Jesus’s General has sent a letter to WA State Rep. Glenn Anderson (R-Fall City), asking him to pass legislation ending the Blastocyst-American holocaust:
Since we first learned of the existence of Nazi concentration camps, Americans have been firm in their resolve to never allow such an atrocity to occur again. We’ve committed ourselves to intervening whenever we see genocide occurring anywhere outside of Africa. We need to honor that commitment in regard to the Blastocyst-American holocaust.
That’s why I’m asking you to pass legislation requiring the redeployment of the Washington National Guard from Iraq to the United States so that they may bring freedom to the billions of Blastocyst-Americans living in stem cell research facilities.
Gen. JC Christian acknowledges that redeploying troops to invade medical research centers at home would cause a manpower shortage in Iraq, but points out that we can always go back “and kill more brown people later.”
And while I’m linking to irreverent posts that linked to my post on Rep. Anderson’s comments, I thought I’d just block quote Carl Ballard’s amusing take:
Rep. Glenn Anderson has a tough time distinguishing between the Holocaust and stem cell research. Aparently because Josef Mengele claimed to be helping people, anybody who claims to be helping people is as bad as Mengele.
Ridicule where ridicule is due.
I see your girl Crissy has a plan, tax the dead guy and tax the smoker…damn how did I know that!
Goldy, you are as bad as Don. Is this all you guys got? This is really going to be funny in November. ok, why did Kerry lose? All the negative Bush bashing,
I HAVE A PLAN….never said what that plan was.
It really gets old. all this spinning and lies and totally twisting what people say. Your good solid base is sick of it.
IDEAS!! and please nothing like putting condoms on cucumbers in the classroom.
For a bunch as eager to kill perceived criminals and enemies without bother to sort the guilty from the innocent, they sure are clingy to the not-yet-living and the already-dead.
If the subject is Nazi Germany, perhaps I could bring up the “Night Of Broken Glass” at the WASH State Republican Party offices. Hmmmmmmm?? DON, Goldy? All this breaking of glass by National Socialists…..get it?, National SOCIALISTS, has been done before. Goldy, perhaps a little history lesson might help here.
Don is correct.
Odd how the bunch that can’t wait to slash Medicare and do whatever it takes to stop stem cell research (who knows..could that research have eventually healed Terri Schiavo?) is falling all over itself to usurp state’s rights and state courts to insert itself into the most personal of human family decisions.
“We want small, nonintrusive government unless we decide we don’t!”
white whine @ 2
They are attacking me. I must be doing something right. :D
JCH @4,
Okay, you want a history lesson? The Nazis were NOT socialists… they were fascists. Just because the word “socialist” appeared in their party name, did not make it so. Read “Mein Kampf” and then tell me Hitler was a socialist.
Certainly, Goldy. Hitler was very big on government intervention into private industry for “the greater good” much like the democratic party.
Goldy….In this and in the previous thread on the topic, there are two issues. The first is the degree to which Rep. Anderson’s remarks were insensitive and inappropriate, and how much he should be chastised for them; and the second, the pros and cons, moral and otherwise, of embryonic stem cell research. My sense is that your relentless pounding on Anderson, however much deserved, is blurring these two issues, with the result that two very different views opposing or questioning stem cell research are being lumped together, with an implication (even if unstated)that there is no difference between the two. There is a difference, and it is important that that difference be kept clear. The first view is the absolutist one; the view that says the murder of a 5 year old child and the destruction of a mass of cells which has the potential to become a human being, are moral equivalents. The second view does not agree and holds the first view to be repugnant, but opposes or has serious reservations about embryonic stem cell research on religious, moral or on scientific grounds. IMO.
Hitler was a socialist, Stalin was a fascist, Goldy.
JCH@4 People’s REPUBLIC of China… hmm, Republicans are secretly communists!
Man, if word games are the extent of your reasoning ability maybe historical argumentation is not your thing.
JCH @ 4
If you ask me — and it appears you’re asking me — I think the Republicans did it themselves. Took a page from the Nazi playbook, as it were.
Goldy..Finally you let one of my posts roll through your “filter”. In 1942, Herr Goebbels had “filters” just like yours to ensure only the “correct” view was heard. BTW, read Chuck’s #8. [He must be confused as well!]] Breaking glass, filters, Socialists [Democrat Progressives]……..Hmmmmm. “Everything for the state”, right, Goldy?
RDC @9
On embryonic stem cell research:
”The first view is the absolutist one; the view that says the murder of a 5 year old child and the destruction of a mass of cells which has the potential to become a human being, are moral equivalents.”
Thus you end up with the nutcases who kill doctors and bomb clinics. A legal wrong (their opinion) becomes grounds for engaging in an illegal wrong. Such thinking is the same one can apply for eco-terrorists.
”The second view does not agree and holds the first view to be repugnant, but opposes or has serious reservations about embryonic stem cell research on religious, moral or on scientific grounds.”
This is the point I wrestle with the most. I have serious reservations on all three and I can add a fourth: taxpayer funding. The taxpayer funding issue is a rollup of the other three issues, since it is the money citizens pay the government. True, there are many things I would like not to fund via our tax dollars, but an issue like this is problematic since it can potentially lead to the kind of moral equivalency thinking in your first view.
It is simple to say that the research community, drug companies and other private enterprise groups should pay for said research and reap whatever benefits arise from it. Let them fund it. However, this does not deal with the religious/moral argument. What limitations should be placed on the research, and can limitations on non-government funded research be applied, or at least, agreed to by lawmakers?
The issue is also a global one, since research is conducted in multiple countries. Each will have their own set of guidelines, and different consequences for transgressions (if there are any limits placed by the government). Certainly, the human cloning issue will be allowed (or at least, not banned) in another country.
I’m giving myself a headache on the potential ramifications I can think of right now…
Nindid…Educate yourself with #13………JCH
Why don’t we ever see the Irish Republican Army doing honor guard duty at the Republican National Convention?
Marks @ 14
I know that some of the latter is necessary, but I’d much rather have my tax dollars spent on research that might improve the lives of people than on more ways to kill people with new weapons.
Even though I don’t share them, I understand the moral, religious, and scientific reservations about embryonic stem cell research, in part because I am confident that such research, especially if it is funded with tax dollars, will get intense scrutiny. This is an argument in favor of government funding. It doesn’t mean all research will be under the microscope (hold the groan), because much is going to be done with private funds. But it will force guidelines to be developed for that which is tax-funded, and these will be useful for monitoring others. But on the other hand….
when Gregoire made her proposal for using tobacco-settlement money to fund such research, my immediate reaction was that this would not be a good idea. I think it is a matter of priorities and being true to the terms of the tobacco settlement; i.e., spend the money on kids health or education. But it is not an easy call. Spending money on this research could prove to be very beneficial for the state economy.
Where’s that aspirin?
RDC @16
“I know that some of the latter is necessary, but I’d much rather have my tax dollars spent on research that might improve the lives of people than on more ways to kill people with new weapons.”
Just for background information: Defense dollars are oftentimes used for defensive purposes. Much of which is centered squarely on protecting the soldier/sailor/airman/marine. I know. That is quibbling…
”Even though I don’t share them, I understand the moral, religious, and scientific reservations about embryonic stem cell research, in part because I am confident that such research, especially if it is funded with tax dollars, will get intense scrutiny.”
Intense scrutiny does not equate to moral/religious obligations of said taxpayer. I am reaching for another Advil.
I am not sure I can hold up my end of this debate without being forced into a sickbed…only because I am actually sick, and have to go to work tomorrow…
Continue later?
Carla@. Exactly. And that was pointed out to the YAHOOS last night during their session in a fierce few minutes by those who recognized the hypocrisy. One gentleman said, black children are going hungry while you ignore what could help our own, you ignored that and chose to single out Terri cause it is a political issue.
Marks @ 18
I can’t say that the “share them” sentence does me proud. The thought is what it is, but the sentence construction is really lousy. Reading it may have contributed to your illness.
RDC @20
No, I seem to have caught a cold or sinus infection. Your presentation of views has yet to offend me (never say never).
I don’t expect people to share my views on religion and morality beyond the obvious law-based society we live in. I can try to get my point across, knowing that some efforts are futile. I try, nonetheless…
We get so damn many newspapers that I can’t remember what I read in which, but there is a mention today in either the Times or the PI of Gregoire’s plan to use public funds as seed money for the biotech industry. I think the bill is now in the Senate; it hasn’t gotten much play in the press. I think this is tobacco settlement money, with a portion to fund stem cell research. Of the concerns about this research, the one that troubles me most is the question of whether or not public funds should be used to pay for it. Actually, the concern is narrower than that. I don’t like the idea of private individuals or companies reaping windfall profits from publicly funded research. I am no expert on this, but I know just enough to believe that the controls now in place to return a proper portion of revenue from publicly funded research to the public are inadequate. Being lazy and having other things to do, I don’t feel like looking into this. Maybe someone in our virtual world knows more and will enlighten us about this.
As to offensive views, there are only a very few of those posted on HA. What is often offensive is the manner in which the views are presented. Now stop arguing with me, you @#$%$#$*&%^ or I’ll (&*((*^$#&^*!!!!!!!!!!
RDC @22
Don’t know that I can answer directly:
“I don’t like the idea of private individuals or companies reaping windfall profits from publicly funded research.”
I may be wrong, but I thought that is the case based on law. If a University is researching something like stem cell, nuklear (sic per GWB), or public policy, their research falls under public domain unless National Security is invoked. What is done with those building blocks of data is not a matter of patent law or anything like it. Public funding is precisely that: Public. What someone does with it is up to them.
Which inevitably leads to the question: Why? A simple answer is constitutional. Public money comes from taxpayers. To further the point, a tenured professor, or several of them, with a large number of undergrads, and several graduate students working on their Masters usually spearhead Gov’t grants used by the University.
Any of these participants can apply their research to a new product based on the research done. Which is why so little is ever accomplished in a University, because the building blocks are manufactured, but the structures never get completed there. Too much money to be made elsewhere, and hell, if you’ve been working on something for years, why not get paid?
If that is how it works, is that a bad thing? Now, for me, that is a much better question to ask. And I think you are asking the same thing.
I may be wrong in my analysis, and if I am and you prove me wrong, then you are an a$$ :)
Marks..it’s awfully quiet in here. I think everyone else has left the room to follow THE court case of the new century. I think Puck had them pegged.
First I’ll say that I don’t know much about biology, giving you the option of dissing everything hereafter. And yes, we are asking the same question. But your first paragraph MAY be wrong. I think that when a researcher, let’s say a physician scientist working at NIH, develops something or discovers something that can be developed, that something would belong to the NIH unless she asks the NIH for personal ownership of (?) let’s say, a patent. Although the NIH isn’t required to grant her petition, it can and often does. Supposing that this is true, is it right? What are the options? Perhaps a change in law would be required, but the agency could retain the patent itself and go into business, returning profits to the public. It could sell the patent to the highest bidder, like broadcast spectra and mineral rights leases are sold, returning the money to the public. It could also prohibit the scientist from exploiting the knowledge after leaving the agency, by retaining the patent. There are alternatives to the present way of doing business. To some extent universities are already in business…University Medical Center and Harborview are examples. Anyway, it is interesting to think about. My concerns are probably just visceral…the system we have now does seem to work quite well. If it isn’t fair, well then, maybe I should get myself a lucrative patent based on research paid for by your tax dollars.
Mark…since we are alone here and I don’t run the risk of being assaulted with all CAPs and !!!!s, I can tell you I just found another reason one should avoid being a Republican in this state, comment @ 3 on Goldy’s newest blog.
You A$$!!!
But you are right. With my firm, engineers are granted the patent name (a form of scientific aggrandizement) while the royalties go to the company.
I wish you great success with my tax dollars…
btw – I love humor, and there is no higher form than Larry and Curly and Moe…
That last was said in context to your #25…life goes on, for some of us..
Oops. Insensitive…
A last word (not THE last word; I’m with Eliot. The last word will be a whimper)…and in reference to your not too oblique reference in the preceding comment, I glanced through some of the late entries in the Open Thread. I think we are of different views on the Schiavo torment, but I decided not to post anything there, the din being deafening. I don’t know with certainty that we are of opposing views, because I don’t really know how the law being followed reads. I’m fully satisfied that the law is being followed. I noted also that you made reference to a living will somewhere in those tens of thousands of words of virtually spilled ink. One of the saddest things about all this hubbub is that the sad story of these tormented people is likely to be repeated, in quieter, out of the way places, needlessly. Even when no one challenges a husband’s or wife’s or other loved one’s decision to not invoke heroic measures to keep the loved Other alive, absent a living will, the person making that decision, and others, could be weighed down by what-ifs for the rest of their lives.
But I disagree with you about the rule of law being paramount. Most of the time, yes. But not always. Ask any of the founding fathers. That is why I am not contemptuous of the people who are so vocal about their belief that a great wrong is being done to the family of Mrs. Schiavo. Unfortunately, it is impossible sitting here to know which people are acting and speaking out of sincere, deeply held convictions, and which are being opportunists or acting on other less than laudatory impulses. Anyone who has slandered the husband, without having proof beyond any doubt that he deserves the slander, I would put in the second group, and if there is a God, I hope He has jotted down their behavior in His Ledger. Compassion seems to be in very short supply with some of these folks. Enough of this…I leave you with the sure and certain knowledge that my Durable Power of Attorney and Health Care Directive are signed and sealed and I hope will forever gather dust where they are now filed.
Well, I suppose you are right, as you invoke the founding fathers. However, my point was the deference paid to rulings based on actual law. In my own fact or fiction view, I see a court making a ruling which has cleared (by refusal to hear) the highest court in the land three times prior to this, and soon to be a fourth IMO.
I am of the opinion that if the parents wish to care for Terri, they need agreement from Michael, but somehow that did not take place. I don’t understand it, but the court made the ruling based on law. Hence, here we are with the innuendo and falsehoods being posted on the Open Thread and the new one that has exceeded 140 posts now.
Perhaps there could have been some Solomon-esque ruling, but it is likely we don’t have judges with enough wisdom, or their hands are indeed tied by the boundaries and intentions of our laws. Not being a lawyer makes relying on the court that much easier, as does not allowing passion to enter my logic process on this matter. Perhaps that is not such a good thing?
Invoking the Founding Fathers is kind of like a very fundamentalist friend of mine saying, “It’s in the Bible”, isn’t it? Not really a very good arguing point. If you get or have access to the Washington Post, yesterday’s edition, or today’s Seattle Times, Charles Krauthammer argues the same point I was trying to make. This makes me nervous, because Charles Krauthammer has, in my recollection, never even come close to being right about anything. Anyway, he argues the point that there are times when the law yields the correct legal result, but not the right one, and cites the case of Mrs. Schiavo. I think he is wrong in this instance, but his argument is a good one. As an aside, I will note that he would be more persuasive had he taken up the same argument for the cases that have come to light where a person has been convicted of a crime, has exhausted appeals, but new information shows that the person didn’t commit the crime. It is extraordinarily difficult to get those cases reopened; so difficult, in fact, that I have no doubt that there has been and still are such persons serving time or even facing capital punishment. Again, the law yielding the correct legal decision, but not the right one. Throw in a little Thoreau to the mix, and you’ll get my point. See, I didn’t need the Founding Fathers after all.
Also, I think in the sad case of the Schiavos, you are correct. The law resulted in the correct legal decision, and the right decision. Also, I am confident that most people who have thought about this in as dispassionate a way as possible, acknowledge that even if they disagree with the court rulings, it is a very close call, and that there is no clear answer to what should be done.
To get back to my and Krauthammer’s point (the association makes me shudder), contrast the laws used to decide the Schiavo matter with the laws used to return runaway slaves from the North back to their owners in the South, or laws used by totalitarian regimes to deprive opponents of, sometimes, their lives (I’m trying hard not to bring up the Nazis here). Bad laws have been passed and enforced for nefarious purposes, here and elsewhere, yielding results that aren’t all that difficult to see are wrong. Conscience in such cases demands resistance to the rule of law. (Geez, I sound just like a ……..FF).
I have no compunction over this, other than the over-zealous aspect:
”For Congress and the president to then step in and try to override that by shifting the venue to a federal court was a legal travesty, a flagrant violation of federalism and the separation of powers. The federal judge who refused to reverse the Florida court was certainly true to the law. But the law, while scrupulous, has been merciless, and its conclusion very troubling morally. We ended up having to
choose between a legal travesty on the one hand and human tragedy on the other” Charles Krauthammer
It is good thinking in the abstract, much like my thoughts on the ultimate penalty imposed by the government.
I understand some of the intricacies of capital punishment as applied in current situations. Very simply, an over-zealous prosecutor can send a person to death row on a song. For me, if a person is sentenced to die for a crime, after being prosecuted by an overzealous DA, and having run out of appeals, that person is put to death, there had better not be evidence which surfaces proving that person is innocent, or sufficiently muddying the “beyond a reasonable doubt” clause. That is one reason (among illogical others) I am against such an ultimate penalty, save for the clearly guilty (Brian Nichols of Atlanta courthouse shooting fame, Tim McVeigh, and Osama come to mind).
I am in Texas right now. It seems every other night there is another “scoundrel” put to death. I have plenty of outrage over each. My representative lemmings dutifully file my written objections in their conveniently round holding apparatus which is emptied nightly. On occasion they actually send me a thank you letter for being active in the process. I file them where I think they belong as well.
Such is life, and in this case, death. I do what I can, even at the massive expense of logic required. Not that I am always logical…or right.
“(Geez, I sound just like a ……..FF).”
Sorry, I’m clueless on this…
Sorry about the ….FF. My wife is on your side. She often accuses me (with maybe a little justification) of putting her in the position of having to read my mind to know what I’m thinking.
The FF was just a stand-in for Founding You-know-whats.
I’m pleasantly surprised by your stance on capital punishment. Many, probably a majority, of Republicans have a “hang ’em high” mentality. If we are going to use capital punishment, the standard of proof should be beyond any doubt, and it should be used very sparingly. Texas seems to be in a universe of its own on this matter. But keep fighting the good fight. As the Chinese say, constant dripping wears away the stone.
On logic, illogic, reason, and faith. On faith I confess (almost of term of faith itself) I have almost none of the religious kind. As a youth, maybe a bit precociously, I wrestled with all the questions most people have wrestled with, questions about meaning, first causes, and all that. There is a line in Walter van Tilburg Clark’s great novel, The Oxbow Incident, that nicely sums up my own thoughts: “…I’ve seen, yes and done things that make me believe that if God is interested in men it is only in large numbers and over the course of time.” (fr. memory, so may be a little off). Believing this has been very liberating for me, when I compare myself with those I know who fervently believe in an interventionist diety. But I am rambling and becoming self-absorbed.
No one is always right, and always being logical (always following reason) might get one to the wrong place. I’m thinking of Hamlet’s admonition to his friend…”there are more thing in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in you philosophy.”
I don’t remember the quote exactly, but Leibniz said something to the effect that reason itself tells us that there are truths beyond reason. I agree with Shakespeare but not with Leibniz, but still, his (Leibniz’s) is a very large mind to have on your side. My view is that there are not truths beyond reason; there are only truths our reason has yet to discover.
I have one hope for good coming out of Congress’ attempt at intervention in the Schiavos private matters, and that is that having had all these levels of court reviews will diffuse the hatred and anger that has been directed against the husband and his attorney, and thus bring to his senses any nutcase who may have been planning to do them harm.
Correction…I have two hopes. This may be insensitive given the very sad circumstances, but I’m hoping the Republicans in Congress suffer from this in 2006. Power has corrupted the GOP, and the country will be better off if the Ds regain control of at least one of the two chambers.
Just clarification,
I do not want accolades for my opposition to the death penalty, as it is rooted in principles a bit more complex than simply being pro-life. Notice I use no caps on pro-life, because that is not my entire focus. As I noted, the death penalty can be applied in extreme cases, such as the monstrosity McVeigh committed in the name of a cause I still do not understand. Similarly, my opposition to abortion has limits involving circumstance (rape is one key consideration, as it involves lack of an individual choice).
Perhaps I deserve honorable mention instead? The death penalty is simply not a fiscally responsible way of carrying out justice in most cases. A simple 25 to life sentence is just not as costly to procure and have hold up in review.
In many jurisdictions, there are stepping-stones for a city/county prosecutor on the move into a state-wide, or even federal (appointed or elected) office. The “proper” resume includes how many convictions, and how many times one successfully convinced a jury that death, even in the absence of physical evidence (i.e. Scott Peterson), is the proper sentence. If you want to carry this conversation (or one of any other subject) offline, feel free to send an email my way msberry at ix dot netcom dot com. I have a spam filter, so be sure to send a follow-up request. I will continue to enjoy your thought-provoking posts either way…
As to a potential power shift in Congress, you may be right, and I find myself at times wishing for a (politically) divided government again. It worked better than expected under Reagan, Bush 41, and Clinton. Even the brief Senate control when Sen. Jeffords tossed his allegiance to the
IndependentsDemocrats was better than what we have had of late. Naturally, I remain optimistic that Republicans can figure out they are screwing up, and need to return to some semblance of my party. I think Delay departing would be a step in the right direction. As Newt was a lightning rod, so is Delay…and, perhaps, worse.Goldy –
Unhang me, please.
Or not, now that I think about how such wording could be misinterpreted…
Now that is more inscrutable than FF had even any hope of being. Let’s see….unhang…Oxbow Incident? Naw……
Patience, please! Perhaps if I call Goldy “G-man” again…only for the censorship factor, of course…
I should have figured out what was going on with the Goldy post. That has happened to me only once, but it is very frustrating.
Thanks for the email offer. My reservations are two, neither having to do with the company: time and anonymity. At the present, self-imposed demands limit my time. I also like the anonymity of a blog, where one is known only by a pseudonym or initials plucked from the air. Not that mine is a household name; I’d say it’s well-known in about a dozen or so, maximum. On the other hand, dodging the slings and arrows of Cynical, or the Floyd R. Turbo like emanations of Chuck make it difficult to carry on a dialog with any one on a normal post. But I’ve jotted down the address, and may hurl a thunderbolt your way in a couple of weeks.
I like exchanging views with a true conservative. Who else would support imprisonment over the death penalty because it’s cheaper?
It likely is also just as effective as a deterrent to others. My view is that the fear of penalty is a non-factor to those committing capital crimes. On the topic of crime, my opposition to the three-strikes law in our state is not on principal ….anyone who doesn’t understand after two convictions that serious misbehaving is a no-no deserves to be put away for a long time…but instead because it keeps people who are elderly and very unlikely to commit another crime in rather costly housing. Call me a conservative.
The danger to democracy in this country has always been from the Right (this is not to say that the Left can’t be overreaching). I don’t know why this is so, unless it has something to do with the way in which the country was settled, and by whom. This is preface to saying that I’m sure if you pondered a bit more you would come to an understanding of McVeigh’s cause. What is really frightening is the number of potential McVeighs in our midst. Odd, isn’t it, how the Right is so schizophrenic. In one state of mind it is like McVeigh–hating government and wanting to destroy all but the bare bones–libertarians gone beserck. In the other mind is the current GOP leadership, mouthing the smalll government line while expanding the size of government and of the government’s power to become Big Brother to the country’s citizens. Fortunately, neither of the two minds will be able to mount a viable candidate for president in 2008, unless someone unthought of now comes forth.
Time to go. It’s a little sick when the clock that tyrannizes you is one of your own making.
I had to do some thinking over putting that info out. In the end, I decided to for my own edification on issues that still befuddle me. Sort of a way to avoid the minefield you describe above.
Naturally, anonymity has some great advantages. Indeed, I could change my name, and who but perhaps Goldy (based on the IP from Texas), would know? But I put it out there, and must rely on my ISP to intercept anything nefarious.
”Odd, isn’t it, how the Right is so schizophrenic. In one state of mind it is like McVeigh–hating government and wanting to destroy all but the bare bones–libertarians gone beserck. In the other mind is the current GOP leadership,[…]”
I think that is a bit over-simplistic, to say the least, particularly when dealing with the interesting times we live in. I have no doubt that it has a partial basis in truth, given which states provide the majority of support to the GOP. I cannot speak for the trash of the party. Certainly you have seen the posts of the one whom Goldy must hold before posting. The racism and myopic beliefs held within them sicken me, and if that is my party in total, I want none of it, thank you. But I do not think such is the case. Either party has a wacky element…or more than one.
As to the GOP leadership, I would (and do) say 2 things to them: First; you are the party in power, and must lead. Please do so, but don’t get sidetracked by self-aggrandizement or worse. If you wish to remain in power, remember that there are more problems needing solved than the one(s) you have a self-interest in. Second, related to the first; nobody is vital to the leadership (i.e. Newt, Lott, Delay). Clean the house as necessary…
On the other hand, there is the Democratic leadership. Where are their ideas beyond “We’re not Republicans?” Is this where the opposition claims media bias for not advertising what they stand for? I remember, year after year, the GOP claiming the same such thing while they were the minority party. For the Democrats, I say: First; instead of waiting for the implosion of the majority, why not make some bold policy points? Second, also related to the first; keep the ideas mainstream…or at least have them emanate from somewhere other than the Massachusetts Supreme Court (cheap shot, but illustrative, perhaps?)…
Doubt that is all encompassing, but it might be a start. Naturally, I am just an engineer, so what do I know?
Sorry, failed to comment on this:
“[…]but instead because it keeps people who are elderly and very unlikely to commit another crime in rather costly housing. Call me a conservative.”
You are
rightcorrect, of course. I will have to think on just what age is the limit. Any suggestions?Regarding the Jekyll and Hyde nature of today’s GOP, I was focusing on those actually running the national party. If the focus is narrowed thus, my comments did not oversimplify matters, but the metaphor wasn’t a good one. I take it back. They are opposite sides of the same coin; both wings want to impose a narrow ideology on the rest of us, with the emphasis on impose. There are of course many Republicans who are decent folks trying to do the right thing along traditional Republican ideas, but they are not in charge. The likes of DeLay, Hastert, Frist, Rumsfeld, and the President are in charge, aided by an apparent majority of the Republicans in Congress. There are good people in the party, but they are not in charge, and not very likely to get the support of the fundamentalist Christians and grasping I-want-everything-I-can-get-and-to-hell-with-everybody-else-money-mongers who form the hard care of support for those now in power in Washington. I wish I were exaggerating or oversimplifying. The people in power in DC bear no resemblance to Eisenhower or even to G.H.W.Bush. Even Newt Gingrich looks like a choir boy next to Delay. Gingrich may have been cunning, but he was also smart, with a fair knowledge of history. Delay is merely cunning and corrupt. I think the hope for Republicans like yourself does not lie in the national party, but more in people like Schwartzeneger and Guliani. The question now is, can anyone with moderate, traditional Republican views get nominated by the party, let alone get elected.
As you point out, the Ds have problems of their own. I was pleased at Howard Dean’s election as Chair of the DNC. He has some backbone, and that post is a great place for someone with principles, passion and fund-raising ability. McAullife was a great fundl-raiser, but a little short on the other two qualities. As to offering alternatives to GOP proposals, as you acknowledged, the Ds are acting pretty much like the Rs did when they were out of power. Also, I don’t think the Republicans have been all that good with policy issues…essentially we’ve had war and tax cuts and assaults on the environment since 2000. The Homeland Security Department was, I believe, a D proposal (whether a good or bad one is debatable). Obviously I have a very low opinion of the current Congress and the Republican administration. It’s not that the administration is Republican; it’s more that it’s NOT Republican. I don’t know what it is, but it’s action have imperiled our health, our safety, our economy, and our future.
There, having vented for lo these many lines, I can get to the important part of this post….answering the question of at what age prisoners should be released from their captivity because they no longer pose a statistically significant risk to society. I think that is the answer…look at crime studies over a, say, 10 year period to find at what ages various catagories of crime are committed. Rape, for example, probably is almost never committed by someone over 70. I’ve heard this idea; i.e., early release before, but it never gets much discussion. The counter argument is unanswerable. It is the argument that if even one of those released commits a crime of violence, the experiment would not have been worth the cost.
And I support marriage for homosexuals; or, more accurately, I don’t oppose it. When I first heard of the notion, my reaction was negative, but after thinking about, I really could come up with no convincing reason for the state not to sanction it. What the churches do is their own business. We have in our neighborhood two couples, one couple female, the other male, who own their homes and go about their lives like the rest of us. If they want to get married, I can’t see where their doing so would harm me or the nation. But don’t look for me in any gay rights parade.
Well, I just let fly a long rant into the void, apparently. It didn’t show. Perhaps it went to gussie up a bit before going public.
Re 41 above…it really was a long rant; discipline declines and passion rises in the night.
David Brooks (today’s NYT)has you pegged as a social liberal. What do you think about that?
I will read Brooks later. As the NYT’s sole conservative columnist, I’m sure with the pressure he is under it means he will misfire on occassion.
Just a couple of thoughts, as our current thread will eventually go into Goldy’s archive and we will have to find another dusty and disused thread to ramble on about things…
I do not doubt Dr. Dean will be a good fundraiser. As you said, the previous occupant seemed to lack character (my interpretation). I did not think he lacked passion though. Dean will surely add more passion and, as a former Governor and doctor, the character seems to be there as well.
I will need to do some homework on the age of release. As you say, the price is too high when judged against commission of a crime on a victim…
Finally, on marriage. My uncle in Berkeley, CA lives in a non-traditional relationship. I believe he and his partner should have the benefits of state sanctioned unions. The semantics is more the problem for me, though the result is exactly the same. As I told my wife when she and I were discussing the gay marriage bans which passed in 11 states this last election cycle, and what it meant for the heterosexual populace:
It appears marriage is ours, for as long as we are able to stomach it…
Brooks argues two views, moral conservative and social liberal, and finds this result:
“No wonder many of us feel agonized this week, betwixt and between, as that poor woman slowly dehydrates.”
No, I do not see much to disagree with in Mr. Brooks’ column, and it meshes more or less with my opinion @30. Not that being a social liberal is a bad thing, so long as it is arrived at with thoughtful deliberation. Perhaps a healthy dose of moderation should be added, but that is just me…
A couple of random comments. Never apologize for being an engineer. If reincarnation did happen, in one of my lives I’d like to try engineering or architecture.
“Perhaps a healthy dose of moderation should be added…” (forgive me, I don’t know how to make italics on this thing). Well, moderation in the pursuit of freedom is no virtue, and extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice, or something like that (thank you, Mr. Goldwater). I am so much a social liberal that I’m in bed with the libertarians. Interesting, that juncture of interest between otherwise disparate political philosophies.
“It appears marriage is ours, for as long as we are able to stomach it.” Nice one. Did you thank Mr. Franklin? I would think that in Berkeley your uncle’s relationship with his partner wouldn’t seem non-traditional. Of course, my advice is to get over the semantics. If we were to start over, I’d make marriage a church word, and civil union a government term. Then the sanctity of heterosexual unions could be protected by whichever religious denominations wished to do so. Of course, I wouldn’t want my sister to marry a gay man.
Today has been a Seattle day; dark and cool and rain that never gets to a pour but is always more than a drizzle. God help me, I love it. (Thank you, Mr. Patton).(and thank you, Ecclesiastes, for pointing out to us that there is nothing new under the sun).
On early release for old-timers. I wasn’t as clear as I could have been. There has always been calculated trade-offs in the criminal justice system. Parole is the most obvious one. We have parole for prisoners even though we can calculate that a certain percentage of the parolees will commit acts of violence. We continue having parole because it has, apparently, more than enough benefits to our society to compensate for the rare violent act. One would think that the risks to society from early release of elderly prisoners would be even lower than for parolees, and that there would be enough benefits (savings which could be applied elsewhere for the public good; the deterrent effect these elderly ex-cons might have in convincing others to stay straight; reuniting of families…of course, this could cut both ways…and so forth). I think it is an idea the state should investigate. Liberals would be in favor, but there would be considerable initial opposition from conservatives. The fiscal rewards might provide a hook for them, though.
On the one who Goldy must give each post passage rights. My view, of course, is that there are more people of his ilk on your side of the political spectrum than on mine. I was really taken aback by some of his comments. It doesn’t take a board certified psychiatrist to tell that the person he hates most is wearing his shoes.
And finally, David Brooks and the NYT. I bristle when Republicans label the NYTs as part of the liberal press. The NYT is so middle-of-the-road it sometimes is tedious to read. There has been, admittedly, a large shift to the right in the politics of the country beginning with Richard Nixon’s election, but even with that, there are no major papers in the country I would consider to be liberal, not even editorially. Not even the Seattle PI. We, we liberals, went wrong somewhere…probably in Vietnam. I think David Brooks fits into the middle of the road nature of the paper. He’s a bit right of the center line, balancing, say, Paul Krugman, who’s a bit (but only a bit)left of it. Friedman is slightly right of the line, and Nicholas Kristoff (I hope I got the name right) is on the line itself. Herbert is slightly left, and Maureen Dawd is very hard to catagorize. Brooks is soon to get some complany on the right side of the line, but I can’t remember his name. I was very happy to see Safire go; he’s a much better lexicographer than political columnist.
On Brooks’ column. I put you on his-defined social liberal side because following the law in this case was making process paramount. I’m with you…I thought it was the correct thing to do. I also thought it was the merciful thing to do…on that we may differ. What bothered me about Brooks’ column is that he really doesn’t give an alternative to following the law. His column I thought revealed a stronger leaning toward the social conservative side than the social liberal one. This is a case where he can’t have it both ways; he can’t be for saving Terri Schiavo’s life, such as it is, without advocating civil disobedience. For probably the only time in my lifetime, I’m more in tune with Charles Krauthammer than with David Brooks.
You will get the last word here. I will respond either by picking up some item in another post, or sending an email your way. But it may not be immediate; my candle burns at both ends…
Beg pardon, but I will not be following things in order on this post, and only selectively addressing others:
The NYT is more liberal than, say, The Dallas Morning News. Is that an acceptable way to put it?
“he’s a much better lexicographer than political columnist”
On that I agree without reservation. His writing had instructed me on a number of terms and how to properly use them. “Peruse” is one I can think of right of the bat. The use and pronunciation of “forte” is another, which leads me to:
“Did you thank Mr. Franklin?”
Unfortunately, I do not measure up to your knowledge (Philosophy major?). I had made the assumption (oops) that I was the originator. Perhaps I had heard/read it back in my days as a student…As to my uncle’s arrangements, I failed to mention he runs a commune, but I figured Berkeley would conjure up the image anyway. More to the point, he has always been my favorite uncle. Before Jerry Garcia died and the end of the Grateful Dead, he took me to a concert. I was in the service at the time, and was more than a little worried that the contact I had with the clouds of billowing smoke (none of it came from tobacco) would show in a urinalysis. It did not. The concert was an experience I was glad to have participated in.
I share your analysis of the poster, and I am not sure whether it was my vocal disgust over him that led to his current treatment, but I can’t think of anyone who needs treatment (for a variety of issues) more than he.
My last point is some pointers for you on HTML. In order to create italics or bold, you need a basic primer on HTML TAGS. I was so envious of the folks who could do it that I finally did a Google search on that term. If you look at the “Comments” box below, you will see some characters at the bottom. Those are the allowed formatting, but do not explain how to do it. Go here. Funny, it is a Berkeley link…
Just testing
There is a tide in the affairs of men
that taken at the flood lead on to fortune