ring of fire
I am not sure whether I fell in to the ring of fire or whether I jumped. Supporting the GOP was for me, like most people, a conscious choice but after a while, I discovered that like love, politics too burns.
In my defense, I was never fully comfortable with the GOP. I supported them by pulling the straight party levers (back when it really was a lever) because I was overwhelmingly concerned with fiscal policy, national defense and abortion. As a teenager and young adult, it was easy to make the error of assuming politicians actually mean what they say, so I beg the forgiveness of the Almighty and my gentle readers for the transgressions of my youth.
I remember my mid-life political epiphany with clarity though it came about not in an instantaneous flash of light but over a period of a few months in 1996. Having already had all I could stomach studying asset forfeiture, flag burning, sacramental peyote and other significant civil liberties affronts, the extraordinary hypocrisy of the budget battles sealed it: I had become a full blown political heretic. After dabbling with the Libertarian Party for a few years and eventually abandoning that institutionally defective and philosophically incomplete camp, I found the path of political redemption by dropping out of the existing political process altogether and dedicating myself to using the power of the pen to try to shake whatever small circle of people I can out of the two-party stupor which plagues our land.
I am reminded of all of this because of reading the recent Supreme Court ruling in the case of Hamdan v. Rumsfeld. It is an interesting read to say the very least.
Interesting because of its overt political nature. The political thrust and parry drip from the white space between the words of putatively sober jurisprudential exegesis. Stevens and Scalia were at their result oriented best reducing the opportunity for righting egregious wrongs and propounding great ideas into a base game of political sport.
Stevens and Scalia are no Hand and Holmes.
The decay of our Federal Judiciary is emblematic of the larger trend of politicization of our nation. Stevens and Scalia are both extremely intelligent men who are fully capable of propounding great ideas in articulate and reasoned analysis. Instead, they give us eisegetical crap.
As a nation we have come to accept this hyper-politicization of everything as something normal and wholesome. When the blue team scores, the crowd roars its approval while the red team clings to hopes of a good free agency period between elections. It is all about victory and defeat.
This politicization affects big stuff that is easy to identify, but you can even see its subtle affects in the smaller things as well.
Perhaps space exploration is not a small thing, but it provides an immediate and useful example of how deeply political we have become. As I write, we are awaiting the Space Shuttle return to flight launch and there is considerable angst over the future of the various NASA programs. If you are not keeping up, it boils down to this: if the flight is successful, then the Shuttle will continue flights for the next four years to complete the International Space Station (ISS). Another failure will likely permanently ground the Shuttle fleet and the ISS will never achieve any stage of construction remotely similar to finished.
Whether Space Exploration is a worthy goal or not is a separate and interesting debate which I am happy to have. But we have gone forward in this direction and having made that decision, we should be proceeding based on scientific merit and rational objectives. Instead the go/no-go decision is being influenced by budget cycles and political spin. The growing corollary national disease of extreme risk aversion plays into the politics of the Space Shuttle, but I’m going to exercise some discipline and avoid venturing further down that tangent.
Truly, it must be incredibly disappointing to career scientists and engineers at NASA to be at the mercy of the spin cycle. But no more disappointing than this political reality is to thousands of our best and brightest who pursue noble causes such as medical research only to find out that getting funding is also a political process. No more disappointing than realization that meritorious science is less important than spending on the political disease du jour.
No more disappointing than figuring out that this is what we have become as a nation.
As we play the two-party game, the federal budget grows and grows. Vote producing procurement programs move forward while things that matter are not even discussed much less addressed. As we fall down, down, down into the political ring of fire, more and more people are getting burned.
I, for one, refuse to stoke the flames.
229 Comments:
Brackenator,
Good to see you post here again my friend. I hope you can make some time for us as I think we have had some spirited and educational discussions of late.
I think the reason for the politicization of the judiciary is quite simple: it is closely tied to the politicization of the nomination process. The same corrupt processes that influence the other branches have crept in.
Initially, the justice is beholden to the powers that put him in the position. Back room deal that lead to the nomination followed by various agreements to insure the ratification of the nomination. Surely there are none here that actually think the nomination hearings are real...if there are, please let us know so you can be subject to ridicule such a verbal swirlies.
OK, so perhaps you need evidence of the politicizaton of juidical nominations and how sordid and ugly that has become. You need look no further than the Harriet Meiers nomination.
In the interest of full disclosure, I will repeat that Harriet Miers and I attend the same chuch and while I do not know her, we have a lot of mutual ties. So much so that I am unwilling to label her as a co-conspirator and uncharacteristically for me, I give her the benefit of the doubt.
That said, whether she was a pawn or knowing and willing servant, her nomination served as a foil to the political process. She was the decoy on which the left was allowed to unload their ammunition. Once spent, a much more capable and hard to refuse nominee came to the front as a virtual shoe-in.
You gotta give the Shurb Cabal some credit here. They have learned well. They were not about to let another Borking occur and they skillfully navigated the shark infested waters. Shrub himself may be dumb, but the administration is not. And that is scary when you think it through.
Serial Single Issue voter is a perfect description of me. I have fully embraced that in an on-going fit of circumspect self-flagellation.
Perhaps there are some ways I resemble a liberal, but truly not comprehensively. I’m sticking to the position that I do not fit well in the two-party labeling stupidity. If labeling me helps you I won’t stand in your way. When I tried to come up with a label for myself in one of my earliest Disenfranchised Curmudgeon posts (back in 2003), I said, “My new political credo would make for an odd political animal: libertarian progressivism. All the capitalism we can stand and no more.” I think that description still works for me.
By the way, call me a Democrat again CG, and I will have to hunt you down and destroy your Tivo.
I also decry the hyper-politicization and the problems with the two party system. But I am also curious, how many parties do you think we need. I am hesitant to go to a Knesset style democracy where a small band can hold a government hostage that needs its support to form a government.
I don't think its the two party system that you upset with but what you view or have finally realized is their moral bankruptcy.
Also, I know we all learned about the constitution and the supreme court and the "independent judiciary" but the only matters the supreme court takes on any more seem political.
The vast majority of the judiciary both state and federal are dealing with much more mundane issues. Hostility towards religion? I have never been to any of our secret cabal meetings with any members of the judiciary where we spoke of any religious hostility.
Judges aren't kept in some secret enclave. They are your neighbors, local church members, members of the Chamber of Commerce, Kiwanis Club, and Rotary Club. The judiciary members I know of are some of the most church going people I ever met.
This campaign against the judiciary is going to harm us in the end. People make grand statements about the judiciary. They are keeping my kids from worshipping God. Really? Prayer needs to be back in the public school. If it was ever there, it wasn't supposed to be. Separation of Church and State has to be for all religions not just those that aren't Christian. I don't want my kid getting religious instruction of any kind at school, no matter how benign or how much agree with it. I realize there may come a day when they want to teach a religion other than Judeo-Christian.
The other day, a sign appeared in front of my child's elementary school stating that "Kids for Christ" meets here on Wednesday's after school. I am sure many parents were comforted to know that was going on. I wanted to put a sign up that said "Kids for Allah" meets every Thursday. Talk about pitch forks and torches coming out. But we don't see it when we agree with it.
Today the standard is he is a good judge if he makes decisions I agree with. A bad one makes decisions I don't agree with. This is an unworkable standard.
This does not speak to the politization of the Supreme Court, that is a different animal. But your local judges are not in some grand freemason conspiracy against religion no matter what your preacher says.
I am a lawyer. A member of a guild and a believer that we are a nation of laws. And I have disagreed with many a decision of local judge made. But they weren't in a conspiracy against me or my client.
CG,
You won’t get much interest from me to discuss the laundry list of the platforms of the two parties. No matter how many times you have alleged that I have said the platforms are equal does not make it true. I have never said and never will say the platforms are the same: that is simply absurd.
What I have said is the same is the methods, motivations and results.
I defy you to name where either party obtained real lasting results in advancing what they trumpet as their core beliefs. It hasn’t happened during the last thirty years except for two notable exceptions that I have written about before. We did see the collapse of the Soviet Block which was attributable to some degree to US policy, and we did see slight progress in budget balancing under Clinton (only to see that rapidly undone by the current administration).
Here is the central point of this websites existence…try to listen this time as I will try using smaller words. If you believe in the platform of one of the major parties, the one way to GAURANTEE that you will not achieve those goals is by voting for that party. Lets do it again in bold:
If you believe in the platform of one of the major parties, the one way to GAURANTEE that you will not achieve those goals is by voting for that party.
Whew. I know that is complex, but there it is.
The platforms are designed to pacify the 15-20% of the parties’ core supporters. The game happens in the arena of the 60-70% of weakly aligned voters. For those weakly aligned voters, strong positions are not desirable. The way this plays out is that legislation is advanced that supports the party platform but which leadership know has no chance of passing. Then, the legislators from the safe seats (which is an appallingly high percentage of seats these days) cast the vote for the cause and those where the issue is problematic for them can vote against the party line. This creates the illusion that they are fighting for platform type issues without ever having to implement or be accountable for their actions.
Both sides of the isle engage in this. You talk about GOP “red meat” but there is red meat for the leftist pack hunters as well.
If you are satisfied voting for people who say the things you like to hear even though your experience and brain tells you that have no interest in or ability to actually succeed, then I am happy for you. As I said, I have become unwilling to stoke those fires any further. It is my firm belief that all of you sincere but misguided party voters are in fact the source of the problem. The politicians have just learned to live in the world as it is.
You want to find the cause of this mess? Causation is always a stick problem especially when you leave out one of the key culprits: erosion of critical thinking skills due to a dangerously flawed public education system. I think I’ll decline to go down that path for now. I tired of causation during Torts.
Guy,
You are correct that it is the moral bankruptcy that bothers me more than the limit of two parties per se. But I do not see things changing absent some other credible voices. By having more voices in the process we would have less of this we v. they thing going on and more opportunity for genuine discussion of issues. Can that happen in a two party system? Probably so. But the fact is that it is not happening now. We have to break the deadlock somehow and I don’t think it will be because the major parties themselves are going to change.
CG,
#2 is irrelevant because Senate rules are not law. They can change them how they deem necessary. Now you and I will agree a lot of the rules work against progress, but that goes back to my central point: they don’t care about progress. Get a more diverse set of CongressCritters and you will get rules changes that support the new reality.
CG,
Glad to hear you have powered-up with an immunity mushroom or somesuch. If only you could find that golden "clear thought" mushrooom instead.
I have never said that these guys don't put on a good show. And down deep, some of them actually believe the ideals they purport to defend.
Now, I will sit back and wait for you to explain how all that hot air in comitte matters. Fortunately I have a comfortable chair as I will be here a while as results are harder to find than WoMD in Iraq.
Again, if seeing those CongressCritters on TV getting red faced and spouting stuff that sounds good to you is satisfying, then I am happy for you.
This looks a lot like flame stoking to me.
Guy,
Depends on which fire of which you speak. I don't stoke the partisan flames. Now CG's fire is an ENTIRELY different matter.
CG,
You said, ”You tell me business would also own the government with a Democrat administration... i.e. the Clinton administration was owned by industry also. That isn't as obvious to me... by definition it certainly couldn't be a blatant as the pro-gilded age ideology.”
You forget with whom you are speaking some times I think. I have to exercise care here to avoid venturing into privileged information but let’s say I saw some of the Clinton administration in action. Let me tell you, if you don’t think it is all about the money on both sides of the isle then you are just kidding yourself.
Methinks you have a very selective memory. Hint: Coffee Klatches.
Oh. What you seek is a "Realigning election." I recalled this paper from politcal science, V.O. Key's 1955 article, "A Theory of Critical Elections" I could not find it on the web but a Wikipedia post seems to correctly describe the theory in general. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Realigning_election
In my view, we are long over due for one. Which way or what event will tip us one way or the other out of these close elections, I cannot predict. But I agree with the theory.
Guy,
Yeah, that is close to what I’m talking about though that entry lost a little credibility with me when they put the 1994 election on the list.
But then the problem is that the major parties have limited ballot access to the point that it is difficult to see re-alignment happening unless it fits the 1980 model and is realignment on top of existing party structures. Coupled with serious campaign finance reform and term limits of course.
Tony . . .
I don't think the 1994 was a realignment either. Of course, I don't think that was the author's view but the wikipedia submitter's view.
Guy,
You are probably correct. Obviously the 1955 paper didn't list the 1994 election.
CG,
Interesting article. Since you are relatively new to the political game, you might check this out and note that four of the Keating Five were Democrats.
C.G. “These last 5 years have represented a Realigning moment for me...”
That makes no sense. You were pro-choice, pro-sodomy, pro-collectivist, pro-progressive taxation, anti-religious expression... you were a Democrat in every sense of the word. How in the world did you ever “align” with the GOP?
Now, I can see how you might align with Bush. He’s a great Democrat. He’s for amnesty for illegals, greater centralized control of education, creating more entitlements, he’s AWOL on the marriage amendment, he’s reached more across the isle to the Dems and left his supporters in the lurch numerous times. Of course, he does tend to stick with something once he decides on it, so he is not as “flexible” as John Kerry when it comes to being on all sides of an issue.
Prof. Ricardo
Saw a Dailyshow repeat last night and the author of this book appeared on the program:
Fight Club Politics : How Partisanship is Poisoning the U.S. House of Representatives
Might be an interesting read based on the interview.
And appropo to the last two blog topics.
I'd watch it just in honor of RandyP's return. Besides, I love a good conspiracy theory. Maybe this weekend. I watched the first bit and saw McNamara...he is a great starting place for a nice work of conspiracy fiction.
BTW, Yoshi, I had heard of the Linux distribution of that name. I for one won't be ascribing to the theory. Anything that defines my existence in terms of other humans will never work for me. For every Eistein we a dozen Hitlers.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Re: 911 Conspiracy Theory.
For real video enjoyment go to the same video.google.com and search for “screw loose change 2nd edition”.
This conspiracy theory is a reach. Of course there is an audience hungry to hear why George Bush is bad. They know everything is his fault, its just a matter of rearranging the puzzle pieces to explain their given. With truth and reality not the final objective, its amazing at what otherwise reasonable people will fall for to justify their true agenda.
If the airliner that hit the Pentagon was a cruise missile, then where is the plane, passengers, and crew? Are they insinuating that Bush, or some other US government officials conspired, with al-Queda to fly planes into and blow up simultaneously demolish the same three buildings. Were the cell phone calls to family members from passengers a fraud?
This is not just the suspension of disbelief, but the immersion of a fantasy world that even toddlers dismiss as going over the top.
The reaction of physical matter at extreme speeds is a curious thing. The plane that hit the Pentagon at 530 mph is ((530x5280)/3600) approximately 777 feet per second. This is the equivalent of a slow 45 ACP bullet. The video camera outside of the Pentagon does not have the ability to capture items moving that fast. The time between pictures (frames per second) and exposure speed (probably 1/100th of a second) would not permit anything other than a fireball to appear.
The reaction of items being shot with high speed projectiles are interesting and sometimes unpredictable. Having fired many weapons at many different targets and studied much from written and video sources, it is obvious to me the author of the Loose Change 2nd Edition is not well informed of such things, or he is and is disingenuous in the video. I am afraid ignorance and deeply fecal colored glasses are more to blame here. But, at least the video keeps the CTU’s off the street (Conspiracy Theorist in Underwear).
Prof. Ricardo
Re: 911 Conspiracy Theory.
------------
911 Commission report, p.25-26
"Regan National controllers then vectored an unarmed National Guard C-130H cargo aircraft, which had just taken off en route to Minnesota, to identify and follow the suspicious aircraft. The C-130H pilot spotted it, identified it as a Boeing 757, attempted to follow its path, and at 9:38, seconds after impact, reported to the control tower: “looks like that aircraft crashed into the Pentagon sir.” "
--------------
But I’ve got some good news. I just saved a lot of money by switching to GEICO.
Prof. Ricardo
Prof,
The Geico line reminded me that shooting water through your sinuses hurts almost as bad a Dr. Pepper.
Seriously though, you should lighten up. The conspiracy huckstering is fun. I think I may write a few of my own.
Yoshi,
I re-read the wikipedia entry on unbuntu. I guess I’m quibbling over translations since it says:
’A rough translation in English could be "humanity towards others," or "I am because we are," or "A person 'becomes human' through other persons", or also, "A person is a person because of other persons". Another translation could be: "The belief in a universal bond of sharing that connects all humanity."’
I’d say the first and last renditions are very Christian. The other three are problematic. The Bible is very clear that man’s humanity is a created condition and not contingent on anything else. We are created in the image of God and I find the notion that we become human through other people contradictory to this fundamental tenant of Orthodox Christianity.
Now, a reasonable rendering of unbuntu might be, “we express our humanity through our community with others”. I’m just twisting up the words a bit and trying to restate those first and last translations. But, if that is what is meant, the notion would be thoroughly Christian. It goes off the Christian rails when existence is defined by communal context.
Personally, I do not see the time to the “I Am” of the Bible either. “I Am” there is the self-description of a sovereign pre-existent omnipotent personal God. In the unbuntu context, it is the self description of a person. It seems to have far more in common with humanism than it does the Judeo-Christian/Muslim idea of theism.
Yoshi,
I took a philosophy course in college and the people we studied wrote just like your last post.
I particularly liked telling the professor how ludicrous the question about the tree falling in the forest was. It seemed obvious to me, but heck, I’ve got two feet planted in reality - what do I know.
She graded on a non-linear scale. I had A’s, B’s, C’s, a D, and an F on all the papers I turned in. The average she calculated as an F. Upon flunking the class I went to the department head and mathematically proved that my professor was insane - or at least did not know how to score grades. With conclusive proof in his hands he went AWOL on his responsibilities and rejected the evidence and defended the professor (why did I expect any difference?). I later heard that my professor had a nervous breakdown after that. :)
Some day I really, really am going to ask forgiveness for any part I had in her breakdown. But don’t hold your breath just yet.
Prof. Ricardo
Hmmmm . . . I have nothing to add.
* * *
No really, nothing to add. :)
GREAT LEAPING JEHOSEPHAT!!! A SPEECHLESS LAWYER!!!
I find many times that people credit me with more intelligence when I remain quiet at a meeting. I am not so much speechless, its just that I have nothing of substance to add.
I could give you my five minute rant about how Oliver Stone and the X-Files contribute to this conspiracy fever. It makes the world so much more interesting.
As long as we are passing on comedy movies, here is my favorite from the past election. If you have seen it before, watch it again. It always makes me laugh.
http://dvblog.org/andydickbushspeechwritermov
Oh BTW - the word verification, That is an NSA encryption device that allows faster word searches and tagging for national security pruposes.
I watched "Loose Change" very interesting. I would like to know what happened to those engines also.
On another subject, I saw a very subversive film this weekend that depicted America as weak and powerless. The government was portrayed as a bunch of bumbling buffoons who almost killed hundreds of people through its efforts to distract America from its real problems by showing off a new space program.
It was also very pro-immigration as we the people seemed unable to withstand the corrupt corporate America without the help of immigrants. One in particular who seemed to have super human strength. Our government was unable to respond to any of the crisis portrayed in the film and I assure you that there were many in this pro-immigration propaganda film.
The immigrant came from outer space and (get this) while this was his "adopted" home, he thought he stood for Truth, Justice and the American Way. Yeah right. Like anybody not born here or who got into this country legally could do that!!
It is this kind of film showing at our local multiplexes that is subverting our youth and makes amnesty for immigrants palatable.
He had the gall, even though he wasn't an American to call himself "Superman." (While he did not explicitly state his political affiliation in the movie, I have to believe he leaned to the left.)
The movie was also an assault on good American family values. Despite the obviously gay nature of his clothes, he had fathered and abandoned a child out of wedlock only to return and seek to intervene when a real man had stepped up to be the child's father.
It's this kind of popular media onslaught that it driving this country to the very edge and will lead to the moral decay that will eventually result in the same kind of sex in bath houses that brought the Roman Empire down in its last days.
I can only ask, "When will America wake up?"
Just thought I'd try on some righteous indignation and moral outrage. ;)
Tightening border security would complicate the CIA's drug trafficking program and thereby potentially constrain their deep-black budget they use for all the "really fun" stuff.
BTW,
Saw Syriana last night. If you like the conspiracy stuff, you should like that better because much of what we see in there is actually plausible. I don't want to be a spoiler so I won't say much more. But it involves the CIA, Big Oil, FBI Investigations, Emir sucession, and of course, terrorism.
Very interesting movie.
Tony -
The CIA Agent who wrote Syriana and who the main character is based on appeared on the daily show recently. He has a new book out.
Also, last night did any body see John Dean promoting his new book "Conservatives without a Conscience"
Spoiler Alert - The Conservatives he is referring to are the current bunch of whitehouse malcontents.
Who wrote:
We don't want to drink from a white water fountain; we have our own wells and our natural reservoirs and our way of collecting rain in our aqueducts. We don't need a white water fountain. ... We are not interested in what they have because we have so much more and because the world is so much larger. And ultimately, the white way, the American way, the neo-liberal, capitalist way of life will eventually lead to our own destruction.
Calm down little grasshopper. Roll with it a little. To every thing there is a season. You are only seeing the yin and not realizing the yang is there too.
I guarantee the pendulum is swinging back the other way. Cycles, context, whiplash politics - there will be a reaction. Power is self consuming.
I am thinking of starting a petition for an amendment that would allow Bill to run at the end of Hillary's term. Will you sign?
My apologies to those who just spit their coffee out on their keyboard.
Common: That pendulum has very limited range.
I would say yes and that range is all concentrated on deciding how government should intrude on our lives further. Some for the good of self interest groups (minorities, indigent, businesses, etc.) and some for the good of moral issues, what you label as R.R.. (BTW, its hard not to think of A Tuna Christmas every time I see you abbreviate “religious right.”) However, both are pro-government to the point of excess. Apparently not excessive enough for some, but if a proper study of history serves me well, for the past 230 years we have been adding to the original responsibilities of government at all levels and not taking away from it. Therein lies the abuses of power from authority that only recently has been imputed to specific individuals, governmental departments, and the Constitution. Take away the runaway expansion of government and you hinder the gold rush to cash in on the government’s benevolence to, not only the defense industry, but the politicians who are impressed with their ability to right the worlds wrongs.
Prof. Ricardo
Prof - I ask again, "When will Jeffersonian Agrarian Democracy come back in vogue?" I appreciate your railing against the machine but that horse has left the barn. Not saying its a good thing but noting the futility of your posts. But I guess thats what being a curmudgeon is all about isn't? Yelling into the void not expecting any real response.
Guy said... I appreciate your railing against the machine but that horse has left the barn.
Yes, and man had already exercised centuries of inhumanity on their fellow man before the Magna Carta. In the midst of that which is not the best, and sometimes intolerable, doing better is not an accident, but by design. Since we do not have the option anymore to hope over to a “New World,” we must fix the one we have. The first step in curing a drunk is to get him to admit he has a problem. On this blog alone, getting a consensus that a 2 trillion dollar a year government budget is too much, is difficult. When you consider that is only the federal portion, its insane. The .7% for the ONE Campaign that we have discussed before is not insurmountable, but it is not in lieu of other funds but in addition to. Add in universal healthcare insurance and any of the other hair-brain schemes and you’ll be lucky enough to bring home enough money for the kids to get a goody from the ice cream truck. What the heck, let’s nationalize those too.
As a nation we are drunk on mother governments milk and apron strings. To discuss different ways to spend ourselves into oblivion does not address the more core issues. The fact that there are so few of me is not evidence itself of how wrong I am, but of how drunk the nation is.
Not saying its a good thing but noting the futility of your posts.
As a matter of principal, speaking the truth is not futile. It can be fertile. As I spread seeds of doubt as to the perfection of the savior government’s role in our lives, and I water and fertilize it with links and logic, who knows? Maybe even Common Good is winnable. :-) Of course, he’ll see me as mostly spreading fertilizer though. :-(
P.R.
Prof said, "As a matter of principal, speaking the truth is not futile. It can be fertile."
That sums me up pretty well. I believe that Truth will prevail. Not necessarily on a timeline that I am happy with, but it will prevail. While I have no claim to perfect understanding of Truth, I do believe it exists and is worth pursuing. Utilitarian measures are useful up to a point, but must be discarded when they cause the principals to warp out of shape.
Well that sobered me right up. I can't help but notice some optimism in both your and Tony's last posts.
AAHHH . . . mission accomplished.
Your = Prof.
Also - What upsets me about a two trillion dollar a year government is not only the price tag but just how little we get for it.
At two trillion, that $6,762.00 per person. In France, based on my rough calculation they spend $23,783.00 per person. In England it is $14,267. So it seems we have plenty of time before we reach the level of tyranny exercised in those countries. So shine on you crazy diamnond!
Is this just a different version of Bible quotes again?
Fortune cookies.
yoshitownsend said...
Once again, Prof. gets his facts wrong. That isn't true. To end poverty worldwide, it's just a grand total of .7 percent. There is no "in addition to."
Let me explain. If you will back up a sentence in my post, you will see that I was referring to our $2 trillion budget. So to bring our expenditures up to the promised .7% was not in place of other spending in the budget (education, defense, SS, highway funds, etc.) but would be added onto all the other items in the budget. I said THAT alone would not be insurmountable, but everybody’s pet project added together is what created the $2 trillion budget. I think you’re a little close to the tree. There is a whole forest out here. :-)
Prof. Ricardo
Common Good said: Seriously, why couldn't they find the two 12 ton engines that hit the Pentagon....
That said, I have to say they had no explanation for one of my major questions: Where are those two airplane engines that hit the Pentagon..
Guy said...
I watched "Loose Change" very interesting. I would like to know what happened to those engines also.
As luck would have it, I found them for you here.
Of course, the vastness of the human imagination is enough that if someone wants to believe anything, the can.
Although I never said they would vaporize, it is easy to see that they might be hard to spot.
Prof. Ricardo
Common Good,
For the “security of my kid’s lives,” hands down a missile intercept system wins. Obviously not by itself. You must secure the borders, recruit and train soldiers, and all that. It’s a package deal.
You may not have been in on the discussion, I believe I had with Yoshi previously, on the ungratefulness of those who receive welfare. Its not that they desire to be ungrateful, but the resent their dependence on others. I won’t rehash that argument here. However, just realize that you will win few real friends spreading around green backs. You will spread resentment. And if logic serves me here, that would fail to appreciably eclipse the missile intercept system, particularly given this past week’s events.
Prof. Ricardo
Guy,
I am very optimistic…just not optimistic about the United States continuing to carry the torch of liberty.
I’ll give you a current example. A good friend of mine is trying to arrange a visit of his parents from India. He is couple of years away from naturalization himself but his parents are obviously citizens of India. Apparently, since 9-11 you can no longer contact the American Consulate directly. You have to apply through some forwarding company that deals with the consulate. They set up an appointment for you after you pay them the fee. Paying the fee is a bit of a hassle too because of them requiring a draft and not cash. Well, his parents did all of that this week and got their appointment at the earliest available date: mid-December. All of this for an ordinary tourist visa for an ordinary citizen of India with immediate family legally here in the United States.
BTW, prior to 9-11 the procedure was go to the consulate with your identification papers and bank draft, stand in line for a few hours and the visa was issued that day.
This is just one piece of a larger picture. We are closing in our selves in many respects. We are valuing security over freedom at every turn.
Optimistic, yes, just not about US.
I do not know the exact basis for the suit, but my hunch is that it will go forward. I don't think she is likely to win, but there will smoke and even a little fire.
Prof - Thanks for that. I was worried that our government may be lying to us. Whew!! That was close. ;)
Tony - That's why it is important to support Bush's program for outsourcing jobs overseas. Since we can no longer let them in this country, we must establish call and service centers overseas. Yeah, it's cheaper but really it for our own security.
Plame Lawsuit - Want to know how to be able to tell a good lawsuit from a bad lawsuit? No lawyer that the Plame's spoke with were willing to fund the case on a contigency fee basis. See article where they request help to defray the costs and establish a website to contribute. If this were a winner: (1) it would have been filed a longtime ago; (2) it would be funded by lawyers and (3) the lawyer would be in front of the camera and not the client.
I'm sure this confirm's Prof's worst fears about the legal system but it is the truth.
Never pay a lwyer to prosecute a case when you are the Plaintiff on an hourly basis. If the lawyer doesn't beleive enough in your cause to put his or her own money into it, you should take this as a sign that you don't have a good case.
The only time you should pay hourly leagl fees is for form work (i.e. drafting documents) or to defend yourself. (Note, in defending yourself, it's best to have insurance to pay any settlement or verdict and the costs for attorneys.) Finally, to the extent that this constitutes free legal advice. Remember, consult your attorney before proceeding and you get what you pay for.
CG - To the substance of your question about the nature of the lawsuit, I haven't looked at it but my hunch is that they are suing for a violation of law for which Congress provided no civil remedy. In other words, you may be prosecuted by the state (federal or state gopvernment) for a violation but it can never be the basis for a civil suit.
The best example I can give you is perjury. Perjury is of course a crime and you can be prosecuted for it and pay a criminal penalty. But in the civil context (a suit between individuals) you have complete immunity for what you say on the witness stand. No private lawsuit can be brought for being untruthful in the witness chair.
Under Federal law, there are numerous examples where Congress pased a law that provides criminal penalties for a violation but never authorized a civil suit for a violation of that law.
I hope this helps. It can be a hard concept to get your mind around and I know a lot of lawyers who still don't get it.
CG - One other thing. I don't think it will be thrown out for any of the reasons you cite. I don't think Cheny was sleeping with her although shes does look perrty.
If it does get thrown out, it will not be based upon executive privilege but for the reasons cited in may last post. No cause of action.
BTW - Spell checker, off. Just trying to catch up using my three thumbs.
CG
We discussed this at our last cabal and there seemed little interest in helping the Plames. I can only surmise that even the Plames have worn out their fifteen hours of fame and we have grown weary. It's old news; a dog with fleas.
We need a new scandal or threat to our security, something to hold the public's attention and rev us up for the next election, lets see . . .
NSA Wiretaps? Played out.
NY Times as champion of free press? No, too unbeleivable.
Gitmo Abuses? No, Geneva Convention applies now, 3 squares a day and clean sheets.
Iraq? No, it's same ol' same ol'
Iran? Crazy Leader getting nukes. Lesson learned, go thru UN.
North Korea? Crazy Leader who has Nukes. Lesson learned, go thru UN.
Let's see. There must be something new going on the past couple of days that could be spun as a national threat that would allow the government to play on our fears. What is it?
Well, can't think of it now. I am sure it will come to me or them sooner or later.
Common said:
I'm calling you out Prof... throw down your bigotry and use your talents for more important issues.
I am not immune to error, and as painful as it is, I appreciate the outing. :)
We are a product of the information, perspectives, and w___d v__w that we have been exposed to. My perspectives on homosexuals have come, in part, from themselves. Over the past several decades of reading and hearing homosexuals talk about how they found out the were homosexual, several key characteristics appeared in most cases. The first was exposure to same sex to some degree at an early age. This I mostly heard from males. You may have heard different. The next is a weak, poor, or non-existent relationship with their father. This is what I have heard, you may have heard different.
I’m not real hip on the “environment makes the person” philosophy because I believe we all have free will and in places of hardship we can all react differently. However, I believe these two characteristics that have exposed themselves do indeed have an influence.
In our country we have migrated from the individual rights of liberty to the rights of groups, to the shameless adoption of groups to adopt a victim and entitlement mentality.
I am sure in their opinion they think “their agenda was equal rights under our Constitution.” I can’t imagine any group defining itself as desiring “special rights.” To desire the CHANGING of the definition of marriage from what it has been for thousands of years to accommodate their “orientation” IS a special right, not a Constitutional rights issue.
What I use as weapons against those of differing opinions is their own words. I said as much when I responded to Yoshi:
Have you ever wondered why decent civilized society has always shunned homosexuality, incest, adultery, and relations with children, and why all depraved wicked societies always embraced such sexual sins? It would be of great benefit to those who have bought the gay agenda hook, line, and sinker to read at least chapter 1 of The Marketing of Evil by David Kupelian. There is nothing like burying somebody in their own quotes and like a surgeon he cuts to the heart of the gay agenda. They absolutely hate his book. It must be something more powerful than lies - - like the truth.
But my other responses on the subject I reread and stand by. Maybe you can quote me something I said that I need to reconsider. I don’t mind if all go there and read my responses, particularly my response to Ralph Taite where I quote some homosexual activists.
I guess from the left’s perspective my outing BY QUOTING the activists is bigotry, or not falling for the propaganda is bigotry, but words have meaning and I prefer to stick with Webster. I know that not falling for their bait or cowering before their demands may look like hate and intolerance to you. But that is the substance of a poor parent and an unwise citizen. Usually recognizing something for what it is and treating it accordingly is a sign of love and wisdom. However, those who believe that the group that can not reproduce somehow passes on a “gay gene” generation after generation is showing a level of appeasement and self delusion that can hardly be reconciled to real love.
Prof. Ricardo
Guy said:
Prof - Thanks for that. I was worried that our government may be lying to us. Whew!! That was close. ;)
I am sure they are lying a lot of the time. However, to insinuate that a 757 that hit the Pentagon didn’t hit the Pentagon because every part was not photographed and on the blogosphere, and that because they hate Bush 9/11 must be something he either concocted or caused, and offereing no reasonable explanation where said 757 and passengers are if they did not run into the Pentagon, is the main reason that people where these.
Prof. Ricardo
Guy,
You said, ” That's why it is important to support Bush's program for outsourcing jobs overseas. Since we can no longer let them in this country, we must establish call and service centers overseas. Yeah, it's cheaper but really it for our own security.”
HAHAHA…that is perfect.
On what causes one to be gay:
Since we are bearing soles on this topic, I guess I will burden you all with my view. First I remind you that I am a hard-core civil libertarian. As I have argued long and loud, the government should not have any say in the institution of marriage whatsoever. What I am about to suggest has no relationship to those discussions.
I seriously doubt there is a biological basis for homosexuality. I believe that the current explosion we are having in homosexual expression is easily accounted for in the normal psychology of human beings that we have been accustomed to. At the same time adolescents are becoming aware of sexuality, they are experiencing all of those other social pressures we make movies about. You know, the ones where the ugly fat girl or awkward dorky boy join the smoke hole or gang in order to find acceptance on some level. We all grew up with people who fit this pattern and often with self-destructive consequences. And we all know of people of other “in” groups that themselves seek acceptance on other levels such as when trying to fill the void left by the lack of loving relationships at home.
Enter the age of homosexuality as fashionable. It is no wonder that once it became cool that many young people reached out to this form of individuality. Man, talk about getting in Dad’s face big time! Think Cheney. I suspect that as the bloom fades on the homosexual rose, this behavior will return to its millennia long status as a significant but minor deviant behavior that is snickered about and largely ignored. The irony here is that the folks kicking up the homophobic firestorm are probably doing more to entice children to experiment with risky and deviant behavior than “Will and Grace” ever will.
But hypothetically, if homosexuality were determined to have a biological basis, it really would have no impact on the analysis whatsoever. After all, adultery and homicide have a biological basis but we do not accept those behaviors as moral because we understand that as humans we have the ability to keep passions under control. This is what makes ordered liberty tenable. And as for the Christian world view, it has never been true that morality is measured based on biological urges.
I have thought about whether I want to enter this debate. I will say this (1) I am unaware of any gay explosion; (2) given the risk of violence towards gays by homophobes, I do not think that being gay has ever been "cool" or will be in the future; and (3) I don't care.
Having said that, I am sure some of you will decry some moral degradation. I have been around many gay men. I have been on tour with them, slept on gym floors with gay men all around; have many that I consider good friends. (Tony, Drum Corp for 4 years.)
I have never been recruited or hit on. I can tell you that "gaydar" must be most accute in gay men because they have an ability to seek other like minded or genetically predisposed individuals. Having said that I am sure there is room for error.
For those who see being gay has some moral weakness. Well the world is full of it and so is your church. Love them, guide them if you see fit but they are not worthy of hate but deserve your compassion as any other human. (I am not saying that anyone here has been hateful.)
Choice or genetics, compassion is what they, as any other human deserve. Not derision or scorn. I am always amazed at how many "christians" have nothing but scorn for them and condemn them to a hell not only on this earth but in the hereafter. They must be old testament because I hear little of the sermon on the mount coming from them. (Pun not intended.)
I guess I'll add a bit more. Probably will regret it, but I will.
I have no problem with gays as individuals. I have been hit on many moons ago and while that was uncomfortable, it really didn't bug me that much. I have had two supervisiors over the years that were gay and they were both awesome people to work for. And once upon a time my wife and I spent considerable time with a lesbian couple and even bought them a housewarming present.
I just do not take the next step and approve their choices as moral just because these people are agreeable to me. I come much closer to Guy's statement that "I don't care". Ask my opinion, I'll tell you what the Bible says about it. But my next sentence will be about what the Bible says about lots of other things including those faults that I am entirely too guilty of myself.
Something about a log in my own eye goes here, but I'm a little tired tonight...
Common,
It should not be state business whether or not a church performs gay marriages or not, and rights should not be church business. Coupling rights... (inheritance, hospital visitation, taxes, parenting, adoption, etc.) should be EQUAL.
C.G., you can get married in any religious ceremony you want, to any thing or body you want (except perhaps minors), right now. The issue with government is what should be sanctioned in law and society.
By the government sanctioning a mutilated definition of marriage contrary to history AND the wishes of the majority of society, all kinds of violence is done to law, precedent, psychology, logic, and the well being of children, already in place with regard to families. The definition of marriage and families in government has more to do with the welfare of children than any comment on the parents sexuality. Are mothers expendable and do not contribute any more than just another “adult” to the parenting equation? It must be if two guys can be married and raise children. Are fathers expendable and do not contribute any more than just another “adult” to the parenting equation? It must be if two women can be married and raise children. Your compassion to appease the legal desires of the unbridled sexual fringe of this country while trampling the children hardly bespeaks of love and wisdom. That may not be what drives you. It may be religious bigotry. The fact that religion has had something to say about, and an interest in, marriage and family irks you to no end. I can see the veins raised on your forehead now. :)
When you bash Bush, the GOP, and opposition to liberal hair-brain schemes, you always jump on the “RR”, the religious right, Christians, the Church, and of course, noteworthy Christian leaders. You have created quite a body of evidence at the Library of Curmudgeon for people to verify if this claim is valid. Care to visit the numerous other religions and their abhorrence to homosexuality? You act as though a hate filled religion known as Christianity has recently hijacked marriage in a political move, rather than a love filled religion defending marriage over millennia. That skewed perspective and attack on Christianity does not help your defense against my charge.
Prof. Ricardo
CG - I will answer your questions but I submit this preface. Discrimination is not illegal. We discriminate everyday in the choices we make. What is illegal under our constitutional jurisprudence is discrimination on these basis:
1. Race and Color
2. National Origin
3. Sex, Sexuality and Pregnancy
4. Religion and Religious Practices
These are the protected classes from discrimination. You may discriminate on lack of qualified education, poor appearance and hairstyle or personality but you may not discriminate on the above list.
So as long as it not based on the forbidden list, it is OK for anyone, majority or minority to discriminate.
To your first question, is marriage a fundamental human right? I'm not sure what that means "fundamental" but under constitutional jurisprudence the SC has determined that there is a right of privacy. The Supreme Court first recognized an independent right of privacy within the 'penumbra' (fringe area) of the Bill of Rights in Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965). In this case, a right of marital privacy was invoked to void a law prohibiting contraception. [Insert republican outrage here of the court making this stuff up.]
The right of privacy does not speak of any right to be married but it does declare that if you are, there are certain decisions that are made that are private and the government does not have a right to interfere. It seems very libertarian in nature and consistent with republican libertarian elements but they have nonetheless denied the idea of this right of privacy and seek government regulation in this area usually on the basis of some moral high ground to which we should all aspire and, short of that, be legally required to live up to.
This may be too simple an explanation but beyond this I think you get bogged down into how many angels can dance on the head of a pin which I really don’t think is helpful.
#1) Yes, all have the right to marry, ie one man to one woman.
#2) Forfeiture due to a criminal act.
P.R.
CG
Well, I should have used this emoticon ";)" for my coy "I don't know what you mean" statement. A list though?
You guys do like to debate about how many angels dance on the head of a pin. My problem with a list is it sets the list of fundamental rights as a static rather than dynamic concept. All we agree upon today is static but it is a dynamic concept.
In my view our understanding of "fundamental" is evolving (I can hear prof screaming from here) and would hesitate to make an all inclusive list.
Certainly, the list would have been different and prgroessively shorter if you were to go back and create one for every 100 year time frame. And each list would have been correct for each time frame as they understood it.
I do agree with Tony that the Constitution is more easily understood in light of the things that we acknowledged were the government's province. Everthing else was retained by "we the people."
With regard to the Bible, and our resident scholars, I query: Does the Bible list or give any fundamental rights? I can't think of any. It has many proscriptions and directives but I cannot think of any "fundamental rights" it explicitly acknowledges. This is an "honest" not "knowing" question. (Many of which are aksed here.)
I guess, thinking out loud, it starts off with an implicit fundamental right of free will although the conduct that resulted in the fall of man was proscribed. I will be curious to see the responses.
Certainly, the Declaration delcares that we are endowed with certain inalienable rights but what is the source? Mere Lockian thought proceesses and deductions?
Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness?
Life is seems fairly cheap in the Bible depending on which side of God you are on. Liberty? - Slavery is common amongst the conquering tribes. No directives to free your slaves. Pursuit of Happiness? I guess "be fruitful and multiply" could work but you don't have to be happy to do that.
BTW feel free to refer me to an earlier post if it saves time rather than rehash an argument.
CG, bless his socialist stained little bleeding heart, still has questions for me on same-sex marriage. {sigh}
I will try even though there is probably no topic that I have written more upon than this…which is itself kind of sad.
Q: Is marriage a fundamental human right or something else? If something else, give me a definition.
A: None of the above. You have a variety of fundamental rights that our government has no power to infringe upon. Important among those rights is freedom association, freedom of religion, and freedom to do what I damn well please as long as it doesn’t infringe anybody else’s freedom-to-do-what-they-damn-well-please.
This is the power of NOT having a list. If you look at it this way, as the founders generally did, then you are inexorably drawn to the conclusions that 1) The state has no role in religious sacraments, and 2) people should be able to engage in whatever kind of interpersonal relations they choose as long as it volitional.
Q: Under what circumstances is it ok for a majority to exclude human right x,y or z from a minority?
A: Any time there is a constitutional amendment giving the state the power to abridge those rights. Once again, if we take the constitution seriously…if we actually enforce its provisions, so many problems are avoided.
CG - Again I think context is important and your discussion of "fundamental human rights" needs to be viewed in the context of Abraham Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs.
Certainly, when we are down on the hierarchy these rarified discussions have little value and generally do not occur.
"Hey, I know I haven't eaten in five days but those guys are abridging my right to freedom of association."
At the lowest level your fundamental right is a right to exist and that right may clearly trump any other human's right when necessary. (See Deadwood, HBO; See also Israeli Bombardment of Southern Lebanon).
As we get more sophistcated, I do believe our understanding of rights correspondingly becomes more sophisticated. Also, situational rights plays into it and we may regress given the current need. (See Korematsu v. United States where the US Sup Ct. upheld the internment of 110,000 Japanese Americans in the absence of any actual evidence that they posed a danger, deferring instead to the military's unsupported assertions of national-security concerns.)
I am not saying that fundamental human rights a mere whim but they certainly are a luxury. Having said that I don't think we need to stop moving forward either.
Bill of Rights, 10th Amendment:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
C.G.
“It would mean, for example, that since the definition of marriage is not in the constitution, it can't be in the domain of state prerogative.”
I’ve tried to steer you in the past on this issue, but I have failed. The Constitution restricts the federal government to that which it permits it to do. The states are open to be free or a communist hell hole as they see fit. A state, at least under the original Constitution, could dictate any reasonable or ludicrous requirement for marriage, drivers licenses, or whatever, as they saw fit. The Constitution does not restrict, or did not restrict, what the states did. Read the Bill of Rights: “Congress shall not...” That’s the Federal Congress it is restricting, not the states, not the people. That’s why I keep telling you to implement your wickedness on a state level and you can do it with a clear conscience. That way people who want to participate in that level of governmental intrusion can do so and experience the bliss. And those poor selfish mongrels who want less bliss and reap our just rewards as well, and everybody is happy. For some reason you seem resistant to allow anyone to escape your idea of bureaucratically induced nirvana. This is common on the left. Their socialism doesn’t work on the local level, or the state level, or the national level, and its not going to work on the world level either. At each step, the leftist keep saying: “Well, if we could just get everybody to participate....” Same song, same delusion, different socialist apologists.
I hope this helps. :-)
P.R.
CG is amazingly impervious to information at times. I do in fact think he is incapable of hearing the answer on this one.
I think we'll keep him anyway...just for general amusement.
“I think we'll keep him anyway...just for general amusement.”
Its mostly why we have chickens...in town. The cost of our fresh “organic eggs” is about $8.14 each because of the heat and therefore lack of production. Almost lost one yesterday from heat prostration. She was face down in the dirt and the other chickens were just walking right across her. They are very simple creatures with no measurable level of brain activity.
Hey, I just got this great idea for a new mascot for the Democratic Party!
P.R.
CG
I hate to be lawyerly but the problem and I hope Tony agrees is that the more specific you get the more nuanced the constitutional analysis becomes.
For instance, on your driver license question. Yes it is not a right and therefore left to the states. But then you get into a trump card carried in the constitution by congress called the commerce clause. Sure they can regualte this area but if the regulation is too onerous then congress steps in with the commerce clause.
The commerce clause is the basis for all federalism in my opinion. The power to regulate interstate commerce has been the basis for almost of the federlism complained of by prof.
The interplay between the commerce clause; the fourteenth amendment and the Bill of Rights is complex. Layer on top of that the rule of stare decisis and there are no clear cut answers in my opinion.
I am not saying that as a layperson you can't understand it. Hell most attorneys don't (I am not saying I can fully explain it myself). Several persons who are "experts" would even tell you that at least half of the supreme court doesn't get it.
I don't if this helps but I really do view it as a debate of how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. For every case that a conservative scholar can show me that says this, I can find one that says the opposite.
I don't think this helps. That is what I meant when I said in some of my first posts that I apply Sup Crt cases in a specific context. Much easier to do I assure you.
“Sounds like GOP chickens....would resent it if the other chicken's helped out.”
Touché!
“have to take out his Katyusha missiles someday. ”
No good. We have the Texas Rangers and that would be considered a provocation. You don’t want to get Chuck Norris angry.
---------------------
There are no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, Chuck Norris lives in Oklahoma.
The show Survivor had the original premise of putting people on an island with Chuck Norris. There were no survivors, and nobody is brave enough to go to the island to retrieve the footage.
Chuck Norris doesn't bowl strikes, he just knocks down one pin and the other nine faint.
In the beginning there was nothing...then Chuck Norris Roundhouse kicked that nothing in the face and said "Get a job". That is the story of the universe.
Chuck Norris has the greatest Poker-Face of all time. He won the 1983 World Series of Poker, despite holding only a Joker, a Get out of Jail Free Monopoloy card, a 2 of clubs, 7 of spades and a green #4 card from the game UNO.
Chuck Norris always knows the EXACT location of Carmen SanDiego.
Contrary to popular belief, there is indeed enough Chuck Norris to go around.
Wilt Chamberlain claims to have slept with more than 20,000 women in his lifetime. Chuck Norris calls this "a slow Tuesday."
When Steven Seagal kills a ninja, he only takes its hide. When Chuck Norris kills a ninja, he uses every part.
When an episode of Walker Texas Ranger was aired in France, the French surrendered to Chuck Norris just to be on the safe side.
The grass is always greener on the other side, unless Chuck Norris has been there. In that case the grass is most likely soaked in blood and tears.
Chuck Norris doesn't actually write books, the words assemble themselves out of fear.
Some people like to eat frogs' legs. Chuck Norris likes to eat lizard legs. Hence, snakes.
Chuck Norris once ate a whole cake before his friends could tell him there was a stripper in it.
An anagram for Walker Texas Ranger is KARATE WRANGLER SEX. I don't know what that is, but it sounds AWESOME.
Chuck Norris can slam a revolving door.
Hellen Keller's favorite color is Chuck Norris.
Superman once watched an episode of Walker, Texas Ranger. He then cried himself to sleep.
Chuck Norris doesn't play god. Playing is for children.
CG
It is vague. The language is deceptively simple. I repeat my earlier post:
Hey, given the brevity of the document I think that it is a mona lisa masterpiece. What the hell are they smiling about? The devil was in the details and to the extent you include too many, the chances of each colonial legislature adopting the document drop drmatically. I beleive the intent was to make it vague on purpose so they could get passed by the people. Sorry, I mean State Legislative Bodies. No democracy, it's a republic. The words are always subject to interpretation (intentionally).
Common said: “In the category of further lame discussions, the Senate is debating stem cell research...”
Although they may be doing that too, the vote as I understand it is on the taxpayer dollars FUNDING the stem cell research. They have been researching it, they are researching it, and they will continue researching it. The debate is on whether to take money out of the pool that can be used for universal national health insurance or to have it only be privately funded like much of the research already going on in the medical community.
P.R.
CG
This WWIII thing is getting off to a slow start.
I have to agree with prof a little on this. If there's so much promise in it, then there's a lot of money in it too. Therefore, funding (private) should not be an issue. Also, once the new president gets in, republican or democrat, the law will be trotted back out, passed and signed.
The only historical significance of this veto is that it is his first in six years. Spending out of control, a war president and a repub rebellion and this is it? No leadership in the executive branch, no leadership in the legislative branch and a new court. How the hell did we get here?
No leadership in either party that would make me want to get up off the couch and walk across the street for anybody.
With all that is going on in the world, you think it would bring out or best. Instead it mediocrity is on display. Chewing some bread and cussing is we get. Oh yeah, an attempt to give a neck message to another world leader as if she were the new girl in the secretary pool.
Now I'm depressed.
Guy,
Don't be depressed! You need a completely new attitude. Fortunately, I can help.
You see, all that stuff inside the beltway...that is entertainment. Hell, the part we see is even mostly produced by Hollywood. I think they should call the series Dynasty - The Next Generation.
So don't worry or fret. Pop some pop-corn, top it with extra butter if you are really down, and kick back in the lazy boy: enjoy the show. With it being one of the few Hollywood feature productions sporting free tickets, what is not to enjoy?
“the vote as I understand it is on the taxpayer dollars FUNDING the stem cell research.... to have it only be privately funded like much of the research already going on in the medical community.”
One of the greatest fears of the 13 colonies was that if they joined the United States that the Federal government would become all powerful and the state governments would be of no effect. Its amazing how we look purely to the federal government to accomplish every good thing. Today we have state governments, many of which rival the population and resources of 1789 USA, and we fail to recognize them as capable, useful entities for accomplishing common good, objectives. The stem cell debate is mostly about Federal funding of new lines, two qualifications you don’t hear. The Fed IS funding stem cell research now. The Fed will be funding stem cell research tomorrow. But any state wanting to could pick up the banner and run with it, funding stem cell research of new lines if they saw fit to do so. Rather than be known as the “Show Me” state or the “The Lone Star” state, your state could be known for its dedication to research, disease and poverty eradication, or something similar. The blue states in unison could pick up the ONE Campaign. Their 50% of GNP multiplied by two could make up the infamous 0.7% needed to end all poverty, or whatever. So if 0.7% is nothing, surely two times that figure for the blue state, or 1.4%, is barely more than nothing for the blue STATEs to brag about.
This could go on ad nauseam to accomplish all of the worthy goals we desired. Those states wanting Universal Health Care could so implement that, others could pass. States could be known for all kinds of socialist or free elements. Of course, the socialists hate this because it is somewhat decentralizing of power and they want to concentrate it at the top, forgetting approximately 100% of history that says that is not a good idea. They, with a straight face, bring up slavery as a condition that will return if the Fed does not control 100% of everything. It’s hard not to laugh and cry at the same time when trying to respond to that one.
I must apologize to my Marxist friends though. I have accused the socialist path as one that stifles ingenuity. I have been proved wrong. I sincerely apologize.
P.R.
Tony - Thanks for the pick me up. I forgot that this is all grist for the mill.
CG - I thought prof and Tony were just mudslinging when he called you a socialist but maybe not. While I agree there are some tasks the government shouold do, these are limited. I like the workings of the free market better and trust it a lot more. I repeat, this is not a big deal except to those institutions who were looking for more government grants to buy i-pods with.
CG -
I am reminded that WW starts small and grows big with much appeasement along the way. Having said that, the seeds of this go a long way back. (Obviously).
I think Bush maybe right here, no quick ceasefire. Let's get this worked out. I for one don't think Israel's response is out of proportion. Having said that, this is a dangerous game. Having it "worked out once and for all" may mean an all out culture war and the final act of the crusades.
“I agree Prof, we should go back to the Articles of Confederation.”
I think this shows how difficult it is for the liberal mind to step outside of total collectivism. You see what I said as the “Articles of Confederation,” but that is what the articles of the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights pointed to. It is beyond your imagination, ie your world view, to imagine a world not driven by a command economy. A land where people are forced into a cookie cutter citizenry marching like those N. Koreans or Nazis for some greater common good, and miraculously, while ignoring family, profit motive, and self, food appears like manna’ from heaven every morning on the breakfast dishes. The liberal mind is bragged about as being so open, yet I have never seen a mind so closed.
The liberal mind speaks of intolerance, but what they mean is for people of religious convictions to become bigger hypocrites through embracing and practicing that which their religion condemns. The liberal mind speaks of compassion, but what they mean is for me not to sacrifice for a cause I feel as worthy, but to force others to use their money to sacrifice for my pet “common goods.” The liberal mind speaks of Choice© for women, but what they mean is they want women to choose death for their child, because choice involves options and a full knowledge of what they are, and the liberals have rejected at every level information about the abortion being given to the parents, the husband or partner, and even to the woman getting the abortion. They are against sonograms, pictures of fetal development, discussions of post abortion depression. They are against ANY RESTRICTION ON ABORTION PERIOD! If not so, name one. There has never been a more ANTI-Choice© party than the liberal. They speak of honesty (Bush lied, people died.) but they are the ones that make stuff up and once their statement has been proven false, drop it and try another claim to see if it will stick without regard to truthfulness, accuracy or ANY abhorrence to lying. They are the ones who excused Clinton’s lying because, after all wouldn’t ANYBODY lie about sex? Wouldn’t anybody perjure themselves on the witness stand for their family? And the liberal mind speaks of being open minded, but what they mean is they want opposition proponents to open THEIR minds to the liberal’s way and not vice versa. The liberal speaks of being bipartisan, but that means they want the conservative opposition to yield their point of view, never the opposite.
Your lack of historical understanding of what I described above that was in the realm of our current Constitution and not the previous Art. of Confed. is dismissed as a triviality. Why would you have to understand to comment on it? Your utopian collectivist answer is the only answer, regardless of the question. Its only a matter of making history and “facts” mold to your answer. And I must add, you do it brilliantly.
P.R.
Let's See . . .
Prof - What a bunch of intolerant horse hockey!! The problem for our debate is that you don't believe in the seperation of church and state as a starting point and that your religious convictions give you a moral imperitave to create a government that will force your views on all others. Admit it, you want a christian based theocracy.
Also in response to - "They are against ANY RESTRICTION ON ABORTION PERIOD! If not so, name one."
Plenty of liberals are for restrictions on abortion. I think the Sup Ct reasoning is abundantly reasonable and consistent with centuries old common law.
Prior to the "quickening" the state has little interest in the life. Typically or at least in modern times, the quickening has come to mean after the first trimester. The right to an abortion only exists in the first trimester, thereafter the state's interest take hold and more restrictions become reasonable. Like most things, it is not all or nothing. Ithink most liberals agree with this proposition and therefore agree to reasonable restrictions on abortion.
CG - Can't say that I disagree in general. As always the devil (or liberal according to Prof) is in the details.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Much to respond to. I’ll deal with C.G. later...
Guy said... “The problem for our debate is that you don't believe in the seperation of church and state as a starting point....”
Exactly! And you and others do. That is the rose colored glasses for the liberal. EVERYTHING including truth and history bow down to the slogan of the secularist proselytes. Remember, your starting point, your standard, that by which everything else is judged is your religion, and my religion, and everybody else’s religion.
“...and that your religious convictions give you a moral imperitave to create a government that will force your views on all others.”
The whole concept of government is the use of force to compel some people in some way to accomplish some goal. Those goals vacillate between the acceptable extremes for the period and cultural society we are in. According to my Bible, worshiping God and not killing your neighbor are voluntary restraints - it’s up to you to do what is right. I can not, nor should I ever use government to make you worship anything. That is between you and God and the afterlife. However, murdering another person is something that I can and should use government for to exact justice. The basis for a lot of these laws is Biblical law. You could say I have a moral imperative to exact justice based upon my religion and you’d be right.
“... Admit it, you want a christian based theocracy.”
OK. I’ll admit it only to you. But please don’t tell Common Good. He’s stirred up enough already.
Plenty of liberals are for restrictions on abortion.....The right to an abortion only exists in the first trimester, thereafter the state's interest take hold and more restrictions become reasonable. Like most things, it is not all or nothing. Ithink most liberals agree with this proposition and therefore agree to reasonable restrictions on abortion.
I know arguing with a lawyer about law is a losing proposition, but you can’t win against Goliath if you don’t fight Goliath. From what I understand Roe v. Wade allows abortion up to and including partially born. As long as the head is still in the birth canal, the little booger is a target for the abortionists tools. All the polls say the average person only believes abortion is legal in the first trimester. All the analysis of Roe v. Wade have said it is the full term. Maybe you can give me comfort that a full term, family in the waiting room, “It’s a Boy!” infant is protected from the D&X slaughterfest. I await your scholarly council.
Oh, and another thing. Just so it isn’t so easily swept under the rug - I didn’t see a single restriction on abortion that pro-aborts would accept itemized in your retort. Maybe I could give you the , , or web sites so that you could use them as your resource. But you and I both know that would be to no avail.
Guy, another widespread myth is that repealing Roe v. Wade legalizes abortion. That would only revert to the states to control such activity. States could then keep or restrict abortion to any degree they saw fit. And I’ll throw a bone to C.G. to gnaw on ‘cause I know how he dislikes obscene capitalist gain. It is the normal practice of abortion clinics to accept only cash for abortions. No checks and no credit cards. It is not uncommon for abortion providers to take $10,000 to $15,000 a day to the bank. In such an unaccountable environment of dealing purely in cash, I wonder if all of the taxes due on such income are paid. I should probably be tarred and feathered for such a comment. After all, it is obvious they are only providing such services for the benefit of poor troubled women and not for any personal gain.
Prof. Ricardo
I don't know what I did wrong with the link, but I had put in the links to Planned Parenthood, NARAL, and NOW. Just put a .org on the end of each and you'll get there. Sorry for the html butcher job. I learned everything I know about it from C.G. :)
C.G. said: “I accept the fact that your religious convictions prevent you from pooling federal taxes to help the needy in our society or foreign societies.”
Actually, my religious convictions do not specifically prevent it by stating “Don’t tax thy neighbor for thy needy”. What scriptures DO say is that it is a personal responsibility of mine. I guess I could delegate that to others, but that does not lessen my responsibility. So if I give $100 to help an individual in need, I know that $100 is used for its intended purpose. If I give $100 to a private charity, whether religious or not, I know that a certain amount of money is used for administration and fund raising. Out of $100, probably $85 makes it to the needy. If I give $100 to the government, knowing historically how they have handled this, I know that only about $35 get’s to the needy on average. If I care about the needy, then I will try to use the method that get’s the most real help for the needy. If I care about my responsibility to discharge my duty to the needy, I will seek to use the method that gets the most help for the needy from my $100. If I feel compelled to help those in Africa, and I know I’m not going there anytime soon, I need to choose either private or governmental was to accomplish my method. Given the horror stories of government funds going to despots, buying condoms and unneeded medical supplies, etc., it seems a safe bet that the multitude of private charities, some religious and some not, that they are the best bet purely on a pragmatic economic basis.
Morally speaking, a couple more issues crop up. One, can we legally (Constitutionally permitted) take money from others for the specific purpose to enrich others. Although I see provision on the Federal level for collecting money for public purposes (that is, that benefits all people, like roads, defense, settling disputes, etc.), I see no provision for collecting taxes to enrich specific people as an end unto itself. So I have a problem with breaking the law to “do good.”
Additionally, knowing how welfare has worked in the pass to “win” the “war on poverty,” it is apparent to all with open eyes that not only has the war on poverty at great expense not been won, it is a path littered with social carnage that few could have envisioned before hand. For example, with government paychecks replacing responsible bread winners in the family, is anyone on this blog surprised at the number of unwed births in the black community? Isn’t it approaching 70%? And that’s averaging in all of the middle & upper class blacks as well. Doesn’t even the most liberal of you see unwed mother’s, fatherless children, and multiple siblings with all different daddies, not a way to achieve a good wholesome environment for raising children, avoiding spousal abuse, increasing family wealth, and avoiding a future of being a “needy” family? There are reactions to receiving money when one is “needy.” You would think it would be purely thankfulness with the desire to use that opportunity to better oneself. It turns out it is one of resentment and anger. And once they accept the help, then their level of achievement seems stifled. They can only earn, say $500 per month and then all benefits (say $600) will be taken away. That means if they have the chance to make $700 this month, they wont do it because they will actually be $400 worse (+$200 over limit less $600 of lost benefits.) They become locked in to poverty by the very thing that is intended to “help.”
Surely even the liberals here will admit to some level of negative consequence that happens when welfare is given. Surely the pragmatism that drives most of you would demand that you weigh damage done versus benefits gained. And given your abhorrence to slavery and championing privacy and choice would allow you to place at least some value on the labor and decisions (choices) that people make, so that when they labor and make money, or invest and loose money, that you would not want to play god and rearrange the fruits of our time and our decisions, to achieve some outcome that is arbitrary according to your since of compassion as you define it.
The position of ones opposed to welfare are not hatred of poor, elitism, some since of superiority, pharisee-ism, or some other boogieman of the left. Rather, it is with a since of compassion, obligation, justice, and a desire to achieve real change in the needy that we take the stands we do. There are varing levels of caring on both sides. But for me to ignore 30+ years of study and insight into the harm and lack of results of the welfare game, would be the least intelligent and humanitarian thing I could do.
Prof. Ricardo
C.G. said: “Prof, you are the only extremist here... you are the only one married to delivery method. It's obvious to most of us that our government has to provide at least some social services. It's obvious to a few of us that is what government is for...”
?!? I seek a legal, just, and efficient way to help them...and I am the extremist. You come from the stand point of government has to provide at least some social services, and yet you charge me with being married to a delivery method. I ..........er.........uh.......Yes Dear.
Prof. Ricardo
Yoshi said: “Hey Professor. I finally figured out how the Minutemen could be successful in their endeavors. Make all the brown people use birth control and have abortions like us white people do!”
Actually, that’s Planned Parenthoods job, not the Minutemen. Their founder Margaret Sanger already had experience with eugenics on the Negro Project. It would take very little adaptation for them to prey off of any particular group.
Yoshi said: “There is a whole chapter linking higher abortion rates and lower crime 20 years later... all the little poor kids without fathers, the ones not able to get educated, etc, basically not able to make it in a capitalist society get aborted, which means all us lucky ones don't have to worry so much about having their guns in our faces when they turn 20....”
Cool. Death sentences before they commit the crimes. Just hope nobody foresees us doing any crimes, eh?
There are flaws in a simplistic comparison of abortion implementation and crime rate. A simple analysis is available here.
Its amazing how the women knew which children to abort, you know, the criminal ones, before she ever saw the child. Of course, if you kill enough unborn, you’re bound to get a few bad apples.
How about another correlation? Parenting skills of Pro-Lifers vs. parenting skills of Pro-Abortionists. When the offspring of the Pro-Abortionists are eliminated, crime goes down. Cool. We can play all kinds of games with statistics.
Prof. Ricardo
Prof siad . . . "The basis for a lot of these laws is Biblical law." In a word, bullshit.
Have you ever read Roe v. Wade and the cases that follow or just what Ann Coulter writes?
If you do not believe in the seperation of church and state, then is it OK for a muslim based theocracy too? Or is a christian theocracy the only one that would be OK.
Yoshi - BTW, I read Freakonomics. Great Boook.
Prof said . . . "From what I understand Roe v. Wade allows abortion up to and including partially born. It says no such thing.
Redo
Prof Said Prof said "From what I understand Roe v. Wade allows abortion up to and including partially born."
It says no such thing. Read it.
Guy said...
Prof Said Prof said "From what I understand Roe v. Wade allows abortion up to and including partially born."
It says no such thing. Read it.
U.S. Supreme Court
ROE v. WADE, 410 U.S. 113 (1973)
410 U.S. 113
ROE ET AL. v. WADE, DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF DALLAS COUNTY APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS No. 70-18.
Argued December 13, 1971 Reargued October 11, 1972
Decided January 22, 1973
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=410&invol=113
Relevant texts....
With respect to the State's important and legitimate interest in the health of the mother, the "compelling" point, in the light of present medical knowledge, is at approximately the end of the first trimester. This is so because of the now-established medical fact, referred to above at 149, that until the end of the first trimester mortality in abortion may be less than mortality in normal childbirth. It follows that, from and after this point, a State may regulate the abortion procedure to the extent that the regulation reasonably relates to the preservation and protection of maternal health. Examples of permissible state regulation in this area are requirements as to the qualifications of the person who is to perform the abortion; as to the licensure of that person; as to the facility in which the procedure is to be performed, that is, whether it must be a hospital or may be a clinic or some other place of less-than-hospital status; as to the licensing of the facility; and the like. (That’s showing them. Make ‘em use licensed abortionists. Babies in the compelling stage are cheering everywhere.-Prof.)
This means, on the other hand, that, for the period of pregnancy prior to this "compelling" point, the attending physician, in consultation with his patient, is free to determine, without regulation by the State, that, in his medical judgment, the patient's pregnancy should be terminated. If that decision is reached, the judgment may be effectuated by an abortion free of interference by the State.
With respect to the State's important and legitimate interest in potential life, the "compelling" point is at viability. This is so because the fetus then presumably has the capability of meaningful life outside the mother's womb. State regulation protective of fetal life after viability thus has both logical and biological justifications. If the State is interested in protecting fetal life after viability, it may go so far as to proscribe abortion [410 U.S. 113, 164] during that period, except when it is necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother.
--------End of Relevant Text----
We all know that the “health of the mother” means everything from keeping a flat tummy so that her girl friends won’t talk to anything under the sun that might cause stress. Basically unlimited. Let’s go to a non-conservative source and see what happens next....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_v._Wade
Roe v. Wade
[75% of the way down]
Stenberg v. Carhart
During the 1990s, attempts were made at the state level to ban late-term abortions, which were struck down, again by a 5-4 vote, in Stenberg v. Carhart, 530 U.S. 914 (2000), with Justice Kennedy, co-author of the Casey decision, among the dissenters.
Stenberg, Attorney General of Nebraska, et al. v. Carhart,
530 U.S. 914 (2000), is a case heard by the Supreme Court of the United States dealing with a Nebraska law which made performing "partial-birth abortion" illegal, unless necessary to save the mother's life. Nebraska physicians who performed the procedure contrary to the law were subject to their medical license revoked. Nebraska, like many states, banned the procedure on the basis of public morality. The Court struck down the law finding the Nebraska statute criminalizing "partial birth abortion[s]" violated the United States Constitution as the court ruled in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992).
----------
Guy,
If Roe v. Wade (its arguments) does not permit abortions throughout the pregnancy, how come states try, try, try to in some way limit abortion, even the insidious partial-birth abortion as a late term gruseome procedure, and it is always struck down. PLEASE, PLEASE show me in a meaningful way that Roe v. Wade is limited to the first trimester.
Prof. Ricardo
Guy said...
“Prof siad . . . "The basis for a lot of these laws is Biblical law." In a word, bullshit.”
It’s hard to address your scholarly response with, as Yoshi might say, a proportionate response. It probably wouldn’t be helpful. However, the evolution of law is an interesting topic.
Commentaries on American Law (1826-30)
Chancellor James Kent
“The law of nations, so far as it is founded on the principles of natural law, is equally binding in every age, and upon all mankind. But the Christian nations of Europe, and their descendants on this side of the Atlantic, by the vast superiority of the attainments in arts, and science, and commerce, as well as in policy and government; and, above all, by the brighter light, the more certain truths, and the more definite sanction, which Christianity has communicated to the ethical jurisprudence of the ancients, have established a law of nations peculiar to themselves. They form together a community of nations, united by religion, manners, morals, humanity, and science, and united also by the mutual advantages of commercial intercourse, by the habit of forming alliances and treaties with each other, of interchanging ambassadors, and of studying and recognizing the same writers and systems of public law.”
Since it is most probable that our founding fathers, 35 of which were either lawyers or trained in the law, were educated by the Commentaries on the Laws of England (1765-1769) by Sir William Blackstone, it may behoove you to read Sect. 2: Of the Nature of Laws in General . I realize that your worldview may prevent you from seeing what is clearly written, given the general perspective of people much closer to the foundation of our laws than are we, I stand behind my original statement.
Prof. Ricardo
Prof.
I am on a family reunion Des Moines and I will respond fully when I get home. I am quite confident though that our founding fathers had no desire for a theocracy or they would have created one.
That Chancellor Kent is a bunch of self serving rubbish. If it has any value at all it is mere dicta and does not support in any way your argument. Christian comity does not mean the basis for our laws is the bible.
Prof - from Roe v. Wade . . .
We, therefore, conclude that the right of personal privacy includes the abortion decision, but that this right is not unqualified and must be considered against important state interests in regulation.
Although the results are divided, most of these courts have agreed that the right of privacy, however based, is broad enough to cover the abortion decision; that the right, nonetheless, is not absolute and is subject to some limitations; and that at some point the state interests as to protection of health, medical standards, and prenatal life, become dominant. We agree with this approach.
In view of all this, we do not agree that, by adopting one theory of life, Texas may override the rights of the pregnant woman that are at stake. We repeat, however, that the State does have an important and legitimate interest in preserving and protecting the health of the pregnant woman, whether she be a resident of the State or a nonresident who seeks medical consultation and treatment there, and that it has still another important and legitimate interest in protecting the potentiality of human life. These interests are separate and distinct. Each grows in substantiality as the woman approaches [410 U.S. 113, 163] term and, at a point during pregnancy, each becomes "compelling."
With respect to the State's important and legitimate interest in the health of the mother, the "compelling" point, in the light of present medical knowledge, is at approximately the end of the first trimester.
This means, on the other hand, that, for the period of pregnancy prior to this "compelling" point, the attending physician, in consultation with his patient, is free to determine, without regulation by the State, that, in his medical judgment, the patient's pregnancy should be terminated. If that decision is reached, the judgment may be effectuated by an abortion free of interference by the State.
With respect to the State's important and legitimate interest in potential life, the "compelling" point is at viability. This is so because the fetus then presumably has the capability of meaningful life outside the mother's womb. State regulation protective of fetal life after viability thus has both logical and biological justifications. If the State is interested in protecting fetal life after viability, it may go so far as to proscribe abortion [410 U.S. 113, 164] during that period, except when it is necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother.
Prof. from Roe v. Wade . .
We, therefore, conclude that the right of personal privacy includes the abortion decision, but that this right is not unqualified and must be considered against important state interests in regulation.
Although the results are divided, most of these courts have agreed that the right of privacy, however based, is broad enough to cover the abortion decision; that the right, nonetheless, is not absolute and is subject to some limitations; and that at some point the state interests as to protection of health, medical standards, and prenatal life, become dominant. We agree with this approach.
In view of all this, we do not agree that, by adopting one theory of life, Texas may override the rights of the pregnant woman that are at stake. We repeat, however, that the State does have an important and legitimate interest in preserving and protecting the health of the pregnant woman, whether she be a resident of the State or a nonresident who seeks medical consultation and treatment there, and that it has still another important and legitimate interest in protecting the potentiality of human life. These interests are separate and distinct. Each grows in substantiality as the woman approaches [410 U.S. 113, 163] term and, at a point during pregnancy, each becomes "compelling."
With respect to the State's important and legitimate interest in the health of the mother, the "compelling" point, in the light of present medical knowledge, is at approximately the end of the first trimester.
This means, on the other hand, that, for the period of pregnancy prior to this "compelling" point, the attending physician, in consultation with his patient, is free to determine, without regulation by the State, that, in his medical judgment, the patient's pregnancy should be terminated. If that decision is reached, the judgment may be effectuated by an abortion free of interference by the State.
With respect to the State's important and legitimate interest in potential life, the "compelling" point is at viability. This is so because the fetus then presumably has the capability of meaningful life outside the mother's womb. State regulation protective of fetal life after viability thus has both logical and biological justifications. If the State is interested in protecting fetal life after viability, it may go so far as to proscribe abortion [410 U.S. 113, 164] during that period, except when it is necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother.
Prf: I don' think it could be stated any clearer that they did in Stenberg v. Carhart:
Three established principles determine the issue before us. We shall set them forth in the language of the joint opinion in Casey. First, before “viability ••• the woman has a right to choose to terminate her pregnancy.” Id., at 870, 112 S.Ct. 2791 (plurality opinion).
[3] Second, “a law designed to further the State's interest in fetal life which imposes an undue burden on the woman's decision before fetal viability” is unconstitutional. Id., at 877, 112 S.Ct. 2791. An “undue burden is ••• shorthand for the conclusion that a state regulation has the purpose or effect of placing a substantial obstacle in the path of a woman seeking an abortion of a nonviable fetus.” Ibid.
[4] Third, “ ‘subsequent to viability, the State in promoting its interest in the potentiality of human life may, if it chooses, regulate, and even proscribe, abortion except where it is necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother.’ ” Id., at 879, 112 S.Ct. 2791 (quoting Roe v. Wade, supra, at 164-165, 93 S.Ct. 705).
Analysis under these three principles:
"With respect to the State's important and legitimate interest in the health of the mother, the "compelling" point, in the light of present medical knowledge, is at approximately the end of the first trimester.
This means, on the other hand, that, for the period of pregnancy prior to this "compelling" point, the attending physician, in consultation with his patient, is free to determine, without regulation by the State, that, in his medical judgment, the patient's pregnancy should be terminated. If that decision is reached, the judgment may be effectuated by an abortion free of interference by the State.
With respect to the State's important and legitimate interest in potential life, the "compelling" point is at viability. This is so because the fetus then presumably has the capability of meaningful life outside the mother's womb. State regulation protective of fetal life after viability thus has both logical and biological justifications. If the State is interested in protecting fetal life after viability, it may go so far as to proscribe abortion [410 U.S. 113, 164] during that period, except when it is necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother."
I thought this was interesting:
"About 90% of all abortions performed in the United States take place during the first trimester of pregnancy, before 12 weeks of gestational age. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Abortion Surveillance-United States, 1996, p. 41 (July 30, 1999) (hereinafter Abortion Surveillance)."
Further analysis:
The Casey plurality opinion reiterated what the Court held in Roe; that “ ‘subsequent to viability, the State in promoting its interest in the potentiality of human life may, if it chooses, regulate, and even proscribe, abortion except where it is necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother.’ ” 505 U.S., at 879, 112 S.Ct. 2791 (quoting Roe, supra, at 164-165, 93 S.Ct. 705) (emphasis added).
The fact that Nebraska's law applies both previability and postviability aggravates the constitutional problem presented. The State's interest in regulating abortion previability is considerably weaker than postviability.
Consequently, the governing standard requires an exception “where it is necessary, in appropriate medical judgment for the preservation of the life or health of the mother,” Casey, supra, at 879, 112 S.Ct. 2791, for this Court has made clear that a State may promote but not endanger a woman's health when it regulates the methods of abortion."
In summary, I would like to point out a few things:
(1)The Supreme Court has stated in Roe; Casey and in this case what is needed for a "viable" law proscribing abaortion, and yet the frafters of these laws always fail to follow the cookbook set out for them. Why is that?
Becuase they are more interested in the issue than actual regulation of abrotion. All or nothing. No middle ground. My own view is that you and I are being played. You get your pamphlets that decry and distort what the courts are actually saying. Sounding the alarm against activist judges so that you will give money and support conservative candidates who will wrest control of the judiciary and stop the moral decay.
I, on the other hand, am routinely attempted to be fleeced by liberals who states that they are only one vote away from a complete takeover by the right waing who want to, and you have agreed should, impose a theocracy. I get it. I hope you do too. Your neighbor is not satan nor are the judges. But that doesn't draw in camapaign donations.
The voice of reason doesn't fuel people to open their checkbooks and give money. It is partisanship and alarm bells that do that. So reason gets no voice.
But I honestly don't beleive that showing you what the actual decisions say will change your mind. You can't. Your too committed to stopping the moral decay of society at all costs. Whether it exists or not. Its all or nothing.
I am shocked that you want a theocracy. I thought at least all Americans believed in the seperation of church and state. And we could have that as a starting point.
If you like what they have done with the tax code just wait till you see what they can do with state mandated religion. It'll be great.
All, pardon the typos.
Prof:
Finally, what laws are based on the bible? I am curious. Let me start:
Thou Shall not Kill?
Except in times of war; or to stop an abortion clinic doctor (under the heading for the greater good); or when acting in the heat of passion; or when you are insane.
Are any of these exceptions contained in the bible?
Oh yeah, forgot one, when God tells you too. (Abraham almost sacrificing Isaac. As a test of you faith.)
What laws did Jesus espouse?
Guy,
Your response on the abortion issue was very well done. Dang near professional! :-)
I’ll drop the Roe v. Wade issue for now ‘cause I can only defend so many ports at once AND live a life outside of blogdom.
Prof. Ricardo
PS . . Various responses coming on the religion issues.
Prof - Is that a concession. It reads a little like one but doesn't quite feel like it. You don't have to respond to that. Its not all or nothing with me.
CG/Tony/Yoshi - Should I frame that response and call it a concession?
U.S. Sen. John Kerry, D- Mass., who was in town Sunday to help Gov. Jennifer Granholm campaign for her re-election bid, took time to take a jab at the Bush administration for its lack of leadership in the Israeli-Lebanon conflict.
"If I was president, this wouldn't have happened," said Kerry during a noon stop at Honest John's bar and grill in Detroit's Cass Corridor.
July 23, 2006
The Detroit News
Am I just here for your entertainment?
Guy,
Since time is valuable for both of us, I need 3 items from you.
1) What is your definition of theocracy?
2) In a very short summary, how would a modern day American theocracy look to you?
3) What reasonable level of evidence would I have to produce to support my claim that our Constitutional Republic and its laws are built on a foundation of Christian principles as revealed in the Scriptures?
Thanks,
Prof. Ricardo
Prof -
As for a Definition of Theocracy, I'll go with this from Encyclopedia Brittanica:
Government by divine guidance or by officials who are regarded as divinely guided.
In many theocracies, government leaders are members of the clergy, and the state's legal system is based on religious law. Theocratic rule was typical of early civilizations. The Enlightenment marked the end of theocracy in most Western countries. Contemporary examples of theocracies include Saudi Arabia, Iran, and the Vatican.
I would add that in a theocracy the state has a chosen religion which the government is designed to promote and establish among the population. Further, the executive uses the power of the office to enforce the religious tenets of the state religion.
A modern day American Theocracy would probably be Christian based for the time being. The power of the state would force church attendance; tithing; and the christian coalition's wish list of morality laws would be passed quickly in Congress (I guess maybe it wouldn't. I mean you wouldn't demean God's law by putting through the legislative process. I guess it would be law by executive fiat. That would be better because then the law would be whatever the executive interpreted it to be with divine guidance of course.)
Yeah, I think it would a lot like that.
Level of Evidence: I don't know. A will hold you to the prepoderance of evidence standard not beyond a reasonable doubt.
I beleive your claim was - "The basis for a lot of these laws is Biblical law." To which I responded with a short yet succinct retort.
Maybe you should also answer these questions so we have an understaning of terms. I would also like an answer to this question that I posed:
If you do not believe in the seperation of church and state, then is it OK for a muslim based theocracy too? Or is a christian theocracy the only one that would be OK.
Guy,
1) What is your definition of theocracy?
I agree with the Britanica definition.
2) In a very short summary, how would a modern day American theocracy look to you?
A country governed by Biblical law, where God is acknowledged to exist by the state.
3) What reasonable level of evidence would I have to produce...?
Actually, I was interested in the kind of evidence like quotes of founders, quotes of government documents, quotes of sources the government or founders used, that point toward a the Bible, Christian principles, acknowledgment of God, and a desire to further Christianity through making government not hostile, but friendly toward religion.
If you do not believe in the seperation of church and state, then is it OK for a muslim based theocracy too?
I think it is “OK” for Muslims, like any man, to seek to govern their countries any way they see fit. However, I think they are wrong theologically. Therefore, I do not think it is “OK” for someone to believe that way if, according to what I know about salvation, they want to get to heaven. Additionally, from what I have read in the Koran and have seen evidence in real life, it appears that the religion is hostile to freedom, females, and is intolerant of anyone that believes otherwise, to the point of killing them. I don’t think that is “OK”.
Or is a christian theocracy the only one that would be OK.
That would be my conclusion.
Prof. Ricardo
Prof:
I guess I was thinking that if the majority in this country became muslim, then they could vote in a muslim theocracy. Or with the increase in hispanic culture in america, maybe a Catholic Based theocracy. But now that I think about it the term "democratic theocracy" is an oxymoron.
With regard to your burden of proof, I would request that you supplement with any quotes from the Constitution which would support your argument also.
Query: If they wanted a Christian theocracy, why didn't they just create one?
Prof:
Also, I do not doubt the religiousity of the founders. But in your eyes they got it wrong by not creating a theocracy. Why would you quote as evidence from men who you obviously think were too weak to stand up for what is right? Weren't they a bunch of pious do gooders who didn't have the balls to create a godly state in the founding document?
Then, having not said anything about god in the Constitution, they had a high lapse of moral character when they amended that damn thing to say this: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion . . ."
I don't mean to distract you from your task of a biblical basis for our laws but if they felt so strongly, why didin't they just create a theocracy?
Prof:
Just to be clear when you say, "a desire to further Christianity through making government not hostile, but friendly toward religion."
Religion means christian religion, right? They certainly didn't want to further any other religions did they?
Also, when you say Christian, you do mean, Protestant right? They also weren't open to promoting a religion where an intermediary interpreted the Bible and spoke to god on your behalf, were they?
Just trying to make sure I understand the terms.
Yoshi - Technically yes, but those could be declared a nullity if God told him he wanted him to stay on. The term limits would be man's law which is subject to absolute veto power by the supreme leader on his divine authority.
Guy said: “Why would you quote as evidence from men who you obviously think were too weak to stand up for what is right? Weren't they a bunch of pious do gooders who didn't have the balls to create a godly state in the founding document?”
Yu hav learn well Grasshoppa! You parrot re-manufactured history with precision. I hope to change that. In order to serve you well, repeat this phase: original source documents. Repeat it like a mantra all day. Go to sleep mumbling it tonight.
“Then, having not said anything about god in the Constitution, they had a high lapse of moral character when they amended that damn thing to say this: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion . . ."”
If you could’ve only seen the smile that crossed my face when I read that.
“I don't mean to distract you from your task of a biblical basis for our laws but if they felt so strongly, why didn't they just create a theocracy?”
I must establish the ground rules first. That’s the reason I am asking for the evidence necessary to prove my case. If you just say a “preponderance”, that means I run the race and you get to come along afterward and draw the finish line wherever you want. Not that you are dishonest, but we must all appease our world views, and the proponents of the world view you espouse just through these comments above is threatened by the actual history that took place in this country. Read original source documents.
What I want to evidence is that our Country and its laws are based on Christian principles as revealed in the Bible. Although I am not claiming to prove that we are or ever have been a theocracy, I may allude to that in the evidences I shall put forward.
What I am not trying to do is prove that historical Christian players in our past were sinless. Impuning the character of the historical figures I quote does not disprove the point I am trying to make.
Also, I hope to dispel some myths and misunderstandings that you may have on what a Christian nation would look like. So you can get that picture out of your head from Monty Python’s Holy Grail where the monks walking around chanting and banging stuff into their heads.
Tony, my apologies sir. I failed to ask if we could hijack your blog to settle personal matters, potentially of public interest. Are we game?
Prof. Ricardo
Addendum: Religion meant Christianity, which meant Protestant. They did not want to further other religions, but they were not hostile toward them either.
“But now that I think about it the term "democratic theocracy" is an oxymoron.”
Probably. But at its origination beginning in the colonies, they may have viewed themselves as theocratic republics. An important distinction.
IQuery: If they wanted a Christian theocracy, why didn't they just create one?”
That’s what this particular thread is all about.
You have my attention.
To the extent the other bloggers have already been through this exercise, my e-mail is
gfortney@valornet.com
Prof said . . "Also, I hope to dispel some myths and misunderstandings that you may have on what a Christian nation would look like."
I think I have a good idea but lets tackle one thing at a time.
Screw that sentiment... this ain't Tony's living room. :)
LOL!
Remember, admitting is the first step towards recovery. :)
The court jester is always welcome. Just keep the taint to a minimum. :)
P.R.
Prof said, "Religion meant Christianity, which meant Protestant."
I am kinda surprised you bit on that. Holy War here we come!!
Guy said...
Prof said, "Religion meant Christianity, which meant Protestant."
I am kinda surprised you bit on that. Holy War here we come!!
I haven’t started my response yet. That will take several days to organize and make comprehensible given that work, home life, and sleep still retain much value to me.
A tid bit on the “Holy War”...
Edmund Burke, Speech on Conciliation with the Colonies
22 Mar. 1775
Edmund Burke quote
Read paragraph 1.3.40
Prof:
Me thinks the required level of evidence that our laws are based upon the Bible is going to be high if that is the sort of documentation that you are going to provide.
I like Burke and the quote is insightful but he seems to be supporting my view that while we may have been religious, our real passion was religious freedom and an adamant belief in the separation of chruch and state.
But maybe I see ducks when you see chickens.
I know this is not your response but this is not a original or source document is it? I mean, I hope we are not judged 500 years from now on the speeches of GW.
Me thinks the required level of evidence that our laws are based upon the Bible is going to be high if that is the sort of documentation that you are going to provide.
Guy, Guy, Guy, Guy, Guy!
As a mere passing comment to your passing comment to my , whatever...
That was not meant to be a comprehensive doctoral thesis on the existence and proof that all feet touching soil in America where protestant. Good grief. It was just to show you how a non-colonial individual described Americans to another non-American. It was supposed to represent a non-tooting-our-own-horn “looky at us great protestants” type of evidence.
Did that slip past you? Please tell my I don’t have to spell everything out. That would increase my work load immeasurable. Work with me here. I can not write as well or as fast as Stephen King. Nor do I come from a background as a Constitutional attorney with unlimited resources. I’m going through a blog and the inherent restrictions that it, me, and time create are real.
Tanks,
P.R.
prof,
take your time.
In the meantime, I liked paragraph 1.3.42 of Burke's Commentary.
Guy said: In the meantime, I liked paragraph 1.3.42 of Burke's Commentary.
Excerpt of 1.3.42:
“I hear that they have sold nearly as many of Blackstone's Commentaries in America as in England.”
I purchased my facsimile copy of the first edition of Blacksone’s Commentaries about 10 years ago. The average person in Constitutional times were very educated - about a 2% adult illiteracy rate. Today with compulsory school laws and government in charge of educating and we have a 25% functional illiteracy rate. Now that’s progress for you.
Prof. Ricardo
Prof said "Today with compulsory school laws and government in charge of educating and we have a 25% functional illiteracy rate. Now that’s progress for you."
That's what excites me so much about state mandated religious instruction in a theocracy. Why in less than 50 years, I bet the federal government could wipe all religious notions in American citizens.
I can't wait to see how this will work.
Oh yeah, CG Good stuff but lest ye think that the salve issue was a compromise, by keeping it alive they were not doing a disservice to the Lord.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/sla_bibl1.htm
C.G.: “If they were so brilliant, why didn't they skip the war and just announce their independence without bloodshed 30 years later?”
Thanks. I forgot about that one. The answer is in support of my position. I will incorporate it in my comprehensive response. This is going to take a while. Because of the length of my response I will be publishing it on a remote temporary blog site. That way I don’t “taint” Tony’s site. If he is agreeable to it we can still argue about it here. Common, wanna name my blog for me? :-)
P.R.
Good ones CG
Its amazing how heathens with an agenda can butcher the “commentary” of the Bible. Entertaining too, in a pathetic sort of way.
P.R.
Oh, now we're heathens. I'm sure that makes it easier to discount the Bible Quotes. We of little intellect misconstruing the word. Why we're hardly qualified as "heathens".
Those were quotes weren't they? Word of God?
Now you're going to interpret the Bible and tell us "heathens" what it means. Parse through and pick out which words are from God and which are "commentary." Your not a protestant your a papist.
Excuse me . . .
You're not a protestant. You're a papist.
As a heathen, i sometimes not rite so good.
CG
With a tip o' the hat:
Profocrazy
CG:
I have not even seen a "rainbow" study bible but can tell you that it is probably suspect. I mean "rainbow" isn't that code for multicultural; can't we all just get along; love your neighbor babble? That's probably just the kind of Bible a heathen would cite to.
I think Prof is going to slam you guys on that one.
Sad. Very sad that I have been so busy lately. What a fun discussion in a bit of a dysfunctional version of “discussion”. But, there are a few things that jumped out that I thought I’d respond on.
At one point Prof said, ” Tony, my apologies sir. I failed to ask if we could hijack your blog to settle personal matters, potentially of public interest. Are we game?” In two years of blog comments I have NEVER objected or protested any discussion. We have had every flavor of potentially objectionable discourse one might imagine, albeit in small quantities. Heck, I even tolerate stupid posts.
My firm belief that no on-line discussion community that has editorial rules is worth a tinker’s durnation. I love the open and logically-hyper-linked discussion. Frankly I think it is why our small little group keeps coming back.
I also loved Guy’s statement earlier: ” My own view is that you and I are being played. … Your neighbor is not Satan nor are the judges. But that doesn't draw in campaign donations. Perfect. This is the central truth that I keep harping on.
Guy also asked, “I don't mean to distract you from your task of a biblical basis for our laws but if they felt so strongly, why didn’t they just create a theocracy?” This is a great question because it answers itself.
It is very clear to me that much of our law has roots that are borne out of historically shared Christian moral thinking. To deny this is absurd and I’m not suggesting anyone here is. But I think those that suggest the founders intended to create a Christian nation are either displaying profound ignorance or insulting the founders in a most uncharitable fashion.
Really, you do not have to look much further than the contrast between the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution to understand that there was an desire to balance faith and reason in the new institutions they were creating.
Now, if you had asked the founders if they thought the new nation would be a Christian nation two hundred years hence, I think everyone of them, with the possible exceptions of Franklin, Adams and Jefferson (who had experienced the intelligencia of France and were deeply in touch with the modern philosophies evolving there), they would’ve have answered yes. Similarly, if you had asked if they thought the new nation would be one where people were free to practice their religion as they saw fit, the would’ve answered that it would depend on whether they stuck to the Constitutional principals or not. Or as Franklin said, and I’m paraphrasing, “it’s a Republic if you can keep it.”
I’m telling few people anything they don’t already know, but these men had lived through religious wars WITHIN PROTESTANTISM. They were intimately aware of the problems that mixing religion and government caused. The absence of “God”, “Creator”, or “Providence” from the Constitution is huge. Importing religious language into the document would’ve been easy to do and would’ve perhaps helped with the ratification process.
Make no mistake about it: they intended to create a secular government. I don’t have a lot of energy for arguing the point: I’d rather do something constructive and argue about the color of the sky or whether the IQ or our current President really is above 80.
Lastly, Prof lit me up (in a good way) when he remarked, ”The average person in Constitutional times were very educated - about a 2% adult illiteracy rate. Today with compulsory school laws and government in charge of educating and we have a 25% functional illiteracy rate. Now that’s progress for you.”
The University of Tulsa had a history professor who did a lot of work on historical literacy rates. In fact, there is a good chance that statistic come out of his research. Unfortunately, his name escapes me at the time. But I remember his guest lecture in my Law and Society class (undergraduate) and he was quite compelling on this point. Colonial America through the early National period was a time of incredible literacy. People read and understood the paper in a way we can scarcely relate to today. The written word was their medium of interaction. Cricket scores were not to be found in those precious pages. The point is that this is some pretty solid research and not just a funny statistic out of Ann Coulter or Rush Limbaugh.
But statistics still play games. For instance, the numbers change dramatically based on how you define “functional illiteracy”. My guess is that your 25% number comes from a study that has a fairly low threshold for achieving “functional”. Often this means simply that you can read an electric bill and fill out a job application. Studies that define “functional” a little higher and include comprehension of simple written arguments tend to show much higher level of illiteracy. I have seen many number over 50% when measured this more useful way. Additionally, if you look at inner city communities and poor rural regions, the number are even worse.
No wonder sound bites sell and the politicians try to play us at every turn.
Prof said . . . "The basis for a lot of these laws is Biblical law."
Guy's retort . . . "In a word, bullshit.”
Guy's Supplemental response . . . See Tony's most recent post.
Tony, I knew there was a reason you were the smart one in highschool.
Tony said . . . "It is very clear to me that much of our law has roots that are borne out of historically shared Christian moral thinking. To deny this is absurd and I’m not suggesting anyone here is. But I think those that suggest the founders intended to create a Christian nation are either displaying profound ignorance or insulting the founders in a most uncharitable fashion."
Here, Here. Prof, that statement I agree with.
Guy,
I think you may be falling into that common fallacy where one thinks someone else is bright because they agree with you.
But then, I never leaned on those crutches known as "valves" either. :-D
Well, extremists on the other side often maintain that our laws have any root in Judeo-Christian belief. That is why I take the trouble to refute it.
And for the record, I do think that our culture is rooted in Judeo-Christian beliefs is essential to the evoltuion of the European and American success story. The big story was that our culture had evolved sufficiently where we could finally divorce religeon and governement. That does not mean that the past was not important to getting us to the present.
Best example of this is the scientific method. Maybe it would have arisen through pure reason eventually, but there is little doubt that the quest to understand an objective creation was an essential stepping stone.
Tony - That is my exact definition of someone who is smart. ;)
Let's see - four valves and unlimited combinations v. one slide moving along a length of pipe. Yeah, I can see that was a crutch. BTW - Have you seen any corp shows lately? Wow.
CG/Tony - Did either of you catch Colbert's interview of DC Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton? Talk about a tour de force on strict interpretation of the constitution.
CG
I was giving you high marks Deadwood: The new Shakespeare. Love the dialouge and especially the subtext. Great show!
But Two and Half Men? I have always been puzzled by its popularity. Sheen is as wooden as they come and the writing telegraphs all the jokes by the end of the opening credits. Well, I guess we all have our Gore moment ("I invented the internet.")
Or is it "internets" GWB
BTW, I now understand the internet is a bunch of tubes. It makes so much sense.
Where's Prof? If am responsible for the spawning of a new blog, I am not sure I can forgive myself. Damn, this power of the pen!!
CG - How do I do a link. I want to link the norton interview at youtube.
Tony needs to see it.
Guy said: “Where's Prof?”
My son commandeered me for his auto restoration project. We’ll do that again today as well. Its hard to complete my magnum opus with reality and the truly important things happening to and fro.
P.R.
"Life is what happens to you while you're busy making other plans."
Tarry on, tarry on.
Guy,
Those four valves and all their cruthiness got me through college on a partial music scholarship: I played Euphonium in wind ensemble. I actually think the instrument suit me perfectly though my valve technique couldn't even barely keep up with the music majors.
I've only seen Drum Corp on telly in the last couple of decades. I may try to change that. I actually toyed with the idea of join a Senior Corp that practices about two miles from where I live. Then I realized I already barely have time to take a dump.
Speaking of such things, I had recent email correspondence with Charles Zimmerman. He has done well for himself: his a VP of Wal-Mart. But, he said he still goes to two or three shows every year.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
CG,
One caution I would throw at you is to be very skeptical over reporting on the situation in Israel and Lebanon. Objective information is hard to come by. The link you posted is very suspect and I can tell this even though I know nothing of the website. The clue that this is not objective news material is the labeling of Israel on the map as “Occupied Palestine”.
For the record, I really don’t take a side in the whole Palestinian question. I for one think clean hands are hard to find in that conflict. While the Israeli response may perhaps be too extreme, it is Hizbolah that is launching rockets from residential neighborhoods. I don’t know enough of the military realities on the ground to judge whether the Israeli response is appropriate. The sad truth is that collateral damage is inevitable in such conflicts.
If some later day Pancho Villa were launching Missiles into Laredo and Harlingen, I have a feeling the US response might not seem so proportionate to outsiders either. It all depends on whose ox is getting gored I suppose.
Well CG, though you still qualify as a wing-nut on domestic policy, you have pretty much come all the way around on the foreign policy. Welcome to my world.
It has been abundantly clear that the only way to have peace over Palestine is an international presence with imposed borders. These battles have been going on for at lease four millennia. I don’t think everyone suddenly kissing and making up is in the cards.
And the invasion of Iraq was never calculated by reasonable minds to bring peace to the troubled region. This is where cultivating one’s internal cynic is valuable. This has been about money and power all along. As long as we continue to pursue only our narrow interests, we will never have credibility with the Arab people nor will we deserve it. I stand amazed at the rampaging ignorance of those themselves amazed that our donning of a white hat is by itself insufficient to win over the hearts and minds of others.
During the cold war, whenever a hot war would break out between thridworld countries or a civil war, it was often viewed as a Proxy war between the two superpowers. The current Isreali-Hezbollah conflict should be seen in the same manner in my opinion.
This is a new proxy war in the war on terrorism. Our troops are too spread out, how do we attack known terrorist groups without a draft? Answer, a proxy war.
Bush has given cover, supplies and, I am sure, intelligence Isreal to conduct the war.
Condi's actions are meant to placate international outrage while Isreal trys to get the job done. The only problem is they told Bush they could wrap it up in two weeks. It doesn't look like they can. Bush is trying to get them more time through Condi's busy work.
I am curious about this concept of disproportionate response in war. When did this concept rear its head? What all does it apply to? Are those proposing the relevance of such a concept excluding years of pizzeria and bus go-boom-boom and previous inbound rocket history? What is a proportionate response when an enemy’s existence is predicated on your annihilation and its domination of the world? Does that law of disproportionate response in war apply to our enemies, and if so, how do you get them to play by those rules when wacking off heads on video of construction workers, journalists, and peace activists is their modus operandi? If they don’t play fair and you’ve already responded as far as your concept of disproportionate response in war permits, what do you do then? Can’t be a response because that would be in excess of your permissible response.
Prof. Ricardo
I would be completely in favor of publicly funded health insurance for the poor, but only after a constitutional amendment is passed where by the people grant the government the power to tax and spend for that purpose.
BTW, I agree that you are at the top of your game. But it is time to put away Chutes and Ladders and step up to the Chess board.
{Hint: when in doubt, take a pawn.}
I am the Walrus!
Hmmm... never thought I'd have opportunity to use that line.
I would be in favor of a national major medical plan to cover medical expenses beyond some maximum out of pocket. As long as we have a constitutional amendment.
You said, "I certainly do not think the current Constitution prevents such action." Feel free to think incorrectly...I can not stop you. But, unless you mangle the Commerce clause into an unrecongnizable morass of meaningless goo (like the Supreme Court has), you can't get to that result with our constitution. This is the price we are paying for the jurisprudential excesses of the New Deal.
Tony said: “I would be in favor of a national major medical plan to cover medical expenses beyond some maximum out of pocket.”
You know my position about taking on such a matter. When you have a deep pocket prices rise. If there are no checks and balances then prices will skyrocket. Insurance, whether government or private, provides a deep pocket that will allow prices to rise because demand is not altered when prices rise. Not just those who can not afford it, but how often do consumers price shop for prescriptions with a $5 co-pay drug card? How often do consumers shop for healthcare providers, operations, dental, etc. based upon their cost, if the item is covered by insurance? Add onto the private insurance the governments rubber stamping of all future medical expenditures, and I’m quitting my profession for one in the medical field, because that is where the money will be. I’ve already seen evidence where doctors stick it to insurance companies - some to the point of fraud. What’s the first thing a doctors office ask you? “What’s you social?” Tell ‘em your paying cash and they stagger back like a firecracker went off.
If we are currently providing medical help through municipal hospitals for 100% of our citizenry not covered by “insurance” and currently 10% of Mexico’s citizenry, why are you ready for a “national major medical plan?”
Prof. Ricardo
My self-confidence is borne out of more than a little bit of study.
Let me put this in context, I am also pretty confident that structured code trumps spaghetti, modular code trumps top down, and object oriented trumps everything for interactive business applications. I also am certain that full grain brewing is superior to extract brewing and that no matter what the commercials tell you, you can not taste "cold".
Even the most strident pro-Warren Court advocate will tell you in an honest moment that the law applying the Commerce clause is a miserable mess. Don't let the political mumbo jumbo get in the way of your understanding.
Lastly I would add that I am perhaps the least troubled person you will meet when confronted by the minority status of their own opinion. In fact, given the raging stupidity in this land, I gives me some added confidence to be in the minority.
I think we need to just be honest about things if we are going to maintain troops over there long term. We should partition Iraq and keep the oil fields turning into a large military installation by building The Mother of All Walls. Organize the US Territory of Mesopotamia. Have that territory make petition to Congress to become the 51st Star.
As much as I hate our actions over there, the dishonesty makes it even more icky.
Common said: “This lady on PBS may or may not have been getting help... but she was living a hell on earth.”
I’ve seen cancer and Alzhiemers devastate people. Its sad. I hate it.
“Why doesn't that reality have more impact on you than it does?”
A lot of people hurt. Financial and emotionally. I realize PBS tugged your heart strings, but this stuff goes on every day. Not just on TV, but in real life. The folks I know that went to a full time nursing care couldn’t afford $100-200k private care. That’s Bill Gates stuff. They are families that liquidated savings, had long-term care insurance policies (that’s why they offer those you know), or just turned over the social security check and let medicaid handle it. I’ve smelled the urine drenched hell hole that rich woman on PBS never knew existed. I’m sorry for her loss. But there’s another 300 million of us out here losing family members too.
“You respond always with a comment about prices and efficiency. Is your position that we have to sacrifice these people in order for the rest of us to have cheap prices... or maybe a greater good is served by sacrificing their lives by leaving them on their own to deal with their personal hells?”
We all have to deal with our own personal "hells" as you call it. I bring up cost because if in implementing your socialist utopia, prices skyrocket so that your savior government must inflate the money supply, confiscate more taxes, go bankrupt, ration healthcare, then the OVERALL healthcare of this nation will suffer. You’re worried about somebody you saw of PBS or web site. I’m worried about our descendants 5 generations from now. Your slaughter of the goose that lays the golden egg may make your tummy feel good today, but something’s going to be missing tomorrow and waiting till then is the wrong time to start discussing “prices and efficiency.”
I know you hate numbers and concrete reality but work with me here.
Let’s say we have a 10 trillion dollar economy,
Let’s say we have 2 trillion spent per year on healthcare.
It’s expected to be 2.7 trillion by 2010. (14-18% annual rise.)
Do you think that guaranteeing that nobody will walk away from a healthcare expenditure (because of government intervention) will make prices (a) rise, (b) stay the same, or (c) fall?
Remember, its already rising dramatically without government healthcare. The 10 trillion dollar economy can only absorb so much whether taxes, insurance premiums, or direct payments for healthcare. Every dollar displaced by healthcare, and taxes and insurance for same, is a dollar not available for housing, food, other insurances, transportation, charity, entertainment, other taxes for non-healthcare related items. Do you get the drift that we need to not exacerbate the cost of healthcare?
I’m sorry your PBS lady friend is having a hard time making ends meet in full time private homecare at the cost of $100-200k per year. That’s not an option even to be discussed at my house. That doesn’t make America suck. It just is. And thank God that what you think is an embarrassment to humanity for America is a thousand times better than the majority of the rest of the world and merely one more reason why people flock to this country.
Prof. Ricardo
Don't miss that the legal context of Britain and the US is much different. We have a consent of the governed bedrock on which our government is built and we should not be so glib with what lawyers say can or can not be done. For us, law is what keeps Liberty in its proper ascendent place. All that said, I loved the quote.
Common,
You can’t have it both ways. Either you are entitled to your wealth or you are not. Its called property rights. There is no partial right or full right to only portions of your property. And ownership demands that you control and dispose of it as you will.
Yes we have taxation. Yes we have a duty to pay a fair share. But you look at a cumulative measurement of GDP and see it as something you have access to, to fund your definition of collective duty. That view demands that you negate property rights. It becomes a matter of how much you want to accomplish with other people’s property, and how much you are willing to allow them to keep. That is detrimental to the concept of property rights. That is detrimental to the concept of capitalism - that proverbial goose with the heavy eggs. That is detrimental to political freedom (economic freedom = political freedom).
And you’ve come up with this “common good” that let’s off the individual of his moral duty to his fellow man and places it in the realm of crooks - politicians if you prefer - who can get in without the popular vote as you have told us about, or got in with less than 50% like Clinton, and may not represent the “common good” as defined by you or me. In fact we have very different ideas about what common good is. I think respect of individual liberty and property rights, those nasty little reasons for the war for American independence, would be a common good. What we can do is preserve and protect “individual goods” that all of us share in common.
The fact that our poor are better off than other's poor is a tired and worthless argument, IMO. We have the highest GDP... surely everyone would expect our poor to be better off.
That means that they are not necessarily bad off, just less wealthy than our wealthiest. And just because we still have the “highest GDP” is defacto cause for implementing some wealth redistribution plan. I guess your tune will change when we welfare state ourselves into second place GDP or worse? Or would sucking enough wealth out of the Goose destroying GDP signal that we were actually getting poorer and thus the real need for implementation of “common good” wealth redistributions?
“...how does one deal with it's lower end GIVEN it's GDP”
One, allow them to be productive and add to it, or two, tell them its not their fault and set them up for a lifetime of dependency and a view that their happiness is someone else’s responsibility, and also what you can get out of the government. Hmmm. Let’s go with the tried and true winner, #1.
Prof. Ricardo
Common said, “...it's totally moral to use inheritance tax of a few to fund common good in this society. ”
The goose is already dodging the bullets. That oppressive near 50% tax is the cause of the incredible growth of trusts, foundations (like Tuh-Rea-Sa Hinz Kerry and Bill Gates), yearly gifting, and out right cheating the tax law. Those things wouldn’t exist if the goose that lays the golden eggs didn’t fear for its life. Defacto evidence. Much inefficiency has gone into creating “the highest GDP.” Think of where it would be if folks didn’t have to pay me or attorneys or financial planners or create strange entities and arrangements, invest in annuities that may turn out to haunt them latter. Damn. The outrageous inefficiency that is introduced into a society when taxation gets out of control is beyond sad. What’s worse yet is seeing people pay tax they are not obligated to pay because they didn’t know there was a legal way around it. Credits and deductions not taken, wrong entity selections, incorrect timing or forms of events and transactions that cost them thousands. Or even a complicated taxing system that penalizes the taxpayer for not knowing what the IRS should know but admits it doesn’t.
I called the IRS business section the other day with a situation of my client. I stumped them. I went to the Taxpreparer Specialty line, ditto. The transferred me to their law department where I talked to one of the attorneys. He had no answer. We have to file a return that by IRS law is wrong, and by law can not be correct. ALL liability for a correct return is on our shoulders. Penalties, interest, for both my client and me the preparer. This complicated and far reaching scope of the IRS is demanded by a congress with an insatiable appetite for funding the “common good.” The damage to the “highest GDP” is incalculable. Further demand for taxation, intrustion, and confiscation can not promote the goose, it can only restrict and damage it.
When you look at the interest component on our national debt, the future annuitization of social security benefits, and the ever enlarging of all levels of government, adding a health cost accelerating universal healthcare liability right now is tantamount to a noose around the goose. Maybe you will be content with a third world America. Not me.
Prof. Ricardo
Common,
Repeat after me... your property is property AFTER taxes voted on in your representative government.
That’s fine. Your socialist world view demands that view.
Tony will say this (taxes) is property that you voluntarily give over to the state. This to me means you could opt out of your legal tax requirement... which is of course nonsense.
No its just your view that whatever I make is the governments and I have the privilege to get some of it for my own use is so ludicrous and insidious.
-----
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”
Did you ever wonder what they mean by pursuit of happiness?
"Oklahoma Constituion:
Section II-2: Inherent rights.
" All persons have the inherent right to life, liberty, the
pursuit of happiness, and the enjoyment of the gains of their own industry."
PART THE FIRST
A Declaration of the Rights of the Inhabitants
of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
"Article I. All men are born free and equal, and have certain natural, essential, and unalienable rights; among which may be reckoned the right of enjoying and defending their lives and liberties; that of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property; in fine, that of seeking and obtaining their safety and happiness.
Constitution of Virginia
ARTICLE I
Bill of Rights
A DECLARATION OF RIGHTS made by the good people of Virginia in the exercise of their sovereign powers, which rights do pertain to them and their posterity, as the basis and foundation of government.
"Section 1. Equality and rights of men.
"That all men are by nature equally free and independent and have certain inherent rights, of which, when they enter into a state of society, they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity; namely, the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety."
Time after time, in states and the Union, the property rights were an inalienable right of man, not of government. Your version is found in that Karl’s manifesto.
This fetish of punishing the “rich” and trying to equalize outcomes is intriguing.
In the 10th Federalist Papers by James Madison “an equal division of property” was referred to as an “improper or wicked project.”
From Federalist #5
QUEEN ANNE, in her letter of the 1st July, 1706, to the Scotch Parliament, makes some observations on the importance of the Union then forming between England and Scotland, which merit our attention. I shall present the public with one or two extracts from it: "An entire and perfect union will be the solid foundation of lasting peace: It will secure your religion, liberty, and property; remove the animosities amongst yourselves, and the jealousies and differences betwixt our two kingdoms. It must increase your strength, riches, and trade; and by this union the whole island, being joined in affection and free from all apprehensions of different interest, will be enabled to resist all its enemies."
You my friend are at odds with the founding and reason for this nations existence. But do not give up hope, there are other socialist hell holes of Utopia that are in much agreement with your world views. They have reaped a GDP that reflects their priorities. Why not start with the end product of your dear wishes for this country rather than send us down that path? Why must all nations dabble in your tyranny of the public good?
Here is a crazy idea... add more teeth and law to the IRS and throw those tax dodgers, their lawyers and their accountants in jail.
And they can have the pleasure of hating their oppressive government like the Cubans.
Trust me my friend... we are we worse than third world if you measure it based on the greed of our economic winners.
Once again: If I earn it and want to keep it its “greed.” If I earn it and you want it for your pet projects that’s not “greed.” Check.
I suppose twice a month you are silly enough to expect your employer to cut you a check. Greedy B@$+^!#). :-)
Stop the nonsense that billionaires deserve our support and sympathy... i.e. we have been mistreating our billionaires.
Nukes & billionaires. You like extremes to make your point. The Billionaires don’t need my help, they seem to have made it just fine. As always I am talking about the $0.-$1 millionaire crowd. My property rights applies to all. Rich or poor, male or female, young or old, straight or brokeback. You are the one that wants to discriminate.
“The way our nation treats it's billionaires. Prof... you are correct... we have been despicable to them. Thanks so much for speaking up for that endangered minority in our society. ”
I distinctly noticed that you are the one with the billionaire fetish.
“Prof, the proud spokesman for the rich and keeping the average joe in their deserved places.”
It saddens me that you and your ilk do not see the poor as those who can some day make it better. In your opinion, they are without hope. In your mind you have overlain some middle ages caste system on our country where there are Lords and Serfs, and none can ever rise. How you ignore the immigration of millions of people over centuries here for the liberty and purpose of improving their lot with unlimited potential, is just short of miraculous.
Your wealth envy is shining ever so bright today. :)
Prof. Ricardo
CG Hammer, I presume.
Common, "I don't envy wealth... but I envy your ability to sell a turd as perfume. :)"
We have a saying about my son: He could sell snow to the Eskimos. Must be a family trait.
Prof. Ricardo
I don't mean to detract from the current death, taxes and healthcare debate (yawn) but I was promised a manifesto, opus magnus if you will to shake, nay bring off the back benches and cause me to genuflect in deference to a biblical source for all our laws. Did I miss it?
No pressure. Just wanted to make sure.
Common,
In response to “What Israel is doing won't work. Maybe there isn't anything that will work, but this surely isn't it.”
I don’t understand. Israel has patience as they are attacked by terrorist. The terrorist do not target military, but civilians with their rockets, car bombs, people bombs, machetes, sending their young men and women to kill civilians - and that doesn’t bother you. They have the annihilation of Israel as their reason for existence, their founding document if you will, the ultimate hate crime - and they get a pass. We have experienced the same brutality on our citizenry and military from terrorist - and we are the bad guys?
The website you quote (“The Shame of Being American”) is a propagandist tool for terrorists, Islamo-fascist, and unfortunately, the left in this country. It is sad that this radical cult of butchers would have any faction of America align with them, but alas, deception is real, and the consequence of President Bush hatred taken to its extreme, is no longer funny and subject to ridicule. It has become dangerous.
Let me get this straight, if Israel were to stop targeting known Hezbollah targets, but was to launch missiles willy-nilly into Lebanon like you-know-who, that would be the honorable thing to do?
Did you not know that the butchers are located in residential areas? They have gone out of their way to imperil civilians.
Did you not know that the butchers were using the UN as a shield?
Did you not know that Israel dropped leaflets, radio warnings, like no other country since the beginning of mankind, warning civilians to get out, telling them that area was about to be bombed a full 24 hours before hand, in order to minimize civilian casualties?
Can you produce ONE STINKING SLIVER of compassion from the Islamo-fascist even resembling the lengths that Israel has gone to, to protect civilians in enemy territory?
Although the graphic pictures of the dead children in Qana are hard to look at, they speak more of the wickedness of the Hezbollah terrorist stock in trade of hiding behind women and children rather than protecting them. Can you imagine an Israeli or an American soldier launching rockets from neighborhoods so that you could use either the good will of your enemy to not shoot you there, or the dead bodies of the women and children if they do? Pure wickedness. There is a reason that there is a decided difference between the way they conduct war and the way the West conducts war. And it takes discernment not to fall for the propaganda.
Common, please exercise discernment here.
Prof. Ricardo
Guy said: “I was promised a manifesto, opus magnus if you will . . . Did I miss it?”
Sorry, but you are going to have to wait. This is a topic that I have argued with others about before. Although there are numerous web sites I could send you for the partial story, I’ve decided to create my own. I’ve got an immense body of resource material that I am going over, and given my poor journalistic skills it will take a while. Continue on with life, and don’t worry, when it is ready or nearly so, I’ll let you know. My blog is already set up and I’ve got a rough draft of the outline and a few lines written already. I’ve also packed my “Favorites” with urls because I want you and others to go to as much online verification as possible.
Anybody know how to link, not just to a page, but a specific place on a page? That would be helpful in directing my reader to a quote in the body of the web page. Also, Guy, do you have a copy of Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England? If you don’t I’m pretty sure I can find some or all online since I will be referencing them as well as founders quotes and documents.
Since I am trying to prove a basic foundation on Biblical laws and principles for our Country, I am going after the founders intent and execution of that intent in the form and substance of the kind of government we actually got.
As you can tell this topic is a passion of mine. To get all the information I want to share in a readable format that flows logically takes time. I’ll let you know when I get there.
Prof. Ricardo
All right.
Common said:
“Wow... you read a lot in there that I did not type.”
I get excited sometimes when I read propaganda. The host site reeked of it and I took it out on you. Sorry.
“You will battle to the death over the fetus... but are significantly more dismissive when it comes to these Lebanon innocent civilians.”
Actually, I’m not dismissive of the citizens.
1) Rockets are falling on Israeli innocents.
2) Lebanese innocents are warned to get out of area X to avoid injury.
3) Bomb the heck out of area X.
If innocents die, either a) they weren’t allowed to leave, or b) were allowed to leave but chose to gamble. Israel’s due diligence is satisfied.
While rockets are falling (231 yesterday - must of gotten a new shipment from Syria) on innocents in Israel, Israel must defend by bombing areas previously warned and still posing a threat. I suspect, given Hezbollah’s past, they did not permit their family members, or whoever these people were, to leave.
The fetus has no parallel option for escape, unless they go the birth/adoption route, which does not accomplish the primary goal of abortion, secretly eliminating the pregnancy.
Thanks for the linking info.
Prof. Ricardo
Evidence Mounts that Kana "Massacre" Was a Fake
For the full story go here.
--------
As an aside, the hospital in Tyre, Lebanon, and Human Rights Watch both reported today that 28 people were killed in the Kafr Kana bombing, and not twice that number, as originally reported.
Other facts brought by Koret and Spencer:
* Sometime after dawn a call went out to journalists and rescue workers to come to the scene. Though Hizbullah has been claiming that civilians could not freely flee the scene due to Israeli destruction of bridges and roads, the journalists and rescue teams from nearby Tyre had no problem getting there.
* Lebanese rescue teams did not start evacuating the building until after the camera crews came. The absence of a real rescue effort was explained by saying that equipment was lacking. There were no scenes of live or injured people being extracted.
* There was little blood, CNN's Wedeman noted, concluding that the victims appeared to have died while they were sleeping - despite the thunderous Israeli air attacks. Rescue workers equipped with cameras were removing the bodies from one opening in the collapsed structure, and journalists were not allowed near it.
* Rescue workers carrying the victims on stretchers occasionally flipped up the blankets so that cameras could show the faces and bodies of the dead. But, Koret noted, the ashen-gray faces of the victims gave cause to think that the bodies looked like they had been dead for days.
* Photos of the rescue operation transmitted all over the world are "extremely suspicious," Spencer writes, citing work by EU Referendum showing numerous anomalies in the photos. "Most notably," he writes, "the dating of the various photos suggests that the same bodies were paraded before reporters on different occasions, each time as if they had just been pulled from the rubble. [In addition], some workers are wearing different gear in different photos, yet clearly carrying the same corpse."
* The Christian Lebanese (French-language) website LIBANOSCOPIE has charged that Hizbullah staged the entire incident in order to stimulate calls for a ceasefire, thereby staving off its destruction by Israel and Lebanese plans to rid themselves of this terrorist plague.
Spencer concludes, "Americans and Westerners are not used to dealing with carefully orchestrated and large-scale deception of this kind. It is time that it be recognized as a weapon of warfare, and an extremely potent one at that."
----End of article----
Prof -
I won't go into again cause I know you guys have hacked it to death but I would dispute this statement "Americans and Westerners are not used to dealing with carefully orchestrated and large-scale deception of this kind."
I think CG knows what I'm talkin about and it certainly was the center piece of the last election.
The story is very interesting, I would like to see an investigation like the one on the Haditha Massacre.
CG
I did not want to gratuitously link just to test the waters, but this seems as good grist for the mill between you and Prof.
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/1102AP_Cuba_Comfort_in_Communism.html
I'll get the title function down next time.
CG - Yeah, its pissing me off too. We just just invade ASAP.
Hahaha...yeah, my Son loves the Sun. Check out these sunspot images. Then realize that those little black splotches would fit an Earth inside them.
Actually, I found something even more on point. Ever wonder why those magnetic storms and stuff can be such a big deal when the earth is so far away? Well, the are caused, in part, by solar prominences which can not be seen without special hardware. This is a nice close-up of a solar prominence from SOHO.
If any of that intrigues you, the IMAX film “Solar Max” is available on DVD and includes some mind-blowing footage that I think is almost a must see.
Yoshi,
I guess I'll respond to the creationist jab. Actually, I'll borrow something I have written and used a few times before because I think it is responsive. The short answer is that I think the Sun is the same thing most normally sentient beings do.
============================
I view the Bible as God’s revealed truth to Man. I believe it is infallible and should be taken literally where the language is clearly meant as literal. Thus, I believe in Adam and Eve, the flood and much of what is easier to write off as legendary or allegorical. But, I’m also a fairly well educated person and my wife of twenty-one years is a molecular biologist. Reconciling this matter is of significant importance to me and my family.
This is where we find ourselves on the matter. God gave us reason and intends for us to use it. As time has marched on, we continue to learn more about our universe and as we learn more, our thinking on God’s revelation grows with that learning. Few now deny that the Earth orbits the Sun, but educated and faithful men of another age felt passionately about the Earth being the proper Biblical center of the universe. We came to understand that maybe the perceived clarity on the point was an error and we learned how to reconcile the new learning with our faith without stretching or twisting faith or reason.
I believe that faith will be completely reconciled with reason when God restores Creation to its as-created Goodness. Our inability to perform that reconciliation now reflects our limitations as men. As our knowledge continues to accumulate, we will perhaps reconcile more of this gap than what we have managed thus far.
I for one have a real difficulty understanding people who are so certain that they understand even the act of creation when we do not even have a firm handle on our own human ability to create. How can any of us be so certain that we understand what creation means as applied to an infinite God? Clearly, God spoke to us at times in abstract ways such as when he “spoke” creation into existence. But “speaking” is itself anthropomorphism not to mention a physical phenomenon of a created universe: God is doing his best to help us grasp his enormity.
Our weak ability to grasp the act and fact of creation is nowhere more evident than in the discussion of the old Earth v. young Earth arguments. It is pretty apparent to me that the God who created time and the other dimensions could probably handle creating a universe that not only appears old, but actually is old. I’m not saying that is what I believe, but rather pointing to the possibility. We could spend a lot of time being troubled over such things in a spiritual sense, but I find that effort somewhat lacking in utility.
Similarly, I think such a God as this might create men through evolution, or that he might not. If one really opens their mind to the best of our limited ability as to what such a God might be, it is enormously humbling. I may know that I am created in God’s image, but does that mean God has lungs and a poor sense of humor? I think not. I think we are the best facsimile he could fit into four dimensions much like the artist who tries to render three dimensional perspective on a two dimensional canvas. I am strongly influenced in this regard by the engaging book Flatland.
I am not troubled at our inability to understand how God’s truth is hard at times to reconcile with our experience using our limited minds. Instead, it is better to spend our energy trying to more fully understand God and better understanding his creation.
My faith is that God will sort it out in his time-not mine.
Tony
With my boy the other day we were downloading pictures from the Hibble Space Telescope for a screensaver on his computer. I am sure you have seen these images of not only distant stars but millions of distant galaxies.
My question, and it is sincere, are we really alone in this universe or has God got a lot of other projects going on too?
It is hard for me to believe that given we are just one planet in the Milky Way Galaxy that there are not other planets in our own galaxy that may alo have life. And if you times that time the number of galaxies, it seems life may be fairly abundant throughout the universe.
This is my logical syllogism and I do not stand ready to hit you with a bunch of links about the propensity of life around the universe. I am curious as to your thoughts.
Guy,
If I answered it would be garbled. See: What does the Bible say about intelligent life on other planets?
on ChristianAnswers.net
Prof - Looked at your link. I can only politely say, "wow."
Earth as the center of the universe and all that above created for time keeping; navigation and showing off. Wow.
Guy said: “Earth as the center of the universe and all that above created for time keeping; navigation and showing off. Wow.”
Taken piecemeal any belief system may look foolish. You ask a specific question, I helped provide that answer.
The overall picture is that God made man for his pleasure. You don’t have to like it. You don’t even have to believe it. He didn’t consult me either. That would be a little arrogant to think that God would need our wisdom on the situation. He created the Heavens and the Earth. Apparently from your comment above you are impressed with the immensity of the universe in relation to the purpose of man. It speaks of God’s power that He can produce that for whatever purpose He sees fit, including putting His glory on display for us.
I tell you what, the next time you speak a universe into existence, you can make the heavens above that is used for “time keeping; navigation and showing off”, a more realistic size, whatever you deem that to be.
-----
I have a question for you.
The DNA in your cells tell everything about you. They tell your hair to be a specific color, your blood type, the shape of your face, all the characteristics of your body. Each cell contains this information for all cells even though each cell does not do all the parts. Each cell knows which part it plays in the body: the hair, the eye, the blood, the bone, etc. Was all this information available in your DNA at birth or was it added at a later date?
P.R.
CG /taint
CG
I have always had a theory that when Jesus comes back, he will be a Plaintiff's attorney. Fighting for the little guy against corporate greed (throwing the money changers out who are destroying the envirnment). Having said that, I worry because I know he will do it all pro bono. ;)
Prof - Allright, I'll play - it was all there at conception.
C.G. said:
“1)...”
Man was created for God’s pleasure. That includes all of us.
“2)....then doesn't "a god we should fear" make sense, but "a loving god" make no sense?”
No. When man was placed here he was not a puppet on a string. He could obey and have fellowship with his creator or disobey. When sin entered the world so did death. In fact one of Adam’s sons killed the other one. That is not something that God did. It was something that man did.
With regard to birth defects I think I am uniquely qualified here to say that, although not “normal”, these individuals can live lives honoring to God and fulfilling to themselves.
From the natural man’s perspective they are defectives. Human errors that should not exist. They see our existence only as the here and now and an aberation is unpleasant for them to deal with either in their own person or that of people around them. Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood, originally supported abortion for eugenics, to purify the race. Those two girls you referred to have souls. Though I would not wish medical problems on anyone, we grow through adversity, and through much difficulty yet, they can live blessed lives.
“I guess I need a bigger dose of that god-provided reason. The only thing I can come up with is god introducing various forms of "testing on this rock".”
God provided life and the universe around us. Living in a world of infinite variables provides the testing. The same God ordained gravity that keeps you from floating off our planet, demands that planes come tumbling out of the sky when systems fail. Gravity isn’t good or bad it just is.
The infinite variability of genetics, the introduction of chemicals while a child is in the womb, the catastrophe’s of chance and accident all combine to bring us the human condition. My own son’s deformity was the result of an “intrauterine catastrophe,” the doctor called it. It was not genetic, nor something we did. It just happened. He lives with it everyday . . . without complaint. I couldn’t be prouder. I am sure that the siamese girl’s parents feel the same. There would never wish it upon someone, but glad to have what they got.
I have heard of young ladies aborting their babies when they were young and later when they desired to have children they were unable. My heart breaks for them.
And yes, it’s a test for the parents as well as the child with the difference. You can choose to get bitter or better.
Prof. Ricardo
First, sorry that I haven’t been around the last couple of days. Lets just say work has been “interesting”.
Guy, you asked, ”My question, and it is sincere, are we really alone in this universe or has God got a lot of other projects going on too?” Well, the short answer is that I have no idea.
Of course there is the long answer. :) I do not find the possibility of other worlds inhabiting life out there to be inherently inconsistent with the Christian worldview or teachings of the Bible. My feeling is something along the line of the often used line, if there isn’t other life out there in this huge universe, wow what a waste. That said, God can do what he wants … it is his universe. Perhaps his aesthetic sensibilities are inscrutable.
My feeling, and it is nothing more than a feeling, is that there are other created beings out there. I think it is likely that even if they are out there, we may never know about it. Perhaps the speed of light itself is designed to eliminate the possibility of our knowing or seeing.
I also think speculating about such things is no end of fun. I even derive a certain twisted pleasure of observing people who get all knotted up about it. There are those that think that they have the answer from God and that there are certainly no other thises or thats out there. Then there are those that think if they can prove this or that then they have somehow eliminated the possibility of the existence of God. What a great time to be alive and able to have such discussions!
Yoshi, you asked if I directed this at you or Creationists: "How can any of us be so certain that we understand what creation means as applied to an infinite God?"
I directed it at neither. I wrote most of that in response to someone on a CS Lewis messageboard three or four years ago. It was someone who was questioning their faith as a result of some personal losses they had experienced. It was quite a discussion as you might imagine. I suppose it is directed to Creationists of the stripe that assert that Genisis 1-2 is literal with no room for any allegory or anthropomorphic techniques.
CG, as to your three questions on the problem of evil, we have been down that path many times. So have hordes of philosophers and theologists. I do not think any honest person of faith can tell you that they are totally comfortable with the idea of evil or the bad things that happen to innocent people. This is intrinsically difficult. That said, there is a big picture that you and I can not comprehend.
I’ll give you a Biblical answer and a more modern one. In the Bible, Naomi lost most her husband and sons and was left destitute. Through a series of events, this led her daughter-in law to a marriage to Boaz and this continued the line of descent that led to David and then ultimately Jesus. In more modern times, ask whether the rise of Hitler will be considered a good thing or a bad thing in a few hundred years. NATO led to peace in Europe and the spread of democratic principals that has accelerated with the fall of the Iron Curtain. Now this is far from playing out, but if you consider the wide ambit of history, it is hard to say for certain that the net result of all of that truly evil and bad stuff will ultimately be bad. I’m not saying either way, just trying to point out how hard it is to know.
C.G. said: “Hey Prof, did you see your buddy :) Pat Robertson now believes in global warming.”
I tend to distance myself from Tele-Evangelists. Particularly after this.
Now I bet you really hate me for learning html links.
Prof. Ricardo
CG,
I thought of another way of thinking of the problem of evil.
Lets say there was a way that through your own personal suffering, you could bring happiness to others or eliminate their suffering. Kind of like the way I suffer here by answering your posts. :) Would you take the deal? I suspect a lot of people would depending on the amount of good they might do.
I am not trying to say that this way of looking at it is a complete answer because it begs other questions. But still, if you look at the suffering of an individual, it is hard to determine all the results of those trials.
This is no easy nut. Couldn’t an infinite God design a creation where everything is sweetness and joy? Or is suffering an integral part of joy? Can you know joy without suffering? Does it even make sense without suffering? Can you have joy without free will? Does free will have to come with the capacity for evil? If it does not, then is it really “free”? Lots of questions here.
My own view is that pain is essential to living a full life. And the more I am around you, the fuller my life seems to be.
Somebody stop me…
CG,
I gotta tell you, the notion that children are happy ab initio does not stack up with my experience as a child or a parent. In fact, children tend to come into the world very needy and not that thrilled about things. Now they certainly have a more finely tuned ability to enjoy simple pleasures put before them, but I think that is the flip side of the coin that is there suffering is typically in our culture fairly insignificant.
But the greater point is to be observed in society at large. I think you of all people should get this. If you look at American society, I believe a lot of what you see is unhappiness that is the product of too much ease. I think our very success has led to massive amounts of unhappiness. Collectively we pop prozac by the handfuls to try to get past the malaise of too much comfort.
If you ever spend much time around people who came from a poorer background, I think you would discover the same kind of joy you ascribe to children. We tend to couch this simple truth in terms of appreciation, and that is certainly one way to describe it. But I think “appreciation” is an intellectual manifestation of experience, where as the joy is an emotional manifestation.
I think we actually have so much joy and ease that we loose track to it. If you have a fine wine every day, then eventually, you lose track of how special it is. But if you drink grocery store wine most of the time, a bottle of fine wine has a special appeal and enjoyability. I’ve seen rich people swish, spit and criticize some of the finest wines you can buy: too much ease to experience real pleasure.
I wish I could share your belief that a painless and enjoyable existence is possible. While I can not disagree with complete confidence, I strongly doubt your hypothesis. It just doesn’t mesh with experience.
The religion of peace is at it again. Who would have thought they would be the next group to go wet and wild.
“But Prof, didn't you know what many younger folk are ACTUALLY believing today. 9/11 was an inside job done by the government and the "corporations."”
It’s funny that the people who have done terrorism in the past, are planning it in the future, planned the 9/11 attack, left a trail a mile long, their supporters danced the day it happened, they have bragged that they will do it again, they have partially duplicated it and taken credit for it in London, Madrid, and elsewhere, the planes are missing, the people are missing, and yet it was detonations from helicopters or Tomahawk missiles that did it.... Sure it is.
Contrary to every fact, every witness report, every fiber of reason, we are to think that Bush was successful at something, and that something was an attack on the U.S. This new generation is a funny lot. I am particularly amused with the droopy drawers syndrome (DDS) that otherwise non-brain damaged people have adopted to obscure that fact. The body mutilation through piercings adorned with crude jewelry is less amusing, but still telling. You don’t see Bill Gates with a key ring through his eyebrow now do you? Crazy.
Elections matter to politicians.
CG
Tom Friedman is a regular talking head on "Meet the Press" He is trying to educate and think outside the box. I like him.
On the Lighter side: life goes on:
Blooming of Amorphophallus titanum (corpse flower) at BBG
Yoshi was did you see or smell that thing or your latest trip to the Big Apple.
CG:
You will start seeing this guy trotted out n the talking head shows, Vali Nasr. He is the latest acedemic who seems to have a rational explanation for the mid-east conflict and what happened after the Iraqi invasion. He is getting a lot of attention inside the administration and has Condi's ear. The was a recent article in the WSJ on him. "Rising Academic Sees Sectarian Split Inflaming Mideast"
I still say giving them iPods, PSPII's and satellite dishes with a premium channel line up would take a away a lot of their free time to make such elaborate plans and would be a hard blow to the forces of hate.
Potential suicide bomber, "No, no. I can't do it then. There are only three more episodes of Deadwood left, so Sundays nights are out and I hear this is the last season for the Sopranos. So, while I empathize with your global plight, I'm just to busy now. Besides Halo IV comes is coming out at Christmas or I mean Ramadan."
See what I mean.
CG
Per our earlier discussion of private funding for stem cell research from the wsj:
Donors Sustain Stem-Cell Effort
In California Amid Funding Battle
By DAVID P. HAMILTON
August 16, 2006; Page A1
Even as legal challenges have tied up funding for California's ambitious $3 billion effort to fund stem-cell research, big-dollar contributions from prominent Californians who stepped into the breach have kept the effort going.
[Eli Broad]
Amid court challenges from groups opposed to the state effort, private donors have contributed more than $100 million in recent years to prop up the new stem-cell research agency, the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine, as well as research programs at state universities, according to a tally by The Wall Street Journal. Among the donors are Ray Dolby, the founder and chairman of Dolby Laboratories Inc., who has devoted $21 million to stem-cell-research programs in the past two years. Los Angeles real-estate developer Eli Broad has given at least $27 million. Venture capitalist John Doerr, bond-fund manager Bill Gross, and Qualcomm Inc. founder Irwin Jacobs have also been major contributors.
CG - My boss actually swears by watching Deadwood with the captions on.
yoshi - Your Isreal in a nutshell is a little lite. I agree the Jewish state was a creation bu tno more so than Palestine; Iraq; Yemen and a hand full of other British protectorates in Africa and around the world but your portrayal of the friendly palestinians and clubby israelis leaves a little to be desired. Trust me, and no I haven't been there, but the conflict is not just about the fact that Israelis don't play well together in the sand box with others.
For the record, what I had said in a prior private communication with CG was that after the collapse of the Ottomans, there wasn’t indigenous government to speak of. CG had asked me about the partition of the entire region. Each area has its own history and complications. Let’s not forget too that under the Ottomans, many Jews were living in Palestine (I’m not sure the numbers though I’m under the impression that it was a good sized minority).
I for one do not really see clean hands on either side of the Palestinian issue. Trying to identify the good guy is like the ole angels hoe-down on a pin-head question: I just don’t think there is an answer and if there were, I’m not sure how useful it would be for problem solving. I tend to be more practical on such things. I don’t necessarily agree with the formation of the Jewish state, but here we are. We can not undo it, we can merely do the best we can at creating an equitable future.
Translating this to a different context that is personal, I am part Irish and part American Indian. I am also very appalled at how the Irish and indigenous Americans were treated by their respective subjugators. This does not translate into support for the terrorism campaigns of Sinn Fein or AIM. Actually, appalled does not catch how I feel about things, but no matter how strongly I might be repulsed by the brutality of the past, it is in fact past.
It is a bit different in Palestine because it is part about the past but a lot about the present. Still, as much as I tend to side with the Palestinians in many ways, I just get stuck on the whole terrorism thing. While I realize they are not a monolithic whole, they did support Arafat for a very long time and appear to be supporting his political heirs. When moderate leadership emerges with popular support, they will be getting a lot of support from me. I really admire the efforts of the Palestinians who are trying to build a more rational government there. These are some very brave people.
Yoshi said: “There was even an American girl murdered by Israeli soldiers; as they tried to bulldoze her friends' house and she stood in front to stop it, the bulldozer ran her right over.”
Her name was Rachel Corrie, she was American, and the house was not her friends. “The bulldozer was part of an operation to eliminate tunnels used by Palestinian terrorists to illegally smuggle weapons from Egypt into Gaza.” (Source) As part of a protest, she and others yelled, used bullhorns, obstructed, and tried to distract the bulldozer driver. This one time when she oriented herself in such a way that she was unseen or appeared to have moved, her comrades yells for the bulldozer to stop sounded not too much different than the yelling protesting distraction techniques already used. Both sides have much to say on the topic. Nothing would be gained by making a martyr out of this anti-American, anti-Israel peace activist. Why kill her and leave the rest of the peace activist to tell the world of their “atrocity?” It makes no sense. To die needlessly protecting a weapons smuggling house, regardless of her knowledge or ignorance of it, is so sad.
P.R.
Not to sidestep the hard questions but what I foind interesting and it ties in with Yoshi's statements, is that here at the beginning of the 21st century we are still dealing with 19th century problems that we thought would have been behind us by now. I don't mean this in any Star Trek Utopian sense but in the conterxt that people, as groups, have long memories.
The Iranian President's complaints on 60 Minutes (and I am not trying to soft peddle the opinions of a man who I see as the biggest threat to world peace since WWII) was that there was no justification for Isreal and why are we in the Middle East having to deal with a European created problem.
I am not saying I agree but he is pointing to the actions of our Western Culture in dealing with problems. Jews are a problem in Europe, let's create a homeland and give them a place to go. Brits, what do you say?
Empire is crumbling, looking for a way out. Colonialsism is dead. Sure, why not. (Yoshi, if this isn't a lite treatment of history, I don't know what is.)
So many decisions have come back to haunt Western Culture. The crushing of the Turks at the end of WWI. The British line drawing in Africa and the middle east to create states where none existed before. The support of dictators who brutally oppress their people until a religious zealot comes and pourts fire on a spark of revolution (Shah of Iran).
I am not looking for us to provide any apology to the world but only pointing the long and often unseen consequences of "thoughtful" action at the time.
Most current example is obviously Iraq. The intended result varies greatly with the actual result. And this did not take 50 years to find out.
In my youth I was a big fan of the "Dune" books. I always thought that one of the most interesting things in the world imagined but Mr. Herbert is that early in the history of the political structure that governed that world (which if you read the books was actually a story of our culture several millenia in the future) the major religion met and all rescinded their claim of divine providence and acknowledged that no single religion could make any claim of superiority to any other. I have often thought how much this would change the current landscape.
Yoshi said: “P,R, - the sad part is those links you post that are so obviously biased, and have no credibilty.”
#1) The first site I linked was a memorial put on by her supporters. It too was biased in her favor, even supporting her right to burn the American flag. Two links posted - 1 for, 1 against. I thought that was fair.
#2) Now that you have criticized my sources, can you substantiate a different purpose for bulldozing the house?
#3) To those not going to the links above, there was nothing on the links I posted above about "One-world-government" or "black helicopters" or "Catholic" or "nigger-lover." To so taint the site when no such comments were made shows there are credibility issues on more than one front.
“Burning a flag is just a symbol anyway, and there is nothing wrong with it PER SE.”
A symbol indeed. Perfectly legal and absolutely telling. It means there was more depth than just standing in front of a “friend’s house.” It means there was a political agenda that was against both Israel and America, and a lot deeper than you or I would ever do. Could that level of devotion to her causes lead her to a dangerous situation of her own making? It apparently did. She and her cohorts played chicken for several hours with a military bulldozer. Would you care to discuss what our military boys would do to this geeser, not being a cute young female, if I were to pull that stunt?
“If what that flag represents is killing people unjustly, and they are experiencing that firsthand with their own eyes, then it needs to be burned.”
As intelligent adults we realize that this country is not summed up in the latest national or international policy. We didn’t burn flags because our President was committing adultery in the Oval office, We didn’t burn flags because he Tomahawked this factory or that, or sent our boys over to Bosnia, or screwed up at Mogadishu. Given the opinion’s held by the Democrats before we went to war, it has been their flip-flop, their “cut and run” attitude, that has tainted this war as much as the failures of Bush. One could burn the flag because the Democrats act like wussies when the going gets tough, or when the Republicans rubber-stamp Bush failures. But that would show an atrocious lack of depth in knowing this country, its roots, its values, all that is encompassed in being American.
By all means burn whatever flags you feel led to. Don’t forget North Korea while you’re at it.
“If my grandmother, or niece, or whoever, was killed with American guns, I'd be burning flags too. And so would you.”
Although this country is accelerating into a socialist hell-hole at light-speed, it is still beyond me that I would blame the acts of politicians and a willfully ignorant generation on the Constitutional republic itself. To do so would be to abandon hope or accept the French or communist way of revolution as an acceptable method of political change rather than the beautiful, peaceful change of power that happens thousands of times after elections in this country. Only a poor student of history would wish otherwise.
P.R.
I don't mean to go lite but it is my natural reaction when things seem very dark.
Let me just point out that should I meet an untimely demise, i do not wish a picture of me in a chicken costume to at the header of any "in memoriam" website. Its OK in the lower body of the web page but I don't want it to be the lead. Something a bit more dignified please.
It s those kind of details that jump out at me. Sure there are plenty of undignified pictures of me and all may be appropriate at a roast but not in any "in memoriam" website.
I just want to be clear on this.
Yoshi - If its going to cost me, on second thougght what the hell do I care, I'm dead. I'll forward some good stuff your way.
Yoshi said: "as far as substantiating the bulldozing the civilian houses (not the tunnels for bringing weapons), that first link you provided was perfect...."
I caution you on that one. I have it on good authority that the links I gave early are biased. :-)
Post a Comment
<< Home