Re: Infanticide Re: The American Political Landscape Today
- Original Message - From: "Warren Ockrassa" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" Sent: Monday, May 16, 2005 10:12 PM Subject: Re: Infanticide Re: The American Political Landscape Today > On May 16, 2005, at 7:34 PM, JDG wrote: > > > At 07:03 PM 5/16/2005 -0700, Warren wrote: > >> The problem there is that your reasoning does not reduce. There is a > >> distinct difference between, say, a blastocyst and an infant. The > >> question is not even when the zygote becomes "human". The question is > >> what "human" actually means. > > > > If the answer is "homo sapiens" its actually a rather easy question. > > It's the easiest answers of which we should often be most suspicious. In one sense, yes, but in another sense, no. If the answer is straightforward within our scientific understanding of the world, then the simple answer is usually considered the best. As Pauli said about Maxwell, any idiot can take something simple and make it complicated; it takes a genius to take something complicated and make it simple. The origin of the species was the inital question that Darwin adressed. After over 100 years, we now know a great deal more about this than he did. While there are some borderline calls between species that can mate but almost never do (lions and tigers for example), we have a pretty good working defintion that can be expressed in terms of gene space. Let me give one racist comment as an example of how the humanness of the other is denied, in contradiction with our best scientific understanding. "Blacks and whites are suppose to stay seperateyou don't see the bluebirds hanging around the blackbirds, do you? The implication, of course, is that blacks and whites are as fundamentally different as blackbirds and bluebirds. But, we know they are not. Blacks, Asians, Caucasians, etc. are all part of the same species. The genetic differences between them, while obviously existant, are relatively small...far less than the differences between species. So, a false representation of emperical observations underpins this racist attitude. I'd argue that human societies have, for a number of convenient reasons, denied the humaness of the "other." For a number of reasons, and even when the genetic differences are extremely small (as with the Irish vs. the English), it was "common sense" that the "other" was so different as to render than inherently less than one's own group. To take it even further, one of the best insights that d. brin had in to Tolkin, I think, is that, why he wasn't a racist, he was a racialist. He believed that blood tells...that there is something fundamentally different about "good blood lines." > As I suggested in my note to Dan, extending the epithet "human" to > every member of the species is an ideal and nothing more; in reality we > barely allow that label to be placed on fellow countrymen with whom we > do not agree, let alone other cultures. I would argue that this is denying the humanness of others. Homo sapients are human is a tatology, human is simply a common word for homo sapient. It is considered a critical first step in promoting atrocitiesdenying that those who are about to be killed, tortured, enslaved, etc. are humans like those who are doing the killing, the torturing, etc., and therefore the actions are acceptable I'd argue that this is the easy answer...that what one wishes to do for selfish reasons really doesn't violate any ethics. It is easy to promote war by dehumanizing the enemy. It's much harder to justify wars that involve the killing of innocent people, just like your kids. If you look at some of the arguements given for blacks being sub-human, Native Americans being sub-human, the Irish being sub-human, you get a number of counterfactuals that are believed and are used to "prove" the point. > The issue of what it is to be human lies at the core of some of our > most divisive debates, I think. Abortion, capital punishment, > end-of-life issues and elective wars (any elective war, not just the > one frequently bandied about here) often, I think, boil down to the > basic question of what we mean when we say "human". > > (Hmm, an aside -- it occurs to me that perhaps *all* wars are definable > as elective. Someone always chooses to attack.) > > As an example, unless one believes in the idea of a soul I don't think > it's possible to suggest -- realistically -- that many members of this > species (by strict definition) are human in many ways. > > That sounds callous and brutal, or rather that suggestion can be used > to reach callous and brutal conclusions, but unless we analyze what's > really meant by our d
Re: Abortion and the Democratic Party Re: The American Political Landscape Today
At 10:02 PM Thursday 5/19/2005, JDG wrote: At 07:11 AM 5/19/2005 -0700, Nick wrote: >> >The Catholic Church has it that every sperm is sacred. >> >> This is a false statement. I am quite familiar with Catholic >> teaching, and I do not believe that you can find a single Church >> document supporting that position. Indeed, the above statement is >> borderline offensive, as "sacred" is a very important concept in our >> religion. > >I believe you will find it in the canon of Monty Python. > >Can't believe nobody pointed that out yet. I didn't say so the first time >because I figured 15 other people would. I am aware of where it is from. I am also pointing out that not only is it borderline offensive, but it is absolutely false. With all due respect, though, John, I suspect that the Catholic church is like many (most? all?) other churches in that there are a number of subjects where what the average member in the pew thinks the church teaches on that particular subject is not necessarily the same as what the church officially teaches on that subject. Much less an outsider . . . -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The American Political Landscape Today
At 12:31 PM 5/19/2005 -0500, Gary wrote: >> >> Los Angeles Times Poll. Jan. 30-Feb. 2, 2003. N=1,385 adults >> nationwide. >> >> MoE ± 3 (total sample). >> >> >> >> "Do you favor or oppose a law which would make it illegal to perform a >> >> specific abortion procedure conducted in the last six months of a >> woman's >> >> pregnancy known as a partial-birth abortion, except in cases necessary >> to >> >> save the life of the mother?" >> >> [snip] >> >> >According to legal analysis and the language in the bill itself it did >> >not ban late term abortion. >> > >> >It banned a particular procedure and then messed up the language on >> >that procedure so that it bans some abortions at 12 weeks. (Actually >> >what the GOP has been describing as partial birth-abortion which has a >> >feet first delivery isn't banned at all.) >> >> Not true. From the law "the term `partial-birth abortion' means an >> abortion in which the person performing the abortion deliberately and >> intentionally vaginally delivers a living fetus until, in the case of a >> head-first presentation, the entire fetal head is outside the body of the >> mother, or, in the case of breech presentation, any part of the fetal >> trunk >> past the navel is outside the body of the mother, for the purpose of >> performing an overt act that the person knows will kill the partially >> delivered living fetus;: > > >May I just point to "in the case of a head-first presentation" or do you to >read the about six hundred pages of the legal decisions on this case? It seems to me that the law covered both potential types of delivery. >> >A majority 53% of Democrats would agree to a late-term abortion ban >> >with exceptions for the life of the mother. 65% of Republican agree to >> >this. Why wasn't this the bill? >> >> As you can see in the quoted portion above, the poll question referred to >> "specific abortion procedure conducted in the last six months of a woman's >> pregnancy known as a partial-birth abortion". > >And then it describes another procedure. I don't see how, the definition is very broad: `(B) performs the overt act, other than completion of delivery, that kills the partially delivered living fetus; ' >>The bill was ruled unconstitutional because it had no exceptions for >> >the well-being of the pregnant woman and in one of the trials in a >> >finding of fact a conservative pro-life judge ruled that GOP >> >leadership had to know that this was a procedure often used for the >> >medical health of the mother despite them presenting false evidence >> >this was not so. >> >> Often? I thought that it was 0.004%??? ;-) > > >Whenever that procedure is used. Is that often enough? Well, at one point you argued to me that the procedure was not used often - only 0.004% of the time. Now you are arguing to me that it is "often used for the medical health of the mother." That strikes me as inconsistent on your part, and I am wondering which is it. >How about this - tell us under what conditions and at what stage of >development would you permit abortion? Like Dan, I only support an abortion under similar legal circumstances to which the taking of a life would ordinarily be permitted. Direct and imminent threat to the life of the mother. My position on abortion stems directly from the simple truism that "we all have a right to life." >There are a range of religious and social lines that have been drawn. The >Catholic Church official position is before insemination This is not the Catholic Church's position. The Church's theology on abortion and on contraception have a great number of differences between them. Suffice to say your characterization appears to say "the Catholic Church's official position is to permit an abortion before insemination", which of course makes no sense. JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The American Political Landscape Today
- Original Message - From: "Gary Denton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" Sent: Thursday, May 19, 2005 2:32 PM Subject: Re: The American Political Landscape Today On 5/19/05, Dan Minette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > Doe v. Bolton, 410 U.S. 179 (1973) Companion case to Roe, striking down > > parts of a "liberalized" statute from Georgia with health/rape/incest > > exceptions. Holding, (7-2) per Blackmun, that a woman has a > constitutional > > right to abortion from six months to birth, if her doctor "in his best > > clinical judgment," in light of the patient's age, "physical, emotional, > > psychological [and] familial" circumstances, finds it "necessary for her > > physical or mental health." > > "from six months to birth" is third trimester. Second trimester is 3-6 > months. Sorry, I don't know what I was parsing that as, it wasn't clear to me. And it seemed odd given their finding in Roe v. Wade that "the state may regulate or ban abortion during the third trimester to protect fetal life." I liked Roe v. Wade. It drew clear, at least to me, and understandable lines. >It appears that Casey in 1992 recognized that the real standard is >viability and also emphasized that a state may not place undue burdens on >doctors and women for a constitutional medical procedure. I read the decision, and it seems that the standards for requiring some negative effect on the woman's health if a third term abortion is not approved is as far as it went. By not stating a serious effect, one assumes that they knew that they were not overturning previous case law with respect to health...which ws any health effect. So, in effect, it would throw a bone to viability, while making very little in the way of substantial changes. >Under what conditions do you support abortion? Under the same conditions that I would support the choice to have a person die. If it was the life of the mother that was at risk, I don't think the law should require putting one's own life at risk for another. I certainly, as I think does JDG, believe birth control should not only be legal, but is not an immoral act. I think that, at times before division into twins occur, a very strong argument can be made that the person does not yet exist. So, I'm not really bothered by morning after pills. I accept that one cannot simply roll back Roe vs. Wade by fiat, no matter what the court does, but I do not support abortions. I support the concept of the seamless garment of lifeas I am opposed to the death penalty too. I'm not opposed to all wars because I think there can be things worse than war for people. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The American Political Landscape Today
On 5/19/05, Dan Minette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > Doe v. Bolton, 410 U.S. 179 (1973) Companion case to Roe, striking down > > parts of a "liberalized" statute from Georgia with health/rape/incest > > exceptions. Holding, (7-2) per Blackmun, that a woman has a > constitutional > > right to abortion from six months to birth, if her doctor "in his best > > clinical judgment," in light of the patient's age, "physical, emotional, > > psychological [and] familial" circumstances, finds it "necessary for her > > physical or mental health." > > "from six months to birth" is third trimester. Second trimester is 3-6 > months. Sorry, I don't know what I was parsing that as, it wasn't clear to me. And it seemed odd given their finding in Roe v. Wade that "the state may regulate or ban abortion during the third trimester to protect fetal life." I liked Roe v. Wade. It drew clear, at least to me, and understandable lines. It appears that Casey in 1992 recognized that the real standard is viability and also emphasized that a state may not place undue burdens on doctors and women for a constitutional medical procedure. The Court (5-4) upheld a 24-hour waiting period, an informed consent requirement, a parental consent provision for minors and a record keeping requirement, while striking down the spousal notice requirement. Doe v. Bolton while elaborating that abortions can be done to protect the life and health of the women even in the third trimester is open to criticism as to not deciding what lines could now be drawn in protecting that health. If the mother will be crippled or blind is that acceptable or not? What if she will suffer from depression, how severe? This is a troubling decision when you are discussing women's health issues versus a viable fetus, not so troubling to me pre-viability. Under what conditions do you support abortion? -- Gary Denton Easter Lemming Blogs http://elemming.blogspot.com http://elemming2.blogspot.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The American Political Landscape Today
> > Doe v. Bolton, 410 U.S. 179 (1973) Companion case to Roe, striking down > parts of a "liberalized" statute from Georgia with health/rape/incest > exceptions. Holding, (7-2) per Blackmun, that a woman has a constitutional > right to abortion from six months to birth, if her doctor "in his best > clinical judgment," in light of the patient's age, "physical, emotional, > psychological [and] familial" circumstances, finds it "necessary for her > physical or mental health." > >Goggle doesn't take long does it? >This companion decision supported Roe v. Wade holding that for the first >trimester any reason is sufficient. For the second trimester any health >reason. I did not parse that out of: (b) For the stage subsequent to approximately the end of the first trimester, the State, in promoting its interest in the health of the mother, may, if it chooses, regulate the abortion procedure in ways that are reasonably related to maternal health. Paraphrazing, it says in the second trimester, the state may regulate abortions insofar as it pertains to promoting the health of the mother. It does not say that it may require any reason for abortions, just that it may limit abortions that hurt the health of the mother. >You and JDG have been arguing later-term abortions, third trimester, or have >you mislead a lot of us and are not arguing that? "from six months to birth" is third trimester. Second trimester is 3-6 months. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The American Political Landscape Today
On 5/19/05, Dan Minette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > - Original Message - > From: "Gary Denton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > >The bill was ruled unconstitutional because it had no exceptions for > > >the well-being of the pregnant woman and in one of the trials in a > > >finding of fact a conservative pro-life judge ruled that GOP > > >leadership had to know that this was a procedure often used for the > > >medical health of the mother despite them presenting false evidence > > >this was not so. > > > > Often? I thought that it was 0.004%??? ;-) > > > Whenever that procedure is used. Is that often enough? > > >JDG is arguing any woman dumb enough to have an unwanted pregnancy is > > >rich enough and smart enough to find a doctor who would say having a > > >child is bad for their health. > > > > Not true. Any abortionist could make the necessary mental health > > diagnosis, as Dan M. has noted. > > > >There has never been a test case to see if a "mental health diagnosis" is > >sufficient to weight the women's health over a viable life. I doubt that > >argument would fly and doubt that you would get doctors and a clinic > willing > >to risk prosecution. You and Dan seem to be picking extreme hypotheticals > to > >support your position. > > It took me 1 minute to find > > Doe v. Bolton, 410 U.S. 179 (1973) Companion case to Roe, striking down > parts of a "liberalized" statute from Georgia with health/rape/incest > exceptions. Holding, (7-2) per Blackmun, that a woman has a constitutional > right to abortion from six months to birth, if her doctor "in his best > clinical judgment," in light of the patient's age, "physical, emotional, > psychological [and] familial" circumstances, finds it "necessary for her > physical or mental health." > Goggle doesn't take long does it? This companion decision supported Roe v. Wade holding that for the first trimester any reason is sufficient. For the second trimester any health reason. You and JDG have been arguing later-term abortions, third trimester, or have you mislead a lot of us and are not arguing that? - Gary Denton Easter Lemming Blogs http://elemming.blogspot.com http://elemming2.blogspot.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The American Political Landscape Today
- Original Message - From: "Gary Denton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" Sent: Thursday, May 19, 2005 12:31 PM Subject: Re: The American Political Landscape Today On 5/19/05, JDG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > At 09:41 AM 5/18/2005 -0500, Gary Denton wrote: > >> Los Angeles Times Poll. Jan. 30-Feb. 2, 2003. N=1,385 adults > nationwide. > >> MoE ± 3 (total sample). > >> > >> "Do you favor or oppose a law which would make it illegal to perform a > >> specific abortion procedure conducted in the last six months of a > woman's > >> pregnancy known as a partial-birth abortion, except in cases necessary > to > >> save the life of the mother?" > > [snip] > > >According to legal analysis and the language in the bill itself it did > >not ban late term abortion. > > > >It banned a particular procedure and then messed up the language on > >that procedure so that it bans some abortions at 12 weeks. (Actually > >what the GOP has been describing as partial birth-abortion which has a > >feet first delivery isn't banned at all.) > > Not true. From the law "the term `partial-birth abortion' means an > abortion in which the person performing the abortion deliberately and > intentionally vaginally delivers a living fetus until, in the case of a > head-first presentation, the entire fetal head is outside the body of the > mother, or, in the case of breech presentation, any part of the fetal > trunk > past the navel is outside the body of the mother, for the purpose of > performing an overt act that the person knows will kill the partially > delivered living fetus;: May I just point to "in the case of a head-first presentation" or do you to read the about six hundred pages of the legal decisions on this case? > >A majority 53% of Democrats would agree to a late-term abortion ban > >with exceptions for the life of the mother. 65% of Republican agree to > >this. Why wasn't this the bill? > > As you can see in the quoted portion above, the poll question referred to > "specific abortion procedure conducted in the last six months of a woman's > pregnancy known as a partial-birth abortion". And then it describes another procedure. >The bill was ruled unconstitutional because it had no exceptions for > >the well-being of the pregnant woman and in one of the trials in a > >finding of fact a conservative pro-life judge ruled that GOP > >leadership had to know that this was a procedure often used for the > >medical health of the mother despite them presenting false evidence > >this was not so. > > Often? I thought that it was 0.004%??? ;-) Whenever that procedure is used. Is that often enough? >JDG is arguing any woman dumb enough to have an unwanted pregnancy is > >rich enough and smart enough to find a doctor who would say having a > >child is bad for their health. > > Not true. Any abortionist could make the necessary mental health > diagnosis, as Dan M. has noted. >There has never been a test case to see if a "mental health diagnosis" is >sufficient to weight the women's health over a viable life. I doubt that >argument would fly and doubt that you would get doctors and a clinic willing >to risk prosecution. You and Dan seem to be picking extreme hypotheticals to >support your position. It took me 1 minute to find Doe v. Bolton, 410 U.S. 179 (1973) Companion case to Roe, striking down parts of a "liberalized" statute from Georgia with health/rape/incest exceptions. Holding, (7-2) per Blackmun, that a woman has a constitutional right to abortion from six months to birth, if her doctor "in his best clinical judgment," in light of the patient's age, "physical, emotional, psychological [and] familial" circumstances, finds it "necessary for her physical or mental health." Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Infanticide Re: The American Political Landscape Today
On 5/19/05, JDG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > At 09:47 PM 5/18/2005 EDT, Bob wrote: > As a scientist, I am sure that you agree that the unborn child is, in > fact, > homo sapiens. So, what you are really saying is that there are some > humans who do not enjoy the protection of human rights. > > So, why are you so quick to defend an American legal system that extends > the protection of human rights at the moment a child leaves the womb of > his > or her mother, with the intent of the mother? Or do you have other > criteria for cases in which human rights should not be extended to certain > humans? > Why are you condemning the American legal system Why do you hate America? ;-) I would support human rights for sentient non-humans. In the case of a fetus I might fall back on the ancient religious doctrine that the soul enters the body with the first breath. Like Jesus as a rabbi and religious teacher would have believed and elements of the language of the Bible imply. ;-) -- Gary Denton Easter Lemming Blogs http://elemming.blogspot.com http://elemming2.blogspot.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The American Political Landscape Today
On 5/19/05, JDG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > At 09:41 AM 5/18/2005 -0500, Gary Denton wrote: > >> Los Angeles Times Poll. Jan. 30-Feb. 2, 2003. N=1,385 adults > nationwide. > >> MoE ± 3 (total sample). > >> > >> "Do you favor or oppose a law which would make it illegal to perform a > >> specific abortion procedure conducted in the last six months of a > woman's > >> pregnancy known as a partial-birth abortion, except in cases necessary > to > >> save the life of the mother?" > > [snip] > > >According to legal analysis and the language in the bill itself it did > >not ban late term abortion. > > > >It banned a particular procedure and then messed up the language on > >that procedure so that it bans some abortions at 12 weeks. (Actually > >what the GOP has been describing as partial birth-abortion which has a > >feet first delivery isn't banned at all.) > > Not true. From the law "the term `partial-birth abortion' means an > abortion in which the person performing the abortion deliberately and > intentionally vaginally delivers a living fetus until, in the case of a > head-first presentation, the entire fetal head is outside the body of the > mother, or, in the case of breech presentation, any part of the fetal > trunk > past the navel is outside the body of the mother, for the purpose of > performing an overt act that the person knows will kill the partially > delivered living fetus;: May I just point to "in the case of a head-first presentation" or do you to read the about six hundred pages of the legal decisions on this case? > >A majority 53% of Democrats would agree to a late-term abortion ban > >with exceptions for the life of the mother. 65% of Republican agree to > >this. Why wasn't this the bill? > > As you can see in the quoted portion above, the poll question referred to > "specific abortion procedure conducted in the last six months of a woman's > pregnancy known as a partial-birth abortion". And then it describes another procedure. >The bill was ruled unconstitutional because it had no exceptions for > >the well-being of the pregnant woman and in one of the trials in a > >finding of fact a conservative pro-life judge ruled that GOP > >leadership had to know that this was a procedure often used for the > >medical health of the mother despite them presenting false evidence > >this was not so. > > Often? I thought that it was 0.004%??? ;-) Whenever that procedure is used. Is that often enough? >JDG is arguing any woman dumb enough to have an unwanted pregnancy is > >rich enough and smart enough to find a doctor who would say having a > >child is bad for their health. > > Not true. Any abortionist could make the necessary mental health > diagnosis, as Dan M. has noted. There has never been a test case to see if a "mental health diagnosis" is sufficient to weight the women's health over a viable life. I doubt that argument would fly and doubt that you would get doctors and a clinic willing to risk prosecution. You and Dan seem to be picking extreme hypotheticals to support your position. How about this - tell us under what conditions and at what stage of development would you permit abortion? Where do you draw the line? There are a range of religious and social lines that have been drawn. The Catholic Church official position is before insemination - using contraception is thwarting the will of God. There have been societies where infanticide is permitted. Pick a spot and tell me your reasoning. So you and Dan are both arguing over these fuzzy lines in the later stages of fetal development and what constitutes the health of the mother. Is that all you really want to stop? Somehow I just think that is where you may think you have your best shot of a winning argument right now. -- Gary Denton Easter Lemming Blogs http://elemming.blogspot.com http://elemming2.blogspot.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Abortion and the Democratic Party Re: The American Political Landscape Today
At 09:11 AM Thursday 5/19/2005, Nick Arnett wrote: On Thu, 19 May 2005 07:42:54 -0400, JDG wrote > >The Catholic Church has it that every sperm is sacred. > > This is a false statement. I am quite familiar with Catholic > teaching, and I do not believe that you can find a single Church > document supporting that position. Indeed, the above statement is > borderline offensive, as "sacred" is a very important concept in our > religion. I believe you will find it in the canon of Monty Python. Can't believe nobody pointed that out yet. I didn't say so the first time because I figured 15 other people would. I suspect that all the people who recognized it figured that by the time they got to the end of the daily dump of e-mail they would find that someone else had beaten them to it, and having memories of past occasions when one or two or five or ten or twenty or more people all said the same thing before any of them saw the first such answer thought that this time they wouldn't bother . . . Obviously You Can't Win Maru -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Infanticide Re: The American Political Landscape Today
At 09:47 PM 5/18/2005 EDT, Bob wrote: >> The problem there is that your reasoning does not reduce. There is a >> >distinct difference between, say, a blastocyst and an infant. The >> >question is not even when the zygote becomes "human". The question is >> >what "human" actually means. >> >> If the answer is "homo sapiens" its actually a rather easy question. > > >Cleaver answer. It also has the advantage of being true. >But the problem with all of this back and forth about when an >embryo becomes a human or however you want call is that it attempts to assign >an essential quality (human or not) to a process that is incremental. There >is nothing essential about the process of a fetus becoming a human. It is a >gradual incremental process that does not stop a birth but continues throughout >life. As a scientist, I am sure that you agree that the unborn child is, in fact, homo sapiens. So, what you are really saying is that there are some humans who do not enjoy the protection of human rights. So, why are you so quick to defend an American legal system that extends the protection of human rights at the moment a child leaves the womb of his or her mother, with the intent of the mother? Or do you have other criteria for cases in which human rights should not be extended to certain humans? JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The American Political Landscape Today
At 09:41 AM 5/18/2005 -0500, Gary Denton wrote: >> Los Angeles Times Poll. Jan. 30-Feb. 2, 2003. N=1,385 adults nationwide. >> MoE ± 3 (total sample). >> >> "Do you favor or oppose a law which would make it illegal to perform a >> specific abortion procedure conducted in the last six months of a woman's >> pregnancy known as a partial-birth abortion, except in cases necessary to >> save the life of the mother?" [snip] >According to legal analysis and the language in the bill itself it did >not ban late term abortion. > >It banned a particular procedure and then messed up the language on >that procedure so that it bans some abortions at 12 weeks. (Actually >what the GOP has been describing as partial birth-abortion which has a >feet first delivery isn't banned at all.) Not true. From the law "the term `partial-birth abortion' means an abortion in which the person performing the abortion deliberately and intentionally vaginally delivers a living fetus until, in the case of a head-first presentation, the entire fetal head is outside the body of the mother, or, in the case of breech presentation, any part of the fetal trunk past the navel is outside the body of the mother, for the purpose of performing an overt act that the person knows will kill the partially delivered living fetus;: >A majority 53% of Democrats would agree to a late-term abortion ban >with exceptions for the life of the mother. 65% of Republican agree to >this. Why wasn't this the bill? As you can see in the quoted portion above, the poll question referred to "specific abortion procedure conducted in the last six months of a woman's pregnancy known as a partial-birth abortion". >The bill was ruled unconstitutional because it had no exceptions for >the well-being of the pregnant woman and in one of the trials in a >finding of fact a conservative pro-life judge ruled that GOP >leadership had to know that this was a procedure often used for the >medical health of the mother despite them presenting false evidence >this was not so. Often? I thought that it was 0.004%??? ;-) >JDG is arguing any woman dumb enough to have an unwanted pregnancy is >rich enough and smart enough to find a doctor who would say having a >child is bad for their health. Not true. Any abortionist could make the necessary mental health diagnosis, as Dan M. has noted. JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Abortion and the Democratic Party Re: The American Political Landscape Today
At 01:10 AM 5/18/2005 -0500, you wrote: > As I think we have shown already in this and previous >discussions, no matter where the line is drawn, there are going to be cases >which come near the line (on both sides) Actually, if the line is drawn at conception, there won't be any cases on one side of that line John D. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Infanticide Re: The American Political Landscape Today
In a message dated 5/16/2005 10:38:49 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > The problem there is that your reasoning does not reduce. There is a > >distinct difference between, say, a blastocyst and an infant. The > >question is not even when the zygote becomes "human". The question is > >what "human" actually means. > > If the answer is "homo sapiens" its actually a rather easy question. Cleaver answer. But the problem with all of this back and forth about when an embryo becomes a human or however you want call is that it attempts to assign an essential quality (human or not) to a process that is incremental. There is nothing essential about the process of a fetus becoming a human. It is a gradual incremental process that does not stop a birth but continues throughout life. It is similar to the 19th century arguement about the origin of the species. Before Darwin species were thought as real distinct seperate entities. Darwin showed that while species are somewhat distinct they are not in fact seperate entities. They arise from prior species and the transiton form a prior species to a new species is a gradual (although often quite abrupt in geologic time) process. That is the way individual humans are. We are distinct but arise gradually. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The American Political Landscape Today
On Wed, 18 May 2005 09:16:25 -0700 (PDT), Leonard Matusik wrote > ... I'm a political couch potatoe Good to hear a new voice! But there's something here that reminds me of a certain former vice president... ;-) Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The American Political Landscape Today
That was a very nice post Dave. It cleared up this very confusing thread. I think I wouldn't mind seeing it start over from a more objective viewpoint. The real problem, as I see it, is that folks get way too excited over these concepts; as if they really mean something. The plain truth is that, I'm a political couch potatoe with a strong neo-anarchistic streak, who is deeply devoted to the persuit of my own tiny (read here reasonable) personal pleasures and doing tiny bits of good where I can. I believe that I am in the American mainstream, (if by chance, one looked at it TRULLY objectively) The reliance of polling on peoples biased opinion of the themselves is a fatal flaw in the method. Truth is what people ACTUALLY do with their lives and (more importantly) what they spend their money on; Truth often has little to do with what people THINK of themselves. Leonard Matusik *Student of ChaosNursing -Lenoir, NC USA "Dan M." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: - Original Message - From: "Dave Land" To: "Killer Bs Discussion" Sent: Saturday, May 14, 2005 9:15 PM Subject: Re: The American Political Landscape Today > Gautam, et al, > > I'm writing to retract my previous message. I reject your > categorization of me as being out of the mainstream. Moreover, I found > your message a little short on what I'll call intellectual honesty. > > First, you admittedly pulled your numbers out of your ... um ... head, > whereas this thread was discussing *actual* numbers from a poll that > has been conducted for 15 years by the Pew Research Center. Guess which > ones I consider to have more weight? > > Second, your four groups of 20% are skewed to the right. Why didn't you > have five groups: > > Very Conservative 20% > Conservative 20% > Moderate 20% > Liberal 20% > Very Liberal 20% > -- Source: My Ass > > Using the above categories, which at least provide a centered spectrum, > feel free to provide your own numbers. > > Third, I don't understand why your four categories only added up to > 80%, leaving out 20% of the population. Do you think that the opinions > of 20% of Americans don't count, or that 20% don't have any opinions? > That is certainly heading in the direction of at least one finding in > the Pew report: 63% of respondents feel that "Most elected officials > don't care what people like me think." > > Perhaps your story would be better served with these groupings (with no > bullshit numbers): Extremely Conservative, Very Conservative, > Moderately Conservative, Mildly Conservative, Lunatic Fringe. > > Returning to meaningful results of an actual poll, the categories and > percentages under discussion are: > > Right-leaning: > Enterprisers 9% > Social Conservatives 11% > Pro-Government Conservatives 9% > > Centrist/Unaffiliated: > Upbeats 11% > Disaffecteds 9% > Bystanders 10% > > Left-leaning: > Conservative Democrats 14% > Disadvantaged Democrats 10% > Liberals 17% > > As you can see, the Liberals *as defined by the Pew report* are the > largest bloc. The "mainstream," one might say. > > For the three general groupings that the Pewsters created, the > percentages are: > > Right-leaning 29% > Centrist/Neither 30% > Left-leaning 41% Well, that is very curious, since self-identification has long given different results. For example, the Harris poll asks people to identify themselves as liberal, moderate, or conservative. The results have been: Year C M L 2003 33 40 18 2002 35 40 17 2001 36 40 19 2000 35 40 18 1999 37 39 18 1998 37 40 19 1997 37 40 19 1996 38 41 19 1995 40 40 16 1992 36 42 18 1991 37 41 18 1990 38 41 18 1989 37 42 17 1988 38 39 18 1987 37 39 19 1986 37 39 18 1985 37 40 17 1984 35 39 18 1983 36 40 18 1982 36 40 18 1981 38 40 17 1980 35 41 18 1979 35 39 20 1978 34 39 17 1977 30 42 17 1976 31 40 18 1975 30 38 18 1974 30 43 15 1972 31 36 20 1968 37 31 17 Among other things, it's a amazing to lump folks who call themselves conservatives among liberals. The questions sound kinda funny. It doesn't add to 100% because everyone doesn't self-identify. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l - Yahoo! Mail Mobile Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Check email on your mobile phone. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Abortion and the Democratic Party Re: The American Political Landscape Today
On 5/18/05, Ronn!Blankenship <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > At 08:46 PM Tuesday 5/17/2005, Dan Minette wrote: > > > > >Let me ask a very simple question which bothers me a lot about the legality > >of third trimester abortions. If a woman finds a hospital and a physician > >that are agreeable, is it legal to do a dilation and extraction on a fetus > >that is normally developed, 8 lbs, and 3 days overdue? AFAIK, the answer is > >yes. How is that being less human than a 8 week 1 lb preme that takes tens > >of thousands of dollars a day of effort to keep alive? > > > >The courts have essentially decided that this is a fact. That is the > >foundation of Roe vs. Wade. But, I hope you can see how I'm troubled that > >the order of actions by someone else, not one's own state, determines one's > >humaness. I think that is a misreading of Roe v. Wade. Based on evidence available at the time the Supreme Court ruled for no state involvement in the first trimester, state regulation in the second, and only to save the life of the mother in the third. You can argue about where the lines are drawn but one side in the debate doesn't want any lines. > > The short answer is that if a line has to be drawn, it has to be drawn > somewhere. As I think we have shown already in this and previous > discussions, no matter where the line is drawn, there are going to be cases > which come near the line (on both sides) where following the rule is going > to make some people unhappy. OTOH, if no line is drawn beforehand, and > each case has to be decided individually, then the question becomes who > makes that decision in each case, and again I can guarantee that there is > going to be someone who is unhappy with every such decision made. True, but one side is arguing about the lines just to get support for outlawing it entirely. > > Stating The Bloody Obvious Maru > > > -- Ronn! :) Gary Denton ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The American Political Landscape Today
On 5/17/05, Doug Pensinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Dan wrote: > > > The point is, most Americans believe that abortions should be illegal > > some of the time. Most Democrats support the legality of all abortions, > > even > > for development beyond viability. > > Do you haave a cite for that. I found this: > > Los Angeles Times Poll. Jan. 30-Feb. 2, 2003. N=1,385 adults nationwide. > MoE ± 3 (total sample). > > "Do you favor or oppose a law which would make it illegal to perform a > specific abortion procedure conducted in the last six months of a woman's > pregnancy known as a partial-birth abortion, except in cases necessary to > save the life of the mother?" > > ALL Democrats IndependentsRepublicans > > Favor 57 53 56 65 > > Oppose 38 42 39 31 > > Don't know 5 5 5 4 > > Well down the page here: > > http://www.pollingreport.com/abortion.htm According to legal analysis and the language in the bill itself it did not ban late term abortion. It banned a particular procedure and then messed up the language on that procedure so that it bans some abortions at 12 weeks. (Actually what the GOP has been describing as partial birth-abortion which has a feet first delivery isn't banned at all.) Leaving aside the actual details, those so inconvenient facts, lets see what this poll does show. A majority 53% of Democrats would agree to a late-term abortion ban with exceptions for the life of the mother. 65% of Republican agree to this. Why wasn't this the bill? The bill was ruled unconstitutional because it had no exceptions for the well-being of the pregnant woman and in one of the trials in a finding of fact a conservative pro-life judge ruled that GOP leadership had to know that this was a procedure often used for the medical health of the mother despite them presenting false evidence this was not so. JDG is arguing any woman dumb enough to have an unwanted pregnancy is rich enough and smart enough to find a doctor who would say having a child is bad for their health. This argument is wrong on its face. -- Gary Denton Easter Lemming Blogs http://elemming.blogspot.com http://elemming2.blogspot.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Abortion and the Democratic Party Re: The American Political Landscape Today
At 08:46 PM Tuesday 5/17/2005, Dan Minette wrote: - Original Message - From: "Gary Denton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2005 6:27 PM Subject: Re: Abortion and the Democratic Party Re: The AmericanPoliticalLandscape Today On 5/17/05, Dan Minette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > - Original Message - > From: "Gary Denton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "Killer Bs Discussion" > Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2005 5:00 PM > Subject: Re: Abortion and the Democratic Party Re: The American > PoliticalLandscape Today > > >Why do you want to get involved in medical decisions that endanger > pregnant > >women? > > I guess the answer to this lies in the difference between this procedure > and the procedure used sometimes with fetuses that are already known to be > dead. They are simply delivered dead...which is clearly emotionally > tramatizing, but can be the best action for the mother's physical health. > >From what I've been told, sometimes women are asked to carry a dead fetus > until they naturally go into labor, which sound very very difficult. > > So, AFAIK, the differences between these two procedures (not including the > waiting for full term to deliver), is determined by legal, not medical > factors. It is against the law to deliver than terminate the life of the > fetusthat's murder. But, if the delivery is not quite completed, it's > a legal abortion. > >Perhaps your right. I know that dead fetuses are sometimes carried to >term, less medically risky, sometimes. But now some hospitals are >always making them be carried to term because even on a dead fetus >many hospitals will not do a dilation and extraction - too >controversial. First, they could always induce labor...so I think there is a medical reason for carrying the dead fetus to term. Do any of the medical personnel on the list have any information or comments here? I'm not sure why, once the woman is dilated, pushing is all that more dangerous than an extraction. There is the risk of the usual small complications for the woman that's associated with normal childbirth, but I don't see how the risk of death or serious harm is increased greatly by the extra time it takes for pushing a stillborn baby out. IIRC, delivery of even a dead fetus normally is considered safer than any intervention that could be tried. Let me ask a very simple question which bothers me a lot about the legality of third trimester abortions. If a woman finds a hospital and a physician that are agreeable, is it legal to do a dilation and extraction on a fetus that is normally developed, 8 lbs, and 3 days overdue? AFAIK, the answer is yes. How is that being less human than a 8 week 1 lb preme that takes tens of thousands of dollars a day of effort to keep alive? The courts have essentially decided that this is a fact. That is the foundation of Roe vs. Wade. But, I hope you can see how I'm troubled that the order of actions by someone else, not one's own state, determines one's humaness. The short answer is that if a line has to be drawn, it has to be drawn somewhere. As I think we have shown already in this and previous discussions, no matter where the line is drawn, there are going to be cases which come near the line (on both sides) where following the rule is going to make some people unhappy. OTOH, if no line is drawn beforehand, and each case has to be decided individually, then the question becomes who makes that decision in each case, and again I can guarantee that there is going to be someone who is unhappy with every such decision made. Stating The Bloody Obvious Maru -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The American Political Landscape Today
- Original Message - From: "Doug Pensinger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2005 11:49 PM Subject: Re: The American Political Landscape Today > JDG wrote: > > > > Since this health exception includes mental health, it means that any > > woman desiring an abortion is able to claim the health exception. > > Even one that could not get a doctor to back her claim up? I think such a woman could theoretically exist, but she'd have very very poor networking skills. If she's pretty upset about the possibility of giving birth, how could you not associate DSM4 300.02 General Anxiety Disorder with that? If need be, I'll give the specifics, but the name alone should tell you how straightforward such a diagnosis would be. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The American Political Landscape Today
JDG wrote: Since this health exception includes mental health, it means that any woman desiring an abortion is able to claim the health exception. Even one that could not get a doctor to back her claim up? -- Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The American Political Landscape Today
At 06:44 PM 5/17/2005 -0500, Gary Denton wrote: >> > > The point is, most Americans believe that abortions should be >> > > illegal >> > > some of the time. Most Democrats support the legality of all >> > > abortions, even for development beyond viability. > >I have never heard that position offered**. Roe v. Wade doesn't >support that position. Democratic platforms which I have read don't >support that position. That position was established through Doe vs. Bolton, which was decided at the same time as Roe vs. Wide, and reinforced in Casey vs. PA and Stenberg v. Carhart. In particular, these cases specify that any restriction on abortion must contain a broad-based exception for the health of the mother. Since this health exception includes mental health, it means that any woman desiring an abortion is able to claim the health exception. I checked the Democratic Platforms from 1992 through 2004. Most of them included language to the effect that abortions should not be made more difficult to get. No platform included language saying that certain types or kinds of abortions should be restricted or regulated, let alone prohibited. This seems consistent with the proposition that "Democrats support the legality of all abortions." This is especially true given that no restriction on abortion has ever garnered the support of a majority of Democrats in either house of Congress. JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The American Political Landscape Today
At 08:25 PM 5/17/2005 -0700, Doug wrote: >> And these Democrats voting against it were definitely of the "liberal >> Democrat" variety. > >But of course if the exceptions that the Dems wanted had been included, >the law wouldn't be having trouble in court. You're pulling a bait-and-switch, Doug.The poll question was for the bill passed by Congress over Democratic opposition. JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The American Political Landscape Today
- Original Message - From: "Doug Pensinger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2005 10:25 PM Subject: Re: The American Political Landscape Today > JDG wrote: > > > And these Democrats voting against it were definitely of the "liberal > > Democrat" variety. > > But of course if the exceptions that the Dems wanted had been included, > the law wouldn't be having trouble in court. > A reason that affects the health of the mother is a pretty easy thing to find. If it prevents the normal relatively minor damage associated with childbirth, then it can be said to be for the health of the mother. If it makes her feel better, it aids her mental health. Any therapist worth their salt could find numerous DSM-4 diagnosis to back this up. _I_ couldin one minute I got 300.02 General Anxiety Disorder. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The American Political Landscape Today
JDG wrote: And these Democrats voting against it were definitely of the "liberal Democrat" variety. But of course if the exceptions that the Dems wanted had been included, the law wouldn't be having trouble in court. -- Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The American Political Landscape Today
- Original Message - From: "Doug Pensinger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2005 9:52 PM Subject: Re: The American Political Landscape Today > Dan wrote: > > > The point is, most Americans believe that abortions should be illegal > > some of the time. Most Democrats support the legality of all abortions, > > even > > for development beyond viability. > > Do you haave a cite for that. I found this: Sorry, Robert made me clarify this earlier...I wasn't referring to rank and file... I was refering to leaders, party activists, etc. Senate votes of Democrats, State party platforms, national platforms, etc. Your numbers are consistant with what I expect from self-identified Democrats, but strongly inconsistant with the leadership. "Reproductive rights" do seem to be defended at all costs by national leaders. > Los Angeles Times Poll. Jan. 30-Feb. 2, 2003. N=1,385 adults nationwide. > MoE ± 3 (total sample). > > "Do you favor or oppose a law which would make it illegal to perform a > specific abortion procedure conducted in the last six months of a woman's > pregnancy known as a partial-birth abortion, except in cases necessary to > save the life of the mother?" > > ALL Democrats Independents Republicans > > Favor 57 53 56 65 > > Oppose 38 42 39 31 > > Don't know 5 5 5 4 > > Well down the page here: > > http://www.pollingreport.com/abortion.htm > > > -- > Doug > ___ > http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l > ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The American Political Landscape Today
At 07:52 PM 5/17/2005 -0700, Doug wrote: >> The point is, most Americans believe that abortions should be illegal >> some of the time. Most Democrats support the legality of all abortions, >> even >> for development beyond viability. > >Do you haave a cite for that. I found this: > >Los Angeles Times Poll. Jan. 30-Feb. 2, 2003. N=1,385 adults nationwide. >MoE ± 3 (total sample). > >"Do you favor or oppose a law which would make it illegal to perform a >specific abortion procedure conducted in the last six months of a woman's >pregnancy known as a partial-birth abortion, except in cases necessary to >save the life of the mother?" > > ALL Democrats IndependentsRepublicans > >Favor 57 53 56 65 > >Oppose 38 42 39 31 > >Don't know 5 5 5 4 > >Well down the page here: > >http://www.pollingreport.com/abortion.htm Which makes it all the more extraordinary that a majority of Democrats in both the House and Senatevoted against the above law. both the House and Senatevoted against the above law. http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm ?congress=108&session=1&vote=00051 http://womensissues.about.com/od/ partialbirthabortion/i/ispartialbirth.htm And these Democrats voting against it were definitely of the "liberal Democrat" variety. JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The American Political Landscape Today
Dan wrote: The point is, most Americans believe that abortions should be illegal some of the time. Most Democrats support the legality of all abortions, even for development beyond viability. Do you haave a cite for that. I found this: Los Angeles Times Poll. Jan. 30-Feb. 2, 2003. N=1,385 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3 (total sample). "Do you favor or oppose a law which would make it illegal to perform a specific abortion procedure conducted in the last six months of a woman's pregnancy known as a partial-birth abortion, except in cases necessary to save the life of the mother?" ALL Democrats Independents Republicans Favor 57 53 56 65 Oppose 38 42 39 31 Don't know 5 5 5 4 Well down the page here: http://www.pollingreport.com/abortion.htm -- Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Pain in the Axe [was Re: The American Political Landscape Today]
At 07:30 PM Tuesday 5/17/2005, Warren Ockrassa wrote: On May 17, 2005, at 4:28 PM, Ronn!Blankenship wrote: I think you need to find out what someone had added to the salt shaker at that IHOP . . . :D I rarely use salt. The syrup might have been spiked, though. Or maybe the sugar in it had fermented . . . -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Pain in the Axe [was Re: The American Political Landscape Today]
On May 17, 2005, at 4:28 PM, Ronn!Blankenship wrote: I think you need to find out what someone had added to the salt shaker at that IHOP . . . :D I rarely use salt. The syrup might have been spiked, though. -- Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books http://books.nightwares.com/ Current work in progress "The Seven-Year Mirror" http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The American Political Landscape Today
On 5/17/05, Robert Seeberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Gary Denton wrote: > > > > You can pick and choose issues to show there are fewer conservatives > > but in my neighborhood I agree with you. It is sometimes surprising > > to see a large number of mainly white liberal families get together > > like we did Saturday for a Family Fun day and Dump Delay picnic in > > the park in DeLay's district. > > > Where was this at Gary? > Was it on our side of town? Tom Bass Park #3 4-7pm last Saturday. 15108 Cullen Blvd, Houston, 77047. Made three evening TV newscasts, My ex-wife Pat was briefly in one of them. Save America Without DeLay Free Family Fun Festival Kids could smash a Delay Pinata, a beanbag toss at DeLay scandals, pin the tail on the elephant, a two-person sack race, poetry, limerick and song competition. giant blowup hammers. Lots of tables from Democratic groups, a number of candidates, a short training group about Democratic and GOP framing and messaging, good chili dogs and lots of desserts. I had fun helping to put up and take down canopies that weren't really needed. Gary Denton GOOD THINGS FROM DEMOCRATS: Women's Suffrage Amendment Social Security Agricultural Extension Service 40-Hour Work Week Workers Compensation Act Soil Conservation Act Unemployment Compensation Act Rural Electrification Act National Labor Relations Act Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation Clayton Antitrust Act Securities & Exchange Act GI Bill of Rights School Lunch Program Centers for Disease Control & Prevention Full Employment Act Federal Home Loan Program Marshall Plan NATO Peace Corp & Vista Medicare Operation Head Start Older Americans Act Civil Rights Act of 1964 Voting Rights Act of 1965 (the renewal of which Bush knows nothing about, by his own admission) Guaranteed Student Loan Program First Man on the Moon Medicaid Water Quality Act Clean Air Act Family & Medical Leave Act Motor Voter Act 100,000 New Policemen on U.S. Streets ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Pain in the Axe [was Re: The American Political Landscape Today]
At 03:24 PM Tuesday 5/17/2005, Warren Ockrassa wrote: On May 17, 2005, at 9:04 AM, Ronn!Blankenship wrote: At 10:12 PM Monday 5/16/2005, Warren Ockrassa wrote: What about people who do brutal things deliberately? Is the label "human" applicable to, say, the BTK killer? Or the freaks of nature who raped and murdered those poor girls in Florida, or that Illinois creature that beat his daughter and her best friend, then stabbed them to death? To complicate things, it is just as just as difficult to answer the question of whether those Warren named are to be classified as "not human." And if they are, how about the POSs who flew airliners into the WTC? How about anyone in the Middle East or elsewhere who thinks that the US is the Great Satan and/or that Israel has no right to exist? (For that matter, do [many] Jews and Arabs act like they think of each other as human?) How about slaves, who were defined in the US Constitution as counting as 60% of a person? Are they only 60% human? How about the poor or disabled who are a net drain on the economy rather than making a net contribution? That's more of the same kind of problem, yeah. It's hard to find a bottom to this kind of thinking, yet we still have to behave as though we know what we're doing most of the time. [What's going to follow here is going to come off as very abstract in some ways, possibly even foolish. That's okay with me.] This morning I had the universe for breakfast. What it "was" was an IHOP breakfast skillet, but the potatoes, onions, peppers and cheese all derived from terrestrial organic sources, and they were produced through the labors of other humans. Rain, water and sunlight as well as soil went into that skillet. So did the remnants of many long-dead long-ago-exploded suns. All of which came from that first cosmic expansion. It was pretty tasty. I realized a few years back that nouns don't really exist. We put names on things but I think those names are really descriptions of ourselves. The suchness of a thing is untouched by what we call it, and furthermore the thing itself is impermanent. Suppose you buy an axe from Home Depot and use it for a few years ... and then the handle breaks. You replace the handle and use the axe for a few more years ... and then the head chips and you replace that. It's still your axe, but is it the same axe any more? When did its axehood change? We eat and excrete, we drop millions of cells each day and replace them with millions more, and yet we possess the idea of self-consistency. But where is that self actually located? Where is the "I" in anyone? This suggests that the concept of self is an abstraction, just as the concept of "my" axe is, and that the big bang that led to stellar formation that led to supernovae that led to heavy elements that led to an accretion disk that led to Earth that led to lava that led to mountains that led to rocks that led to sand that led to mud that was clumped and made into bricks that got turned into "my" house is simply a concept that I hold, not any kind of reflection of permanence or immutability. Is human -- I mean the definition -- a little like an electron's state? (Particle or wave? Both? Something other?) Do we determine the humanness of something in a completely subjective way, by deciding at the outset how we're going to conclude, and then only observing the things that support our conclusions? *Can* there be an objective definition of human? Or are we stuck with something that has fuzzy edges forever? So I think that when labels get stuck onto things, we're heading into trouble. They're reflections of what we think, not what the labeled thing is. At the very least it doesn't hurt to remember that labels should be treated as subjective and consensual rather than objective, hard truths. That said, a rock is still a rock and when it hits me on the head it hurts. Hard truth, indeed. Until we can find or agree on a true, working definition of "human", then, it seems very clear to me that there are some grey areas to which no law should be applied, because there will always be some cases in which those laws are inappropriate or insufficient to address circumstances. Many of us would answer "When there is the slightest doubt, treat them as human." Of course, we still haven't figured out what it means to treat someone as human. Some think that applying the death penalty or going to war is a statement that the condemned prisoner or the enemy is not considered human. Others would say that sometimes human beings choose to commit such evil acts that the only suitable punishment and/or the only way to protect society from them is to take their lives Yeah, again, more of that bottomless reasoning. We very often behave as though there is no doubt about our conclusions. We have politicians who on one hand utter homilies about "erring on the side of life" but on the other hand are apparently quite sa
Re: The American Political Landscape Today
On 5/17/05, Dan Minette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > - Original Message - > From: "Robert Seeberger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "Killer Bs Discussion" > Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2005 6:02 PM > Subject: Re: The American Political Landscape Today > > > Dan Minette wrote: > > > > > > The point is, most Americans believe that abortions should be > > > illegal > > > some of the time. Most Democrats support the legality of all > > > abortions, even for development beyond viability. I have never heard that position offered**. Roe v. Wade doesn't support that position. Democratic platforms which I have read don't support that position. * OK, I do recall a conversation with one person at a church who I thought was crazy. She got into questioning at what point infants had fully formed reasoning ability or even a sensory network and should be classified as human. I didn't want to be debating infanticide particularly as I was going up to ride herd on some rowdy teens. I wonder if the rowdy teens provoked her comments? -- Gary Denton ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The American Political Landscape Today
Gary Denton wrote: > > You can pick and choose issues to show there are fewer conservatives > but in my neighborhood I agree with you. It is sometimes surprising > to see a large number of mainly white liberal families get together > like we did Saturday for a Family Fun day and Dump Delay picnic in > the park in DeLay's district. > Where was this at Gary? Was it on our side of town? xponent Nassau Bay Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The American Political Landscape Today
- Original Message - From: "Robert Seeberger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2005 6:02 PM Subject: Re: The American Political Landscape Today > Dan Minette wrote: > > > > The point is, most Americans believe that abortions should be > > illegal > > some of the time. Most Democrats support the legality of all > > abortions, even for development beyond viability. > > > > Most Democrats /are/ Americans. Right, but must Americans aren't Democrats and most Americans aren't Republicans. > I think your phrasing here is a bit misleading. > Are you speaking of Democrat polititians..activists.PACs Politicians, party leaders, and activists. The statement is probably not true for all Democrats, but such things do exista position is a majority position in a party, but a minority position overall. > Or are Democrats not Americans? > Very funny, since I'm a Democrat. :-) Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The American Political Landscape Today
Dan Minette wrote: > > The point is, most Americans believe that abortions should be > illegal > some of the time. Most Democrats support the legality of all > abortions, even for development beyond viability. > Most Democrats /are/ Americans. I think your phrasing here is a bit misleading. Are you speaking of Democrat polititians..activists.PACs Or are Democrats not Americans? xponent The Frailty Of Communication Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Abortion and Liberal Democrats Re: The American Political Landscape Today
5/16/05, JDG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > At 10:56 AM 5/16/2005 -0700, Nick Arnett wrote: > >> I don't see it that way. Let's take one contraversial subject: > abortion. > >> The standard liberal Democratic position is to defend all abortions > without > >> question. > > > >Extremist strawman hogwash. That is neither the party position, nor much > of > >anybody in it. > > Oh really, NIck > > Then I am sure that you are more than happy to provide information to > disprove Dan's proposition. Republicans have proposed a number of > sensible restrictions on abortion over the years. Can you name one such > restriction that was supported by liberal Democrats OK, it wasn't clear and from the tone I assumed the word "liberal" was used as a perjorative. Instead you have made a steeper test - that "liberal Democrats", not Democrats as a whole but a subset of them, must have opposed all these measures. Allow me to provide a list of suggestions: > -no public funds should be used to fund abortions > -Catholic hospitals should not be required to perform abortions > -minors should be required to notify their parents or a judge before > getting an abortion > -there should be a mandatory waiting period for an abortion > -"partial-birth"/"dilation and extraction" abortions should be prohibited > -abortions after viability should be prohibited > -gender-selection abortions should be prohibited All of these positions have been supported by Democrats. But this is a straw man argument. Lets try the same type of argument in a slightly different context Why do the conservative Republicans always feel that government belongs in the bedroom regulating behavior? Why do they always feel that the government knows more than a woman and her doctor on sexual matters? Can you point me to positions where these are not consistently supported by conservative Republicans? -- Gary Denton Easter Lemming Blogs http://elemming.blogspot.com http://elemming2.blogspot.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Abortion and the Democratic Party Re: The American Political Landscape Today
On 5/16/05, JDG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >- Original Message - > >From: "Gary Denton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >>Why are the Republican who think we are going to far not heard from when > >>there are debates about abortion in just about every Democratic meeting > I > >>attended? > > I'm going to take a wild guess and somehow connect it to the fact that the > Democrats lost the last Presidential election and exit polls attributed it > in large part to the issue of "moral values." This was a poorly worded question as shown by both candidates splitting the vote of the "moral values" voters. I also cast a moral vote against Bush. Despite the poor wording the moral values question had been used before and it was down from previous elections. Losing always provokes more soul-searching than winning. > > >>I suspect is because it was part of that media drumbeat that pro-life > >>people > >>can't be heard in the Democratic party. > > I would hope that even you would agree that the failure to let PA Governor > Bob Casey speak at the Democratic National Convention played some role in > the Democratic Party deserving that storyline. You snipped out the real reason he wasn't allowed to speak which had nothing to do with abortion. On TV and national media he had waged a campaign to stop Clinton from getting the nomination saying he wasn't fit to be president. Unless their is a public repudiation of those interviews no party is going to allow that kind of speaker on the platform. And the fact that: > a) Harry Reid is somehow considered to be a "pro-life" Senator in the > Democratic Party (compare his deviation from the Democratic mean vs. > "pro-choice" Republican Senators' deviation from the mean.) > b) Harry Reid is about the only "pro-life" speaker at a Democratic > Convention in a long, long time > > At 03:26 PM 5/16/2005 -0500, Gary Denton wrote: > >>The procedure that was banned was used in only 0.004% of > >>abortions is the United States. Yes my 0's are in the right place > >according > >>to the AMA. > > Haven't you just made Dan's point? Liberal Democrats wouldn't even > restrict 0.004% of abortions????????? > That this procedure was only necessary and often used to save lives was also snipped. Why do you want to get involved in medical decisions that endanger pregnant women? -- Gary Denton Easter Lemming Blogs http://elemming.blogspot.com http://elemming2.blogspot.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Pain in the Axe [was Re: The American Political Landscape Today]
On May 17, 2005, at 9:04 AM, Ronn!Blankenship wrote: At 10:12 PM Monday 5/16/2005, Warren Ockrassa wrote: What about people who do brutal things deliberately? Is the label "human" applicable to, say, the BTK killer? Or the freaks of nature who raped and murdered those poor girls in Florida, or that Illinois creature that beat his daughter and her best friend, then stabbed them to death? To complicate things, it is just as just as difficult to answer the question of whether those Warren named are to be classified as "not human." And if they are, how about the POSs who flew airliners into the WTC? How about anyone in the Middle East or elsewhere who thinks that the US is the Great Satan and/or that Israel has no right to exist? (For that matter, do [many] Jews and Arabs act like they think of each other as human?) How about slaves, who were defined in the US Constitution as counting as 60% of a person? Are they only 60% human? How about the poor or disabled who are a net drain on the economy rather than making a net contribution? That's more of the same kind of problem, yeah. It's hard to find a bottom to this kind of thinking, yet we still have to behave as though we know what we're doing most of the time. [What's going to follow here is going to come off as very abstract in some ways, possibly even foolish. That's okay with me.] This morning I had the universe for breakfast. What it "was" was an IHOP breakfast skillet, but the potatoes, onions, peppers and cheese all derived from terrestrial organic sources, and they were produced through the labors of other humans. Rain, water and sunlight as well as soil went into that skillet. So did the remnants of many long-dead long-ago-exploded suns. All of which came from that first cosmic expansion. It was pretty tasty. I realized a few years back that nouns don't really exist. We put names on things but I think those names are really descriptions of ourselves. The suchness of a thing is untouched by what we call it, and furthermore the thing itself is impermanent. Suppose you buy an axe from Home Depot and use it for a few years ... and then the handle breaks. You replace the handle and use the axe for a few more years ... and then the head chips and you replace that. It's still your axe, but is it the same axe any more? When did its axehood change? We eat and excrete, we drop millions of cells each day and replace them with millions more, and yet we possess the idea of self-consistency. But where is that self actually located? Where is the "I" in anyone? This suggests that the concept of self is an abstraction, just as the concept of "my" axe is, and that the big bang that led to stellar formation that led to supernovae that led to heavy elements that led to an accretion disk that led to Earth that led to lava that led to mountains that led to rocks that led to sand that led to mud that was clumped and made into bricks that got turned into "my" house is simply a concept that I hold, not any kind of reflection of permanence or immutability. Is human -- I mean the definition -- a little like an electron's state? (Particle or wave? Both? Something other?) Do we determine the humanness of something in a completely subjective way, by deciding at the outset how we're going to conclude, and then only observing the things that support our conclusions? *Can* there be an objective definition of human? Or are we stuck with something that has fuzzy edges forever? So I think that when labels get stuck onto things, we're heading into trouble. They're reflections of what we think, not what the labeled thing is. At the very least it doesn't hurt to remember that labels should be treated as subjective and consensual rather than objective, hard truths. That said, a rock is still a rock and when it hits me on the head it hurts. Hard truth, indeed. Until we can find or agree on a true, working definition of "human", then, it seems very clear to me that there are some grey areas to which no law should be applied, because there will always be some cases in which those laws are inappropriate or insufficient to address circumstances. Many of us would answer "When there is the slightest doubt, treat them as human." Of course, we still haven't figured out what it means to treat someone as human. Some think that applying the death penalty or going to war is a statement that the condemned prisoner or the enemy is not considered human. Others would say that sometimes human beings choose to commit such evil acts that the only suitable punishment and/or the only way to protect society from them is to take their lives Yeah, again, more of that bottomless reasoning. We very often behave as though there is no doubt about our conclusions. We have politicians who on one hand utter homilies about "erring on the side of life" but on the other hand are apparently quite sanguine about erring on the side of mass slaugh
Re: Infanticide Re: The American Political Landscape Today
At 10:12 PM Monday 5/16/2005, Warren Ockrassa wrote: On May 16, 2005, at 7:34 PM, JDG wrote: At 07:03 PM 5/16/2005 -0700, Warren wrote: The problem there is that your reasoning does not reduce. There is a distinct difference between, say, a blastocyst and an infant. The question is not even when the zygote becomes "human". The question is what "human" actually means. If the answer is "homo sapiens" its actually a rather easy question. It's the easiest answers of which we should often be most suspicious. As I suggested in my note to Dan, extending the epithet "human" to every member of the species is an ideal and nothing more; in reality we barely allow that label to be placed on fellow countrymen with whom we do not agree, let alone other cultures. The issue of what it is to be human lies at the core of some of our most divisive debates, I think. Abortion, capital punishment, end-of-life issues and elective wars (any elective war, not just the one frequently bandied about here) often, I think, boil down to the basic question of what we mean when we say "human". (Hmm, an aside -- it occurs to me that perhaps *all* wars are definable as elective. Someone always chooses to attack.) As an example, unless one believes in the idea of a soul I don't think it's possible to suggest -- realistically -- that many members of this species (by strict definition) are human in many ways. That sounds callous and brutal, or rather that suggestion can be used to reach callous and brutal conclusions, but unless we analyze what's really meant by our definitions of these seemingly transparent terms, there's no way any kind of discussion can go forward. The problem as I see it is partly that many *do* believe in the idea of souls, which is -- sorry -- really not much more than superstition. There's never been anything like proof -- nor even evidence of a meaningful nature -- to suggest such a thing as a soul exists. Thus a discussion that begins with assuming the presence of a soul, to me, is based on a false premise. Is a one-week-old zygote human? Genetically, sure, maybe even potentially. Actually? I don't think the question is so easily answered. Same for someone who's completely brain dead and on life support. Now, how about a third trimester fetus? Or someone in a PVS who appears to evince consciousness in rare and random ways? Those questions should be even more difficult to answer. What about people who do brutal things deliberately? Is the label "human" applicable to, say, the BTK killer? Or the freaks of nature who raped and murdered those poor girls in Florida, or that Illinois creature that beat his daughter and her best friend, then stabbed them to death? To complicate things, it is just as just as difficult to answer the question of whether those Warren named are to be classified as "not human." And if they are, how about the POSs who flew airliners into the WTC? How about anyone in the Middle East or elsewhere who thinks that the US is the Great Satan and/or that Israel has no right to exist? (For that matter, do [many] Jews and Arabs act like they think of each other as human?) How about slaves, who were defined in the US Constitution as counting as 60% of a person? Are they only 60% human? How about the poor or disabled who are a net drain on the economy rather than making a net contribution? Easy labels are troubling to me. They rarely seem to apply universally when they're analyzed, and for that reason alone I think it's very risky to behave as though such abstractions represent anything but a hint about the way the world "really" is. This further suggests that we should not feel confident enough about those labels to begin using them to make universally-applicable decisions such as laws. Until we can find or agree on a true, working definition of "human", then, it seems very clear to me that there are some grey areas to which no law should be applied, because there will always be some cases in which those laws are inappropriate or insufficient to address circumstances. Many of us would answer "When there is the slightest doubt, treat them as human." Of course, we still haven't figured out what it means to treat someone as human. Some think that applying the death penalty or going to war is a statement that the condemned prisoner or the enemy is not considered human. Others would say that sometimes human beings choose to commit such evil acts that the only suitable punishment and/or the only way to protect society from them is to take their lives The other problem I see with such an apparently straightforward definition is that it overlooks the simple truth that we share this planet with several other intelligent species. Some indeed would argue with the word "other" in that sentence as assuming facts not supported by the evidence. :P It arrogates to us alone certain traits that we can't be sure don't exist in other organisms, su
Re: Infanticide Re: The American Political Landscape Today
On May 16, 2005, at 7:34 PM, JDG wrote: At 07:03 PM 5/16/2005 -0700, Warren wrote: The problem there is that your reasoning does not reduce. There is a distinct difference between, say, a blastocyst and an infant. The question is not even when the zygote becomes "human". The question is what "human" actually means. If the answer is "homo sapiens" its actually a rather easy question. It's the easiest answers of which we should often be most suspicious. As I suggested in my note to Dan, extending the epithet "human" to every member of the species is an ideal and nothing more; in reality we barely allow that label to be placed on fellow countrymen with whom we do not agree, let alone other cultures. The issue of what it is to be human lies at the core of some of our most divisive debates, I think. Abortion, capital punishment, end-of-life issues and elective wars (any elective war, not just the one frequently bandied about here) often, I think, boil down to the basic question of what we mean when we say "human". (Hmm, an aside -- it occurs to me that perhaps *all* wars are definable as elective. Someone always chooses to attack.) As an example, unless one believes in the idea of a soul I don't think it's possible to suggest -- realistically -- that many members of this species (by strict definition) are human in many ways. That sounds callous and brutal, or rather that suggestion can be used to reach callous and brutal conclusions, but unless we analyze what's really meant by our definitions of these seemingly transparent terms, there's no way any kind of discussion can go forward. The problem as I see it is partly that many *do* believe in the idea of souls, which is -- sorry -- really not much more than superstition. There's never been anything like proof -- nor even evidence of a meaningful nature -- to suggest such a thing as a soul exists. Thus a discussion that begins with assuming the presence of a soul, to me, is based on a false premise. Is a one-week-old zygote human? Genetically, sure, maybe even potentially. Actually? I don't think the question is so easily answered. Same for someone who's completely brain dead and on life support. Now, how about a third trimester fetus? Or someone in a PVS who appears to evince consciousness in rare and random ways? Those questions should be even more difficult to answer. What about people who do brutal things deliberately? Is the label "human" applicable to, say, the BTK killer? Or the freaks of nature who raped and murdered those poor girls in Florida, or that Illinois creature that beat his daughter and her best friend, then stabbed them to death? Easy labels are troubling to me. They rarely seem to apply universally when they're analyzed, and for that reason alone I think it's very risky to behave as though such abstractions represent anything but a hint about the way the world "really" is. This further suggests that we should not feel confident enough about those labels to begin using them to make universally-applicable decisions such as laws. Until we can find or agree on a true, working definition of "human", then, it seems very clear to me that there are some grey areas to which no law should be applied, because there will always be some cases in which those laws are inappropriate or insufficient to address circumstances. The other problem I see with such an apparently straightforward definition is that it overlooks the simple truth that we share this planet with several other intelligent species. It arrogates to us alone certain traits that we can't be sure don't exist in other organisms, such as self-awareness or consciousness (whatever *that* word means...), and I'm not comfortable personally with applying to h. sapiens alone possession of those traits. -- Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books http://books.nightwares.com/ Current work in progress "The Seven-Year Mirror" http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Infanticide Re: The American Political Landscape Today
At 07:03 PM 5/16/2005 -0700, Warren wrote: >The problem there is that your reasoning does not reduce. There is a >distinct difference between, say, a blastocyst and an infant. The >question is not even when the zygote becomes "human". The question is >what "human" actually means. If the answer is "homo sapiens" its actually a rather easy question. JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Infanticide Re: The American Political Landscape Today
On May 16, 2005, at 5:15 PM, JDG wrote: At 04:51 PM 5/16/2005 -0500, Warren wrote: To me abortion is a personal decision. I don't expect it to be an easy one when we're talking about a fairly anatomically developed fetus, and I am proximally sure that legislatures need to keep their mitts out of the oven entirely. But infanticide is also a deeply personal decision, and certainly not expected to be an easy one. Do you also believe that legislatures need to keep their mitts out of that oven entirely as well?Or do you believe that it is acceptable for legislatures to intervene in that decision? The problem there is that your reasoning does not reduce. There is a distinct difference between, say, a blastocyst and an infant. The question is not even when the zygote becomes "human". The question is what "human" actually means. -- Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books http://books.nightwares.com/ Current work in progress "The Seven-Year Mirror" http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The American Political Landscape Today
On May 16, 2005, at 2:51 PM, Dan Minette wrote: From: "Warren Ockrassa" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> I'm not arguing for that at all; I'm just suggesting that the test of "viability" is somewhat vague. I realize that you were arguing somewhat hypothetically concerning my definition. I was pointing out the result of using two different terms of viable. ...Underscoring my point. ;) What I'm pretty sure of is that there's a lot of arbitrary thinking afoot when discussing pregnancy and birth. There are some who contend that life begins at conception, and yet they celebrate birthdays as being *genuine* anniversaries of the beginning of someone's life. That to me is an example of how an arbitrary idea clashes with observable behavior, which suggests at least one intellectual inconsistency. What inconsistancy? It celebrates an arrival date, not the beginnning of life. Not anywhere I've ever been, or indeed even heard of. DOB is used to calculate age in years. If the thinking (conception = life) were truly consistent, DOB would be totally irrelevant for calculating age in years. That no one has ever in the history of birthdates been feted, at 3 months after emergence, for being one year old simply highlights the inconsistency. To me abortion is a personal decision. I don't expect it to be an easy one when we're talking about a fairly anatomically developed fetus, and I am proximally sure that legislatures need to keep their mitts out of the oven entirely. We can't even agree, in many cases, on what basic terms mean, such as "life" or "viability" (or "self-sufficiency", to look at it another way), and of course there's the elephant in the room -- what "human" actually means, when it starts, etc. But, there is a very very simple definition that is being ignored..location in DNA space defines species. If you use a functional capacity definition, then you either include adults of other species or exclude a significant fraction of humans that are now alive. What's wrong with arguing that humans are those animals that are in the human region of gene space? We are ever so much more than the sum of our genes. If genes are to be the only measure of what is human and what is not, then the death penalty will have to be abolished, war will have to cease instantly, and no one will ever be able to unplug anyone connected to life support -- because those people all have exactly the same human rights as everyone else. No, the genetic test is far too facile to work here. and since laws require either consensus or submission to arbitrary decisions made by others, there would be no benefit to be found in illegalizing *any* kind of abortion. What about civil rights laws that overturned the so called "right of free association?" There wasn't a consensus on those. Not sure what you're referring to here. -- Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books http://books.nightwares.com/ Current work in progress "The Seven-Year Mirror" http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Infanticide Re: The American Political Landscape Today
At 03:29 PM 5/16/2005 -0500, Dan M. wrote: >> > The point is, most Americans believe that abortions should be illegal >> > some >> > of the time. Most Democrats support the legality of all abortions, >> > even >> > for development beyond viability. >> >> One quibble here. Even after being born, you can't really argue >> convincingly that a human infant is "viable". Without active, constant >> nurturing it's dead, and that need for nurture goes on for about two >> years, at minimum, after birth. > >OK, then you are arguing for a different dividing line. I was thinking of >viability as a biologically independent organism (no direct, continuous, >connection to the bloodstream of another), and you seem to be arguing for >being able to carry one's own weight. If one wishes to argue for the >rights of a mother to kill their one year old, then that would be >consistent with arguing for the right to kill a post-term undelivered >fetus. Actually, Dan, Warren has a very valid point.Your definition would exclude several types of organisms from being "biologically independent". Moreover, what you really mean is "capable of being biologically separate". I don't think that the word "independent" really applies to newbies - even without considering the role of incubators, respirators, and IV's in the process. Moreover the is not actually separate until birth, what you really mean is being capable of separation. At 04:51 PM 5/16/2005 -0500, Warren wrote: >>To me abortion is a personal decision. I don't expect it to be an easy >>one when we're talking about a fairly anatomically developed fetus, and >>I am proximally sure that legislatures need to keep their mitts out of >>the oven entirely. But infanticide is also a deeply personal decision, and certainly not expected to be an easy one. Do you also believe that legislatures need to keep their mitts out of that oven entirely as well?Or do you believe that it is acceptable for legislatures to intervene in that decision? JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Abortion and the Democratic Party Re: The American Political Landscape Today
>- Original Message - >From: "Gary Denton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>Why are the Republican who think we are going to far not heard from when >>there are debates about abortion in just about every Democratic meeting I >>attended? I'm going to take a wild guess and somehow connect it to the fact that the Democrats lost the last Presidential election and exit polls attributed it in large part to the issue of "moral values." Losing always provokes more soul-searching than winning. >>I suspect is because it was part of that media drumbeat that pro-life >>people >>can't be heard in the Democratic party. I would hope that even you would agree that the failure to let PA Governor Bob Casey speak at the Democratic National Convention played some role in the Democratic Party deserving that storyline. And the fact that: a) Harry Reid is somehow considered to be a "pro-life" Senator in the Democratic Party (compare his deviation from the Democratic mean vs. "pro-choice" Republican Senators' deviation from the mean.) b) Harry Reid is about the only "pro-life" speaker at a Democratic Convention in a long, long time At 03:26 PM 5/16/2005 -0500, Gary Denton wrote: >>The procedure that was banned was used in only 0.004% of >>abortions is the United States. Yes my 0's are in the right place >according >>to the AMA. Haven't you just made Dan's point?Liberal Democrats wouldn't even restrict 0.004% of abortions????????? JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Abortion and Liberal Democrats Re: The American Political Landscape Today
On Mon, 16 May 2005 19:31:19 -0400, JDG wrote > At 10:56 AM 5/16/2005 -0700, Nick Arnett wrote: > >> I don't see it that way. Let's take one contraversial subject: abortion. > >> The standard liberal Democratic position is to defend all abortions without > >> question. > > > >Extremist strawman hogwash. That is neither the party position, nor much of > >anybody in it. > > Oh really, NIck > > Then I am sure that you are more than happy to provide information to > disprove Dan's proposition. Republicans have proposed a number of > sensible restrictions on abortion over the years. Can you name one > such restriction that was supported by liberal Democrats Certainly if we change the question at hand to "Have liberal Democrats supported legal restrictions on abortions," then your points would be relevant. However, we were discussing whether "defend all abortions" is a "standard liberal Democratic position" or not. Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Abortion and Liberal Democrats Re: The American Political Landscape Today
At 10:56 AM 5/16/2005 -0700, Nick Arnett wrote: >> I don't see it that way. Let's take one contraversial subject: abortion. >> The standard liberal Democratic position is to defend all abortions without >> question. > >Extremist strawman hogwash. That is neither the party position, nor much of >anybody in it. Oh really, NIck Then I am sure that you are more than happy to provide information to disprove Dan's proposition. Republicans have proposed a number of sensible restrictions on abortion over the years. Can you name one such restriction that was supported by liberal Democrats Allow me to provide a list of suggestions: -no public funds should be used to fund abortions -Catholic hospitals should not be required to perform abortions -minors should be required to notify their parents or a judge before getting an abortion -there should be a mandatory waiting period for an abortion -"partial-birth"/"dilation and extraction" abortions should be prohibited -abortions after viability should be prohibited -gender-selection abortions should be prohibited As long as we are dealing with "extremist strawman hogwash" here, I am sure that you'll have no problem identifying which of these restrictions is consistently supported by liberal Democrats - especially since I've given you a list of examples to get you started. JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The American Political Landscape Today
- Original Message - From: "Gary Denton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" Sent: Monday, May 16, 2005 5:23 PM Subject: Re: The American Political Landscape Today On 5/16/05, Dan Minette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > - Original Message - > From: "Gary Denton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "Killer Bs Discussion" > Sent: Monday, May 16, 2005 3:55 PM > Subject: Re: The American Political Landscape Today > > > >Are you a doctor? Why do you want the government making medical > > decisions? > > > > Because I don't think it's a medical decision. You assume your > conclusions > > when you make that statement. You assume that a 2 week overdue infant is > > not human, but an 8 week premature baby is. I don't think humans should > be > > killed. But, the point is not even that abortion is right or wrong. It's > > that Democrats are taking positions that are favored by only the most > > liberal 10%-20% of the nation and holding fast to those positions. > Setting > > aside the debate of whether abortion should or should not be > >> illeagal...the > >> Democratic party's position favoring the > > >You may have hit enter to fast judging by how that trails off. > > The unfettered right to abortion alienates many voterseven > self-defined > Democrats. > > >But you are returning to your argument which was immediately jumped on. > Why > >do you think Democrats are for unlimited abortions? Why do you think > >incorrectly that most Democrats don't hold the positions of most > Americans? > > That's not really what I'm getting at. The origional claim was that the > liberals were the mainstream because they were the mode of the Pew poll. > Eric pointed out the mathamatical error in this analysis fairly clearly. > Conservative Democrats were considered liberal. From reading the website, > I'd say that conservative Democrats were more conservative on social > issues > and more liberal on issues such as government spending and taxes. >I stayed out of that clearly wrong argument - the mode is not the median. Well, I'm glad to find someone who agrees with my understanding of statistics. I've been getting hit from left and right on that, so to speak. :-) >Pew reported Liberals were one side, what they call Enterprisers was >another. The liberals have been at 18 to 25% all of my life. Conservatives >hit a high point under Reagan. Agreed. But, self-identified Democrats had a much larger lead on self-identified Republicans back thenwhich is interesting to mefor the most part, it seems to be a function of Dixiecrats changing their voting for president before their party lables. >Always the center of American politics are the self-identified moderates. I have no arguement with that. But, as food for thought, I just saw the 2004 Harris poll on this and it has Conservative 36% Moderate 41% Liberal18% If liberals get 2/3rds of the self identified moderates in a coalition, and the conservatives got 1/3rd of them, it would still favor the conservatives. >> No, it's because the Democratic leadership seems to fear a slippery slope >> on abortion. If they make one single concession for any reason whatsoever, >> then it's Katy bar the door. Personally, I see simularities between this >> and the NRA's position on gun control. >I think you are seeing a shake-up of that auto pro-choice position and the >NRA example my have been accurate. I see the first hints of one, and I think that will be a good thing if it happens. >>Even though I'm a liberal, I realize that there are fewer liberals than >>conservatives. I don't see the reason to look at the data sideways to deny >> unpleasant realities. That's a losing strategy. >You can pick and choose issues to show there are fewer conservatives but in >my neighborhood I agree with you. It is sometimes surprising to see a large >number of mainly white liberal families get together like we did Saturday >for a Family Fun day and Dump Delay picnic in the park in DeLay's district. We're more lucky a bit north of you, in the Woodlands. Brady isn't really all that bad, he's good friends with some very liberal folks we knowand he helps out folks in his districthe got Nymbe (Neli's sister) a visa for example. Perry is the idiot I want to give rid of. I don't see why Julia likes him so Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The American Political Landscape Today
On 5/16/05, Dan Minette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > - Original Message - > From: "Gary Denton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "Killer Bs Discussion" > Sent: Monday, May 16, 2005 3:55 PM > Subject: Re: The American Political Landscape Today > > > >Are you a doctor? Why do you want the government making medical > > decisions? > > > > Because I don't think it's a medical decision. You assume your > conclusions > > when you make that statement. You assume that a 2 week overdue infant is > > not human, but an 8 week premature baby is. I don't think humans should > be > > killed. But, the point is not even that abortion is right or wrong. It's > > that Democrats are taking positions that are favored by only the most > > liberal 10%-20% of the nation and holding fast to those positions. > Setting > > aside the debate of whether abortion should or should not be > >> illeagal...the > >> Democratic party's position favoring the > > >You may have hit enter to fast judging by how that trails off. > > The unfettered right to abortion alienates many voterseven > self-defined > Democrats. > > >But you are returning to your argument which was immediately jumped on. > Why > >do you think Democrats are for unlimited abortions? Why do you think > >incorrectly that most Democrats don't hold the positions of most > Americans? > > That's not really what I'm getting at. The origional claim was that the > liberals were the mainstream because they were the mode of the Pew poll. > Eric pointed out the mathamatical error in this analysis fairly clearly. > Conservative Democrats were considered liberal. From reading the website, > I'd say that conservative Democrats were more conservative on social > issues > and more liberal on issues such as government spending and taxes. I stayed out of that clearly wrong argument - the mode is not the median. Pew reported Liberals were one side, what they call Enterprisers was another. The liberals have been at 18 to 25% all of my life. Conservatives hit a high point under Reagan. Always the center of American politics are the self-identified moderates. I have a libertarian leaning firend who was bothered by the questions even though they clearly pegged him as a conservative Democrat which is usually the way he votes. >About 40% of Republicans oppose efforts to make it more difficult to get > >abortions. > >About 25% of Democrats support efforts to make it more difficult to get > an > >abortion. > > >Why are the Republican who think we are going to far not heard from when > >there are debates about abortion in just about every Democratic meeting I > >attended? > > I was almost one of the 18 year old delagates for McGovern. I know > personally that, in most places, a pro-life Democrat has a hard time > within > the party. I dropped out of politics because of that. I'm not claiming > that this is a universal situation, but I've > > >I suspect is because it was part of that media drumbeat that pro-life > people > >can't be heard in the Democratic party. > > No, it's because the Democratic leadership seems to fear a slippery slope > on abortion. If they make one single concession for any reason whatsoever, > then it's Katy bar the door. Personally, I see simularities between this > and the NRA's position on gun control. I think you are seeing a shake-up of that auto pro-choice position and the NRA example my have been accurate. Even though I'm a liberal, I realize that there are fewer liberals than > conservatives. I don't see the reason to look at the data sideways to deny > unpleasant realities. That's a losing strategy. You can pick and choose issues to show there are fewer conservatives but in my neighborhood I agree with you. It is sometimes surprising to see a large number of mainly white liberal families get together like we did Saturday for a Family Fun day and Dump Delay picnic in the park in DeLay's district. Dan M. > -- Gary Denton Easter Lemming Blogs http://elemming.blogspot.com http://elemming2.blogspot.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The American Political Landscape Today
- Original Message - From: "Gary Denton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" Sent: Monday, May 16, 2005 3:55 PM Subject: Re: The American Political Landscape Today > >Are you a doctor? Why do you want the government making medical > decisions? > > Because I don't think it's a medical decision. You assume your conclusions > when you make that statement. You assume that a 2 week overdue infant is > not human, but an 8 week premature baby is. I don't think humans should be > killed. But, the point is not even that abortion is right or wrong. It's > that Democrats are taking positions that are favored by only the most > liberal 10%-20% of the nation and holding fast to those positions. Setting > aside the debate of whether abortion should or should not be >> illeagal...the >> Democratic party's position favoring the >You may have hit enter to fast judging by how that trails off. The unfettered right to abortion alienates many voterseven self-defined Democrats. >But you are returning to your argument which was immediately jumped on. Why >do you think Democrats are for unlimited abortions? Why do you think >incorrectly that most Democrats don't hold the positions of most Americans? That's not really what I'm getting at. The origional claim was that the liberals were the mainstream because they were the mode of the Pew poll. Eric pointed out the mathamatical error in this analysis fairly clearly. Conservative Democrats were considered liberal. From reading the website, I'd say that conservative Democrats were more conservative on social issues and more liberal on issues such as government spending and taxes. >About 40% of Republicans oppose efforts to make it more difficult to get >abortions. >About 25% of Democrats support efforts to make it more difficult to get an >abortion. >Why are the Republican who think we are going to far not heard from when >there are debates about abortion in just about every Democratic meeting I >attended? I was almost one of the 18 year old delagates for McGovern. I know personally that, in most places, a pro-life Democrat has a hard time within the party. I dropped out of politics because of that. I'm not claiming that this is a universal situation, but I've >I suspect is because it was part of that media drumbeat that pro-life people >can't be heard in the Democratic party. No, it's because the Democratic leadership seems to fear a slippery slope on abortion. If they make one single concession for any reason whatsoever, then it's Katy bar the door. Personally, I see simularities between this and the NRA's position on gun control. Even though I'm a liberal, I realize that there are fewer liberals than conservatives. I don't see the reason to look at the data sideways to deny unpleasant realities. That's a losing strategy. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The American Political Landscape Today
- Original Message - From: "Warren Ockrassa" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" Sent: Monday, May 16, 2005 4:15 PM Subject: Re: The American Political Landscape Today On May 16, 2005, at 1:29 PM, Dan Minette wrote: > From: "Warren Ockrassa" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>> The point is, most Americans believe that abortions should be illegal >>> some >>> of the time. Most Democrats support the legality of all abortions, >>> even >>> for development beyond viability. >> >> One quibble here. Even after being born, you can't really argue >> convincingly that a human infant is "viable". Without active, constant >> nurturing it's dead, and that need for nurture goes on for about two >> years, at minimum, after birth. > > OK, then you are arguing for a different dividing line. I was > thinking of > viability as a biologically independent organism (no direct, > continuous, > connection to the bloodstream of another), and you seem to be arguing > for being able to carry one's own weight. If one wishes to argue for the > rights of a mother to kill their one year old, then that would be > consistent with arguing for the right to kill a post-term undelivered > fetus. >I'm not arguing for that at all; I'm just suggesting that the test of >"viability" is somewhat vague. I realize that you were arguing somewhat hypothetically concerning my definition. I was pointing out the result of using two different terms of viable. >Are there better tests? Possibly. Maybe an EEG that confirms what we >could call consciousness can be used. I really don't know *what* kind >of test would suffice. >What I'm pretty sure of is that there's a lot of arbitrary thinking >afoot when discussing pregnancy and birth. There are some who contend >that life begins at conception, and yet they celebrate birthdays as >being *genuine* anniversaries of the beginning of someone's life. That >to me is an example of how an arbitrary idea clashes with observable >behavior, which suggests at least one intellectual inconsistency. What inconsistancy? It celebrates an arrival date, not the beginnning of life. I don't think that anyone really argues that a embreyo is not alivethe arguement is that they are not human...with the rights of humans. Mothers and fathers are usually very excited about quickening, I can tell you that. I know that Teri thought our three children were alive before they were bornshe had the bruises to prove it. >To me abortion is a personal decision. I don't expect it to be an easy >one when we're talking about a fairly anatomically developed fetus, and >I am proximally sure that legislatures need to keep their mitts out of >the oven entirely. We can't even agree, in many cases, on what basic >terms mean, such as "life" or "viability" (or "self-sufficiency", to >look at it another way), and of course there's the elephant in the room >-- what "human" actually means, when it starts, etc. But, there is a very very simple definition that is being ignored..location in DNA space defines species. If you use a functional capacity definition, then you either include adults of other species or exclude a significant fraction of humans that are now alive. What's wrong with arguing that humans are those animals that are in the human region of gene space? >and since laws require either consensus or submission to arbitrary decisions made by >others, there would be no benefit to be found in illegalizing *any* kind of >abortion. What about civil rights laws that overturned the so called "right of free association?" There wasn't a consensus on those. >It makes a lot more sense to me to address the causes of unwanted >pregnancy and strike at the root; the causes could be social, personal, >or may other things, and probably are fairly intricate, not the kind of >thing that can be addressed by a single law or any other simplistic >solution. I'd agree with that. I have little patience with folks who are pro-life but won't agree to decrease abortions that way. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The American Political Landscape Today
On May 16, 2005, at 1:29 PM, Dan Minette wrote: From: "Warren Ockrassa" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> The point is, most Americans believe that abortions should be illegal some of the time. Most Democrats support the legality of all abortions, even for development beyond viability. One quibble here. Even after being born, you can't really argue convincingly that a human infant is "viable". Without active, constant nurturing it's dead, and that need for nurture goes on for about two years, at minimum, after birth. OK, then you are arguing for a different dividing line. I was thinking of viability as a biologically independent organism (no direct, continuous, connection to the bloodstream of another), and you seem to be arguing for being able to carry one's own weight. If one wishes to argue for the rights of a mother to kill their one year old, then that would be consistent with arguing for the right to kill a post-term undelivered fetus. I'm not arguing for that at all; I'm just suggesting that the test of "viability" is somewhat vague. Are there better tests? Possibly. Maybe an EEG that confirms what we could call consciousness can be used. I really don't know *what* kind of test would suffice. What I'm pretty sure of is that there's a lot of arbitrary thinking afoot when discussing pregnancy and birth. There are some who contend that life begins at conception, and yet they celebrate birthdays as being *genuine* anniversaries of the beginning of someone's life. That to me is an example of how an arbitrary idea clashes with observable behavior, which suggests at least one intellectual inconsistency. To me abortion is a personal decision. I don't expect it to be an easy one when we're talking about a fairly anatomically developed fetus, and I am proximally sure that legislatures need to keep their mitts out of the oven entirely. We can't even agree, in many cases, on what basic terms mean, such as "life" or "viability" (or "self-sufficiency", to look at it another way), and of course there's the elephant in the room -- what "human" actually means, when it starts, etc. These problems only indicate, to me, that consensus will *not* be reached easily, and might *never* be reached, and since laws require either consensus or submission to arbitrary decisions made by others, there would be no benefit to be found in illegalizing *any* kind of abortion. It makes a lot more sense to me to address the causes of unwanted pregnancy and strike at the root; the causes could be social, personal, or may other things, and probably are fairly intricate, not the kind of thing that can be addressed by a single law or any other simplistic solution. But once the horse is in the barn (to twist a cliché), it's too late to ask what to do about the open door. -- Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books http://books.nightwares.com/ Current work in progress "The Seven-Year Mirror" http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The American Political Landscape Today
On 5/16/05, Dan Minette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > - Original Message - > From: "Gary Denton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "Killer Bs Discussion" > Sent: Monday, May 16, 2005 2:26 PM > Subject: Re: The American Political Landscape Today > > >The procedure that was banned was used in only 0.004% of > >abortions is the United States. Yes my 0's are in the right place > according > >to the AMA. > > There have been some arguement that statistics on this procedure are not > being kept very well. My brother-in-law and sister are both in medicine, > and my sister talked about personally witnessing it at a small hospital > she > was at. As far as not being very available, that is only true if insurance > refuses to cover itand it costs in the tens of thousands. Otherwise, > market forces will always provide a supplier. > > >Are you a doctor? Why do you want the government making medical > decisions? > > Because I don't think it's a medical decision. You assume your conclusions > when you make that statement. You assume that a 2 week overdue infant is > not human, but an 8 week premature baby is. I don't think humans should be > killed. But, the point is not even that abortion is right or wrong. It's > that Democrats are taking positions that are favored by only the most > liberal 10%-20% of the nation and holding fast to those positions. Setting > aside the debate of whether abortion should or should not be > illeagal...the > Democratic party's position favoring the You may have hit enter to fast judging by how that trails off. But you are returning to your argument which was immediately jumped on. Why do you think Democrats are for unlimited abortions? Why do you think incorrectly that most Democrats don't hold the positions of most Americans? About 40% of Republicans oppose efforts to make it more difficult to get abortions. About 25% of Democrats support efforts to make it more difficult to get an abortion. Why are the Republican who think we are going to far not heard from when there are debates about abortion in just about every Democratic meeting I attended? I suspect is because it was part of that media drumbeat that pro-life people can't be heard in the Democratic party. It was a lie then that a governor was not permitted to speak at a national convention because he was pro-life and it suits some people to keep repeating the lie about those extreme Democrats. (He was not allowed to speak because he hated Bill Clinton and appeared on national media repeatedly saying he was not fit to be President and had not indicated a change in his views once Clinton won the primaries.) Gary Denton Easter Lemming Blogs http://elemming.blogspot.com http://elemming2.blogspot.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The American Political Landscape Today
- Original Message - From: "Warren Ockrassa" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" Sent: Monday, May 16, 2005 2:27 PM Subject: Re: The American Political Landscape Today > On May 16, 2005, at 11:38 AM, Dan Minette wrote: > > > The point is, most Americans believe that abortions should be illegal > > some > > of the time. Most Democrats support the legality of all abortions, > > even > > for development beyond viability. > > One quibble here. Even after being born, you can't really argue > convincingly that a human infant is "viable". Without active, constant > nurturing it's dead, and that need for nurture goes on for about two > years, at minimum, after birth. OK, then you are arguing for a different dividing line. I was thinking of viability as a biologically independent organism (no direct, continuous, connection to the bloodstream of another), and you seem to be arguing for being able to carry one's own weight. If one wishes to argue for the rights of a mother to kill their one year old, then that would be consistent with arguing for the right to kill a post-term undelivered fetus. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The American Political Landscape Today
- Original Message - From: "Gary Denton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" Sent: Monday, May 16, 2005 2:26 PM Subject: Re: The American Political Landscape Today > They even manufactured the term "partial-birth abortion" because >it precisely evoked the disgust people feel about that. Much like they come >up with "Social Security privatization" and the "nuclear option on >filibusters" but in those cases they tried to ban those words when they quit >testing well. The legislation did not mention "late-term abortions" it >banned a procedure. Which is a particular type of abortion that is almost always used in the third trimester. Why isn't partial-birth abortion descriptive? >The procedure that was banned was used in only 0.004% of >abortions is the United States. Yes my 0's are in the right place according >to the AMA. There have been some arguement that statistics on this procedure are not being kept very well. My brother-in-law and sister are both in medicine, and my sister talked about personally witnessing it at a small hospital she was at. As far as not being very available, that is only true if insurance refuses to cover itand it costs in the tens of thousands. Otherwise, market forces will always provide a supplier. >Are you a doctor? Why do you want the government making medical decisions? Because I don't think it's a medical decision. You assume your conclusions when you make that statement. You assume that a 2 week overdue infant is not human, but an 8 week premature baby is. I don't think humans should be killed. But, the point is not even that abortion is right or wrong. It's that Democrats are taking positions that are favored by only the most liberal 10%-20% of the nation and holding fast to those positions. Setting aside the debate of whether abortion should or should not be illeagal...the Democratic party's position favoring the Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The American Political Landscape today
On May 16, 2005, at 11:01 AM, Gautam Mukunda wrote: --- Dave Land <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Fair enough. You believe that I have my head up my ass, and you either don't believe that it is a personal attack OR that you are above the community etiquette of Brin-L. No, but when one of the list-owners is as egregiously offensive - and, frankly, malign - as you are, I'm thinking it's pretty much a lost cause. I regret saying it. I shouldn't descend to your level, however well-deserved that might be. Gautam, from here it seems that you're fairly sure of many of the views you hold. That isn't necessarily a bad thing, of course, but in this case I'm not sure your certitude is helping much. There have been times when I've heatedly accused you of arrogance in one way or another; those comments weren't productive, and I apologize for them. But it might not hurt to consider that language communicates much more than ideas; it also communicates mindset and attitudes, and there have been times when I've seen a lot of belittlement of the perspectives of others in the statements you make. It might not be intentional but that is how it comes across. It may not hurt to ask yourself, sometimes, whether your sense of frustration is fair. It's possible that what you're trying to express isn't getting through, and reworking the logic of an argument, looking for analogies and so on can help. I've seen you do that a couple times, and your points do get clarified when you do. Sometimes it's possible for something to be blindingly obvious to you that just isn't so clear to others. When that happens I think it's usually more productive to attempt to explain what it is about the topic in discussion that is so clear. Finally, discussion and debate often require everyone involved to be somewhat flexible -- or at least be willing to be flexible -- and to occasionally concede that others might have a good point about any given topic. Anyone who values his ideas and opinions might not feel entirely sanguine about such concessions, but when one is able to integrate other perspectives, one's own point of view tends to be ... not strengthened, per se, not more set, but perhaps tempered, and somewhat modulated. The person you are now is not the person you were ten years ago, and it's safe to assume that you won't be as you are now in 2015. Views change, opinions change, attitudes change, particularly with broader experience. I don't think, for instance, that Nick is waffling when he reflects changes in outlook. That strikes me more as being personal growth. There are no rules saying you have to hold the perspective you do now forever. There is no threat in changing one's mind on any subject or ideal. And there really isn't anything of merit to be found in defending a given point of view to extremes. I realize I fall into these traps myself, and often; for what it's worth this is my take on things when I'm able to step back, breathe a little and think about what's really going on. When I get genuinely impatient with anyone in a discussion, often I think it's symptomatic of perceived threat. That doesn't, however, nullify the validity of the other's point of view, and it's unfair of me to proceed as though it does. -- Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books http://books.nightwares.com/ Current work in progress "The Seven-Year Mirror" http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The American Political Landscape Today
On May 16, 2005, at 11:38 AM, Dan Minette wrote: The point is, most Americans believe that abortions should be illegal some of the time. Most Democrats support the legality of all abortions, even for development beyond viability. One quibble here. Even after being born, you can't really argue convincingly that a human infant is "viable". Without active, constant nurturing it's dead, and that need for nurture goes on for about two years, at minimum, after birth. So if you're going to argue viability as the dividing line, well, maybe you need to find another dividing line. Also, you understand I hope why full legalization is better. Finally, as a consequence of some states' laws, we have cases such as a preteen girl getting pregnant after being raped by her own brother, and state legislatures attempting to prevent the girl having an abortion. That, I think, is an example of what can happen when you don't have universal legality. -- Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books http://books.nightwares.com/ Current work in progress "The Seven-Year Mirror" http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The American Political Landscape Today
On 5/16/05, Dan Minette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > - Original Message - > From: "Nick Arnett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "Killer Bs Discussion" > Sent: Monday, May 16, 2005 1:33 PM > Subject: Re: The American Political Landscape Today > > > On Mon, 16 May 2005 13:18:26 -0500, Dan Minette wrote > > > > > I'm trying to think of which abortions the Democrats are willing to > outlaw. > > > I can't. Late term abortions are always done for the health of the mother - this is extremely rare and you find few places willing to do them. > > > How many Democrats think abortion is a good thing? I mean come on, is > the > > subject the goodness of abortion or is it the decision about whether or > not it > > should be illegal? And here we are in the same old trap. > > The point is, most Americans believe that abortions should be illegal some > of the time. Most Democrats support the legality of all abortions, even > for development beyond viability. Most Americans support Roe v. Wade. Do you? The real important point to watch, IMHO, is whether someone states late > term abortions should be acceptable if required for the health of the > mother or the life of the mother. The latter is supported by most. With > the former, one can always find a mental health professional who will > state > that continued pregnancy will have an adverse effect on the health of the > motherso it's functionally on-demand. It is possible to make that the physical health of the mother and had been done. I see you and I could have very different measures of what on-demand is. This was a rare procedure only used where the mothers life was in danger and after consultation with a specialist. The big battle which the GOP thought up and focused-grouped was over "late-term abortions" because they found that was a wedge issue they could get polemic political mileage out of. But it wasn't over late-term abortions. They even manufactured the term "partial-birth abortion" because it precisely evoked the disgust people feel about that. Much like they come up with "Social Security privatization" and the "nuclear option on filibusters" but in those cases they tried to ban those words when they quit testing well. The legislation did not mention "late-term abortions" it banned a procedure. The procedure that was banned was used in only 0.004% of abortions is the United States. Yes my 0's are in the right place according to the AMA. Are you a doctor? Why do you want the government making medical decisions? *The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the American Nurses Association and the American Medical Women's Association oppose this ban. And why shouldn't they? The most respected medical associations in the country oppose a law that will imperil the lives of women who have been entrusted to their care. * *AGOG has stated its position clearly: "Intervention of legislative bodies into medical decision making is inappropriate, ill-advised, and dangerous."* *If it is ever enforced, this ban will put doctors in jail for providing the best and safest health care to women. This dangerous ban prevents women, in consultation with their families and trusted doctors, from making decisions about their own health.* Liberals care about babies - we also care about their mothers. -- Gary Denton Easter Lemming Blogs http://elemming.blogspot.com http://elemming2.blogspot.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Which political group is mainstream (was Re: The American Political Landscape Today)
On May 16, 2005, at 10:38 AM, Gautam Mukunda wrote: --- Nick Arnett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: When you write stuff like this, as if I'm another God-in-my-back-pocket prosperity-Gospel preacher, I'm pissed off. I'm angry when I hear you misrepresenting ideas that are very important to me, life and death issues. I'm certain that you know you are way out of line. Nick Then _distinguish what you believe_ from that, Nick. I don't think he has to. I don't see evidence of the nasty bite of fundamentalism in many of Nick's comments. What I see is someone working to reconcile a faith, but not someone using it as a beat-stick. I posted on how your use of religion makes me - someone from a different faith - enormously uncomfortable. It was ignored. Instead I just got more appeals to the Divinity for whatever policy you appear to favor today. I would say that someone who dragoons God into supporting his own policies is out of line, not someone who is perturbed by it. I don't see any evidence of Nick using any deity as a prop for supporting his policies, but then, maybe I missed something. It seems to me more that he's basing his ideas in his personal understanding of his faith, which -- and this is really remarkable -- is organic. Rather than falling back on a hardline stance that brooks no argument, Nick seems to be willing to discuss, concede and adapt. Also, as an atheist, I feel I can ask you why others' discussing -- or even basing their views in -- their religion makes you uncomfortable. Do you feel they're evangelizing, and thus minimizing your perspective? Or do you feel they're overlooking other ideals, possibly from your own background, that are equally valid? If either, what would be the harm in pointing out the lacunae? -- Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books http://books.nightwares.com/ Current work in progress "The Seven-Year Mirror" http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The American Political Landscape Today
On May 16, 2005, at 9:03 AM, Gautam Mukunda wrote: --- Dave Land <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: This does not appear to be the case. People often vote *against* their self-interest. This conundrum appears to be resolved by the understanding that people vote their identities, not their interests. The Republican party did a superior job in the past election of appealing to the middle in this way. Dave This is true _only_ if you are so arrogant that you believe you understand people's self interest better than they do. Thomas Hobbes had something to say about that centuries ago. It wasn't true then that elites could (or would) understand most people's self interest better than they did, and it isn't true now. Maybe they _do_ vote their self interest, and you just don't understand what their self interest is. I know which one seems more likely to me. There are ample cases in the US today of one set of people believing they understand others' self-interests better than those people do. Surely you haven't forgotten the abortion debates, for instance. It's not necessarily elitism to suggest that someone's interests are more clear to others than they are to him/herself. And it's not elitist to suggest that many times people -- even voters -- act out of contingency or a kind of reflex when voting, rather than weighing long-term cost/benefit perspectives. -- Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books http://books.nightwares.com/ Current work in progress "The Seven-Year Mirror" http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The American Political Landscape Today
- Original Message - From: "Nick Arnett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" Sent: Monday, May 16, 2005 1:33 PM Subject: Re: The American Political Landscape Today > On Mon, 16 May 2005 13:18:26 -0500, Dan Minette wrote > > > I'm trying to think of which abortions the Democrats are willing to outlaw. > > I can't. > > How many Democrats think abortion is a good thing? I mean come on, is the > subject the goodness of abortion or is it the decision about whether or not it > should be illegal? And here we are in the same old trap. The point is, most Americans believe that abortions should be illegal some of the time. Most Democrats support the legality of all abortions, even for development beyond viability. The real important point to watch, IMHO, is whether someone states late term abortions should be acceptable if required for the health of the mother or the life of the mother. The latter is supported by most. With the former, one can always find a mental health professional who will state that continued pregnancy will have an adverse effect on the health of the motherso it's functionally on-demand. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The American Political Landscape Today
- Original Message - From: "Gary Denton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" Sent: Monday, May 16, 2005 12:46 PM Subject: Re: The American Political Landscape Today On 5/16/05, Dan Minette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > - Original Message - > From: "Nick Arnett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "Killer Bs Discussion" > Sent: Monday, May 16, 2005 11:59 AM > Subject: Re: The American Political Landscape Today > > > On Mon, 16 May 2005 11:34:35 -0500, Dan Minette wrote > > > > Poll after poll shows that a vast gap between the popularity of > conservative > > politicians and the popularity of their politics. > > I don't see it that way. Let's take one contraversial subject: abortion. > The standard liberal Democratic position is to defend all abortions > without > question. Yet, if you look at >FALSE. That is setting up a straw man to knock it down. I have never heard >any politician defend all abortions without question. That is not the >liberal position or the Democratic position. I guess, after two people got so excited, I may not have communicated effectively. The Democrats support the legality of all abortions without question. To me, in the public policy sphere, that's the support that is critical. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The American Political Landscape Today
On Mon, 16 May 2005 13:18:26 -0500, Dan Minette wrote > I'm trying to think of which abortions the Democrats are willing to outlaw. > I can't. How many Democrats think abortion is a good thing? I mean come on, is the subject the goodness of abortion or is it the decision about whether or not it should be illegal? And here we are in the same old trap. > Out of curiosity, if I'm an extremist conservative I didn't call you an extremist conservative. I was describing the idea you put forth. Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The American Political Landscape Today
- Original Message - From: "Nick Arnett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" Sent: Monday, May 16, 2005 12:56 PM Subject: Re: The American Political Landscape Today > On Mon, 16 May 2005 12:25:52 -0500, Dan Minette wrote > > > I don't see it that way. Let's take one contraversial subject: abortion. > > The standard liberal Democratic position is to defend all abortions without > > question. > > Extremist strawman hogwash. That is neither the party position, nor much of > anybody in it. Didn't the Democrat's fight long and hard to keep third trimester abortions. How many pro-life Democratic senators are there? How many pro-choice Republican senators? I'm trying to think of which abortions the Democrats are willing to outlaw. I can't. Maybe you can point to a wide range of abortions that the Democrats favor outlawing that I've missed. Then I'll admit to being an extremist. Out of curiosity, if I'm an extremist conservative, why did >40% of the people to the left of me vote Republican in the last election? Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The American Political Landscape today
--- Dave Land <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Fair enough. You believe that I have my head up my > ass, and you either > don't believe that it is a personal attack OR that > you are above the > community etiquette of Brin-L. No, but when one of the list-owners is as egregiously offensive - and, frankly, malign - as you are, I'm thinking it's pretty much a lost cause. I regret saying it. I shouldn't descend to your level, however well-deserved that might be. > As for pomposity, well: "Hello? Pot? Kettle here, > with a bit of bad > news for you..." > > Dave This from a guy who might well have been the basis for Poobah? Well, whatever. I would have to care about your opinion to be bothered by this - and I've realized that I don't, so why am I bothering? Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Freedom is not free" http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com Yahoo! Mail Stay connected, organized, and protected. Take the tour: http://tour.mail.yahoo.com/mailtour.html ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The American Political Landscape Today
On Mon, 16 May 2005 12:25:52 -0500, Dan Minette wrote > I don't see it that way. Let's take one contraversial subject: abortion. > The standard liberal Democratic position is to defend all abortions without > question. Extremist strawman hogwash. That is neither the party position, nor much of anybody in it. Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The American Political Landscape today
On May 16, 2005, at 10:43 AM, Gautam Mukunda wrote: Not really, no. You're right, you've "gotten up my nostril". I don't like being maliciously misquoted. I don't like being patronized by someone who is in no way my superior. I don't like people who distort religion to support secular political agendas. I don't like having the unimaginably pompous and self-important accuse me and others of such things. And when people do those things, I'm likely to react angrily. I don't use killfiles, because I guess there's some theoretical sense that, say, Gary might say something that is interesting, however low the odds are. But I probably would be better off doing so. Fair enough. You believe that I have my head up my ass, and you either don't believe that it is a personal attack OR that you are above the community etiquette of Brin-L. As for pomposity, well: "Hello? Pot? Kettle here, with a bit of bad news for you..." Dave ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The American Political Landscape today
I also retract the meds comment. I was catching up with my emails and it struck me how intemperate, even for Gautam, his remarks have been in the last day. -- Gary Denton Easter Lemming Blogs http://elemming.blogspot.com http://elemming2.blogspot.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The American Political Landscape Today
On 5/16/05, Dan Minette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > - Original Message - > From: "Nick Arnett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "Killer Bs Discussion" > Sent: Monday, May 16, 2005 11:59 AM > Subject: Re: The American Political Landscape Today > > > On Mon, 16 May 2005 11:34:35 -0500, Dan Minette wrote > > > > Poll after poll shows that a vast gap between the popularity of > conservative > > politicians and the popularity of their politics. > > I don't see it that way. Let's take one contraversial subject: abortion. > The standard liberal Democratic position is to defend all abortions > without > question. Yet, if you look at FALSE. That is setting up a straw man to knock it down. I have never heard any politician defend all abortions without question. That is not the liberal position or the Democratic position. http://www.pollingreport.com/abortion.htm > > you will see, in the 1st poll, that unlimited abortions are favored by > less > than a quarter of the population. Those who consider themselves pro-choice > and pro-life are close to equal. There is one other poll that has the > majority of the people saying the Democrats are closer to their position, > and there is one other poll that has less than 20% identify with the > liberal position. Because it isn't the liberal position but a straw man argument. >What will it take to debunk the myth that conservative politics and > policies are popular? > > It isn't a myth because you don't want to believe it. I try to read > numbers straight. I consider myself liberal and I've felt, as such, that > I've been in the minority since I left Madison Wisconsineven when I > lived in Conn. > > >What will it take for people to care more about their politics? > > A lot of people do care in Texasmany of them disagree with me, and, > probably, even more disagree with you. > > Dan M. > > -- Gary "working in local Texas politics" Denton Easter Lemming Blogs http://elemming.blogspot.com http://elemming2.blogspot.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The American Political Landscape today
--- Dave Land <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > It is clear that I have gotten up Gautam's nostril > this week, and I have > found his messages more than a little intemperate, > but I will not > descend with him to the level personal attacks, and > hope you'll allow me > to invite you to resist the temptation as well. > So I'll ask (taking Gautam temporarily out of my > killfile so I can see > his no doubt thoughtful and honorable reply): When > you said "why don't > you remove your head from your ass," did you mean > something other than > that you think I have my head up my ass? > > Dave Not really, no. You're right, you've "gotten up my nostril". I don't like being maliciously misquoted. I don't like being patronized by someone who is in no way my superior. I don't like people who distort religion to support secular political agendas. I don't like having the unimaginably pompous and self-important accuse me and others of such things. And when people do those things, I'm likely to react angrily. I don't use killfiles, because I guess there's some theoretical sense that, say, Gary might say something that is interesting, however low the odds are. But I probably would be better off doing so. Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Freedom is not free" http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com Yahoo! Mail Stay connected, organized, and protected. Take the tour: http://tour.mail.yahoo.com/mailtour.html ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Which political group is mainstream (was Re: The American Political Landscape Today)
--- Nick Arnett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > When you write stuff like this, as if I'm another > God-in-my-back-pocket > prosperity-Gospel preacher, I'm pissed off. I'm > angry when I hear you > misrepresenting ideas that are very important to me, > life and death issues. > > I'm certain that you know you are way out of line. > > Nick Then _distinguish what you believe_ from that, Nick. I posted on how your use of religion makes me - someone from a different faith - enormously uncomfortable. It was ignored. Instead I just got more appeals to the Divinity for whatever policy you appear to favor today. I would say that someone who dragoons God into supporting his own policies is out of line, not someone who is perturbed by it. Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Freedom is not free" http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com Discover Yahoo! Find restaurants, movies, travel and more fun for the weekend. Check it out! http://discover.yahoo.com/weekend.html ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The American Political Landscape Today
Well this discussion certainly hasn't moved beyond Red and Blue. In regards to recent comments, in issue after issue the conservative Democrats are more like the two groups to their left, the other Democrats, then to the Republican groups. http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?PageID=948 Right now the debate is centered around foreign policy and that is why on national politics the GOP keeps getting narrow wins. War in Iraq - Was it the Right Decison? Enterprisers 94% Yes Social Conservatives 88% Pro-government Conservatives 72% Upbeats 66 Disaffecteds 50 -- oops, the center slightly supports this Conservative Democrats 28 Disadvantaged Democrats 15 Liberals 11 Perhaps the GOP should stop bashing liberals. Liberals are the only Democratic group where a slim majority believes since we are already there we need to stay and not send our troops home now. Politics does seem more about identity now and a few ideas that are repeated over and over again in the boom box media. French bashing for example. While praising Bush for acting out for America's self-interest it become morally beyond the pale and the basis for condemning entire countries like France when it is believed to have considered its own interests. There is way too much "cheese-eating surrender monkey" talk as you might expect when we have fallen into the politics of Eric Hoffer's "True Believers" and their particular psychological problems. Gary "who once heard Rush totally misread Hoffer as supporting his dittoheads" Denton Easter Lemming Blogs http://elemming.blogspot.com http://elemming2.blogspot.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The American Political Landscape Today
- Original Message - From: "Nick Arnett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" Sent: Monday, May 16, 2005 11:59 AM Subject: Re: The American Political Landscape Today > On Mon, 16 May 2005 11:34:35 -0500, Dan Minette wrote > > > Isn't there a simpler explanation? Conservative Democrats are > > people who are traditional Democrats, based on families, etc., but > > are actually conservative. Thus, they identify themselves as > > Democrats but often do vote Republican based on their views of the > > issues. The old "yellow dog Democrats" in Texas, for example, were > > often very conservative. > > How can you reconcile this explanation with the data at hand? > > "The Republican Party's current advantage with the center makes up for the > fact that the GOP-oriented groups, when taken together, account for only 29% > of the public. By contrast, the three Democratic groups constitute 41% of the > public." > > This was from about self-identification. It was about core beliefs. > > Here are the self-identification numbers: One set of self-identification numbers. The other, I gave for the last 30 years in an earlier post. For the last available year (2003) the numbers are: Conservative: 33% Moderate: 40% Liberal: 18%. > "Taken together, the three Democratic groups make up a larger share of > registered voters than do the three Republican groups (44% vs. 33%)." That's true...Conservative Democrats have been self-identified as Democrats. But, the advantage the Democrats have had is slipping. For example, in 1980, 41% were self-identified Democrats vs. 24% Republican. In 2003, the numbers were 33% Dem, 28% Rep. http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=444 The Pew poll that was conducted seemed to do some rather atypical things to arrive at catagories. It is inconsistant with years of polling data that I've seen. I've reconciled those polling data with the election results that I've seen...without assuming cognative dissonence on the part of the voters. > Poll after poll shows that a vast gap between the popularity of conservative > politicians and the popularity of their politics. I don't see it that way. Let's take one contraversial subject: abortion. The standard liberal Democratic position is to defend all abortions without question. Yet, if you look at http://www.pollingreport.com/abortion.htm you will see, in the 1st poll, that unlimited abortions are favored by less than a quarter of the population. Those who consider themselves pro-choice and pro-life are close to equal. There is one other poll that has the majority of the people saying the Democrats are closer to their position, and there is one other poll that has less than 20% identify with the liberal position. >What will it take to debunk the myth that conservative politics and policies are popular? It isn't a myth because you don't want to believe it. I try to read numbers straight. I consider myself liberal and I've felt, as such, that I've been in the minority since I left Madison Wisconsineven when I lived in Conn. >What will it take for people to care more about their politics? A lot of people do care in Texasmany of them disagree with me, and, probably, even moredisagree with you. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The American Political Landscape today
On May 16, 2005, at 10:04 AM, Gary Denton wrote: On 5/16/05, Gautam Mukunda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: --- Dave Land <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: You persist in making personal attacks on me. Knock it off. Dave You persist in being a jackass. Why don't _you_ knock it off? I'm still pissed at being maliciously quoted out of context, forget about being accused of a lack of intellectual honesty by someone who (as far as I can tell) couldn't find it with a map. So why don't you remove your head from your ass, and then I'll stop pointing out it's up there? Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Freedom is not free" http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com Way off his meds today and getting way out of line. I'm not reading Gautam's messages these days except as they're quoted by others (killfile and all that), and one might not expect me to come to his aid, but in the spirit of fairness, your first phrase strikes me as a personal attack. It is clear that I have gotten up Gautam's nostril this week, and I have found his messages more than a little intemperate, but I will not descend with him to the level personal attacks, and hope you'll allow me to invite you to resist the temptation as well. The relevant part of our etiquette guidelines requires that I read the offending message "ALOUD... TWICE!" and consider whether there may be a milder way to interpret his remarks. Then I am to ask whether the "perpetrator" meant the "worse version" of the message. So I'll ask (taking Gautam temporarily out of my killfile so I can see his no doubt thoughtful and honorable reply): When you said "why don't you remove your head from your ass," did you mean something other than that you think I have my head up my ass? Dave ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The American Political Landscape today
On 5/16/05, Gautam Mukunda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- Dave Land <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > You persist in making personal attacks on me. > > > > Knock it off. > > > > Dave > > You persist in being a jackass. Why don't _you_ knock > it off? I'm still pissed at being maliciously quoted > out of context, forget about being accused of a lack > of intellectual honesty by someone who (as far as I > can tell) couldn't find it with a map. So why don't > you remove your head from your ass, and then I'll stop > pointing out it's up there? > > Gautam Mukunda > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > "Freedom is not free" > http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com > Way off his meds today and getting way out of line. -- Gary Denton Easter Lemming Blogs http://elemming.blogspot.com http://elemming2.blogspot.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The American Political Landscape Today
On Mon, 16 May 2005 11:34:35 -0500, Dan Minette wrote > Isn't there a simpler explanation? Conservative Democrats are > people who are traditional Democrats, based on families, etc., but > are actually conservative. Thus, they identify themselves as > Democrats but often do vote Republican based on their views of the > issues. The old "yellow dog Democrats" in Texas, for example, were > often very conservative. How can you reconcile this explanation with the data at hand? "The Republican Party's current advantage with the center makes up for the fact that the GOP-oriented groups, when taken together, account for only 29% of the public. By contrast, the three Democratic groups constitute 41% of the public." This was from about self-identification. It was about core beliefs. Here are the self-identification numbers: "Taken together, the three Democratic groups make up a larger share of registered voters than do the three Republican groups (44% vs. 33%)." Poll after poll shows that a vast gap between the popularity of conservative politicians and the popularity of their politics. What will it take to debunk the myth that conservative politics and policies are popular? What will it take for people to care more about their politics? Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The American Political Landscape today
On May 16, 2005, at 9:07 AM, Gautam Mukunda wrote: --- Dave Land <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: You persist in making personal attacks on me. Knock it off. Dave You persist in being a jackass. Why don't _you_ knock it off? I'm still pissed at being maliciously quoted out of context, forget about being accused of a lack of intellectual honesty by someone who (as far as I can tell) couldn't find it with a map. So why don't you remove your head from your ass, and then I'll stop pointing out it's up there? Welcome to my killfile. Dave ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Which political group is mainstream (was Re: The American Political Landscape Today)
On Mon, 16 May 2005 09:00:12 -0700 (PDT), Gautam Mukunda wrote > Not you, Nick. Most Americans don't think God has an > opinion on marginal tax rates, and most of those who > do don't share yours. When you write stuff like this, as if I'm another God-in-my-back-pocket prosperity-Gospel preacher, I'm pissed off. I'm angry when I hear you misrepresenting ideas that are very important to me, life and death issues. I'm certain that you know you are way out of line. Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The American Political Landscape Today
- Original Message - From: "Dave Land" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" Sent: Sunday, May 15, 2005 11:16 PM Subject: Re: The American Political Landscape Today > > On May 15, 2005, at 9:07 AM, Ronn!Blankenship wrote: > > > At 10:59 AM Sunday 5/15/2005, Nick Arnett wrote: > > > >> How does one go about persuading people to vote for candidates with > >> whom > >> they fundamentally disagree? Politics is quite mysterious. > > > > > > Perhaps it's because so often when people get to the polls they hold > > their noses and vote for the least objectionable of the available > > choices or the one they think is likely to either do the most for them > > personally or at least to do the least to harm them? > > This does not appear to be the case. People often vote *against* their > self-interest. This conundrum appears to be resolved by the > understanding that people vote their identities, not their interests. > The Republican party did a superior job in the past election of > appealing to the middle in this way. > Isn't there a simpler explanation? Conservative Democrats are people who are traditional Democrats, based on families, etc., but are actually conservative. Thus, they identify themselves as Democrats but often do vote Republican based on their views of the issues. The old "yellow dog Democrats" in Texas, for example, were often very conservative. With all due respect, this type of analysis, when not cross checked by other techniques, can yield the results that are desired, instead of the results that are accurate. I think Gautam has overstated the present conservative numbers, but conservatives do appear to outnumber liberals by about 2 to 1. IMHO, staring at what empirical information that is available and trying hard to fit it with rough models is one of the best ways to get beyond ideology. Indeed, one could even do this to determine who has been able to find common ground across the political spectrum most and find out what techniques were used. I fear, though, that getting around ideology is a liberal coping mechanism for denying the fact that liberals need to retool and rethink their ideas in light of the last 40 years of experience. Dan M. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The American Political Landscape today
--- Dave Land <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > You persist in making personal attacks on me. > > Knock it off. > > Dave You persist in being a jackass. Why don't _you_ knock it off? I'm still pissed at being maliciously quoted out of context, forget about being accused of a lack of intellectual honesty by someone who (as far as I can tell) couldn't find it with a map. So why don't you remove your head from your ass, and then I'll stop pointing out it's up there? Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Freedom is not free" http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - Helps protect you from nasty viruses. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The American Political Landscape Today
--- Dave Land <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > This does not appear to be the case. People often > vote *against* their > self-interest. This conundrum appears to be resolved > by the > understanding that people vote their identities, not > their interests. > The Republican party did a superior job in the past > election of > appealing to the middle in this way. > > Dave This is true _only_ if you are so arrogant that you believe you understand people's self interest better than they do. Thomas Hobbes had something to say about that centuries ago. It wasn't true then that elites could (or would) understand most people's self interest better than they did, and it isn't true now. Maybe they _do_ vote their self interest, and you just don't understand what their self interest is. I know which one seems more likely to me. Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Freedom is not free" http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com __ Yahoo! Mail Mobile Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Check email on your mobile phone. http://mobile.yahoo.com/learn/mail ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Which political group is mainstream (was Re: The American Political Landscape Today)
--- Nick Arnett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Who is mainstream, according to this report? Who, > Gautam > > Nick Not you, Nick. Most Americans don't think God has an opinion on marginal tax rates, and most of those who do don't share yours. I am comfortable with my own position as pretty near the median voter. Could you even _find_ the median voter? Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Freedom is not free" http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - Find what you need with new enhanced search. http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Which political group is mainstream (was Re: The American Political Landscape Today)
On Sun, 15 May 2005 13:04:29 -0700 (PDT), Gautam Mukunda wrote > In particular, the categories are not continuous, > obviously enough. Again with the tubular cured meat. Left, middle and right are not continuous! At what center are the centrists? What are the middle-of-the-road people in the middle of? >From the report: "The Republican Party's current advantage with the center makes up for the fact that the GOP-oriented groups, when taken together, account for only 29% of the public. By contrast, the three Democratic groups constitute 41% of the public." And: "At the other end of the political spectrum, Liberals have swelled to become the largest voting bloc in the typology. Liberals are opponents of an assertive foreign policy, strong supporters of environmental protection, and solid backers of government assistance to the poor. "This affluent, well-educated, highly secular group is consistently liberal on social issues, ranging from freedom of expression to abortion. In contrast, Conservative Democrats are quite religious, socially conservative and take more moderate positions on several key foreign policy questions. The group is older, and includes many blacks and Hispanics; of all the core Democratic groups, it has strongest sense of personal empowerment." And: "Taken together, the three Democratic groups make up a larger share of registered voters than do the three Republican groups (44% vs. 33%)." And how about this one? "Nearly two-thirds of Americans (64%) have a favorable opinion of Bill Clinton, the highest positive rating of 11 political figures tested. Six-in- ten have a favorable opinion of former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, and about the same number have a positive view of Sen. John McCain (59%)." Who is mainstream, according to this report? Who, Gautam Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The American Political Landscape Today
On Sun, 15 May 2005 12:11:23 -0400, JDG wrote > First of all, that is not what Dave Land proposed. He proposed > that "17%" was the mainstream. It seems that we differ with respect to our understanding of what Dave might have meant. I'd rather not assume that either one of is correct until we hear from Dave, as he may not have found the right words for what he was trying to convey. > Secondly, it appears that the Pew Report rather arbitrarily grouped things > into threes. If one considers "Conservative Democrats" to be part > of the "Moderate/Centrist" bloc, the analysis changes quite dramatically. I interpreted as a continuum in which the order is significant to the point where the rearrangement you propose would be nonsense. > I'm sure that much of it has to do prioritizing key issues. For > example, many people would never vote for a pro-segregation > candidate or a pro-baby-killing candidate, regardless of the > candidates' views on other issues. On the other hand, I know that > if an election were held in 2002, I would probably have voted for a > pro-choice pro-Iraq-war candidate over a pro-life anti-Iraq-war > candidate. So, in that sense, I would have voted for a candidate > with whom I very fundamentally disagreed. Is it fair to say, then, that you believe that the Pew study asked the wrong questions to describe the basis on which people have voted in recent elections? If so, I'd be curious to hear what kind of questions might have more accurately done so... and if you're aware of any polls or surveys that come closer, I'd love to see the results. As I said earlier, the survey at hand doesn't seem to do much toward getting past the usual political dimensions, so I'm open to seeing more realistic ones. Otherwise, I think we're stuck with the same old ideologies. Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The American Political Landscape Today
- Original Message - From: "Dave Land" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" Sent: Saturday, May 14, 2005 9:15 PM Subject: Re: The American Political Landscape Today > Gautam, et al, > > I'm writing to retract my previous message. I reject your > categorization of me as being out of the mainstream. Moreover, I found > your message a little short on what I'll call intellectual honesty. > > First, you admittedly pulled your numbers out of your ... um ... head, > whereas this thread was discussing *actual* numbers from a poll that > has been conducted for 15 years by the Pew Research Center. Guess which > ones I consider to have more weight? > > Second, your four groups of 20% are skewed to the right. Why didn't you > have five groups: > > Very Conservative 20% > Conservative 20% > Moderate 20% >Liberal 20% > Very Liberal 20% > -- Source: My Ass > > Using the above categories, which at least provide a centered spectrum, > feel free to provide your own numbers. > > Third, I don't understand why your four categories only added up to > 80%, leaving out 20% of the population. Do you think that the opinions > of 20% of Americans don't count, or that 20% don't have any opinions? > That is certainly heading in the direction of at least one finding in > the Pew report: 63% of respondents feel that "Most elected officials > don't care what people like me think." > > Perhaps your story would be better served with these groupings (with no > bullshit numbers): Extremely Conservative, Very Conservative, > Moderately Conservative, Mildly Conservative, Lunatic Fringe. > > Returning to meaningful results of an actual poll, the categories and > percentages under discussion are: > > Right-leaning: > Enterprisers 9% > Social Conservatives 11% > Pro-Government Conservatives 9% > > Centrist/Unaffiliated: > Upbeats 11% > Disaffecteds 9% >Bystanders 10% > > Left-leaning: >Conservative Democrats 14% > Disadvantaged Democrats 10% > Liberals 17% > > As you can see, the Liberals *as defined by the Pew report* are the > largest bloc. The "mainstream," one might say. > > For the three general groupings that the Pewsters created, the > percentages are: > > Right-leaning 29% > Centrist/Neither 30% > Left-leaning 41% Well, that is very curious, since self-identification has long given different results. For example, the Harris poll asks people to identify themselves as liberal, moderate, or conservative. The results have been: Year C M L 2003 33 40 18 2002 35 40 17 2001 36 40 19 2000 35 40 18 1999 37 39 18 1998 37 40 19 1997 37 40 19 1996 38 41 19 1995 40 40 16 1992 36 42 18 1991 37 41 18 1990 38 41 18 1989 37 42 17 1988 38 39 18 1987 37 39 19 1986 37 39 18 1985 37 40 17 1984 35 39 18 1983 36 40 18 1982 36 40 18 1981 38 40 17 1980 35 41 18 1979 35 39 20 1978 34 39 17 1977 30 42 17 1976 31 40 18 1975 30 38 18 1974 30 43 15 1972 31 36 20 1968 37 31 17 Among other things, it's a amazing to lump folks who call themselves conservatives among liberals. The questions sound kinda funny. It doesn't add to 100% because everyone doesn't self-identify. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The American Political Landscape Today
On May 15, 2005, at 9:07 AM, Ronn!Blankenship wrote: At 10:59 AM Sunday 5/15/2005, Nick Arnett wrote: How does one go about persuading people to vote for candidates with whom they fundamentally disagree? Politics is quite mysterious. Perhaps it's because so often when people get to the polls they hold their noses and vote for the least objectionable of the available choices or the one they think is likely to either do the most for them personally or at least to do the least to harm them? This does not appear to be the case. People often vote *against* their self-interest. This conundrum appears to be resolved by the understanding that people vote their identities, not their interests. The Republican party did a superior job in the past election of appealing to the middle in this way. Dave ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The American Political Landscape today
On May 15, 2005, at 12:52 PM, Gautam Mukunda wrote: --- Dave Land <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I'm clearly out of *your* main stream... Main stream of what, I'm not entirely sure, but I am happy to be out of it. Dave Well, I like to think about politics, you like to posture about them. It's not surprising that we'd come to different positions, is it? You persist in making personal attacks on me. Knock it off. Dave ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The American Political Landscape Today
In any case, labels aside, the center is pretty much by definition the mainstream. -- Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The American Political Landscape Today
* Robert J. Chassell ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > JDG, you weaken your argments when you take Dave's words out of > context. For example, you also queried whether Conservative Democrats > should be considered `Left-leaning'. That is a good question. No, it is not a good question. This whole thing is really silly. Start with a label "liberal", and then come up with another 2 labels. You can bet that one of the other two labels will have the plurality. If instead you add 20 more labels, then liberal will probably have plurality. Play around with the labels and you can get whatever you want. It is just silly. Why the need to arbitrarily pigeonhole? We already have the labels Democrat and Republican. And the Republicans have been winning lately. I'd venture a guess that the Democrats would have done better recently if the more left-leaning ones had less influence on the party. Robert, you weaken your arguments by engaging in this silly slicing, dicing, and labeling. Do you want people to ignore you as irrelevant? > I have not the foggiest idea whether Pew-defined `Conservative > Democrats' are for borrowing and spending, like the current Republican > administration, or for government frugality, like the current > Democrats; Ha, the Democrats frugal? No. Both Democrats and Republicans have failed to fix Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security, which together have a present value deficit in the tens of trillions of dollars. The main difference that I see between the Democrats and the Republicans is that the Republicans spend more and tax less, and the Democrats spend more and tax more. Granted, the latter is better than the former, but hardly frugal. -- Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The American Political Landscape Today
JDG said First of all, that is not what Dave Land proposed. He proposed that "17%" was the mainstream. No, he did not. He said As you can see, the Liberals *as defined by the Pew report* are the largest bloc. The "mainstream," one might say. Note the key phrase: "one might say." Also, note that the word "mainstream" is in quotation marks. Dave emphasizes that the numbers are *as defined by the Pew report* [emphasis his]: Right-leaning: Enterprisers 9% Social Conservatives 11% Pro-Government Conservatives 9% Centrist/Unaffiliated: Upbeats 11% Disaffecteds 9% Bystanders 10% Left-leaning: Conservative Democrats 14% Disadvantaged Democrats 10% Liberals 17% JDG, you weaken your argments when you take Dave's words out of context. For example, you also queried whether Conservative Democrats should be considered `Left-leaning'. That is a good question. I have not the foggiest idea whether Pew-defined `Conservative Democrats' are for borrowing and spending, like the current Republican administration, or for government frugality, like the current Democrats; whether they are for life-inducing policies, such as abortion when necessary, or for death (over all), by apposing such policies; whether they are for public investment in long term activities, like the invention and innovation of sustainable energy sources, or for public investment in short term activities only. But who is going to think about that question when you give the appearance of disregarding what people say? I doubt you want to become known someone to be ignored as irrelevant. -- Robert J. Chassell [EMAIL PROTECTED] GnuPG Key ID: 004B4AC8 http://www.rattlesnake.com http://www.teak.cc ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The American Political Landscape Today
--- Dave Land <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Gautam, et al, > > I'm writing to retract my previous message. I reject > your > categorization of me as being out of the mainstream. > Moreover, I found > your message a little short on what I'll call > intellectual honesty. I was pointing out - using a hypothetical - that your statements didn't even vaguely resemble rational thinking. It's a fairly obvious technique. But, again, I like to _reason_ about politics, and that does make it hard. > First, you admittedly pulled your numbers out of > your ... um ... head, > whereas this thread was discussing *actual* numbers > from a poll that > has been conducted for 15 years by the Pew Research > Center. Guess which > ones I consider to have more weight? Guess how much I care? Since I was using a hypothetical, they weren't supposed to be real numbers. > Right-leaning: > Enterprisers 9% > Social Conservatives 11% > Pro-Government Conservatives 9% > > Centrist/Unaffiliated: > Upbeats 11% > Disaffecteds 9% >Bystanders 10% > > Left-leaning: >Conservative Democrats 14% > Disadvantaged Democrats 10% > Liberals 17% > > As you can see, the Liberals *as defined by the Pew > report* are the > largest bloc. The "mainstream," one might say. Only if you believe that _conservatives_, that is, people who are _actually defined as conservatives_, "Conservative Democrats", are liberals. That is an odd definition. As a rule of thumb, if you ask people, "are you conservative, moderate, or liberal" they'll split ~40/40/20 pretty consistently. The Pew thing was based on a series of very strange questions - I took the categorization myself and ended up in a very odd place. It's not surprising that you scored as a liberal. If you're purely doctrinaire in what you believe, it's easy for a poll to categorize you. If you are a little more thoughtful in your positions, it's harder. Guess which one I think is more likely to be useful? In particular, the categories are not continuous, obviously enough. You have most Americans, and you have people who think that, say, the United States needs the approval of Communist China, Russia, and France in order to act in the world. These are not, in fact, positions on a continuum. The difference in our positions really comes to this. You selected a small amount of data, took it completely out of context, and then distorted it to support your own positions. Kind of like what you think President Bush did, I guess, but more blatant. On the other hand, I looked at what the data actually meant and pointed out that your assertion - essentially, the single largest group must be the mainstream - even when it was only 17% of the total - is, on its face, nonsensical. Which one of us has problems with intellectual honesty, again? At least this time you didn't quote me maliciously out of context, so I guess you're improving. Small mercies, I suppose. Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Freedom is not free" http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com Discover Yahoo! Have fun online with music videos, cool games, IM and more. Check it out! http://discover.yahoo.com/online.html ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The American Political Landscape today
--- Dave Land <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> I'm clearly out of *your* main stream... Main stream > of what, > I'm not entirely sure, but I am happy to be out of > it. > > Dave Well, I like to think about politics, you like to posture about them. It's not surprising that we'd come to different positions, is it? Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Freedom is not free" http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com Discover Yahoo! Use Yahoo! to plan a weekend, have fun online and more. Check it out! http://discover.yahoo.com/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The American Political Landscape Today
At 11:28 AM Sunday 5/15/2005, Robert Seeberger wrote: - Original Message - From: "Ronn!Blankenship" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" Sent: Sunday, May 15, 2005 11:07 AM Subject: Re: The American Political Landscape Today > At 10:59 AM Sunday 5/15/2005, Nick Arnett wrote: > >>How does one go about persuading people to vote for candidates with >>whom they >>fundamentally disagree? Politics is quite mysterious. > > > Perhaps it's because so often when people get to the polls they hold > their noses and vote for the least objectionable of the available > choices or the one they think is likely to either do the most for > them personally or at least to do the least to harm them? > > A more likely explanation is that your average voter is lazy and insecure. They are lazy when it comes to searching out the facts and doing any kind of "work" that goes along with making an informed decision. They are insecure in that they will cling to a comforting lie rather than confront an uncomfortable truth. This makes them manipulable. It is only after bad information and bad choices that nose holding at the polls will occur. Sometimes it may be because the perfect (or at least best) candidate (in my opinion as a voter) is defeated in the primary and so when it comes to the general election all of the available candidates have something wrong with them (again, in my opinion as a voter), so I either have to hold my nose and vote for the lesser of the two evils or sit this election out, but as a "good citizen" I feel it is my duty to vote. so . . . -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The American Political Landscape Today
- Original Message - From: "Ronn!Blankenship" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" Sent: Sunday, May 15, 2005 11:07 AM Subject: Re: The American Political Landscape Today > At 10:59 AM Sunday 5/15/2005, Nick Arnett wrote: > >>How does one go about persuading people to vote for candidates with >>whom they >>fundamentally disagree? Politics is quite mysterious. > > > Perhaps it's because so often when people get to the polls they hold > their noses and vote for the least objectionable of the available > choices or the one they think is likely to either do the most for > them personally or at least to do the least to harm them? > > A more likely explanation is that your average voter is lazy and insecure. They are lazy when it comes to searching out the facts and doing any kind of "work" that goes along with making an informed decision. They are insecure in that they will cling to a comforting lie rather than confront an uncomfortable truth. This makes them manipulable. It is only after bad information and bad choices that nose holding at the polls will occur. I have faith in American voters in the long run, but in the short run they resemble skittish herd beasts. xponent Shake 'N' Bake Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The American Political Landscape Today
At 07:15 PM 5/14/2005 -0700, Dave Land wrote: >Right-leaning: > Enterprisers 9% > Social Conservatives 11% >Pro-Government Conservatives 9% > >Centrist/Unaffiliated: > Upbeats 11% > Disaffecteds 9% > Bystanders 10% > >Left-leaning: > Conservative Democrats 14% > Disadvantaged Democrats 10% > Liberals 17% And Nick Arnett wrote: >> > Liberals 17% >> > >> >As you can see, the Liberals *as defined by the Pew report* are the >> >largest bloc. The "mainstream," one might say. >> >> Shirley, you can't be serious? > >The Pew numbers show that "left-leaning" or "left-leaning/centrist/ >unaffiliated" is the mainstream, don't they? First of all, that is not what Dave Land proposed. He proposed that "17%" was the mainstream. Secondly, it appears that the Pew Report rather arbitrarily grouped things into threes. If one considers "Conservative Democrats" to be part of the "Moderate/Centrist" bloc, the analysis changes quite dramatically. >How does one go about persuading people to vote for candidates with whom they >fundamentally disagree? I'm sure that much of it has to do prioritizing key issues. For example, many people would never vote for a pro-segregation candidate or a pro-baby-killing candidate, regardless of the candidates' views on other issues. On the other hand, I know that if an election were held in 2002, I would probably have voted for a pro-choice pro-Iraq-war candidate over a pro-life anti-Iraq-war candidate. So, in that sense, I would have voted for a candidate with whom I very fundamentally disagreed. JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The American Political Landscape Today
At 10:59 AM Sunday 5/15/2005, Nick Arnett wrote: How does one go about persuading people to vote for candidates with whom they fundamentally disagree? Politics is quite mysterious. Perhaps it's because so often when people get to the polls they hold their noses and vote for the least objectionable of the available choices or the one they think is likely to either do the most for them personally or at least to do the least to harm them? -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The American Political Landscape Today
On Sun, 15 May 2005 00:16:57 -0400, JDG wrote > At 07:15 PM 5/14/2005 -0700, you wrote: > > Liberals 17% > > > >As you can see, the Liberals *as defined by the Pew report* are the > >largest bloc. The "mainstream," one might say. > > Shirley, you can't be serious? The Pew numbers show that "left-leaning" or "left-leaning/centrist/ unaffiliated" is the mainstream, don't they? Certainly one cannot argue from this data that conservatism is mainstream -- it shows that 71 percent of Americans are not conservative. Those in possession of conservative beliefs appear to be in the minority by a margin that if applied to voting results would be called a "landslide." It seems to me that one cannot assume that people vote for candidates because they share their political views. Seems crazy, doesn't it? Raises the question of why a whole lot of people in the mainstream vote for politicians whose political views are close to marginal. How does one go about persuading people to vote for candidates with whom they fundamentally disagree? Politics is quite mysterious. Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The American Political Landscape Today
At 07:15 PM 5/14/2005 -0700, you wrote: > Liberals 17% > >As you can see, the Liberals *as defined by the Pew report* are the >largest bloc. The "mainstream," one might say. Shirley, you can't be serious? JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
