Updated 9/9/08: Found the "Christianist" reference!!
Whether you like Bill O'Reilly or not, you have to agree he's an in-your-face and sometimes obnoxious commentator.
Here in the Atlanta area, he created a bit of a row, because he is in a tiff with our local newsrag, the Atlanta Journal Constitution's editorial page editor, Cynthia Tucker. Let's stipulate that the AJC is a leftist rag and that Tucker is a reliable liberal, who will spout the party line on cue from her daily talking notes.
Tucker recently took O'Reilly to task for his comments regarding the Palin's eldest daughter and Jamie Lynn Spears. I agree that O'Reilly needs a beat down, and was practicing a double-standard, but, you can see the hatred for social conservatives in Tucker's column, where she uses the adjective "pious" in a pejorative sense to describe Christians, accuses the Palin's of providing little instruction to her daughter about contraception (as though she has some inside information), and essentially accuses social conservatives of not caring about the mothers or the babies of less well off teenage girls. She has previously referred to those supporting Palin as "Christianists." I tried finding this word in dictionary.com, but couldn't. I also tried finding the column with this word in it, but couldn't so I am going on the quote from her O'Reilly used in his story tonight. Clearly, Tucker has a problem with some Christians.
Furthermore, Cynthia, in your driveway interview with the O'Reilly producer, you accuse O'Reilly of "hypocrisy." Well, a double-standard, maybe, hypocrisy, no. That would be true if he himself had a teenage daughter who was pregnant. Maybe you can get the definition of that when you find Christianist.
It is nice to see that Tucker cares so much about the mothers and babies that get born, but, I know if she had her way, there'd be much fewer of these.
Cynthia, and Jay Bookman, if you're reading this - there's a reason why the AJC is not read by anyone, and why I haven't subscribed to it for 10 years, and it's largely your editorial page. I'm sure, judging by Cynthia's BMW, she's saved enough to survive the unemployment line sure to come, hopefully the rest of the staff has been so lucky.
end..
Monday, September 8, 2008
Debunking Palin Myths
I previously took factcheck.org to task for what i considered was a poorly done rebuttal of some McCain attack ads against the 0.
Today, they do take on some of the attacks against Palin, many of them uttered by members of the MSM, who should have known better. Kudos to factcheck.
end...
Today, they do take on some of the attacks against Palin, many of them uttered by members of the MSM, who should have known better. Kudos to factcheck.
end...
Who's doing the "reinventing" here?
0bama is lashing out at Sarah Palin, saying "You can't just recreate yourself. You can't just reinvent yourself," with respect to her change in focus on the infamous "Bridge to Nowhere."
Let's look at the Big 0's weekend:
On "This Week," 0bama was telling George Snuffalufagus that he "considered" joining the military after high school, saying "You know, I actually did. I had to sign up for Selective Service when I graduated from high school." However, he didn't sign up with the selective service in 1979, when he graduated from high school in 1979, he did it in 1980, since it wasn't required from 1975 til summer 1980, having been rescinded by President Ford following Vietnam. So, it's interesting how this memory of "considering" the military corresponds with another bad memory regarding the timing of when he would have had to register with the SSS. In other words, it couldn't have been the SSS registration that triggered pangs of desire for the military life in 0Bama after high school, since it was during his freshman year in college when it was required again, and when he, to his credit, signed the required paperwork.
In the same interview, 0 told Snuffy that he would consider keeping the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest in place, if the economy were in recession.
Finally, on Snuff's show, he admitted his answer to life's beginning at Saddleback was a rotten one. Just enjoy the dissembling in his answer.
end...
Let's look at the Big 0's weekend:
On "This Week," 0bama was telling George Snuffalufagus that he "considered" joining the military after high school, saying "You know, I actually did. I had to sign up for Selective Service when I graduated from high school." However, he didn't sign up with the selective service in 1979, when he graduated from high school in 1979, he did it in 1980, since it wasn't required from 1975 til summer 1980, having been rescinded by President Ford following Vietnam. So, it's interesting how this memory of "considering" the military corresponds with another bad memory regarding the timing of when he would have had to register with the SSS. In other words, it couldn't have been the SSS registration that triggered pangs of desire for the military life in 0Bama after high school, since it was during his freshman year in college when it was required again, and when he, to his credit, signed the required paperwork.
In the same interview, 0 told Snuffy that he would consider keeping the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest in place, if the economy were in recession.
Finally, on Snuff's show, he admitted his answer to life's beginning at Saddleback was a rotten one. Just enjoy the dissembling in his answer.
end...
Sunday, September 7, 2008
More 0 vs. the Muslim Issue and some random posts
Continuing on the 0bama/Muslim meme, California Yankee (who I have added to my political blogroll to the right!) has a great post on this, and how 0 should address the issue head-on.
I agree with him.
In a related post, Ann Coulter discusses Sarah Palin.
Michelle Malkin mocks Barack's community organizing days.
I agree with him.
In a related post, Ann Coulter discusses Sarah Palin.
Michelle Malkin mocks Barack's community organizing days.
Sarah Palin rocks, continued
Charles Martin has a blog post where he is keeping track of Sarah Palin rumours (most spread by the MSM) and debunking them (h/t The Corner on NRO). Check it out, many of them are quite good, and you can use it with your Liberal friends in debunking their lies and distortions.
On a related topic, on FNS today, Chris Wallace tried to pin McCain's campaign manager down on when Palin would have a press conference (when was the last time a VP candidate held a press conference during a campaign?). He was pretty adamant that it would happen on the campaign's schedule, but, I think an even better approach would be to tell these people,
"Sarah Palin is campaigning across America and taking the message of reform that this campaign represents directly to the people, taking questions from the good citizens of this country and sharing her experiences as one of them. As the unprecendented attempts to smear her by the mainstream media highlight this past week, I think the voters are much better served by hearing from Sarah directly, rather than through the distorted prism of liberal media Washington elites. Thank you for asking, though."
end...
On a related topic, on FNS today, Chris Wallace tried to pin McCain's campaign manager down on when Palin would have a press conference (when was the last time a VP candidate held a press conference during a campaign?). He was pretty adamant that it would happen on the campaign's schedule, but, I think an even better approach would be to tell these people,
"Sarah Palin is campaigning across America and taking the message of reform that this campaign represents directly to the people, taking questions from the good citizens of this country and sharing her experiences as one of them. As the unprecendented attempts to smear her by the mainstream media highlight this past week, I think the voters are much better served by hearing from Sarah directly, rather than through the distorted prism of liberal media Washington elites. Thank you for asking, though."
end...
Saturday, September 6, 2008
Wear that lapel pin, Obama!
So, the 0 (my new moniker for them) campaign is all in a twitter that GOP operatives "rescued" several thousand flags from the Obamevent at Invesco Field, and used them at a McCain rally in Colorado Springs.
Simultaneously, the 0 himself said, “what they’re really saying is ‘we’re going to try to scare people about Barack. So we’re going to say that you know, ‘Maybe he’s got Muslim connections or we’re going to say that, you know, he hangs out with radicals or he’s not patriotic.’”
Well, Barack, I will take those on:
1. That you have Muslim connections - no, you don't have any known current Muslim connections, but I don't think you need to deny that your father was a Muslim. Though you are a Christian, you ought to speak about what brought you to your faith. I think it would be good for all to hear it. I find it ironic that you and your acolytes embrace your father's skin color, but, not his religion.
2. Hangs out with radicals - I think the Bill Ayers/Bernardine Dohrn questions need to be answered directly by you, as well as questions about some of the groups (ACORN,The Gamaliel Foundation, etc) that you ran with as a "community organizer." Will anyone in the MSM ask you those questions, or are they too busy finding out about Sarah Palin's pregnancies?
3. Not patriotic - I'll let the voters decide that one. Leftists like to say that "dissent is the highest form of patriotism" and give credit (wrongly) to either Thomas Jefferson or Thomas Paine. Regardless of who you give credit for the statement, dissent is not the highest form of patriotism. I'm pretty sure none of these guys were practicing dissent, and I think they showed the highest form of patriotism.
Simultaneously, the 0 himself said, “what they’re really saying is ‘we’re going to try to scare people about Barack. So we’re going to say that you know, ‘Maybe he’s got Muslim connections or we’re going to say that, you know, he hangs out with radicals or he’s not patriotic.’”
Well, Barack, I will take those on:
1. That you have Muslim connections - no, you don't have any known current Muslim connections, but I don't think you need to deny that your father was a Muslim. Though you are a Christian, you ought to speak about what brought you to your faith. I think it would be good for all to hear it. I find it ironic that you and your acolytes embrace your father's skin color, but, not his religion.
2. Hangs out with radicals - I think the Bill Ayers/Bernardine Dohrn questions need to be answered directly by you, as well as questions about some of the groups (ACORN,The Gamaliel Foundation, etc) that you ran with as a "community organizer." Will anyone in the MSM ask you those questions, or are they too busy finding out about Sarah Palin's pregnancies?
3. Not patriotic - I'll let the voters decide that one. Leftists like to say that "dissent is the highest form of patriotism" and give credit (wrongly) to either Thomas Jefferson or Thomas Paine. Regardless of who you give credit for the statement, dissent is not the highest form of patriotism. I'm pretty sure none of these guys were practicing dissent, and I think they showed the highest form of patriotism.
Palinfacts.com
I have to point my readers to this site, palinfacts.com (H/T Blunoz). You'll like it, whether you like Palin or not.
Taxes and junk email
I was recently forwarded this internet email virus, with the questions at the end of this post added to it in a variant and I have now edited them (9/6, 2pm) to reflect more reality than the original email.
Here's my reply:
I realize that it is popular to “tax the rich” and, if Obama follows through on his plans as snopes describes them, our family stands to do slightly better than under McCain, but, I ask, at what point should we stop taxing the rich? Would any of you support a tax of 100% on any income above $250k? Above $1M? At what point do “the rich” have enough and we should take every penny of their money? At what point will “the rich” decide they have had enough and take their money, their investments, and their businesses elsewhere? Let’s face it, “the rich” are the most mobile members of our society, and while I know most of them love this country, it’s an increasingly global world. I realize it scores some cheap political points to vilify them, but I have yet to hear of a poor man giving anyone a job.
As for the questions at the top of the list, they are all a matter of your personal political views.I will make a point for Obama here – that some of our most successful presidents have had no military service at all (Lincoln, FDR) while some of the worst were in the military (Grant, Andrew Johnson, Carter),and there were successful military men (Washington, JFK, TR). It certainly is not a prerequisite for the presidency – but it does say something about character, particularly in McCain’s case.
REST OF EMAIL (updated 2pm, 9/6/08):
Favors new drilling offshore US
Yes - McCain - supports plans to open off more off-shore sites for drilling immediately
No - Obama - doesn't generally support offshore drilling, but has indicated a recent wilingness to speed the exploitation of currently allowed drilling spots, as part of a "comprehensive" energy plan and with restrictions (the cynical can still interpret this is a No).
Will appoint judges who interpret the law not make it
Yes - McCain - supports judges who will interpret our Consitution, who recongnize that the legislative branch legislates, and not the bench
No - Obama - pretty much standard Liberal fare expected here. Not able to get what you want through your elected officials? Your friendly non-elected judiciary will do it for you.
Served in the US Armed Forces
Yes - McCain - though certainly not a prerequisite
No - Obama - but has great experience as a "Community Organizer"
Amount of time served in the US Senate
22 YEARS - McCain - not sure this is a good thing
173 DAYS - Obama - likewise
Will institute a socialized national health care plan
No - McCain - Will support increased use of health savings accounts and tax credits for those unable to get insurance through their employer. Supports making health care more portable, and allowing residents of states to get insurance from out-of-state insurers. Will NOT put government in the position of being a health care insurer.
Yes - Obama - While his plan ostensibly won't lead immediately to a single payer, socialized system, its long-term effect, by placing the government in competition with private health care plans, and requiring coverage, will eventually force more and more employers to drop their health care plans and push people into the public system, essentially creating a government run system.
Supports abortion throughout the pregnancy
No - McCain - supports restrictions on abortion and the repeal of Roe v. Wade, which would place this issue in the hands of the states to decide at the state level. A return to Federalism, how novel.
Yes - Obama - has never voted to restrict abortion, when he wasn't voting "present". While an Illinois state senator, refused to support legislation to protect infants who survived abortions.
Would pull troops out of Iraq immediately
No - McCain - pushed the "surge" strategy and the recommendations of General Petreus, which has put us on the verge of victory in Iraq, and is enabling us to significantly reduce our troop strength in Iraq, has allowed the Iraqi government to push reforms, and take control of their government, and will leave a functioning Islamic democracy, friendly to the US, in the Middle East.
Not really - Obama - Well, we now know what he said to Moveon.org and the General "Betrayus" crowd wasn't true, he really didn't mean an immediate pullout. Refuses to admit the surge worked and has demonstrated an unwillingness to respect the capabilities of American military power.
Supports gun ownership rights
Yes - McCain - record speaks for itself
No - Obama - typical Liberal position on gun control. This "Constitutional Law Professor" supported the unconsitutional DC gun ban before he was against it.
Supports homosexual marriage
No - McCain - but does support civil unions and the right of states to allow civil unions. Has not favored a federal marriage amendment, preferring the states to decide for themselves.
Yes - Obama - favors it if states decide to permit it. Would not be an advocate in his administration against this. His judicial appointees would likely be inclined to overturn laws defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman.
Proposed programs will mean a huge budget deficit or tax increase - read the link - neither candidate has a real plan to reduce the budget deficit, though McCain's probably isn't as unfriendly to it as Obama's.
Probably - McCain - has stated he will eliminate earmarks and veto any bill that comes to his desk with earmarks in them. Has been a pretty consistent opponent of government waste in his time in the Senate. Pledges to push legislation requiring a supermajority vote to raise taxes.
Probably - Obama - either huge tax increases, or massive deficits. Take your pick.
Voted against making English the official language
No - McCain - though his position on immigration has, to be generous, "evolved."
Yes - Obama - told us we need to learn Spanish. For the record, Obama knows no foreign languages himself, not that it's important.
Voted to give Social Security benefits to illegals
Mixed - McCain - McCain has actually voted for this but now is against it. We know McCain's stance on illegal immigration, and while his 2007 conversion may be sincere, he has a long record of being for amnesty.
Yes - Obama - The Democrats see illegals as an important voting bloc, and are beholden to agriculture interests in some "leaner" farm states (Iowa, Minnesota, Illinois, Missouri) and California, so it's no surprise that they're for amnesty. If you think we need to control the borders, in this election McCain is an imperfect choice, but Obama is obviously rotten.
Here's my reply:
I realize that it is popular to “tax the rich” and, if Obama follows through on his plans as snopes describes them, our family stands to do slightly better than under McCain, but, I ask, at what point should we stop taxing the rich? Would any of you support a tax of 100% on any income above $250k? Above $1M? At what point do “the rich” have enough and we should take every penny of their money? At what point will “the rich” decide they have had enough and take their money, their investments, and their businesses elsewhere? Let’s face it, “the rich” are the most mobile members of our society, and while I know most of them love this country, it’s an increasingly global world. I realize it scores some cheap political points to vilify them, but I have yet to hear of a poor man giving anyone a job.
As for the questions at the top of the list, they are all a matter of your personal political views.I will make a point for Obama here – that some of our most successful presidents have had no military service at all (Lincoln, FDR) while some of the worst were in the military (Grant, Andrew Johnson, Carter),and there were successful military men (Washington, JFK, TR). It certainly is not a prerequisite for the presidency – but it does say something about character, particularly in McCain’s case.
REST OF EMAIL (updated 2pm, 9/6/08):
Favors new drilling offshore US
Yes - McCain - supports plans to open off more off-shore sites for drilling immediately
No - Obama - doesn't generally support offshore drilling, but has indicated a recent wilingness to speed the exploitation of currently allowed drilling spots, as part of a "comprehensive" energy plan and with restrictions (the cynical can still interpret this is a No).
Will appoint judges who interpret the law not make it
Yes - McCain - supports judges who will interpret our Consitution, who recongnize that the legislative branch legislates, and not the bench
No - Obama - pretty much standard Liberal fare expected here. Not able to get what you want through your elected officials? Your friendly non-elected judiciary will do it for you.
Served in the US Armed Forces
Yes - McCain - though certainly not a prerequisite
No - Obama - but has great experience as a "Community Organizer"
Amount of time served in the US Senate
22 YEARS - McCain - not sure this is a good thing
173 DAYS - Obama - likewise
Will institute a socialized national health care plan
No - McCain - Will support increased use of health savings accounts and tax credits for those unable to get insurance through their employer. Supports making health care more portable, and allowing residents of states to get insurance from out-of-state insurers. Will NOT put government in the position of being a health care insurer.
Yes - Obama - While his plan ostensibly won't lead immediately to a single payer, socialized system, its long-term effect, by placing the government in competition with private health care plans, and requiring coverage, will eventually force more and more employers to drop their health care plans and push people into the public system, essentially creating a government run system.
Supports abortion throughout the pregnancy
No - McCain - supports restrictions on abortion and the repeal of Roe v. Wade, which would place this issue in the hands of the states to decide at the state level. A return to Federalism, how novel.
Yes - Obama - has never voted to restrict abortion, when he wasn't voting "present". While an Illinois state senator, refused to support legislation to protect infants who survived abortions.
Would pull troops out of Iraq immediately
No - McCain - pushed the "surge" strategy and the recommendations of General Petreus, which has put us on the verge of victory in Iraq, and is enabling us to significantly reduce our troop strength in Iraq, has allowed the Iraqi government to push reforms, and take control of their government, and will leave a functioning Islamic democracy, friendly to the US, in the Middle East.
Not really - Obama - Well, we now know what he said to Moveon.org and the General "Betrayus" crowd wasn't true, he really didn't mean an immediate pullout. Refuses to admit the surge worked and has demonstrated an unwillingness to respect the capabilities of American military power.
Supports gun ownership rights
Yes - McCain - record speaks for itself
No - Obama - typical Liberal position on gun control. This "Constitutional Law Professor" supported the unconsitutional DC gun ban before he was against it.
Supports homosexual marriage
No - McCain - but does support civil unions and the right of states to allow civil unions. Has not favored a federal marriage amendment, preferring the states to decide for themselves.
Yes - Obama - favors it if states decide to permit it. Would not be an advocate in his administration against this. His judicial appointees would likely be inclined to overturn laws defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman.
Proposed programs will mean a huge budget deficit or tax increase - read the link - neither candidate has a real plan to reduce the budget deficit, though McCain's probably isn't as unfriendly to it as Obama's.
Probably - McCain - has stated he will eliminate earmarks and veto any bill that comes to his desk with earmarks in them. Has been a pretty consistent opponent of government waste in his time in the Senate. Pledges to push legislation requiring a supermajority vote to raise taxes.
Probably - Obama - either huge tax increases, or massive deficits. Take your pick.
Voted against making English the official language
No - McCain - though his position on immigration has, to be generous, "evolved."
Yes - Obama - told us we need to learn Spanish. For the record, Obama knows no foreign languages himself, not that it's important.
Voted to give Social Security benefits to illegals
Mixed - McCain - McCain has actually voted for this but now is against it. We know McCain's stance on illegal immigration, and while his 2007 conversion may be sincere, he has a long record of being for amnesty.
Yes - Obama - The Democrats see illegals as an important voting bloc, and are beholden to agriculture interests in some "leaner" farm states (Iowa, Minnesota, Illinois, Missouri) and California, so it's no surprise that they're for amnesty. If you think we need to control the borders, in this election McCain is an imperfect choice, but Obama is obviously rotten.
Friday, September 5, 2008
Barack says...
That the GOP convention ignored the middle class and focused on McCain's biography.
Could it be that Barack is envious that McCain has a biography?
Thursday, September 4, 2008
Fact Check.org,is it always right?
Even this site needs to be read with some discernment.
Ok, I had a heated discussion with a co-worker today who describes himself as a moderate (i.e. Liberal, but scared to admit it). He suggested that Obama's energy plan is better than McCain's, when it was obvious from his description of McCain's plan that he had never actually read it, which is really what set me off. As you can tell from scrolling down, I have previously posted a pretty detailed look at these two plans. If you're against new sources of American fossil fuels and nuclear power, Gobama. If you think we ought to get some of our own darn oil and use nuclear power, Nobama, choose McPalin.
Ok, I had a heated discussion with a co-worker today who describes himself as a moderate (i.e. Liberal, but scared to admit it). He suggested that Obama's energy plan is better than McCain's, when it was obvious from his description of McCain's plan that he had never actually read it, which is really what set me off. As you can tell from scrolling down, I have previously posted a pretty detailed look at these two plans. If you're against new sources of American fossil fuels and nuclear power, Gobama. If you think we ought to get some of our own darn oil and use nuclear power, Nobama, choose McPalin.
In this discussion, he stated that he uses factcheck.org as a resource to sort the wheat from the chaff in candidates advertising. Well, I have perused the factcheck site, and it's not awful. Interesting that most of the items today above the fold are all about McCain ads,in fact of 12 front page articles, 8 are about McCain ads,4 concern Obama misdeeds. 2/3, 1/3 - I'd say it qualifies as balanced as far as MSM sites go!
Just to prove that even an even-handed site like this can be misleading, I am going to take it to task for one of it's rebuttals - the McCain ad about Obama and Iran. Known as "tiny" in McCain parlance.
Just to prove that even an even-handed site like this can be misleading, I am going to take it to task for one of it's rebuttals - the McCain ad about Obama and Iran. Known as "tiny" in McCain parlance.
In their "fact check"on McCain's ad, which correctly states and shows clips of Obama saying Iran and Venezuela are"tiny" countries who don't "pose a serious threat," factcheck.org does correctly show the context that Obama was comparing them to Russia, both in size and in nature of the threat, or at least of the threat we once associated with Russia (all out nuclear war).
Of course, you could re-do this ad today, post Georgia invasion, and we could show Obama's naivete' about Russia, but, that's not the point. The "Tiny" ad goes on to question that "destroying Israel isn't a serious threat?"
In their factcheck, they attempt to use a June 4th Obama speech to refute that McCain is misleading on his Israel comments. The problem is, as anyone who was paying attention after May 18th, when Obama uttered the initial statements, they will recall that the June 4th speech, in which he spoke of the threat of Iran to Israel, was accomplished precisely to counter these statements he had made previously, as a sort of salve to put on what was then a festering wound.
So, it's a little disingenuous to suggest that the June 4th comments that Factcheck uses to "refute" the "Tiny" ad actually refute it. Put into the proper context themselves, they were made to put Obama back in the good graces of the pro-Israel lobby and to correct the mistake he made 2 weeks prior.
The "fact" remains that when Obama spoke on May 18th, he may have been speaking in the larger context of comparison to the former Soviet Union. But, words do have meaning, and as a President, he has to know every clause he speaks will be parsed and judged,and in his May 18th speech, he slipped, and it showed an inexperience that a more seasoned foreign policy expert would not have made. That's not to say that he wouldn't learn from his mistake, but, I still think the criticism from the McCain camp is a fair one, though I think they ought to show his June 4th attempt to clean up the mess, because that is a pattern of the Obama campaign, that, if elected, I hope we don't see repeated over and over again.
Of course, you could re-do this ad today, post Georgia invasion, and we could show Obama's naivete' about Russia, but, that's not the point. The "Tiny" ad goes on to question that "destroying Israel isn't a serious threat?"
In their factcheck, they attempt to use a June 4th Obama speech to refute that McCain is misleading on his Israel comments. The problem is, as anyone who was paying attention after May 18th, when Obama uttered the initial statements, they will recall that the June 4th speech, in which he spoke of the threat of Iran to Israel, was accomplished precisely to counter these statements he had made previously, as a sort of salve to put on what was then a festering wound.
So, it's a little disingenuous to suggest that the June 4th comments that Factcheck uses to "refute" the "Tiny" ad actually refute it. Put into the proper context themselves, they were made to put Obama back in the good graces of the pro-Israel lobby and to correct the mistake he made 2 weeks prior.
The "fact" remains that when Obama spoke on May 18th, he may have been speaking in the larger context of comparison to the former Soviet Union. But, words do have meaning, and as a President, he has to know every clause he speaks will be parsed and judged,and in his May 18th speech, he slipped, and it showed an inexperience that a more seasoned foreign policy expert would not have made. That's not to say that he wouldn't learn from his mistake, but, I still think the criticism from the McCain camp is a fair one, though I think they ought to show his June 4th attempt to clean up the mess, because that is a pattern of the Obama campaign, that, if elected, I hope we don't see repeated over and over again.
Sunday, August 31, 2008
Brazil Will Build Nuclear Submarine
The Brazilians are going to build a nuclear submarine, with help from the French. They hope to have it done by 2020, at a cost of $3.5B. Why don't we just build them a decontented Virginia and sell it to them, with a training package, for $3B and take the profits with us?
Doris Kearns Goodwin is an idiot
Doris Kearns Goodwin just said on MTP that "Nearly 1 out of 3 vice presidents have actually become president, mostly because of the death or assassination or the resignation of a president."
Huh?
So, Doris Kearns Goodwin, that exceptional presidential scholar and master of the obvious makes a statement that VP's succeed presidents on the heels of their death, assassination (isn't this death?), or resignation, then she demonstrates why she wasn't a math major by inflating the number of VP's who have succeeded Presidents for those causes, it's less than 1 in 4, not nearly 1 in 3.
She's another Democratic partisan hack and always has been.
Huh?
- John Tyler succeeded WH Harrison, who died in office
- Fillmore succeeded Zachary Taylor, who died in office
- Andrew Johnson succeeded the assassinated Lincoln
- Chester A Arthur succeeeded Garfield, who died in office
- McKinley was assassinated and succeeded by TR
- Silent Cal Coolidge succeeded Harding
- Truman succeeded FDR, who passed in office
- Johnson succeeded JFK, who was assassinated
- Ford succeeded Nixon, who resigned
So, Doris Kearns Goodwin, that exceptional presidential scholar and master of the obvious makes a statement that VP's succeed presidents on the heels of their death, assassination (isn't this death?), or resignation, then she demonstrates why she wasn't a math major by inflating the number of VP's who have succeeded Presidents for those causes, it's less than 1 in 4, not nearly 1 in 3.
She's another Democratic partisan hack and always has been.
Pawlenty on Meet the Press
I haven't watched MTP in a while, since Russert died. It's amazing how partisan and left-wing Tom Brokaw is.
Fortunately, today, I am seeing Tim Pawlenty (Republican governor of Minnesota) also for the first time, who is giving it to Brokaw on his questions passed to him this morning by the DNC.
I would swear that Pawlenty has been reading this blog, since he's giving my answers. I also find Brokaw to be very defensive himself. Pawlenty gave a great defense of he Palin choice, and went on the offensive comparing her to Barack Obama, and pointing out it's the top of the Democratic ticket that has absolutely ZERO foreign policy experience, and began running for President on day one when he entered the Senate. Brokaw also brought up some stupid Liberal talking points (must've also been on the morning Moveon fax) about Intelligent Designand Palin's views on it. I thought Pawlenty gave a reasonable defense and passed his own view that he believes ID. If the Dems think they're going to woo white, suburban women by disparaging their religious views, then I guess they all share Barack's views about those who cling to their religion and guns.
Brokaw - please, the Economist is an anti-conservative magazine. Don't try to sell it as some kind of right-wing oracle.
All in all, Pawlenty would have been a good choice as well, and he basically ate Brokaw's lunch.
End.
Fortunately, today, I am seeing Tim Pawlenty (Republican governor of Minnesota) also for the first time, who is giving it to Brokaw on his questions passed to him this morning by the DNC.
I would swear that Pawlenty has been reading this blog, since he's giving my answers. I also find Brokaw to be very defensive himself. Pawlenty gave a great defense of he Palin choice, and went on the offensive comparing her to Barack Obama, and pointing out it's the top of the Democratic ticket that has absolutely ZERO foreign policy experience, and began running for President on day one when he entered the Senate. Brokaw also brought up some stupid Liberal talking points (must've also been on the morning Moveon fax) about Intelligent Designand Palin's views on it. I thought Pawlenty gave a reasonable defense and passed his own view that he believes ID. If the Dems think they're going to woo white, suburban women by disparaging their religious views, then I guess they all share Barack's views about those who cling to their religion and guns.
Brokaw - please, the Economist is an anti-conservative magazine. Don't try to sell it as some kind of right-wing oracle.
All in all, Pawlenty would have been a good choice as well, and he basically ate Brokaw's lunch.
End.
McCain on Fox News Sunday
How McCain should address Palin's lack of foreign policy experience:
"The top of this ticket will be setting the foreign policy agenda, and I didn't feel the need to choose a VP to improve my foreign policy knowledge."
When you're comparing the VP choice on one side of the ticket to the Presidential choice on the other side, that Presidential candidate is diminished.
End.
When you're comparing the VP choice on one side of the ticket to the Presidential choice on the other side, that Presidential candidate is diminished.
End.
McCain for Change in Energy Policy
This is going to be an incredibly long post, and I apologize in advance.
There's a great discussion going on over at Bubblehead's site following his post on the Palin selection and I encourage all to read it. This post will focus on Obama's and McCain's energy policies, as expressed on their campaign web sites. So let's get to the specifics.
All this data was taken directly from the candidates' web sites (except any mention of cap and trade on McCain's site, whichI expect he wants to soft pedal since so many conservatives oppose it). It doesn't take much reading to see that, much like Obama, his plans are short on specifics, while McCain's are detailed enough, and his plan is much, much more comprehensive. Obama is going to rely largely on conservation measures, doesn't talk at all about new domestic sources, and specifies several mandates.
It's pretty clear that unless you believe the conservation goals Obama sets can be reached, his plan has little chance of reducing our dependence on foreign oil by very much. This is both a supply and demand problem, and Obama really on focuses on demand. If you want a lower standard of living, with reduced energy consumption, Obama's your man. If you want the same, or greater standard of living, with continued growth in the economy, and less greenhouse emissions, then McCain's ideas are superior, and much more of a change to the way we do business today.
End.
There's a great discussion going on over at Bubblehead's site following his post on the Palin selection and I encourage all to read it. This post will focus on Obama's and McCain's energy policies, as expressed on their campaign web sites. So let's get to the specifics.
- Obama wants to enact a windfall profits tax to provide a $1000 rebate to American families. McCain has no analog to this. While I am always in favor of giving the American people more of their money back to them, I am not in favor of taking from one group and redistributing their money to others, even if I'm one of them. How about just reducing our tax burden by $1000? Inasmuch as this will remove money that would have been used for R&D or pulling oil out of the ground, or investing in new technologies, I have a newsflash - oil companies have a responsibility to their shareholders, and they'll deliver on that promise to them by keeping their net income growing - so, they will cut somewhere else to make up for that new tax. So, we'll all get $1000, but we'll get less of something that we really need - energy. Advantage: McCain.
- Obama will crack down on excessive energy speculation. McCain doesn't advocate this. Since the FCTC allowed much broader rules for oil speculation in 2003, it has soared and much more money is invested in energy speculation. Dick Morris argues passionately that this is one of the biggest problems we have with high oil prices. Of course, this is true as long as speculators are betting that oil prices will go up. We saw recently, when the President lifted the executive ban on offshore drilling what can happen to oil prices driven by speculators. In theory, speculation ought to just reflect what investors see as the future of oil prices. Speculators take risks and are rewarded if they bet right, just as in any market. However, for years prior, there were tighter rules around speculation in oil commodities. I guess I could live with this as part of an approach, but, I don't see it as something that will have any real meaningful impact. Advantage: Neutral
- Obama will release oil from the strategic petroleum reserve, McCain is silent on it (I assume he wouldn't). Again, I don't have a major problem with this, it's been done by presidents of each party to address short term spikes in oil prices. It could help in a very short term, but, as a long term solution, it's a meaningless feel good measure. Advantage - neutral.
- Obama will increase CAFE standards 4% per year. McCain supports CAFE, but instead of increasing the standards, he wants to enforce them where automakers can't just pay the penalties for non-compliance, but have to comply, by making the penalties severe. I guess if we believe the automakers can meet the 4%/yr requirement, it's not a rotten approach, but I don't generally support either of these, since I'm against CAFE to begin with. Since both candidates support CAFE, if we're going to have it, let's make it meaningful, and I suppose the 4%/yr requirement is technically feasible, so it would be ok. Beware the law of unintended consequences here, though. If the 4% requirement drives up prices on those new cars so much that they are too expensive to replace an existing car, it could find people holding on to their less economical older cars longer, and would have the ultimate effect of not improving conservation. It will also result in lighter and smaller cars. Do Americans want these? With $4/gal gas, I think there's a market. Advantage: Slight for Obama
- Obama would get 1M plug-in hybrids on the road by 2015. He claims they will get up to 150MPG. I don't know where that 150MPG figure is coming from. McCain is proposing a $300M prize for for full commercial development of plug-ins and fully electric cars to spur battery development. I actually think McCain's idea more accurately reflects the current state of technology here and is more likely to produce results than Obama's mandate. And, it's much more of a free-market approach. Auto state representatives will resist any mandate, and they're mostly Democrats, so that's a non-starter for Obama. McCain's idea is much more likely to produce results. Advantage: McCain
- Obama is going to give a $7000 tax credit for purchasing advanced vehicles. He doesn't have any specifics on this. Is this to entice us to buy those plug-in hybrids? Of course, McCain is going to give a $5000 credit for purchasing no-carbon cars. He's going to pro-rate the credit for really low carbon emitters. McCain's credit is lower, but it's going to more purchasers. Advantage: Neutral
- Obama is going to establish a National Low Carbon Fuel Standard - McCain has no analog to this. If Obama is proposing this to put a national standard in place of the hodgepodge of state laws around oxygenated fuels, then I think this is a good idea and will help refiners to make one standard of fuels. If that's what he means, good idea. Advantage: Obama
- Obama will place a "use it or lose it" requirement on oil leases - we already have this. I believe oil leases expire after 10 years today. Does he mean to shorten it? Since Democrats all love to tell us it takes 10 years to get oil to market, isn't 10 years the right length? Anyway, meaningless since it's already in place. Advantage: Neutral
- Obama will "promote the responsible domestic production of oil and natural gas." He says he'll remove barriers to production in fields that are already being exploited. I believe this is good, but it's pablum. McCain is silent on this, but it's so obvious as to not need stating and something Congress could do tomorrow (if they were in session). Advantage: neutral
- Obama will reduce domestic energy consumption by 15% by 2020. He doesn't say how, but we might be able to reduce the growth in energy requirements, but I don't see us using 15% less without either seriously slowing immigration or somehow cutting population, or a serious change in our lifestyles. Maybe since we'll be providing so much less health care (since it'll be rationed following an Obama administration) we can cut their energy consumption? It's unrealistic. Fortunately, McCain is a realist and doesn't have such a goal. Advantage: McCain
- Obama will weatherize one million low income homes annually for ten years. Good idea, but how are you going to pay for this? It's a good idea for individuals, but I don't support a government program to do this. We already have tax credits for energy efficient appliances and windows (among other things). Advantage: McCain
- Obama will develop clean coal technology. McCain will devote $2B annually to this same goal. Obama is short on specifics, but, the goal is the same. Advantage: Neutral
- Obama will accelerate completion of the Alaskan natural gas pipeline. McCain is for increased production of natural gas, particularly from offshore sources. Again, Obama wants to help get an existing source to market quicker, while McCain is going after new sources, while Obama is silent on this. I think the ANGP sounds like a good idea to speed up, but McCain adds the new sources, so Advantage: McCain
- Obama wants to institute cap and trade to reduce greenhouse emissions 80% by 2050. See McCain-Lieberman. He's Mr. Cap and Trade. I'm opposed to cap and trade, so, Advantage: Neutral (actually, bad for both)
- Obama will re-engage the US in the UN's ridiculous UNFCC. McCain's silent on this. There's a reason we voted 98-0 in the senate against Kyoto. The UN is only interested in limits on the West. Advantage: McCain
- McCain will commit to increased oil exploration from domestic sources. Obama is silent (but has expressed limited willingness to drill). Advantage: McCain
- McCain wants to increase our sales of Flex Fuel Vehicles from the pledged 50% by 2012, to sooner, in the Brazilian model. Obama is silent. Advantage: McCain
- McCain believes alcohol based fuels hold great promise and he wants to remove tariffs that prevent us from importing non-corn based alcohol-based fuels, and subsidies that promote the creation of these fuels from corn, vice cellulosic ethanol. If one believes that alcohol based fuels are part of the solution, then one needs to accept that cellulosic fuels are our best hope, not corn-based. McCain's approach would allow us to get these fuels from sources such as Brazil, and ultimately develop them here ourselves, vice subsidize corporate farmers and raise the cost of corn. Obama is silent. Advantage: McCain
- McCain wants to build 45 new nuclear plants by 2030, eventually building 100 new plants. Now, these are the kinds of high-paying jobs I can get behind. Advantage: McCain
- McCain wants to make a 10% tax credit for R&D permanent. Obama is silent. Advantage: McCain
- McCain wants to rationalize the tax credit system that exists for wind, solar, and hydro power. It's a small step, but one Obama is silent on (I expect he wouldn't resist this, though). However, his silence makes it Advantage: McCain.
All this data was taken directly from the candidates' web sites (except any mention of cap and trade on McCain's site, whichI expect he wants to soft pedal since so many conservatives oppose it). It doesn't take much reading to see that, much like Obama, his plans are short on specifics, while McCain's are detailed enough, and his plan is much, much more comprehensive. Obama is going to rely largely on conservation measures, doesn't talk at all about new domestic sources, and specifies several mandates.
It's pretty clear that unless you believe the conservation goals Obama sets can be reached, his plan has little chance of reducing our dependence on foreign oil by very much. This is both a supply and demand problem, and Obama really on focuses on demand. If you want a lower standard of living, with reduced energy consumption, Obama's your man. If you want the same, or greater standard of living, with continued growth in the economy, and less greenhouse emissions, then McCain's ideas are superior, and much more of a change to the way we do business today.
End.
Saturday, August 30, 2008
McCain/Palin
In my previous post about the McCain "surprise," I was a whopping 0 for 4 in my predictions. However, happily so.
Learn a little more about Palin here (h/t: Big Sis).
The Obama camp was quick out of the gate to blast Palin for her inexperience in foreign affairs. Well, Obamaniacs, Palin isn't being chosen for her expertise in foreign policy (unlike Joe Biden). I think John McCain has plenty of experience here, and has plenty of successful things to talk about in his foreign policy views. Plus, every time the Obama camp tries to emphasize Palin's relative inexperience (in foreign policy to Biden/McCain), they are going to be emphasizing also their own standard bearer's lightness of being here, and that's something they don't want to do.
Anyway, what has Palin got over Obama/Biden in spades:
1. She has executive experience and is the only candidate among the four who has this (though, I believe McCain's military command as a Captain is pretty good executive experience, too, and more than either Obama or Biden has)
2. She has actually fought for reform, and against her own party, something she shares with McCain, and for which there is absolutely no analog among Obama or Biden.
3. Did I mention she's a woman?
Learn a little more about Palin here (h/t: Big Sis).
The Obama camp was quick out of the gate to blast Palin for her inexperience in foreign affairs. Well, Obamaniacs, Palin isn't being chosen for her expertise in foreign policy (unlike Joe Biden). I think John McCain has plenty of experience here, and has plenty of successful things to talk about in his foreign policy views. Plus, every time the Obama camp tries to emphasize Palin's relative inexperience (in foreign policy to Biden/McCain), they are going to be emphasizing also their own standard bearer's lightness of being here, and that's something they don't want to do.
Anyway, what has Palin got over Obama/Biden in spades:
1. She has executive experience and is the only candidate among the four who has this (though, I believe McCain's military command as a Captain is pretty good executive experience, too, and more than either Obama or Biden has)
2. She has actually fought for reform, and against her own party, something she shares with McCain, and for which there is absolutely no analog among Obama or Biden.
3. Did I mention she's a woman?
Friday, August 29, 2008
CSS Hunley Replica Tour
The full-size CSS Hunley replica is touring California. September 5-7, it will be at the Benicia Historical Museum in Benicia, Ca, Sept. 12-15 it will be stopping in Nevada City, California. I tried searching for information about this tour without luck. If you have any, please send it along.
Update 8/30:
The Hunley replica is in Virginia City, Nevada this weekend. Excellent article here. Still looking for details about this exhibit's schedule!
Visit the Hunley web site.
Update 8/30:
The Hunley replica is in Virginia City, Nevada this weekend. Excellent article here. Still looking for details about this exhibit's schedule!
Visit the Hunley web site.
Thursday, August 28, 2008
Comcast Sucks
Ok, I am going to take a break from Obama/Democrat bashing to bash one of my favorite targets, the horribly run and disgusting company known as Comcast.
They have finally made it official. If you're a Comcrap customer and are seriously addicted to Internet file sharing (and you'd have to be to transfer 250Gb/month), you're getting cut off.
Hey, guess what, there are other ISP's still out there. Go get one and run as far away from Comcast as you can.
They have finally made it official. If you're a Comcrap customer and are seriously addicted to Internet file sharing (and you'd have to be to transfer 250Gb/month), you're getting cut off.
Hey, guess what, there are other ISP's still out there. Go get one and run as far away from Comcast as you can.
Exciting McCain Stuff Tonight
Drudge is reporting some pretty exciting stuff in the McCain campaign that is going to happen tonight as the Obamamessiah delivers his acceptance speech. It is said he will directly address Obama. Drudge is also threatening to leak the McCain VP announcement around 6PM.
There's much speculation, but here are my ideas:
Let me also say something about Lieberman. He is the only pro-choice VP choice that I can live with for McCain. I personally love Lieberman, and I think his pro-choice stance is a necessity that he was forced to adopt when he decided to be a Dem. I wouldn't be surprised, if selected, to hear him actually come out and say that and that personall he is opposed to abortion and he can get behind policies and support judges who will overturn Roe.
Wouldn't it be refreshing to see the Presidential candidate and the VP candidate actually speaking their minds and being honest, rather than pulling the wool over our eyes as the Dems are going to try to do.
Hey Romney evolved on abortion, how about Joe going back to his roots?
There's much speculation, but here are my ideas:
- He will challenge Obama directly to a series of joint town hall meetings to begin immediately after the GOP convention.
- He will choose Joe Lieberman as his running mate (who will switch to be pro-life), and he will challenge Obama to similarly show he is willing to risk his base by pledging to work in a truly bipartisan basis to tackle some of the pressing problems of our generation, particularly tackling health care and entitlement reform.
- We will make some reference to the success of the surge and Obama's continued denial of its success.
- He will bring up Obama's refusal to accept federal matching dollars for the campaign
Let me also say something about Lieberman. He is the only pro-choice VP choice that I can live with for McCain. I personally love Lieberman, and I think his pro-choice stance is a necessity that he was forced to adopt when he decided to be a Dem. I wouldn't be surprised, if selected, to hear him actually come out and say that and that personall he is opposed to abortion and he can get behind policies and support judges who will overturn Roe.
Wouldn't it be refreshing to see the Presidential candidate and the VP candidate actually speaking their minds and being honest, rather than pulling the wool over our eyes as the Dems are going to try to do.
Hey Romney evolved on abortion, how about Joe going back to his roots?
Doc riles me again
I'm going to point my readers to this post over at Doc MacDonald's blog. I freely admit I have personal problems with Doc's Objectivist anti-religious scribes. Sure, Ayn Rand was an atheist, but you don't have to hold any kind of religious view to know that we can, and should, and have an obligation to be able to draw a line somewhere to define when life begins.
I appreciate that Doc and other Objectivists hold and express these opinions, however wrong I believe they may be. I appreciate the purity of thought that this reasoning displays. And, we need a debate about this in this country, because Roe cut that debate off.
Unfortunately for Objectivist, Western Civilization and this country were not founded on Objectivist principles, they were founded and evolved largely on Judeo-Christian principles, and Western society has succeeded quite well under those principles for 100's of years. We do need thinkers like these, because we share a common belief in limited government, both in its use of our tax dollars, and in its ultimate intrusion in our lives and on our liberties, but, conservatives find a rightful place for government intervention in enforcing some of the basic tenets of human rights, as stated in the Declaration of Independence that among these are the right to life, one of those inalienable rights endowed to us by our Creator. I would like to frame this argument as a technical one over when does that life begin, and how do we balance that right with the same rights (not less, not more) held by the mother.
Unfortunately, Roe is a horribly reasoned piece of jurisprudence that doesn't really help draw that line, instead it really draws no lines, leaving us in a position where the "right" to abortion, or, as Doc would euphemize it, the "right to self-determination," is whatever the mother declares it to be. Doc posits that somehow, Laura Ingraham and others of her ilk, from conception forward, want to confer more rights on the baby (or "clump of cells" to use their phraseology) than on the mother. This is a patently false statement. We want to confer equal rights on the mother and on that "clump of cells." This is clearly not an easy or pleasant task for anyone, but amongst reasonable people, we can agree that mothers that find themselves in this situation as a result of some act beyond their control (rape, incest, a credible threat to the mother's life) should be able to avail themselves of abortion technology. Only the most ideological would argue against that, and in a national debate, I think they'd find it very tough going selling that argument. So, while we might be disappointed that not ALL life could be protected, regardless of its genesis, again, reasonable people would likely have to accept some compromise to reach national consensus, because, yes, the mother does have rights, too.
The problem is that abortion has come to be a favored method of birth control, of rolling back the clock, to somehow allow the mother to "regain control of her own existence." I just find this argument extremely uncompelling. Except in the unusual and rare instances above, women in today's sexed-obsessed society know that pregnancy is a risk of intercourse. In case no one's looked, they're teaching sex ed before kids reach puberty these days. In my opinion, and I think it's quite reasonable, the decision about "control of her own existence" was already made at the time of the act.
Doc's post elevates "self-determination" to the highest level of concern, and, I guess, on re-reading, and understanding a little of Ayn Rand's Objectivist philosophy, I can see where Objectivists, being ideologically pure, would actually support abortion up until the moment a child is born, maybe beyond (which you can see, I am attempting to draw out of Doc in my reply to him). After all, at what point is a human actually capable of really considering their right to "self-determination?" Are we born with it? Or, do we learn it? If the latter, at what point does one become truly capable of making self-determinant decisions? I mean if a Down's Syndrome child, or a child born with some horrible birth defect or illness, or even into seemingly downtrodden and hopeless circumstances can't make their own decisions about self-determination, why shouldn't their parent, or even the state make the decision of whether they should live? Or, how about a panel of Objectivists, they seem to be doing a higher level of thinking than the rest of the proletariat?
This "mystic" can't convince atheists of the existence of God. They can't touch Him, or feel Him, or see any objective evidence (despite it being all around them), so, therefore, He doesn't exist, and we're all derided as "mystics" who want to deprive women of their rights to correct their mistakes through a specious right to self-determination which legalizes abortion on demand and send them to back rooms where they will be butchered (trust me, if we overturned Roe tomorrow, that would not happen, and to think otherwise demonstrates a massive misunderstanding of the ruling).
About Doc's slippery-slope argument about masturbation and gay sex and condom use - it's easy to use extreme arguments to prove a point, but the fact that extreme arguments have to be used to prove the point should tell you something about the point being made. This part of his post is just meant to be sensational. Read it though, it's interesting.
To the kinds of people that rail at the legislation of morality, I posted on this days ago. That train long ago left the station.
If anyone's reading, feel free to chime in.
I appreciate that Doc and other Objectivists hold and express these opinions, however wrong I believe they may be. I appreciate the purity of thought that this reasoning displays. And, we need a debate about this in this country, because Roe cut that debate off.
Unfortunately for Objectivist, Western Civilization and this country were not founded on Objectivist principles, they were founded and evolved largely on Judeo-Christian principles, and Western society has succeeded quite well under those principles for 100's of years. We do need thinkers like these, because we share a common belief in limited government, both in its use of our tax dollars, and in its ultimate intrusion in our lives and on our liberties, but, conservatives find a rightful place for government intervention in enforcing some of the basic tenets of human rights, as stated in the Declaration of Independence that among these are the right to life, one of those inalienable rights endowed to us by our Creator. I would like to frame this argument as a technical one over when does that life begin, and how do we balance that right with the same rights (not less, not more) held by the mother.
Unfortunately, Roe is a horribly reasoned piece of jurisprudence that doesn't really help draw that line, instead it really draws no lines, leaving us in a position where the "right" to abortion, or, as Doc would euphemize it, the "right to self-determination," is whatever the mother declares it to be. Doc posits that somehow, Laura Ingraham and others of her ilk, from conception forward, want to confer more rights on the baby (or "clump of cells" to use their phraseology) than on the mother. This is a patently false statement. We want to confer equal rights on the mother and on that "clump of cells." This is clearly not an easy or pleasant task for anyone, but amongst reasonable people, we can agree that mothers that find themselves in this situation as a result of some act beyond their control (rape, incest, a credible threat to the mother's life) should be able to avail themselves of abortion technology. Only the most ideological would argue against that, and in a national debate, I think they'd find it very tough going selling that argument. So, while we might be disappointed that not ALL life could be protected, regardless of its genesis, again, reasonable people would likely have to accept some compromise to reach national consensus, because, yes, the mother does have rights, too.
The problem is that abortion has come to be a favored method of birth control, of rolling back the clock, to somehow allow the mother to "regain control of her own existence." I just find this argument extremely uncompelling. Except in the unusual and rare instances above, women in today's sexed-obsessed society know that pregnancy is a risk of intercourse. In case no one's looked, they're teaching sex ed before kids reach puberty these days. In my opinion, and I think it's quite reasonable, the decision about "control of her own existence" was already made at the time of the act.
Doc's post elevates "self-determination" to the highest level of concern, and, I guess, on re-reading, and understanding a little of Ayn Rand's Objectivist philosophy, I can see where Objectivists, being ideologically pure, would actually support abortion up until the moment a child is born, maybe beyond (which you can see, I am attempting to draw out of Doc in my reply to him). After all, at what point is a human actually capable of really considering their right to "self-determination?" Are we born with it? Or, do we learn it? If the latter, at what point does one become truly capable of making self-determinant decisions? I mean if a Down's Syndrome child, or a child born with some horrible birth defect or illness, or even into seemingly downtrodden and hopeless circumstances can't make their own decisions about self-determination, why shouldn't their parent, or even the state make the decision of whether they should live? Or, how about a panel of Objectivists, they seem to be doing a higher level of thinking than the rest of the proletariat?
This "mystic" can't convince atheists of the existence of God. They can't touch Him, or feel Him, or see any objective evidence (despite it being all around them), so, therefore, He doesn't exist, and we're all derided as "mystics" who want to deprive women of their rights to correct their mistakes through a specious right to self-determination which legalizes abortion on demand and send them to back rooms where they will be butchered (trust me, if we overturned Roe tomorrow, that would not happen, and to think otherwise demonstrates a massive misunderstanding of the ruling).
About Doc's slippery-slope argument about masturbation and gay sex and condom use - it's easy to use extreme arguments to prove a point, but the fact that extreme arguments have to be used to prove the point should tell you something about the point being made. This part of his post is just meant to be sensational. Read it though, it's interesting.
To the kinds of people that rail at the legislation of morality, I posted on this days ago. That train long ago left the station.
If anyone's reading, feel free to chime in.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)