What's better on a Sunday evening than some drama from Washington, D.C.? I don't know why the situation with Terri Schiavo, her husband, her parents, their lawyers, the Congress and all sorts of media-folk is so compelling, but I have been drawn to it. It's fascinating. I watched a bunch of the debate earlier, and if there is ever any wonder why government doesn't get much done, just take a look at the distraction that occurred the last few days.
Some highlights and ironies:
The media has not exactly been the group whipping this to a frenzy. Part of that is there is no trial to watch, no car chase to follow with a news 'copter, no bombs to see explode on a pixely-green video. The real culprits are the Republicans in the 109th Congress -- people who are exploiting this family's situation just to score some political points.
In the debate, a few members of Congress spoke eloquently about facing similar situations. No one disputes whether this woman is suffering, whether this is a difficult situation, whether there is a right to die. The bill was to move the case into a federal court -- overturning the decision of several state judges in Florida. Especially eloquent was Rep. Steny Hoyer of Maryland, the Democratic whip, whos spoke about court jurisdiction and how the Congress changes the jurisdiction to suit the political needs.
One irony in this is that George W. Bush, in 1999 as governor of Texas, signed a bill into law that established specific procedures to end life support when medical experts and hospital ethics boards determined that a person was in a permanent vegetative state and would eventually die as a result. In fact, a six-month-old boy was removed from life support over parental objection as a result of the Texas law, which Bush signed after returning to the state from a campaign event specifically to do so.
An additional contradiction is that religious conservatives talk about states' rights, about the sanctity of life (the new term is Culture of Life) and about so-called activist judges.
When conservatives want to dodge an issue, they say it is a matter for states' rights (remember the Confederate flag, death penalty, same-sex marriages). But when the state decision does not suit the national political needs -- better yet, it could provide additional political gain -- the conservatives try to exert federal authority. An example is the Texas legislative Democrats who hid out in New Mexico and later Oklahoma to avoid the Congressional redistricting.
Conservatives speak and write of the sanctity of life, yet apparently that respect for life applies only to pre-life and end of life. If a woman demands the right to control her life and choose what is best for her life, the right-to-life movement says "no way." Conservatives overwhelmingly support the death penalty, too. Where is the sanctity of life argument when the government wants to kill people? The respect for life also apparently applies only to Americans, because this government has killed thousands of Iraqi citizens in a reckless war. Do we value their lives? Even during life, Republican politicians seemingly do everything to make life miserable to thousands of Americans -- the poor, the elderly and the fragile in society. How precious is life?
And the most laughable irony of all is the idea that so-called activist judges are contributing to the rapid decline of American values and our way of life. Yet, who do the Republicans turn to when they can't get their way through legislation or social policy? The courts. Let us not forget that five activist justices placed George W. Bush in the White House in December 2000. Now, the Republicans, led by Rep. Tom DeLay of Texas, turn again to their courts in hopes of fanning flames of a family's tragedy for political gain. The final accomplice in this: the president, having returned from his own vacation, being awakened at the White House to sign the bill into law.
Do not be fooled into believing this is about due process. It's not. Instead, it is about politics and religion. Even if the federal judge, federal appeals judge and U.S. Supreme Court all support the original Florida court decision, the Republicans will undoubtedly use this situation to gain favor with religious conservatives and to continue their fallacious arguments on talk shows and even on the House floor. A memo allegdly circulated from Republicans stating how the case could be used to put Democrats in difficult situations and to win over religious conservatives, though DeLay denies having anything to do with it.
It's a strange day, for sure, when Congress reconvenes over its Easter recess for a bill that would aid just one person, would erode privacy and states' rights and would mock our separation of governmental powers. But, heck, that's Congress. Why did we elect these people anyway?
-- Wenatchee, Wash.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
42 comments:
"If a woman demands the right to control her life and choose what is best for her life, the right-to-life movement says "no way.""
Excluding victims of rape, all women have the ability to control whether or not they become pregnant. As long as a woman makes responsible choices in the first place, she will not be in a situation where she needs an abortion. If a woman makes awrong choice and does become pregnant, she must be willing to accept the consequences of her decision.
Loganite, that is a really, really long entry.
Why must a woman be forced to stay pregnant? It is her body, not yours. Who is to say a woman was not responsible in her decision-making? How would you even know? How could you prove it either way?
Will those who force her to have the baby help her with the raising of the child, the cost of supporting the child, etc.? No, of course not. Once the baby is born those advocates will conveniently remove themselves from the situation.
Those who wish to impose their morality on the pregnant women do not help after the birth. I think this is what the Loganite is identifying as well. There is more to this debate than the birth. There is a new life to raise, teach, mold, and nurture. Some women do not have the ability or means to do so.
Being Pro-Choice allows both sides to have their way. Pro-Life advocates can choose not to have an abortion if the choice arises, and those who are Pro-Choice can decide for themselves.
The new Republican Party has changed dramatically in the last ten years. Republicans used to believe in:
- the States’ autonomy on issues not “delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it”
- a less-powerful and involved central government
- personal liberties
- fiscal responsibility
What happened? While my views are staying the same, I am moving on the political spectrum. Maybe this is a product of time, but I don't think so. I think the new Republican Party is more concerned with staying in power rather than promoting their own party's (and constituents') views.
Awww, looking back is priceless. What do you all make of this?
“To occupy Iraq would instantly shatter our coalition, turning the whole Arab world against us and make a broken tyrant into a latter-day hero ... assigning young soldiers to a fruitless hunt for a securely entrenched dictator and condemning them to fight in what would be an un-winnable urban guerilla war. It could only plunge that part of the world into even greater instability.”
- George Bush (Senior), in A World Transformed, 1998
“ He [Saddam] has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbours.”
- Colin Powell in February 2001
“We are able to keep arms from him [Saddam]. His military forces have not been rebuilt.“
- Condoleezza Rice in July 2001
"Who is to say a woman was not responsible in her decision-making?"
If she had sex and got pregnant, she wasn't responsible in her decision-making. A woman must either learn to withstand the "pressure," or face the consequences.
"Will those who force her to have the baby..."
She forced herself to have the baby when she made the reckless choice to have unsafe sex.
If the father of the child is known, I certainly agree that he must share in the responsibility. The choice was his as well. Unfortunately, holding the father accountable is not always possible.
The bottom line is that a woman almost always has a choice whether or not to have a child. The decision simply does not come at the most convenient time. A little foresight and planning (difficult concepts, I know) go a long way.
unsafe sex = pregnancy
no sex = no baby
Pretty simple, really.
Pro-choice supporters on this blog point out the Republican contradicion of supporting the death penalty but not abortion. Its ironic how many liberals argue so passionately against the deaths of convicted felons, yet they wholeheartedly support the deaths of innocent, unborn children for the sake of the mother's convenience. Seems just as contradictory to me.
An abortion is the result of selfishness and poor planning. If you don't want to become pregnant, don't have sex. It really shouldn't be such a difficult concept to grasp.
OK, OK, OK.
Let's separate, just for a minute, the ideas of legality and morality. It's an important separation.
Speaking for myself and not all liberals, I have come to oppose capital punishment because I believe the governmen t should not be killing its citizens. There are many reasons, but the main one revolves around deprivation of civil rights. I don't think women should have abortions, either, but I also recognize their legal right to control their bodies. I doubt that if I were in a relationship involving a pregnancy that I would advocate abortion. But it is not for the government to determine.
The biggest contradiction is not about death penalty or fetal abortion. Instead, it's about the traditional conservative position that government should be small and stay out of people's lives. However, conservatives today seem very interested in what happens in people's bedrooms, their bodies and their families. And, to bring this strand back to its origin, the Schiavo private bill that Congress passed March 20 is a perfect example of the erosion of a traditional conservative position. Legality is replaced by morality. Those who disagree are labeled immoral.
-- L.
On a legal level I don't believe the government should have any right to take someone's life. I also feel that the government should not control a person's body.
If you are morally opposed to abortion, don't have one. It's that simple. If it ain't your body, stay out of it. It's not your decision.
By the way Anonymous the Many (whoever you hidden, nameless people are --get an identity why don't you?), a woman can have protected sex and get pregnant. I know married women who have, couldn't afford to keep the baby, and had an abortion. They knew they could not adequately raise the child and made a rational decision to end the pregnancy. No one should be forced to have children. This is, in my mind, a moral decision.
Keep the government out of bedrooms.
Also, keep them out of family and doctor decisions like the Schiavo case. Every law has been followed. The courts have repeatedly said so. However, politicians want to posture and reaffirm their base of constituents, so they get involved. There are thousands of people in Schiavo's exact circumstances right now. Why is this one so special? Is it just because the media has picked it up or is it just that politicians use it to appeal to their so-called "moral" bases.
The real issues I want my government solving right now are to a) provide medical coverage for everyone, b) fix MediCare and MediCaid, and c) solve the Social Security mess. No steroids. No Schiavo cases. No legislating morality. Get to work, Big Brother!
I agree that the government should stay out of abortion rights. However, I highly support capital punishment.
Talking about government funded healthcare for everyone is a bad idea. It's easy to sell of course (just like any government-is-santa-clause socialist policy), but the fact that you are 3 times more likely to have life-saving surgery in the U.S. than in Canada or the UK (two countries with nationalized healthcare) should help stray you away. Plus Canadians are taxed way way way more than we are and they don't even fund nearly as an expensive military as we do (and it's my firm belief that they don't have one because WE DO).
The problem with the Schiavo case is that it shows a hole in the legal system. If you're correct about the law Bush signed in Texas, he better damn well be paying attention to this!
As far as the direction of our two political parties...
50% of the Republicans and 90% of the democrats can go to hell.
What do you mean, "IF" I am correct? Of course I am correct! The Bush who needs to watch out is Jeb. He's screwed if he think this won't be played in some commercial when he runs for president. He's alredady back-pedaling like crazy anyway, saying he doesn't have jurisdiction and how he can't defy a court order.
An interesting take on the state-run health system. What do you think of government regulation of prices or even of approved drugs?
Oh, and most politicians are going to hell if there is one. Maybe D.C. is Hell and they're already there.
-- L.
I personally believe that the government should protect our rights to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." This said, I believe a moral responsibility of government is to provide basic medical care for all citizens, not just those with healthier bank accounts.
I don't see how the level of care will decrease (life saving surgeries, disease treatments, etc.) or be adversely affected. There will still be specialists and with an increase in early health care, many future problems can be avoided. The same goes for preventative dental care early in life. The earlier that people receive care, the less likely future problems will develop. Initial costs could be high, but in the long run I believe costs would eventually even out.
Health insurance can take up the slack where basic services run out. Basic care should be provided to all, though specialized treatment may not be part of this.
Taxes are going to increase regardless of what we desire, but we should be vocal about where those funds go. I would like to see our domestic needs met first before we solve the world's problems.
This mirrors many of our governments' (state and federal) short-sightedness. The quick fix is not always the best. We need to start looking long-term in all budgetary matters.
You know drpezz, you make an interesting point. Quote from your entry, 'I personally believe that the government should protect our rights to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."'
The first idea in that statement that you expressed was that the government should protect the "life" of American citizens. Now is that not what they are trying to do in the Schiavo case? Protecting the LIFE of an American citizen.
It just seems a little contradictory to me that you would want the government out of our lives and yet you want the government to uphold our life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. Please explain, I'm confused...
Well, Schiavo has died. Another disgusting case of judicial tyranny. Another misinterpretation by an unelected and unaccountable supreme court judge. Can we say Judicial dictatorship? God Bless Terri and the Schindlers.
The Schiavo case is not really about government protecting life. That case centers on who has the right to decide the last days of a life when a debate arises over the patients' wishes. So far, every court has sided with the husband that Mrs. Schiavo does not want to live with "extraordinary" means. The parents cling to a futile hope. This decision rests with the husband and the doctors, not the government. By infringing on the liberty of her decision, the government is trying to claim that they are attempting to save her life. Sadly, it is over. No patient with her diagnosis has ever come out of this type of vegetative state.
This case is simply an excuse for politicians to grandstand and for the far right to reach their religious base. This case allows politicians to claim that there is a "culture of life" and a "culture of death," a way to divide the nation into "us" and "them," or "life savers" and "life takers"--basically who is moral and not. This fallacious either-or argument is being used to involve government in a family decision, which occurs every day in this nation. I still ask the question: why is this case so important or unique? It's a common circumstance. Government wants to decide what is moral and what is not.
One aspect I still think overlooked as well is that this case started with an eating disorder as an indirect (if not direct) cause of the stroke that incapacitated this poor woman. Also, this case brings to light the need for living wills, another overlooked aspect of the case.
He's pointing out the so-called hipocrisy that conservatives want the government out of their lives, yet want the government to step in on abortion and the schiavo case. As far as the Schiavo case goes, what choice do conservatives have when laws are misinterpreted in the Florida Supreme Court by a radical judge?
You know, it's funny how liberals want to spend more on healthcare and increase taxes when nearly 800,000 children die of measles in other countries throughout the world each day. In this country, it might put you in debt and it may be expensive for some surgeries, but at the very least you can live and won't be turned down for life-saving surgery.
I guess Liberals just don't trust people to donate their money to charity. Accoring to a recent philanthropist study, the top 25 ranked states in charity are all red states.
Sounds like the courts want to decide what is moral and what is not. Terri was mentally disabled. That's it. I guess we should round up all the mentally disabled people who can't take care of themselves and kill them.
As far as spending more money on healthcare in this country, I find it funny. 800,000 children worldwide die of measles, and liberals want to spend millions maybe even billions more in this country? Sorry, but you can LIVE in this country (unless you're a vegetable, then the courts will sentence you to death).
I guess Liberals don't trust people with extra money in their pockets. May I point out that the top 25 ranked states in donations to private charities are all red states according to a recent philanthropist study?
Adam,
How can you say that ("judicial tyranny")? The law was upheld. If you don't like the law, don't blame those who enforce it. Get the law changed if you feel so strongly about it.
This case has been ruled upon about 20 times, and all of the judges (notice the plural form of the word) have come to the same conclusion. Are all twenty rulings and judges suspect? Or are they simply upholding the law? Just because you don't like it does not mean it's incorrect. I admit that I don't like the manner of her death, but the law is being followed.
I hope you never have to make this diificult decision in your lifetime. I hope you never have a loved one in this situation and have to protect your loved one's wishes. You may feel differently when this occurs to you instead of a stranger. My family has had to make this sort of decision, and it's a horrendous position to be in. The only solace is knowing that we defended and supported his wishes.
Again Adam, this is not an "us" and "them" argument. These issues you raise are not issues of charity and morality; they are issues of where government's limits are set. You can use those blanket statements and labels about Liberals all you want, but it does not change the fact that the laws have been followed. You just don't like the result.
Adam,
How can you say that ("judicial tyranny")? The law was upheld. If you don't like the law, don't blame those who enforce it. Get the law changed if you feel so strongly about it.
This case has been ruled upon about 20 times, and all of the judges (notice the plural form of the word) have come to the same conclusion. Are all twenty rulings and judges suspect? Or are they simply upholding the law? Just because you don't like it does not mean it's incorrect. I admit that I don't like the manner of her death, but the law is being followed.
I hope you never have to make this diificult decision in your lifetime. I hope you never have a loved one in this situation and have to protect your loved one's wishes. You may feel differently when this occurs to you instead of a stranger. My family has had to make this sort of decision, and it's a horrendous position to be in. The only solace is knowing that we defended and supported his wishes.
Again Adam, this is not an "us" and "them" argument. These issues you raise are not issues of charity and morality; they are issues of where government's limits are set. You can use those blanket statements and labels about Liberals all you want, but it does not change the fact that the laws have been followed. You just don't like the result.
We can also throw out the stat that Red states lead the nation in teen pregnancy and divorce, but it can't be stated that they are the cause of the moral decline of the nation, the very notion for which they blame blue states. These arguments only create division and are not sustainable. The idea of basic health for all is not a red-blue issue.
Besides, my point is that there is more we can do for our own citizens. We can't solve all of the world's problems. We have the greatest disparity in the world between the upper and lower classes. I believe we can assist those at the bottom of the social hierarchy much more than we do. If we truly value life in this country, let's try to improve it for everyone beginning with early education programs and basic health care.
You know...I'm still a little confused. Schiavo's husband made the decision for the feeding tube to be pulled, correct? The thing I don't understand is what gives him any more say in whether she lived or died than her own parents? Why was this his decision? Besides that, did she give any sign she wanted to be killed? Adam makes a good point, why don't we just round up all of the mentally disabled and kill them, I mean that is what the courts should rule if they are consistent, right?
One more question for drpezz...Do you support the decision of the court and Schiavo's husband? I know that it is the law and you abide by the law, but do you think it was the correct decision, to take a living person (vegetable or not) off of life support?
Teen pregnancy (which is actually calculated as girls and women up to 19 years of age with a child)in red states will be higher for two reasons because of two reasons. 1) Conservatives are less likely to have an abortion. 2) Many rural areas are structured so that women are getting married and having children right out of highschool.
Divorce rates? Which data are you looking at? Divorces per population or divorces per marriage? If you look at divorces per marriage, it's pretty even, with Nevada on top (naturally) and the next 3 being blue, the next 4 being red, etc.
Anonymous wrote: "The thing I don't understand is what gives [Michael Schiavo] any more say in whether [Terri Schiavo] lived or died than her own parents? Why was this his decision? Besides that, did she give any sign she wanted to be killed?"
Well, when a person gets married, the spouse becomes the primary caretaker -- remember the father "giving away" the daughter at the wedding? At some point you leave the nest and parents are no longer caretakers. The argument that the parents love her more because they wanted her to live and her husband wanted her to not be kept alive but suffering are not effective arguments.
Then, "Adam makes a good point, why don't we just round up all of the mentally disabled and kill them, I mean that is what the courts should rule if they are consistent, right?"
What a great example of a hasty generalization fallacy of logic! The difference is that just because someone is mentally disabled does not mean that the person cannot survive without life-support equipment as was the case with Terri Schiavo. She was being kept alive by equipment; her body could not live on its own.
-- L.
Here you go, Adam.
According to the U.S. Census Bureau, red states have 5.08 divorces per 1000 people while blue states have 3.61 per 1000 people.
-----------------------
Highest Divorce Rates by State
1. Nevada
2. Arkansas
3. Oklahoma
4. Tennessee
5. Wyoming
6. Indiana
7. Alabama
8. Idaho
9. New Mexico
10. Florida
Lowest Divorce Rates by State
1. Massachusetts
2. Connecticutt
3. New Jersey
4. Rhose Island
5. New York
6. Pennsylvania
7. Wisconsin
8. North Dakota
9. Maryland
10. Minnesota
-National Center for Health Statistics, In Focus
---------------------------
"Red states have a divorce rate 27% higher than blue states."
- "For Richer, For Poorer"
---------------------------
I guess this again proves Twain's line about "lies, damn lies, and statistics" or my college prof's line who said, "I can make statistics say anything I want."
And to quote myself: "These arguments [red versus blue] only create division and are not sustainable."
Again, these issues are not red-blue issues. The Schiavo case is about many issues including the government's limits. According to a Fox News Poll (yes, I watch Fox News alonside MSNBC and CNN) Republicans (almost 70%) and Democrats (about 75%) felt Congress overstepped its bounds.
Per 1,000 people. Obviously divorce rates will be higher in red states per 1,000 people because there are more people married in those states. I was talking about the stats I saw per 1,000 MARRIED people (the stat that would actually make sense).
I find it funny to see you attack the "new republican" party. The democrat party has changed vastly and more radically since the early 1900's. And i find it funnier that you think voting for the party that loves to gut the military (and then blames republicans for having to run a defecit to rebuild it without massive tax increases) will protect your "life".
Adam,
As I have repeatedly said to your deaf ears, I think the marriage stat is not useful. Also, I used it as an example of how useless that type of argument is (to end the red-blue debate which you can't seem to drop). I'll repeat for you once more: "These arguments [red versus blue] only create division and are not sustainable."
The far right is attempting to pervert the judicial system, gut America's checkbook, and end personal liberties. The far left...I can't tell what they want except that they seem to be for everything the far right is not. They just shout opposition to everything.
The problem is that the rational middle of both parties is not seen in the news because they are shouted down by the goofs on both sides and suffering from the constant attacks coming from the right (even among their own party; can you hear me, Karl Rove?). The centrists need to start voicing more authority and to start ousting those far left and right wackos.
As a child of a military family, I can tell you that there is no "gutting" of the military. Technology has decreased the need for as many soldiers as well as the lack of another Superpower to wage another Cold War against (to name but a couple reasons). Plus, higher education levels are required to be in most areas of the military. You are stuck on this military "rebuilding." Well, don't start a war if you ain't got the troops (or the money to pay for it). This is why we have the greatest deficit in the history of this country: fiscal irresponsibility.
Since you don't know my voting record, I must only point out your ignorance. You only know that I don't like this administration because of its self-centered ambition and dishonesty.
"The far right is attempting to pervert the judicial system, gut America's checkbook, and end personal liberties."
How can you say that when left-wing judges are ruling in favor of special interest groups (such as homosexuals), triple-murders, and illegal immigrants? You know why republicans are constantly fighting with deficits? It's called trying to cut back on government spending and lowering taxes. Taxes are easier to lower. And ending personal liberties? Wow...
No gutting of the military huh? Why didn't that rescue mission work under Jimmy Carter? Because our planes and helicopters were under-funded and using old beat-up parts.
I myself don't like the far-right either. As much as I agree with some of the things he says, Michael Savage attacks moderate conservatives such as Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'reilly...they aren't the enemy.
"The far right is attempting to pervert the judicial system, gut America's checkbook, and end personal liberties."
How can you say that when left-wing judges are ruling in favor of special interest groups (such as homosexuals), triple-murders, and illegal immigrants? You know why republicans are constantly fighting with deficits? It's called trying to cut back on government spending and lowering taxes. Taxes are easier to lower. And ending personal liberties? Wow...
No gutting of the military huh? Why didn't that rescue mission work under Jimmy Carter? Because our planes and helicopters were under-funded and using old beat-up parts.
I myself don't like the far-right either. As much as I agree with some of the things he says, Michael Savage attacks moderate conservatives such as Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'reilly...they aren't the enemy.
I have no idea where you are getting this left-wing judges garbage (maybe FOX News or Savage) when they are simply upholding the law (equal rights for all and rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness). It's funny how those on the right cry about "activist judges" when the decisions don't go their way. However, they run to the same courts to push their own agenda. Hypocritical. Check out Loganite's blog that started this. He eloquently explains this hypocrisy.
Again, you prove my point for me about deficits. Cutting taxes while increasing spending equals massive deficits. Thanks for defending my position.
Look at the current military spending, not a thirty year old potential example. We currently have the greatest increases in govt. spending in modern history with most of it going to the military (almost 70 times the original estimate).
Have you read the fine print on the Patriot Act (nice use of propaganda by the way)? It effectively limits civil liberties and supresses rights. Check out what you are losing and what could be next. Besides that, the current administration is trying to legislate morality for the nation.
Limbaugh and O'Reilly (who I would not call moderate in anything) are prime examples of shouting down the opposition and creating us-them arguments out of anything. They have little to offer, maybe even less than Savage.
Leftist judges misinterpret the law. Honestly, where can you draw the line on where these judges rule? I would honestly not be surprised if having sex with animals in school was a common thing and a "human right" within the next 100 years...sounds crazy, but we're heading in that direction.
I simply pointed out about defecits that conservatives get into office and want to cut spending and taxes, that is their agenda, and that is why they run defecits. If they could do them both at the same time and equally, they would. Liberals have an easier time however, because gutting the military is the easiest way for them to throw that money around to useless social programs that we become addicted to and have a hard time getting rid of.
Limbaugh and O'Reilly (who I would not call moderate in anything) are prime examples of shouting down the opposition...
hold a second. You mean these people have strong opinions about politics? No Way! How awful! You make them sound like they're the big evil giants running everything, when in fact they are minority in the media and in hollywierd.
Damn patriotic act, I really wanted to pretend like I was involved in terrorist activity to see what happened.
The bigger our military, the safer we are (it's not the only factor). You think those hundreds and thousands of U.N. peace treaties have done anything? Not a damn step of progress. There's no excuse letting us fall behind another nation in technology and the best way to do that is to keep spending on our military and keep it bigger and stronger than everyone else.
Sex with animals?! What are you talking about (going in that direction)? Republicans in the media minority?! Where did you get this? Air America can barely stay funded. Please get real. Keep building your bombs, stop helping those in need, and keep professing your exclusionary rhetoric.
Prejudiced and misinformed, Adam. That's all I can say for you. Sounds like a good time for the Loganite (especially with his media knowledge) to step in with his eloquence, for I have tired of Adam's meandering, cirucular, and irrational logic.
"The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little."
--FDR
Who exactly is in need? Criminals who cross the border (illegal immigrants) that a radical un-elected supreme court judge ruled were entitled to everything? People who decide to do drugs? People who have too many children and can't support them? I don't agree with helping these people through the government, yet you vote for people who force it out of my pockets.
The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little."
--FDR
And you know who has too much? Special Interests groups and the government.
Adam, you are so quick to use sweeping generalities and are full of criticism for groups that differ from you.
Every member of the Supreme Coourt got there the same way -- appointed by a president and affirmed by the U.S. Senate. In fact, most of the current justices came to their seats on the court from Republican presidents, with Democrat-controlled Senates. Just Ruth Bader Ginsburg in 1994 was confirmed with a Democratic Senate and president. So it's hard to swallow when you say that the Supremes have determined people are "entitled to everything." They've ruled we aren't entitled to marry, aren't entitled to sue our HMOs, aren't entitled to a trial by a jury of our peers (even if we are citizens) when accused of certain crimes. So don't give me that.
As for "people who have too many children and can't support them" let's look at the root of that problem. Is it just that poor people want to have sex and get pregnant? Hardly. No, let's consider the programs that encourage having kids, such as the Earned Income Tax Credit (a Republican favorite). What about the poor economic policies that make it hard to get and keep a good job, raise a family or get off welfare? What about the cut in funding of family planning programs or public health care that could teach people about contraception or provide it at minimal or no cost? Don't complain about "too many children" withoout looking at the whole problem. Don't demonize poor people who have kids without also criticizing affluent families that get a "tax credit" for having more kids.
One role of government is to help people help themselves or those who are unable to help themselves. That is the philosophy of Welfare and Social Security and Medicare and Medicaid. Those programs need some renovation, I admit, but they are now the darlings of the Right -- the same Right that fought their creation.
Finally, you write "special interests" have too much. I am not sure what you mean by too much -- influence, money, control -- or even what qualifies as a special interest. It's easy to demonize advocacy groups such as the ACLU, the NEA and others as "special interests" and avoid pointing the finger at corporate interests who keep the wheels of government greased with money and favors. Elected representatives have a vote; the fact that they vote with interest groups often and with regular Americans rarely is shameful. But don't blame the interest group for being successful. Blame the politician for selling out. Better yet, join an interest group and work to see him or her defeated in the next election.
-- L.
I've never heard of anyone getting pregnant because of Earned Income Tax Credit.
Groups, groups, groups. What is it with the left and trying to put everyone in a different group and segregate everyone? I'm not full of criticism for groups who are differents than I, just groups in general.
The reason they are darlings of the right is because they are now implemented and relied upon by society...as with all social programs, completely eliminating something will have more negative effects than if the program would have never been created in the first place. Especially with social security, private accounts are a great idea. The return rate is way higher than going through the government. I laugh at the politicians who oppose it, calling it a "gamble", when most of them have money invested in a private account themselves. To me, it's just a big "Well, the republicans came up with it, so it must be bad".
"They've ruled we aren't entitled to marry, aren't entitled to sue our HMOs, aren't entitled to a trial by a jury of our peers (even if we are citizens) when accused of certain crimes. So don't give me that."
Everyone is entitled to marry. Frivilous lawsuites (which make up the vast majority of lawsuits against medical practice) are bad, and can you give an example of not being entitled to a trial by a jury of our peers?
Actually, not everyone is entitled to marry -- but I shoudl have clarified to mean the person they actually want to marry. Marriage between two gay men or lesbians is banned in most states and by federal law.
The Earned Income Tax Credit and other tax breaks encourages people to have more children instead of planning and being responsible. More people equals a bigger drain on society and resources. A conservative should understand that.
Private accounts may very well perform better than the Social Security general fund. but that is NOT what Social Security is for. It's not YOUR money -- it's your parents' and grandparents' money. Yours (and mine) is yet to be earned by people who have yet to be born.
Frivolous lawsuits: Why should people not have the right to have a court determine whether a beureaucratic (for-profit) health-care company made a decision that resulted in a person being harmed? Who are you to say "frivolous"?
Several people who have been detained or imprisoned or accused of being terrorist or terrorist suspects have also been American citizens. Before you say to me that all these people deserve to be locked up, know that I agree -- but after they have had a fair trial. Even noncitizens deserve that.
-- L.
Sincerely, Adam, the more you say, the more you reveal your true colors as a part of the far right even though you say "I myself don't like the far-right either." It sounds as though you are quoting right out of Karl Rove's and Dr. (of nutrition) Savage's playbooks.
You are repeating buzz words and buzz phrases used to create either-or arguments and to pigeon hole dissenters of your opinion. You generalize, place people into groups yourself, and judge, judge, judge, while placing all blame on "the left", "leftist judges", "liberals," and the "Democrats." Where is the Republican fault in our current state of affairs?
I am basically considered a centrist or an extremely moderate Democrat with some hardline tendencies (the Loganite and I have gone round for round a few times on a few issues), but compared to you I'm like a far left Green Party socialist.
You seem to be what you claim to not like. Or else you just don't know where your views fall.
P.S. Loganite, we seriously need a good sports blog from you soon. :) Just kidding. Well, not really.
*SIGH*
I know, I'm an evil mean cold-hearted republican.
...Or wait a minute. Could it be that this hard-working, poor college kid living on his own can see past all the fallacies of socialism? Democrats say they are for the working man, the little guy...but I don't see it. All I see is gas prices going up (I deliver pizzas by the way) to be spent on king county where I never go. Government grants for just about any special interest group. Bans on one of my favorite hobbies...target shooting. I care about my future.
I don't think Democrats can be blamed for the gas hike (which both sides of the aisle desired), and I've never even heard target shooting come up in a debate. I'm not sure to which special interest groups you are referring because both Dems and Reps have them.
How you know the Dems are for the "working man" is that they do support social programs to help the needy. This should be obvious. They don't want big business to control all, and they desire assistance for the downtrodden. How that is wrong, I don't know.
I get the impression that you believe people deserve the poverty or lower economic group they are in. I can't say for sure, but you seem to imply that they deserve no compassion or help. Maybe that's not what you intend to say, but that's how it sounds.
You know, I haven't heard much outcry over the drastic increase in milk, coffee, and "sin taxed" items' prices. Odd. Maybe it's because the quantities are smaller (that are purchased). Milk, for example, was 99 cents a gallon 6-7 months ago and now it is over 2 dollars a gallon. That's huge for families. Other milk products are going up as well.
I don't know, but many prices are rising steadily while the fed. govt. is warning that inflation and interest rates may rise significantly. Something to think about.
Good luck with the pizza. I used to do that as well. By the way, which school do you attend and what are you studying?
My ancestors (and many others) came to this country with nothing over 100 years ago and lived at the bottom of society. They worked their way up to middle class without government aid.
The gas hike isn't the democrats fault at all (I was referring to Gregoires gas tax which is only a few cents, but I use a lot of gas to deliver)-- It's environmentalists and the EPA (the same EPA that demands propane powered vehicles have catalytic converters which is about the stupidest thing in the world). We also haven't built an oil refinery in the U.S. since the 1970's and we need more...really bad.
As far as target shooting, have you not heard our governors proposals for increasing tax on lead shot (which would make a box of 25 shells more than double in price) which didn't pass followed by wanting to ban lead shot because it harms drinking water? It's already illegal to shoot over the water with lead shot...I know I've never done it.
As far as economics go, I'll simply say I don't think anyone should be punished or forced to do things simply for having a lot of money. The funny thing about social programs is that there is no end. We spend more and more and in contrast there are more and more people who are in need of these programs. We can vote to pass a small tax increase that social workers and politicians will claim to fix all the problems and underfunding of social programs, but right around the corner they will be wanting more. I also don't think that the success rate of social programs is nearly high enough to even be worth it. I think maybe if we elimated them, people would be more inclined to help through private charities or even on their own free time.
WVC and my transfer degree. I have no idea what I want to do or where I'm going to transfer. Plastic surgery is my number one interest, but it's not worth the schooling.
Post a Comment