Truth Tellers
--Bruce Bartlett wrote a book titled Impostor : How George W. Bush Bankrupted America and Betrayed the Reagan Legacy. Best. Title. Ever.
Upside: Author is conservative and worked at right-wing think tank, proving that not every Republican is a tool for this administration.
Downside: Homeboy told the truth and got fired.
Wonder why? It's quite obvious Dubya and Co. are conservative in name only. They're actions aren't even socially conservative - as one commenter-poster recently remarked - they truly are wolves in sheep's clothing. These Republicans will say whatever they need to get elected and ensure big business runs your show. Mine, too. And anyone who calls them on it gets the boot.
True conservatives don't need to be convinced anymore. Do you?
-- Dr. Sultan spoke out - in Arabic, no less - against elements within Islam that are killing an otherwise beautiful faith. She even had nice things to say about us Jews. Here is a Muslim I can get behind! Was she cheered? Hailed as a role model? Applauded for telling the truth?
What do you think?
For her bravery, she is being threatened and harrassed. Memorize her name - hopefully she'll be the first of many who take back this remarkable religion and return it to its former glory.
posted by kate @ 8:00 AM
9 comments
9 Comments:
(Way off topic, sort of, but not)
Concerning last post:
Mr. C said, "In the meantime, why does a victim of rape automatically need an abortion? "
I don't know, maybe because the act of rape is so violent and intense that the women shouldn't then have to be traumatized further by giving birth as well. But I'm sure you would be happy to pay for her unplanned pregnancy as well as her therapy afterwords. No? oh that's right the church or a private entity should take care of what a government legislates. Huh? No wait, governments responsibility is limited to destroying other societies so it's corporations can rebuild them with taxpayer dollars. That's the new-republican way, eh?
Respectfully sir, you are insane. I used to occassionally agree with you during your bouts with Kate. Having seen the light, I can call righty logic for what it really is: cruel and misguided.
OK, I must know - did I have ANYTHING to do with this departure from "righy logic"?
(Oh, pleasesayyes, pleasesayyes, pleasesayyes...)
Though it is somewhat off topic I felt the need to respond to the commenter above regarding the question, “does someone who is raped automatically need an abortion?” This question is directly related to the pro-life argument about abortion bans with exceptions for the mother in cases involving incest and rape. As a pro-choice voter I am acutely aware of this tactic used by the right to sooth the shaky support they might get from that part of the electorate that find themselves uncomfortable with an across the board ban on all abortions with the exception of danger to the life of the mother as South Dakota passed last week. The right knows perfectly well that abortion bans that would be written with exceptions of rape and incest are impractical from a legal stand point and unenforceable.
A case in point would be this: if a woman stepped forward and accused an individual with rape after she finds herself pregnant, under what legal process is she then granted the right to have an abortion? Is an accusation enough to grant a legal right to the procedure she might then ask for under the exception granted in the ban? Or would she have to wait for a conviction thereby allowing the courts to act within the legal framework granted in the ban as written? If an accusation is all that is required one can only imagine the number of rapes charges thrown around in order to allow the procedure to take place legally. Under the legal framework of the ban as written the state would most certainly require the court to run its course and determine innocence or guilt. Once her accused assailant was convicted then the abortion would be allowed to take place. The only problem is the pregnancy at that point, considering the length of time most court cases take, would more than likely come to full term during the wait. The pro-lifers are more than aware of this and that is why the exceptions are usually offered as caveats in any debate. As pro-choice voters we must not fall for this red herring.
Kate,
I'd love to throw you some credit but it's just been the behavior lately of these guys that's so sickening. It's like there is no America just one big company to do business in and with. Bush is a wealthy WASP transplant from the NE.. He has done a great job of playing the awschucks, regular guy on the ranch, clearing brush, and prayin'. "Real" Americans love that. He's a big businessman with big business interests. And I bought the line about never gettin a job from a poor person and the rich only pay taxes, and government need to get out of the way. Repubs only hate big goverment when it's not serving their interests. And poor working class Americans are voting for a corporate agenda cause they got 'em believing that gov't=bad, corporation=good. That's ridiculous. I honestly believe that they are interested in sabotaging gov't to prove the point that it doesn't work and then propel the agenda of the private sector. Private? What an obnoxious word. And health savings accounts? What a joke. Not going to do anything about the cost just ask you to tuck a little away for that heart transplant. Out of touch. I can't even focus. It's like a blind man seeing for the first time. Praise Jesus!
This post is in reply to several others regarding the new law in South Dakota:
First of all, don’t use the word mother to make us feel warm and fuzzy about the fact that this women is the survivor of a violent crime and is pregnant because of it.
Secondly, pregnancy, even for a healthy woman, is inherently dangerous. There are many conditions caused by being pregnant, as well as those that occur during labor and delivery. Hence, all the medical care and support that is required. Not all of those conditions can be deemed as putting the women’s life in danger (i.e. gestational diabetes), so you’re going to force her to carry the fetus to term? What if she has placental previa at eight months? Don’t assume that just because the rape survivor is healthy when she’s raped means that she’s going to have a healthy pregnancy.
Third, as to the argument that a woman would falsely accuse a man of rape, simply to get abortion. . . rape is the most underreported violent crime in the United States. For every false accusation of rape are hundreds, if not thousands, of rapes that are never even reported. While you may feel comfortable in justifying your position based on a falsity, what about the truths that are out there? The 13 year old who was raped by her uncle, the 17 year old who was gang raped, the 25 year old who was drugged and raped?
Finally, while pregnancy and adoption may be a “viable alternative” for a minority of rape survivors, you have no right to tell a survivor that it is her only option. Until you sit with an 18 year old at three in the morning and listen to her horrific story, until you look into her father’s eyes after he’s been told that his daughter has been brutalized by an unknown assailant, until you actually see the devastation such a violent act causes, please don’t sit at your computer and make the decision for her.
Wow, I am glad you have all found out what you truly believe as a result of my insightful commentary. There is no love lost fro your departure to the other side.
For starters, this is Kates site, not mine, I am here to participate in the discussions and embarass many of you on a consistent basis. I am not here to win you over to my way of thinking. There are no shades of gray in my book.
My general specialty is politics and strategy. In that respect, for purposes of debate I generally repeat policy as I understand it, promote policy I completely support, or oppose and expose faulty policy. As a matter of politics, you can argue against them and get as excited as you want, but ultimately there is a GOP majority that was brought about largely due to better communication of those policies. Start communicating your policies better and voters may start supporting your candidates.
Regarding abortion, I think that the majority of americans, and voters, are not on your side. And even if voters aren't, a majority of Republicans are, and they are currently in power virtually everywhere this issue is salient. That is likely to change over time, but I don't think this issue will be affected by those changees.
Abortion is still legal in 49 other states, including Florida. If you support abortion then avoid SD.
For all of your "what if's" and "you can never know" assumptions about people you think I have or have not had contact with, ultimately it doesn't matter.
I am not dealing with "holistics" views of why or why not said women got pregnant. It really doesn't matter in my view. The facts are the facts. Yes, pregnancy is a dangerous event. But my concern here is for the results of that pregnancy, which means a life is growing.
Prenatal care is available through government healthcare programs whether or not the mother has insurance, money, proof of rape etc., so I don't consider that an issue to address. The availability of care after birth is not relevant issue when deciding to end a life. If it was then we should be killing more prisoners to make room for new offenders.
For my position on abortion, if you believe life begins very, very early, then abortion is not an option. The only exception would be the life of the mother and that clearly covers the situations described above.
If you believe life begins at some point during the pregnancy (generally prescribed under the made-up timeline of occuring after the first trimester) then the same situations should apply, abortion should only be legal as a result of the danger to the life of the mother.
Lastly, if you believe in abortion on demand, up to and including partial birth abortion, then I'm not really talking to you at all. You're a nutjob.
In any event, the life of the mother is clearly protected, and supported by me, and I have been farily consistent on that issue. The responsibility for the decision regarding the immenent health of the mother has generally been deferred to the physician in charge, not the legislature or the republicans.
So, if you follow what I say above, I have yet to recieve any relevant answer to the question and I ask you again, why does a victim of rape (or incest automatically need an abortion?
Jenn should run for office. She outlined why the woman herself is in charge of whether she aborts or carries the pregnancy to term - based on circumstance, health, etc. And she managed to state the facts in human terms - something C doesn't have the skill for, which is why he comes across as less-than-human in his arguments and turns most people off. He's a puny little Rove who thinks this cold and calculated "policy" wonk is going to triumph over "elite" intellectualism combined with heart and humor.
Good luck with that.
Repubs are in the majority for nothing more than the gift of appealing to the least common denominator - fear. Oh and smears as well. Don't get too cocky. The country is catching on and those cold calculations you sell as policy don't endear you or your candidates to anyone.
I will say that if you believe life begins at conception ("very very early"? is that arbitrary or scientific?) then the above arguments make sense. If you believe that life begins when the fetus is viable - then first trimester abortions should remain safe and legal. They are not allowed to usurp a woman's rights in SD just because there are other states who abide by the law. Nice try, though.
You should mourn the loss of right-wingers and conservatives. That's your base and they're heading out the door.
Puny? Oh, on the contrary. I digress.
But, with regard to Rove like tactics, they have been prevailing over elitism for 3 decades, so saying good luck with that is really a post facto congratulatory statement. We have already won on so many levels it's sad to admit that we are likely to lose seats if only because we have so many of them, not because of any special revelation, organization or policy initiatives of the left.
I could care less about endearing myself to anybody. I am not the most elequent speaker, but I am direct and particularly good at eliciting a response (in agreement or otherwise). I believe election results over the past 10 years (and arguably over the past 25 years) have proven that most people agree with me, not the other way.
I understand your anger and resentment. Losing sucks. What I don't understand is why your party isn't doing something about it.
In fact, SD can do anything they want and that can include enhancing, creating, restricting or removing so called "rights." You, of all people, are aware that this happens nearly everyday in this country so your argument is specious at best.
Only, in this instance, the subject matter is women and reproductive rights so you are, of course, on one side of the argument, opposite of me. My position has been, and always will be, that rights should not be created by government and you are in possession of all the rights you are ever going to get from the time you are conceived. Should we have a discussion of what those rights are? Maybe later.
Furthermore, if the actions of the SD legislature are unconstitutional then the Supreme Court will rule so and then SD will have to change it. What other states do in relation to SD has nothing to do with SD's actions and therefor not relevant.
The state has the freedom to organize itself however it sees fit, proscribe itself any laws it dems necessary, and grant any special privilages, "rights" or opportunities it deems necessary - however, much I may disagree with some of those actions. You have the freedom to live there, or somewhere else, and organize politically to affect, influence or oppose those actions. Black, meet white.
In that my positions have nothing to do with the way I feel, unlike you, I could be described as "cold" by (or to) a bleeding heart. And, they are also consistent with what I understand to be the best way of organizing our government and governing our population as a way to protect the rights and property of individuals. My systems is a republican political organization based around a capitalist economy. A system, BTW, which has been the most successful and productive in human history. Don't confuse being unemotional and "cold" with being ignorant of sound policy and politics.
you people need to get to work.
Post a Comment
<< Home