Richard Cohen wrote in the Washington Post that Stephen Colbert’s performance at the White House correspondents’ dinner wasn’t funny… and he’s entitled to his opinion, wrong as it may be. But of more interest are the 3,500 angry emails he got in response.
But the message in this case truly is the medium. The e-mails pulse in my queue, emanating raw hatred. This spells trouble — not for Bush or, in 2008, the next GOP presidential candidate, but for Democrats. The anger festering on the Democratic left will be taken out on the Democratic middle. (Watch out, Hillary!) I have seen this anger before — back in the Vietnam War era. That’s when the antiwar wing of the Democratic Party helped elect Richard Nixon. In this way, they managed to prolong the very war they so hated.
The hatred is back. I know it’s only words now appearing on my computer screen, but the words are so angry, so roiled with rage, that they are the functional equivalent of rocks once so furiously hurled during antiwar demonstrations. I can appreciate some of it. Institution after institution failed America — the presidency, Congress and the press. They all endorsed a war to rid Iraq of what it did not have. Now, though, that gullibility is being matched by war critics who are so hyped on their own sanctimony that they will obliterate distinctions, punishing their friends for apostasy and, by so doing, aiding their enemies. If that’s going to be the case, then Iraq is a war its critics will lose twice — once because they couldn’t stop it and once more at the polls.
Can’t say I disagree with Cohen on this one.
Yes my fellow leftys out there, control your rage or, better still, direct it only at those who have no need to listen to you because they never were sent to represent you anyway. Do not hold those with whom you placed your trust to account for their culpability for the wrongs that have been committed. You may prevent them from returning to the scene of their crimes to do more harm. What BS!
How convenient it is to forget that thousands have stood in the streets to protest the evil that currently resides in the Whitehouse while our Democratic representative (save a brave few) sat silently – perhaps ashamed of their own actions, or just simply afraid for their re-election bid. But we know that it is not enough to challenge the other guys when you can’t even keep your own guys playing on your side.
To so many, it is simply about the power. But we know that it is what good can be accomplished with that power. It is not just about a majority but about who represents us in that majority.
Be quiet you angry leftys. After all, it is only an unjust war and the forsaking of your civil liberties, and a nod to the subservience to the corporate personage. When we have a majority, you won’t even notice those things as you shall be greeted as liberators.
Peace,
Chad (The Left) Shue
The problem is not the left wing “angry” loonies , it is that the Democratic Party has lost it’s way and has played it safe by capitulating to the Republican Party . I think alot of Democratic politicians thought they could go along with the war machine and the war would be over before they would have to answer to their constituencies .
Fill in the blank , far left radicals is an easy one to villianize , but how about angry retirees that are get hosed by Medicare , angry Katrina victims , angry aids activists , angry “no child left behind ” radicals , how about the social service that is being disrupted or destroyed by a Republican majority with acquiescent Congress .
You know it takes two wings for a big bird to fly , a right wing and a left wing . What would you do without a left wing ?? Why, you would soar in circles or crash . What strikes me the most is how many “mid-wing” Democrats are willing to help the Republicans marginalize the anti-war crowd . Like war ain’t a bad thing . Like people who vote for war shouldn’t be held to account . It is not the anti-war crowds fault that the money that could fund any viable progressive vision you could imagine for this nation is being poured on the sands of Iraq and evaporating . So why are we the bad guys ?? Demonized by anyone who wants to take a shot at us because we oppose the policy of “total war” . I don’t have the answer to this one , we are all going over the waterfall in the same bucket it appears . But letting our duly elected officials get away with murder , no genocide, is not a song out of the Democratic songbook that I know the words to . Marginalize us if you will, but when the Republican War Machine rolls over your values and you look around and there is no one there to support you , remember the Democratic Party chewed off the end of it’s wing out of fear and tossed it to the wind .
Sure, Goldy. I remember when the loony lefties took the democratic party WAAAAAAAYYYY out into the desert on civil rights. Before that, the right to unionize, etc., etc.
Richard Cohen is currently clueless: “They all endorsed a war….”. Fer christ’s sake–he was ONE of them! Anybody who takes Cohen seriously is wasting bandwidth.
And by the way: In ’68, even if the protestors had waved flags for Dickie Daley and marched to the polls for the shell of a brave politician that Hubert Humphrey had become, Nixon would still most likely have won the election. He had the numbers….but then Cohen can’t even get his history right.
Looks like Dems aren’t the only ones who are angry. Well known republican Joe Scarborough, ex-Congressman, has a show on MSNBC and he spent the whole show attacking Bush last night. Here’s a cool excerpt.
“Joe: …I’ve learned from this White House, that when things change these days, they almost always change for the worse. Let’s face it. When one out of three of your own party wants you to lose control over Congress, it’s time to take a long look-at the enemy within.”
In a poll taken yesterday, 65% of respondents said that they’d rather have Dems in control of Congress and here’s the main point, 33% of Republicans said THEY’d rather have Dems control congress! I’ll take my chances on the Dems any day on this one.
When I read complaints about the angry left and how uncivil they are, I can only wonder if the author has been asleep for the past several decades and even now has blinders that somehow hide the angry right. The angry right is far scarier because the right controls the government, so it has no reason to be angry yet it has the ability to act on its anger.
If Richard Cohen hasn’t been flooded with right-wing hate mail recently, it’s only because he rarely says anything that will offend the right wing — certainly not because the right is unfailingly polite and free of wackos.
I don’t think this situation lends itself to “either-or” thinking. Yes it is true that angry people tend to do stupid things. The American left does have a habit of mindlessly demonizing Democratic centrists. Most lefties fail to recognize that they generally can’t win an election — even at the local level — without significant support from those damn centrists. Alas, maintaining ideological purity in their little knitting circle is apparently much more satisfying than actually taking the reins of government and implementing their agenda.
That said, Cohen seems to be engaging in a subtle game of “marginalize the left.” You can frequently see that at play with D.C. insiders who find the rise of various types of grassroots organizing to be threatening. This is understandable: The Democratic establishment and the MSM have lost power and control with the rise of the web as an alternate fundraising and communication tool. Labeling a movement “angry” (or its language “inappropriate”) can be a way to justify not letting them sit at the adults’ table.
Beyond that, let’s acknowledge that there ARE many things to be angry about. Global warming is an example of a problem of unprecedented scale that cannot be retroactively fixed. Ross Gelbspan says the Republicans’ do-nothing approach to climate change represents a crime against humanity. Is Ross “too angry” to think straight? I think not.
And, what were the angry e-mails that Cohen received about?
That he, and the all the White House press corps have been stenographers for the Bush administratios for the past five years. In so doing, they assisted Bush to rush us to a war that has proven to be antithetical to the announced reason for it (to stop the spread of terrorism) and that the rest of the lies that Bush has told have swallowed hook, line and sinker.
BTW, the reason blogs are so popular is because guys like Cohen are untrustworthy. Are you now sucking up to them, Goldy?
Cohen is a wingnut. Why did anyone expect him to respond favorably to criticism?
He wrote a half dozen condemnations of Michael Moore’s last movie, each one more strident and screechy than the last.
I am sure he honestly did not find the truths included in Colberts comedy bit the least bit funny. We see that cognitive dissonance here all the time among the wingnut posters.
A friend of mine who teaches university level creative writing has promised to use the video to teach irony as a writing style to his dimmer students.
Also, Ken Mehlman, Chair of the GOP spoke to a convention of state party leaders the other night where he said that Republicans will lose at all levels of government this fall.
The quote would be more accurate as follows:
Now, though, that gullibility is being matched by “Bush” critics who are so hyped on their own sanctimony that they will obliterate distinctions, punishing their friends for apostasy and, by so doing, aiding their enemies.
Now that’s what I am talking about!
Sounds to me like what Goldy is referring to is a strategic issue: a possible split in the Democratic vote — for example, a November protest vote against Cantwell, whether it be for a Greenie or so-called Libertarian, based solely on her Iraq stand — that would keep control of Congress in Republican hands. I don’t think Goldy is agreeing with Cohen on the moral issues involved.
Goldy, Cohen is an idiot who cannot handle his suddenly realized and well-earned irrelevance, and therefore he is lashing out against people who he perceives to be his former constituency.
Ignore him and let’s get back to work.
When the pen meets paper in the voting booth this fall, all of this anger and frustration will be properly channeled where it belongs – against Bush and his enablers, and for anything that promises a different course.
Democrats may be divided between the grassroots and the beltway over the war, but we’re all pulling the same direction this November – joined in unprecedented numbers by independents and responsible Republicans.
At this moment in history, removing the neocons from power is all that matters.
I agree with you Goldy – the anger is the “I’m as mad as hell about this administration and Bush, and I’m not going to take it anymore” kind, and we simply haven’t had enough of it. This is a cathartic expression that is energizing opposition so much earlier this next election (and I mean 2008) than it did the last. Consider it the battering ram. 2004 was the first bash, 2006 will be the second and 2008 will be the final breakthrough and King George’s castle comes tumbling down around him.
AMERICAN HEALTH CARE KILLS BABIES
Just a day or so ago, Mark the Wingfuck had the audacity to claim America’s health care is second to none (or words to that effect), in a misguided attempt to defend America’s dysfunctional profit-driven health care system.
Turns out, when measured by infant mortality, America’s health care is second to everybody’s except Latvia’s. America has the LOWEST infant survival rate of ANY modern nation.
“U.S. Newborn Survival Rate Ranks Low
“By LINDSEY TANNER, AP
“CHICAGO (May 9) – America may be the world’s superpower, but its survival rate for newborn babies ranks near the bottom among modern nations, better only than Latvia.
“Among 33 industrialized nations, the United States is tied with Hungary, Malta, Poland and Slovakia with a death rate of nearly 5 per 1,000 babies, according to a new report. Latvia’s rate is 6 per 1,000.”
(This story probably is copyrighted. If you want to know by whom, click on this link: http://articles.news.aol.com/n.....38;cid=842 Don’t expect ME to look it up for you — I’m not your fucking research assistant. I’m a fucking bunny rabbit!)
So folks, here’s the Republican plan: MAKE women carry their infants to term, so they can be KILLED by our lousy health care instead of abortion doctors. That way, the sanctimonious bastards who call themselves “pro-life” can lie to themselves about being “Christians.” Won’t save them; they’re all going to HELL anyway.
Two years and counting, and Dave Reichert still doesn’t have a plan to HUG rabbits.
Well, Goldy , you haven’t learned anything from John McCain’s “making peace with the ‘religious’ right” to Gore’s loss to HIS DUNCIBLE,W, in 2000, to Kerry’s winning opf the Democratic nomination by breathing a little Liberal Fire in Iowa to his subsequent pussification as he ran his stupid middle of the road campaign.
The lesson has not been learned. It is this:
YOU CANNOT WIN WITHOUT THE REAL PROGRESSIVE LEFT , SO YOU BETTER STOP WORRYING ABOUT PLEASING THE MIDDLE CLASS BECAUSE IT’S DISAPPEARING.
We on the Progressive left take our Jeffersonian Democracy seriously. How ’bout you Goldy?
As one of those who wrote Mr. Cohen (my email was civil), I think he is off the mark once more. It isn’t my custom to write media types – it was the second time I had done so.
Colbert didn’t just take on Bush – he took on the media establishment. Colber was rude by conventional standards. But the point was that Colbert was sending Cohen a message, and Cohen didn’t get it. That was why Cohen’s inbox was full. The idiot STILL doesn’t get it.
We want investigative journalism. We want reporting that respects the facts, and doesn’t consist of unfiltered spin points. We watched his paper aid Bush in his deceptive push to war that has destabilized the globe, cost us hundreds of billions of dollars, and untold lives. His paper aided in subverting democracy. At least the NYT has given this some small reflection.
And, when he wrote about Colbert, he acted as if this administration, and this bash with his media friends, was just business as usual.
It is unfortunate that some were rude, but that is the reaction to the betrayal by his paper. WE WANT ONE THING FROM THE WASHINGTION POST: FOR THEM TO DO THEIR JOB. That is the source of the anger. Apparently that’s too much for Cohen to comprehend.
5
“The angry right is far scarier because the right controls the government” Commentby KCinDC— 5/9/06@ 6:20 am
Not exactly. The angry right is far scarier because it’s far scarier. Back in the 50’s, they wanted to pre-emptively nuke the Soviet Union. During the Cuban Missile Crisis, they wanted to start a nuclear war. In 1980, they wanted to nuke Iran. In 2006, they want to pre-emptively nuke Iran. They want the death penalty for shoplifters. They want the right to lynch blacks. In short, they want to turn their psychopathic wet dreams into government policy, and government action.
13
“At this moment in history, removing the neocons from power is all that matters.” Commentby D Huygens— 5/9/06@ 8:27 am
Not exactly. Finding a way to keep the neocons from rigging the voting machines matters just as much. All the angry voters in the world won’t count for a hill of beans if the Republicans take the ballot boxes home and count the votes themselves.
For all the GOP hooting about “election stealing” and “voting fraud,” we all know who the election cheaters and frauds are. Look no further than Katherine Harris, Ken Blackwell, and the braying jackasses who supported Rossi.
17
Gore didn’t lose to W in 2000.
Rabid 15: If you add in the babies killed before birth the US would look far worse. Why on earth would you not add in the snuffed-out babies to put it in perspective?
Just out of curiosity – what’s this with the “Impeach Bush” movement? Is it just an attempt to get even regarding the Clinton/Lewenski thing? Do the proponants of impeachment really want “Shotgun Dick” as President? At least during the Watergate years they had enough sense not to start the impeachment proceedings of Nixon until after Agnew was forced to resign first.
Save your money and your time, spend it instead to make sure we have a Democratic Congress in November. Most say the Democrats have a shot at the House, but not the Senate. I think things are bad enough for the Republicans now that both houses of Congress are in play – there may be no real “safe” district. Once Congress is in the hands of the Democrats, then start the investigations of Shotgun Dick’s energy roundtable, the Republican efforts to dismantle FEME prior to Katrina, the failed government response to Katrina, no-bid contracts, etc.
If you’re not angry, you’re not paying attention to the politcal events of the last 5 1/2 years or have more loyalty to Leader and Party than the US Constitution.
Am I mad? Hell, yes! You should be, too!
From now on, I’m only going to throw gas on the fire that represents the 31% of the traitors who still think Bush is doing a good job and jackasses who won’t, or can’t admit their “party of ideas” has literally been take over by criminals with different ideas.
Jezzzus H. Christ, how stupid or unpatriotic do you have to be to continue believing in the leadership of the republican party?
Rabid 15: AMERICAN HEALTH CARE KILLS BABIES
Rabid is wrong, as usual. A few more clicks and the truth can be found. If anyone with about a second grade education could find – it is not really healthcare that would improve the situation. The CDC recommends things like:
“What can Healthcare Providers do to Help Reduce Infant Mortality Rates?
Health care providers should advise their patients about factors that affect birth outcomes, such as maternal smoking, drug and alcohol abuse, poor nutrition, stress, insufficient prenatal care..”
Also, the main determination of infant mortality is race. As everyone knows, abortions are OK for population control and outnumber the infant deaths, so there is really nothing to complain about. And the fact that blacks kill their young at a much higher rate pleases all of the Margaret Sanger supporters. All the democrat strategies are fulfilled by more babies dead, as well as higher gas prices to reduce urban sprawl and polution, and dead soldiers to help lefty turnout in elections.
Fellow liberals: take heed in Richard Cohen’s words. After all, a busted watch is right twice a day.
@ 24:
I agree, throwing the word “impeachment” is premature at this point. Getting at least one house of Congress back is priority #1 just so we can get our country back on the right legislative course.
Naturally, a Democratic controlled Congress will exercise their Constitutional duties as a “co-equal” branch of government and provide oversight of the Executive Branch. This may include investigating any potential wrongdoings by the Bush administration. But, no articles of impeachment can even be considered until a full and through investigation of the facts are done first.
If there were any impeachable offences uncovered through legitimate and necessary Congressional investigations, then and only then, can articles of impeachment be considered.
The reality is, the American public is gullible, but only to a certain point, they, we, know that there is a high likelihood that Constitutional laws were broken by the Bush administration. And, that any investigation thereof would certainly lead to articles of impeachment.
Republicans know they’ve gone too far and the timing for all this bad press couldn’t come out at a worse time. Particularly, if Karl Rove gets indicted. That would bring the crimes directly to the Oval Office and that would eliminate any cover for Bush.
Jackass @23
I have frequently posted my personal opposition to abortion (based on my personal moral and religious beliefs) on Horses Ass. How many of those posts didn’t you read? All of them, it seems.
It’s true, however, there are major differences between my thinking on the abortion issue, and that of the braying right.
I’m against murder, especially the murder of defenseless children. But I don’t see how a single-cell fertilized egg is a “child” or a “human being.” We can safely say it is a living biological organism. But an egg that was fertilized 24 hours ago doesn’t look like a human being and certainly is not a sentient, thinking, feeling, creature that is aware of its existence.
If you read the Roe v. Wade decision, you will find the Supreme Court struggled mightily with the question of when does a cell, or cell mass, become a “human being” whose life is entitled to legal protection. After drawing on the best ideas offered by experts in the fields of religion, science, and ethics, they admitted they could not answer the question.
The Terri Schiavo case posed the same problem in reverse: Here you had a biologically living organism in a human body that once was a sentient, conscious, thinking, feeling human being — but her brain had turned to liquid slush. She, according to medical experts and any reasonable logic, was no longer a sentient human being; without a functioning conscious brain, the part of her body that survived was no more capable of thinking, feeling, or being aware of its surroundings or existence than a fence post.
Some people nevertheless had ethical and/or religious problems with the idea of ending the life of what was left of her. For the most part, they were the same people who have problems with ending the life of a cell, or cell mass, that has the potential to become a sentient, feeling, thinking human being if left alone. Whatever belief system, ethical ideas, or religious precepts they base this on, I understand their misgivings and respect their beliefs, and above all, I respect their right to their beliefs.
But that doesn’t solve the problem. We still have to answer the essentially political question of when should society intervene with its laws to protect “human life?” It’s problematical when you can’t get people to agree on a definition of “human life.”
I agree the law should not let mothers kill their babies because the child is inconvenient. I’m very uncomfortable with the notion that a fetus does not become a “human being” until it is freed from its mother’s body by the mechanism of birth; that is an arbitrary cop-out too easily used to merely avoid the difficult analytical questions outlined above. I don’t know the answer to those questions, or even if there is one.
The Roe v. Wade court expressed discomfort with the idea of aborting third trimester fetuses. I probably would support extending legal protection to third trimester fetuses. In my thinking, that doesn’t mean they can never be aborted, it means they ought to be entitled to due process, which entails a hearing and a judicial decision on whether the interests of the mother (e.g., saving the mother’s life) outweight the interests of the fetus (i.e., preserving the incipient human life).
Beyond that, I hope for a society in which abortion will no longer be an issue because no one will want abortions. I don’t think you can prevent abortion by passing laws against it. Prohibition, we have learned, doesn’t work and ultimately is a poor use of society’s resources and counterproductive. If you want to eliminate abortion, you have to do it by creating a value system under which no one wants abortions. You can’t do that be abusing people who believe differently from you. If it can be done at all, it has to be done by positive persuasion — by making the reasoned case for your moral beliefs. And if you’re serious about persuading people that abortion is the wrong solution to the personal pressures and problems that drive desperate women to abortion clinics, then you have to stop opposing the social support systems that make it feasible for them to have their babies and raise them. Moralizing against abortion on one hand, while opposing government-supported child care and child support enforcement programs on the other hand, will not get you very far.
While many of my fellow liberals make much of the hypocrisy of right-wingers who oppose abortion but support the killing of human beings via the death penalty and war, I really don’t think the fact right wingers are hypocritical about human life answers any of the questions that are really germane to the question of whether society should sanction or prohibit abortion. I think warmongering is morally wrong, but the fact a warmonger may oppose abortion doesn’t ipso facto make abortion morally right. Any analytical thinker ought to be able to see that. I think the ethical questions surrounding abortion can be dealt with more competently if those other issues are left out of the abortion debate and dealt with as discrete issues.
Geez, a lot of venom for Cohen (and Goldy too). For all the criticism of Cohen ‘not getting’ Colbert’s message, how about trying to get Cohen’s message? As much as some around here may not like it, he has a point, and Goldy, for one, is ‘nuanced’ enough to see it. Seems like a lot of black and white thinking by folks who can’t stand it in others but don’t have a problem engaging in it themselves.
The Democrats have a golden opportunity to make some huge gains this year, and if they don’t, they’ll have only themselves to blame.
Anger is one of the necessary stages of grieving. For anyone who loves this country, grief is an appropriate response to the trashing of American principles, ideals, values, and reputation that we have witnessed over the last 5 1/2 years. As with any stage of grieving, our anger will move to a more productive state of mind, hopefully before November. In the meantime, criticizing the Left’s natural anger toward those complicit in shoving our nation over the precipice seems a bit pointless. Cohen is also wrong in equating anger with hatred. I’d prefer to see the Left’s anger as arising from righteous indignation rather than hatred. I don’t wish ill to our friends on the Right. I just don’t want them in charge of public policy.
-That’s when the antiwar wing of the Democratic Party helped elect Richard Nixon. In this way, they managed to prolong the very war they so hated.-
Which is so typical for political suicide-obsessed lefty Dems and Green Party crazies.
When all is said and done, real issues (such as war) that affect real people simply don’t matter to these self-centered fringe types – it always has to be about THEM and their SCREWED UP LIVES and how they FEEL about some damaging thing that HAPPENED to them that they never got OVER and how – as such – they FEEL SORRY for everybody who CAN’T LIVE IN THEIR WHITE ENCLAVES and DRIVE VOLVOS and TAKE VACATIONS to Europe and S. America.
“Who cares if we ignore the ramifications, and jump off the cliff with Ralph Nader and Aaron Dixon? We won’t be able to overthrow capitalism until things get a lot worse.”
Well, thanks to the lefty-loosey set, at least those right wing creeps over at SP have some good news to toss around in their echo chamber.
-How convenient it is to forget that thousands have stood in the streets to protest the evil that currently resides in the Whitehouse while our Democratic representative (save a brave few) sat silently –
Those protests are a lot more about you lefties doing some serious navel-gazing (just read the mish mash of signs at each one of these misfit festivals) Mr. Shue, than they are about actually AFFECTING change.
And since you leftist clowns GOT BUSH ELECTED IN THE FIRST PLACE, I would imagine that guilt complex of yours would cause you to do at least something, no matter how pitiful and pointless it might be.
GOP Prisonwatch
GOP PRISONWATCH
It’s Tuesday; which Republican is headed for the penitentiary today?
Ohio Rep. Bob Ney’s Chief of Staff Neil Volz pled guilty yesterday in the Jack Abramoff scandal, admitting to “…a conspiracy to corrupt Ney, his staff and other members of Congress with trips, free tickets and meals” over a period of more than four years, both as Ney’s chief of staff and afterward, when he left to work directly for Abramoff.
The trips to Ney and members of his staff included golfing at the Old Course at St. Andrews in Scotland, the Fiesta Bowl in Tempe, Ariz., Lake George in New York state, and New Orleans in 2003, according to court papers. There were regular meals and drinks at Abramoff’s Washington restaurant, Signatures, the unreported use of Abramoff’s box suites at the MCI Center Arena, now named Verizon Center, and Camden Yards baseball stadium in Baltimore for campaign fund-raisers, the court papers added….
“The purpose of the conspiracy was for defendant Volz and his co-conspirators to unjustly enrich themselves by corruptly receiving, while public officials, and providing, while lobbyists, a stream of things of value…. The intent, said the court papers, was “to influence members of Congress in violation of the law.”
The court was told Ney, who last week won the Republican Ohio primary, agreed to sponsor legislation to assist Abramoff’s clients and to stop legislation that hampered them.
Papers filed in the case identify at least twelve actions by Ney on behalf of Abramoff.
Volz faces up to five years in prison and a $250,000 fine. The penalties could vary, Huvelle said, depending how helpful Volz is in the government’s ongoing investigation of influence-peddling involving lawmakers, their aides and members of the Bush administration.
As for Volz’s boss, “…Only Justice Department prosecutors know whether Ney will be indicted, and they’re not talking.”
Ah, Abramoff; like a bad case of herpes, the kind of gift that keeps on giving.
Although Bush claims not to even know Abramoff (just as he seems to have forgotten his chummy relationship with his biggest campaign contributor, Enron master thief Ken Lay) “…A few days after Bush made the remarks about the photo, Abramoff expressed surprise in e-mails to a magazine editor about the president’s faulty memory.”
Abramoff must have been quite surprised, as he personally raised over $100,000 for Bush’s campaign and Secret Service logs show he and his employees visited the White House an eye-popping 200 times during Bush’s first 10 months in office. As Keith Olbermann noted, this meant Abramoff or one of his employees was in the White House every business day of the year 2001.
But then, if Bush can’t even remember details about catching the largest perch in world history, why should we believe him about anything else?
To be fair, Bush really has set a quite remarkable world record.
Volz must be rather envious, as he won’t be seeing much of the great outdoors anytime soon.
30
Your reasoning looks good on paper, Kyle, but the reality is the so-called “left” is not a party or even a coalition but simply a convenient label for a broad array of folks with strongly-held beliefs who have significant differences with each other on many issues. It may be that, faced by a common enemy, they can make common cause for a limited time in pursuit of broad objectives, but even Bush can’t make their differences with each other go away.
Republicans have an easier time with party unity because their followers tend to buy into a hierarchical, top-down, authoritarian belief regime. Liberals are liberals precisely because we want to think for ourselves and reject the notion of setting aside our personal beliefs for the good of a party or candidate. To get progressives to act like Republicans, you would have to make them Republicans.
Thank God progressives are not Republicans.
Just take a look at how successful the Republican Party became when they were able to merge their Big Corportations, Inc. / Country Club base with their Talibangelist base.
In the end, neither half of the GOP had to cave in in any of their “values” – all they had to do was to pretend to like eachother, withold the “righteous anger” and contempt each side had for eachother (the CEO’s with their 4 trophy wives, and the religious zealots driving their rusty Datsun pick-up trucks held together with Jesus stickers) – and smile for the cameras at the convention.
Hey – I can pretend to like left-wing, anti-capitalist wingnuts and uphold my half of the bargain. But, since the Greens and lefties seem bent on political suicide, and focused primarily “making a statement” rather than winning an election (ever) that ain’t gonna happen any time soon.
31
I think it’s important that we never forget Americans are no inherently better or worse than the rest of humanity simply because we call ourselves “Americans.” It’s tempting to think our culture forestalls the kind of thinking that leads to the genocides and dictatorships afflicting other parts of the world, but our history argues otherwise. There is a segment of American society that is perfectly capable of following a Hitler, and is perfectly capable of committing the same crimes as the followers of Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, etc. — and we must never forget it. In particular, militaristic nationalism is just as ugly and dangerous in the mind of an “American” as it is anywhere else; and blind ignorance is just as destructive in American politics as it was in Europe, or is in present-day Africa. Human nature is the same everywhere.
While it wouldn’t look good for a Demo. presidential candidate to look angry, it is fine for the Demo. base to be angry. Indeed, the anger gap is the major reason why Bush won both times, invigorating Repub. volunteers and voters. One of Gore’s many failings in 2000 was his failure to get the Demo. base angry or at least seriously motivated about the outcome. Only when the anger gap is narrowed do the Demos. have a chance to win nationwide.
Roger @ 35: “To get progressives to act like Republicans, you would have to make them Republicans. Thank God progressives are not Republicans.”
No offense, but aren’t some progressives acting JUST LIKE far-righties with the “my way or the highway” approach?
What’s better? Getting your way 100% of the time with no ability to actually change things, or, say 50%, and actually having some power?
Am I mad? Hell, yes!
Commentby GBS— 5/9/06@ 9:30 am [……………………………………………………………Are Democrats angry? Gee, what a surprise! As long as they “gots da guvment check”, and have a couple cases of Marlboros and Black Velvet, I thought they were happy campers.
Roger @ 35: “To get progressives to act like Republicans, you would have to make them Republicans.
No offense, but aren’t some progressives acting JUST LIKE far-righties with the “my way or the highway” approach?
Commentby Kyle Broflovski— 5/9/06@ 11:38 am [………………………..Kyle, Isn’t progressive just another word for communist?]
VERMILION, OHIO — A man is scheduled to appear in court Tuesday for a drunk driving charge. He says he never should have been charged in the first place because he was on a lawn mower. It’s his third drunk driving arrest in six months. The first time he was in a van; the next in a car. This time he decided to hop on his 20-horsepower lawn mower. ~SNIP~ The lawn mower was towed. […………………………………………………………………………What he SHOULD have said, “It’s 3 AM, my name in Kennedy and I’m late for a vote”!!!!!! hehe, JCH]
Roger
I surely agree with you that “Americans are no inherently better or worse than the rest of humanity” and that we surely have those among us who would fervently follow some contemporary Hitler on a nationalistic crusade. Hell, JCH, YO, and Mark the Redneck provide daily and ample evidence of how despicable and xenophobic Americans can be. So, of course, launching wars to promote our values is not wise. On the other hand, some of our political ideals as Americans–due process, equal protection, one person/one vote, the right of privacy–are worth emulating elsewhere (not that we ever had a monopoly on such ideals). Thus, when here at home we have a government that could give a good goddamn about such ideals, there is plenty of room for anger.
“CHICAGO (May 9) – America may be the world’s superpower, but its survival rate for newborn babies ranks near the bottom among modern nations, better only than Latvia.
“Among 33 industrialized nations, the United States is tied with Hungary, Malta, Poland and Slovakia with a death rate of nearly 5 per 1,000 babies, according to a new report. Latvia’s rate is 6 per 1,000.” …
So folks, here’s the Republican plan: MAKE women carry their infants to term, so they can be KILLED by our lousy health care instead of abortion doctors. That way, the sanctimonious bastards who call themselves “pro-life” can lie to themselves about being “Christians.” Won’t save them; they’re all going to HELL anyway.
Commentby Roger Rabbit— 5/9/06@ 8:49 am
What does the “rabbit hugger” Darcy Burner think about the high infant mortality rate in the USA? Does she blame it on Dave Reichert and the Republicans? She should blame it on Bill Clinton and the Democrats, because he was President at the time.
Cohen and Goldy are correct on this issue.
It is funny to read the “lock-step” responses from the fringe lunatic LEFTISTS who fail to see this conduct LOSES votes!
You KLOWNS remind me of a FLOCK OF PERVERTS WITH PALSY TRYING TO DRAW A VAGINA ON AN ETCH-A-SKETCH!!!!!!!!
According to John Dean the Democrats are laying low on the impeachment talk because if they win the House in
’06 and impeach Bush , it is pretty much a given that Cheney will go down with him.
And with the Democrats controlling the House, say hello to President Pelosi. Hastert will be cold toast by then.
re 45: Fellow Lefties: Look who agrees with Goldie. That famous stategist himself: Mr. ( Cynical ) Irrelevant.
Get ready for PERMANENT irrelevance, Mr. Irrelevant.
Apache Fog—
You are typical of the problem with LEFTISTS. You spend all day, every day seeking revenge…..rather than developing sound solutions on difficult issues. You desperately want to be in charge….but are KLUELESS about PRECISELY what you will do. You are happier than a bunch of retards at a Chucky Cheese when things are going bad for Bush and the Country….yet you offer NOTHING specific.
If you want to win….spend more time developing a plan Americans will embrace and less time dreaming like Apache Fog!
Cohen and Goldy are correct on this issue.
BIAW’s BOZO: I’m for Cantwell – not because I like her all that much but because I believe McGavick would be a disaster for this state and the country.
Are you going to change your tune now?
CHICAGO (May 9) – America may be the world’s superpower, but its survival rate for newborn babies ranks near the bottom among modern nations, better only than Latvia.
Commentby Roger Rabbit— 5/9/06@ 8:49 am [Er……………………….RR, I wonder if black Democrats and crack have anything to do with this story. Naaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa, It’s must be Bush’s fault!!!!]
KLUELESS and Apache Fog—
I’ll bet you 2 idiots wipe before you poop…..which doesn’t make any sense (just like every single one of your posts!)
Mr. Cynical, Would you like to add the name Kennedy to your “comment name line”? Then you would be Mr. Cynical Kennedy and answer to no one!! Join Rufus Kennedy, MTR Kennedy, and JCH Kennedy. We do as we wish, and the Democrat sheep shut the fuck up!!! I’d post more but it’s 3AM and we are all on our way to vote!
re 48: “…sound solutions”!!!!!!! Give me a break!!
Name one sound solution to anything that this administration has come up with besides dragging the country and its citizens down in the dirt to enrich 1/2 of 1% of the population of this country?
Why, Irrelevant, must you always talk in terms of class warfare? All we want is for the people who are not paying their fair share of taxes to pay it. And , yes, 90% is MORE than fair , so go to political hell.
You can tell how confused the trolls are by how long it takes them to develop a counter-attack.
Did you all need to go to Free Republic to get some new talkingpts
Gordito de los Alberto, May I see your papers???
Gordito—
90% Tax Rate is more than fair???
You sound envious of wealthy people my friend.
Envy can eat you up like cancer. I got an idea……….
If you want to be rich, work hard and RISK CAPITAL!
If you want to be poor, keep doin’ what you are doin’ which is pissin’ and moanin’!!!
Since you LEFTIST PINHEADS think you can do better than those currently in power, it is up to YOU to lay out a SPECIFIC PLAN on all key issues……
Immigration.
Iran
Iraq
N. Korea
Engergy
Take a stab at it Gordito. Oooooooops, I forgot, that would involve thinking on your part!!!!! And taking a stand. Standing for something other than more taxes for the rich is something you are incapable of.
You are a typical LEFTIST PINHEADED LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOSER Gordito. Your life is sprinting to the finish line and you are petrified by E-N-V-Y!!!!!!! Shame on you!
Yeah, like progressives are going to take advice on how to win from a republican? I don’t think so. In case you right wingers haven’t noticed, your daddy Bush’s DISapproval is 65% – worse than Nixon’s!
I think there’s virtually nothing Dems can do at this point other than win. People have seen the truth of republican government and they know it stinks. No matter how many times the Faux News Channel tries to tell you gas prices aren’t that bad, that Iraq isn’t that bad, that the deficit isn’t that bad, most Americans have demonstrated, ala the latest polls that they know when they are being lied to.
Goldy,
There’s a very simple rule to understanding politics in 2006. When you’re agreeing with Richard Cohen (or Charles Krauthammer for that matter), you need to take a step back and figure out where you went wrong.
People (and you in particular) mistakenly believe that the Republican movement over the past 30 years was just brilliant strategists like Karl Rove manipulating people into supporting the Republican Party. It hasn’t. It’s been the result of a growing anger towards social liberalization and globalization. Business leaders figured out during the Reagan years how to tap into that anger for their own purposes and they rode that anger to election after election.
Now that this movement has dragged this country down into the mud, the anger going the other way is starting to crest. If you think that this is somehow a bad thing for the Democratic Party, I’m sorry, but I have absolutely no clue what you’re talking about.
Roger Rabbit at # 29;
Thanks for your explanation on your abortion views. Is it merely a coincidence that your view pretty closely mirror my own, and I found your comment to be one of the more rational ones I have read on the subject on this or other boards for quite some time?
My only quibble is that I would extend protection as close to conception as logically possible. This is because, in my view, just because we cannot determine when life begins isn’t an excuse to throw it away. Where the life of a child is at stake, we should err on the side of life, rather than matters of economics or convenience. Where the life of the mother is in jeapordy, then “the right of self-defense” provides an adequate remedy.
But I refuse to allow the Republicans to use this issue to buy my vote. They have done nothing on this issue other than to shrug, and say “Its up to the courts, and if you keep us in office long enough, and let us appoint enough judges, we can eventually remedy the situation”. But it has never been a Republican priority – just a way to get votes at the churches. Every time they get into office, the first thing they do is give themselves a tax cut – that is their first priority. They use up all their political capital to reward their rich friends, and then tell the church folks – “Sorry, we couldn’t do anything this time, but vote for us again and maybe we can do something next time”.
Goldy,
Let’s bring this home, specifically Maria Cantwell. Is there ANY evidence that would convince her to renounce her war authorization vote? Is there ANY evidence that will convince her to turn resolutely against this travesty termed “the War On Terror”? If not, who has the problem?
Has Cohen written anguished editorials about the “my way or the highway” religious right is chasing the “center” away? Why not?
The centerist leadership of the Democratic Party has an historic opportunity. In the face of the worst administration this country has seen since Buchannan’s, they can adopt some of the themes of their agitated and angry base: National health care, tax reform, trade reform, education, environmental action, labor relations reform. These themes are broadly popular. Adopting them in some manner will salve the Left and give hope to the center. It’s happened before (cf. Progressives, early 20th century).
Instead, we are treated to voting for “credit card reform”, “no child left behind” (snicker), wars, harmful trade policies, “ending welfare as we know it” (more snickers), co-sponsoring criminal penalties for flag burning, and having Rupert Murdoch throw fund raisers for them.
It is agonizing to witness such political waste.
My advice: Leave the angry left alone. They’ve been kicked around pretty soundly since Andrew Jackson’s day. Concentrate your fire on the real enemy.
RR @ 29: “…..because no one will want abortions.”
I daresay Rog’ that the use of the term “want” here is somewhat misplaced. The line of those women who “want” abortions is, I would think, pretty damnned short.
Apache Fog @ 46: “And with the Democrats controlling the House, say hello to President Pelosi. Hastert will be cold toast by then.”
That isn’t going to happen, no way, no how. Not that Pelosi won’t be Speaker, that you would impeach AND remove from office the President and VP at the same time. One would resign before that happened and get their pick for President (see Ford).
Not to mention the harm done to the other Democrats looking for the top job in 2008.
thehim–
I’ve learned a simple less from you KLOWNS.
Don’t practice what you preach and do as I say, not as I do.
Isn’t that your game??
Ahhhh, I see the Konservative Krime Klown is posting again.
Tell us, Ms Chickenhawk, what’s it like watching the leaders of your party going to jail, getting indicited, becoming indicited or under criminal investigation?
Don’t bother answering; if I could care less I would.
I’ve learned a simple less from you KLOWNS.
Don’t practice what you preach and do as I say, not as I do.
Isn’t that your game??
Um, no. I have no idea what the hell you’re talking about. Yet even if you were fighting against some enemy that actually existed outside of your own imagination, isn’t it retarded to fight hypocrisy by being hypocritical?
Rabid 29: I have frequently posted my personal opposition to abortion
Real hard to tell when you comment as follows:
MAKE women carry their infants to term, so they can be KILLED by our lousy health care instead of abortion doctors.
A clear case of saying that abortion is much better than a 5/100000 chance of being dead after birth.
Save your “moral” opposition to abortion for stupid people who do not see what spews out of both sides of your mouth.
Rabid 29: After drawing on the best ideas offered by experts in the fields of religion, science, and ethics, they admitted they could not answer the question.
And should the decision not have erred on the side of life? i.e. assume the fetus is a person unless it is known otherwise?
“But I don’t see how a single-cell fertilized egg is a “child” or a “human being.””
There is no point where one can say your cell mass “changes’ into a person. The only reasonable assumption is that personhood is there from the beginning.
“It’s problematical when you can’t get people to agree on a definition of “human life.””
It is actually personhood that causes the disagreement. And as noted above, there is no other case where just law does not err on the side of life. Only in abortion and euthanasia does the left use politics to trump the rule of law and morals.
“Beyond that, I hope for a society in which abortion will no longer be an issue because no one will want abortions. ”
There is Clinton’s “safe, legal and rare” mantra. If abortion is OK, i.e. morally and legally fine, there is absolutely no reason it should not be encouraged. To say otherwise is the camel’s nose under the tent. If the unborn child is a person there is a moral problem with killing her. If a non-person there is nothing wrong with killing her. In fact, there is no reason to limit the killing personnel to the mother and abortionist – anybody can kill any unborn child if she is not a person.
“While many of my fellow liberals make much of the hypocrisy of right-wingers who oppose abortion but support the killing of human beings via the death penalty and war..”
The true pro-life position is against the death penalty. Supporting the death penalty is a hybrid position justified in part by the known consequences by the criminals subjected to it. It has been spurred on over time with the lefty push to release killers and dangerous sexual predators back into society. Euthanasia, and especially abortion claims victims who have done nothing wrong and are truly defenseless.
Although it is clear you have given more thought to abortion than most, one cannot truly think it is morally wrong and support the right of others to do it with the sanction of law. If, instead, the point of personhood was pushed up to 2-4 years old, and abortion allowed accordingly, the true illustration of the pro-life position would be more popular. Could you then say that you are opposed to killing a two year-old, yet respect the right of others to do it as long as the SCOTUS was not sure the toddlers were “persons”?
rhp6033 59: Where the life of a child is at stake, we should err on the side of life, rather than matters of economics or convenience. Where the life of the mother is in jeapordy, then “the right of self-defense” provides an adequate remedy.
Finally, a lefty with a bit of understanding on personhood and abortion. Good job. I mean, really good job.
Why should we consider Richard Cohen our friend? As far as I am aware of he has done nothing but push the GOP line. He is emblematic of many of the worst tendencies of the establishment media. And if history is any good as a measuring stick, Democrats have everything to gain and nothing to lose through hatemail campaigns. The GOPs seeting black hate for the press has got it nothing but accolades and cheers from the targets of their hate. Indeed, the press is so scared of being accused of ‘liberal bias’ that they take their bearings from the pronouncements of GOP pundits.
Proud to be an Ass makes cogent points in the latter part of his post @60. Disenfranchisement with their own party has generated as much Democratic anger as any other issue. The national leadership is so obsessed with triangulation that they dismiss the basic agenda and needs of the party base. Hilllary and the DLC seem to care more about flag burning and violent video games than they do anything else.
As for abortion. It is a morally confusing issue. Given the lack of certainty, the decision should be left to the mother. Even if you are extremely opposed to abortion you have little right to force that view on others. Many people are are opposed to abortion recognize that and take the pro-choice position.
A persons body is their ultimate property. Person A does not have the right to force mildly dangerous surgical procedures on Person B, even if such procedures would save Person A’s life. Why, then, should a clump of cells receive such a right?
Could you then say that you are opposed to killing a two year-old, yet respect the right of others to do it as long as the SCOTUS was not sure the toddlers were “persons”?
That is idiotic. Noone supports infantcide. Infants are clearly full persons. Attempting to tar the pro-choice position with the brush of infantcide is dishonest and disgusting.
Leftists would prefer full access to contraceptives for everyone; ideally noone should become pregnant without desiring it. Abortion rates would go down dramatically with effective sex education. But the so-called pro-lifers block such efforts at every turn and actively promote useless replacements. Incidentally contraceptives are the key building block for the “safe, legal, and rare” doctrine.
Let me also examine another point. Actual abortions are usually done early in a pregnancy, except when delayed by pro-lifer laws running interference or lack of access. The pro-life faction usually obsesses over the third trimester abortions which are almost nonexistent. Most procedures done in the third trimester is because of some fault in the process; the baby is physically or mentally dead. Heartrending to be sure, but there is nothing to be done about it.
Laws which delay abortions are immoral and medically unsound; they treat pregnant women as if they cannot possibly understand what is at stake. Indeed, much anti-abortion rhetoric focuses on women who have abortions ‘for fun’, as if there were such a creature.
Yup, Sandals. It’s all really about sex. The “moral” position on “life” is fraught with contradictions. These extremist moralizers will never admit it.
After criminalizing abortions, birth control is next. After all, how can you morally justify a decision to “prevent life”. I can hear it now.
Scandals 70: Infants are clearly full persons.
Not everywhere. There are many places where children are not considered “persons” until they are well into childhood.
As there is no clear definition for personhood any SCOTUS could decide, like in Roe, that the personhood of anyone is ambiguous. The example of 2-4 year-olds is surely an extreme example, yet you have no argument for why it could not happen here.
“Person A does not have the right to force mildly dangerous surgical procedures on Person B..”
Bingo. If the unborn child is a person your point undermines your argument. Unless you do not include dismemberment, etc. as a “mildly dangerous surgical procedure”.
The basic argument is whether the unborn child is a person. If she is a person nobody should be allowed to kill her. If not a person then anyone can kill her. If the personhood status is not definitely known then the law should err on the side of life.
“Abortion rates would go down dramatically with effective sex education.”
If there is nothing wrong with abortion there is no reason to not ENCOURAGE more of it. Otherwise you risk being hypocritical.
“Most procedures done in the third trimester is because of some fault in the process; the baby is physically or mentally dead.”
I am not sure extracting a baby that is already dead is considered an abortion. Please provide links to ANY information that indicates any groups or individuals on either side of the issue are against removing dead babies.
“Laws which delay abortions are immoral and medically unsound”
Only if the unborn child is not a person. Otherwise any abortion, delayed or not, performed for reasons other than to save the life of the mother, is immoral.
“Indeed, much anti-abortion rhetoric focuses on women who have abortions ‘for fun’..”
I have not seen much of this beyond the studies looking at 4+ abortions for the same women. Can you provide ANY links that justify your “much anti-abortion rhetoric”?
ASS 72: After all, how can you morally justify a decision to “prevent life”.
Pretty extreme and illogical. If you really believe “It’s all really about sex” why would the mean righties head in the direction where abstinance (preventing life) would be immoral”?
Does it hurt to talk out of both sides of your mouth?
“The “moral” position on “life” is fraught with contradictions.”
Only if the law errs on the side of death rather than life. Otherwise there is no contradictions. You are bemoaning a problem that is only there because of Roe.
“The basic argument is whether the unborn child is a person.”
Absurd.
“If there is nothing wrong with abortion there is no reason to not ENCOURAGE more of it.”
Logical fallacy.
ASS 75:Absurd.
Not. If the unborn child is a person she cannot be killed. If not, anyone can kill her. Roe said we do not know but we will allow it.
“Logical fallacy”
Not. If abortion is morally and legally OK there is no logical reason to discourage it. It is then a perfectly good method of birth control.
@76:
Not (1) Your conclusion does not necessarily follow from your strained premise. Therefore it is false.
Not (2) Same fallacy–different words. Please also apply your moral imperative to other means of reducing the numbers of “innocent life” (war, famine, oppression). You can’t. You won’t even try.
Does it hurt to realize you are a life hating hypocrite who has taken a “moral” position to merely serve a narrow political agenda?
“The basic argument is whether the unborn child is a person.”
Unnacceptable. The basic argument is about gender and power. It is also about accessibility to health care, freedom, justice, and basic fairness. The outcome sought is a fair, just, and effective social policy.
The outcome you desire is a narrowly based religious tyranny based upon an artifically defined moral imperative.
So Al,
Tell me, should frozen embryos at fertility clinics be “revived”?
If you were in a burning room and had a choice of saving a three year old child or a dish with 100 embryoes, which would you grab?
Cohen’s full of dreck. He’s just reflecting the MSM’s irritation and embarassment that they got caught with their pants around their ankles.
He seems to claim that just because we’re willing to let the moderates know where we stand, we won’t support them in the fall. NEWS FLASH: We ain’t that dumb! Better them than the alternative. (Well, maybe except Joe Lieberman…)
Al: If zygotes are persons, then why aren’t folks like you advocating a crash medical research program to reduce naturally occuring abortions? Life is life, right? Wouldn’t this be a “pro-life” move? Or, it’s only pro-death if it’s a consciously taken decision, huh?
My. How comfortably convenient. You fold your morals neatly and put them in the dresser every night?
ASS 77, 79, 81: “Your conclusion does not necessarily follow from your strained premise.”
It does follow. If the unborn child is not a person there is no reason anyone should not be able to kill “it”. Are you saying that only certain people should be allowed to kill the 100 embryoes in the dish?
“The basic argument is about gender and power.”
Not true, although that is the lefty argument. If the line we use for personhood is after birth how could the gender or power argument apply? Except, perhaps, the power for one person to kill another, less able “non-person”.
“If you were in a burning room and had a choice of saving a three year old child or a dish with 100 embryoes, which would you grab?”
The old lefty “who would you save?” exercise. If the unborn children are persons and all could not be saved, the effort should be to save as many as possible.
“Tell me, should frozen embryos at fertility clinics be “revived”?”
I take it by “revived” you do not mean from death. Yes, all persons should be treated equally. Again, if the unborn are not considered persons then anyone can kill them. So, do you agree that in the current legal and relativistic moral atmosphere that anyone can kill the 100 embryoes in the dish?
“..then why aren’t folks like you advocating a crash medical research program to reduce naturally occuring abortions?”
Are you saying that billions are not spent every year to reduce deaths from virtually any cause? And that there has not been significant progress in reducing deaths for adults and children? What is your point?
“Wouldn’t this be a “pro-life” move?”
Are you saying that deaths due to disease, accident, or by other “natural” means is the same as death at the hand of another? Would the moral issues be the same?
“You fold your morals neatly and put them in the dresser every night?”
I hope you do as well, assuming you also think it is wrong to kill innocent persons. We may not agree that the unborn children are persons, yet I hope we agree that persons should not be killed at the whim of another. Again, the disagreement relates to personhood, not as to whether innocent persons should be killed.
39
“No offense, but aren’t some progressives acting JUST LIKE far-righties with the “my way or the highway” approach?” Commentby Kyle Broflovski— 5/9/06@ 11:38 am
We don’t enforce it with spy agencies, police thugs, and torture chamgers.
43
“JCH, YO, and Mark the Redneck provide daily and ample evidence of how despicable and xenophobic Americans can be.” Commentby proud leftist— 5/9/06@ 11:57 am
I suspect all three — or (possibly) Kevin Carns in three of his incarnations — would eagerly pull on ski masks and participate in right-wing death squads (like the retrogressives in Latin America employ) if the opportunity presented itself.
44
“What does the “rabbit hugger” Darcy Burner think about the high infant mortality rate in the USA? Does she blame it on Dave Reichert and the Republicans? She should blame it on Bill Clinton and the Democrats, because he was President at the time.” Commentby Richard Pope— 5/9/06@ 12:01 pm
Don’t know, Richard. I don’t speak for her, so I can’t answer your question. Why don’t YOU ask Darcy? If you ask her nicely, maybe you’ll get a hug too — although I kinda fucking doubt it.
59
I have no quarrel with your defining “human life” as being closer to the fertilized egg than the third trimester. Basically my view is I’d define it as human life no later than the third trimester, which does not exclude an earlier point. I did say I don’t think a fertilized egg is a human life at the moment of conception, or 24 hours later. As to when a “cell mass” becomes a “child,” I’m open to reasoned argument.
61
Let’s not get bogged down in semantics, especially when the most visible proponents of “choice” use as their main argument the idea that women have a right to “control their bodies.” Is there compulsion working upon those who visit abortion clinics? Of course; no one goes there out of curiosity, or as a pleasure excursion. That doesn’t change the fact that many abortions are what you might call discretionary or optional, as opposed to medically necessary.
ASS 77, 79: Please also apply your moral imperative to other means of reducing the numbers of “innocent life” (war, famine, oppression).
I am not sure what your point is. Every person has the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Not many countries have laws based on those freedoms, yet they do for the basis of the pro-life position. Innocent persons should not be killed. War brings up many situations that are not black-and-white. (Like that one?) There we see attempts to sacrifice lives to save many more lives. Famine is unfair to the victims and efforts should be made to remedy it. Unfortunately, most of the famine victims suffer due to bad government, even when relief supplies are available.
“The outcome you desire is a narrowly based religious tyranny based upon an artifically defined moral imperative.”
Not at all. The outcome is a common sense understanding of “erring on the side of life”, something done in civil societies for centuries. Religion has nothing to do with defining personhood, although most have their own opinion. The philosophical argument is not so much what, exactly defines a person, but whether there is a hierarchy to the rights life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. There is. Life is higher than liberty, which in turn is higher than pursuit of happiness. It is wrong to take a life to attain your own liberty or pursuit of happiness. It is wrong to take away the liberty of another for your own pursuit of happiness. And the most important aspect is erring to the higher right. If it is undetermined when life begins, the only philosophical or moral option is to assume it is life, and protect it. All of the age-old lefty justifications for allowing abortions confuse the hierarchy of rights, as well as ignore the higher right. The “women’s freedon” ans pursuit of happiness are lower on the scale than the “life” taken.
62
The point you raise is an interesting one. For over 20 years now, I have been convinced that many presidents (especially GOP presidents) deliberately pick lousy VPs as “impeachment insurance.” I.e., “if you impeach me, you get President Quayle” or (“President Cheney,” or whoever).
Rest assured that it’s not lost on the Democrats that impeaching Bush would result in Cheney becoming president, unless they get rid of Cheney first a la Agnew. This might be a doable project, given Cheney’s links to the outing of Valerie Plane.
Rest equally assured that it’s not lost on Bush that if Cheney’s impeachment and removal means he’s next — and Bush would waste no time appointing some especially odious Republican as impeachment insurance. Bush would be thinking, “President Pelosi? No way. Let’s try President Gale Norton, or President Grover Norquist, or President Ralph Reed — one of those should do the trick.”
The Democrats, of course, understand that for impeachment to work they have to prevent the appointment of a replacement VP. There probably are ways to do so. I don’t know what they are. If they did, I certainly wouldn’t give the battle plan to the enemy.
67
I stated that I’m personally opposed to abortion on moral and religious grounds. What part of that is unclear or don’t you understand?
I also stated that Republicans’ stated “pro-life” stance doesn’t compute in light of their callous attitude toward health care for all and their support of militaristic nationalism and war, which kills human beings in case you haven’t heard.
69
“rhp6033 59: Where the life of a child is at stake, we should err on the side of life” Commentby AlGore— 5/9/06@ 3:34 pm
Why doesn’t this thinking carry over into erring on the side of peace, where the lives of many are at stake? Case in point: Should we invade Iraq because they might have WMDs, or should we be sure they have WMDs and means to deliver them before we invade?
Rabid 91: Case in point: Should we invade Iraq because they might have WMDs, or should we be sure they have WMDs and means to deliver them before we invade?
We did not invade because the world thought they “might” have WMDs. One of the reasons for the invasion was because they did have and use them, and Saddam could not account for destroying many of them.
http://www.carnegieendowment.o.....6-Iraq.pdf
Were only the neocons thinking this way?
“Iraq’s search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.”
— Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
“Hussein has … chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies.”
— Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999
“There is no doubt that … Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies.”
Letter to President Bush, Signed by:
— Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001
“We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them.”
— Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002
“We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country.”
— Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
“Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face.”
–Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998
Your question can also be answered with a local example – If a police officer is facing down a person pointing a gun at him, should the officer be sure the other’s gun is loaded before shooting?
“Why doesn’t this thinking carry over into erring on the side of peace, where the lives of many are at stake?”
It does. The lives of many should be considered in the context of the probability that many more, perhaps millions of lives would otherwise be in danger.
“What part of that is unclear or don’t you understand?”
That is easy to say, but in your case hard to enforce. If you were really against abortion in the sense that an innocent person is being killed, there should be no difference between abortion and the killing of toddlers. If you think it would be OK to kill toddlers if the law allows, even if you disagree, I would say you are not really against it. That is how your abortion stance appears – weak on depth.
68
“After drawing on the best ideas offered by experts in the fields of religion, science, and ethics, they admitted they could not answer the question. And should the decision not have erred on the side of life? i.e. assume the fetus is a person unless it is known otherwise?”
This may be a good argument in the fields of ethics, philosophy, or religion; but the law does not accept “assume” as a valid basis for determining legal rights. That’s not a comment on right or wrong, it’s a statement of how the law works.
“There is no point where one can say your cell mass ‘changes’ into a person. The only reasonable assumption is that personhood is there from the beginning.”
Your first statement is correct, but your assumption does not necessarily follow.
If the term “personhood” has a meaning different from “human life,” I’m not familiar with it. Perhaps it is a term of art with a specific meaning to those thinking in terms of God and a human soul invested with a divine nature. I’m a lawyer, so I think in terms of legal interests, due process, and constitutional rights. Roe v. Wade says laws prohibiting abortion are unconstitutional. A decision overturning Roe would not necessarily say unborn fetuses have a constitutional right to be born; more likely, it would say there is no constitutional right to abortion, and states can permit or prohibit abortion at their legislative discretion. Such a decision would resolve neither the moral conflict between proponents and opponents, nor the political question of whether our laws should permit, restrict, or prohibit abortion. To the contrary, it would open a Pandora’s Box of continuing political conflict, which now would be played out in 50 state legislatures instead of the courts.
“It is actually personhood that causes the disagreement.”
Not in my case, because I don’t use the term “personhood,” and have no idea what you mean by it. I think a “right to lifer” would say his disagreement with me is that he thinks society should prohibit abortion, whereas I leave it up to each individual to decide whether it is morally acceptable or morally wrong. That’s a pretty substantial difference of viewpoint. I believe very strongly that society has an affirmative obligation to protect vulnerable children, so if I thought all fetuses were “children,” I would be a right-to-lifer.
“As noted above, there is no other case where just law does not err on the side of life.”
Not true. Our laws elevate finality above certainty in death penalty cases. Inmates have been denied DNA tests using newly available technology before being executed. Conservatives on the Supreme Court have created a very high bar to appeals of death sentences based on new evidence by requiring inmates to prove “actual innocence.” Our death penalty laws err on the side of ending appeals and speeding up the execution process.
I could give other examples of where our law errs against life. For example, it errs on the side of presidential authority and against the preservation of innocent human lives that will be lost if a president starts a war on weak or flawed justification. The Supreme Court has long held that whether a war is “just” or even “legal” is a “political question” that courts have no jurisdiction to address, i.e., it is to be determined by the voters and election process, even when the voters’ judgment is factually and/or morally unsound.
“Only in abortion and euthanasia does the left use politics to trump the rule of law and morals.”
Well, if that’s all, I’m glad to see it. The right uses politics to trump the rule of law and morals in matters of war and peace, torture, imprisonment without charges or trial, corporate corruption, and so on. If Republicans gave a damn about either law or morals, they would be investigating the legal and ethical lapses of the Bush administration themselves. Instead, the voters are going to have to throw the Republicans out of Congress if they ever want to see any investigations of the corruption, lies, and failures of this administration.
“There is Clinton’s ‘safe, legal and rare’ mantra. If abortion is OK, i.e. morally and legally fine, there is absolutely no reason it should not be encouraged. To say otherwise is the camel’s nose under the tent.”
Nice stab at the classic wingnutian simpleton’s approach of painting complex and ambiguous problems in black-and-white. Doesn’t work in the real world, which was made in many subtle shades of gray. There’s a reason why God gave you a brain and a capacity for exercising judgment; put away your third-grade coloring book and use it. That’s why society paid for your education — if you have one.
“If the unborn child is a person there is a moral problem with killing her.”
Of course there is.
“If a non-person there is nothing wrong with killing her.”
Not so fast. What is your basis for that statement? Do we treat a fertilized human egg differently from a blade of grass or a grasshopper? A fingernail clipping also consists of human cells; do we ethically differentiate between clipping a fingernail and removing a fertilized egg from a woman’s womb? Why, how, to what extent, and how does such differentiate affect our social behavior, taboos, laws, and politics? You see — not so simple as drawing a line and saying, “person” on this side of the line, “non-person” on that side.
“In fact, there is no reason to limit the killing personnel to the mother and abortionist – anybody can kill any unborn child if she is not a person.”
Not true. Our laws may very well limit who can perform abortions in order to protect the health of recipients of abortions. Our laws do deny the father any legal right to interfere, in order to protect a perceived right of the mother to what the court called “privacy.”
“The true pro-life position is against the death penalty. Supporting the death penalty is a hybrid position justified in part by the known consequences by the criminals subjected to it.”
What the hell is a “hybrid position?” Is that another word for “waffling?”
“It has been spurred on over time with the lefty push to release killers and dangerous sexual predators back into society.”
Horseshit. Right-wing claims that liberals support the release of dangerous criminals into society are a manufactured myth — a lie. The primary advocates for the release of killers and sexual predators are the criminals themselves, and the lawyers who have an ethical duty to advocate their interests; and in some cases, their families and friends, although it must be noted that in some cases even their own mothers think these people should stay locked up. This statement is nothing but a blatantly dishonest partisan appeal to emotion.
“Euthanasia, and especially abortion claims victims who have done nothing wrong and are truly defenseless.”
Central to any ethical acceptance of abortion must be the notion that the aborted fetus is a non-sentient being unaware of its existence, incapable of thinking, and without feeling or perception. If you do not accept this notion as true, then you cannot find abortion ethically acceptable except in cases where it is necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother.
“Although it is clear you have given more thought to abortion than most, one cannot truly think it is morally wrong and support the right of others to do it with the sanction of law.”
There are several problems with this statement. First, it assumes that aborting an egg fertilized 24 hours ago is the same as aborting a fetus 24 hours before it will be born. Maybe you think all abortions are biologically and morally the same, but I don’t; I see a sliding scale. Second, even if I think abortion is morally wrong, it does not follow that I should arbitrate a moral standard applicable to everyone else. My moral judgment may be — in fact, is — based in part on a religious belief not shared by everyone else, and others clearly have a constitutional right to not have my religion imposed on them by law. Finally, some laws are not based on ethics and religion at all, in fact may be contrary to ethical and religious concepts or values, yet are considered necessary anyway. China, for example, which has the problem of managing and supporting a huge human population, has laws limited families to one child and forces abortions on couples exceeding their one-child allotment;
the justification for these laws, if there is one, arguably is societal survival.
“If, instead, the point of personhood was pushed up to 2-4 years old, and abortion allowed accordingly, the true illustration of the pro-life position would be more popular.”
Let’s say anthropologists stumbled upon a primitive tribe clinging to survival in a wild jungle that “culled” its children in the 2 to 4 year old bracket, in order to limit their population to the available food supply, and selecting the strongest individuals for survival and eliminating the rest. Would it be ethical for the anthropologists to interfere with this practice? Would it be unethical not to? What if their intervention destroyed the tribal society? Should the tribe be left alone — perhaps protected by establishing a preserve which no one can enter? Should missionaries be allowed to come in and try to “civilize” the tribal members? Should government agents come in and remove them from the wilderness, place them on reservations, and provide their needs? Was taking American Indian children away from their families and educating them in Indian boarding schools in an effort to convert them from “savages” to people capable of living successfully in Euro-American society an ethical thing to do?
“Could you then say that you are opposed to killing a two year-old, yet respect the right of others to do it as long as the SCOTUS was not sure the toddlers were “persons”?
Apart from the question of whether our society should interfere with some other society if their practices include the killing of their own two-year-olds, our society does not authorize or sanction the killing of human beings after birth except in the cases of war and the death penalty. (Euthenasia is not legal anywhere in the United States.) Suicide is not the killing of a human being unwilling to be killed by another human being; the question of whether a person has a “right” to kill himself is a related by qualitatively and analytically different question with different considerations and underpinnings. Some religions say suicide is wrong in all instances. Some ethical viewpoints argue it is wrong to force a suffering person to continue living against his will.
73
“Otherwise you risk being hypocritical.”
This doesn’t seem to impede wingnuts on any other subject besides abortion. Where is the moral outrage over torturing and killing innocent Iraqi civilians without a scrap of due process of law?
78
“The basic argument is whether the unborn child is a person.”
“The basic argument is about gender and power … accessibility to health care, freedom, justice, and basic fairness … a fair, just, and effective social policy.”
These are two competing (and mutually exclusive) views. The abortion debate indeed centers on whether our laws should reflect a moral imperative, or a right to choose the destiny of one’s own body. One camp says, you do not have a right to kill your unborn fetus; the other camp says, this most fundamental matter of whether to have a child is none of your business.
The problem of moral ambiguity was neatly captured by a movie I saw as a kid back in the 1950s. It was made in the typical Hollywood mold of that era — black-and-white, with simple props and backdrops, and good scriptwriting and character acting carried the film.
The setting was a court room, with frequent flashbacks to the events leading to the trial, namely a leaking lifeboat filled with the survivors of a ship sinking. The ship’s officer in charge of the lifeboat had to lighten to load, or the lifeboat would sink and all would perish, so he threw the men overboard one by one as the lifeboat sank lower in the water. In the end, he and the women and children were saved, and he was put on trial for manslaughter. The movie’s plot centered on what the jury should do — convict or acquit?
I forget how the story turned out. I don’t remember many details of the movie 50 years later, and I was too young when I saw it to reason through the ethical problem it posited, but my recollection is the film treated the ethical dilemma faced by the officer in a thoughtful and challenging way, and did not attempt to supply a pat answer. Years later, another film (which I have not seen), “Sophie’s Choice,” apparently attempted to treat ethical ambiguity in a somewhat similar fashion.
The real world is full of ethically ambiguous situations that are difficult to resolve. There are times when conventional moral thinking does not provide a useful frame of reference for the problem that must be solved. A pre-eminent example of this is, what if deterrence failed and Russia launched its nuclear missiles at us? With the Russian missiles on their way and Ameica’s destruction assured, should the president order a nuclear retaliation against Russia? Is there, at that point, anything to be gained by killing the entire Russian population? Should moral or ethical considerations even enter into this decision? Or should the president make good on our word that, if you destroy us, we will destroy you? Would not ordering the retaliatory strike resulting in the deaths of millions not constitute a supremely immoral act? Should the moral aspect be disregarded in the decision making process?
Now let’s take a couple of other scenarios.
1. In the early 1950s, right-wingers advocated a pre-emptive nuclear attack against the Soviet Union while they were still vulnerable and before they could acquire enough nuclear weapons to threaten the U.S. Was this advocacy unethical and/or immoral?
2. Is it unethical or immoral for the U.S. to attack Iran to prevent that country from acquiring nuclear weapons? Is the answer different depending on whether the attack is carried out with conventional weapons alone, or small “bunker buster” nuclear weapons are used? Does the ultimate nature of the threat posed by a hostile regime’s possession of nuclear weapons override the normal ethical or moral restraints upon action against a country that has not attacked us?
3. Would it be unethical or immoral for our government to kill Kim Il Jong of North Korea if we had the opportunity to do it?
Good series of posts RR.
I guess one of my main objections to the Pro-Lifer movement is that they claim absolute morality but really dont have it. If you draw it back far enough, if you force someone to have a child against her will you are probably ‘killing’ a future child that might have been born to a more financially, psychologically, and socially secure family. I don’t really draw a line between this potential person and the potential person in a clump of cells. I personally probably draw the line on abortion at the very, very late third trimester.
Gosh, I’m impressed. This thread has had far more than its fair share of reasoned discussion than I have become accostomed to on this board. I think this is the closest I have seen to a reasoned debate on the issue of abortion in some time. Certainly not everyone agrees, but the discussions were generally civil and cogent. Take a bow, everyone.
Roger Rabbit at # 86: I also am willing to reasonable arguments about where life begins. As I said, I will tend to err on the side of life beginning at its earliest stages, but I’m willing to look at contrary evidence. The problem on these debates is that even I recognize that we have to draw a line somewhere, whereas there are some on each extreme which try to set up “straw men” to push both sides to the illogical extremes (i.e., enforced contraception on the one side, or unrestricted “full term” abortions on the other).
AlGore at #69: Thanks for the compliment, I guess. But now that we’ve accepted the premise of “erring on the side of life”, doesn’t it follow that we also must support life after birth? By this I mean providing for adequate food, shelter, and medical care for children, regardless of any “fault” by their parents? Doesn’t this mean acceptance of adequate funding of welfare, food stamps, school lunch programs, and – dare I say it – national health insurance? Do we only care for unborn children already in this country, or do we shoot at already-born children trying to cross the border illegally with their families?
As some of you may have noticed, I don’t fit into any preconceived political category very well. In my personal life I am a Charismatic Christian, who dislikes formal religion. On the abortion issue I lean hard toward the pro-life stance, but I’m willing to concede that its a difficult issue. With regard to economics I am a fiscal conservative, valuing a balanced budget to preserve our children’s future, but approving of well thought-out infrastructure investments in public facilities and education (I think we’ve been penny-wise and pound-foolish here in the Northwest for quite some time). With regard to tax policy, I lean toward the Democrats in favor of having those who benefit most from our country pick up the larger share of the cost, but I realize this has limits, too. As for political parties, I don’t like being manipulated or talked down upon by either one, and right now I believe it is the Republicans who are trying to take me for a ride.
So I don’t expect to ever be able to win a primary election for either politcal party, although I suspect there are quite a few more like me among the general electorate. Even if I made it past the primaries, of course, there was that incident during Spring Break back in ’76 ….
(the last part’s a JOKE, people).
The problem with wingers is they try to cast all ethical problems as a “moral dilemma” forcing the other party to make a false “choice”, i.e., you either “accept” their premise which means you can’t possibly win the argument or “deny” it, therefore forcing you into an easily defeated position based upon the implied acceptance of the initial formulation of the premise.
This is bullshit reasoning, and should be laughed at every time you see it. If Sean Hannity asks a question demanding a “yes” or “no” answer, rest assured either response will put you in a no-win situation.
“The only reasonable assumption is that personhood is there from the beginning.”
Your first statement is correct, but your assumption does not necessarily follow.
Slight change – If the status of personhood is not known any erring should be towards preserving life, which is to assume personhood.
“If the term “personhood” has a meaning different from “human life,” I’m not familiar with it.”
I would also assume that human life is the same as personhood. The supporters of abortion, however, concede that a fertilized egg is human life, yet personhood is distinct and attained later in, or after the pregnancy. As long as one side in the debate argues that just being human life does not bestow rights, personhood is what needs to be defined.
“A decision overturning Roe would not necessarily say unborn fetuses have a constitutional right to be born”
Agreed. One thing Roe did wrong, however, is punt on the decision as to when life or personhood begins. The second, related problem with Roe was to not err on the side of life. If a case comes along that either defines when a human becomes a person OR notes that any erring should be towards the higher right to life there may be Federal implications that flow down to the states. Examples of this can be seen in legislation and cases related to slavery and civil rights, where different aspects are left to states. The fundamental rights of persons are in the US Constitution. I would also speculate that if one state decriminalized murder the feds would step in.
“I believe very strongly that society has an affirmative obligation to protect vulnerable children, so if I thought all fetuses were “children,” I would be a right-to-lifer.”
That is really my point. The prime disagreement over abortion is not a women’s freedom, etc., but when life as a person begins. If abortion really does kill a person who has full rights under the Constitution, there is no justification based on a woman’s “liberty” or “pursuit of happiness”. Even privacy, rape and incest do not justify abortion. If I did not think of the unborn as children I would abhor the invasion of privacy and burdens on individuals.
“Not true. Our laws elevate finality above certainty in death penalty cases.”
I think there are some important differences between your point and the concept of erring to the higher right. There is a presumption that a conviction is based on evidence to show guilt “beyond a reasonable doubt”. In addition, there is no doubt that the convicted is a person due rights under the Constitution. I think our laws attempt to attain erring to the higher right even if that is not attained. There are generally much higher bars for death penalty cases, not to mention many more options related to appeals. The fact that there is even a death penalty to begin with goes against pro-life principles, yet there is great effort to still err to the higher right.
“For example, it errs on the side of presidential authority and against the preservation of innocent human lives that will be lost if a president starts a war on weak or flawed justification.”
This example is loaded and assumes that more innocent lives are lost due to war than without it. If one thinks that warring with Iraq and al Qaeda will save many more lives of innocents, then the erring has been to the higher right. The other aspect of this topic related to self-defense. There is arguably a higher value placed on the lives of Americans at home and abroad that had some influence in the decisions.
“Not so fast. What is your basis for that statement? Do we treat a fertilized human egg differently from a blade of grass or a grasshopper?”
The basis for the statement is that if something is not a person there are no rights to violate. That is the pro-choice argument. If the unborn are merely a clump of cells there should be no penalty for killing them, regardless of who does the killing. An abortion does not treat a fertilized human egg any differently than a blade of grass. Look to see who opposes any and all legislation and cases that seek to establish penalties for harming a fetus.
“Not true. Our laws may very well limit who can perform abortions in order to protect the health of recipients of abortions.”
That has nothing to with who should be able to kill the unborn child. As you say, those laws are to protect the mother. Again, if the unborn are not persons there is no reason anyone should not be able to kill her, as long as the mother is physically unharmed.
What the hell is a “hybrid position?” Is that another word for “waffling?”
Absolutely.
“The primary advocates for the release of killers and sexual predators are the criminals themselves, and the lawyers who have an ethical duty to advocate their interests;”
You imply that these folks have a lot of sway in the legislatures and voting booth. I have seen many theories related to rehabilitation implemented into more lenient sentences and options for early release. California changed many such laws when I was young to the point where murderers were serving 15-20 years. Charles Manson woke many voters up and laws were changed rapidly to re-institute the death penalty and “life without parole”, a trend that has since swept the country again.
“If you do not accept this notion as true, then you cannot find abortion ethically acceptable except in cases where it is necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother. “
Actually the health of the mother would have to yield to life of the child.
“Maybe you think all abortions are biologically and morally the same, but I don’t; I see a sliding scale. “
The problem with sliding scales is that they can move with popular opinion, or the dictates of a single person with great power. The other dimension of your sliding scale spans across people of different races, physical abilities and handicaps, and religions.
“..it does not follow that I should arbitrate a moral standard applicable to everyone else.”
This really depends on whether there is really a “sanctity of life” that distinguishes it from other topics. If murder were not illegal would you feel the same way?
“Finally, some laws are not based on ethics and religion at all,..”
I am not sure what your point is. Laws are not always right. Laws that allowed slavery are a good example.
“Would it be ethical for the anthropologists to interfere with this practice?”
If one thinks that ALL persons have the right to life then the answer is obvious. Reaching out beyond our borders to enforce those rights is always a difficult question. This actually wraps back around to the question of attacking Iraq, no?
“..our society does not authorize or sanction the killing of human beings after birth except in the cases of war and the death penalty.”
Are you saying that it is impossible to change the laws to allow for killing newborns? There is nothing about birth that absolutely signals personhood with absolute certainty. The laws allowing slavery were based some “human lives” being defined as less than a full person. History is laden with rulers who declared millions of people less than a full person. It seems that I have seen many references here to the potential or actual tendencies of the Bush administration. Why, again, could this not happen here?
Ass 100: The problem with wingers is they try to cast all ethical problems as a “moral dilemma” forcing the other party to make a false “choice”, i.e., you either “accept” their premise which means you can’t possibly win the argument or “deny” it,
I actually the left has done this with abortion. To argue about a woman’s freedom, health and privacy in regards to abortion, the left assumes that everyone agrees that the unborn child is not a person with equal rights.
Actually, Al, you are wrong. If one, for one brief second, accepts the fact that for the forseable future, there will be abortions, the question is this: Do we have to have a social policy (“laws”) on this issue or not?
Yes or no answer, please.
Ass 103:If one, for one brief second, accepts the fact that for the forseable future, there will be abortions, the question is this: Do we have to have a social policy (“laws”) on this issue or not?
Yes. One only needs to again compare with slavery for an equivalent example:
If one, for one brief second, accepts the fact that for the forseable future, there will be slavery and/or racial segregation, the question is this: Do we have to have a social policy (“laws”) on this issue or not?
Al,
There is no such equivalence as you assert, but go ahead, run with it. What should the policy be, and how should this policy be enforced?
Let’s see the rubber meet the road, buddy.