same is true with an unborn baby…it has no rights. These two things are one and the same. I personally believe anyone who takes the life of a defenseless person (born or unborn) deserves severe punishment.
If your argument is to have any merit at all, then why do pro-choicers care about the lives of people who won’t have any effect on them? Answer your own question before you pose it to someone else.
Posted by: Jayme at March 30, 2005 10:53 AM“Five years ago, I might have been a protester on the corner denouncing our President. But, five years ago, I wasn’t “well rounded”. Reality wasn’t there for me. I only thought of “me”, and not how the world really works.”
Hilarious!
So because in five short years you’ve changed your mind about your political affiliation suddenly everyone who still supports the side you previously would have stood on a street corner protesting with is therefore not “well rounded”, not in touch with “reality”, only thinks of themselves, and doesn’t understand how the world really works?
That’s priceless, really.
“I support our President, and respect him, because I put my trust in him to protect my family, my investments, and our business.”
Ah yes. Security. But only the “Homeland” kind, rather than the Social kind — because that would be socialism and everyone knows that goes against the sacredness of the free market.
And not the kind of security you might feel knowing that you have a constitutional right to a redress of your grievances against a large corporation in court — because tort reform has now abrigded that constitutional right and limited that sort of security.
And don’t let your business go bankrupt - the bill just passed has removed all security there.
And if that happens you and your family better not get sick, because medicare/medicaid is on the verge of going tits up.
As for the security of your investments, you might want to forget diversifying your stocks and put it all in companies who build for the military, because that is where all the money is going.
The rest of the economy couldn’t possibly be more insecure because the president seems intent on driving us right over the cliff.
Here’s a thought: maybe in another five years you’ll realize you were wrong about how the world really works, and that the new reality of America’s economic collapse will force you change your political affiliation once again?
“I truly believe that we are in Iraq to liberate an oppressed people (with our volunteer military), while also protecting our innocent children at home.
I am so happy we invaded Iraq,”
Oh sure, forget the WMD Lie, it was really all about liberating oppressed people.
Operation Iraqi Liberation. Whoopps that spells OIL, better call it Freedom.
I’m sure that the little girl pictured in the link to this article will one day feel great knowing that being covered with the blood of her parents was not in vain, and that American’s were so happy to invade that country to ensure her Oil, whoops, I mean Freedom.
Yes, we should all be so extremely proud that in order to protect our innocent little children at home we were forced to invade a country who didn’t possess nukes, who didn’t sell nuclear technology to unstable nations, and who didn’t have an alliance with Al Qaeda – so that our wonderful Security President could turn around and sell F-16’s to Pakistan, a country who did all of those things.
“There is evidence that Bush had already planned to invade Iraq FOR OIL even before the 9/11 attacks.”
The evidence backing up this assertion posted by Ryan was writen by Greg Palast, a blatantly far-left journalist. You cannot rely on this type of source as a reasonable basis for making your claim. Sources should be non-biased as much as possible. If you have any doubts, visit Greg’s web site (I don’t know the address - I did not bookmark it).
Posted by: Robert A. Dugger at March 30, 2005 01:00 PMI should point out that one should no more rely on far left bias like Greg Palast any more than one should on far right bias like Rush Limbaugh.
Posted by: Robert A. Dugger at March 30, 2005 01:09 PMLisa,
Does not the word Crusade mean holy war just like jihad does. (I do not want to debate whether or not the crusades were just or not, but the word clearly means a holy war)
Jayme,
I’ll answer the question, I believe that a zygote or any other pre-fetal stage of human development that has no brain cannot feel any pain nor desire any right to life. In contrast, the thousands of American, Birtish, Iraqi and other coalition troops and civilians do desire life and we as Americans should do all we can to honor that by withdrawing from the war so no more people will get hurt.
Jayme
I could not agree with you more. None of the things we conservatives believe are at odds with each other. It is all so simple. Productions are made on all these issues simply to cloudy them.
Welfare - have you ever been given anything for absolutely nothing that you appreciated? There is a place for welfare. However there are also ways to give people the personal satisfaction of helping themselves at the same time.
Abortion - simply a way to not take responsibility for your actions. One that shows no regard for anyone else’s rights. Even you own flesh and blood.
Death penalty - Cruel? Well, if we had to witness the acts done to get them there, how cruel would it seem? These are not innocent people. This is an appropriate punishment for a crime against innocence. How many of these people would be on death row if society had made them take full responsibility for there actions when they committed their first offenses.
War - when all of you were children in school. Who are the kids that were picked on. Ones the bullies knew would not/could not defend themselves. Right! Whether it is to anyone’s liking or not - that is the way it is with human nature. We can either stand up for what we believe or live under someone else’s beliefs.
Posted by: Sue at March 30, 2005 01:30 PM>”There is evidence that Bush had already planned to invade
> Iraq FOR OIL even before the 9/11 attacks.”
“The evidence backing up this assertion posted by Ryan was writen by Greg Palast, a blatantly far-left journalist. You cannot rely on this type of source as a reasonable basis for making your claim. Sources should be non-biased as much as possible. If you have any doubts, visit Greg’s web site (I don’t know the address - I did not bookmark it).”
Greg Palast is not blatantly far left. To know this with certainty one would have to read his books and see that he attacks everybody who needs attacking.
Here is a link to his website
Besides, this is a major scandal that is developing as we speak. I just read this morning that it is sparking demonstrations all over Britian due to a documentary shown this past weekend on a program called Panorama.
In the documentary, MI6 chief Richard Dearlove said that he had told Blair far before the war started that America’s Iraq Intelligence was “fixed” to meet Bush’s goal of invading Iraq at all costs. He also claimed that nine months before the invasion, he was at a meeting in Washington which made him conclude that war in Iraq was “inevitable” – and that Blair had agreed and had signed on to support the war as early as April 2002.
Dearlove quote:
“The facts and intelligence were being fixed round the policy by U.S. President George Bush’s administration.”
Also appearing in the documentary was Robin Cook (former foreign secretary who resigned over Iraq), who said basically the same thing:
“What was propelling the prime minister was a determination that he would be the closest ally to George Bush and they would prove to the United States administration that Britain was their closest ally.”
“His problem is that George Bush’s motivation was regime change. It was not disarmament. Tony Blair knew perfectly well what he was doing.”
“To know this with certainty one would have to read his books and see that he attacks everybody who needs attacking.”
Sorry, but if you can truly believe that Greg Palast is not far left, then you must also believe Rush Limbaugh is not far right. I’ve visited his website extensively. I’m familiar with the “calling cards” (buzz words?), if you will, of both left and right wing causes, and his are littered with those from the left.
Perhaps only those not deeply immersed in one side or the other can see that? (That is a question, not an insult…)
Amen Jayme!
Back to the original topic, conservatives are pro-life when it comes to the unborn, but not pro-life when it comes to enemies in war, and are therefore hypocrites? Let’s reverse the question. Liberals have no problem with women killing their innocent unborn children, but have big problems when the military goes to war to kill people and break things. Conservatives will argue the difference is based on the complete innocence of the unborn child, vs. the guilt of any opponent in war, and therefore there is no hypocrisy. (Granted, innocent Iraqi civilians have died during the war, but that is not the goal of the war.) Upon what logic do liberals hold their apparently opposing views together?
By the way, I’m not saying Greg Palast is not correct or incorrect. What I am saying is that sources such as Greg Palast should not be definitively relied on when making judgements about current affairs. A balanced approach needs to be taken; an exhaustive research of one’s own must sometimes be performed to truly know the truth. I, for example, neither know the truth about the war, nor am I so concerned that I’m willing to invest the tremendous time to research it. I will not make judgement based on one journalist or source when the man elected by the people has access to tremendous resources in order to reach a decision. What President Bush’s motives were may never truly be known - do we still know with 100% certainty who assassinated President Kennedy?
The war is. Now, the best thing America can do is see it through to ensure a stable Iraq for years to come. If the Soviets had not left Afghanistan in disarray, maybe things would not be what they are now. If the British Empire has not left myriad colonies to become unstable countries over the last couple of centuries, maybe the world would be better now. It is in our interest to ensure stability - not just as Americans, but has humans, citizens of the planet.
In the words of that old windbag on the radio,
Good Day.
Posted by: Robert A. Dugger at March 30, 2005 01:59 PMAdrienne:
“In five short years” I had two children, married a self-employed man, and purchased a home. I would think that is enough to have anybody re-access their political standpoints, because having all mentioned above can tend to come before the emotional mindless ranting of a college-aged protester. Anytime I come up against most liberals (not all), I ask how they come to their conclusions, and I hear the same b.s.: “I read/watched/heard…”
I get nothing about THEIR life experiences that influence their positions. Only what somebody else went through and told them. To me, that’s not enough. I have much more that directly affects my own life, and therefore my beliefs. So, I really do not see how it is so hard to change one’s mind. But, I suppose it would be acceptable if I were to change my mind to align with your beliefs? Come on now.
And, because we work our butts off, we do not use Medicaid, and we have insurance policies to protect us from having to be on Medicare later. Perhaps if the protesters spent that time working, they wouldn’t have to worry about their free lunch being “taken” from them. Talk about a sense of entitlement. Work for your own, Adrienne, it is not up to us to provide for you.
If my husband and I practice smart business, why would we go bankrupt? If you are worried about bankruptcy, just don’t live beyond your means, or flat out work harder. And, this “poor economy” tripe is plain stupid, because we are not affected in the slightest by any policies that President Bush put forth. If anything, we’re affected by the socialist policies that the Dems pushed through years ago. The economy was in reccession before Bush took office, but nobody seems to want to look at that.
We’ve been in Iraq for two years, Kuwait for over a decade and it takes six months from what I understand to convert oil to gas. If we are in the region for oil, why are we not driving around for free?
Do we shoot at bank robbers in a crowd? When a kid is bullying people, do we throw rocks in his general direction (knowing full well a couple of innocent children will also be hit in the head).
War is never targeted. It’s just not feasible. When you decide war is the solution, you have to accept that the price is worth the cost of killing innocent children. If I put a child in front of you and told you that in order to free Iraq, you must shoot this child in the head, would you think a little more carefully?
If we are truly pro-human life, then we should all do our utmost to find a different answer to tyranny. This is why Roosevelt and Wilson tried to found international institutions. It’s why McNamara now works so hard to strengthen the International Courts. Instead of invading a country, why not declare their leaders corrupt, show evidence, and prevent them from recieving money from their people. Have the U.N. run the country instead of the tyrant. If the U.N. rips the country off, is that “worse” than killing 20,000 innocent people? Is holding the U.N. accountable for corruption a worse solution than paying mother’s money in compensation for accidentally blowing off the legs and arms of their 4 year old? For blinding them? For killing their son and daughter, and all their friends at a wedding party?
Canada managed to achieve freedom without fighting the British. War is inhumane, and maybe we should work harder trying to find a more humane solution. I am tired of seeking ways to justify how killing innocent people is for the greater good. I’d rather hear people come up with solutions that don’t involve killing innocent people.
Posted by: Julia at March 30, 2005 02:12 PM“Canada managed to achieve freedom without fighting the British”
1) Does this reduce the validity of US sovereignty?
2) I admit up front to knowing nothing about the change from colony to sovereign nation as far as Canada is concerned, but I wonder if it had to do with the economics of empire in post-war Britain.
Please don’t get suckered into participating in the argument that Terri Schiavo’s right to die is about her externally evaluated quality of life. The only issue is whether Terri would have wanted to die (and it is irrelevant how you phrase the mode of death). If her desire was to be removed from articificial support (which in Florida includes feeding tubes), then she should be removed. No one knows for certain what she wanted, she can’t express herself (according to almost every medical expert and contrary to the wild assertions by one biased lawyer). However, Michael Schiavo is legally responsible for her and without evidence to the contrary (that is, evidence verifiable in a court of law, not evidence put up on some off-the-wall website), he must be entrusted with that responsibility. Otherwise, our rule of law is meaningless and we essentially have mob rule: what the mob wants, the mob gets. It might prolong the agony of a woman who would prefer to be allowed to die in peace, but, by God, if the wild-eyed mob wants her biological life to be artificially prolonged, it will be prolonged.
Terri Schiavo’s right to die is the issue, not her quality of life, not her husband’s quality of marriage, not her parent’s deep love and inability to let her go, not the Christian right’s obsessive focus on Terri to the exclusion of every other endangered innocent (think starving in Africa, slaughter in Darfur). Focus, people, focus.
Posted by: Mental Wimp at March 30, 2005 03:34 PMRobert,
it’s not about the validity of U.S. sovereignity, but I would hope, if the founding fathers had another way to get their freedom (besides war) they would have chosen that path. They didn’t have that option. Canada did. I think, given our American history, war might not be our “worst and last” option, but more around our “hey war is a little glorious, that’s how we got our freedom, how about we consider doing that” option. Woodrow Wilson did everything he could to stay out of war. I’d like to see a little more of that soul searching going on.
Mental Wimp,
You are right. At the end of the day it’s about Terri’s wishes, not ours.
Julia
Posted by: Julia at March 30, 2005 03:50 PMMental Wimp -
Thank you for your excellent post - it is to the point, accurate, and brings us back to the original topic quite nicely.
Separately, Julia,
Thanks - I agree, in principle, that war should be engaged after serious “soul” searching; but, and this is petty, I did not ask if this was about US sovereignty; I asked if Canada’s success in attaining sovereignty without engaging the British in war diminished the validity of US sovereignty. This is a distinction, which may be important, may be irrelevant. At any rate, it’s a question to be answered, not skirted.
Anyone who thinks Greg Palast can be mentioned in the breath with Rush Limbaugh probably doesn’t realize that he was he was given The American Civil Liberties Union’s 2004 Upton Sinclair Freedom of Expression Award. He was also inducted to be a “patron of the Philosophical Society” of Trinity College in Dublin — an honor that has been previously given to men the likes of Jonathan Swift, Oscar Wilde, and Salman Rushdie.
He is an an excellent investigative reporter and an avowed non-partisan, and is actually viewed that way in Great Britian because he goes after everyone in sight. In fact, he has gone after Blair so many times that Blair once actually denounced him on the floor in Parliament.
In this country, his journalism has been focused mainly on the stealing of the 2000 and 2004 elections and on corporate crime. His NYT bestselling book “The Best Democracy Money Can Buy” dealt with just how bad our election process has become and this has made the Right label him a far-left-winger.
It simply isn’t true.
Palast goes after anybody who tries to hide truths the public has a right to know, as well as those who cheat the public or pollute the environment. In America that means he will be focusing mainly, but not exclusively, on Republicans.
He has been quoted as saying: “I enjoy being sued by both parties, it gives me a sense of balance.” He said this to a reporter after Democrat Mario Cuomo sued him for 15 million dollars over his allegations regarding The Shoreham Nuclear Power Plant court case.
“he was given The American Civil Liberties Union’s “
If you use this argument to try to convince yourself that Palast is not left-biased, then you may not realize that the ACLU is widely seen as a liberal (i.e. left) organization.
“patron of the Philosophical Society” of Trinity College in Dublin — an honor that has been previously given to men the likes of Jonathan Swift, Oscar Wilde, and Salman Rushdie.”
Here again, colleges and universities are widely viewed as liberal instituions. (By the way, is Salman Rushdie’s book widely available for purchase? I’ve long wanted to read it….)
But what I am more curious about is this: are you embarrassed about Mr. Palast being liberal or the notion that the ACLU and universities are are liberal? Not that I know this with any certainty, but I don’t think those on the right are embarrased about their rightist voices, be it Limbaugh or O’Reilly or anyone else. One should not be embarrassed by one’s political / ideological affiliations, only by trying to hide it’s true colors.
Good day!
Posted by: Robert A. Dugger at March 30, 2005 04:26 PMLisa:
“I had two children, married a self-employed man, and purchased a home. I would think that is enough to have anybody re-access their political standpoints,”
Before, you know, back when you were still protesting on street corners you claimed:
“I only thought of “me”
Sounds to me like you’re still doing a lot of that.
“the emotional mindless ranting of a college-aged protester.”
So you’re saying you were a Phoney Protester? Marching without a clue, and acting as if, but not actually feeling, emotional? Sorry, but that doesn’t give you license to assume everyone else was doing the same.
“Anytime I come up against most liberals (not all), I ask how they come to their conclusions, and I hear the same b.s.: “I read/watched/heard…”“
Well, if they didn’t read, watch, or hear anything, they wouldn’t have much of a perspective would they? Which would make them into a phoney whose view on the world is so narrow and short- sighted they might not be able to focus past the tip of their own noses.
“I get nothing about THEIR life experiences that influence their positions.”
Really? Have you actually asked them, or aren’t you curious if they don’t seem to agree with your opinions? Or perhaps the problem is you don’t regularly come into contact with people who’ve ever had to struggle to get by in life?
“Only what somebody else went through and told them.”
Yes, we left-wingers are famous for our concern for what others go through.
“To me, that’s not enough.”
That is obvious.
“because we work our butts off, we do not use Medicaid,”
So do people who work their butts off at Burger King, and they do need it.
“and we have insurance policies to protect us from having to be on Medicare later.”
How nice, FOR YOU. It isn’t like that for other American’s.
“Perhaps if the protesters spent that time working, they wouldn’t have to worry about their free lunch being “taken” from them.”
You mean the college protestors, or the rest who only do so on the weekends because that’s when they aren’t working?
And by the way, there is no such thing as a free lunch.
“Talk about a sense of entitlement.”
Which sense, yours or theirs?
“Work for your own, Adrienne, it is not up to us to provide for you.”
I’m personally doing great Lisa, which is why I have the time to blog. But I deeply worry about my fellow citizens who are working their asses off, often holding down two or more jobs, who are still struggling to provide for themselves and their families.
But why should you give a damn about such people, since they don’t affect you or your investments, right?
“If my husband and I practice smart business, why would we go bankrupt?”
Because shit happens to us all. And because no one has the money to buy when the economy collapses.
“If you are worried about bankruptcy, just don’t live beyond your means, or flat out work harder.”
Yeah, maybe low income earners can learn to do without sleep so they can take an extra job during those hours.
“And, this “poor economy” tripe is plain stupid, because we are not affected in the slightest by any policies that President Bush put forth.”
This is plain stupid. I suggest you read a lot more about this subject. Oh wait, almost forgot, you don’t approve of people reading things to become more informed.
“If anything, we’re affected by the socialist policies that the Dems pushed through years ago. The economy was in reccession before Bush took office, but nobody seems to want to look at that.””
What socialist policies would those be that you feel are detrimentally affecting us now? Or is this just another steaming load of “It’s All Clinton’s Fault” shit? Sorry, but since the last election, I’m afraid the statute of limitations has run out on that old turd.
“If you use this argument to try to convince yourself that Palast is not left-biased, then you may not realize that the ACLU is widely seen as a liberal (i.e. left) organization.”
You mean it is wrongly viewed as left-biased by some right-wingers until for some reason their own Civil Liberties are violated. Then they realize how lucky all American’s are that the ACLU exists, and relieved that they’ll work on behalf of everyone.
“Here again, colleges and universities are widely viewed as liberal instituions.”
I am gobsmacked by this. Are you saying that all collages and universities are to be disparaged because you view them as liberal?
(By the way, is Salman Rushdie’s book widely available for purchase? I’ve long wanted to read it….)
Yes. He has written many books, and all are widely available for purchase.
“But what I am more curious about is this: are you embarrassed about Mr. Palast being liberal”
Mr. Palast does not label himself a liberal, he has labled himself a non-partisan muckraker. If you are asking if I am embarrassed to call myself a Liberal, the answer is: No, indeed I am quite proud to do so.
“or the notion that the ACLU and universities are are liberal?”
I don’t agree with this assertion, and feel that you are the one who should be embarrassed for insisting that they are.
“Not that I know this with any certainty, but I don’t think those on the right are embarrased about their rightist voices, be it Limbaugh or O’Reilly or anyone else.”
Those two should be embarrassed for being such blatant liars and rude, loud-mouthed, no-talent hacks.
“One should not be embarrassed by one’s political / ideological affiliations, only by trying to hide it’s true colors.”
Hey! We agree on something!
Posted by: Adrienne at March 30, 2005 06:38 PMRobert,
I don’t know the answer to your question. Is a woman’s freedom from her abusive husband less valid through the method of killing him, than the method of divorcing him? Through the method of beating him up a little bit and forcing him to sign the divorce papers, as compared to slowly working out the divorce over a period of ten years while avoiding him as much as possible?
To all,
The point of this article, I felt, was that if we can air Terri’s video all over the internet, and on TV shows, and agonize over what is right and wrong in her situation, then why do we not air the stories of those murdered in Iraq, and agonize over whether or not we handled everything right for their situation? Do we agonize over the use of cluster bombs? Do we agonize over the deaths of people from mine fields we lay? Do we agonize over stray bombs that accidentally kill 40 innocent people, instead of the 1 terrorist we were trying for? Do we?
Julia
But Julia, cluster bombs, deaths of people from mine fields and stray bombs that accidentally kill 40 innocent people are all for democracy, freedom and oh-yah, peace! You gotta learn to make sacrifices! (as long as it isn’t oil your sacrificing).
Posted by: Zeek at March 30, 2005 06:51 PMAdrienne,
You are deluded. Plain and simple. I’m sorry, but not surprised, that you are unable to see that. And FOR THE RECORD, I am INDEPENDENT, not liberal, not conservative. I seek only truth, and call on those who cannot see the world as it truly exists to open their eyes.
One last thing:
“Those two should be embarrassed for being such blatant liars and rude, loud-mouthed, no-talent hacks”
Why is it that liberals (typically) resort to insults and namecalling when they have no real case to make? I have participated in a great many forums over the last few years, and find this to be consistently true. It is a shame. Putting an end to this practice would help the liberal causes much more in the long run!
Cheers!
Posted by: Robert A. Dugger at March 30, 2005 06:58 PMAdrienne:
You are getting out of hand and losing your focus. I never was a protestor, and my examples of working harder are to point out that there is much that you can do for yourself, instead of wasting time by worrying about what social programs are rightfully being reformed. Of course everybody reads up on the news, but I’m talking about working for your “investments” in the definition of our children, business, and home. Having these things can change your political stance, and rightfully so. It’s not selfish, it’s wise. Whether to right or left, I don’t care, but re-evaluating what’s important in your life is good. If you can’t see the argument without getting so out of line, you are not worth debating with.
You take the fun out of it. :(
Posted by: Lisa Zeimetz at March 30, 2005 07:48 PMRobert, watch it pal.
And if you feel like making generalizations about people, I’ll add to it.
Independent people tend to be cursed with the hubris. They’re also going to hell for not taking sides. (See how uncalled for generalizations are?)
Posted by: Zeek at March 30, 2005 08:12 PM“You are deluded. Plain and simple. I’m sorry, but not surprised, that you are unable to see that.”
Hmm. I am deluded for seeing that Greg Palast is a non-partisan muckraker who goes after anyone crooked enough to warrant exposure through investigative journalism?
“And FOR THE RECORD, I am INDEPENDENT, not liberal, not conservative.”
For the record, I am also an Independent voter who believes in social liberalism and fiscal conservatism (pay as you go).
“I seek only truth,”
Same here. I am a news junkie who reads everything from the left and the right in an attempt to glean the actual truth.
“and call on those who cannot see the world as it truly exists to open their eyes.”
I’d never expect everyone here or elsewhere to view things exactly the way I do. Perhaps that’s why I enjoy Watchblog’s format so much, rather than blogs where practically everyone agrees with everyone else.
“Why is it that liberals (typically) resort to insults and namecalling when they have no real case to make?”
When we’re talking about Limbaugh and O’Reilly I’d say it’s just tat for two tits, no?
Btw, you’ll note that I didn’t make any sweeping statements about you personally. For instance, I didn’t feel the need to proclaim you delusional.
This is precious:
“You are deluded. Plain and simple.”
“Why is it that liberals (typically) resort to insults and namecalling when they have no real case to make?”
In the same post, even…not just the same thread.
Huzzah, Mr. Dugger.
And, for what it’s worth, being “independent” refers to one’s partisanship, while being liberal or conservative refers to one’s ideology. One can certainly be liberal, conservative, or moderate AND independent.
And everyone who rages about liberal universities doesn’t seem to have spent any time in econ or business departments. I know the world is run by rich, powerful, and influential english grad students, but there _is_ another side…just ask the anarcho-capitalists in the econ department at George Mason U.
Posted by: Rrrrrrricko at March 30, 2005 09:13 PM“You are getting out of hand”
You mean I’m challenging you.
“and losing your focus.”
In what way?
“I never was a protestor,”
Pardon. My mistake.
So then, five years ago you would have been agreeing with your friends who would now be denouncing this president, but because you didn’t have a husband, a family and a business… that means you wouldn’t have been in touch with reality?
“and my examples of working harder are to point out that there is much that you can do for yourself, instead of wasting time by worrying about what social programs are rightfully being reformed.”
I see. Don’t Worry, Be Happy. Republican’s are making things harder for the middle class and the poor — I don’t call that righteous reformation.
“Of course everybody reads up on the news,”
Alas no, everybody doesn’t, though they should.
“but I’m talking about working for your “investments” in the definition of our children, business, and home.”
And I’m talking about what happens when the government decides to over tax the middle class, ceases to help the poor get ahead, cuts social and education programs to the point where crime increases while simultaneously mismanages the economy which forces cuts at the state and local level for law enforcement.
This is what I meant by having no such thing as a free lunch, because everybody pays one way or another. Well, everyone but the rich, that is, they’ve been made to pay for nothing with this administration. Rather, in the safety zones of gated communities, they’ve done nothing but gain.
“Having these things can change your political stance, and rightfully so.”
I have a family, I own my own home, and I run my own business, but just because I’m doing very well, it hasn’t blinded me to the inequality people are born with monetarily, or the struggles they face everyday.
I’ve also changed my political stance. Years ago I used to volunteer my time and always voted solidly Democratic, then, I felt that the Democrats weren’t fighting hard enough for the working classes, so I began voting Green Party at the state and local level (even though there are several things which I’ve always differed on with the Greens), and Democratic for the presidency only.
Quite recently I’ve seen Congressional Dems move even farther towards the center and abandoning the interests of the working classes, so now I am forced to vote Green all the time.
However, I plan to keep an eye on what the Dems are doing now that Dean is in charge, because I’m fully aware that he is not a corrupt politician, and I’m waiting to see if he can effect change in the Party.
“It’s not selfish, it’s wise.”
Because I wasn’t born with a silver spoon in my mouth, I’ve never seen the wisdom in voting for a Republican. I view that as voting against my own interests, and the interests of the middle class and the poor. You see, no matter how rich I become in my life, I don’t plan on forgetting where I come from, or the folks who haven’t been as lucky as I have.
“Whether to right or left, I don’t care, but re-evaluating what’s important in your life is good. If you can’t see the argument without getting so out of line, you are not worth debating with.”
You might be surprised by this, but I have quite a few friends who vote Republican, and I’ve gotten many of them to admit to me that doing so has more to do with preserving their own self- interests, rather than thinking about the larger impact that vote has upon our society. Not one of them has ever told me I’m not worth debating with.
“You take the fun out of it. :(“
If I’m making you uncomfortable, I have to think I’m not doing too badly! ;^)
Posted by: Adrienne at March 30, 2005 09:50 PMThe problem is not that one political party is unfit to govern, it’s that they’re all unfit to govern. As such, you might as well vote in your own interests rather than with foolish ideas of patriotism/idealism in mind.
Posted by: Zeek at March 30, 2005 10:42 PMYou make too many assumptions, my dear friend.
I was not born with a silver spoon in my mouth. I grew up in a lower-middle class family, and I had to work at 14 to pay for my own school lunches. My parents today, still live in a run-down crime ridden neighborhood.
I am not rich, I am solidly middle-class. Just because you are self-employed, doesn’t make you wealthy. If anything, it stinks. Employees only pay for half the tax, and the company picks of the other half. Larger corporations get to deduct that other half. Not the small business owner however. You, as a business owner should know this.
Also, you can thank a democrat for that. You can also thank the democrats for the death tax, putting welfare in social security, and making it damn near impossible for the small business owner to accomplish anything. We had an employee babysitting her grandkids behind our back, and when we fired her, she got to receive unemployment, and it raised our rates. AND, her babysitting her grandkids was a liability issue. If they would have been hurt, regardless if we were aware if it or not, we would have been held financially responsible, thanks to a democrat.
I do not live in a gated community. I live in a 100 year old home in a village of 850 people. I worked on this home with my own hands, and even today, when we had tornado warnings all over the place, I worked my butt off trying to finish our tornado shelter in time, with a one year old and four year old. I work for my community, and even have a savings account for our village park. I work very hard, for my family, and my community, and I KNOW that anyone who knew me would back that up. How many people can say that about you? Or are you only about keeping the poor destitute and dependant upon a system that doesn’t help them help themselves? I grew up poor, and STILL do not have a college degree, but I managed to work for a life I am comfortable living.
Not all republicans are high-class. Most are not. I live in Reagan country, and Speaker Hastert is our congressman. Our county is completely rural, and aside from Dixon, there isn’t a town over 1000 people in it, and NONE of the communities are “new”. And, I might add, the county is 80% republican. Hard working people that enjoy working to better themselves are republican, like farmers. People that believe that people can help themselves without relying on the government are republican. And where do you get that the wealthy do not pay? They have the highest tax brackets, and pay for most of the bills. What a dumb comment! Bill Gates pays more in taxes than my entire village will earn in their lifetimes!
Before you pass judgement on how I grew up or how much I make now, visit my political blog in my profile, or
my home blog
I think you will find my home is hardly a “gated” community, and I do not mind bragging that I worked for it myself with no hired help, and without the assistance of welfare. At one point, I really needed it when I had my son, and no job, but I managed to avoid it. 90% of the people in the system today could do the same, but the democrats keep them in it with no pressure, because if it wasn’t for welfare, they’d lose most of their votes.
You’ll also notice that I’m a charitable individual who will give money to those who honestly deserve it, even when it hurts us. But, in the end, I know I can recover, and it helped our friend stay afloat to recover himself. I NEVER give to the United Way, or similar organizations. I help those who I KNOW need it, fair and square, and those people are grateful and remember the kindness. People on welfare gobble the money up, and selfishly grab for more, because they do not see the face behind the charity.
So, Adrienne, I apologise for the ramblings, but I truly think you are off in left field when it comes to my viewpoints. You seriously do not “get it”. You are making false assumptions about me, and if you are going to do that, just so you know, my name is public, I’m running for public office, and I have three sites with all my personal information on it. Take the time to read them, and then come back at me personally. I have no problem with any political viewpoints, and I have liberal friends, but my friends respect my positions, as I do theirs. I’m incredibly young, but I have worked my butt off to own the cars and my home completely independant of my husband. I have learned through hard work ethic, that most people would not be on welfare, if they only could see their own potential. You seem intent on keeping these poor people dependant on a system to nowhere, and thereby keeping their self-worth at a minimum.
Posted by: Lisa Zeimetz at March 30, 2005 10:57 PMDear Reader,
My name is Anahà Lazarte and I am a graduate student at the Univeristy of Illinois at Chicago researching political blogging.
I am conducting a survey and I would very much appreciate your collaboration. Please take this survey online and let me know what you think: http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.asp?u=32741950394
Feel free to pass this link to others who might be interested. The survey needs to be completed by this Sunday at midnight (April 3).
Your responses will help communication research to study political blogging and the experiences of Blog users. The goal is to achieve a better understanding of how individuals relate to media and the Internet, and how they perceive the political information that is available across different media.
Participation in this survey is voluntary and confidential.
Thanks! For additional info call 313-413-2128 or send an e-mail to alazar3@uic.edu.
Anahi Lazarte
Graduate Student
Department of Communication @ UIC.
I wrote:
“Because I wasn’t born with a silver spoon in my mouth, I’ve never seen the wisdom in voting for a Republican.”
See, I was giving you MY opinion on why I will never vote for a Republican. Somehow you read that, and once again it became all about YOU.
“You are making false assumptions about me,”
No Madame, I was not. I gave you my opinion on how I feel about Republican voters in a general sense and you falsely assumed I was very personally denigrating your home, your background, your business practices, your charitable donations, and every other damn thing in your world.
But honestly, I wasn’t doing so.
You know, you said you weren’t having fun, and now after that last rant, I’d have to concur. I feel that I expect, and indeed deserve a bit of fencing or at least some wit or sarcasm in return to my posts, but if you’re going to take every verbal jab I dish out so personally, then these exchanges aren’t going to be very enjoyable for me either.
So now, if you’d like, you may have the last word…
Posted by: Adrienne at March 31, 2005 01:53 AMHey, and I keep hearing on NPR and nytimes about how women aren’t opinionated, and it’s all opinionated women around here lately.
As a small business owner, I don’t blame my immensely complicated compliance issues on Democrats. There’s plenty of blame to go around. As a small business owner I’m FOR universal health care, because then I won’t have to micromanage healthcare for my employees.
So, to try to steer the comments back a little bit: pro-life, as a small business owner, means that I support congresspeople who make it easy for me to have healthy employees, who can take care of their kids. It means services for kids with disabilities, so their parents can come to work.
And, on a larger scale, it means having a little concern about blowing up children with the bombs we use to defeat tyrants.
Posted by: Julia at March 31, 2005 03:09 AMI gave you my opinion on how I feel about Republican voters in a general sense and you falsely assumed I was very personally denigrating your home, your background, your business practices, your charitable donations, and every other damn thing in your world. But honestly, I wasn’t doing so.You know, you said you weren’t having fun, and now after that last rant, I’d have to concur. I feel that I expect, and indeed deserve a bit of fencing or at least some wit or sarcasm in return to my posts, but if you’re going to take every verbal jab I dish out so personally, then these exchanges aren’t going to be very enjoyable for me either.
Adrienne,
Of course she’s going to take it personally. If you go back and re-read her post where she declares herself a born again repugnantcan, you’ll see she uses “me” and “my” about a dozen times. It’s the mantra for the repugnantcan party, and the way they secure so many votes. It’s easier to push propaganda to humanity’s inborn instinct to be selfish.
Posted by: Taylor at March 31, 2005 06:06 AMFor the record, Terri Schiavo passed away at about 10am this morning.
Posted by: Gandhi at March 31, 2005 10:24 AMJulia:
“As a small business owner I’m FOR universal health care,”
I absolutely share your view. But republican’s have somehow convinced their followers that this is rampant socalism, and therefore, terrible for America. If they’d only investigate that claim by looking north to Canada and to the many prosperous European nations who’ve implemented UH for their people they’d realize it’s a great idea for us, too.
And if right-wingers want to talk about innocent children and the “culture of life”, we should force them to include our high infant mortality rate. In comparison with many of our allies, the fact that such a large percentage of our women are not receiving decent prenatal care is an embarrassment and a disgrace.
“And, on a larger scale, it means having a little concern about blowing up children with the bombs we use to defeat tyrants.”
I honestly don’t think that the far-right neo-con types let that bother them too much. After listening to all the “Word Rove-ing” they employ (blanket statements like “Evil Doer’s”, for instance), I believe many folks are able to accept the idea of “collateral damage” with barely a blink. Also, since the media has completely refused to show any of the horrible reality on television, distancing themselves from the carnage of war has got to be a much easier thing to do.
Taylor:
“It’s the mantra for the repugnantcan party, and the way they secure so many votes. It’s easier to push propaganda to humanity’s inborn instinct to be selfish.”
I think you’re right, Taylor. GOPropaganda appeals to the very basest of human instincts, but like I said with that “free lunch” comment, whether they can acknowledge it or not, everybody but the very wealthy ends up having to pay in some fashion.
Our way imposes taxes on the rich, who can afford it. Their way imposes the bulk of the taxes on the middle class, and creates nothing but chaos and violence among the poor and and the middle class, while the wealthy, as usual, aren’t affected by any of it. It just stinks.
Just to set the record straight. No one pulled the plug on Teri. She was not on life support. She was not breathing with the help of a machine. I understand Tom Delay’s father was on life support and couldn’t live without the help of a machine! Big difference.
I think the similarities are actually pretty strong. He showed the same kinds of signs of alleged alertness that Terri has been showing (“He did a bit of moaning and groaning”), but his family made the decision that he wouldn’t want to live in that condition. (He had no living will.) So they withheld his dialysis. They were “playing God” just like Michael Schiavo, and other families in a similar position.
I don’t say this just to call Delay a hypocrite (which is of course fun), but to point out the problem with legislating these kind of thing. It would keep people from following their conscience, like Delay and his family did.
Posted by: Woody Mena at March 31, 2005 01:08 PMThe poor in this country WHAT. It is so obvious you really have no clue as to the reality. I cannot find fault with that because, until I worked to so called help those in the system, I did not realize either. We give and give and give. The problem is the majority of them are of the belief the country owes it to them to support them. We give them free rent, free food, free furniture and all household item, free clothes, free medical care, and free cash. The cash is used to get their nails done, by the way (Or to support a little habit like booze, meth, etc.)They leave the taking care of their children’s necessities to us. After all, we will not let the children suffer. But that fact is used. You find contacts to get them jobs, they may go to the interview(which is required) but make sure they do not get the job or get the job, go to work the first day and call in sick from then on to get fired. I am not a cynic, I just now know how it works in reality. I see them sell food stamps for drugs. Misuse the system in every way possible. And disability. Now that is a whole new story. I know people with true disabilities that NEED it,can’t get it, and then THEM. They are on MENTAL DISABILITY. Because they are depressed or using drugs
AND THEY GET IT. Actually I do not know who is responsible for our current welfare system, but it just plain STINKS
I fully realize how this opinion will sit with a lot of you and frankly, I could care less. I worked with this until I just could not go on with it. I Know.
Posted by: sue at March 31, 2005 01:28 PMHey Sue,
I’ve dealt with the homeless, and you’re right, sometimes you wonder how much money you can keep putting down that black hole. But there are so many other people who truly do need help, who we do help. Families fleeing abuse, who go on welfare for a year, and move on. My husband was on welfare, and I don’t know what he would have done without it. Sure, I know people who have gamed the disabilities system, but I also know people who wouldn’t be able to survive without it.
Just because some people seem like they’re hopeless cases, doesn’t mean that there isn’t a lot of good done.
We have a family member who was an addict. He was about as bad as you can get. We did everything we could to rehabilitate him. He never got it together. He overdosed and died. He’s responsible for what happened to himself, but I couldn’t live with myself if we hadn’t done everything possible to bring him back. Do we just say “fine, let him go on the street, let him steal to pay for his addiction, let him be someone elses problem”. Well, he still ended up being the government’s problem. But we did the best we could.
You’re going to pay for messed up people one way or the other. With jails or institutions (at the end of the problem) or with intervention (at the beginning). That is, unless you advocate killing them straight out. That’s the only way you can avoid spending money on them.
Posted by: Julia at March 31, 2005 02:34 PMHow did this blog get to welfare? It was started about Terri Schavo and pro life vs. pro war.
My observations: It seems that the (1)pro-life (2)pro-death penalty (3)pro-war faction are always justifying their choices by invoking:
(1) the innocence of the baby;
(2) the guilt of the criminal; and,
(3) the right to defend oneself.
When arguing for #1, it’s a fair debate to argue when does life start, etc… But, the law is made to protect the right of a woman to chose what to do with her body and keep the gov’t away. You can’t give power to the police then have them decide motivations. Many people here impune any woman who might need or want an abortion as using it for birth control or the avoidence of responsibilty. That can never be the legal rationale, you can’t legislate morality in a democracy.
When arguing for #2, it seems the final arguments are always “they deserve it” and “it’s cost effect to kill them.” It still seems to be “not choosing life” when the choice is incarcerated forever vs. the proactive act of killing them.
When arguing for #3, how does that jive with the preemptive war we started, the massive civilian casualties we inflicted, the inexorable shift in justifications, the insider made implications of a pre-existing intention to invade pre 9/11, and the blatant politicalization of the entire debacle?
Julia,
Very nicely said! I couldn’t have replied more eloquently than you just did.
In fact, the only reply that occurred to me before reading your post was: Would she like to paint us all another broad-brushed caricature, like “Bugs Bunny”, since she did such a good job with “Shiftless Welfare Recipient”? :^)
Julia - Enpowerment comes from doing something you are afraid to do (for whatever reason) and finding out you are able. Be it holding down a job, whatever. The answer is not in supporting them so they can go on being useless, but teaching them the self satisfaction and enpowerment of doing something good and useful for themselves. I will never believe supporting them so they can just go on is anything but enabling.
Posted by: Sue at March 31, 2005 05:24 PMSue,
Would you agree that there are some people on assistance who actually need assistance and are using it properly? If so, how would you propose changing the system to support those who truly need assistance while not enabling those gaming the system? Do you think such a fix is possible, or do you think we need to simply tear down the system because the abuse is too great?
Posted by: LawnBoy at March 31, 2005 05:36 PMLawnboy,
Yes, there are people who do need and are using the system properly. But when this becomes such a small part of people on the system, it becomes a problem. There has to be a way to cut the per cent of people using the system. It would surely require a better mind than mine to figure it all out. Welfare is necessary, it just is very hard to work with every day and see the unbelievable abuses. All the success stories I have been witness to(with people abusing the system) have resulted from putting people in positions they have to make an effort to educate and help themselves to continue receiving aide.
Since Terri is dead, I won’t have any qualms about continuing this off-topic discussion.
To my liberalite fellows, the bad apples just ruin it for everyone. You have to admit that there is a large group of welfare and quasi-welfare recipients that would rather get something for free than work for it. These are the people that have given up on succeeding in life and are now taking the easy way through. As long as these people exist (forever) charities will often be wasted.
Sue, I almost completely agree with you. However, as I stated above, leeches on society are more an issue of laziness than an issue of superiority complex.
Posted by: Zeek at March 31, 2005 07:36 PMZeek,
Who knows what you mean by a superiority complex. I am as aware as anyone anywhere that but for the Grace of God…. I could be walking in the very shoes I critize, however, I would hope someone would try to instill in me pride and confidence to try, rather than leech. Where I come from is working with this every day. Breaking your neck to help people who don’t want help. It does tend to make one have a less than pleasant outlook.
We give them free rent, free food, free furniture and all household item, free clothes, free medical care, and free cash.
Are you talking about the United States, or Sweden?!
I have spent a fair amount of time in the so-called US inner city, and your description doesn’t bear the foggiest resemblance to their conditions.
Posted by: Woody Mena at April 1, 2005 08:23 AMWoody, You do not know what you are talking about. Of course their are the proud, whom I applaud and would love to help, that make do. But all the shelter’s represent all resources possible to supply all of the above. Because our current welfare system does not reward self help, we have created a sub-culture that does not want to do anything but be taken care of. Expects it. Thinks everyone owes them. If you really have been exposed to this up close, you would not argue this on any level.
Posted by: Eileen at April 1, 2005 03:07 PMEileen,
I am sure there are some communities out there where the poor really have adequate medical care.
That is the exception to the rule though. By and large, health care is a luxury for the urban poor in this country. On this basis alone, the image of poor people getting fat and happy from a socialistic system that fulfills all of their needs is not accurate. I doubt even George Bush would accept that picture.
Go ahead and be happy with what you believe. Who cares? The fact remains, they do not want to get fat, just by. And thats it from me.
Posted by: Eileen at April 1, 2005 05:49 PMOk, I’ll just keep believing what the evil robots are feeding my brain…
Posted by: Woody Mena at April 1, 2005 08:40 PM