Republicans & Conservatives: Archives

Cutting services to the poor and sick while cutting taxes on the rich…I guess that’s just good old Christian compassion.

Posted by: Rachel at February 3, 2008 10:31 PM

“for example, the dominant back-room culture of the Republican Party is a wishy-washy dead centrist one that is essentially value-free.”
“the courts have blatantly seized the right to define what is human from the people.”
“The twisting of our society to the point we hold the “rich” in near contempt is one of the blackest marks against our culture,”

What drivel. Watching the Reagan comservatives run the country into the ground and then claiming its not us its them they are not conservatives is getting to be ridiculous. the repubs havent been centrist, the courts have been doing what they were appointed to do despite your objections to the contrary, and the rich have had their run at the country every since the repubs came to power. This is such a typical conservative distoration of the facts that its pathetic.

Posted by: j2t2 at February 3, 2008 10:39 PM

Lee
We do share similar values on more issues than is given credit. On abortion,you would be hard pressed to find any liberal that thinks abortion is a good thing. Abortions are tragedies. What our arguement is about is wether or not people involved in these tragic circumstances should be treated as criminals .
Where we can come together is helping reduce the number of abortions. Encouraging adoptions,sex education,making available prophalatic measures,etc. I have seen this willingness from the left more than the right.Get it together.

Posted by: Bills at February 4, 2008 01:29 AM

My political affiliation started as a republican, then a conservative. But, in the last 2 years I realized I really am just an American, which means I believe in the principles in which this country was founded on.

As far as helping the poor, I believe our founding principle says it is the responsibility of each American, not the government, to help the poor. If more Americans stood up to help the poor we wouldn’t need the government.

As far as abortion goes, our country was founded on the principle of life (life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness). Abortion supporters can defend the woman’s right but who’s defending the child’s right?

Finally sovereignty, our founding principle is that we protect America and we control who and how many enter our country. Good post!

Posted by: Joe Godfrey at February 4, 2008 06:52 AM

Lee Emmerich Jamison wrote: Speaking as a conservative, though, what are my values?

We would all be much better off if we STOP doing certain things.

That is, many of our problems arise from something we should STOP doing, more than something extra we should do.
For example:

• (01) STOP lawlessness; enforce the laws and uphold the U.S. Constitution; stop the abuse of the pardon process that put politicians above the law;


• (02) STOP starting unnecessary wars (and stop the fear mongering and lies as an excuse to start wars);


• (03) STOP plutocracy/kleptocracy, pork-barrel, corporate welfare (such as tax subsidies for EXXON with record $44 Billion in profits), graft, bloat, peddling influence, waste, and other abuses of power (e.g. such as Congress giving itself 9 raises between 1997 and 2007);


• (04) STOP illegal immigration which is costing tax payers an estimated $70 Billion to $338 Billion annually in net losses;


• (05) STOP election fraud, stop blocking access to ballots; stop Gerrymandering; implement common-sense election reforms, and give voters a printed verifiable receipt of their vote;


• (06) STOP the borrowing, spending, and growing the massive $9.2 Trillion National Debt; stop plundering Social Security surpluses ($12.8 Trillion borrowed and spent from it);


• (07) STOP regressive taxation;


• (08) STOP the abuse of the monetary system; the Federal Reserve is a pyramid-scheme that has far-reaching negative side-effect on our economy and society; the Fed create money out of thin air, and the Fed and member banks receive interest on it, and then converts money created out of thin air into real assets and property from confiscation via foreclosures and defaults, predatory practices, and usury;


• (09) STOP the misinformation and ignorance; an educated electorate is paramount; an ignorant electorate will be abused and exploited;


• (10) STOP the unnecessary middle men (i.e. government and insurance companies) and fraud in the healthcare system; stop killing 195,000 per year by medical mistakes; also, if the 9 problems above were adequately addressed, it would reduce the pressues on the healthcare systems; today, it was reported that 9 veterans’ deaths in the V.A. hospital in Illinios were directly linked to negligence, mistakes, violations, and poor medical care; what does Congress do? It gives itself another raise, like its 9 raises between 1997 and 2007; while our troops go without armor, medical care, and promised benefits;

Of course, stopping those abuses is easier said than done, since most voters don’t seem able to STOP repeatedly rewarding incumbent politicians in the two-party duopoly with 96.5% seat-retention rates.

Lee Emmerich Jamison wrote: The economy is another crucial value. In our world it is the lynchpin of all the things we wish to do. We hear all the time about “jobs”, but jobs are meaningless in an economy that does not produce the stuff we need in great abundance.

See # (08) above.

• “Some of the biggest men in the United States, in the field of commerce and manufacture, are afraid of something. They know there is a power somewhere so organized, so subtle, so watchful, so interlocked, so complete, so pervasive, that they had better not speak above their breath when the speak in condemnation of it.” - Woodrow Wilson, President of the U.S. 1913-1921.
• In 1913, the struggle for a better monetary system was lost when President Woodrow Wilson signed the Federal Reserve Act, giving the privately owned international banking cartel the power to create the United States money. Later, Woodrow Wilson stated: “I am a most unhappy man. I have unwittingly ruined my country. A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit is concentrated. The growth of the nation, therefore, and all our activities are in the hands of a few men. We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated governments in the civilized world, no longer a government by free opinion, no longer a government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a government by the opinion and duress of a small group of dominant men. - Woodrow Wilson, President of the U.S. 1913-1921.

Lee Emmerich Jamison wrote: Well meaning people want good things for everyone, that they will be healthy, happy, well fed, well housed, socially connected, and spiritually and intellectually fulfilled. As long as we leave it to politicians, who are really parasites on this process, to determine how we address these issues, though, all that will happen is that we will re-elect them and they will continue to distract us.

That’s right. Repeatedly rewarding corrupt incumbent politicians in the two-party duopoly in Do-Nothing Congress with 96.5% seat-retention rates isn’t working is it?

Unfortunately, that is the Voter Paradox:

• Most voters whine and complain, and give Congress dismally low approval ratings (as low as 11%),


• But most voters then do a very strange thing: most still reward corrupt, irresponsible incumbent politicians in Do-Nothing Congress with 93%-to-99% re-election rates.

Lee Emmerich Jamison wrote: Another area of our values deals with education. The Constitution has nothing to say about the education of the people, which means that any time the federal government mandates that the states do anything about education it should be considered unconstitutional under the 10th Amendment. Because we citizens have forgotten our place and have allowed the Federal government to creep into powers reserved for us, however, more and more money goes, less and less effectively, to programs that take both money and power from us.

Not only is education in math, science, and technology important to compete in a global economy, but insufficient education about government, human nature, and the many abuses and manifestations of unchecked greed described on this page, is equally disastrous and leads to the failure to recognize the importance of Education itself, Transparency, and Accountability, which results in Corruption:

Responsibility = Power + Conscience + Education + Transparency + Accountability

Corruption = Power - Conscience - Education - Transparency - Accountability

Conscience is the hard part, but Eduation can help compensate for insufficient Conscience. Education such that people put emphasis on Education + Transparency + Accountability to reduce the painful consequences of Corruption. Education helps to learn the smart way, instead of alway the hard way.

You won’t learn that in public schools.
You won’t learn about the monetary system, regressive taxation, lies told by your elected officials, election fraud, or these many abuses in public schools.
You won’t learn about human greed and ways to minimize it via Education, Transparency, and Accountability in public schools.
Most (if not all) incumbent politicians don’t want smart voters.
Ignorant and uneducated voters are much easier to manipulate, control, exploit, and bribe with their tax dollars.

In a voting nation, an educated electorate is paramount.
Otherwise, the uneducated and the ignorant, as usual, will be abused and exploited.

At any rate, voters will get their education one way or another, and the voters will have the government that they deserve.

Perhaps voters will be less apathetic, less complacent, less lazy, less partisan, less blindly loyal to THEIR party, and less manipulated by fear-mongering when they jobless, homeless, and hungry.
An economic collapse due to the 10 abuses above is not far fetched.

Posted by: d.a.n at February 4, 2008 09:43 AM

Joe Godfrey wrote (on his blog): Although I always try to stay positive, and ignore many of the people that hate this country, once in a while something happens that is so disgraceful to this great country that I have to discuss it.

An economic collapse due to these 10 abuses above is not far fetched. Do those 10 things qualify as ” so disgraceful to this great country that I have to discuss it.” ?

Joe Godfrey wrote: My political affiliation started as a republican, then a conservative. But, in the last 2 years I realized I really am just an American, which means I believe in the principles in which this country was founded on.

Me too. All of the circular partisan-warfare is (by design) a distraction from the incompetence and corruption of the irresponsible, corrupt, FOR-SALE, look-the-other-way incumbent politicians in the two-party duopoly in the Do-Nothing Congress.

But that lure of the partisan warafare is very powerful.
Why?

• Because it is easier to blame the OTHER party, than admit the politicians in THEIR own party are so corrupt, FOR-SALE, and irresponsible that there is really no difference.


• Because it is easier to blindly pull the party-lever than do the work to research the candidates, much less their voting records.


• Because it is easier to delude ourselves that we need to be more fearful of the OTHER party and must therefore blindly pull the party-lever.


• Because it is easier to let THEIR party do their thinking for them.


• Because it is easier to delude ourselves that OUR party knows best, than to question it.


• Because it is easier to delude ourselves into thinking the experience of the incumbent is important, despite most of that experience is about the politicians’ own self-gain.


• Because it is easier to ignore the fact that 90% of elections are won by the candidate that spends the most money (usually the incumbent).


• Because it is easier to ignore the fact that 99.85% of all 200 million eligible voters are vastly out-spent by a very tiny 0.15% of all eligible voters that make 83% of all federal campaign donations (of $200 or more).


• Because it is easier to ignore the nation’s pressing problems, growing in number and severity, than to understand those problems and hold their elected officials accountable, for fear that the OTHER party might win another seat in Congress.


• Because it is easier to ignore the fact that the incumbent politicians in the two-party duopoly in Congress enjoy a cu$hy 96.5% seat-retention rate (on average, since year 1980).


• Because it is easier to ignore or rationalize the crimes and unethical behavior of THEIR politician (consider Rep. William Jefferson re-elected despite being video taped taking a bribe, and $90K later found in $10K bundles in aluminum foil in his freezer).


• Because it is easier, for many, to not vote at all (40% to 50% don’t vote).


• Because it is easier to wallow in the circular, divisive, distracting partisan warfare. And politicians love to fuel it, and know that 93% to 99% of them will enjoy re-election for a very long time. So, why not vote themselves a raise every year and some more cu$hy perks and superior benefits at the tax payers expense, eh?

That is how the incumbemt politicians cleverly tap-into the voters’ laziness, apathy, complacency, fear, and blind loyalty, and pit voters against each other, pit American citizens and illegal aliens against each other, and divide the voters, so that a majority can never exist to vote them out of office.
When will it change?
When it finally is no longer easier.
When it finally becomes too painful.
When doing the same thing over and over, and repeatedly rewarding irresponsible incumbent politicians with 93%-to-99% re-election rates, finally becomes too painful.

Posted by: d.a.n at February 4, 2008 10:19 AM

BillS,
Abortion is one of those badly distorted issues. I advocate a change in Roe v. Wade not to outlaw abortion, but to open the issue back up to the people throught their elected representatives. This is too important an issue (the definition of a human being) to place in the hands of a tiny few.

Posted by: Lee Jamison at February 4, 2008 01:19 PM

bills

“We do share similar values on more issues than is given credit. On abortion,you would be hard pressed to find any liberal that thinks abortion is a good thing. Abortions are tragedies. What our arguement is about is wether or not people involved in these tragic circumstances should be treated as criminals .
Where we can come together is helping reduce the number of abortions. Encouraging adoptions,sex education,making available prophalatic measures,etc. I have seen this willingness from the left more than the right.Get it together.”

exellent point, i again find myself in agreement with you. i have to say though that the left seems to agressively act to protect what they believe is the right to destroy human life. while i don’t believe for a second that making it illegal would change anything, i do believe that both parties need to take a bigger look at the picture as you mention above. i don’t see either side willing to give any ground, and so it seems that nothing will change any time soon. what a shame.

Posted by: dbs at February 4, 2008 01:25 PM

right to destroy human life

Talk about hyperbole.

not to outlaw abortion, but to open the issue back up to the people throught their elected representatives

This shouldn’t be turned over to anyone but the woman and her doctor. Educate, support, reach out. Not laws to criminalize.

Of course you want to outlaw abortion, that’s your whole point. To hell with anyone else’s belief.

Posted by: womanmarine at February 4, 2008 01:46 PM

Now, people who find unborn human beings an inconvenient population are pleased with that situation.

“Unborn human beings”? When you have to butcher the language to make your point, that ought to be a red flag indicating your logic may be a bit tortured. And you are creating a straw man. Even you, mired in your rhetoric, must see that there is a conflict of rights between the fetus, a potential human being, if you will, and the mother, an actualized human being. To suggest that pro-choice people find fetuses merely “incovenient” trivializes the debate and only serves to demonize those who disagree on where the resolution of this conflict lies.

Of course, in the past other populations have had their humanity defined away and we judge harshly those who thought Jews, or indigenous Americans or Australian Aborigines, or native Tasmanians, or Tutus were (or are) similarly inconvenient.

Uh, are the Tutus the women who practice ballet? Perhaps they are the issue of Tutsi/Hutu marriages.

Posted by: mental wimp at February 4, 2008 01:51 PM

Lee: You say that abortion is to important an issue to be left in the hands of a tiny few. On another issue that is as great if not greater is Iraq. Bush is seeking a long term millitary commitment by our country in Iraq. He is negotiating with the equally if not more corrupt government of Iraq for what he calls an agreement and what the Iraqi government calls a treaty. Bush says that this is a far to important issue to be debated by the peoples elected representatives and that he alone will make this decision. Bush also says that he alone has the authority to make this treaty with out the consent of the people despite the fact that a large majority of the people want nothing to do with it.

Posted by: jlw at February 4, 2008 02:15 PM

jlw-

A treaty requires advice and consent, an Act requires Congressional approval. Neither are in place with respect to Iraq. So how does Bush’s “agreement” that Iraq calls a “treaty” rise to anything other than foreign policy (which the President sets) and how does it survive past January 20th, 2009?

Roe V Wade, on the other hand, has survived 35 years.

Posted by: George in SC at February 4, 2008 02:40 PM

This is too important an issue (the definition of a human being) to place in the hands of a tiny few

There SHOULD only be two people involved in the issue, and that would be the woman and her Dr.!!! Only exception would be the father.

Sorry womanmarine, you beat me to it, but the point bears repeating !

Posted by: Jane Doe at February 4, 2008 03:22 PM

Something finally clicked
Joe Godfrey said (sorry if I misspelled your name)
As far as helping the poor, I believe our founding principle says it is the responsibility of each American, not the government, to help the poor. If more Americans stood up to help the poor we wouldn’t need the government

The right doesn’t get it

The Govt IS (?) the people

Ironically because it was a Repub that said
“that government of the people, by the people, for the people”

“it is the responsibility of each American,”

so the republicans, who normally are all for efficiency in corporations, would prefer that we all try individually rather than combine the power of our collective money and efforts to work on National Problems.

These words indicate an attitude toward the govt as some “seperate entity” and perhaps we have allowed it to become that.
But, to me, the liberal attitude is that the govt REPRESENTS the people, and can work as the collective power of the people to help other citizens (among other things)

We can have 6,000 charities all competing (and wasting money doing so — out of necessity) for our $$ (and time) or we can work to have the existing resources of the federal government help out — if not directly than with our tax dollars.

funny
it is shown to be cost effective for people to have good housing, proper nutrition and access to proper education and health care.
It will ACTUALLY PAY OFF if we make sure these things are taken care of.
But they are too limited in their vision to see it.

Health Care
Heaven forbid that “we” pay for “them” so no proper health care (especially not “socialized” health care)
Enghhhhhhhh!
Wrong dude, its hear — de-facto
no health care, so the poor resort to ER health care, the most expensive there is — and not only that, they wait until their disease is so advanced it required extended hospital stays (and restays, and revisits etc) to take care of.
and since they can’t pay, and the law requires at least minimum care (which is STILL expensive) be given to these people (you can’t just let them die of these sort of treatable afflictions)just whom do YOU think IS Paying????
1) why do you think Health care costs are going up so rapidly??? how else do you cover a segment that doesn’t pay?? — charge more to those who CAN pay.
2) Some of the services ARE covered (reluctantly and with some difficulty) by a variety of existing government programs — but again, due to the nature of making sure people “qualify” they are another contributor to the expense of the health care system. You should see all the rules, regulations, qualifications, caveats, exceptions, what-ifs etc etc etc — it takes a full time staff just to deal with all the ins and outs of this stuff.

So in our ZEAL to make sure we don’t fall prey to the evils of “socialized medicine” and that them thar free-loadin’ bums don’t get any free rides, WE get to PAY a heck of alot more, anyway!!
WE get saddled with an inefficient, ineffective, counterproductive health care system that just keeps exploding in costs!!
Wow, you guys sure have made sure “we” “won”!!
So if “we won” why do I feel so sore in my backside??

Posted by: Russ at February 4, 2008 03:27 PM

We know the current administration’s values don’t include the elderly nor the poor:

The $3.1 trillion proposed budget projects sizable increases in national security but forces the rest of government to pinch pennies. It seeks $196 billion in savings over five years in the government’s giant health care programs — Medicare and Medicaid.

The government is supposed to be US…WE take care of ourselves as a mass community of people…entitlements are what we deem necessary so none of us fall thru the cracks…

Let’s take that massive increase in “defense” spending and spend it on people instead…we’re worth more that excess profits for Halliburton and the cronies.

Posted by: Rachel at February 4, 2008 04:42 PM

George:I made the mistake of only commenting on one aspect of the agreement that Bush seeks with the government of Iraq, long-term commitment of U.S. troops. The agreement seeks a long term economic, political and security agreement with the corrupt government of Iraq, not the people of Iraq, which “might well commit the next president to long-term obligations in resources and money that can’t easily be abandoned.”

In addition, the declaration of principles of this agreement makes the promise that the United States would aim to protect the Iraqi government from “internal and external” threats which could allow the president to commit U.S. troops to take sides in a civil war. Another way of putting it is that the president could use our troops to protect the corrupt Iraqi government from it’t own people. Also, if the corrupt Iraqi government were to become embroiled in an altercation with Iran, this agreement could be used by the president to authorize a U.S. invasion of Iran with out the consent of the U.S. Congress.

I would not call this agreement an every day run of the mill foreign policy decision by the president.

If Bush is allowed to enter into this agreement with the Iraqi government and then the Iraqi government signs the Bush oil deal which would authorize the oil companies to expatriate 75% of the oil profits out of Iraq, I believe that to stay in power, the Iraqi government would have to suspend the elections and the U.S. military would have to protect it to keep it from being overthrown.

Posted by: jlw at February 4, 2008 04:50 PM

Lee
“…to open the issue back up to the people through their elected representitives.”

That is yet another example of the great contadictions of the right. You express a reasonable suspicion of government but then want to allow politicians to control what goes on in my wifes uterus.NO. What the law says now is that it is none of your business and that is how it should be.
Another all too real point that restricting or outlawing abortion does not result in stopping them. What is outlawed is SAFE abortion. We will not go back to the coat hanger or poison concoction. I spend a good deal of time in a forign country where abortion is illegal.Every public market offers poisons that work by nearly killing the mother. Quack abortionist abound.Is that what you guys want?
This debate is becomming rapidly irrevelant due to scientic advances . Morning after pills and other advances in birth control are changeing the dynamic in many cases. Still there are nutballs out there on the right that want to outlaw them also.
This is a class issue also. The Rich always have had and always will have access to safe abortions for their mistresses and erring daughterseg. the well paid and “understanding” family doctor, the trip “abroad” etc.The financial pressures that often lead to abortion do not apply. Another thing you guys do not get is that an increase in the minimum wage is more likely to decrease the abortion rate than any laws.

Just another question for the right: The Rep controlled FCC is fining ABC 1.4 million dollars for showing a butt on TV. If one turns the channel they could watch plenty of butts on the National Geo channel. Does this ruling mean that it is illegal only if a broadcaster shows cute butts? You guys just baffle me.

Posted by: BillS at February 4, 2008 05:01 PM

jane doe

“There SHOULD only be two people involved in the issue, and that would be the woman and her Dr.!!! Only exception would be the father.”

what about the right of the unborn child ? why is it the left seems to object any time legislation is proposed to treat the violent criminals who beat a woman and cause her to lose her unborn child as the murderers they are ? that seems to be the inconvenient truth. is the killing of an unborn who is wanted by his or her mother not murder? why should a teenage girl be able to have an abortion with out the consent of her parents, except in certain cases, when she needs that very same consent for any other medical proceedure? you claim the right is unwilling to bend, but fail to see you’re own unwillingness to find a comprmise which would not prevent a woman from making that choice, but at the same time encourage adoption, or other avenues which would save human lives, and help lower the overall rate of abortion. lets face it abortion has become a form of souless contraception.

Posted by: dbs at February 4, 2008 05:02 PM

So, govt should not control what happens in a womans uterus, but govt should pay for what happens in a womans uterus?
Just trying to understand the position clearly.

Posted by: kctim at February 4, 2008 05:17 PM

As far as helping the poor, I believe our founding principle says it is the responsibility of each American, not the government, to help the poor.

I keep hearing Conservatives say this is one of our founding principles, but I as of yet been able to find it in our Constitution or the Declaration of Independence. I’ve read countless other books about our founding father’s and I’ve never been able to find such a reference?

As far as abortion goes, our country was founded on the principle of life (life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness). Abortion supporters can defend the woman’s right but who’s defending the child’s right?

Right or wrong for the vast majority of abortions, the cells constituting a potential to be life, aren’t considered life as of yet. That is a scientific definition, but personally I agree with the people who have commented that this is a personal decision of the potential mother and father.

Finally sovereignty, our founding principle is that we protect America and we control who and how many enter our country.

Another founding principle; This one is especially odd considering all of our founding father’s families arrived similarly to how illegal immigrants arrive today. It wasn’t until late in the 19th century that we started to enact laws to stem the flow of immigration. Prior to that we had this:

“Naturalization Act of 1790: Stipulated that “any alien, being a free white person, may be admitted to become a citizen of the United States “

Posted by: Cube at February 4, 2008 05:26 PM

“I keep hearing Conservatives say this is one of our founding principles, but I as of yet been able to find it in our Constitution or the Declaration of Independence”

You haven’t? Its right above the section that says govt will forcefully take from one and give to another and its 3 sections above the part that says govt is required to provide money and healthcare to ALL individuals.

Its hard to believe you missed those. They are the very principles our country was founded on and all.

Posted by: kctim at February 4, 2008 05:42 PM

It is also two sections below the section that says that those who disagree with the will of the majority have a right to appeal to the majority for reconsideration of the decision of the majority.

Posted by: jlw at February 4, 2008 06:54 PM

dbs
So the young woman is a victum of incest and she has to get permission from her rapist to terminate the resulting pregnancy? Better she should just commit suicide? That is the path some take,even now with abortion available. If a daughter does not trust her parents enough to talk to them a law will not make her. Think maybe she should go before a judge to get permission? Do you really believe most troubled young girls would be capable of doing that?Will you guys be satified with any solution besides the coat hanger?We can get together and aid adoption,sex education,and contreception. Much has been done already,no thanks to the right, to make abortion safe legal and rare but there is more to do.Rather than continue to argue about how many angels can dance on a pin ,to move forward we must start with reality.Pregnancies will be terminated,law or no law. What is the best way to lessen the number?
The right talks a good game about less government interference but most want plenty of laws to govern peoples personal lives.We can’t bring sanity to our drug laws because of the right.We can’t pass death with dignity laws because of the right.Goldwater was pro-choice. What happened to the Goldwater conservatives?
Another question: If you believe that all human life is sacred then how can the right support the death penality,even delight in it? If all life is sacred how do you guys support war? I do not think much of the Catholic Church but at least they are consistent. They oppose abortion and the death penalty. Most righties want to pick and choose.

Posted by: BillS at February 4, 2008 07:42 PM

bills

“So the young woman is a victum of incest and she has to get permission from her rapist to terminate the resulting pregnancy”

did you read my ENTIRE post? i’m guessing not. BTW what should a parents right be?

“We can’t bring sanity to our drug laws because of the right.We can’t pass death with dignity laws because of the right.”

i agree with most of this, remove the word RIGHT. funny how you choose to blame the right for all of societies ills, but refuse to even consider the possibility that the left may also be part of the problem. funny how i acknowlege your statement and actually agree with most of it, but rather than take what we can agree on and work from there, you choose to attack me, and lump me in with all the others whom you have no common ground with at all.

“The right talks a good game about less government interference but most want plenty of laws to govern peoples personal lives”

who is it thats trying to dictate what types of food people can eat, and what type of cooking oils restaurants can use? ban the use of trans fats, interesting. just let me know whats in what you prepare, and i’ll decide whether to eat it or not.

who is it that wants to dictate to me what kind of transportation i use or own?

both the right and the left seem to have thier own idea as to what part of peoples personal lives they should control, and i don’t like either of them. let me know when you’re done with the partisan hate speech, and then maybe we can find some common ground to work from. BTW where have posted my opinion on the death penalty? just curious, or is that just another unwarented attack?

Posted by: dbs at February 4, 2008 08:13 PM

Russ,
You said-

“it is the responsibility of each American,”

so the republicans, who normally are all for efficiency in corporations, would prefer that we all try individually rather than combine the power of our collective money and efforts to work on National Problems.

The problem with collectivists is that they can only accept the particular collective emphases they design and institute themselves. I have real issues with people who hold a gun to my head and tell me they are doing a good thing and if I object I’m somehow evil or not living up to the values of the country. The example of the very poor execution of President Bush’s African AIDS initiative and all its inherent bureaucratic inefficiency and stupidity. The Methodist Church is doing as much or more good with less than a thousandth the funds. (That is a collective effort, privately and voluntarily organized, you may note.)

Cube,
It is mighty conveient to say that once there was no law, as though that delegitimizes the laws that have, for cause, been insisted upon by the people since. We have also, several times, changed elements of our Consititution. Would you insist that those changes are illegitimate?

This is not such a bad idea, from a Constitutional standpoint. It would get rid of the IRS, the Department of Education, and more et-ceteras than I can count off the top of my head.

As for the principle on the poor, it is a simple one. If the Constitution does not say the government has a power it does not have that power.

jane doe,

“There SHOULD only be two people involved in the issue, and that would be the woman and her Dr.!!! Only exception would be the father.”
This is what I mean about this really being about the definition of a “human being”. If your one-week-old is too hard for you to handle and you may be psychologically harmed by the burden of keeping it, because it is a human being protected under the laws of the United States and the various states, you don’t have the latitude to kill it. Eight days earlier the same being is, for all practical purposes, fair game, though there is little practical difference in the organism itself.

Who, indeed, speaks for the child?

dbs and BillS,

See how easy it is to fall into habits imposed by the politicizing of the discussion, particularly the tendency to label positions as “left” or “right”.

The point of the article is the values we hold in common, though our deepest instinct is to magnify our disputes and seek an advantage in some contest. This tendency is literally a feature of human genetics. We are wired to detect subtle differences and key in on those tiny contrasts. It is part of how we maintain tribal order. Well, partizanship is a form of tribalism.

We need the discipline to focus on the common values so that we may win the good those values would have us do, rather than the subtle differences for which we seek and advantage and victory.

and BillS,
Unlike many conservatives I have no objection to “morning after” pills. There is a real difference between a literal collection of a few cells days old and a being with a functioning central nervous system five weeks later. Still, I am uncomfortable with making the decision on my own where human life becomes human on behalf of others without their collective and voluntary elective consent. (Did you get that, Russ?)

jlw,
Iraq really is “foreign policy” and that policy will only last as long as presidential will allows. But, as long as we’re pulling out of places, what of Germany, Japan, South Korea, and any number of other places where we are committed as a matter of “foreign policy”? Or are we serving some purpose there?

I think world peace qualifies as a value as well, and one we need to have a serious discussion, not a tit-for-tat on.

Finally, j2t2, read my previous article. I’m willing to toss the people who claim to represent me, but don’t, out. I’d much rather struggle with my political enemies than pull the knives of my supposed friends out of my back.

Posted by: Lee Jamison at February 4, 2008 10:10 PM

Still, I am uncomfortable with making the decision on my own where human life becomes human on behalf of others without their collective and voluntary elective consent.

So that means 100% right? At what level of government? Down to where you get total agreement? Some states have tried to pass more restrictive laws and when the population got to vote those laws were rejected!

You keep raising a strawman argument, like the “eight days earlier”, presenting it as when most abortions are performed and the reason. Bull.

Until you can prevent every unwanted pregnancy (by men keeping it in their pants) then you have no right to say when it is human. Religions don’t agree and science doesn’t agree. Who the hell are you to say or a group of you to say? If it is a religious belief, let it be between the woman and her higher power.

Posted by: womanmarine at February 4, 2008 10:23 PM

It is mighty conveient to say that once there was no law, as though that delegitimizes the laws that have, for cause, been insisted upon by the people since…If the Constitution does not say the government has a power it does not have that power.

Jamison

I have no problem with new laws or legislation; on the contrary it seems to be the Right who has this problem. Since it is the Right who constantly points to imaginary phrases in our Constitution as proof in their convictions. Then they vacillate to the position that if a phrase does not exist, the government does not have a particular power. In the case of Government help, the Supreme Court has decided the phrase does exist.

Congress may spend money in aid of the “general welfare”. Constitution, Art. I, section 8

NO. 910.—OCTOBER Term 1936
Supreme Court Ruling

Posted by: Cube at February 4, 2008 11:02 PM

dbs
I really do not know your death penalty position. My question re.death penalty was exactly that,a question,not an attack. I am baffled by people that can profess some great regard for human life at the same time as they applaud the taking of it.All I can figure is Orwellian doublethink.Anything better?
I had no idea that eating toxic cooking oils was so important to you.As for transport,by all means drive anything you want provided its street legal (safe),does not tear up OUR roads or pollute the air we all breath.
I must admit I get a little hot under the collar about reproductive rights. I have seen first hand the damage some of the rights policies have had directly on people and nations promulgated by Bush’s gag rule,nor will I ever accept the moral authority to oppose abortion of anyone that has not adopted an unwanted child. They have no standing.God bless those that have.

Posted by: BillS at February 4, 2008 11:41 PM

This is what I mean about this really being about the definition of a “human being”. If your one-week-old is too hard for you to handle and you may be psychologically harmed by the burden of keeping it, because it is a human being protected under the laws of the United States and the various states, you don’t have the latitude to kill it. Eight days earlier the same being is, for all practical purposes, fair game, though there is little practical difference in the organism itself.

lee..look at what you’re saying. Where are you getting anything about “full-term” abortions?? See, that’s how shit gets started……check your research or watch your writing.

Posted by: Jane Doe at February 4, 2008 11:59 PM

Cube,
You wrote- “In the case of Government help, the Supreme Court has decided the phrase does exist.”

Exactly! The SUPREME COURT, not the people, has made this decision. For convenience the Supreme Court has decided the extraordinarily vague term “public welfare” shall mean something it did not mean for well over a century. Nine people, not all the people, made the government substantially more powerful. So now nine people, not all the people, have arbitrarily drawn a curtain on the definition of a human being. We have not ratified this sort of coup. We’ve simply sighed and stupidly thought we couldn’t do anything about it- and let is stand.

For yourself, womanmarine, and jane doe (I am aware it is more difficult to GET a late-term abortion than it once was) the fact of the matter is that it is the arbitrary desision of only nine people that a baby in the womb is not human while a baby outside the womb is. In the hands of a corrupt government those nine people would be imminently manipulable, but we have granted them powers that would have horrified the Founders.

Face it. Give a small group the power to decide some inconvenient population is not human and the same small group can decide YOU’RE not human. In the Federalist papers (I don’t have my copy here so I can’t quote chapter and verse at the moment) James Madison plainly states that the Judiciary was intended to be the weakest branch of the government. We, by default however, have conceded it to be the strongest.

Here, too, our concession of the day-to-day control of the parties to the office-holders has contributed to the weakening of the people’s grasp on their power. They find it convenient to hide behind the cloaks of the court, saying they “can’t do anything about it” and using their very powerlessness (which would go away in a heartbeat if they saw it standing between them and re-election) as a reason to stick with them as they learn the maze of the power structure in government. It’s a shell game in which we are played for fools.

Posted by: Lee Jamison at February 5, 2008 07:40 AM

womanmarine,
You wrote- “So that means 100% right? At what level of government? Down to where you get total agreement? Some states have tried to pass more restrictive laws and when the population got to vote those laws were rejected!”

The decision to legalize or not should be left in the hands of the states, and your example is exactly why this is so. Some, if not most, states will reject greater restrictions. Some states may have virtually no restrictions at all. Others may have very tight restrictions. It would be the choice of the voters and their representatives in each state. And, of course, that does not mean 100% agreement. If people wanted nothing to do with the policy of the state in which they lived we are free to migrate to states that better reflect our own views.

We can vote with our vote and we can vote with our feet, only, the way things are now, we have no vote at all.

Posted by: Lee Jamison at February 5, 2008 07:53 AM

The morning after pill simply doesn’t allow the embryo attach to the uterus wall. This happens frequently with a number of normal conceptions. the pill increases the likelihood.

Value doesn’t mean what is important. It means what is valuable. A human life that is genetically separate from the woman and her uterus happens to be valuable to conservatives. It is that simple.
Most people, if they budgeted, could easily afford health insurance. It just isn’t a priority over entertainment. They have no problem asking me to make their healthcare a priority however.
A business and disciplined people will make priorities. Confiscated money has less value to the recipients then earned money.

Posted by: Kruser at February 5, 2008 09:28 AM

Lee, All this far right horse puckey about the SCOTUS is unjustified. The justices rule on law. That is their job. AT any time a law is deemed to be unconstitutional our lawmakers have every right to modify said law to make it constitutional.
I have heard the ACLJ and their far right logic on this issue for quite some tome. It has never made any since and still doesnt. The SCOTUS is an important part of our government protecting the minority from the majority and should be defended from those that want a theocracy in this country. Just because these judges have ruled against your position on any given issue doesnt mean they are activist judges that make laws yadayadayada.., its extremist far right drivel meant to misinform their followers.

Lee said “If people wanted nothing to do with the policy of the state in which they lived we are free to migrate to states that better reflect our own views.”
Well Lee the same could be said for those that want nothing to do with the policy of the Country in which they live.

Posted by: j2t2 at February 5, 2008 10:08 AM

“It has never made any since and “

sense not since. sorry.

Posted by: j2t2 at February 5, 2008 11:13 AM

“The ultimate test of a moral society is the kind of world that it leaves to its children.”…Dietrick Bonhoeffer

War, genocide, starving people, jobs gone, lack of medical care, using food for fuel, profit at all costs, obscene CEO salaries while wages fall…

Hmmmm…

Posted by: Rachel at February 5, 2008 11:22 AM

womanmarine

“Until you can prevent every unwanted pregnancy (by men keeping it in their pants) then you have no right to say when it is human.”

HUH ? he has no right to state his beliefs ? since when ? BTW we could also avoid unwanted pregnancies by women keeping thier legs together. whats the point of this remark other than to blame men for unwanted pregnancies. i guess women are always just victims of EVIL MEN.

Posted by: dbs at February 5, 2008 12:01 PM

DBS: not when he wants his belief to be law. And sorry, but it is the men who rape, perform incest, etc. They also are the ones who mostly believe that birth control is the woman’s problem. Even to a point that some pharmacists are refusing to fill birth control prescriptions. Lets just call it like it is. It’s also not men who have to carry a child to term. But it’s mostly men who seem to want this control. The word Evil was yours, not mine.

Posted by: womanmarine at February 5, 2008 12:35 PM

bills

“I had no idea that eating toxic cooking oils was so important to you”

once again you completely miss the point, or choose to ignore it. instead you make the above comment. it’s not the the TOXIC cooking oils. it’s the gov’t telling me what i can and cannot consume. IMO this is just another cheap shot.

” I have seen first hand the damage some of the rights policies have had directly on people and nations promulgated by Bush’s gag rule,nor will I ever accept the moral authority to oppose abortion of anyone that has not adopted an unwanted child.”

so this always seems to go back square one( your absolute hatred of george bush). BTW why should my tax $ be used to fund abortion in other countries, and if you don’t want the gov’t deciding what happens in a womans womb, why should the gov’t pay for it? i thought we were talking about OUR values. so unless you have adopted a child you have no right to have a position on the destruction of human life. interesting. by your logic i should not accept the decision of a president to, or not to go to war unless they have served in the military, and actually been in combat, or the the opinion of anyone without the same quaifications for that matter.

when your ready to talk about the things we actually agree on, and work to solve these problems let me know. once again you ignore our points in common, and instead choose to attack me.

Posted by: dbs at February 5, 2008 12:38 PM

womanmarine

“it is the men who rape, perform incest, etc. They also are the ones who mostly believe that birth control is the woman’s problem.”

this is only a small portion unwanted pregnancies. men who commit these crimes obviously don’t care about birth control at all, thier criminals. what this has to do with the majority of unwanted pregnancies i don’t know. i mean those where the act was consensual, and resulted in pregnancy. i used the word evil because the impression i got from your post was ( it’s the mans fault, and women are poor inocent victims), and we both know this is not the case.

as to the other comments, you can go to another pharmacist. i myself have heard of very few instances like the one you describe. i would think that would be most likely to happen in a private hospital pharmacy. same said hospital can also choose to not allow abortion on its premises. i know plenty of women who don’t believe in abortion, and i haven’t found great variance in the # of men as opposed to women who either oppose or favor abortion. keep in mind i have never said it should be illegal, only that it’s all to common, and seems to be a IMO a brutal form of birth control.

Posted by: dbs at February 5, 2008 01:00 PM

DBS:

That’s why you’ll see in my previous post about education, support, etc. These are the most important ways to decrease abortion. If you don’t think it should be illegal, then what’s all the fuss about?

I also think there should be less abortion. I just think it will never be eradicated, like poverty, and the idea is to educate, support and not make women and doctors into criminals. That doesn’t help.

As to when a baby becomes “human”, I have seen some advocate that when a fetus could live outside the womb should be the criteria against abortion. Problem there is that doctors don’t know. Many strides have been made medically but the certainty is not there enough to make me comfortable using this as a criteria.

I too want less abortion. The problem is bringing religious belief into it, as though it were murder. This also does not help solve the problem. Take these women and educate them, support them, convince them of your argument. Educate the men that birth control is THEIR responsibility, and to respect women of all ages.

Passing laws and trying to take control of reproductive rights of women is NOT the way to go.

Does that help explain my position? We are both arguing from emotional standpoints, I hope I have been able to tempter my emotional response to you.

Posted by: womanmarine at February 5, 2008 01:38 PM

womanmarine

“Passing laws and trying to take control of reproductive rights of women is NOT the way to go.”

i agree. education, and support are important. i would also like to see some sort of counseling for women considering abortion, not to advocate one way or the other just to let them know all the options available. i would also like to see mandatory counciling for minors seeking abortion, and some type of mediator that would help determine whether parental notification, or a waiver of parental notification is appropriate. i do not want to see minors who are raped, victims of incest forced to confront those who have victimized them. at the same time i don’t believe parental notification should be cast away simply because she fears her parents will be angy. there is a difference between fear of violence or corporal punishment, or just not wanting to get in trouble with your folks, and i don’t see the one size fits all approach to make sense. there needs nto be some adult oversight whether parental, or ombudsman type counseling. my personal opinion is that in most cases where abortion is for sheer convenience, it’s wrong, but that is my opinion and i would not force someone to live according to my beliefs.

Posted by: dbs at February 5, 2008 02:11 PM

Jamison

One could assume that you have a problem with our form of government. You suggest usurping the powers of SCOTUS, which would leave us with only two branches of government.

The reality is, the problem you have with SCOTUS is that you disagree with some of their decisions. The following is a quote from you in this present blog:

Here, too, our concession of the day-to-day control of the parties to the office-holders has contributed to the weakening of the people’s grasp on their power. They find it convenient to hide behind the cloaks of the court, saying they “can’t do anything about it

In the previous thread you are questioning the Courts and the politicians who abide by their rulings. The following is a quote from a thread you started on Oct 10, 2007, when you said:

No less effort has gone into the opposition to George W. Bush’s most recent originalist Supreme Court nominees, but the left has not been able to overcome the philosophical clarity forced onto the debate by conservative media. The nominations, though hotly opposed by liberals, have advanced fairly quietly. Open debate in a brightly lit public square made this possible.

In this thread, you are applauding the stacking of SCOTUS with jurists who hold opinions similar to yours. It can be easily argued that these same jurists will only reflect the opinions of a small minority of Americans. The majority of Americans believe in some legal forms of Abortion, Gun control yet the right to own guns, Federal involvement in Education, and government assistance. These are moderates who hold a cross-section of ideals from both liberal and conservative camps. I can only say on behalf of moderates, how mighty hypocritical of you!

Posted by: Cube at February 5, 2008 03:04 PM

Cube and j2t2,
You should read “Federalist #78, in which Alexander Hamilton states, among other things, the following-

It can be of no weight to say that the courts, on the pretense (my empasis) of a repugnancy, may substitute their own pleasure to the constitutional intentions of the legislature. This might as well happen in the case of two contradictory statutes; or it might as well happen in every adjudication upon any single statute. The courts must declare the sense of the law; and if they should be disposed to exercise WILL instead of JUDGMENT, the consequence would equally be the substitution of their pleasure to that of the legislative body.

This is also the paper I noted this morning in which it is stated that the Judiciary is the weakest of the branches.

Elsewhere Hamilton goes to great pains to state that powers the document does not state and grant specifically to the various bodies of the new government simply don’t exist. He is doing this initially to overcome the calls for a Bill of Rights and is clearly stating the understanding of his fellows in the writing process.

I am simply hoping we can have a Supreme Court that sees the plain language of the Constitution knowing what the words meant to the people who wrote them and stands by those words.

We have had a court of usurpers since the second Roosevelt administration. Such a body takes power from the people and creates structures that are not authorized by any law approved by the people or their representatives (and, yes, I am hard on politicians but, unlike federal judges, we CAN fire them if we dislike what they do…). The usurping Court we have today is, quite literally, a long, slow, coup d’etat.

This is not merely wanting a court that “agrees with me”. It is wanting a court that understands that true “rule of law” depends on law being accessible to those people willing to understand the framing of the constitution and the word with which it was crafted. The jurists on the court can never be the final protectors of our rights because it only takes five of them to conspire to take those rights away. Only we, the people, can serve that function. The more we allow jurists to convolute the document and all its niggling interpretations the farther we are from being able to perform our most solemn duty as the preservers of our own freedom.

womanmarine,
I do oppose abortion. My strongly conservative mother does not, and mostly for the same reasons you state. That is why, while I want Roe v. Wade overturned, I would not support any court ruling which would outlaw abortion. That would be just as usurping and outside the bounds drawn by Hamilton above as Roe was in the first place. As ugly and messy as the political process for resolving these most contentious issues is, it keeps us all involved in the issues that hold the greatest potential for government sneaking in on the citizen’s preserve and taking what is ours without some communal consent.

It is not hard to imagine a scenario in which at some time in the future public medical care has come to cost so much that a future court decides that people in the midst of dementia are as human as a fetus. After all the money that goes to care for them could be used to educate some poor kid, or feed some poor kid, but it is tied up in expensive medicale care. What will they care?
That’s the thing. Right now, inherently, the fetus is not us. The old codger who can’t remember his own face in the mirror is not us, either. Well, not for the time being.

Posted by: Lee Jamison at February 5, 2008 10:33 PM

Dadgummit…
Here’s the link for “Federalist #78.

Again, folks, it sure is easier to see our differences than our agreements, but, still I think the fundamental values are very close.

Posted by: Lee Jamison at February 5, 2008 10:44 PM

As to the second point, it is impossible, by any argument or comment, to make it clearer than it is in itself. If there are such things as political axioms, the propriety of the judicial power of a government being coextensive with its legislative, may be ranked among the number. The mere necessity of uniformity in the interpretation of the national laws, decides the question. Thirteen independent courts of final jurisdiction over the same causes, arising upon the same laws, is a hydra in government, from which nothing but contradiction and confusion can proceed.

Still less need be said in regard to the third point. Controversies between the nation and its members or citizens, can only be properly referred to the national tribunals. Any other plan would be contrary to reason, to precedent, and to decorum.

Alexander Hamilton Federalist Paper #79

Posted by: Cube at February 5, 2008 11:56 PM

Lee,

What you wrote makes sense. We should ALL be concerned about each other. We should ALL share in the defense of our country.

Then come the facts:

Beginning with Saint Reagan’s presidency taxation was shifted more towards the middle class.

Bush #2 closed a few gaps. He added more unaffordable spending to the Medicare budget with part D, and now he’s proposing “cuts” in spending AFTER he leaves office.

Republicans continually stonewall efforts to reduce the costs of meds for seniors.

Well, I can’t go on. Seizures suck.

Posted by: KansasDem at February 6, 2008 01:15 AM

Look Lee its hard to beleive you have anything in mind other than supporting a far rightwing agenda. This drivel about the SCOTUS being ” a court of usurpers since the second Roosevelt administration. Such a body takes power from the people and creates structures that are not authorized by any law approved by the people or their representatives (and, yes, I am hard on politicians but, unlike federal judges, we CAN fire them if we dislike what they do…). The usurping Court we have today is, quite literally, a long, slow, coup d’etat.” is just that, far right wing drivel. It is by design that the justices are not elected but appointed. It shields them from the wingnuts that seek to destroy them for upholding the law as they see fit. These judges were vetted as required by law and confirmed by the elected representatives of the people of this Country. Get over it, civil rights for the blacks happened. Roe V. Wade happened. Bush happened. The ridiculous right wing theocrats and revisionist that falsely accuse the courts of legislating are wrong. They do this for political gain and power to control the sheep that follow them. These people , their supporters and their values are not the kind of values I can support. So if these are the values you speak of then no we do not share values afterall and therfore we have a divide and a political difference that wont go away until such time as the right wing arrogance and false sense of superiority are curbed.
Sorry but no matter how you word it, or try to hide the meaning of what you are saying its the same old crap- blame the liberals. Well Ive tired of turning the other cheek at the insults of the past 2 decades from conservatives, right wing hacks and their followers. Your “values” have been tried since Reagan was president they have been found wanting and it seems the people of this country are wising up to the failures of the conservative movement, the dominionist, the corporatist, and the authoritarians and are looking for a change and rightfully so. For the wing nuts to blame the current condition of our country on the liberal judges, liberal politicians and liberals in general is the ultimate in delusionary foolishness. Once the righties decide to accept responsibility for their part in creating this dishonest malfunctioning government we are burdened with then perhaps we can talk about values because until then the right wing has no values they only talk about values as if they have them. Of course Lee this is just my opinion, albeit a closely held opinion.

Posted by: j2t2 at February 6, 2008 02:21 AM

It is far more rational to suppose, that the courts were designed to be an intermediate body between the people and the legislature, in order, among other things, to keep the latter within the limits assigned to their authority. The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body.

Federalist Paper 78, by Alexander Hamilton

With apologies, my previous quotation came from Federalist Paper 80,
not 79.

Posted by: Cube at February 6, 2008 04:42 AM

Cube,
The point you are trying to make from Federalist 80 concerns state court interpretations of NATIONAL laws. This was, of course, one of the fatal flaws of the Confederation, which lacked a central court for dealing with disputes among the states. It hardly applies in the sense Hamilton was addressing in the case of STATE LAWS.

If your assertion held all state laws that disagreed with other state laws in the same areas would be found unconstitutional and the Tenth Amendment would be the height of folly. In fact, though, we find that some states outlaw the death penalty and others do not. The Supreme Court upholds those differences. Some states permit felons to vote after their terms have been served and others do not. The Supreme Court upholds those differences. Some states hold that water rights belong to the individual landowner while others hold such rights as commonweal. In spite of the vested interest the Federal Government has in making water available to western states the Supreme Court upholds these differences. These state-to-state differences are legion, but are upheld in the vast majority of cases when carried to the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court has absolute jurisdiction in disputes among the states in matters deriving from FEDERAL LAW.

j2t2,
Civil rights for blacks has NOT happened. The Civil Rights movement was taken over by whites in the Democratic Party in the 1960s. One can see the result of that in the war zones and insurgent havens that are our inner city Democratic congressional districts. Until the black community feels free to express the only legitimate diversity, that of opinion, there will be no real freedom for that community. Conservative leaning blacks are ostracised today and denied even their own racial identity.

You also use the term “upholding the law as they see fit”. That is what Pervez Musharraf is doing. It is what Vladimir Lenin did. It is what Mao Zedong did as well. We do not want judges upholding the law as they see fit. We want them upholding the law as the law is writ. Where the law is vague, as anything written by humans will be from time to time, they must make the best sense of the law, but that does not give a court the latitude to create a convenient sense where naught IS writ.
J2T2, think of it this way. For the time being you like the results of Constitutional amendment by judicial fiat because it seems to favor your political affinities. By default it appears I oppose such fiat because I don’t like what it has done. In fact, however, there are a number of Federal programs I would not wish to eliminate which are, by the letter of the Constitution, illegal. It is not at all impossible for a national crisis to so shift the opinions of the country that a far-right activist court is appointed. At that point I can guarantee that you would become deeply appreciative of the amendment process provided for in the Constitution itself.

If we stopped accepting this fiat process the political will to properly change the Constitution would be bolstered and we could get back to being a nation of laws and not of “men”.

KansasDem,
Sorry to hear about your seizure issues. My mom was showing me a new medicine (new for her) that helps with hers yesterday evening. Remarkably, it helps her to THINK better!

As to the substance of your post I would repeat something I posted on the string of my last article- “I staunchly avoid idolizing Ronald Reagan.

Had I had the chance in 1980 I would have voted for John Connolly. Early in ‘84 I liked John Glenn.”

Republicans have been profligate spenders and have lacked the courage to simply tell government they work for us and must live with the same sort of fiscal discipline the private sector must endure. It is not that government per-se is our enemy. Rather, it is that people who are unaccountable to us are our enemy. Those people can be found in big business, in non-profits, in healthcare, and, most egregiously, in government.

We can’t improve the quality of our government’s efforts by permitting them to become LESS accountable.

Posted by: Lee Jamison at February 6, 2008 09:45 AM

J2t2,
One of the things I think is GREAT about Barak Obama is that he is a very real threat to take civil rights out of the hands of whites (though the Kennedy endorsement bothers me in this regard) and put leadership of the issue back in the black community where it belongs.

If McCain is the Republican’s man I would be pleased to vote for Obama. Not so much so for Clinton II.

Posted by: Lee Jamison at February 6, 2008 10:00 AM

So where does abortion rights come in the interperatation of laws? The point is that neither popular support or federal law existed for the Court to interperate when it comes to abortion. It was a state’s rights issue for decades.
The Dread Scott decision during the Lincoln era declared that blacks were not human. They don’t have a good civil rights record.
Conservatives prefer to have the laws made in legislature before opinions are given to interpret them. You must have the former for the latter.

Posted by: Kruser at February 6, 2008 10:14 AM

On the abortion front I want to add a little something. I have a cousin “born” as the result of an abortion performed in the 1930s to save the life of her mother, who was in the grips of pre-eclampsia. She was a miracle baby in that she was only at 27 weeks or so at the time of her birth.

Having refused to die she went on to grow up, teach blind kids, become a teacher of the year in Louisiana, get a PhD, and head up a Texas regional service center’s program for the education of severely handicapped children. She is now retired and is a member of my church.

Pretty good for someone who would not have been human under today’s understanding of the Constitution.

Posted by: Lee Jamison at February 6, 2008 10:58 AM

One question:
Men: How many of those here who oppose abortion rights have adopted a child?

Until you can say “I have”, stay out of an issue you know little about.

I know more about this than any man here could or would ever guess. I lost my mother due to an illegal abortion.

Posted by: Linda H. at February 6, 2008 11:34 AM

Good question.
It seems some topics are huge magnets for hypocrisy.

Posted by: d.a.n at February 6, 2008 11:40 AM

“One question:
Men: How many of those here who oppose abortion rights have adopted a child?

Until you can say “I have”, stay out of an issue you know little about.”

I’ll play your game Linda. Let me ask a similar question.

How many of those here who oppose the war in Iraq have been involved in combat?

Would your next statement be valid?

Posted by: BOHICA at February 6, 2008 11:57 AM

Jamison

The passages I’ve used are in reference to the Constitution and Congress, and makes the argument for one national court. In Hamilton’s arguments, he discusses the importance of empowering this national court with the right to interpret our nation’s laws and the Constitution. Ultimately Alexander Hamilton in Federalist Papers 81 refers to this national court as the “Supreme Court.” In Federalist Papers 81, Hamilton addresses the potential problems that the Supreme Court may have, that you are also bringing up, and I am surprised or perhaps not that you didn’t reference Federalist Paper 81 instead of 78. Since as we all know Hamilton plays Devil’s advocate in the Federalist Papers, by mentioning a potential problem and then offers why it is not a problem after all.

This would all be amusing if reality wasn’t so distressing, if one looks at the makeup of the present Supreme Court and looks at the history of the appointees. One sees a court that has been stocked with Conservatives, nevertheless the Right is not satisfied. Their obsession is to create a Court that will uphold their ideals and interpret the Constitution to the detriment of the opinions held by the majority of Americans. I’ve read a very good book once about the Supreme Court. In this book it jokingly defined an “activist Court” as a court which interprets the Constitution contrary to how you would interpret it. This certainly seems to be the malady that you have.

Posted by: Cube at February 6, 2008 02:28 PM

BOHICA, apples and oranges.

Posted by: Jane Doe at February 6, 2008 02:39 PM

Jane & Linda,

Perhaps, but the point remains the same.

There is no inherent moral authority needed for anyone to participate in the debate on an issue. If you want to qualify the ability of an individual to make a valid, convincing point based on their experience, background, race, gender, sexual orientation, net worth, citizenship, religion (or lack thereof) that is your right and in some cases can be a good way to evaluate information. However, the right to participate in the debate as we can see in many different ways all day long on these sights is not limited to anyone. Traditionally in the U.S. when we have asked people to stay out of a debate, it has encouraged them to jump in.

Posted by: Rob at February 6, 2008 03:55 PM

jane doe

“BOHICA, apples and oranges”

sorry, actually a valid point. one does not have to have actually done something to have a valid opinion or point of view on said subject. if this were the case most of us would not have the qualifications to have an opinion on anything, now would we.

Posted by: dbs at February 6, 2008 04:57 PM

“jane doe

“BOHICA, apples and oranges”

Please explain the difference jane. Linda said that if you haven’t adopted a child then you know little about abortion and should not debate it. I say that by that logic, if you haven’t fought in a war, you know little about Iraq and should not debate it. What’s the difference?

Posted by: BOHICA at February 6, 2008 06:05 PM

Cube,
I have, at various times past, quoted from each of 78-85 depending on the specific issue. Because I had earlier referenced the lines in 78 (and errantly ascribed them to James Madison) which specifically addressed the relative strength of the judiciary as a branch, I was looking especially for that.

I also wanted to shy away from the discussion on the Bill of Rights, frankly because it was imposed on the writers of the Constitution particularly by one state’s intransigence. Hamilton saw it as a pollution of their efforts, and not without cause. In fact, precisely the complaints he had against the additions have come true as they opened the door to the suggestion that powers were posessed by the government which must be held at bay. As you can see in his own pleadings he tries to make the case that the unenunciated powers don’t exist.

Now we are three generations or more into courts mad with unenunciated powers.

If you follow the Republican presidential campaign at all you will note that Warren Rudman, who is credited with having vouched for David Souter as a conservative to Ronald Reagan, is a vice chair of John McCain’s presidential campaign. Souter is arguably the most liberal justice on the court since his having been seated there. One can imagine why conservatives trust McCain about as far as they can spit, or perhaps vomit, him.

Of course Reagan tried to appoint Robert Bork, perhaps the most stellar single justice in recent judicial history. Certainly he was the greatest jurist to be denied, for purely political reasons, a seat on the Supreme Court. Bork’s written opinions from the D.C. Circuit were NEVER overturned. His confirmation hearings were a vicious act of political lynching for a man whose opinions were the wrong color.

His replacement, the milquetoast Anthony Kennedy, is not fit to sit in Bork’s shadow. (even if I do disagree with Bork on privacy rights. There’s an argument that would be good for the Constitution…)

Posted by: Lee Jamison at February 6, 2008 06:42 PM

Jamison

You make my point for me; I’m trying to defend the Supreme Court while expressing concerns on how it has recently been stacked. And you complain that one of the Conservative appointments isn’t conservative enough, while complaining of how the Supreme Court Justices have conducted their duties. Nevertheless if you have time, look up the Segal-Cover score on Wikipedia. I accidentally discovered it doing some research for another thread.

I can’t comment on the accuracy of this chart, but it is an attempt to rank/grade the ideology and qualifications of past and present Justices. Oh and I’m sorry, but of course I disagree with your opinion of Bork.

Posted by: Cube at February 7, 2008 03:33 AM

Cube,
Disagree all you want with me, but understand that your position also empowers the court far beyond the boundaries envisioned by Hamilton and his fellows. What you call “stacking” is an attempt to reduce the power of the judiciary by forcing the courts to live within the letter of the law, rather than conjuring ennobling spirits that transcend the written word.

It is out of that concern that I disagree with Bork on privacy. There is no right to sex in the Constitution, nor is there a right to corporate ownership. All kinds of things are not in the document. Bork’s position is a threat to his own ideals. Hamilton’s original notion is far better.

I’m in a rush, but I will try to get to the score you mention.

Posted by: Lee Jamison at February 7, 2008 07:11 AM

Jane Doe,
Look at comment #244735 above. Not to minimize your loss or the pain your mother and you must have endured, but I think my cousin would have you trumped, in as much as she WAS an aborted baby. Even an illegal abortion entails taking a conscious risk. Being aborted is all imposition by some outside authority.

Posted by: Lee Jamison at February 7, 2008 07:41 AM

Lee,

“Not to minimize your loss or the pain your mother and you must have endured, but I think my cousin would have you trumped, in as much as she WAS an aborted baby. Even an illegal abortion entails taking a conscious risk. Being aborted is all imposition by some outside authority.”

What an incredibly callous thing to say.

Late term abortions, which is what your cousin would be called today, comprise less than 1% of all abortions, and no sane person would consider a “late term abortion” a means of birth control.

I would imagine that any woman seeking an illegal abortion couldn’t possibly take the procedure lightly, and it’s truly a shame that Linda’s mother died as a result.
Without knowing the circumstances of her situation, you seem to believe that she did.

That your cousin lived a talented life is remarkable. But in no way does life “trump” death.

Posted by: Rocky at February 7, 2008 10:45 AM

Some of us embrace and fight for the “sovereignty of the individual citizen” and the freedom to believe and live as we want, while others fear it and fight for “govt control of the individual citizen” so that they can dictate how people believe and live.

We lost Lee. Accept it and join the village.

Posted by: kctim at February 7, 2008 12:43 PM

Lee, Kctim, you both make a fundamental mistake in assuming that the threat to your “sovereignty” (sp) comes solely from the government. I say this because I have never heard either of you complain about the threat to your sovereignity from the powerful, monied interests that run this country.
Think about power being stratified rather than a hierarchy. You, as an individual, are not vying or competing with the government on any level; that is left to these large, monied interests who clearly see government, at all levels, as being a threat to their interests.
When you hear people on the tv talking about how we have to get the government off our backs, they’re not talking about YOUR back, they’re talking about theirs!!
Large corporations, through their policies, products, services kill hundreds of thousands of Americans every year and, every year, they injure millions more. Individuals running these corporations lie, cheat, steal, all the while hiding their own personal liability behind a corporate shield. (Stop and think about all the crappy things that must have gone on over the last few years with these sub-prime mortgages. How many people have gone to prison for their actions?) Do you two seriously think that you, as “individuals”, can play on a level field with the big boys? Do you think that the big money is afraid of you? Do they worry that you will think badly of them or take any possible action that would result in a cost to them?
You have to know, kctim and Lee, on some primal level if not an intellectual one, that the money doesn’t give a rat’s ass about your “sovereignty” (sp) and if there ever came a time when they wanted to take something from you they would just do it and not think twice.
Government is YOU. You elected the people who hire the bureaucrats who make the decisions that affect, restrain and protect you. The government is the only entity, big enough, powerful enough to balance out the tyranny of big money.

Posted by: charles ross at February 7, 2008 02:27 PM

Charles
When a business starts forcing me to give it money so that it can give it to someone the CEO thinks needs it more, then I will start speaking out against business controlling my life.
When a business starts dictating how I live my life, then I will start speaking out against business controlling my life.

And yes, I can, and do, play on a level field with the “big boys” everyday. How? By using my freedom of choice, something I cannot use when playing with the govt. Get a mortgage that I know I won’t be able to afford to pay in 3+ years? No thanks. There is only person to blame for sub-prime mortgages being a problem, and that is the idiots who agreed to them.

I am well aware that businesses only want my money, but I do not fear them as you all seem to. I do my best at voting for candidates whom I believe will keep them under check, but will not hinder them.

Govt is no longer of the people and for the people. It has evolved into a govt of special interests, which use it to force their personal agendas onto the masses.

At this point in time, “tyranny of big money” is nothing compared to the tyranny of big govt that controls our lives.

Posted by: kctim at February 7, 2008 03:33 PM

kctim said “And yes, I can, and do, play on a level field with the “big boys” everyday. How? By using my freedom of choice, something I cannot use when playing with the govt.”
Why cant you use the same freedom of choice you exercise on that big level playing field your on with the government kctim? At least the feds have a constitution and bill of rights they have to pay lip service to which is more than can be said for the corporations that control the government.

“I am well aware that businesses only want my money, but I do not fear them as you all seem to. I do my best at voting for candidates whom I believe will keep them under check, but will not hinder them.”
Isnt that freedom of choice on the federal government level? I agree its the same candidates that use the front money of the corporations to get elected or they dont get elected but thats what the “tyranny of big money” is about.

“At this point in time, “tyranny of big money” is nothing compared to the tyranny of big govt that controls our lives.” Seems to me the “tyranny of big money” is controlling the government already. Of course it can get worse but how long do you propose we ignore the problem and claim its all the governments fault?

Posted by: j2t2 at February 7, 2008 04:45 PM

J2
“Why cant you use the same freedom of choice you exercise on that big level playing field your on with the government”

Let’s see? If I don’t agree with how a business uses the money I willingly give it, I can stop giving them my money. Can I do that with govt? Or is govt the only “business” that is authorized to take my money by force?

“Seems to me the “tyranny of big money” is controlling the government already. Of course it can get worse but how long do you propose we ignore the problem and claim its all the governments fault?”

As long as it takes to end overtaxation and govt intrusion into personal lives.

How long are you going to ignore the nanny-state we have become and stop blaming the evil rich for every problem?
What do you think is going to happen first:
McD’s passing a law saying I have to eat a Big Mac every night?
OR
Some group trying to pass a feel-good law telling me I can longer eat a Big Mac if I so choose, because they know whats best for me better than I do?

Do you think a hospital is going to get a law passed saying I have to use their services, even if I don’t want to?
OR
Do you think its more likely that the govt will pass a law saying I have to use a certain hospital, no matter how I believe or feel about it?

Mega-Mart isn’t taking away your rights and freedoms, your govt is.

Posted by: kctim at February 7, 2008 05:17 PM

I think it’s cute that someone still thinks that his/her vote will get them what they want. Just like that, I don’t like this or that, I’ll vote for him or her and it will all be better. Hoo boy.

Posted by: Ray at February 7, 2008 07:25 PM

BOHICA, dbs, Lee, and others,

First off:
The Iraqi War wasn’t a decision made by military personal. This decision was as a result of mis-information as a result of our present administration. Those serving in the war are doing so because that is the Job they have been assigned to do, regardless of whether they agree with the reasoning or not. They simply have no choice.

An abortion on the other hand is an extremely personal matter. This decision should not involve anyone other than the woman, the father, and her doctor. The father, only, if he willingly, legally, financially, and unconditionally intends to participate with the child’s future life. The only other exception I would make would be if the girl is under the age of 16, and would need and receive supportive parental help and guidance. Unfortunately, there are many “parents” who could not and would not do this.

There are those on this site who already know how deeply I feel about the Mother’s Right to Choose.

Not only have I lost my mother as a result of an illegal, coat-hanger, back-room botched surgery, which in case anyone cares, I watched at the age of 9, I now work with children who have come into this world who are and were unwanted. I speak for these children. The ones who honestly wish they had never been born. I felt that way until I was nearly grown. This is hard enough without trying to second guess the rights of a child who has never been born.

These children are not only suffering the abuse, hatred, and,depravity from their “parents”, many are continuing the cycle.

These are the children I care for. Which children do you care for - the ones you think might turn into Abraham Lincolns, or the ones who lead horrific,tortured,sad, and unwanted lives, many of whom will undoubtedly continue the same cycle until they finally die from the lack of loving.

These children do not know LOVE. They do not know to receive it or how to give it.
To me this life is worst than anything any human can do to another human being. I know what it is like to be raised without love. I was fortunate that after the age of 12, my father was able to give me the love I needed. It took years for me to learn what it was, let alone express. Frankly without love, I would rather be dead. This is one of the main reasons why teen girls want babies - they want someone who will love them - and only them.

BTW, your cousin is not an aborted baby. If she was, she would not be alive. She is the product of a failed abortion, which I am serenely gratefully. She has overcome many obstacles. I’ll bet she didn’t do it alone.

Posted by: Linda H. at February 7, 2008 07:57 PM

Linda,
I was responding to your post:

“One question:
Men: How many of those here who oppose abortion rights have adopted a child?

Until you can say “I have”, stay out of an issue you know little about.

I know more about this than any man here could or would ever guess. I lost my mother due to an illegal abortion.

Posted by: Linda H. at February 6, 2008 11:34 AM

You seem to know quite a bit about abortion. Certainly more than I do. That however does not make my opinion invalid. And I find the notion that unless you have adopted a child you don’t know about abortion to be absurd. How about the many people who have had abortions? Do you think they don’t understand them?

I probably know more about war than any woman here could or ever guess. I was in the infantry in Vietnam and lost many very close friends.

That doesn’t stop any woman here from having an opinion of the war. By the way, I fought that war so that you could keep having those opinions.

“First off:
The Iraqi War wasn’t a decision made by military personal. This decision was as a result of mis-information as a result of our present administration. Those serving in the war are doing so because that is the Job they have been assigned to do, regardless of whether they agree with the reasoning or not. They simply have no choice.”

What country do you think we live in? In the United States, Military personel don’t make the decision to go to war. They follow orders. Those serving in the war are doing so because it is a job they volunteered to do. Every last one of them. Some did it for money, some for education and some actually do it to preserve freedom.

“An abortion on the other hand is an extremely personal matter. This decision should not involve anyone other than the woman, the father, and her doctor. The father, only, if he willingly, legally, financially, and unconditionally intends to participate with the child’s future life. The only other exception I would make would be if the girl is under the age of 16, and would need and receive supportive parental help and guidance. Unfortunately, there are many “parents” who could not and would not do this.

There are those on this site who already know how deeply I feel about the Mother’s Right to Choose.”

And you have no idea what my position is on abortion (it might surprise you), yet you want to stiffle my opinion because I haven’t adopted anyone.

Posted by: BOHICA at February 7, 2008 09:04 PM

“Let’s see? If I don’t agree with how a business uses the money I willingly give it, I can stop giving them my money. Can I do that with govt? Or is govt the only “business” that is authorized to take my money by force?”
kctim how many times have you actually had your money taken by force? Or anything else for that matter? See I like the idea of voluntary taxes too but it just doesnt seem to work. Would you vote for the candidate that offered voluntary taxes? With the government your