For John, BLUF: Democratic intellectuals (and aren't they mostly) want you to think that Government is inherently good. I don't think so. Nothing to see here; just move along.
Someone sent long this link to an article in The New York Times. The title is "Why Are States So Red and Blue?". Here is the lede:
Regardless of who wins the presidential election, we already know now how most of the electoral map will be colored, which will be close to the way it has been colored for decades. Broadly speaking, the Southern and Western desert and mountain states will vote for the candidate who endorses an aggressive military, a role for religion in public life, laissez-faire economic policies, private ownership of guns and relaxed conditions for using them, less regulation and taxation, and a valorization of the traditional family. Northeastern and most coastal states will vote for the candidate who is more closely aligned with international cooperation and engagement, secularism and science, gun control, individual freedom in culture and sexuality, and a greater role for the government in protecting the environment and ensuring economic equality.I was OK at the beginning, well, except for the idea that people in so-called red states don't believe in science, or that Republicans don't believe in science. I have seen some progressive arguments that make me think they deny Darwin. Of course that is better than the Progressive arguments of 100 years ago that said Darwin was cool and they would help along his theory by sterilizing and euthanizing the inferior stock.
But, after I got further into the article I thought it started to contradict itself. Then I thought it moved into a belief in the inherent goodness of Government. So, at the end, the author seems to reject the idea that the People are sovereign, and I rejected it.
I am having this same argument with my Middle Brother. He lives in the New California and was born in Philly. I am from Western Pennsylvania and am a "bitter clinger" and left high school and California when it was still the Old California, before Orange County went Democrat.
Regards — Cliff
4 comments:
Until someone can explain to me party platform planks based on religious dogma that insists on legislation to, one: deny women their right to privacy related to their personal reproductive choices, two: deny women access to responsible medical care based on their personal reproductive choices, and, three: justify all this with profoundly offensive canards like rape pregnancies are "God's will", so there should be no rights for mothers in even these extreme cases, then I cannot accept any excuses that Republicans might actually "believe in" science. Clearly, anyone signing themselves onto the party platform is announcing to the world that they absolutely do NOT "believe in" science--they are rather announcing that they prefer to adhere to their own private and personal religious dogma, and, worse yet, believe it is necessary to insist that all other citizens be forced to adhere to it, too.
If you, Cliff, "believe in" science, can you please explain to me the steps you are taking as a responsible Republican to ensure that policies directed at denying and repudiating both science and Constitutional rights to unreasonable search (I cannot think of any more unreasonable search than the government insisting they need to know if a woman might be pregnant, and then take forcible legal steps to prohibit her from choosing how to conduct that pregnancy) are removed from the party platform?
As Party Platforms go, I don't think many take them seriously at the jot and tiddle level. They are designed as much to recruit people as to declare other people heretics.
As for Richard Mourdock, out in Indiana, his is one opinion and not mine and I think it would be small of people to try and tar me with it. If I distanced myself from all the people I find making stupid remarks I would find myself alone, in the middle of the Atlantic.
And, besides, as for the unfortunate Todd Aiken, out in MIssouri, he may be giving Claire McCaskill a run for her money. But, that is the "show me" state, so things might be different out there.
But, as to science vs religion, I accept there are religious views on when "life" begins. Is there a scientifically derived view? What does science tell us? I think very little. And we should be careful of it. A "scientific" view of the world gave us Life Unworthy of Life. And, here in the US, sanctioned by SCOTUS, forced sterilization. Somewhere I have a dubious translation, if you are interested.
So, if the "fetus" is wanted, it is a living human, but if it is being rejected by its Mother, it is not? Is that the criteria? What about the ones born with serious birth defects?
The reason this matters is that life is a continuum and we are facing a "mercy killing" initiative on the ballot on the 6th. It is my expectation that if it wins the proponents will be back for a broader definition of the realm where people should be ushered over to the other side. Not to pick on the Dutch, but one gets the impression that is the way things are going in the Netherlands. Frankly, I am too embarrassed for my friend from the Dutch Air Force to ask him.
I am not sure I understand your last para. Are you saying that for someone to have an abortion the Government needs to know, or are you saying that for the abortion provider to have to ensure informed consent is like the Government interjecting itself into the action and thus represents an unreasonable search for human life?
In sum, it was 19 years from the publication of Life Unworthy of Life to the T-4 Program, which was about killing Germans who were "useless eaters". Not Jews, Gypsies, Slavs, Homosexuals or other groups that were "scientifically" determined to be inferior, but Germans. Less than 75 years ago. I think we need to be careful about when life starts and ends.
The polling data says about 80% of the American People believe abortion should be legal and about 80% believe it is wrong. In that 160% is some 60% who might be open to some limitations on abortion, because they believe there is life being snuffed out.
Does the baby's humanity depend solely on what the Mother thinks of it? Is there some point at which the fetus becomes a human being, while still in the womb, or it is only after birth, and if after birth, when? From a scientific and Constitutional point of view?
As for birth control pills or devices, is there some Constitutional right to them? Do we say it is the same as meds or devices for ED? I think this is an overblown tempest in a tea pot. Has scientific (or maybe engineering) research created new "rights"? No, we are talking entitlements. Rights are against a threatening Government, not against acts of God or nature. Ms Sandra Fluke, esq, is asking for an entitlement based upon her gender (or is that sex?). I am not opposed to her getting it, but I am opposed to Georgetown University being the conduit that entitlement if Georgetown has scruples against it.
Regards — Cliff
Is it that hard to understand that "I cannot think of any more unreasonable search than the government insisting they need to know if a woman might be pregnant"?
Anti-abortion laws not written as Roe v. Wade is (i.e. based on privacy) all criminalize something about which the government has no business otherwise to know in the first place. If we can't respect a woman's uterus even to the extent of a locked car trunk in our system of laws, then we have completely and totally lost our way. And the clear fact remains that it is the Republican party that insists upon this becoming "our" America, against all Constitutionally guaranteed rights to the contrary.
You can't argue against government being too far invested in PC-engineered "social programs" in one breath, and then insist on an even more draconian approach to your own pet perversion for yourself. Such puts paid to the bald truth that today's Republican party believes as much if not more in "Big Government" than any other outfit out there.
It's wrong. It's wrong when the other guys do it, and it's wrong when your guys do it. And I'm sick and tired of the "big tent" bullshit to excuse it.
Own it. You're advocating Orwell's vision by tagging yourself on to the bandwagon that would prioritize such things. And it's a repugnant bandwagon. And all the more so for insulting us with the "I don't think many take them seriously at the jot and tiddle level" comment. It's all fun and games until the Supreme Court ruling moves otherwise, isn't it.
Own it.
So, tell me. When does the organism become a human, protected by the US Constitution? I suspect SCOTUS says third trimester, but neither side wishes to "press to test".
What does science say?
What do you say?
What do the People say?
Regards — Cliff
Post a Comment