Left Leaning Political Discussion!!!!!

[donnylutz]

Wow.......politics discussions are back!!!! I'm happy to be the first to start this post!

Post away!!!!!

Donnylutz :)
:CK :RB :RB

[moxie]

So happy! Thank you mods!

Anyone want to comment on Bush's latest plan for Social Security? It's a "sliding benefit" plan that, yes, would preserve benefits for low-income workers, but would cut benefits for the middle class by as much as 30% (and top-income people by 40%). This would start with people born in 1950 (including me, sheesh), who at this point do not have enough time to make up the difference in personal investments.

Comments?

[amielou]

I was intrigued by the NY Times column yesterday that pointed out that making SS primarily for the poor is a good way to get it totally cut down the road--they'll regard it as a welfare program eventually and people don't seem to mind when benefits for the poor are cut.

I have been so livid lately anyway at some in the GOP who are trying to make SS out as an "entitlement" and other such words that are designed to make people see it as a welfare program already. It is not. It's a retirement insurance program. We pay in to the system when we're working and draw out when we can no longer work. Do we draw out more than we paid in? Yes, but that's due to inflation.

With only 38% favoring this insanity, what do you all think that chances of it passing are?

BTW...I'm glad political discussions are back. And let's all do our part to make it civil in here so we can keep it!!

[donnylutz]

38% is low enough......but it scares me to think who those 38% are!

donnylutz :)
:SS

[JerryStopher]

Y'all -

Jeb & Co tried to stop a 13-year-old girl, who is a ward of the State, from having Corrective Surgery for an unintentional pregnancy. But, thanks be to God, they lost again in court!

I cannot for the life of me believe that the risks of full-term pregnancy and childbirth for a little girl that young, could be less tragic than an abortion. Save the child who already is, says I!

story.news.yahoo.com/news...bortion_dc (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=578&e=1&u=/nm/20050503/ts_nm/rights_abortion_dc)

[Jayjen36]

That is incredible. To force a thirteen year old girl to carry and deliver a baby against her will. How on earth can that be defended? Is the fact the both pregnancy and childbirth are dangerous for someone this age any consideration? These people, including the Department of Children and Families who now have custody of the girl, are willing to risk her health to force her to have a child whom they will most likely fight to take away from her (after all she is only 13) once she actually has the baby. The concern, or lack of it rather, for the women and children that actually must carry and birth the babies, by these people is unbelievable.

[manskater]

Thanks to the mods for reinstituting the political threads.

Did anyone catch Blair and the other two men from the Liberal and Conservative parties respectively on C-Span. They were in a town hall format answering questions from the audience at individual times. I must say I don't agree with Blair and especially dislike his alliance with Bush but I do have to say he has so much more guts to face a hostile audience and believe me the audience had very straightforward questions. What did puzzle me was when the moderator asked Blair , why he refused to debate the other two people running for PM and he did not answer.

[JerryStopher]

Bliar is accustomed to the hostility of the Opposition in the Commons every day. If the US Head of Government had to face that, we might see how incompetent he really is....

Me, I didn't mind how Bliar was a partner to Clinton, but like you, Manskater, I don't like to see him be a lapdog to Bush. But he's still doing the same thing: letting the US tell the UK what to do!

[colinmom71]

And 3-2-1 until we hear the neo-con cry of "activist judges!!"... Which would be so inaccurate in this case.

Florida law only demands parental notification, not consent, for minors to access pregnancy care services, specifically abortion. Therefore, a judge ordering a halt to this girl having an abortion would actually be "activism" beyond the intent and scope of this law. DFCS went beyond it's proper authority in this case by trying to argue they could make the choice for her when the law already does not proscribe a minor from making medical care choices in regards to pregnancy and termination.

Ya know, I think of myself at 13 and how physically slight I was then. All of 4'11", maybe 90 pounds soaking wet, and hips as small as they were when I was 10 yrs old... A pregnancy then would likely have been very dangerous for me. I can't even begin to imagine what that would have been like... Then again, a pregnancy at age 24 almost killed me and my son and my umm, physique was quite altered by then! It is simply unconscionable that DFCS would demand this girl face the statistically dangerous rigors of pregnancy at her age...

[phisigsig]

Just big "welcome back" and "shout out" to all my fellow "lefties." (And I apologize for all the quotes. I'm on a air quote kick and driving my husband bonkers!)

I'm so glad my "blue sanctuary" is back! This ole red state of mine is driving me nuts lately. A man followed me halfway to work honking away the other day- he either really hates NCSU or peace. I have a Wolfpack sticker and a peace sticker on the back of my car. And ole Jerry up the road was threatening John Warner to vote for the Frist bill or he'd tell all the Christians to vote against him in '06. Falwell needs to learn he doesn't control all the Christians. Christian does not automatically equal Republican right-winger. Our former minister has taken part in many a peace march against the Iraq invasion.

Again, nice to "see" you guys again!

"What's right and good doesn't come naturally. You have to stand up and fight for it- as if the cause depends on you, because it does. Allow yourself that conceit- to believe that the flame of democracy will never go out as long as there's one candle in your hand." Bill Moyers

[JerryStopher]

In case y'all didn't get this directly from MoveOn, go see what Pat Robertson is up to: www.moveonpac.org/ (http://www.moveonpac.org/)

[Jaiden Hawke]

<Lurker coming out of the darkness>

First things first - Thank you Heather and the other Mods for letting us have LL political discussions. This thread was a saving grace for me during the recent elections. I live in the Reddist County in the backwater of Florida and there are very few people with who I can share my political beliefs.

Jerry, thank you for posting about Pat Roberston. I just sent in my response to Bill Frist and Tom Delay. I hope that no one minds if I post my response here also....I need to vent. Thanks.


As a concerned voting citizen I take great offense to Pat Robertson's claim that liberal federal judges are more dangerous than terrorists who fly into buildings. My brother was 2 blocks away from the WTC on September 11 and was out of contact with our family for several hours. We feared the worst. Our prayers were answered....those of many other families were not. Roberston's comments diminish the losses felt by thousands in our nation and abroad. I agree that Pat Roberston should have the right to say whatever he wishes. I hope that as representatives of Congress, you can tell him that his comments are in very poor taste and promote the increasing division in this country rather than the Pluracy that our founding Fathers were striving for. Thank you for your time and assistance with this matter.

[manskater]

www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0506-01.htm (http://http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0506-01.htm)
Published on Friday, May 6, 2005 by Knight Ridder
British Memo Indicates Bush Made Intelligence Fit Iraq Policy
by Warren P. Strobel and John Walcott

I certainly hope that those in this country who felt they were lied or misled to vote for this war look into this. This administration is such a joke. :rolleyes

[kwancierto de aranjuez]

Hey Hey hey! Go leftwingers!!!!

[JerryStopher]

Careful about that cheerleading, Kwancierto: it might violate the sensibilites of the Texas House of Reprehensibles!

[Jayjen36]

This is ridiculous. And I still remember that skinny blond woman (I can't remember her name and don't want to up my blood pressure by looking up anything she's written) and her book about how powerless the religious right is in the United States! :rolleyes

I must say that I thoroughly resent the way that Robertson and the like, and the Republican party have high-jacked Christianity for their own political agenda. I find that any where on the net where I identify myself as a Christian I have to explain that I am not a right-wing, bible-thumping, gay-hating "evangelical"-type Christian. There are a lot of us out there and I really dislike the fact that we are being lumped in with the Pat's and Jerry's of this world!

Ah just remembered her name, Ann Coulter, horrible terrible person is this woman. I still remember her suggestion on some talk show that poor women should be refused pain medication when giving birth so as to discourage them from having children.:rolleyes A Christian example indeed.

[moxie]

Re: Ann Coulter

I was watching a talk show last month & the host asked her to define the major differences between a conservative and a liberal. This is how she began:

"A conservative believes in God ..."

... as if a liberal, by definition, doesn't.

Now the question is: Does she really believe all the nonsense she spouts or is she just very, very smart at packaging herself so as to sell the maximum number of books to a certain audience?

[Maeve]

moxie, I think it's a combination of both. It's very easy for some people with the right background and the right "advantages" in life to believe certain things, but she is also very good at grabbing sensational headlines.

also... Anyone want to comment on Bush's latest plan for Social Security? It's a "sliding benefit" plan that, yes, would preserve benefits for low-income workers, but would cut benefits for the middle class by as much as 30% (and top-income people by 40%). It also drastically reduces Social Security disability and survivor benefits. On October 26, 2002 a very close friend was nearly killed in a fatal head-on collision. She was in the hospital until December 27 and in a rehab facility until Valentine's Day 2003. She still uses a wheel chair about 1/3 of the time and a cane the other 2/3. She is a very smart woman with a Master's degree, but her employment opportunities are limited because her mobility is limited. SS checks have been a Godsend to her and her husband (who was also injured in the wreck), and W's brilliant plan will hit them first. It will also hit my 89-year-old great aunt, an accountant who is living on a fixed income because she outlived her own budget by 3 years.

There is NO excuse for this. None.

[kwancierto de aranjuez]

You know... When Michelle does her triple lutz, she leans to her left... when Sasha does it she leans to the left but then leans it back to the right...

I wonder what the correlation is between edging and political leaning?

LOLs!!!

[Sparks]

Regarding the Social Security issue, here is a link to a small presentation that won a contest with Move-On.org. It explains things pretty well and is quite understandable.

www.bushin30years.org/vie...wjrltg&t=1 (http://www.bushin30years.org/view/winner.html?flash_id=87?id=5498-3980248-WAA.iObfNlxVodkewjrltg&t=1)

[madison]

Can anyone give me a brief rundown of what is happening in Iraq!!!???
After being gone for a week, I come back to a plethora of trouble. My cousin's son-in-law must return on May 20th. He flies the C-130s and they just had a little boy.....ugh! I hate this. Things seem more out-of-control than ever before.

[Jayjen36]

Now the question is: Does she really believe all the nonsense she spouts or is she just very, very smart at packaging herself so as to sell the maximum number of books to a certain audience?

Moxie, I don't know. But whether or not she's serious about the arguments that she makes, the fact is that she has a multitude of fans who believe and take very seriously every word that comes out of her mouth. It's horrible, but in the end I'm not sure that it matters if she is either a right wing nut job and a great argument for atheism or just a hypocrite.

[Jayjen36]

I was watching a local news broadcast here in the red state of Ohio when I saw a piece about the Patriot Pastors. I'd never heard of these guys before, but evidently they were very busy in this last election.

Well I guess they got a real big confidence boost from their success in getting out the vote against gay marriage because they've got a new project. They are working to have a bill introduced that would ban abortion under any circumstances; rape, incest, medical emergency in which the mother's life is in danger...all of these would no longer be reasons for legal abortion. Can you imagine the horror of being forced to carry a pregnancy to term that was caused by your rape or incest?? And to tell a family that they had no right to save the life of their daughter, wife, or mother, but had to simply allow her to die because some preacher said so??? What the hell are they going to do imprison the women and children? Strap them down until they give birth???Amazing.

In speaking about this the only response was from one of the "Patriots" was, "Look at how many people are going out of the country to adopt babies, now they won't have to do that anymore" Idiots! Many of the people adopting children from overseas do it for far more reasons other than "it's the only place to find a baby". There are people who are committed to helping the children, those that want to adopt children from the same place they were adopted from, etc.. So the question remains, what do we do with all of these babies that they want so much. These people have proved time and time again that while they are in the uterus they are the innocent unborn, but once they are here and grow up they are just the trash whose parents can't raise them and who need to be dragged off and imprison when they rebel against the tortured life that these "Christians" so much wanted them to have. Okay, ranting over, almost.

During the news broadcast, one of these pastors said flat out that they are actively working toward forcing the government to be run strictly according to biblical law. I'd love to believe that this is just some fringe group but they are most certainly not. Here's a quote from a pro "Patriot Pastors" website about their future plans:

near the bottom of the page,
What I see happening across the country with pastors is unprecedented - pastors and their flocks are not going back to life as usual after the election. Christians are committed to the battle not only for the heart and souls of people but for the heart and soul of this nation.

They actively encourage pastors to preach politics and encourage their flocks to vote only for politicians who are not just "social conservative-friendly" but will actively fight for everything that Christians want to be made into law. Now is it just me is or does this sound very very scary.

Here are a couple of links just in case you want to see what these people are up to in their own words, I'll say that some of what they have to say is very offensive (at least to me)

www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=WA05C41#WA05C41 (http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=WA05C41#WA05C41)

this is from an article from Focus on the Family
www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=WA05C41#WA05C41 (http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=WA05C41#WA05C41)

[colinmom71]

I've participated at an abortion debate board for years, and I have run across those who argue abortion is wrong under any circumstance. They demonize women who dare to defend their own lives, even when the pregnancy is doomed due to medical complications. It's amazing to find other *women* who go along with this hateful attitude! Apparently to these people, it's fine for children to go motherless if the mom dies as a martyr to a failed dangerous pregnancy, but not OK for a woman to defend her life against a medical threat and be responsible to the young lives she has already brought into the world...

Then again I take this personally because I *am* one of those women for whom pregnancy is too dangerous to continue (due to incompetent cervix and further complications during an emergency C-section when my son was born 16 weeks early). Hey, if these guys want to demand I remain pregnant at risk of my life, then they need to be willing to give up a year of their own life to help me while I'm on a complete bedrest pregnancy and take care of my disabled son (the way *I* want him cared for BTW!)... I can guarantee you, NOT A ONE of these "morally superior" folks would make that sacrifice to support their cause.

Luckily, these people will never see their anti-woman agenda fully made into law. Within the "pro-life" movement (prefer to call them anti-abortion), the vast majority supports the reasonable measure of women accessing abortion where the woman's health/life are threatened by medical complications and in cases of incest and rape. The Supreme Court has consistently held that it is unconstitutional for abortion laws to not include exceptions for health/life issues and rape and incest.

The people you mention above Jayjen are a lunatic fringe who just happen to be a well-funded and very vocal minority. But luckily, the law is not on their side... They know they will never see Roe v. Wade overturned so they'll settle for demonizing women and weakening the right to access abortion as best they can. But what they forget is that their argument itself is weakened because they argue their cause from a religious/moralist perspective and within it's legal context, abortion is not a religious matter. It's a *medical* issue deserving of all the rights and privacy protections that apply to any other medical procedure...

Oh, and as for the people *****ing about Americans adopting overseas. I've heard similar arguments/debates and inevitably the ugly hand of racism and xenophobia come into play here. Heaven forbid we bring any more "little brown people" into lily white America.. :rolleyes Then they start to link it to rising abortion rates to the point that there seems to be an implication that somehow unexpectedly pregnant white women are obligated to be baby mills for adoptive couples. Disgusting... But then I guess that potentially bleeds over into Kwancierto's post about race issues in America.

OK, rant over...

[Sparks]

Not to interrupt this vital discussion, but I wanted to post this stie that is a compilation of things Ann Coulter has actually said and written. This person is quite the extremist...everybody should take a look...

en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Ann_Coulter (http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Ann_Coulter)

Carry on...:)

[phisigsig]

My husband and I are one of "those couples" who are adopting overseas(India). There are many reasons for our decision to go overseas, but "because we couldn't get a white baby here at home" is NOT among them. However, we have been asked by my husband's brother (who is an ultra-conservative who works for the current administration :x ) "how dark" our child will be and "what religion" she is!! I just want her here safely (we've been going around in a bureaucratic maze for 2 years now) and soon!!

[amielou]

(Sorry this is so long!! Consider yourself warned!)

I went to Catholic school from 7th to 12th grade. We used to be able to get extra credit for attending the annual pro-life march in our city. I bought into almost all of it as a young person, until my senior year. That year our journalism teacher arranged for two of us to go to an abortion debate at the local university and speak with the participants afterwards. The pro-life side was represented by Phyllis Schlafly. Being good young journalist wannabes, we went to the library and did our homework on her and her debate opponent. We discovered we were on the side of a woman who was totally opposed to any rights whatsoever for women.

Since then, I have seen through much of the rhetoric of the pro-life movement. I worked in a "Christian" school for six years where students could get extra credit for protesting at a local abortion clinic one Saturday a month. The second year I taught there, my unmarried cousin, who already had a nearly three year old child who was born when she was 17, had a second unplanned pregnancy. I was the only family member who lived in the same city and helped her through the pregnancy. That was when I really learned what "pro-life" people were all about. The majority are deeply devoted to fetuses and laws (except "fetus" is a dirty word, you're always supposed to say "unborn baby"). Women and children are pretty low on their list. When I told a few colleagues about my cousin's pregnancy, many of them encouraged me to effectively disown her. The teacher who actually organized the monthly protests at the local abortion clinic suggested that our entire extended family should shun her because she did not "learn her lesson" the first time. One night a about a week before her second son was born, I was the duty teacher at a volleyball game. Between school and the game, I drove to my cousin's apartment to check on her. She was alone with a three year old, did not have a phone; the baby was overdue, and she had a kidney infection and had been unable to go to work for weeks on the OB's orders. She was sick and miserable when I arrived at the apartment. I cleaned up some of the mess her son had made that day, washed their dishes, made her some dinner then took her son with me to the volleyball game so she could rest. My colleagues were uniformly outraged at the game that I had done any of this. These people who prayed and protested at an abortion clinic once a month and belonged to every pro-life organization on earth and were single issue voters reacted with outrage that I helped a pregnant single mother. I was informed that she deserved to be miserable, that she had made the choices that landed her in that situation and that I was encouraging her immorality. I said, "aren't you the people telling women in this situation that they must have these babies?" One of them actually said that that was not the point!

My cousin's second son was born about a week after that. The school administrator refused to allow me to leave work early to be with her at the hospital and said that if she were married and her husband was out of town he would have considered it. But since she was unmarried, I would be setting a bad example for the students by being involved. I had, apparently, already set a bad example by bringing her son to the volleyball game and telling people who he was and why he was with me. Parents had called him with concerns about my being involved in this immoral situation. (Fortunately, her parents arrived in time to be with her, so she wasn't left alone.) Her baby boy weighed over 10 pounds and the doctor wanted to do a c-section but Medicaid would not approve it. He had wanted to induce labor much earlier and Medicaid would not approve that. My "pro-life" colleagues agreed with this, as well. It was, according to them, good for her to suffer so she would learn her lesson.

That was the end of the pro-life movement for me. They aren't really pro-life. The "consistent ethic of life" that the late pope taught embraced not just the fetus, but the woman, born babies and growing children, the poor, the disadvantaged, and even the murderer. Most of the so-called "pro-life" people I have known care nothing for anyone who is already born that doesn't share their exact beliefs about the world. The Right has gathered around the abortion issue and ignored the rest of the life issues in the world. I think it's because of their inherent judgementalism. They cannot support and care for people who do not agree with them. Fetuses are easy to rally around. They can carry around pictures of babies who are cute and blameless and haven't had the opportunity to sin or form opinions yet. Convicts don't make cute posters and are not very sympathetic figures so capital punishment is either a non-issue or acceptable. The poor can be blamed for their poverty. Babies are in the end the best way to rally the movement and get votes.

I don't believe that abortion is a moral choice. I would not encourage a woman to have an abortion. But I think that it is not my right to choose for someone else, and certainly not the government's right. And the church needs to act a lot more Christ-like about this issue and start embracing and caring for women who face unplanned pregnancies, instead of shunning them and their children. That's how Christians could lower the abortion rate. Marching in the street isn't going to change it.

[trice77]

OH. MY. GOD. (to your entire post):eek

[Sparks]

Your post was very moving and gets to the heart of the arguement. I have always said that the fundalmentalist Christian Right should expend their energy and money not on violence and marches against doctors who are performing a safe, legal medical proceedure, but on working for and with children who are already born...help feed the poor, save VIABLE lives, rally against child abuse and molestation, etc.
It is just so sad and hypocritical.

Fear not, I believe that the Right just dangles Roe Vs. Wade in front of their more rabid fundamentalist supporters just to get votes. If they ever over-turned Roe vs. Wade and banned same-sex unions across the country, they would have no hot button issue to rally their base. I think it's one big circle jerk...

[Lanternlight]

Fear not, I believe that the Right just dangles Roe Vs. Wade in front of their more rabid fundamentalist supporters just to get votes. If they ever over-turned Roe vs. Wade and banned same-sex unions across the country, they would have no hot button issue to rally their base. I think it's one big circle jerk...

I would agree with that, but I would say it's more the Republicans who dangle the issue. The Right to me means religiosity. Most of Bush's type of Republicans care far more about making money and creating a wealth based society than they actually care about the lives of women and fetuses. They use the issue because they get alot of political mileage out of it.

[RA5CViggie]

Whiny Homophobe Writes to Dear Abby (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ucda/20050511/lf_ucda/officersinplainclotheswanttoblendintothebackground )
DEAR ABBY: In a recent column you advised the mother of a girl who had confided that she is gay and wants to come out, that homosexuality has "nothing to do with parenting and everything to do with genetics." You need to retract that statement. If you do not publicly admit your error, I will know you are a mouthpiece for the gay and lesbian crowd. -- LEONARD IN LYNCHBURG

DEAR LEONARD: If I did not believe with all my heart that what I wrote is true, I wouldn't have put my thoughts on paper. Homosexuality is simply a variant of sexual orientation. Those who claim it is "unnatural" should direct their attention to Dr. Joan Roughgarden, a biologist at Stanford University with a Ph.D. from Harvard, who states that more than 300 vertebrate species have been found to practice homosexuality. (A visit to any zoo might confirm it.) And while one gene may not be responsible for this variant, Italian researcher Andrea Camperio-Ciani of the University of Padua notes that research findings point to there being more than one "gay gene," and that the genetic factors linked to homosexuality in men are also linked to increased fertility in women.

I stand by my reply.Not surprising that Leonard is from a place called LYNCHburg. It's probably what he'd love to do to homosexuals. Props to Abby for standing her ground.

[tiffsk8gal]

"Not surprising that Leonard is from a place called LYNCHburg. It's probably what he'd love to do to homosexuals. Props to Abby for standing her ground."

Lynchburg is Jerry Falwell's hometown and his Liberty University is located there. I'm from a town about a hour away from it. Believe me I'm not surprised at what Leonard wrote. It's one of the many reasons why I left Virginia for college and will never live in the south again. Although not everyone in Virginia is so close minded as Leonard.

[elliebea]

Hi Motherlode,
About Iraq:

Suicide bombing has escalated dramatically in cities all over the country, particularly in Baghdad. Meanwhile, we've got approximately 5,000 troops over on the Syrian border dealing with a small town called Qaim, the ostensible reason being border penetration by "terrorists" and the presence of a so-called insurgent "safehouse."

The newly forming government is still squabbling over which politicians from which ethnic group gets what in terms of control of the ministries, etc. Meanwhile, none of them are safe in any political office because they're located, by necessity, inside the Green Zone, which no longer has much to do with the reality of Iraq (it's more a bastion of personal ambition, greed/corruption and power struggle).

Meanwhile, the U.S. still retains control over all Iraqi intelligence rather than turning it over to the new Iraqi government. Imad Alawi, former prime minister (and the one desired by the U.S. to win elections) oversees both the Iraq intelligence and a "commando" squad of -- as I recall -- approximately 10,000 combatants, a 'militia,' so to speak. This group are mostly former Baathists, and were formerly known as the Mukhabarat -- or Saddam's secret police. Their commander answers to the CIA through Imad Alawi. A recent NY Times article by Peter Maas (embedded) claims that the militia was 'self-formed,' as in a spontaneous, indigenous defensive reaction to the violence. The truth is that it was formed by our CIA, and is known as the "Salvador Option" as it is modeled on our actions back in the '80's. It's even led by the same guy as back then -- I think his name is Steele.

In the south, the fundamentalist Shiites are taking control of local law enforcement and municipalities. This includes radical activism against popular music, alcohol, the sexes co-mingling, and of course, women's dress and head cover.

Kurds and Sunni Muslims are in constant tension/combat over control of Kirkuk in the north.

The Iraq war was lost way back, and the questions now are how to get out and whether to do so immediately, or later Viet Nam style.

Someone above posted a link about the leaked memo in the UK. This should be the smoking gun for anyone still thinking that Bush was as misled by the so-called WMD evidence as American citizens were. But as might be expected, its being overlooked by mainstream media as has most pertinent information about the war. It consists of minutes of a high-level meeting way back in July of 2002 -- as you recall -- LONG before the American public realized Bush's intent regarding Iraq and reveals that the intelligence (in the U.S.) was being "fixed" around policy (of invasion). The main thing is that its authenticity HAS NOT been challenged; in other words, the British higher-ups acknowledge it and consider it to be "old news." But if you haven't read about it, you'll find it very interesting, although infuriating.

A daily scan of this site:
antiwar.com (http://antiwar.com)
is a 'must' for me every morning, because this illegal, immoral, and irrational war is my priority issue. Check it out!

[elliebea]

Can you imagine the horror of being forced to carry a pregnancy to term that was caused by your rape or incest?? And to tell a family that they had no right to save the life of their daughter, wife, or mother, but had to simply allow her to die because some preacher said so??? What the hell are they going to do imprison the women and children? Strap them down until they give birth???

I happened to read a thing today (I think at commondreams.com) that asserted that these people should be referred to as 'pro-birth.' Seems technically correct to me because 'life' and the nurture of it has nothing to do with their motives or actions.

[madison]

amielou,
Outstanding post. I just wish more people would take time to find out the intricacies of the mess.
I worked with 13-16 year-old girls as they delivered or had abortions some 20 years ago. I can say w/o exception that a 13 year-old girl is not ready to bear a child in almost every circumstance. One girl, a white-Anglo-Saxon girl - I know, it doesn't matter- (absolutely precious and good) delivered a baby while I waited in the delivery area with the foster mother.

As she nearly bled to death during the delivery, Catholic Social Services took the baby w/o getting the mother to finally sign-off. Needless to say, it traumatized the young mother.

Thank you for posting so honestly. ITA with your orientation.

[madison]

Thank you for the concise, and knowing you, excellent report. I'm going to print it out because I knew things were not going well, and trying to find 'a' source was overwhelming.

Jeez, and my cousin's son-in-law is back for his 3rd tour of duty.

Sometimes I get mad when I hear how we should 'support the troops'; how we shouldn't criticize, etc. but does anyone speak for the minions serving 'over there' who do not believe in the whole debacle, and keep their word and serve, and sometimes die in the interests of GWB? Steve just had his 2nd baby. A new dad with a very risky deployment.

So how do you spell "H-E-R-O"?

[madison]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/base_closings_clark

Note as some of us have in the blue states and in particular the west coast, that the bases being closed for the most part are NOT in the red states.

[donnylutz]

I have an extremely hard time dealing with this war.....I am for the most part against it....but my whole family is in the militairy, including my brother who is STILL in Iraq.....

I can't speak for all soldiers over there, but to me, it seems like they've been brainwashed or something. When I've talked to my brother, (mainly over e-mails), the things he says are extremely troublilng. I wonder what really goes on in boot camp?

Donnylutz
:TOS

[manskater]

Motherlode said:
So how do you spell "H-E-R-O"?

Certainly not "GWB". :rolleyes

Our military men and women in Iraq still do not have the protection for their vehicles and bodies yet Halliburton gets paid $75M for their contracts??>: This administration has their priorities so screwed up.>:

[madison]

donnylutz,
It must be hell having a bro over there. It is such a total lie. You have my deepest sympathy.

I want the troops home - NOW. There isn't any reasoning with it. There ARE no WMD; there is NO OBL; it isn't even for oil - just look at our oil prices. So what could it be?

The glory and honor of one GWB?<img border=0 src="http://www.ezboard.com/intl/aenglish/images/emoticons/indifferent.gif" />

[JerryStopher]

Elliebea, Motherlode, Donny, Manskater ... Hey y'all ...

I don't log on for about two or one days and the place fills up! All o' y'all make good points.

About having a brother over there: None of them is my biological brother, for sure, but: they are all my brothers. They are feller Americans, and as a veteran, I consider them my own kind and they are special to me.

Also, in our war orphans' group, we call each other "siblings." The children of those killed in any war - on any side - are my brothers & sisters.

Some folks are convinced that the only way to "support the troops" is to keep sending more of them to die. A lesson not learned from 'Nam, eh? I say (and Dennis Kucinich said during the last Primary Season), "The best way to support the troops is bring them home."

Elliebea, you said ... The Iraq war was lost way back, and the questions now are how to get out and whether to do so immediately, or later Viet Nam style. I don't relish the idea of sitting in my living room watching US Marines barely escaping with their lives, shooting their former allies, escaping from the roof of the US Embassy the way they did as Saigon fell. I dunno if I can take that sight again. And the babies - O! the Babies! - being thrown up the ramps into aeroplanes at Saigon Air Field, their mothers running to give them to Airline Stewardesses, who were there to save them from the bloodbath, all the while smallarms fire and mortar rounds coming closer and closer ... thirty years ago we watched that in Living Color in the comfort of this very house where I now sit typing to y'all ... I can't take that again!

There was no reason to invade Iraq. There were no Ws of MD, and the Iraqi Army was no better prepared to oppose Bradley Fighting Vehicles in 2003 than the Polish Cavalry was to face Panzers in 1939. Iraq was no more a threat to the USA than Poland was to the Third Reich.

There were no terrorists and there was no religious extremism in Saddam's Iraq, his was a secular government. A brutal dictatorship, yes, but no threat to us, and we don't invade all the other brutal dictatorships in the world - we trade with them! China, Viet Nam, trading partners of the freedom-loving USA.

It was wrong to go there. It is wrong to be there. It is fatal to remain there. There is only one thing left to do, and now is the time to do it: Declare Victory and Bring the Lads Home!

[amielou]

Just saw a headline on yahoo: "W.House wants retraction from Newsweek", apparently over the prison story that had errors.

I'd just like to say that I'm still waiting for a retraction from the W. House over the WMDs and numerous other issues. Maybe Newsweek should just say "we never printed that" and when people hold up the magazine they could say "but it isn't what we meant" and pass the buck until Americans are generally confused. Isn't that how we play the game now???

(I think if Newsweek made a mistake, they should retract it b/c that's what responsible journalism does--but the irony of this W.H asking for the retraction is just too much for me!!!!!)

[RA5CViggie]

This "nuclear option" thing, which would eliminate the filibuster, allowing Bush and the Republicans to appoint whatever judges they want, and they want to appoint some judges who would be happy to take the US all the way back to the 1700's. I am told that we need three more votes to beat it.

www.feminist.org/email/nu...nators.asp (http://www.feminist.org/email/nuclearoption/contact_senators.asp)

[madison]

http://www.c-span.org/watch/cspan2_rm.asp?Cat=TV&Code=CS2


Listen now if you can.

[JerryStopher]

As I get it, Newsweek got their "incorrect info" from a "highly placed source in the government." There was a "high Pentagon official" in there too, wasn't there?

So: the use of unnamed sources is intended to get the truth, and in return for freedom to speak honestly, the source is protected, right? Isn't that what the Press always says, and don't we all agree that it's a good way to get the truth in spite of official efforts to prevent it coming out?

Now we have the dishonest unnamed sources, who told Newsweek something that cannot be corroborated. True or not, we don't know: but we do know that the unnamed sources can't prove it, and Newsweek now seems to be protecting liars who lied to them and damaged the reputation of their magazine, as well as causing riots that killed over a dozen, and further damaged the United States.

Things are bad enough, with all the blunders and outright stupid moves by the Bush Gang, without having liars lying to the Press and making matters worse!

Under such circumstances, if I were Newsweek, I would out the sources, because liars do not deserve protection. I would put all sources on notice: you tell me the truth, or I will betray you.

[amielou]

Okay, Jerry, here comes my complete cynicism about the people currently running this country. If the sources were in the Pentagon and the government, two entities now screaming bloody murder at Newsweek, don't you think it possible that the information was intentionally leaked and intentionally incorrect? Why would they leak incorrect info you ask?

Oh...that question is way too easy!! The W.H. now gets to take the moral high ground as protectors of truth and blame the supposedly "liberal" media for a whole set of problems that are their own fault. The manufactured scandal will allow right-wing fanatics to nod their heads and purse their lips and say that the "liberal" media is just out to destroy the country and make Christians look bad and make their precious idol, Bush, look bad and we must all watch Fox news to get the truth!! And, as an added bonus, whatever messiness is going on in Iraq for the next few days will be ignored while all the news channels analyze this endlessly.

Or am I just entirely too cynical??

[Lanternlight]

Oh...that question is way too easy!! The W.H. now gets to take the moral high ground as protectors of truth and blame the supposedly "liberal" media for a whole set of problems that are their own fault. The manufactured scandal will allow right-wing fanatics to nod their heads and purse their lips and say that the "liberal" media is just out to destroy the country and make Christians look bad and make their precious idol, Bush, look bad and we must all watch Fox news to get the truth!! And, as an added bonus, whatever messiness is going on in Iraq for the next few days will be ignored while all the news channels analyze this endlessly.

Or am I just entirely too cynical??

I don't think that's too cynical, I completely agree.

Considering we went to WAR on what proved to be unsubstantiated claims about Saddam's weapon programs, I find it truly rich that the Bush admin is trashing Newsweek. Of course, their real goal is to cow the press so much that they can accomplish what they want, so anyone who is paying attention should really understand the underlying goal here. It's not about the truth anymore. To some extent in politics, it never has been about the truth, but the Bush admin takes that to a whole new level.

[4dogknight]

If memory serves, and I could be way off base here, that whole brouhaha with Dan Rather had a rather funny odor to it too.

Weren't there several copies of the 'report' with one sent to the WH for review and comment before airtime? There was dead silence from the WH but when CBS aired the piece all hell broke loose with accusations and incriminations flying every which way from the WH and all directed to Rather.

I don't know about anyone else but I thought that not only was there 'something rotten in the state of Demark' but there was something terribly rotten at the WH. (But then I've held that opinion since January 20th, 2001.)

Does anyone remember the mention of a 'copy' of the CBS news story being sent to the WH for review before being aired?

4dk

[moxie]

Does anyone remember the mention of a 'copy' of the CBS news story being sent to the WH for review before being aired?

Yes, the WH reviewed it and challenged one or two points, but said nothing about the documents themselves being false; CBS took that as meaning the documents were essentially true.

It's very similar to what happened with the Newsweek item: something minor was challenged, but not the central thrust of the item ... leading Newsweek to believe they had the right info.

I can't believe they both fell for the same trick ...

[JerryStopher]

Moxie said I can't believe they both fell for the same trick ... But look at this: Some - Press and People - have been falling for tricks for a long time.

In 1968, Nixon chose Spiro Agnew as his runningmate: the Democrats ran ads asking, "Spiro who?" and we all ran around laughing about it. We ran for Vice-President, a fatal flaw in our strategy.

In 1988, Bush Sr chose Danforth Quayle, and the Democrats actually reprised the original "Spiro Who" ads, and many just laughed all the way through a campaign for the Vice-Presidency to utter defeat in November.

(You may choose to wonder if I'm just BSing, but: I told many people we were making a serious mistake. I kept saying, "Fool me once ..." But no one listened.)

And now, Nixon (who communicates from the Grave to the Bush Gang by new, high-tech, heat-resistant telephone equipment) is using a more-sophisticated technique, but still fooling us. Nixon manipulates everthing in such a way that Democrats, Liberals, even the rare Liberals-in-the-Media, turn ourselves on our own heads and then punish ourselves!

"When will we ever learn?
When will we ever learn?" (That's from a song.)

[madison]

"Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain" (Jerry, that's from a movie!)

His name is Karl, and he pulls out this particular bag of tricks when he is in need of a red herring; a prime distraction.

I've been there before. Won't work anymore.

[elliebea]

I have to say that I disagree with the assessment that there's a "trick" behind the Newsweek report and the subsequent correction, for the simple reason that the Newsweek report is hardly the first or only time such an event has been reported. These types of reports at Gitmo and also in various locations in Iraq and Afghanistan have been occurring regularly for about two years, along with reports of other forms of abuse and humiliation.

So, personally, I haven't paid too much attention to the Newsweek furor because I think it's a misplaced focus of energy. This one magazine is not the problem -- it's the ongoing abuse, torture, and humiliation of Muslims. The fact that the Middle East is inflamed against us hardly derives from one article. These things are what the people have experienced and have informed others about. The information also comes from occasional military members with conciences who have stated what they witnessed.

This is Washington Post article sums it up:
Desecration of Koran Had Been Reported Before (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/17/AR2005051701315_pf.html)

The episode with Dan Rather involved information that everyone sort of suspected anyway and was basically irrelevant except politically. If there was a 'trick,' (and I too believe in that likelihood) it was for the purpose of refocusing the argument onto the network and Rather himself. The Koran desecration story has wrought way too much damage in our foreign policy and our image in the world for it to be merely a political ploy to make the media look bad.

Edited to add link below (just discovered it)::

Don't Blame Newsweek (http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0517-34.htm)
by Molly Ivins

As Riley used to say on an ancient television sitcom, "This is a revoltin' development." There seems to be a bit of a campaign on the right to blame Newsweek for the anti-American riots in Afghanistan, Pakistan and other Islamic countries.

Uh, people, I hate to tell you this, but the story about Americans abusing the Koran in order to enrage prisoners has been out there for quite some time. The first mention I found of it is March 17, 2004, when the Independent of London interviewed the first British citizen released from Guantanamo Bay. The prisoner said he had been physically beaten but did not consider that as bad as the psychological torture, which he described extensively. Jamal al-Harith, a computer programmer from Manchester, said 70 percent of the inmates had gone on a hunger strike after a guard kicked a copy of the Koran. The strike was ended by force-feeding.

Then came the report, widely covered in American media last December, by the International Red Cross concerning torture at Gitmo. I wrote at the time: "In the name of Jesus Christ Almighty, why are people representing our government, paid by us, writing filth on the Korans of helpless prisoners? Is this American? Is this Christian? What are our moral values? Where are the clergymen on this? Speak up, speak out."

[madison]

elliebea, HI!

I'm not saying the reference to the Quran is a trick, not at all. But I think the near hysteria drummed up in the background is a trick or manipulation being used so we are looking at something else (the Quran desecration, the elevated security alerts that now Ridge says were frequently unfounded, etc.) as a tactic by Karl and Co.

There are a number of things I am ashamed of on the part of my country. Certainly Abu Graib (sp) and flushing the Quran are on the list:(

[elliebea]

Hi back Motherlode,
You're absolutely right! It's the same old methodology: refocus public attention onto an entity (such as a magazine) or a person to take the spotlight OFF of the reality. What's important is not getting snagged into it. My guess is that the original article was correct, and the White House leaned on Newsweek as it's been known to do with other forms of media.

Here's the Bill Moyers transcript, by the way. (It's lengthy, but worth it.)

Take Public Broadcasting Back (http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0516-34.htm)
by Bill Moyers
Closing address
National Conference on Media Reform
St. Louis, Missouri
May 15, 2005

[madison]

Yep, elliebea,
That's the M.O. of Karl Rove.

I love this statement from Bill Moyers speech:

"This is the point of my story: Ideologues don’t want you to go beyond the typical labels of left and right. They embrace a world view that can’t be proven wrong because they will admit no evidence to the contrary. They want your reporting to validate their belief system and when it doesn’t, God forbid. Never mind that their own stars were getting a fair shake on NOW: Gigot, Viguerie, David Keene of the American Conservative Union, Stephen Moore of the Club for Growth, and others. No, our reporting was giving the radical right fits because it wasn’t the party line. It wasn’t that we were getting it wrong. Only three times in three years did we err factually, and in each case we corrected those errors as soon as we confirmed their inaccuracy. The problem was that we were getting it right, not right-wing -- telling stories that partisans in power didn’t want told.

I’ve always thought the American eagle needed a left wing and a right wing. The right wing would see to it that economic interests had their legitimate concerns addressed. The left wing would see to it that ordinary people were included in the bargain. Both would keep the great bird on course. But with two right wings or two left wings, it’s no longer an eagle and it’s going to crash. "

(emphasis mine)

[madison]

From the HOUSTON CATHOLIC WORKER:
New Pope Benedict XVI a Strong Critic of War


<a href="http://www.cjd.org/paper/benedict.html" target="_new">www.cjd.org/paper/benedict.html</a>

[phisigsig]

aimelou- if you're too cynical so am I because I had the same reaction/thoughts about the Newsweek affair and the 60 Minutes affair.

As for the Newsweek affair, they apologized and retracted the story (which I, too, had read earlier from other sources). I'm STILL waiting for the WH to apologize for the whole WMD lie that got us into this mess in the first place. Of course, if this WH did ever apologize for anything I'd know the world was coming to an end!

[RA5CViggie]

www.moveonpac.org/nuclear/index.html (http://www.moveonpac.org/nuclear/index.html)
Senator Bill Frist has pulled the trigger on the "nuclear option." We now have less than 72 hours to stop him from seizing absolute power to stack the courts — including the Supreme Court. The vote is still too close to call. If we raise our voice, we can win.

We've launched an emergency petition we'll be delivering to congress every three hours, from Monday morning until the final vote is complete. Our allies will read your comments on the Senate floor, and every senator will know the American people are standing ready to hold them accountable. Please sign today:
From the email I got
If you care about the minimum wage --- and you don't want judges ruling it unconstitutional --- now's the time to act.

If you care about environmental laws --- and you don't want judges striking them down --- now's the time to act.

If you care about your right to privacy --- and you don't want the government telling your family how to live, worship, or even how to die --- now's the time to act.

[JerryStopher]

Motherlode -

The article from the Houston Catholic Worker is very interesting indeed. As I recall, before Bush invaded iraq, the then-Bishop of Rome, Karol Wojtyla, said it would be sinful to do so, and yet there were Roman-Catholic members of Congress who voted for it, eg. John Kerry and my then-congressman Nick Lampson, inter alia.

I wrote to Lampson then and told him, "If you're so quick to say you are too Catholic to fund abortions for poor women, then how's 'bout you bein' too Catholic to vote for the sin of an unjust war?" He voted for it, and I made good on my threat to withdraw my support for his re-election. (In the 2004 General Election, I did not vote for anyone who had voted for the Iraq war in the Congress, for any office.)

Now comes Joseph Ratzinger (called "Papa Ratzi" by some German youth) to further decry this war and war-in-general. He points out that the Church must be vocal in its support of righteousness, although it must not exercise control of the State.

I agree with that principle, although there are other issues on which I do not agree with the Church of Rome. And of course, on this particular issue, I do agree: war is evil, and mostly - if not always - unjust.

[manskater]

It is very interesting that Bush is willing to give PM Abbas $50M in aid. Just where is this monery coming from. People in this country are going without jobs. health insurance and so much more. The disabled in Colorado demonstrated this week in Denver because of major cuts to programs that help them, by Bush and his cronies. It is amazing this President is so blind to the concerns of this country. He is more concerned with promoting his "moral" agenda.>: to please his conservative supporters.:rolleyes

[SNY]

On the sickening hypocrisy of US foreign policy:

sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...DTL&nl=fix (http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/gate/archive/2005/05/20/notes052005.DTL&nl=fix)

On the confessions of a former neo-conservative:

www.commondreams.org/views05/0527-25.htm (http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0527-25.htm)

[elliebea]

Good articles, SNY -- especially the one about "the sickening hypocrisy of US foreign policy." I hope everyone reads it.

[elliebea]

Deleted (meant for another thread)

[michelle2006]

GO LEFTIES!!!!!!

Hey guys, though I am unable to vote at my age, I still have an opinion.

In relation to the Quran violence, I wanted to give my opinion. This story is horrific. I am a Pakistani muslim, and I have heard such stories before. As for the citiznes of Islamic nations, hearing it broadcasted kinda really caused issues.

There are protests going on all around Arab nations. My family back home is saying that the Quran stories have caused deadly violence. It is unsafe to leave home. The KFC's, Mc. Donalds, and other US related things are being burned. The US's image is beyond repair. With the current president.....I dont think it will ever be repaired.

Just wanted top share that.

[manskater]

Michelle2006, -- I hope your family will remain safe in Pakistan.

If you can inform us of news from that end that would be great. It is always interesting to hear the news from abroad like the BBC as to the US media.

The foreign policy or lack of a foreign policy from this White House has created more enemies in the Mideast as well as throughout the world. This president and his buddies think their cowboy attitude will spread democracy throughout the world. That is arrogant and unrealistic. I can't believe that Bush and his supporters still try to link Iraq with 9/11 in regard to the "war on terror. Iraq is only a haven for terrorists now because of our actions.

If Bush wanted to invade a country for "humanitarian" reasons he had a whole list of African countries that are killing and imprisoning their citizens. This administration only decided on the "humanitarian" excuse for invading Iraq after not being able to find wmds which was the MAIN reason for invading Iraq. Of course these African countries don't have any oil so why bother.:rolleyes

[colinmom71]

Well, your wish has (partly) come true Manskater.

Starting on Monday, CNN in the US will begin airing CNN International's coverage of world events at noon every weekday. I'll ask my husband when he gets home if he's heard any more info on the new programming. But CNN International is a great source for reporting that isn't dependent on advertising and ratings... It's just going to be a lot more depressing without the "runaway bride" and Michael Jackson to take up air time from important matters like genocide, unjust wars, etc.

As for the idea that we invaded Iraq for humanitarian reasons (since that whole WMD excuse didn't pan out), weren't Republicans just 5-6 years ago whining about the US having been used a world police by Clinton in Bosnia and Somalia? Funny how of a sudden it is now a good thing to "waste" resources on policing other countries. But then, if it *is* a virtue to invade other countries and spread the doctrine of humanitiarianism and just governance, why aren't we in Darfur (genocide), North Korea (where I hear the new diet is cannibalism, not to mention their shiny new nukes!), and any number of Arab provinces allied with the Saudis (where women's and basic civil rights are a joke at best)?

Apparently we're buffet humanitarians - pick and choose which disasters just happen to best present profitable benefits for corporations to take advantage of at the expense of the peoples we are "liberating"...

[manskater]

colinmom, thanks for the CNN info. I also love watching C-span when it broadcasts the British parliament. Can you imagine Bush trying to answer any questions like Blair does. I don't particularly care for Blair's latest dealings with Bush but he is willing to face his critics.

ITA with your comments.

[Sparks]

If the US invaded Iraq for 'humanitarian' reasons, then they sure did a poor job! :b Over 100,000 innocent Iraqi citizens killed...DEAD!!! I'm still so outraged that more Americans are not talking about this...is it because the innocent people killed were brown and Muslim? Then there is the prisoner abuse scandal...IMO, should be tried in International Court as these are appalling abuses of basic human rights and should be considered war crimes.
I found the most entertaining but disturbing web-site today. I hope everyone will take a look:

www.sweetjesusihatebilloreilly.com/ (http://www.sweetjesusihatebilloreilly.com/)

[madison]

Sparks,
See what i just posted in the 'IRAQ, what do we do now' thread.
This whole war is being ignored. My cousin's son-in-law is over there, and we were talking about how we need to turn up the heat because this war is becoming a second Vietnam-with no end in sight.
We talked about bumper stickers that said "PUSH THE ENVELOPE" get US out of IRAQ

People are so apathetic - it's the silence that is continuing to kill our soldiers and innocent Iraqis. It is beyond reprehensible.
Someone used to state here that "Dante said that there is a special place in hell for those who remain silent"

I believe this is true.

[madison]

Sorry if this offends any Hannity fans here (!), but this audio clip is too good to pass up:)


<a href="http://www.oliverwillis.com/files/hannityvmoran.mp3" target="_new">www.oliverwillis.com/files/hannityvmoran.mp3</a>

[manskater]

Our wonderful:rolleyes republican governor(Owens) in Colorado vetoed a bill that would have prevented businesses from discriminating against gays/lesbians in hiring practices. Typical of the right wing of the republican party. Of course he did not veto a bill adding sexual orientation to the hate crimes law because it was part of another bill which he could not afford to veto otherwise I'm sure he would have vetoed that too. Owens has been trying to kiss up to Bush since he became governor. Imagine someone who actually thinks that gays and lesbians are not discriminated in the workforce. He must live in a box. Thank goodness that some of the cities in Colorado have their own ordinances against discrimination in hiring that have added sexual orientation to them.

[Emerald2000]

Well geez Manskater, don't you know it's the gays and lesbians that are a threat to America's security? I, for one, think Richard Simmons is a FAR greater danger to us than Osama Bin Laden.









;)

[manskater]

Emerald ---:lol Thanks

[phisigsig]

Don't y'all know the number one threat to America?

Gay, married terrorists who believe in evolution!!:lol

[madison]

BUMP
We're still here!<img border=0 src="http://www.ezboard.com/intl/aenglish/images/emoticons/happy.gif" />

[4dogknight]

I'm posting this article in a 'general' thread rather than creating a new thread entitled "Christianity vs the Lions and everyone else (and the horse they rode in on)

GOP Congressman Calls Democrats Anti-Christian - Remarks in Floor Debate Stir Protest (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-)

{snip}
Business on the floor of the House was halted for 45 minutes yesterday after Rep. John N. Hostettler (R-Ind.) accused Democrats of "denigrating and demonizing Christians," prompting a furious protest from across the aisle.

The House was debating a Democratic amendment to the annual defense appropriations bill that would have required the Air Force Academy to develop a plan for preventing "coercive and abusive religious proselytizing."
Hostettler, speaking against the amendment, asserted that "the long war on Christianity in America continues today on the floor of the House of Representatives" and "continues unabated with aid and comfort to those who would eradicate any vestige of our Christian heritage being supplied by the usual suspects, the Democrats."

"Like a moth to a flame, Democrats can't help themselves when it comes to denigrating and demonizing Christians," he said.

Rep. David R. Obey (Wis.), ranking Democrat on the Appropriations Committee, protested the statement, saying: "I move that the gentleman's words be taken down."

{snip}
"Yesterday, Hostettler had a choice: to agree to withdraw his words, or to stick by them and face a ruling from the chair that he had violated rules against disparaging another member on the floor. If the member's words are taken down, it is considered a serious offense and the lawmaker would not be able to speak for the rest of the day.

Eventually, Hostettler rose and read a sentence that had been written out for him in large block letters by a young Republican floor aide: "Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the last sentence I spoke."

Later, the Democratic amendment was defeated, 210 to 198, and on a voice vote the Air Force was required to say how it is promoting religious tolerance before the overall appropriations bill passed, 398 to 19."

COMMENT: Now I could be wrong here but it seems to me that lately a certain segment of the Christian faith is agressing others more than it's defending from others. And I think if you want demonize a group, Democrats on the whole are really a poor target.
But I could be wrong.

[JerryStopher]

4dk said ... it seems to me that lately a certain segment of the Christian faith is agressing others.... I would say, "a certain group of people who call themselves 'Christian,' although I can't figure out why...."

It seems to me that the right-wing Repugnican Protestant is quite intolerant, whereas Jesus is waaayyyy tolerant! Go figure.

[4dogknight]

I agree with you Jerry about the Jesus part. I don't think if He were to come back today would approve of what's been done in his name over the past 2000 years.

Also a lot of the stuff being spouted to the Muslims as part of the Koran, isn't really there. It's part of the long list of man-made laws and ideals being spouted to under educated individuals who are being manipulated to do someone's bidding without question. (Whew, such a long sentence.)

Of course the same could be said about Christianity but then who in this country would dare to utter such sentiments now under the current administration?

4dk

[manskater]

www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8324598/ (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8324598/)

And people have a problem with what Dean says?? I say lets stop rolling over and playing dead to this White House. Bush talks about the "evildoers"..... I think he needs to look within his own White House first.>:

[Jayjen36]

I agree with you Jerry about the Jesus part. I don't think if He were to come back today would approve of what's been done in his name over the past 2000 years.

I most definitely agree with this. It reminds me of a quote from a movie, " If Jesus ever did come back and see what things are being done in his name he'd never stop throwing up". Can you imagine his response to this right-wing Christo-political thing that has been spawned in this country? Honestly, the COS should be paying these guys, there numbers must have swelled since this "Christianity as right-wing conservatism's mascot" has come about. I know if I didn't know these people weren't what Christ or God are all about I would not only want nothing to do with God, I might look into what the "other team" is up to!

[phisigsig]

Good posts Jerry and jayjen!

I have to remind myself daily that they aren't really Christians. I also have to remind myself daily that I'm supposed to be tolerant but I find myself increasingly intolerant of the intolerant. If you know what I'm trying to say.

[4dogknight]

What’s sauce for the goose and not necessarily sauce for the gander!
And another instance of this administration's "Do as I say, Not as I do" policy:

Rove Draws a Hard Line Between Conservatives, Liberals Over 9/11 =
Democratic lawmakers condemn the president's advisor after he accuses them of a soft response. (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-rove24jun24,0,47480.story?track=tothtml)

Read the article because it sickens me to even post snips.

4dk

[4dogknight]

GOP Sounded the Alarm But Didn't Respond to It - Thomas Bill Does Not Address Social Security Solvency (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/23/AR2005062301830.html?referrer=email&referrer=email)

I'm not going to snip any information except the following which I think sums up why the Thomas Bill is being introduced.

{snip}
"If the Republicans take this to a vote and the Democrats try to stop us, I think we end up the winners," said Jim DeMint (R-S.C.), who introduced the plan in the Senate yesterday. "It'll help convince Americans in 2006 that we need a few more Republicans."

4dk

[4dogknight]

On another thread which shall remain nameless, much is made of the polls regarding media viewship. Well here's another side to that coin from usatoday. It is such a short commentary that I'm copying the entire paragraph.

Study: Radio listeners are most polarized
A study by researchers at the University of Missouri School of Journalism in Columbia found that radio listeners are the most polarized news consumers, due in part to shows hosted by conservative commentators such as Rush Limbaugh. Conservative listeners, the study revealed, have their views reinforced by these shows, which may lead to even more extreme views. Newspaper readers, conversely, are the least polarized, since without the time constraints of radio and TV, newspapers are better able to impart information on all sides of an issue. Surprisingly, Internet users also are less polarized, perhaps because of the depth and breadth of information that the Web can provide.

4dk

[4dogknight]

If you thought the Supreme Court decision on eminent domain was a little buzzed, read this (http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/health/2005-06-28-scrushy_x.htm).

COMMENT: Is this type of jury decision the same that is in store for the Enron muckymuck, Ken Lay? If so then we might as well just cover that statue of Justice again and this time in black and all over!

But on the other hand, this (http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/telecom/2005-06-28-ebbers-sentence_x.htm) from usatoday.

COMMENT: Poor Bernie Ebbers, too bad he wasn't tried in Alabama. However the snip below might explain the difference in the perceptions of Ebbers and Scrushy.
{snip}
"Former Tyco CEO Dennis Kozlowski took the stand in his retrial in state court in New York, but he was convicted two weeks ago.

In contrast, Scrushy never testified on his own behalf. Instead, he mounted a massive public relations campaign in Birmingham that began in the fall of 2003, around the time of his indictment, and continued through the trial.

He joined the Guiding Light church, whose congregation is predominantly African-American, and donated $1 million to it. With that money, the church purchased airtime on a local independent TV station in Birmingham.

Every weekday morning, starting in March of 2004, Scrushy and his wife Leslie appeared on the show, often discussing the Bible with selected ministers and pastors from Greater Birmingham area.

During the trial, Scrushy's son-in-law acquired a small TV station on the outskirts of Birmingham and began broadcasting a regular evening newscast focusing on the trial. Not surprisingly, the show highlighted the views of Scrushy's defense team."

ADDT'L COMMENT: Hmmmmm.

4dk

[4dogknight]

Bloggers seeking protection from federal regulators (http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-06-28-bloggers_x.htm)

{snip}
"Bloggers who built their Internet followings with anti-establishment prose are now lobbying the establishment to protect their livelihoods from federal regulations.
Some are even working with lawyers, public-relations consultants and a political action committee to do it.

"I like to think of myself as just a guy with a blog, but it's clear that 'just a guy with a blog' is different today than it was when I started three years ago," said Markos Moulitsas Zuniga, founder of the Web log www.DailyKos.com. "One sign of having arrived is when government regulators start wanting to poke their fingers into what you do."

Moulitsas was to testify Tuesday at a hearing on a Federal Election Commission proposal that would extended some campaign finance rules to the Internet, including bloggers.

Moulitsas also is working with a lawyer who volunteered to help bloggers fight new government regulations and whose efforts were promoted in a PR firm press release Monday. He is prepared to lobby Congress himself if necessary, and he is the treasurer of BlogPac, a political action committee formed last year by bloggers"

COMMENT: One hopes that the FCC will look at the pro-establishment as well as the anti-establishment blogs. Or am I hoping for too much ethical behavior for the FCC toadies?

4dk

[4dogknight]

And if one is reading this thread or even cares, here's something to smile (?) about.

Editorial/Opinion page cartoons (http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/cartoons.htm) from usatoday.

4dk

[Jayjen36]

:rollin :rollin :rollin

I'm reading 4dognight! And most probably nearly exclusively as far as the political page goes, from now on.

Those were hilarious especially the Joel Pett piece. I remember a couple of days ago NOW on PBS did a piece on cities using eminent domain to take people's homes against their will. It's mind boggling how anyone can justify doing this except in the most extreme circumstances.

[manskater]

Jayjen -- I just wanted to say thank you for your posts on the "right" thread. What is sad is that your post will go completely over particular posters head because he/she is always right.

[Emerald2000]

LOL, those Cartoons were funny. I think Bush's most dangerous assumption has been that a war in Iraq wouldn't require a lot of planning. The result of that poor decision has been showing for a few months now. :(

[kwancierto de aranjuez]

I'm reading it!

Why are the leftists so spread out! HOLLAH!

It's weird that the Right Wingers are already on their 22nd page and we're barely on our 5th. What happened to the left wingers? When we were at the Ramdom Chat, we were the hottest thread around? We were always contantly posting.

I notice a pattern that since the Political Chat started, we, leftists, have become dispersed throughout the chat often starting new threads.

[manskater]

Kwancierto -- if you notice though, the "right" thread is mostly rants attacking any of the facts presented by those left leaners wishing to have an intelligent discussion with those of the opposite side. Of course that does not happen a lot of the time.

[4dogknight]

I think it's because we do like to discuss topics and issues. The right thread, if you will notice, is made up of about 25% true rightests and the 75% is made up of left leaning posters who are still trying to debate and discuss with the righties.

My thoughts on the right thread is that it's a lost cause because you cannot debate someone who has made up thier mind and is standing in the middle of the schoolyard with their fingers in their ears and their eyes closed while shouting, "I'm not listening, I'm not listening" at the top of their lungs.

I post things in the Left Leaning thread that are not covered by another thread or things that I think are just too pointed toward the left to become a thread of their own.
(something about oil on the waters without setting them on fire)

Of course if I get too shrill and "unfair and unbalanced" please tell me to shut up and take my toys and go home.

4dk - who will be taking the opportunity to do some reading this 4th of July weekend on the why's and how's of the creation of this country and wondering where we're going from here. You know I don't think I'll be alone, even here in Texas.

[Jayjen36]

Thanks manskater :) I normally don't venture into the "right leaners" thread but I noticed that there were a lot of lefties posting there and thought that there might be an interesting discussion going on. Unfortunately what I saw were those posts claiming to despise all "dems and libs". Very disheartening to come to a place like the Michelle Kwan Forum, dedicated to such a caring and thoughtful young woman and see things like that written about a huge (yes, still huge) segment of the population. Oh well, I said my long-winded piece, and that should be about it for that thread. But I'll definitely keep reading the others, this one in particular!

[manskater]

Jayjen -- Yes we are huge and we are getting bigger. :D I've seen more and more articles stating how many of the moderate republicans representatives are slowly getting very angry with this administration. Bush probably thought he pulled the wool over their eyes.:rolleyes "Compassionate Conservatism" Yea Right.>:

[phisigsig]

I'm reading too!

Those cartoons were funny- thanks for the chuckle!

I hope you are right about the lefties growing- I've been in a pessimistic funk the past week.

[4dogknight]

Of course the "left" numbers may not mean anything if history is rewritten.

Lincoln Memorial video may be revised (http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2005-07-02-lincoln-video_x.htm)

{snip}
"The National Park Service has been out buying video footage of conservative rallies as it struggles to respond to a new civil war over a historical film shown at the Lincoln Memorial.

Conservatives fired the first verbal "shots" in this conflict by complaining in 2003 that the video, produced in 1994 with the help of high school students from around the nation, implies that Abraham Lincoln supported abortion, homosexuality and liberal causes."

COMMENT: When the conservatives finish beating up on the efforts of school children, they'll go after the "New Deal" programs. After all they want to rewrite the children's science text books because of the references to evolution.

And even though the above article identifies Lincoln as the first Republican president even a blind man would have a problem identifying Lincoln with the today's breed of Republican.

4dk - one more item to be noted and not so surprisingly, is that the National Park Service administrators are in GW's pocket.

[elliebea]

Is the right-leaning thread actually still functioning? I see it grow all the time but clicking on it turns up nothing for me. The discussion above sorta indicates that it lives, it breathes, it continues spewing venom, etc. This so?

From the USA Today artiicle above (posted by 4DK) about forms of media and polarization that does or doesn't occur, this clause . . .
newspapers are better able to impart information on all sides of an issue
is one with which I don't really agree at all. I was doing alot of newspaper reading today (two of them) and my sense of both was that writers omit a whole lot of information -- actually anything potentially controversial, particularly about Iraq -- and that is much more likely the reason they're less polarizing. I found the coverage terribly bland (but was riding long distance as a passenger and needed something to do).

---

Also -- that whole business above about the Federal threat to bloggers and their fundraising just absolutely infuriates me. It's not like these nickel-and-dimers are expecting specific favors, and the original purpose of campaign law is not being observed in any way. Also, as most everyone knows, it's progressives (and leftists) who are utilizing the technique. You can bet if Republicans didn't get their multi-millions (with strings attached) from Big Pharma, oil companies, defense contractors, etc. OR acquired any significant funds online, this wouldn't be an issue.

[4dogknight]

On Africa, Bush is very much the activist (http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-07-03-bush-africa_x.htm)

{snip}
"Africa has received intermittent U.S. attention over the decades, with periods of neglect interspersed with spasms of activity. To the surprise of many, President Bush has been very much in the latter camp.

As he heads into the Group of Eight summit meeting this week in Scotland, Bush seems almost to have a fixation with getting the troubled continent on the right track.

The administration said two weeks ago that aid to Africa has tripled since 2001; it plans to double the 2004 level to $8.6 billion by 2010.

"Helping those who suffer and preventing the senseless death of millions of people in Africa is a central commitment of my administration's foreign policy," Bush said recently, with British Prime Minister Tony Blair at his side.

Blair has pushed the president to join with other G-8 leaders to attack Africa's suffering. In Scotland, he will seek agreement with his colleagues on an Africa aid plan."

{snip}
"Generosity toward the less fortunate in Africa appears to play well among some important domestic constituencies; it is particularly welcomed by some conservative Christian allies of the president."

{snip}
"Energy is another component of Africa's growing importance to policymakers, given the increasing role of West Africa as a supplier of oil to world markets.

The AIDS pandemic in Africa also has the administration's attention. A U.N. estimate released on Friday said that AIDS claimed 1 million lives in southern Africa last year and that life expectancy in the region has plummeted by an average of 20 years."

COMMENT: Yeah GW looks like a hero going to the G8 next week but only because Blair pushed him, kicking and screaming, into the action. Then after the pushing and pulling was done, GW decided he would look good to the conservative Christian donors.

He's for educating women but still won't allow US funds be earmarked for family planning and responsible reproductive education. What is his plan for educating women, walking five paces behind men, genuflecting, not speaking unless spoken to, dressing appropriately - meaning high necklines, wearing head coverings and no exposed ankles?

4dk - who is more and more reminded of either Alfred E. Newman or the Janus head each time she sees GW in the media.

[SNY]

I read this article on the 4th of July five years ago (2000) and it has stuck in my mind ever since. The main question it asks its readers is this: "What does it mean to be an American in the age of American empire?":

uts.cc.utexas.edu/%7Erjen...fourth.htm (http://uts.cc.utexas.edu/%7Erjensen/freelance/julyfourth.htm)

[4dogknight]

Well now we know what we should get GW for his birthday - bicycle training wheels. See link to story below.

Bush falls off bike in Scotland (http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2005-07-06-bush-bike-crash_x.htm)


4dk - who thinks "shades of Gerald Ford" but at least Ford had class.

[4dogknight]

Juror 'Panicked,' Lied to Va. Judge (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/05/AR2005070501485.html?referrer=email&referrer=email)

All this woman did was buy two newspapers while on jury duty and then tell the judge she didn't. She wasn't plotting the overthrow of the government or even to out a CIA undercover agent.

About the 'fairness' of the decision to punish this woman, it was just and fair but all I can think of is Novak, Cooper and Miller, not to mention the 'source(s)' and what they are going to get away with just because they have the protection of the White House.

Maybe it's time to take the blindfold off Justice and get Bush/Rove's fingers off the scales she carries.

4dk

[moxie]

"Is the right-leaning thread actually still functioning? I see it grow all the time but clicking on it turns up nothing for me. The discussion above sorta indicates that it lives, it breathes, it continues spewing venom, etc. This so?"

There's a glitch with the right-leaning thread (besides the anti-lib bashing, lol) that started after this board was attacked.
To see the new posts as they are added, just go back 2 or 3 numbers. The thread grows from there, with the final number always coming up blank.

[elliebea]

Thanks Moxie, for revealing the mystery of the right-leaning thread. I was hoping someone would answer that question!

[moxie]

Well, I revealed the mystery of of where recent posts are popping up on the right-leaning thread, but not the mystery of the actual right-leaning posts :rollin

[kwancierto de aranjuez]

Calling all left-leaners...

Come home!

[EigthAv]

I agree with Kwancerto.......:lol Go home. Hello all.My 1st ever visit into your twisted World.***WARNING*** Don't touch your moniter! I just spewked some venom and wouldn't want anyone to get infected.:eek .........i see who your spies are now.they are becoming repo sympathizers.it's the venom :evil The dude in my piccie icon gizmo thing is C & W artist,Wesley Dennis.A popular hurricane has just been named in his honour.Beware! WD is a right wanger.............ummmmmmm anything else whilst i'm here???????? okay.... if you want a good look at the possible future of the World after the terrorist win and take over,take a look at George Romero's zombie classic,"Dawn of the Dead".His newest zombie thriller looks interesting too,but I haven't seen it yet.......i guess that's it.I might drop back by after the 2006 elections......... <!--EZCODE BR START--><!--EZCODE BR END--><!--EZCODE BR START--><!--EZCODE BR END-->this has been an intrusion by the other side.we now return you to your regular scheduled programming.

[kwancierto de aranjuez]

Mike,

No venom spewing here; however, you do have to do one of a few things: hug trees, swear to communism, be a vegan, hate deception, and LURV, LURV, LURV MK (not Mallory King).

[colinmom71]

Aww man!! Do I flunk the test then?? :D

Hug trees? Heck no! I hate getting splinters. That and my husband had several trees cut down around our house last year. He still gleefully watches the video he took of the tree massacre...

Swear to communism? Umm, I've sworn AT communism, does that count? ;)

Be a vegan? Ya know, I did the vegetarian thing a few years ago and I swear I'm the only person who can GAIN weight by doing so! And I've been having wicked bad cravings for red meat lately, so the vegan thing ain't happening over here...

Hate deception? Now, THIS one I definitely can agree with! I can't stand to be lied to or patronized. I can get that at a family reunion! But it's also why I tend to be rather critical of media sources. I don't like the sensationalistic manner in which news is presented these days. Thank goodness for the internet and the ability to fact check sources so efficiently...

Lurv MK (not Mallory King)? Absolutely! In fact, I've collected so many video files over the last two years, my husband had to partition them all to another hard drive because my Skating Videos folder was taking up well over 1GB of my desktop's disc space! :YS

So, am I allowed to stick around even though I only score 2 of 5? :D

Actually, I haven't been around much the past month or so because Colin had to have some surgeries and numerous doctor appointments, blah blah... Unfortunately, I may have to give up the planned trip to Nationals because his latest round of issues. (BTW, does anyone know if hotel reservations are transferable to another person? I have a great rate at the Wyndham Mayfair reserved and it would be nice to see someone benefit from that if I can't go...) But I do plan to participate here a little more than I have of late... I may even venture into the world of actual skating threads! How daring of me, no? ;)

[ShowMeTheKwan2]

Colinmom, sorry to hear that Colin has been going through some tough stuff lately. Hopefully your family is getting through everything okay. I always lurk on the political threads but rarely post...and I was wondering from one left-leaner to another, if there was some way that I could acquire your hotel reservations for Nationals. That would be awesome. I live in Minneapolis and am planning to drive, but don't have any accomodations reserved yet. If you'd like to contact me, my email is: phwhizkid@yahoo.com.

Rach on, lefties! :)

[4dogknight]

Navy: Guantanamo officer relieved of duty (http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2005-07-09-gitmo-leader_x.htm)

{snip}
"The commanding officer of the U.S. Naval Base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, was relieved of his duties Saturday after he was accused of inappropriate management practices, a Navy spokesman said.
Capt. Leslie J. McCoy, who had commanded Guantanamo since March 2003, was the subject of an investigation into inappropriate personnel and administrative practices unrelated to the base's detention camp for suspected terrorists.

"His release and reassignment are in no way related to the detainee operations taking place in Guantanamo," said C. Patrick Dooling, spokesman for Navy Southeast Region based in Jacksonville.

Dooling would not elaborate on the allegations against the officer."

COMMENT: Since we've been told, time and again, nothing untoward went on in Gitmo, I don't have a comment on the announcement above except to say Hmmmmm; there's something nasty in the wood pile here. But I could be wrong.

4dk

[4dogknight]

Congress plans rush of business amid court debate (http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-07-10-congress-busy_x.htm)

{snip}
"The three-week window between Congress' Independence Day and August recesses is typically one of its most productive. That could be even more so this year as lawmakers try to clear the decks for a Supreme Court battle.
Just this week, the Senate plans to debate a spending bill for the Homeland Security Department and may start considering a measure to increase federal support of embryonic stem cell research.

Incessant chatter may fill the 24-hour cable news networks about the president's possible choices for the Supreme Court now that Sandra Day O'Connor has said she is retiring and rumors swirl about Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist's future. And senators, who will have to confirm any nominee, undoubtedly will feel the irresistible pull of television cameras and news conferences.

But the wheels that drive the passage of bills likely will grind on.

"The confirmation battle is not going to slow things down," said Eric Ueland, chief of staff to Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn. "Whatever happens on the Supreme Court is not going to affect the floor."

That should hold true for July, when the Senate debates a defense policy bill and a defense spending measure."

{snip}
"There is no shortage of other legislation available for the Senate to deal with, especially the 11 spending bills that Congress is supposed to pass every year. The House passed all of its versions before the Fourth of July break.

Frist has pledged to pass them as separate bills instead of again lumping them together in yet another foot-tall, catchall measure at year's end.

Still, what gets done will depend on Bush's Supreme Court decisions. Any contentious choice cannot help but divert attention from pending legislation.

"It has a way of eroding focus," said Joel Johnson, a former aide to both President Clinton and former Senate Democratic Leader Tom Daschle. "Much of the strategic energy on both sides of the aisle will be focused on this."

COMMENT: Did anyone else not know that Congress got a five week vacation or am I just dense and not realize it until I saw it in print in this article.
Also the line "The three-week window between Congress' Independence Day and August recesses is typically one of its most productive" just got on my last nerve. For what we pay them, plus all of their benefits, Congress better doing something constructive other than sniping and snarking at one another.

4dk - who forgot to mention the annual Congressional pay hike voted by ---wait for it ----- Congress.

[ladybugs]

Hi! I guess most of you will be excited to know that I am a right-wing Republican. Now don't all boo at once! I love President George W. Bush and thought about how much fun it would be to jump in here and let you know that.

I read one of your threads about the 13 year old girl that sadly, has to carry, sadly, a baby, in her, sadly, body. Now, how did the baby get there? I don't remember reading that. If she was raped, I truly sympathize with her and her rapist should spend his days in jail. Did she have consentual sex? In that case it is her responsibility. As far as terminating her preganancy, I need to tell you that I disagree and I think you can't be hypocritical and say how you pity/sympathize her for FORCING her to carry a baby in her little body. I believe 13 is when a girl goes through puberty so her body is ready to carry a baby. Isn't this a fact of nature? So you are going to extremes to make your political point sound fair when it is not. How can you pity the girl for carrying her baby and not pity the poor innocent soul for killing it? How can killing a baby be the lesser of two evils? Do you really hear what is coming out of your logic? This makes no sense and therefore, I can never agree with this cruel/selfish law of Roe v. Wade and I hope someday (maybe sooner than we think) this law will be overturned and stay gone for good. How did a cruel law ever surface in our country? How do you supporters of Roe v. Wade allow this to happen? I wish you would come to your senses.

P. S. Oh, did I tell you how much I love President George W. Bush? Hee Hee Hee. Doesn't that just tickle you pink? :lol :RP

[tongueincheek]

Never mind. So not worth it.

[madison]

HUH?

[4dogknight]

ladybugs, how lovely to see you here in the land of the light. I'm not sure how much fun it is jumping in here and telling us how much you love "President George W. Bush" but whatever floats your boat...............

I read one of your threads about the 13 year old girl that sadly, has to carry, sadly, a baby, in her, sadly, body. Now, how did the baby get there? I don't remember reading that

How clever of you to take a post from 5/3/05 upon which to make a moral stand against abortion. You must have tried to access the link to the source and was unable to retrieve the article because it had expired therefore ending any discussing before it starts. And then what do we have left, only your diatribe against abortion.

Perhaps Jerry Stopher (the original poster of the topic) kept a copy of the article and he’ll respond your post. On the other hand maybe not, it’s been over two months since the initial post...

4dk – who was originally going to be a smart mouth and answer your question “Now, how did the baby get there?” with a very clinical explanation but decided better of it and now thinks you should ask your parents to explain it to you.

[GinnySmith]

Well, gee. There are lots of books out there on where babies come from.

That said, far be it from me to hold a 13 year old responsible. It takes 2 to make a baby. So, um...how old is the Daddy and where did he come from?

Inquiring minds....:rolleyes

[moxie]

"I believe 13 is when a girl goes through puberty so her body is ready to carry a baby."

Some girls begin going through puberty as early as 9 or 10 and have become pregnant. Do you really believe a child of 9 or 10 or even 13 is competent to consent to sex (which is legally impossible anyway, since most states don't allow consensual sex for unmarried people until 16)? And are you aware of the high level of life-threatening complications among such young mothers?
(Sheesh, even animal breeders allow their young dogs & cats to have several "heats" before breeding them, to allow bodies more time to be fully mature.)

Since when is the life of a very young girl worth less than that of an unborn fetus? Yes, we can throw the man who got her pregnant into jail. But why should we force the girl (who in most cases is the victim of a crime) to risk complications and possibly death?

[colinmom71]

I read one of your threads about the 13 year old girl that sadly, has to carry, sadly, a baby, in her, sadly, body. Now, how did the baby get there? I don't remember reading that. If she was raped, I truly sympathize with her and her rapist should spend his days in jail. Did she have consentual sex? In that case it is her responsibility.

Oh, I remember that case (the Florida girl who is in the state's foster care system). How she became pregnant was a question she was unwilling to answer. It is known that she became pregnant around the month that she'd run away from, IIRC, a foster home. Considering she's only 13, it's highly unlikely the sexual encounter occured in a legal manner since she was well below Florida's statutory age of consent.

The girl faced a terrible dilemma. She's a 13 year old ward of the state. Had she carried the pregnancy (and made it to term without medical complications), the state would not have allowed her to assume what you call "her responsibility" in keeping and parenting the baby. Her choices were either being forced to surrender the child into adoption or to terminate the pregnancy via a safe first trimester abortion. She let foster officials know that she felt that not remaining pregnant was in her better interest and initially was given permission to access the abortion...

Then, someone in the "middle management" of the hell that is state bureaucracy decided to file an injuction to refuse the abortion, giving this girl's private dilemma unwarranted publicity. In reality, it was just a cruel stall tactic to push the girl past the first trimester so as to make accessing an abortion more difficult or even impossible.... If you'd read the girl's testimony from the hearing that gave her final authority to consent (which I have), you'd know that this girl was quite sure of her decision and how she truly felt it was in her best interest to not remain pregnant. She was unwilling to be forced to give up a baby into the same foster system that didn't even know she was missing from it's custody for a month!

As far as terminating her preganancy, I need to tell you that I disagree and I think you can't be hypocritical and say how you pity/sympathize her for FORCING her to carry a baby in her little body.

Do you then agree with the state forcing her to give up her baby for adoption or into state foster care? Because that was the only choice some state officials were willing to give her...

I believe 13 is when a girl goes through puberty so her body is ready to carry a baby. Isn't this a fact of nature? So you are going to extremes to make your political point sound fair when it is not.

Just because you believe something does not make it factually accurate.

While yes, she had entered puberty already, the physical demands of pregnancy are not something that a 13 year old body can readily handle. Statistically, girls under the age of 15 are far more vulnerable to pregnancy and childbirth complications (such as pre-eclampsia, HELLP syndrome, gestational diabetes, etc.) than are women in their later teens, twenties, and thirties (the risks go back up once a woman approaches 40). The nutritional demands are also hard on the still adolescent body, since the body at that age needs more nutrients for proper development - never mind trying to also sustain a pregnancy... Then there are a goodly number of young pregnant teens who suffer life long endocrine system damage due to pregnancy hormones interfering with normal puescent hormonal function related to maturing the body into adulthood...

It's kind of like a house under construction. While it may be near completion, the incomplete systems make the house unsuitable for habitation... Same with an "unseasoned", still pubescent body...

So you are going to extremes to make your political point sound fair when it is not. How can you pity the girl for carrying her baby and not pity the poor innocent soul for killing it? How can killing a baby be the lesser of two evils?

The people who were trying to make a political point with this girl's sad case were foster officials and (later) Jeb Bush who worked to try to block the abortion and forced her to go to court, giving the matter publicity so rabid anti-abortion groups could try to "politically profit" off her!

How can you not feel compassion for a young girl trapped in a hard situation? Or is your sense of compassion limited to only those whose decisions follow your idea what is right? Frankly, I would have felt compassion for her no matter what choice she made. She deserves support and help, not condemnation and vilification...

As for how can abortion be the lesser of two evils, I think abortion is easily preferable say in cases where a woman's health and/or life may be endangered by continuing a pregnancy. Or where a pregnancy may present a hardship upon a woman's life, or if the woman has already been found to be an unfit mother and does not want to repeat the pattern, or if the woman used medications that cause fetal deformities, or the fetus has genetic errors, or etc... There are numerous personal situations and different factors that may make abortion a more practical choice to continuing a pregnancy...

This makes no sense and therefore, I can never agree with this cruel/selfish law of Roe v. Wade and I hope someday (maybe sooner than we think) this law will be overturned and stay gone for good. How did a cruel law ever surface in our country? How do you supporters of Roe v. Wade allow this to happen? I wish you would come to your senses.

Laws proscribing abortion were the cruelty. Roe v. Wade overturned the Texas anti-abortion law that was so narrowly written that it made it difficult even for women with emergent and life threatening health problems due to pregnancy to access the medically safe termination they needed. The same problem existed in other states as well. Some women were blackmailed by their physicains into unecessary sterilization surgeries in exchange for a therapeutic abortion. Some women were even forced to remain pregnant with dead fetuses because restrictive aboriton laws compelled doctors to refuse any pregnancy termination attempts out of fear of prosecution. Never mind that a dead fetus left in utero for too long can begin to poison the woman's blood system...

For more elaboration on how women were treated by even the medical community before Roe, go this site and listen to the documentary "From the Back Alleys and Beyond"... www.albany.edu/history/Fr...lleys.html (http://www.albany.edu/history/FromTheBackAlleys.html)

As for Roe itself, it is not technically a law. It is called by legal scholars "case law", but essentially it was the Supreme Court telling the states that statutes similar to the Texas law unconsitutionally impeded upon private medical consent matters. They then outlined under what conditions the states' governments could restrict or even proscribe abortion based on what point in a pregnancy the state may have an interest in using the force of law to protect the developing fetal life. Further decisions have narrowed that interest down to when the fetus is viable (able to live outside the womb).

It also helps to understand that our laws in the US are supposed to be adopted from a negative duty and rights-based perspective, in that essentially the state/government must prove a societal harm from an action before it can make that action a criminal offense. It's a Classical Liberalism (not to be confused with what we today call Liberal-Progressivism) philosophy of law that is the guiding principle that our Constitutional form of governance was based upon. The legal question in regards to abortion is, at what point do we allow the state to micro-manage matters of reproduction?

The moral question of abortion is not relevent to law. Different people of different faiths and perspectives will always have differing views on the moral questions arising from abortion. Some believe that abortion is morally justifiable in cases where the pregnancy presents a danger to the woman's life and health or where the conception was a product of a wrongful act (rape, incest), and these are pretty much the majority of opinions on abortion... Some feel that abortion is not morally justified in any circumstance, though these persons are very rare. Some feel that abortion is justifiable where the woman is not willing to remain pregnant, say if a pregnancy resulted from birth control failure (in fact, almost 60% of women seeking abortions were using some form of BC when the conception occured) or a pregnancy disrupts the woman's way of life (job, education, finances, etc.). And there are some women who, while they know they aren't capable of parenting a child at that time, are also not capable of withstanding the emotional and mental upheaval of carrying a pregnancy to term and then surrendering the child into adoption after birth.

But the law must govern us all, no matter what our moral stance on the issue happens to be. And it must respect our rights to follow our own conscience and live according to our own faith. Decisions relating to reproduction are so intimate and have such a profound impact upon our lives that they should not be held to the scrutiny of some government bureaucracy that cannot possibly know what is best for each individual in our society. That is the crux of decisions like Roe v. Wade, Griswold v. Connecticut (legalized birth control for married couples - 1965), Skinner v. Oklahoma (ban against forced sterilization), et. al. And while you may not like the decisions that some people make with their freedom to decide on these matters for themselves, it is this freedom - the protected right over your reproductive system - that allows you to make those choices you feel are in tune with your life and your faith...

Sorry this was so long, but you had a number of questions in your post that I felt needed to be addressed...

[manskater]

I see the sense in Blair making speeches concerning the bombings in his country but I see now that the prez is making more speeches concerning the bombings and again trying to link 9/11 and Sadaam. He just does not get it. He and Blair threw logs on the fire by starting an illegitimate war in Iraq which has increased the hatred of America globally and has NOT made us any safer. Dean was very forward looking when he made that statement. I finally understand the reference that he is the "war" president. There will always be a war while he is in office.>:

[elliebea]

Colinsmom -- FanTAStic rebuttal!! Just amazing! And informative too. I learned things I hadn't known myself.

Not to mention it's a great demonstration to the 'other' side of just how to dialogue and do so knowledgeably. I'm truly impressed, and quite gratified seeing that happen here in this thread.

Thanks!

[RA5CViggie]

It sure would be nice if the FL foster system cared a fraction as much about Rilya Wilson as they do trying to run 13-year-old pregnant girls' lives.

[ladybugs]

Wow! I am so glad to see how quick I got a response on the story of the 13 year old girl.

No, you are wrong. How can killing a fetus be the safer thing to do? Since when do you know so much about the dangers of pregnancy? So every woman in American should panic if she becomes pregnant? The risks are so horrific that we should have such a law as Roe v. Wade? What are you so afraid of? No, I think you are wrong. I think the baby should be born and the 13 year old then has the right then to her decision whether she wants to give the baby up for adoption, keep it, or raise it herself.

You don't need to go into all the history about Roe v. Wade and why it is such a terrific deal. I think it is a horrific thing. Have you ever heard of the simple word "responsibility"?

It really is sad to hear how mixed up you are on the left and how you have to go into so much information just to explain simple logic. That is not going to brain wash me into thinking you are so superior with intelligence. To me, you sound rebellious and foolish. You will never make any sense to me if you think killing a fetus is good. Because that is what abortion is. It is not going to be suddenly "blessed" if you term it a "medical procedure". In that case putting a child murderer to death with a lethal injection in your terms should be a "medical procedure"? You are a joke.

There needs to be some explaining around here on the left side. :FL

[tongueincheek]

Thank you colinmom. Now THAT is what intelligent political debate is all about. Well done!

And my prayers are with your son.

[colinmom71]

How can killing a fetus be the safer thing to do? Since when do you know so much about the dangers of pregnancy?

I just told my husband that you asked this question. He laughed quite heartily... I don't usually get so personal on internet boards, but you asked (and I've had 2 glasses of wine), so here's my answer...

Around the same time I was set to graduate from college, marry the love of my life, and begin law school applications, I found out I was unexpectedly pregnant (birth control failure). While it would have been much easier (and I did not at the time know how much easier!!) to terminate, I didn't feel that was the right choice for us. We changed some of our plans to accomodate this drastic and scary change in our lives, with me deciding to delay law school for a bit to stay home with the baby...

All was coasting along nicely. The wedding went on as planned and I enjoyed some relaxing time being pregnant. I loved it, far more than I'd imagined possible... But something kept nagging in the back of my head that something was wrong.

On the day my pregnancy hit the 24 week mark, I went into labor. Turns out, I have an incompetent cervix which began premature labor. Within the space of 5 hours, everything that could go wrong did go wrong. By the time my f@(&ing doctor's office would see me, a bulging membrane sac had riped open my unripened cervix to 5.5 cms., which also caused a prolapsed cord, endangering the baby by potentially cutting off the blood supply to him. My OB, when found and rushed to the L&D unit to meet me, said the only choice if we wanted to try to give the baby just a small chance to live would be an emergency C-section. I consented, as is my legal right due to such laws that I sourced above...

Unfortunately, as my OB began the C-section, it turned out that I have abnormally presenting blood vessels. My main uterine vein and artery both run across the front of my uterus (when they should be behind), and it wasn't until she was cutting that my OB noticed this. She came literally within a hair's space of causing me to bleed out. The resulting uterine incision to deliver Colin was a sort of bizarre L-shaped incision that leaves me at very high risk of uterine rupture should I attempt another pregnancy. I would also need an invasive abdominal cerclage in order to try to maintain a pregnancy into the third trimester. I would not be "allowed" to have any labor strength contractions due to the risk of uterine rupture from my abnormal incision. Any labor that would not respond quickly to terbutaline or mag sulfate would have to be immediately ended, either by hysterotomy (a C-sect style abortion that is almost NEVER used due to high risk of medical complications) or by C-section (if the fetus were viable for delivery). Oh, and I would have to have a complete bedrest pregnancy inorder to try to get me past viability...

As a result of his premature birth, Colin is severely disabled. He has cerebral palsy, is deaf, non-verbal, has sensory intergration issues, behavioral problems (likes to hit himself in the head when frustrated), and as a result of the hugely unsuccessful retinal reattachment surgery last week is now legally blind in both eyes... His daily care is intensive and there is no way we could afford in-home nursing to care for him that way I feel he needs for the 5-6 months I would have to be on bedrest for a pregnancy that would likely be doomed from the beginning... So yeah, I am quite intimately acquainted with the dangers of pregnancy...

I have known each side of this argument, issues of life and death for both myself and my child. I've studied on my medical issues and consilted with my doctor, and we arrived at the decision that is not at all in my better interests to attempt a pregnancy - ever. Besides my philosphical views, my experiences in this area have weighed in on how I feel in regards to women's rights to consent (when possible) over what happens to their bodies...

So every woman in American should panic if she becomes pregnant? The risks are so horrific that we should have such a law as Roe v. Wade? What are you so afraid of? No, I think you are wrong. I think the baby should be born and the 13 year old then has the right then to her decision whether she wants to give the baby up for adoption, keep it, or raise it herself.

Of course not every woman should panic if she unexpectedly becomes pregnant. Medical complications, esspecially to the degree that I experienced, are relatively rare. However, every pregnancy carries the potential risk of medical issues, whether it be as mild as "morning sickness" or as severe as a *fatal* problem like HELLP syndrome. And every woman has the right to determine what she feels is the best course of treatment for her particular health needs.

Now, in this 13 yr. old girls case, she has the statistical odds stacked against her. She's incapable of even beng allowed to have a part-time job in order to provide for the child she might have had. She also would face a very elevated risk for pregnancy-induced illness and the risk that such an early pregnancy could permanently damage her still developing body and her future fertility. Where there is a strong probability that her body could be harmed by continuing the pregnancy, she is justified in protecting her health by terminating.

Either way, the decision was not yours nor mine. It was hers. The risks to her health were hers in which to consent, and she chose not assume that risk...

You don't need to go into all the history about Roe v. Wade and why it is such a terrific deal. I think it is a horrific thing. Have you ever heard of the simple word "responsibility"?

Where in my post above do I say that Roe is "terrific"? I think it's sad that some women feel the need to terminate, whatever their reasons may be. I think it is a moral poverty that women have to worry about finances dictating whether they can welcome their child into their lives. That men can leave the problem up to the woman and get off morally "scot free" by leaving (cause I sure as hell don't see you vilifying the MAN when it comes this girl's case!).

I HATE the fact that I would have to terminate a pregnancy myself should sterilization surgery also fail us as birth control. I HATE that my body tried to kill my kid and me! But I know the term responsibility quite well thank you, and I have a responsibility to the child that I have to keep myself healthy and well so that I can continue to care for his intensive needs...

is sad to hear how mixed up you are on the left and how you have to go into so much information just to explain simple logic. That is not going to brain wash me into thinking you are so superior with intelligence. To me, you sound rebellious and foolish.

I am not rebellious (if you knew me personally, you'd laugh at yourself for ever describing me as such!), nor am I foolish. I may be occassionally wrongly optimistic at times, but I am rarely fooled twice. I'd say to ask the ex-friend at how often I am fooled by manipulative and immoral behavior, but I no longer know (or care about) how to contact her....

I also have no desire to "brain wash" anyone. Though I'm not sure whether to take the "superior with inteligence" comment as a complement or an insult.... And how on earth did we get to the point where intelligence could be a negative part of one's personality?

You will never make any sense to me if you think killing a fetus is good. Because that is what abortion is.

Again, where in my post above did I say that abortion is necessarily a "good" thing? I did say it may be the better alternative or the more practical decision, but I do not think abortion is morally good... Never have.

It is not going to be suddenly "blessed" if you term it a "medical procedure". In that case putting a child murderer to death with a lethal injection in your terms should be a "medical procedure"? You are a joke.

The who's whatting how with the huh-what?

A surgical abortion *is*, technically speaking, a medical procedure, as are C-sections, tonsillectomies, blood draws, etc. The term "medical procedure" is an event neutral term implying that a health care provider is performing a medical action upn a person's body. I suppose that in the context of the IV line and relevent meds being injected that yes, lethal injection style capital punishment is a medical procedure. But it's also an action that has other connotations, the most significantly meaningful of which being that it's a societal statement that a person's legal crime was serious enough to warrant terminating their life as punishment... Believe me, I take capital punishment quite seriously and do not view it as a mere medical procedure. And considering my history that I shared above, I hope it's obvious that I do not consider abortion merely a medical phenomenon, but rather an issue that profoundly impacts women's lives and well-being...

As for me being "a joke", I have treated your words and thoughts here seriously and with respect (even if I don't necessarily completely agree with you). Kindly offer me the same common decency and not devolve the discussion into name-calling please...

There needs to be some explaining around here on the left side.

I think I've explained myself quite enough here to bore just about everyone. Sorry if the above is TMI, but yet again I was simply anserimg the questions asked of me.... Good night!

[tongueincheek]

No colinmom, not TMI. Doubling my prayers for you, Colin, and colindaddy.

Ladybugs, I'd say that colinmom knows firsthand what she is talking about. So what's your personal experience with this dilemma? Or do you have one? What makes you the expert? Why do you get to judge people you know nothing about and decide what is right for them? With every post, I believe your credibility sinks even further.

The USA is a great nation, so great that the vote of an ignorant, intolerant, judgmental person counts the same as the vote of someone like colinmom, who is thoughtful, compassionate, educated and intelligent. And I mean the intelligent part as a compliment! :lol

[Shallah]

not be forced to bear a child are the valueless sick-Os? Think back to when you were that age or think of any girl that age you care about and how much fun it would be for you or her to go though pregnancy against your will and in an undeveloped body including undeveloped pelvis. Graveyards around the world are filled with the bodies of such girls. And then think of being raped and spending the next 9 months carrying the result in your body. Do you really think the kind compassionate thing to do is force a child who should still be playing with dolls to go though with the pregnancy? Or would you do what so many others have done and quietly gotten an abortion all the while saying "she's not like the other girls, unlike them she doesn't deserve to risk her mental and physical health, not to mention her future like this"?

I believe women and girls have a fundamental right to be in control of their own bodies. This means no unwanted pregnancies whether though birth control, EC or abortion - everyone should have access. What good will other freedoms do me if I don't have the right to my own body?

[Jayjen36]

Colinmom, my prayers go out to you and your family. I hope that you all will be well very soon. And no, I doubt that you bored anyone with your story.

It is quite a shame LB felt the need to, firstly, treat such a tragic story with such disregard, as merely a way to "stick her tongue out" at the posters in this thread. And then to answer Colinmom's intelligent thoughtful post with such venom. I know it's been said before, but I guess it wasn't heard. When your only answer to a well thought out and well composed argument are insults and a tirade filled with questionable logic, maybe you should re-think your position. Or at least think a bit more before you answer the post.

Please, don't bother to call us names. I would like to hear your response to Colinmom's post, but if you have nothing intelligent to say (and yes in most places intelligence is still a very good thing) just don't reply at all.

[probativev]

Wow Collinsmom, that's quite an ordeal you went through and are still going through. I think you're so brave.

I just don't get those anti-choice people, or anti-gay people. Why can't they just live and let live, and leave other people alone, and butt out of the lives of people whose life decisions are none of their businesses.

[Sparks]

Colin's mom, thank you for your eloquence and intelligence regarding this topic. I want to ((hug)) you right now. Please make sure to take care of your self during all your troubles.
:angel
Regardless of whether you are speaking about a 13 year old or a 30 year old, abortion is a safe, legal medical proceedure and will probably stay that way. Frankly, I don't want anyone telling women what medical proceedure they can have or not have. That would be just another way to discriminate against over half of the American population.
Regardless of what the extreme right-wing may say, it is none of their business what a woman does with her body. Do some research about Roe vs. Wade...it is Constitutional and is about every American's right to privacy.
Where are those days when the Republican party was interested in keeping government OUT of our personal lives?????

[manskater]

colinsmom -- GREAT POST and Hugs to you.

[elliebea]

My prayers and thoughts are with you and your family, Colinmom. That's an incredibly horrific ordeal you have described and the ongoing difficulties I can't even imagine. You sound to me like an incredibly courageous person.

Ladybug, notwithstanding your method of expressing yourself, I do hear that your stance on this derives from your sense of morality. It's exactly identical to my fierce opposition to the Iraq war prior and since.

[colinmom71]

I want to thank all of you here for your prayers, thoughts, and well-wishes. Truly, it was very kind of you... As for me being brave and courageous, honestly I don't think I am. I'm not all that diffferent from the vast majority of others... If it were you and your child, all of you would have been able to do what we have - make your child's well being your top priority. At some point in time I'll be able to start working towards promoting better state policies and programs for the developmentally disabled (darn my introverted tendencies!), but for right now I think Colin still needs me dedicated just to him...

Besides, I've been blessed with a pretty good kid. Despite his physical issues, he's got a great little personality. At turns he's placid, sweet, mischievious, and stubborn as heck, but then I think that's what made him survive what he has... We tend to joke that if he actually were typically abled, we'd be living on the school principal's speed dial! But he's pretty much settled for having me firmly wrapped around his little finger... ;)

Now onto the obvious subject change! :D

Elliebea, I find your comment above on deciding political positions based one's moral beliefs an interesting line of thought to explore... My own opposition to the invasion of Iraq is also due to my moral qualms against war in general, and against wars based on wrongful intent and justification in specific. I also find our current lack of equitable access to health care and the adjacent profit motive driving medical and pharmacutical costs to outrageous levels to be immoral. Not using the Commonwealth (public monies) for those state functions and programs that promote a good quality of life for our citizenry, like good schools, affordable housing, parks, public safety, etc., is immoral....

And yet, we are constantly inundated with the ridiculous notion that persons who hold liberal-progressive ideals or are Democrat party voters do not have a moral base. Just because I feel abortion should not be illegal does not equate that I believe abortion is a necessarily morally good action. But I do also think that it is equally immoral to deny women dominion over their own bodies and lives. It just happens to be that particular immorality is also unjust and incongruous with the Constitutional principles of due process and privacy...

Not all immoral actions are injustices that should also be illegal, and not all legal actions are necessarily moral ones. Cheating on one's spouse is a huge immorality issue with me, but that doesn't mean it should be illegal. Divorce is legal and a legally regulated matter, and yet there are those persons who feel divorce is immoral. Then as we all remember from our history lessons the most spectacular failure of implementing a law because some feel it's immoral - prohibition. In addressing one percieved moral wrong, this law gave birth to an even more horrendous monster - organized crime and gang warfare.

So, anyone else have some thoughts to share on morality and the law from the liberal perspective?

Ah well, I'm heading off to actually get a full night's sleep for once! Yet again, thank you all for your kind words...

[GinnySmith]

colinmom71--

Thank you for your posts and your sharing of your personal experience. Your eloquence in articulating your point of view is astounding.

[elliebea]

Colinmom,
I find that your political views are identical to my own, including the issue of reproductive choice.

So many times in the past three years I've been the subject of eyerolling and even ridicule because of my antiwar stance. This invariably comes from those who consider themselves 'centrists' or 'left of center,' a description I have yet to understand. It seems that reluctance to identify oneself as or even empathize with the antiwar stance derives from a fear of seeming to be merely emotive or moralistic, rather than rational and intellectual. (Do you remember how quick so-called liberals, ala Dean, were to proclaim that they/he were FOR the first gulf war, Kosovo, and the war on the Taliban, etc., as if to deflect the probable 'Peacenik' label?)

Though the antiwar stance actually IS the rational one -- even the sophisticated and academic point of view -- and one could discuss at length how and why that's true -- it's still the utter lack of morality in these middle-of-the-road war views that floor me. (And of course, the warmongers themselves are so far beyond the pale, their rantings are not worth considering, especially since they derive from such stark fear and helplessness.)

Therefore, when another's political opposition to an issue, such as Ladybug's, has at its very core her deeply held moral values, I want to acknowledge that. She was getting alot of grief for her debating style (perhaps deservedly so for her uninformed medical statements) but her core beliefs are not to be devalued and I personally don't wish to do that because it would be against my own principles.

All of which is by way of providing background to my openness to the moral beliefs on the 'other' side of this issue.

I was actually employed at the legislative office of the ACLU on capitol hill during the 'Webster' case from Missouri wherein the viability standard was adjudicated, thereby breaking down the long-observed trimester system. (That outcome was considered a disaster for the side of 'choice,' as you probably know.) While it was going on, making the trip past the Supreme Court to work from the subway station took me through the throngs of pro-birth demonstrators, including the day of the biggest rally when the sidestreet on which both the court and the ACLU are located was lined with police cars and droves of these persons were making their way between, beside, practically over them to get to the front of the building (and into the news camera's eyes).

I talked with some of these people and walked along side of a few in the evening (on my way home) and discovered how sincerely they felt about the morality of it. Not all of them were fanatics or self-righteous screwballs (although there was a fair share of those people present, too!).

In short, on the morality issue: I do feel that honoring the existence of deeply and sincerely held moral views of others is essential to the maintenance and nurture of one's own. It doesn't equate, however, with political acquiesence to their demands. And I agree that denying women ownership over their own bodies is in itself immoral.

The participants in most political discussions/debates are frequently confusing the moral vs. the legal factors inherent in various issues, and vacilate between the two without seeming to realize it. It's a peculiar fallacy to which we're all subject, perhaps.



Edited to remove an overlooked anger emoticon!

[probativev]

My 2 cents on moral issues and government: can't we just separate the two? It's crazy to try to have our government be the moral center of the country. Case in point: does anyone--ANYONE--actually thing that any politician rank highly in personal moral conduct? Puhleeease. Call me cynical, but they're probably rank among the lowest on the morality scale. How many times have they proven to disappoint us? Again and again and again. From JFK to Nixon, to Gary Condit, Newt Gingrich, Bill Clinton, Tom Delay, to my local Republican Spokane mayor outed as gay and soliciting sexual favors in exchange for government favors, and countless others. Even Carter confessed he "sinned in his heart". Yet still we are stupid enough to look to the government to take actions that are "moral"? Why do people have such indestructable faith in the government leaders on moral issues? These are the last people we should look to as moral leaders.

People should just stop trying to use government to promote morality. Politics and morality is a total oxymoron, and trying to combine the two makes us total morons.

[ladybugs]

Colin's mom, I read your entry and I am very sorry you had to go through a sad/painful time. I hope you are feeling better now and I hope your family is well.

I do need to explain and defend myself because what you said about me is not true. First, I was not "singling" you out. I was talking about the Far Left who are constantly badgering the country with their beliefs. It is not fair to have to believe they are right all the time. I was not talking about you. I don't think most women who have a pregnancy, fortunately, should worry that they are going to have a complicated pregnancy. Although, it does happen. But a medical team of doctors would not deliberately put a woman's health in jeopary during a delivery. They are going to do everything they can to protect her.

I just happen to have a different belief. I believe abortion should not be legal. I think it has gone to extremes in this country for those who choose to use it as a form of birth control just so they don't have to face the responsibility of raising a child.

Now on the otherhand, what about someone who wants a child so badly and can't physically have one because of infertility? Women who go through infertility treatments are putting their lives at risk too, because we don't fully know what infertility drugs could do to their bodies in the future.

So, I am very sorry to hear about your story. I couldn't conceive and I was very scared too to go through all the different procedures to try and get pregnant. My husband and I finally agreed that the drugs they were giving us (yes, both my husband and I both had fertility problems and both were going through treatment/drugs) could down the road, perhaps be dangerous (cause cancer, etc.) and we decided to give up the treatment and chose adoption as our way to have our family.

So, all I am trying to say to you is, as human beings we need to be responsible and welcome life. Also, I really don't know why so many of you who read my entry have taken it out of context. I don't have venom (as someone quoted me as saying) towards you. You wrote your entry after I wrote mine so how could I have venom towards something so sad that you experienced. Please note I am not saying that you, Colin's mom, were the one who said this. I know it was not you. I have experienced my own pain too in not being able to bear my own child. It was very sad the day my husband and I learned we were both infertile.

To end on an upbeat note, we now have two beautiful adopted children. I wish you Colin's mom, nothing but happiness with your children and family. :angel

[tongueincheek]

Now ladybugs, THAT is an excellent post. You stated what YOU believe, and then you backed it up with personal experiences to support your belief.

My heart goes out to you for your infertility problems, and I applaud you and congratulate you on choosing adoption to complete your family.

For the record, like colinmom, I would NEVER choose abortion for myself. The moment I knew I was pregnant, I loved my baby as if she had already been born and I was holding her. I couldn't wait to meet her.

That said, there are heartbreak stories like the one colinmom went through. These moms need to be able to have choices - to choose what is best for themselves, for their existing children, and for their unborn children. In most cases, it's not an easy choice, and I bet it's always a heartbreaking one.

The issue is not black and white. Nevertheless, ladybugs, I respect your position on this sensitive issue, and I again applaud your post.

[Krista]

Wow, colinsmom and ladybugs, you two have been through alot. Im glad to read that you're both doing well though. My heart and prayers go out to both of you :)

[Jayjen36]

You wrote your entry after I wrote mine so how could I have venom towards something so sad that you experienced. Please note I am not saying that you, Colin's mom, were the one who said this. I know it was not you.

Hello everybody. Actually I was the person that said that your post was venomous. As we're all playing nicely now I won't go back and point out the parts of your post that I thought were "unnecessarily harsh". I'll just say that what for some people reads as friendly banter, may read to others as something less than friendly. Okay, fair enough. And actually when I referred to your response to colinmom's post, I meant her post of 7/11/05 7:34 am Re: Don't Touch That Mouse - It Is Not Your PC in answer to your original post in this thread, not her later post. Just wanted to clear that up.:)
And I am also sorry to hear about your problems trying to conceive. Being as I'm nearly over forty and still have no children I can understand the pain of wanting to become pregnant and having to come to terms with the idea that you may not be able to. Sadly there are a lot of us out there.

Okay, on with the discussion!

I don't think most women who have a pregnancy, fortunately, should worry that they are going to have a complicated pregnancy.

But we were speaking about very young adolescents becoming pregnant and being forced to carry the pregnancy to term, as the article was about a thirteen year old girl. I was looking up statistics about the health problems associated with young adolescent pregnancy on the CDC's website and the youngest group that they gather statistics is aged 10-14! I cannot believe that such a large number of children, pre-teens are actually becoming pregnant. How on earth do you manage to force a ten year old to give birth against her will and expect her to come out of it either physically or emotionally healthy?

So, all I am trying to say to you is, as human beings we need to be responsible and welcome life.

I don't think that anyone would dispute this. But I think that we also need to protect and nurture the lives that are already here.

[Lanternlight]

Some good news this morning.....

Bush's latest approval numbers stand at 42%. Lowest ever!

hosted.ap.org/dynamic/sto...TE=DEFAULT (http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/A/AP_POLL_METHOD?SITE=ORAST&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT)

Puts a smile on my face. :D

[manskater]

Lanternlight -- You should post that latest poll you know where.. ;)

[Lanternlight]

:lol Nah, I've made up my mind not to post anymore to you know who. There's just no point. I think it would drive you know who crazier if no one EVER EVER responded to the inane ramblings, and rude insults.

Just a thought. ;)

[moxie]

You know, there is no reason under the "unlimited threads" policy that you just can't create a separate thread for all political poll results. That way, it's not "invading" the other thread or aiming it at any particular person. And, of course, others could add whatever other results they see.

[manskater]

I was watching Hardball yesterday. Chris Matthews interviewed a man by the name of Paul Hackett who is running for congress. What impressed me is that this is a veteran of the Iraqi war who served with honor and put his life on the line and who has the guts to speak his mind that he felt we should not have gone to war. He made interesting comments such as there is no law he has to like his President to serve his country.

Mr. Hackett also stated that comments like "bring it on" by the civilians in this government do not make it safer for our military in an already harrowing situation.

Has anyone seen the report that states that 30% of the military coming back from Iraqi suffers from some form of mental trauma. Thank you Mr Bush. >:

[manskater]

www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8797271/ (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8797271/)
Another 14 Marines from Ohio unit die in Iraq
Incident is deadliest roadside bombing so far for U.S. troops


I am so glad that we are in "the last throes of the insurgency".:rolleyes

There have been 43 military troops killed in Iraq in the last 10 days.
>:

[madison]

manskater,
You know the thing I find incredible about the 'insurgency' going on the past 2 years after Mission Accomplished was declared in Bush fashion? Remember when there was all the arguing about invading Iraq before the war - so much heated anger and trouble on this board? Do you remember?

And those of us who opposed the invasion were called names and put down - because we cared about our soldiers and the innocents who would be killed in the collateral damage in Iraq? We worried about the instability in the region; we worried about another Vietnam and the looming need for a draft because our troops were stretched too thin? We never gave a thought to the spread of terrorism which we are now seeing.

And what has come to pass? Exactly what we said, and worried about. Have you heard anyone here say anything to the effect that some of us knew what we were talking about? No, what we hear is 'support our troops,' as if they weren't in our thoughts and prayers from the beginning.

To me, this says we learned nothing from Vietnam, and God willing, we will not have to wait for another 58,000 troops to be needlessly killed before people start to fight back.

[JerryStopher]

peacefile.org/wordpress/?p=217 (http://peacefile.org/wordpress/?p=217)

www.wacotrib.com/news/con...death.html (http://www.wacotrib.com/news/content/news/stories/2005/08/07/20050807wacsoldierdeath.html)


As of now, Cindy Sheehan will be on morning talk tomorrow, on ABC and NBC, I think. She is still camped out near the ranch.

[manskater]

Well it seems our good old prez:rolleyes is shooting his mouth off again by saying that a military option against Iran is a "very last option" but it remains on the table. Gee somehow this reminds me of what he said before Iraq. Does he think the American public is dumb enough to fall for this statement a second time. Does this man have nothing on his mind but bombs and killing?:x

[JerryStopher]

Manskater said ... Well it seems our good old prez is shooting his mouth off again by saying that a military option against Iran is a "very last option" but it remains on the table. Gee somehow this reminds me of what he said before Iraq. Does he think the American public is dumb enough to fall for this statement a second time. Does this man have nothing on his mind but bombs and killing? Not only that, but ... with too few troops to get the job done in Afghanistan, and more of 'em gettin' killed in Iraq, and no one enlisting, and no draft ... where does he think he's gonna get soldiers to fight another war?

And to defend America if we're attacked?

[bwheeler]

people haven't contributed lately to this thread, but...

here is breaking news about how a respected former offical in the state department feels about what he calls the "Cheney-Rumsfeld cabal":

news.yahoo.com/s/afp/2005...NlYwM5NjQ- (http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20051021/wl_afp/usdiplomacypowell;_ylt=AuK5QyGz1HgwpGRc.f7cFuqs0NU E;_ylu=X3oDMTA3ODdxdHBhBHNlYwM5NjQ-)

[madison]

bwheeler,
To be honest about it, it is hardly worth the potshots, pm's and aggravation we receive when we do.

Yes, we have some latitude, but hardly free speech.

And, the right wingers in Washington and elsewhere are doing such a bang-up job of tripping over their own theocracies that we are just getting out of their way.

Unfortunately, 2000 of our soldiers had to die for...? Someone's pov?

Does that answer your question?

[4dogknight]

bwheeler:
One of the reasons this general thread hasn't been updated is that some of us are creating topic threads and debating/discussing/conversing on them.

Speaking only for myself, I find this method more economical of my time and I'm able to concentrate on one topic at a time.

(Of course another reason why there haven't been too many updates in the last several days on any topic might be attributed to the fact that much of the news coverage is negative and depressing)

Though I do hope that when the move takes place, this section will be included ala FSU.

4dk

[probativev]

Well, $hit. Now we got Alito most likely to get on the Supreme Court. I don't know what the Dems can possibly do to block his nomination.

[kwanpistonsfan]

Hey, if you guys are discouraged, become a republican! I saw this on FSU and thought it was a good summary:

Become a Republican (http://www.thefrown.com/frowners/becomerepublican.swf)

[elliebea]

Bwheeler:

The Lawrence Wilkerson speech has been creating quite a stir among lefties and even more so among conservative libertarians (the real ones, that is). It's particularly important because it was timed nearly concurrently with a published interview with Brent Scowcroft, H.W. Bush's Secretary of National Security, and these statements in tandem are being framed as an attempt on the part of the former president to reign in his son via his own people, who are and were conservative 'realists.' All that's missing is for Colin Powell to speak up, but I think we all got his number years ago and it just ain't gonna happen.

I notice others responded to your comment about low activity on this thread and I guess I will too. Because this is political discussion on a figure skater fan site it really amounts to not much more than 'parlor politics' which means that we defer to social niceties by couching our words in euphemisms. For instance, I know better than to refer to war supporters as "accomplices to mass murder" although frankly, that is exactly my opinion.

Another reason is that parlor politics doesn't involve in-depth research and reading so it tends to dwell in superficialities. Those whose interests go much deeper, and these days that's really necessary to get the true picture, lose interest and don't even know where to start.

[Shallah]

and *very* much liberal. Events continue to show I was right to not vote for Bush/Cheney both times. Events continue to show I was right to distrust this administration. I can't take pleasure in being proven right. The price is too blasted high. The human cost to so many people by the incompetence of those in power is counted not in mere dollars and cents but in flesh and blood, in wounded minds and broken spirits. It is heart shattering to try to comprehend if one bears an ounce of compassion in their soul. I can not comprehend that there are those who do not feel others pain. I am utterly baffled when I encounter a person who says some variation "why should I care, I am not hurting" with a straight face and not a trace of shame. I was raised to be compassionate, encouraged to be capable of empathy for other beings. This is why I am so happy to choose the label of liberal and support so much of what is associated with that movement. I don't know how the human race as survived without these abilites and it scares me when I encounter it's opposite.

On the slightly brighter side, over the past year I have had several people who violently disagreed with me over the Bush/Cheney administration say they were wrong. A few never admitted they were wrong and say they knew things were not on the up and up all along :p One relative who got red in the face, shouting and sweating in rage, now says I need to see Fahrenheit 9/11 and read up on the same things I tried to share with him years ago :lol

Well, between the culture of corruption that is the ISU and mess that is the USA I can't muster up much enthusiasm about this skating season. I missed Skate America and only feel mild regret. I haven't even checked Heather's TV schedule once. I have been busy writing my elected and unelected officials over things like the gutting of mercury pollution reduction rules when mercury causes brain damage - both loss of IQ and physical coordination - in kids, the need to get vehicles with higher mpg not only to save families money from using less gas but to reduce pollution which increases deadly heart attacks and asthma attacks. Things like that. I won't be posting much because I am busy with other things so don't worry. I haven't been abducted by a flock of 0] 0] 0] 0]

Namaste,
Shallah

[elliebea]

Shallah! How wonderful to see you -- in print anyway! I think Forum activity in this section has decreased since you've found other activities. Truly!

This statement:
The human cost to so many people by the incompetence of those in power is counted not in mere dollars and cents but in flesh and blood, in wounded minds and broken spirits. It is heart shattering to try to comprehend if one bears an ounce of compassion in their soul.

I so agree on that. It's not even a matter anymore of being angry that such indifference is so widespread (for me anyway) but the difficulty in comprehension of such responses. It's like remaining in permanent jaw-dropping shock that it's so ubiquitous and apparently socially acceptable. How to get past the contantly renewed sense of shock to speak truth and reason.

Glad to hear all that you're doing on the mercury poisoning of children issue. It's lately been of great alarm to me too, having recently become a grandmother and having learned about the toxicity of mandated vaccinations (by the CDC, no less!). Do you know that in 1970, the rate of autism was 1 in every 10,000 births and currently it's at 1 in every 166 due to the preservative in the increased numbers of vaccines that children must receive.

Anyway, as I said, so glad to hear from you!

[Emerald2000]

Oh my god, that "Become a Repubican" thing was so funny. :rollin

[madison]

Shallah;)

Aliens, huh?

Good to hear from you!

[manskater]

I saw a great bumper sticker today.

"LETS TRY COMPASSIONATE IMPEACHMENT"

Sounds good to me.!

[manskater]

http://www.badmash.org/videos/harlan.php?v=george_bush_512K_Stream.flv&t=Harlan%20McCraney,%20Presidential%20Speechologis t

This is a hoot!!

Thought I'd get this thread back up there. Who do you think will be the dem that finally steps out to give the dem party a backbone. I am just so tired of the republicans trying to ride roughshod over the dems everytime there is a debate on their ineffective policies that I just want a dem to just be able to shut them down enough to see how ridiculous their policies are.

[elliebea]

I just gotta share this tidbit: at a fantastic political blog I've been hanging out at lately where two amazing women hammer at all the main points of the day and dissect the issues down to the bone, one of the owners (who is a sharp-as-a-tack former federal prosecutor) had this to say:

(Okay, I'm a figure skating junkie. I admit it right up front. And Michelle Kwan was robbed by that Lapinski beeyatch. I'm just saying...)


It was mentioned because now that it's been once again confirmed that Valerie Plame was in fact a NOC (non-official cover) covert agent, somebody wondered if Victoria Toensing would retract her many lying statements. Then someone else said something like 'only when Brian Boitano does a triple lutz in the ninth circle of hell,' which led to the above lawyers' comment.

The website below. Check it out--it's really amazing.

http://firedoglake.blogspot.com/