The Big Lie of the Anti-choice Right

Tags

abortion, abstinence, pro-life, religion, right to choose, sex education, sexuality, women's bodies, Women's issues

It is probably true that there is no basis of compromise between the two sides. One either believes that there is a fundamental right of a woman to control her own body or one believes that  conception and the resultant life trumps all other issues from the moment that sperm meets ovum.

We can all agree to that. What choice people profess, and most anti-choicers refuse to acknowledge, is that choice people also want to reduce abortion in every effective way possible short of legally restricting the right. Nobody is “for” abortion as the “pro-lifers” are want to insist.

Reasonable heads should prevail, one would assume. The question should become, “what can we do to effectively work toward reducing abortions?”

It would seem obvious that we can get together to work on that, right? Wrong.

Because that is part of the big lie of the right. They are not so much interested in reducing abortions as they are in winning on this issue, and controlling women’s bodies. And that suggests that it is not some “overriding” moral conclusion that is beyond religion as they claim. Make the argument that abortion is a religious issue, and wait for them to begin howling. No they claim, it’s not religion, its simple morality. Odd, since they will surely claim that all sense of morality comes from God, thus non-believers cannot be “moral” exactly.

If abortions are immoral, then reducing abortions must be more moral than merely  stubbornly objecting to abortions as being immoral. And the dirty little secret is that abortion is only part of the agenda for the religious right. The other item on the agenda is “contraception.” And this of course is very much a religious issue, and depends on a very specific type of belief, namely that sex is only for procreation and that to use any type of barrier to conception is a slap in the face to God.

No matter of course, that an omnipotent God can presumably frustrate the best efforts of humans to defy his wishes. It is the internal desire to take conception out of God’s hands that is objected to. And most every if not all the right to life organizations are anti-contraception.

There is a fascinating article by AlterNet on the subject, and with some amazing statistics. Tim Ryan, (D-OH) and pro-lifer, has been removed from a pro-life board of directors because he favors means to reduce abortion, including contraception. He has gone public and is underscoring that the real war is between a tiny segment of the “pro-life” movement, and the vast majority of pro-lifers who are like him, fine with contraception.

The realities are stark. Abstinence only programs are a failure, at best postponing for a few extra months, teens experimentation with sex. Worse, when they do begin having it, they don’t use protections and have a much higher incidence of STD’s and pregnancy, thus abstinence only programs actually result in increased abortions.

Study after study shows that broad based sex education works. States are moving away from AO after watching their statistics start to re-climb, back to comprehensive sex education, a proven method of reducing STD’s and unwanted pregnancy. Joining with Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-CT), Ryan sponsors the “Preventing unintended pregnancies, Reducing the need for abortion and supporting Parent’s Act,” which aims at instituting practices found useful from the “The Third Way,” a left-center think tank.

Various anti-choice organizations now call Ryan “so called” when it comes to being pro-life. But when polled 80% of those who self-identify with a pro-life stance, also are pro-contraception. The bill supports contraception, help for poor women who wish to carry to term, comprehensive sex education, and help for adoptive families. No pro-life group supports the legislation.

Only the Catholic church 0pposes contraception, even though 90% of its faithful use it or are in favor of its availability. There is no denomination whose support of contraception is below 88%. Jewish support is at 97%.  Even 70% of Republicans and Independents favor contraception and only a measly 2% of them don’t.

According to Ryan, only 20% of the pro-life movement favors no contraception, but they seem fully in control of the movement. Ryan urges that those within the movement need to hold that 20% accountable now.

It is obvious that this minority has an agenda separate and apart from reducing abortion. And I contend that that agenda is religious in nature and is theocratic in intent. It is nothing less than to impose religious concepts of sexual behavior onto the public at large, regardless of what their religious believes are or are not.

Certainly, it is perfectly fine for anyone to believe personally that contraception is wrong for them, and somehow against God. One’s personal theology is sacrosanct. However, to allow it to intrude to the point that one will not work for a  legitimate goal of reducing abortion, is telling to say the least. It in fact shows all too clearly that something else is at stake. The article is a real eye opener. It is what I have been contending for some time, and what no doubt others have realized as well.

It’s not just about “life” its also about controlling women and their sexuality.

If it Only Worked!

Tags

abstinence, sex education

Durex Condom Ad

On more than one occasion, I’ve spoken out about the futility of abstinence only programs.  And it seems that my conclusions are once more born out.

Recent studies show that those who take the virginity pledge are just as likely to violate said oath and engage in premarital sex as any other group of teenagers.

Worse, and the study is not sure why, those virginity pledgers are less likely to use any form of protection when they do fall off the abstinence wagon. This means that in the end, abstinence only programs must contribute to more pregnancies, abortions, and STD’s than those who receive comprehensive sex education.

This is sad indeed. Worse, it is, it would seem most immoral to withhold information to teens when so much is a stake in terms of health and the consequences of unwanted pregnancy. Fully a dozen states have opted out of the federal based program, for just this reason. The fact is that states that promote full sex education report that their incidence of STD’s and teen pregnancy are down.

Thanks to Bush and his band of wrong headed religious airheads, teen pregnancy is up for the first time in 15 years.  We are told that the Obama administration plans to revisit the federal funding issue and hopefully make some changes. It would seem the obvious thing to do.

This is just one example of government at it’s worst. There are studies upon studies that show that abstinence only doesn’t work. And yet, Congress dutifully passes legislation funding such programs. They do this in the face of the studies which are essentially ignored. The agenda of the right is being pursued even when it is clearly erroneous. In a time of economic disaster, can we afford to spend money, even so much as a dime on programs that are demonstrably not working?

It’s time to wake up and face reality. Those who really want their children protected will hear the warning and make sure that their states school systems promote a full and complete sex education program.

What This Says about McCain/Palin

Tags

abstinence, Election 2008, John McCain, Sarah Palin, sex education

My first reaction after my post the other day about Sarah Palin, was that enough was enough. She was relatively unimportant in the end, and I fully expected to move on to greener pastures.

The revelations about her 17 year-old daughter’s pregnancy changed that, and not for the reasons you may suppose. I, like Barack Obama, think that children of candidates are out of bounds. I truly feel terribly sad for this girl who has been thrust into the limelight in such a vulgar manner. Surely she could not have anticipated that her actions would have this unlikely consequence. But we are learning that we do not live in a rational world in America any more.

This issue raises several questions that it will be interesting to see play out over the succeeding days and weeks. The Republican machine will cry foul, claiming that the left is trying to paint the girl in some bad light. In truth, it has nothing to do with her, but it has everything to do with her parents and John McCain.

The questions are starting to fly today. The first question is about the competence of McCain and his machine. Some unknown woman came on GMA this morning to assure America that the McCain camp was well aware of this issue, in essence that Sarah Palin’s vetting has caught this. I’m not so sure.

Why then does the girl carry the baby and blankets surrounding her when first put on stage last Friday? Why not have the baby in someone else’s arms and let the world “see” the obvious?

Why does the McCain camp refuse to give any specifics about the “conversation” between himself and Mrs. Palin wherein this was discussed? We have learned that they met last February at a Governor’s conference in Washington. They spoke on the phone once, a week ago or so, and met once following that. I doubt that means more than three total hours. If I’m wrong, the McCain people are reluctant to explain further. Surely if Palin had discussed this with McCain, they would give those particulars to their mouthpieces to distribute to the media.

So we can at least feel some reason to believe that Palin did not disclose and the McCain folks didn’t find out until this turned up in the blogging world this weekend. Additionally, I read over the weekend that reporters who headed to Alaska and asked for the archives to a Fairbanks newspaper were told that “no one had been there yet to request their archives.” This suggests in reality that the Palin choice was a last minute affair and the vetting was superficial at best.

I think the scenario went something along the following lines: McCain has wanted Lieberman for a long time. He tried out trial balloons at his town hall meetings and got a rather bad reaction. There was a report that Rove called Lieberman and urged him to remove himself from contention. Rove wanted Romney chosen, but I suspect that McCain hates Romney and the feeling is fairly mutual. McCain couldn’t stomach the Romney idea, and finally realized that he couldn’t pick Lieberman without a full blown walk out by the religious right.

McCain apparently was told that Pawlenty wouldn’t add to his electoral numbers count. A radical change of pace was required, shoot the moon, go for it, and either pull off a stunning upset or lose as his caretakers were already predicting. So he passes over any number of “qualified” Republican women and goes with this shocking choice. It was a last minute cave-in by McCain to reality and then a sprint to do a vetting and be ready for Friday. Such is how I see it.

In the end, it is a poor statement on McCain’s judgment. That he is willing to bet the welfare of the country on a gimmick to try to win an election is both cynical and dishonorable. It is pure McCain, the pure Candidate McCain that is so different than Senator McCain. We begin to wonder if there ever was a real Senator McCain but only a calculating and manipulative McCain who has always in all times and in all places striven to orchestrate a scenario that would someday set him up to run for President.

The next issue raised is one I personally put not truck in but may be more important than we realize. Liz Trotta was on Foxthis morning. In a segment intended to turn the discussion to the “blatant sexism exhibited by the left,” the Fox blond headed brainless one, asked Ms. Trotta to comment on the issue.

Contrary to what the nameless face from Fox wanted to hear, Ms. Trotta said that among Republicansshe was talking to, there was a good deal of concern about whether Mrs. Palin and her family properly represented the family values they stand for. Ms. Trotta said this was an issue that was going to have to be addressed. The Foxite fumed, sputtered and reacted with shock. “I can’t believe that you don’t see this for the sexist thing it is. Why this is not Conservative values to be told that women shouldn’t be working when they have a family.”

Ms. Trotta held firm. “That is what I am hearing, and I’m hearing it from Conservatives.” The moderator retorted, “Well, it’s not what I am hearing from Conservatives here,” here being the RNC in Minneapolis. “With all due respect, you’re at the DNC, what would you expect to hear there? They are trying to win an election for heavens’ sake,” Ms Trotta replied. The interview came to a abrupt end. It should be noted that Ms. Trotta, according to the Contrarian who pays attention to Fox, is usually a well-spoken mouthpiece for the Republican world.

Like I said, I think Democrats are being rather careful in this area. Perhaps some liberals are not so careful. But I think this line of defense is somewhat manufactured on the Republican side. Yet Ms. Trotta  sees that even on their own side, they have some numbers of conservatives who are not on board apparently.

The last issue is that of sex education and abstinence. Ms. Palin is a firm believer in abstinence only education. So is McCain. Something like 20 something states in the US have refused federal funding for abstinence only programs in their state. The reason is quite simple, abstinence only doesn’t work. The studies are quite convincing of that.

There are really no credible studies that show that abstinence works to cut down pregnancy, abortion and STD’s in our teenage population. But there are indeed studies that prove that comprehensive sex education does work to drop the rates of all three. Students that receive CSE, are 60% less likely to become pregnant for instance.

Alaska is an abstinence only state. Sarah Palin stated in writing in the 2006 election in her state that she opposed sex education and contraceptive education and was for abstinence only. Such a position shows a shockingly sad lack of knowledge on her part and of course on McCain’s as well. She and Alaska stand with such states as Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana and other “bible belt” states, which notoriously also have the highest figures in divorce, pregnancy, and abortion. This is one issue that has come home to roost so to speak on Ms. Palin’s doorstep. If one claims to oppose abortion, one has to ask, who is doing more for reducing abortions, those who favor abstinence only, or those who favor CSE which includes information about contraception?

We are, it seems beginning to see the cracks in the sloppily built facade that McCain and crew have built. Governor Palin has much that is disturbing in her background it seems. A new report  of  her being affiliated with a group in Alaska that was Separatist? The apparent clear fact that she was “for” the bridge to nowhere before she was “against,” it. The fact that she has lobbied for earmarks for Alaska just like most everyone else, and that she didn’t return the bridge money, but kept it and used it for other projects. These all lend additional questions about her qualifications for the job of Vice President. Especially when the qualification seems to be that she is a “maverick.”

This can not be making the McCain people happy at all. The news is all about Sarah, and McCain has been shoved to the background, as a basically out of touch man who is being swallowed up in the events that keep unfolding. But then he created this mess. I for one am happy to watch him lie in it.

All Things to All Women?

Tags

abortion, abstinence, Election 2008, John McCain, Reproductive Rights, Women's issues

It started in the earliest days of his political career, when he was a congressman. John McCain paid an unscheduled visit to Planned Parenthood in his district and went on a rant that sent frantic workers to the phones asking for help. McCain, screaming so loudly that he scared patients and workers alike, claimed he would “shut the place down.” All this was because he mistakenly thought that paper to contact  their congressmen about abortion rights, was being paid for by federal funds. Such began the career of John Sidney McCain and the right to choose.

Why is this important you ask? Because Mac has tried to play a sly game of “where do I come down on pro-choice” for many a year, hoping to confuse just enough people to get votes he would never get if they knew the truth. Indeed, nearly half of all women supporting McCain claim to be pro-choice and are shocked to learn he isn’t. Just that good has been his campaign of obfuscation, something McCain has honed over the years on many issues.

It was especially in the forefront in 2000 when McCain sought to gain access to the middle, given that Dubya had secured the religious right with his anti-right to choose stance. During that campaign we got such platitudes as this:

“[I’d] love to see a point where [Roe] is irrelevant, and could be repealed because abortion is no longer necessary. … But certainly in the short term, or even the long term, I would not support repeal of Roe v. Wade, which would then force X number of women in America to [undergo] illegal and dangerous operations.” 

He further wanted the GOP platform for that election cycle to revert back to 1980 language, which:

“. . . recognize[d] differing views on this question among Americans in general–and in our own Party.”

Of course, McCain is strangely silent on abortion today. This is by design. He is more than happy to hope that numbers of women and men for that matter who are pro-choice are confused and believe that he is at least moderate on the subject. Nothing of course could be further from the truth, and when pushed, McCain will have to admit that or risk losing the entire religious right.

Virtually nobody who knows him well, and has worked for him since the beginning thinks otherwise either. He is against the pro-choice position unanimously. Some however, see his position on stem-cell research as indicating that he is more moderate. Such is simply not the case. It more probably reflects that McCain is quite simply not very bright and cannot see the connection between the two positions. Encounters with reporters questions, which  follow, support the argument that much of this discussion is a bit above his mental acuity.

When a reporter asked him whether  he thought it fair that insurance companies covered Viagra but not birth control, and why he voted against legislation requiring them to cover it, he first said he “didn’t want to discuss the issue,” and then finally retorted, “I don’t know enough about it to give you an informed answer.” So flummoxed did he become that he ended by claiming he couldn’t remember how he voted.  In response to a question of whether he thought contraception helped prevent HIV infection, he drooped and lamented, “You’ve stumped me.”

This coupled with his back and forth attitude about whether he would consider a pro-choice running mate (Tom Ridge to be specific) all goes to show quite clearly that McCain is uninformed to a great extent and is trying to play both sides of the street in hopes of continuing to confuse voters.

The facts are these:

• Of 130 Reproductive health issues votes he has cast in his time in Congress, 125 have been on the side of those favoring restrictions on abortion.
• He has voted to give in utero fetuses rights to be viewed as a legal victim of crime and also to cover them under SChip.
• He has voted to prohibit federal funds to international groups that run family planning clinics if they do abortions, give information about abortions, or help procure them.
• He has voted for pro-life federal judge nominees.
• He voted against allowing medicare to cover abortions for cases of rape and incest, although he was one of only 18 senators who did so.
• He voted against the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act, after an abortion provider was gunned down in 1994. Many moderate Republicans voted for it. Voting against it with McCain were Orrin Hatch and Jesse Helms.
• PPH and Naral consistently give him a zero rating.
• He has voted to end Title X family planning, because among all their other services they tend to offer abortion counseling, abortions and contraception.
• He has backed the abstinence-only funding even though it has been  utterly discredited as effective in reducing pregnancy, STD’s and abortions.
• He has supported parental notification requirements not only for abortions by teens but also for contraception.

Moreover, McCain, many claim, is not even open to discussing these issues. He refuses to meet with groups even on issues of family planning. He leaves them waiting forever in waiting rooms and otherwise is rude and downright nasty when he is engaged in general conversation. He continues to avoid the subject entirely preferring to use the code words “judicial activism” to assure his right-wing backers that he is firmly in their court. His “Judicial advisory board” is chock full of pro-lifers as well.

Let no woman or man be confused. John McCain will do what ever he can to repeal Roe v. Wade and otherwise limit women’s right to choose. I am deeply indebted to The New Republic and Sarah Blustain, for much of the information above. Please follow the link and read her report in full. It is chilling to those who believe that every woman has the right to choose.

Oh Women, McCain Wants YOU!

Tags

abortion, abstinence, Election 2008, equal pay, John McCain, Women's issues

I have to admit, I have found it curious and rather head scratching. Every time I have heard that women who were going to vote for Hillary were seriously thinking of giving that vote to McCain, I blanched, then recoiled, then went in the best Jon Stewart tradition—whhhaaaahhh?

Well it seems that like most of the electorate, a fair number of women are just not aware of the Mac’s history with women. Oh and I don’t mean his divorce and remarriage to wealthy Cindy. No, I’m referring to his past stances on women’s issues.

First it need be said that the now famous group, PUMA (Party Unity My Ass) formed after Hillary bowed out, and composed of her female supporters who refuse to go over to Obama, was (hold on to your panties ladies) actually formed by a McCain campaign donor. Yep, so says the Federal Elections Commission, and one would think they would know such things.

Thus the media has fallen down on the job once more. The size of PUMA is a good deal much smaller than claimed as well. Now McCain has said he welcomes these votes, but of course is not going after them. Bull-hockey pucks we say to that. Of course he is, (pointing up to the PUMA thing again.)

Much as I hate the carry-over language of the 2004 election, our dear old man is full of cow doodoo, and is once again rightly called a “flip-flopper.”

Facts: As early as 1999 McBush claimed he would not be for the repeal of Roe v. Wade, claiming it would force women to undergo illegal and  unsafe medical procedures. Today: Oh, that was misunderstood, somehow. He has “stated time and time again that Roe was a bad decision.”

He brags that he receives a zero rating from NARAL and Planned Parenthood. He claims his record is consistently pro-life. He has publicly claimed he will nominate pro-life judges to the SCOTUS.

According to Kate Sheppard in an article in In These Times, McCain has tried so hard to appease the wingnuts on the far right that he supported an amendment to SCHIPS declaring the unborn a child for the purposes of coverage, but then voted against extending coverage to poor women and pregnant women. Course that makes no sense, but we are talking about McCain after all.

He has consistently voted to imprison doctors and otherwise deny health care grants to institutions that provide abortion services. He routinely votes against providing education and contraception to teens, and opposed legislation that demanded that abstinence only education be accurate medically and scientifically. He votes against medical insurance coverage for contraception, but votes for measures that require insurance companies to cover Viagra prescriptions.

Of course, as McCain is wont to do, much of this he doesn’t remember anyway. When queried he gets confused, assumes he follows the President on this issue, and then when given specifics, just throws up his hands in confusion.

Many conclude that McCain’s position is not very clear in some sense, since it seems he’s not particularly passionate about the issue. This is not necessarily a good sign, since he will probably allow the party to dictate the platform.

On other issues he is also not favorable to women. He avoided the fair pay legislation, meant to over turn the SCOTUS decision that left women out in the cold when it comes to suing for unequal pay. Employers need only make it a policy that pay cannot be discussed by employees and then pay men more. If a women doesn’t some how uncover the unfairness for 18 months, she is out of luck in the courts. He avoided the vote but spoke out against the bill on the campaign trail, according to Sheppard. Course, as Sheppard points out, he comments were both sexist and showed a pathetic lack of understanding of the case in the first place.

As to civil rights, McCain has not shown any care for the plight of women of color either. He has consistently voted against affirmative action legislation. For instance he voted with the NAACP position on issues related to blacks, an abysmal 7% of the time.

The list goes on and on, and I urge you to read the entire article. In some respects, it seems that McCain is only being McCain. His personal life is reflected in his take on women’s issues it seems.

Send this around if you see fit to other women you know who may be fence sitting. Much thanks to Essential Estrogen for the link to the article cited above.

Tracks up the Hill

Tags

abstinence, Barack Obama, death penalty, economy, Election 2008, energy, environment, Family values, FISA, fundamentalism, Hillary Clinton, Iowa, Iraq, John McCain, Justice Department, lobbyists, Media, Military contracts, Oil, SCOTUS, Zimbabwe

“Self Portrait, Interlocking Fingers #19, by John Coplan, 2000.

Ah, a busy morning and so we should just get to it, time is running!

~~~&&&~~~&&&~~~

Let’s start with a good story about the media’s failure to alert us on the cause of this war of choice in Iraq. Remember, they said, whatever it was about it was certainly not about oil. As we are now learning, and what some of us have always said, it was and is all about oil. Sorry to keep saying it, but it’s a truth that needs to be shouted around the land until everyone understands. Read Alternet‘s fine piece by Tom Engelhardt.

I find it amusing and frankly a little sad that a story I brought to you maybe two months ago is finally making it to the mainstream media. Congressional hearings regarding the ridiculous contracts issued to a 21-year old shyster for weaponry in Afghanistanhave finally turned on the lights of the media. Congress people are overtly shocked, and of course the military just blinks in confusion. “Why no, Mr. Waxman, no one has been fired.” It seem like an idea that has never crossed their useless minds.

Just a couple of days ago, we mentioned a new look at affirmative action directed at the poor in general instead of just a racial group. I don’t think this is what was in mind. It seems the Bushites, (oh this is nothing new of course) have been busily trying to stack the justice department with new recruits who are appropriately conservative both politically and ideologically. Of course, this grows out of the scandal of last year involving the firing of a number of Attorneys General of various places for not instituting prosecutions of Democrats as demanded by Bush and his minor-minded minions. Remember that many of the do-wrongers were from that bastion of Christian honesty, Liberty University run by the late Jerry Falwell. Thanks Blue Girl Red State.

Family values is kinda quiet as a topic this year. Probably because Old McBush has some issues  that he probably would rather not have delved into too deeply. But I am constantly assaulted by the wingnut right with claims that there has been this deep and awful downturn in morality. And of course, back when “we were kids” things were ever so much different. Were they really? According to Britannica Blog, the answer would be NO. Promiscuity and out-of-wedlock children have been with us since time began pretty much, and mostly no body was all that concerned about it. Follow the link and read more.

I’ve been fairly ambivalent about a Obama/Clinton ticketfrankly, and thought there was little likelihood that it would happen. Arguments are being made however, that are more and more convincing that this is the safest way to go. It is I assume the ticket McMac and his hardy harbingers of hateful harangues wish least to see. I am concerned that McStupid will find a willing ear among just too many by playing the fear card. Ezra Klein has a good post, read it and see what you think.

It is undeniable that the “surge” in Iraq has had success in reducing violence. But exactly what kind of reduction is it? Mostly, at best, American troop level increases and new policies there are responsible for 1/4 of the new peacefulness. The rest is due to other factors which may change quickly and at a moment’s notice. Read another post from Ezra Klein for the explanation.

If I Ran the Zoohas a letter to “Cathy” explaining rather succinctly why a vote for McCain is simply wrong headed. I thought it said it all rather well, and figured you might like the talking points set down for you to use as you need with neighbors, co-workers, family and well anyone else you get a chance to convince.

I always hit the feed update on Inside Iraq with mixed feelings. I know I’m not likely to find a story that has any joy in it. And today, well, it’s no better. I hate these stories yet I insist you need to read them. You need to see what exactly it is like living in this war-torn region. Mostly you need to accept that this is your responsibility. It is our responsibility. We did this. We allowed this. We gave a jerk four more years to do four more years of this. Are we going to give another jerk another four years to do this?

Remember the other day I gave you the votes of Iowa congressmen who voted in the house in favor of that “compromised” FISA bill? Well wouldn’t you just know. It seems that Boswell and others who voted for it, shockingly are the highest receivers of telecom campaign contributions. Shame on him and all others who again put the public interest after their own greedy re-election interests. Thanks to Iowa Independent, we got this story.

Some question the Obama decision to campaign on a 50-state strategy. They see little reason to waste resources in states that he cannot possibly carry. However, first and foremost, the electoral map is changing, and assumptions cannot be drawn quite so simply as one might suspect. Moreover this requires McCain to respond and deplete his resources in places he would not ordinarily have to spend in. Most important, there are tons of very important local races that can be helped by Obama and may change in the long term the dynamics of that state’s political stance. Read about the strategy at MyDD.

I find it odd, but welcome that lately Maureen Dowd and I have been on the same page. She makes a fun and very pointed argument againstthe Karl Rove mentality to try to demonize Barack Obama with the elitist label.Such will patently not work it seems to me and Ms. Dowd. See what you think.

It’s not unusual, we do this all the time. We did it in Dafur, we did it in Myanmar, we will undoubted do it again in Zimbabwe. What is it we will do? NOTHING. Other than a “dear me, you are terrible. This  has got to stop. Mercy me, I may faint. ” It’s disgusting, it’s absurd, but we (internationally or otherwise) will do nothing. We have a long history of propping up dictatorships, as long as they are stable and don’t interfere with our plans you see.

Well SCOTUS is doing some good stuff lately. They have struck down a state law allowing for the state murder of a man convicted of child rape. Heinous as such a crime is, the Court refused to extend the death penalty to anything other than murder. The case came out of Louisiana. You can read further details at this Reuter’s link.

Of course Bush and his joined at the hip granddad, old Johnny Mac are both calling fordrilling for oil off everybody’s shore line these days. Of course it will have zero impact on the price of gas and they know that. But it does sound good no? The Salon tells us the real story and why it is environmentally dangerous and politically unwise.

It’s Wednesday and that means Susan Posner has another of her insightful posts on Fundamentalist issues. Don’t miss her. Some very interesting topics today, including the weird state of Texas, Latino evangelicals, and more.

Oh, and just so you have no question. Johnny McBush is shouting for that off-shore drilling now, and well, could it be? Oh yes it could be, and it is. The Macster is beholden to big oil interests to the tune of 1MILLION dollars so far in campaign contributions. Worse yet of course is the fact that his lobbyist bloated campaign is also chock full  of what? lobbyists who have lobbied for big oil. Read it at The Nation. And could it get worse? McMyster claims he actually knows off-shore drilling won’t garner any real help in the short term, but he claims it will be psychologically helpful! He said the same about the tax break at the gas pump thing too. No real help. Sorry dope, but I would like some real help, let me worry about my psychological state, thank you.

Everyone is talking about the skyrocketing prices of everything, especially food. The media, in it’s best, “we care about you” tradition is giving us all kinds of helpful hints on how to save (working five jobs is the only solution I see). Yet little time is spent on the real issue. how did this happen. If we are ever to get out of a hole of repeating the same mistakes, it might be very important to learn how we got here. Hint: look at where we buy our food! Read the story about Argentina in The New Republic.

See, this is what I don’t get. You have independent evidence that a program has zero effect on its target, and you continue funding it. That is what has happened in our knuckle headed Congress once again. Although it is proven by studies that abstinence only “sex” education doesn’t have ANY impact on kids sexual behavior, Congress has passed more funding for it in a Medicare spending bill. This when nearly 1/2 of all the states have already opted out of the program BECAUSE IT DOESN’T WORK, and another two are planning to. And there have been congressional hearings on this already. Don’t these fools even read anymore? Sad report from the Washington Independent.

We are starting to be a big fan of Michael Hart at Urantian SoJourn. He is witty, and dead on much of the time. Read his amusing and pointed remarks today in the post entitled “Dicking around at Dickapedia.” It’s about the third or fourth one down from the top on the main page. Still can’t activate any single posts.

~~~&&&~~~&&&~~~

“An intellectual is a person who has discovered something more interesting than sex.” Aldous Huxley

“You have to know how to accept rejection and reject acceptance.” Ray Bradbury

“All paid jobs absorb and degrade the mind.” Aristotle

“If I had to live my life again, I’d make the same mistakes, only sooner.” Tallulah Bankhead

~~~&&&~~~&&&~~~

It’s been very difficult for the firefighters to get things under control because the vegetation up in Northern California where the fires are is about 40% marijuana plants. So the poor crews, they’re supposed to be bringing in supplies, but they keep bringing in Doritos and chocolate milk shakes. And it’s not helping. Jimmy Kimmel

Don Imus claims his so-called racial remark about suspended Dallas Cowboys cornerback Adam Jones was just a sarcastic comment about the unfair treatment of blacks in the criminal justice system. This guy is so desperate, he was spotted after the show wearing an Afro wig and begging a black person to call him a “nappy-headed host.” Paul Seaburn

Regarding all the recent floods and overflowing levees: FEMA announced they are going to do much better this time, and by the end of this week plenty of food and rescue supplies will definitely arrive in New Orleans. – Janice Hough, Palo Alto, Calif.

John McCain says that if elected president, he will give a $300 million prize to anyone who can design a new car battery. McCain can get a new type of battery invented because he’s the guy that came up with the idea of not cranking the car up at the start. Craig Ferguson

An Inconvenient Truthiness?

Tags

abortion, abstinence, Barack Obama, energy, Muslims, Oil, Sunday Editorial, truth

I found myself last week justifying at least a skirting of the truth for political expediency. It got me to thinking.

What are the parameters of what is acceptable in shading, avoiding or otherwise manipulating the truth? Is there ever an occasion when lying is appropriate? Is silence lying or simply good manners? Is truth obligatory even when no one is asking for it?

Have no fear, you are not going to find the answers to these questions, and a hundred others, here. I simply want to explore the edges, determining if it is possible to elicit a ground rule or two, flush out a general point around which we all can agree.

Some Muslims, perhaps many in fact, object to Senator Obama posting on his new site Fight the Smear the fact that he is not Muslim. Attaching this correction to this site makes it appear they claim, that it is a smear to be called a Muslim. I explained that the claim, is untrue, and that the smear word is simply the title of the website. Of course, my reply is but an excuse. I went further of course, and explained that given political realities, Mr. Obama needs to make it most clear that he is a Christian. The reality of course is that he does not. Those that continue to believe and espouse that Mr. Obama is Muslim know better. They are lying for quite obvious reasons.

This sort of thing is indicative however today in American politics. A number of black “intellectuals” have pointed out that many blacks are somewhat disgruntled over Obama’s failure to address typically “black” issues. And this is noticeably true. Again, this is political expediencey, for the biggest obstacle that the Senator has is to convince white working class folks that he will put their interests on an equal footing with those of black folk.

This certainly explains the stance or failure of stance, but it does not address the core issue. Is this right? It seems that all national campaigns devolve into this kind of skirting of the truth these days. Each candidate willingly compromises his/her truest beliefs often times in an attempt to be “all things to all people.” Every single vote can be critical and every possible effort is made to offend the least amount of people. So everything is watered down to the degree that is deemed essential to preserve on “our side” the greatest numbers of potential voters.

Could it be possible that in fact the electorate my respond with utter joy to a candidate who really did speak her mind? I mean in every respect? I really don’t know, but I am confounded that we don’t ever seem to try. Or have they tried and been soundly defeated. I confess that I have paid little attention to Dennis Kucinich over the years. I find him a delightful elf of a man, and I agree with his doggedly truth speaking ways. The same can be said for Ralph Nader. Are they losers in the public arena because they speak the truth? Or are they losers because the truths they speak are not the ones that resonate with the public? 

Al Gore certainly understandings about an issue whose time has come. He has talked about the environment for years to no avail for the most part except to those of us who are typically called “tree-huggers.” Now his time has come, and his message is thoroughly embraced by most all the electorate, except for those still stubbornly buying into certain Republican rhetoric that not so secretly simply speaks for big business (read oil).

So, it is you see a bit harder to define what is going on that one might believe at first glance. Now some say that truth is also subject to another important disclaimer. If the issue is quite complicated and if your audience is let’s say not well versed in its intricacies, perhaps a certain untruthness is necessary. Why? Because the truth might get “misused” by those not able to negociate the tangle of facts necessary to place it in proper prospective. That is a nice way of saying, “you’re just a tad too stupid to understand the complexities here. Trust me, I understand them, and will represent your interests properly.”

This lovely excuse has been the stalwart “truth” of the Bush administration. It still it. It is practiced most ingeniously by Dick Cheney, who I don’t think has ever met anyone as smart as he thinks he is. His utter and complete disdain for the rest of his American citizenry is palpably both absurd and obscene. But he is far from alone.

 This technique has been used to extremely well by Rove and his cohorts. They sucked in the working class religious right with exactly this type of thinkspeak.  A class of people who have exactly NO native interest in Republicanism find themselves voting like little robots under promises that Republicans will turn the country into their glorified version of a City on the Hill. They re-enforce that by gunning the American ideal that “real” Americans make it on their own by good hard work.  That allows the big business element to go blithely on their way without being questioned as they rape the economy and move their money into safe havens overseas.

All the while, Republican Bigwigs laugh at the silly duped public who buy their rhetoric. It of course re-enforces their thinking that they are right in their conclusions. A segment of America is just that gullible. Unfortunately for them, or fortunately for us, enough of us failed to surrender our brains, figured out their game, and have mounted a rather effective counter-offensive.

I watched this week as we continue the debate on what to do about our increasing energy problems. Republicans claim they submit bill after bill for “comprehensive” energy policies which Democrats continue to block. Is that true? Nope. Let’s look back a bit, and then examine what we now are learning.

Remember once upon a time there was a big flap about how big energy interests met with Cheney? It was a closed-door meeting. Try as we have, no one has yet learned who was there and what was said and decided. We do know that oil interests wanted to drill in Anwar. We know they were against environmental claims that promoted “alternative” energy technology. When the public refused to be pushed into drilling in Alaska, what happened?

The administration dug in its heels; it did nothing. It ignored and suppressed environmental concerns and pushed no meaningful funding for other alternative sourcing. Saddam Hussein  had thrown out four major American oil companies from Iraq. The stage was set.

A war is manufactured in Iraq to get rid of Hussein. Today the big 4 US oil companies have magically won the contracts to get back into Iraqi oil.

A refusal by oil companies in this country to drill on millions of acres they do have access, and a refusal to put any real money into alternative sources of energy has helped to drive up prices to astronomical levels. Last year, I believe Exxon-Mobil garnered profits in excess of 40 BILLION dollars. Guess what? Thirty-two BILLIONS of it went not to drilling, exploring or development, but they used it to buy back their own stock!

Now, given the serious concerns of the consumer, with prices going through the roof what have we now? Increased Republican calls for drilling in Anwar and off all our coastlines. Hoping no doubt that the public in its fear with finally go along with oil company demands. This is what they call “comprehensive” new energy policies.

Does it take a genius to figure out what might have occurred at that secret meeting between Cheney and the Oil companies? It seems that every single thing they wanted, they have got or are on the way to getting. That is what shading the truth, (read out right lying) gets you folks. And of course all done for your benefit. Bullshit as they say.

I can go on. Pro-lifers argue that abstinence is moral. It is God’s way. It is the only acceptable manner in which to advise our children. They argue that Roe v. Wade must be overturned because their sensibilities are offended. Perhaps all of our sensibilities need to be offended. That is not my argument. I don’t like, plain and simple, telling another woman what she may do regarding her own body. I am loathe to do so. But I no doubt can make exceptions. What to do with the pregnant woman who does not want to abort, but continues to use drugs during her pregnancy, making for serious health problems for the infant? That’s a corker isn’t it? I can’t answer that one either, given my loathing for interference in another’s body choices.

But a truth they avoid, and it is a truth, is that when it comes to abstinence vs. good sex education and access to artificial birth control  (ABC as known by Catholics), the truth is simply that the later is productive of far fewer unwanted teen pregnancies and fewer abortions. This is what promotes most effectively the policies of fewer abortions so demanded by the religious right. That it conflicts with Catholic dogma about ABC is an inconvenient truth.

Let me bring it closer to home. You have moral precepts that you have received from your Church, and true or not, believe they therefore come from God.  Do you have the right? duty? to tap your neighbor on the shoulder and advise them of their “sinfulness.” Do you have the right and duty to advise your pastor that some are “living in sin” or otherwise not following the tenets of the faith? How far is too far? What is truth here?

I have a lot of questions like this. I’m not smart enough or wise enough to have many answers. I tend to land on the side of keeping my mouth shut about how others conduct their lives when I don’t know the answer, especially if I’m not sure it’s a universal truth as opposed to a more personal morality, where ever garnered from. Unless someone is breaking an actual law, I pretty much figure it’s not my business. Some disagree. Admonish the sinner is getting a lot of press these days among a vocal minority. I’d be interested in what others think. It’s just what I’ve been thinking about today.