|
@Delwack
RE: Unions
I tend to agree with you. I really fight to keep the distinction between public sector and private sector unions front and center, because while I don't think attacking all unions is good politics, I think people can be made to understand that public sector unions are hurting us badly. The adversarial nature of management vs. labor doesn't exist when the same politicians who control the employees are also seeking their votes.
RE: Immigration
I love that you started with LEGAL immigration. We never talk about that in this country. And frankly, I think ceiling quotas are idiotic. Given the amount of work involved in becoming a citizen legally, I think we should throw the doors open to as many as are willing to go through that process.
As far as illegal immigration goes, I think it's inevitable that whenever something like 9/11 happens, the backlash will reach immigration considerations as well. That probably has something to do with heightened attention recently. I do think that having a gigantic amount of undocumented individuals in the country causes several problems on its face. For one, CA has shown us that not making appropriate infrastructure adjustments for a rising population can really screw up the hospital and education systems. Also, it's at least worth a debate as to how dangerous it is to have a large group of people taking part in the country's economy, but without any intention of supporting the country and without any ties which hopefully come from birthright citizenship. The most obvious issue is the dispersal of benefits in the form of police, medical services, roads, etc. without any taxation. And yes, obviously one pays sales tax in some states and that does get collected, but the real issue is income tax.
RE: Campaign Finance/Government
Hah. Seriously, man, ask me something difficult why don't you (I hope the sarcasm is obvious)?
How do we reduce corruption across the board? Well, the biggest quick fix is term limits. Obviously, people can be corrupt quickly, but Robert Byrd (D-WV) and . . . wow, can't think of his name, Ted Stevens (R-AK???) really showed how amazingly sold out one can become as a permanent fixture in D.C. I think limits would make a lot of progress overnight, but I doubt either party is going to push that. Honestly, it may be functionally impossible to make serious progress on the types of corruption you describe. The party in power is more than happy to use disciplinary committees in Congress to witchhunt their opposition, but never themselves. It may be somewhat idealistic, but I think the only real answer is a more-engaged electorate. If people really understood some of the utterly grotesque practices in D.C., I like to think they'd make clear with votes that it isn't acceptable.
Regarding campaign donations, I actually don't think that's as much of a problem. Nowadays, campaign donations are watched very carefully. I actually think Obama made a serious mistake accepting Bill Maher's donation after the whole Limbaugh/Fluke issue. I find that most of the time, the "favors" done for campaign backers would probably have been done anyway. The only thing donations usually buy is an adjustment to the priority list. It's not ideal, but not terribly damaging either.
If you want a crazy idea, you could always get the FCC to pass rules that each party receives equal time on all TV and radio channels free of charge. It wouldn't totally eliminate corruption, but right now, on average a US Representative has to raise something like $8,000 per day every day of their term to successfully run their next campaign. I think like 75% of that money goes to buying air time. It's not a very Republican solution, but hey, outside the box is fun too.
|
On April 28 2012 03:33 sam!zdat wrote: edit: because each candidate only cares about representing 51% of America. Since most of that is locked in due to ideological polarization, the only people with power are the relatively uninformed middle 5% or so, and so our system turns into a circus.
edit again: and unless you live in a swing state, which I don't, nobody cares about you.
This is so true it hurts. I really enjoy the math involved in putting together a strategy that wins the Electoral College, but every once in a while I feel like I need to take a shower. I lived in Mississippi for the first 22 years of life. I know exactly what you mean about the non-swing-state syndrome. Unfortunately, I don't even know how to begin fixing it.
EDIT: I should mention that both Obama and Romney seem to be genuine in the desire to be "everyone's" President. So, I do feel obligated to say that the candidates care. But they are absolutely forced into a 51% strategy nowadays.
|
@ RBKeys
Thanks very much. The lack of international information on American news sites really impedes awareness of current events, even for those of us whose job it is to stay informed.
|
On April 28 2012 03:56 SaintBadger wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2012 03:33 sam!zdat wrote: edit: because each candidate only cares about representing 51% of America. Since most of that is locked in due to ideological polarization, the only people with power are the relatively uninformed middle 5% or so, and so our system turns into a circus.
edit again: and unless you live in a swing state, which I don't, nobody cares about you. This is so true it hurts. I really enjoy the math involved in putting together a strategy that wins the Electoral College, but every once in a while I feel like I need to take a shower. I lived in Mississippi for the first 22 years of life. I know exactly what you mean about the non-swing-state syndrome. Unfortunately, I don't even know how to begin fixing it. EDIT: I should mention that both Obama and Romney seem to be genuine in the desire to be "everyone's" President. So, I do feel obligated to say that the candidates care. But they are absolutely forced into a 51% strategy nowadays.
I'm glad you have sympathy. I'm not mad at politicians - they have no choice but to play the game they're given, just as financiers have no choice but to play the game THEY'RE given (which is why all this populist anger about wall street bonuses etc. is misplaced).
I think there's definitely a way to fix this, but it will require some pretty radical reorganization which we're not yet ready for politically. I'm an academic, and one of my primary research interests is precisely this question. Guys, I'm working on it!
It's a very hard problem though, and I still have a lot to learn as I try to formulate an idea of what a solution might look like. That's why I like having mature conversations about issues, like this thread, because any solution that gets developed has to make everybody happy - it can't just be one team "winning" over the other (which is impossible anyway). I'm not talking about "compromise" but about true synthesis in the hegelian or marxian sense.
edit:
EDIT: I should mention that both Obama and Romney seem to be genuine in the desire to be "everyone's" President. So, I do feel obligated to say that the candidates care. But they are absolutely forced into a 51% strategy nowadays.
Yes, see above. They can only play the game they are given, despite whatever intentions they may have.
|
On the subject of the 51% phenomenon, I think I should take a moment to say Newt Gingrich is a fierce campaigner and really has a gift for convincing the people he campaigns around that he wants to represent them. I have a lot of issues with Gingrich, but he is good at what he does.
If you watched the Florida debate, most people remember it for him catching flack about the moon colony. The thing I noticed was the way he was able to reel off several regional and state issues that were hot button current events in that area, but nowhere else in the country. Some construction project that I had never heard of, sugar subsidies, and the efforts to privatize space exploration are the ones I recall.
He did that in many different states. To some extent, it was a blatant pander, but he was able to discuss them on a deeper level than most non-native politicians ever could. I think that particular skill is why he got as far as he did despite his . . . um, let's say checkered past.
|
On April 28 2012 02:34 SaintBadger wrote:By the way, anyone want to defend the concept of totally forgiving student loans? Lots of stuff on the wire about that today. Nope, not from me - and I'm not even sure how I feel about extending the interest rate cuts. While there are certainly arguments to be made for education spending paying off long-term for the future of the country, the beneficiaries of this are early-career professionals with college degrees (myself included). There are certainly those in this group who are struggling financially, but if we are going to be throwing $6B (the estimated cost I've seen for extending the cuts one year) around I can pretty easily come up with groups of people who would need it more.
If you want a crazy idea, you could always get the FCC to pass rules that each party receives equal time on all TV and radio channels free of charge. It wouldn't totally eliminate corruption, but right now, on average a US Representative has to raise something like $8,000 per day every day of their term to successfully run their next campaign. I think like 75% of that money goes to buying air time. It's not a very Republican solution, but hey, outside the box is fun too. I've had similar thoughts. I find it shamefully disappointing that today, in the information age, we haven't been able to use our technology to remove wealth as a barrier-to-entry of politics. I tend to agree with the idea of term limits as well, but really don't have enough of an idea of how things run in DC to have an idea on how long they should be.
I was glad to see you have a high opinion of Jon Huntsman as well. He was by far my favorite primary candidate and the only one I would easily have chosen over Obama. Romney is about even, and the rest of the candidates were varying degrees of atrocious.
As far as the American political system goes, I've always found it disappointing how unimportant third parties are. I've also never understood why the electoral college has remained as it is. Why not a simple popular vote? Or if we want to preserve the relative importance of small-state populations that would be lost this way (though I also don't see the value of maintaining this), why not just use the same weightings from the current electoral college on a rolling scale? (i.e. if you win 60% of the popular vote in WI, you get 6 of 10 electoral votes)
|
On April 28 2012 06:11 BajaBlood wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2012 02:34 SaintBadger wrote:By the way, anyone want to defend the concept of totally forgiving student loans? Lots of stuff on the wire about that today. Nope, not from me - and I'm not even sure how I feel about extending the interest rate cuts. While there are certainly arguments to be made for education spending paying off long-term for the future of the country, the beneficiaries of this are early-career professionals with college degrees (myself included). There are certainly those in this group who are struggling financially, but if we are going to be throwing $6B (the estimated cost I've seen for extending the cuts one year) around I can pretty easily come up with groups of people who would need it more. Show nested quote +If you want a crazy idea, you could always get the FCC to pass rules that each party receives equal time on all TV and radio channels free of charge. It wouldn't totally eliminate corruption, but right now, on average a US Representative has to raise something like $8,000 per day every day of their term to successfully run their next campaign. I think like 75% of that money goes to buying air time. It's not a very Republican solution, but hey, outside the box is fun too. I've had similar thoughts. I find it shamefully disappointing that today, in the information age, we haven't been able to use our technology to remove wealth as a barrier-to-entry of politics. I tend to agree with the idea of term limits as well, but really don't have enough of an idea of how things run in DC to have an idea on how long they should be. I was glad to see you have a high opinion of Jon Huntsman as well. He was by far my favorite primary candidate and the only one I would easily have chosen over Obama. Romney is about even, and the rest of the candidates were varying degrees of atrocious. As far as the American political system goes, I've always found it disappointing how unimportant third parties are. I've also never understood why the electoral college has remained as it is. Why not a simple popular vote? Or if we want to preserve the relative importance of small-state populations that would be lost this way (though I also don't see the value of maintaining this), why not just use the same weightings from the current electoral college on a rolling scale? (i.e. if you win 60% of the popular vote in WI, you get 6 of 10 electoral votes)
The problem with a popular vote in America right now is that it would be all too literally a "popular" vote.
|
On April 28 2012 06:15 JingleHell wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2012 06:11 BajaBlood wrote:On April 28 2012 02:34 SaintBadger wrote:By the way, anyone want to defend the concept of totally forgiving student loans? Lots of stuff on the wire about that today. Nope, not from me - and I'm not even sure how I feel about extending the interest rate cuts. While there are certainly arguments to be made for education spending paying off long-term for the future of the country, the beneficiaries of this are early-career professionals with college degrees (myself included). There are certainly those in this group who are struggling financially, but if we are going to be throwing $6B (the estimated cost I've seen for extending the cuts one year) around I can pretty easily come up with groups of people who would need it more. If you want a crazy idea, you could always get the FCC to pass rules that each party receives equal time on all TV and radio channels free of charge. It wouldn't totally eliminate corruption, but right now, on average a US Representative has to raise something like $8,000 per day every day of their term to successfully run their next campaign. I think like 75% of that money goes to buying air time. It's not a very Republican solution, but hey, outside the box is fun too. I've had similar thoughts. I find it shamefully disappointing that today, in the information age, we haven't been able to use our technology to remove wealth as a barrier-to-entry of politics. I tend to agree with the idea of term limits as well, but really don't have enough of an idea of how things run in DC to have an idea on how long they should be. I was glad to see you have a high opinion of Jon Huntsman as well. He was by far my favorite primary candidate and the only one I would easily have chosen over Obama. Romney is about even, and the rest of the candidates were varying degrees of atrocious. As far as the American political system goes, I've always found it disappointing how unimportant third parties are. I've also never understood why the electoral college has remained as it is. Why not a simple popular vote? Or if we want to preserve the relative importance of small-state populations that would be lost this way (though I also don't see the value of maintaining this), why not just use the same weightings from the current electoral college on a rolling scale? (i.e. if you win 60% of the popular vote in WI, you get 6 of 10 electoral votes) The problem with a popular vote in America right now is that it would be all too literally a "popular" vote. Right now it seems to me that it is still just a "popular" vote, except the only people whose opinions matter are the few living in swing states that don't dogmatically vote along party lines.
Edit: I'm being a little hyperbolic here, but you get my point.
Edit2: New question I just thought of. Super-PACs. Good, Bad, or Ugly?
|
On April 27 2012 14:23 ninazerg wrote:Show nested quote +On April 27 2012 05:52 SaintBadger wrote:On April 27 2012 05:16 ninazerg wrote:On April 27 2012 04:35 SaintBadger wrote: @Ninazerg
Re: How can conservatives claim to be pro-life?
I absolutely respect the question. The length of my answer is not meant as disrespect, but as a concession to the fact that I must eat at some point today. I have done literally nothing but sit at meetings, listen to interns ramble at me, and type these responses.
The Bill of Rights says no deprivation of life or liberty without due process. Some people still argue that the death penalty is cruel and unusual, but a quick study of history tells us that the death penalty was accepted before and after the founding of the U.S. as acceptable punishment for crime. I don't support it; in fact, I vehemently oppose it. Nevertheless, I am forced to concede that it is an option for each state to decide on individually. If we were to stop talking about fetuses for a moment and talk about living, breathing newborns, there would not be many people who suggest that allowing the death penalty means mothers are allowed to kill their children. So now we're back to when does a fetus become a child? You seem to be an "at birth" subscriber, so of course, you'll be happy to know that the law is on your side. I don't pretend to know for certain, but I'd damn sure prefer to err on the side of caution.
As to war, I think the general idea is to punish and deter aggressors in the hopes of saving lives in the end. You may not agree with the particular engagements this country has chosen (I certainly don't), but conceptually, there's no dissonance in being engaged in war and pro-life. As to gun control, I don't think it's a matter of preference. I stated in an earlier post, the state of affairs as to gun rights was spelled out long before the Republican party existed.
This whole "how can you call yourself pro-life?" talking point will always haunt us, but I honestly don't think it stands up to more than the most casual of scrutiny. Granted, I would prefer we took the death penalty off the table, but I still don't see any conceptual contradiction. Thanks for the reply, I have a few things I'd like to address in your answer that pertain to my question, though. The first is the disposition of the Republican party and Conservatives towards being pro-war and pro-military. In terms of sheer gruesome carnage, war is a lot more destructive to human life than abortion. My question was more geared towards the question of support for war, including pre-war support for the war in Iraq when Saddam Hussein was cooperating with U.N. inspectors, and the current situation where Conservatives are considering a war with Iran. This position would seem to contradict the Conservative position on issues regarding "The sanctity of life." Second, concerning the fifth amendment - you've said "The Bill of Rights says no deprivation of life or liberty without due process" - and if a woman is carrying a baby, she is the vessel of that baby. If she dies, the baby dies. If the baby dies, she could also potentially die. Until birth, the baby is literally physically connected with it's mother, essentially making it a part of the mother's body. Any federal mandate to ban abortion would therefore, be unconstitutional, and the Supreme Court has ruled as such, which sets a precedent for pro-choice medical options to be constitutional. I don't see how the Constitution, which guarantees personal liberty, can be used to deny women legitimate medical care. Not that I want to see abortions happen, or ever considered getting an abortion personally; but the fact is that until the baby is born, a woman has the ultimate governance over something that is a part of her body, and a part of her health. I wrote a couple of different responses here. I mean, obviously this is deep moral stuff we're trekking through here, but in the end, I still don't find any hypocrisy in the Republican stance. We're not looking to go to war at the drop of a hat. Furthermore, under the Bush administration, the rules of engagement for military on the ground were incredibly restrained relative to any previous conflict. We do recognize the potential for unintended death in war, and we try very hard to act intelligently and minimize it. But, si vis pacem para bellum. If you want peace, you prepare for war. And yes, that's from The Punisher. I don't respect the pacifist version of peace. My Poly Sci professor called it Chamberlainian peace. Same idea with gun control. There is a chance that you'll meet someone one day who intends you harm, and sometimes talking isn't going to work. I don't mean to patronize you at all, but it's really that simple to me. What is extremely complicated is deciding when and where those situations have actually arisen on an international level. But once the decision is made, it is just to act. Regarding the fifth amendment, let me ask you something. Forget everything you know about abortion law. In a void where all is legal, if I wanted to pass a law that forbids an abortion IF the pregnancy had reached a point at which two doctors will sign off (at the risk of their licenses) on the notion that the child could be delivered viably THAT DAY without foreseeable consequence to mother and child beyond normal natal care, what would your feeling be on that law? I'm actually genuinely curious. The truth is, that's basically what the Court did in Roe. They said that on average, a fetus was not viable until six months into gestation. Ergo, prior to six months, states can't interfere with abortion. After six months, the fetus is deemed (not officially, but functionally) to be an unborn person with the right to not be aborted. More accurately, the state's interest in keeping the child alive had at that point risen beyond the mother's interest in medical privacy. Of course, the problem is that science keeps moving. In 1973, viability was around six and a half months. Now we're down to four months (at the absolute extremes of medicine, granted), but the concept is the same. Many believe that that's why the Court changed course in 1992 with Casey. They realized this whole viability thing wasn't going to preserve the right of abortion for much longer in a meaningful way. That's somewhat of a conspiracy theory, but it fits the language of the opinion. So, to be clear, you don't see any hypocrisy with condoning one form of killing, but condemning another?
On April 27 2012 22:27 SaintBadger wrote:
@Ninazerg
Of course I don't. I also would have opposed Japanese internment, but am perfectly comfortable with locking up convicted felons. The nation has a right to perpetuate its own existence against all enemies, foreign and domestic.
This is what bugs me the most about political ideologues. Let's be perfectly clear: War is mass murder, and the Iraq War, Vietnam War, Persian Gulf War, Bombing of Serbia, Invasion of Grenada, Invasion of Panama, Invasion of Haiti, Intervention in Somalia, and the recent calls for war against Iran are not pertinent to the survival of the United States. Conservatives seem to argue endlessly about hypothetical scenarios where these military actions were necessary because failure to engage in the said military actions would result in some sort of erosion of "national security".
MILLIONS of lives have been thrown away because of these acts of aggression. If you have no conflict of conscience about these acts of violence, which leave nations devastated, families and lives shattered, cities destroyed, and hundreds of thousands of men, women and children butchered, but say "It's complicated, but sometimes necessary", when the same argument is applied to another form of killing which you condemn?
|
@BajaBlood
Hyperbolic? Please don't show your asymptotes. A math nerd somewhere is thinking, "Wow! That joke had everything!"
Anyway, my general take on the electoral college is it's just kind of a way for states to slightly tweek how they will contribute to the presidential election. I think Maine allows proportional awards of electoral votes. Most states go with the traditional all-or-nothing approach. And it does spread the campaigning around. For example, if it was a straight-up popular vote, a Dem could stay in CA a lot longer, because he or she could focus more on voter turnout. As it is now, as long as the Dem believes nothing weird is going on, he just goes to CA to fundraise and speechify, and then heads for other campaign venues.
Another reason the Electoral College has not been challenged is that it has the effect of turning narrow popular victories into seeming-landslides, which is actually really important to a democratic system. It adds a lot of legitimacy to the process when folks believe a decent majority of the country was behind the results. In 2008, Obama got 52% of the popular vote, but that translated to 68% of the electoral college votes.
Of course, there's a little bit of a problem with the EC that was painfully shown in 2000. President Bush actually lost the popular vote, even though he won the EC vote (He really did, guys. I know you hate the Supreme Court for that one, but they actually never found a way to count the votes such that Gore won Florida). I mean, the system was knowingly set up such that this circumstance was a possibility, but it still hurts national morale.
|
@ BajaBlood
Conceptually, SuperPACs are just fine. It's well within my idea of freedom of expression. And contrary to popular belief, the campaign staffs are extremely careful to avoid contact and correspondence with the PAC folks. It's a very awkward system, but I think there is some merit to donation limits to the actual campaigns in a country where there is such inequality of income.
|
On April 28 2012 06:21 ninazerg wrote:Show nested quote +On April 27 2012 14:23 ninazerg wrote:On April 27 2012 05:52 SaintBadger wrote:On April 27 2012 05:16 ninazerg wrote:On April 27 2012 04:35 SaintBadger wrote: @Ninazerg
Re: How can conservatives claim to be pro-life?
I absolutely respect the question. The length of my answer is not meant as disrespect, but as a concession to the fact that I must eat at some point today. I have done literally nothing but sit at meetings, listen to interns ramble at me, and type these responses.
The Bill of Rights says no deprivation of life or liberty without due process. Some people still argue that the death penalty is cruel and unusual, but a quick study of history tells us that the death penalty was accepted before and after the founding of the U.S. as acceptable punishment for crime. I don't support it; in fact, I vehemently oppose it. Nevertheless, I am forced to concede that it is an option for each state to decide on individually. If we were to stop talking about fetuses for a moment and talk about living, breathing newborns, there would not be many people who suggest that allowing the death penalty means mothers are allowed to kill their children. So now we're back to when does a fetus become a child? You seem to be an "at birth" subscriber, so of course, you'll be happy to know that the law is on your side. I don't pretend to know for certain, but I'd damn sure prefer to err on the side of caution.
As to war, I think the general idea is to punish and deter aggressors in the hopes of saving lives in the end. You may not agree with the particular engagements this country has chosen (I certainly don't), but conceptually, there's no dissonance in being engaged in war and pro-life. As to gun control, I don't think it's a matter of preference. I stated in an earlier post, the state of affairs as to gun rights was spelled out long before the Republican party existed.
This whole "how can you call yourself pro-life?" talking point will always haunt us, but I honestly don't think it stands up to more than the most casual of scrutiny. Granted, I would prefer we took the death penalty off the table, but I still don't see any conceptual contradiction. Thanks for the reply, I have a few things I'd like to address in your answer that pertain to my question, though. The first is the disposition of the Republican party and Conservatives towards being pro-war and pro-military. In terms of sheer gruesome carnage, war is a lot more destructive to human life than abortion. My question was more geared towards the question of support for war, including pre-war support for the war in Iraq when Saddam Hussein was cooperating with U.N. inspectors, and the current situation where Conservatives are considering a war with Iran. This position would seem to contradict the Conservative position on issues regarding "The sanctity of life." Second, concerning the fifth amendment - you've said "The Bill of Rights says no deprivation of life or liberty without due process" - and if a woman is carrying a baby, she is the vessel of that baby. If she dies, the baby dies. If the baby dies, she could also potentially die. Until birth, the baby is literally physically connected with it's mother, essentially making it a part of the mother's body. Any federal mandate to ban abortion would therefore, be unconstitutional, and the Supreme Court has ruled as such, which sets a precedent for pro-choice medical options to be constitutional. I don't see how the Constitution, which guarantees personal liberty, can be used to deny women legitimate medical care. Not that I want to see abortions happen, or ever considered getting an abortion personally; but the fact is that until the baby is born, a woman has the ultimate governance over something that is a part of her body, and a part of her health. I wrote a couple of different responses here. I mean, obviously this is deep moral stuff we're trekking through here, but in the end, I still don't find any hypocrisy in the Republican stance. We're not looking to go to war at the drop of a hat. Furthermore, under the Bush administration, the rules of engagement for military on the ground were incredibly restrained relative to any previous conflict. We do recognize the potential for unintended death in war, and we try very hard to act intelligently and minimize it. But, si vis pacem para bellum. If you want peace, you prepare for war. And yes, that's from The Punisher. I don't respect the pacifist version of peace. My Poly Sci professor called it Chamberlainian peace. Same idea with gun control. There is a chance that you'll meet someone one day who intends you harm, and sometimes talking isn't going to work. I don't mean to patronize you at all, but it's really that simple to me. What is extremely complicated is deciding when and where those situations have actually arisen on an international level. But once the decision is made, it is just to act. Regarding the fifth amendment, let me ask you something. Forget everything you know about abortion law. In a void where all is legal, if I wanted to pass a law that forbids an abortion IF the pregnancy had reached a point at which two doctors will sign off (at the risk of their licenses) on the notion that the child could be delivered viably THAT DAY without foreseeable consequence to mother and child beyond normal natal care, what would your feeling be on that law? I'm actually genuinely curious. The truth is, that's basically what the Court did in Roe. They said that on average, a fetus was not viable until six months into gestation. Ergo, prior to six months, states can't interfere with abortion. After six months, the fetus is deemed (not officially, but functionally) to be an unborn person with the right to not be aborted. More accurately, the state's interest in keeping the child alive had at that point risen beyond the mother's interest in medical privacy. Of course, the problem is that science keeps moving. In 1973, viability was around six and a half months. Now we're down to four months (at the absolute extremes of medicine, granted), but the concept is the same. Many believe that that's why the Court changed course in 1992 with Casey. They realized this whole viability thing wasn't going to preserve the right of abortion for much longer in a meaningful way. That's somewhat of a conspiracy theory, but it fits the language of the opinion. So, to be clear, you don't see any hypocrisy with condoning one form of killing, but condemning another? Show nested quote +On April 27 2012 22:27 SaintBadger wrote:
@Ninazerg
Of course I don't. I also would have opposed Japanese internment, but am perfectly comfortable with locking up convicted felons. The nation has a right to perpetuate its own existence against all enemies, foreign and domestic.
This is what bugs me the most about political ideologues. Let's be perfectly clear: War is mass murder, and the Iraq War, Vietnam War, Persian Gulf War, Bombing of Serbia, Invasion of Grenada, Invasion of Panama, Invasion of Haiti, Intervention in Somalia, and the recent calls for war against Iran are not pertinent to the survival of the United States. Conservatives seem to argue endlessly about hypothetical scenarios where these military actions were necessary because failure to engage in the said military actions would result in some sort of erosion of "national security". MILLIONS of lives have been thrown away because of these acts of aggression. If you have no conflict of conscience about these acts of violence, which leave nations devastated, families and lives shattered, cities destroyed, and hundreds of thousands of men, women and children butchered, but say "It's complicated, but sometimes necessary", when the same argument is applied to another form of killing which you condemn?
Since "murder" is a legal term, let's be perfectly clear: War is NOT mass murder. I'll assume you meant mass killing.
I'm very used to having words put in my mouth, but this is on a whole new level. There is nothing in my response to you that remotely implies a lack of conflict of conscience, and in fact, I find it hard to believe anyone in this country who has taken the time to reflect on any war is completely without conflict.
Furthermore, I get the feeling you haven't read my other responses regarding abortion. I do apply that argument to abortion. As a matter of fact, I said "I recognize this country probably couldn't survive without [abortion] at the current state of society". So, I'd ask you to review a few posts if you're interested in continuing this discussion, and while you're at it, I'd appreciate an answer to my question.
On the subject of war, most of the scenarios we discuss are based on historical events. They aren't hypothetical at all. And liberals are very quick to jump on the war bandwagon, in fact, VIetnam was all them. If you would like to discuss the merits of individual conflicts, we can do that, but I was discussing the reasons why aborting a pregnancy is not analogous to war. Btw, we weren't the aggressors in several of those conflicts you mention.
I would be happy to defend Iraq I and II and Afghanistan, but it's probably a waste of time since we're not going to be able to agree on facts surrounding Gen. Powell's WMD presentation to the UN. I will NOT be defending the nation-building in the aftermath.
|
I'm curious, anyone else want to join Nina (or stand alone) in exploring the so-called hypocrisy in the "pro-life" mantle? I've always assumed that was just a talking point to score some political points. Does anyone actually see moral equivalency among abortion, war, and the death penalty?
|
@Ninazerg
I'm very surprised that you added the bombing of Serbia to this list. Do you just think we should not intervene when people are being killed in foreign countries? I mean, there is absolutely no doubt that less people died because of our involvement. But we just didn't have any business there, or what? I'm just wondering, because the inclusion of that instance is strange to me.
|
I wish I had more to contribute to this conversation, but half of these topics I wouldn't touch with a 10 meter pole (like America's involvement in Eastern affairs). About Immigration, I hear a lot of jokes about illegal immigrants in the USA, but is it actually that big of a problem in the southern states, or is it blown entirely out of proportion?
Edit: Also, my spelling sucks when I try to sound fancy.
|
On April 28 2012 06:21 ninazerg wrote:Show nested quote +On April 27 2012 14:23 ninazerg wrote:On April 27 2012 05:52 SaintBadger wrote:On April 27 2012 05:16 ninazerg wrote:On April 27 2012 04:35 SaintBadger wrote: @Ninazerg
Re: How can conservatives claim to be pro-life?
I absolutely respect the question. The length of my answer is not meant as disrespect, but as a concession to the fact that I must eat at some point today. I have done literally nothing but sit at meetings, listen to interns ramble at me, and type these responses.
The Bill of Rights says no deprivation of life or liberty without due process. Some people still argue that the death penalty is cruel and unusual, but a quick study of history tells us that the death penalty was accepted before and after the founding of the U.S. as acceptable punishment for crime. I don't support it; in fact, I vehemently oppose it. Nevertheless, I am forced to concede that it is an option for each state to decide on individually. If we were to stop talking about fetuses for a moment and talk about living, breathing newborns, there would not be many people who suggest that allowing the death penalty means mothers are allowed to kill their children. So now we're back to when does a fetus become a child? You seem to be an "at birth" subscriber, so of course, you'll be happy to know that the law is on your side. I don't pretend to know for certain, but I'd damn sure prefer to err on the side of caution.
As to war, I think the general idea is to punish and deter aggressors in the hopes of saving lives in the end. You may not agree with the particular engagements this country has chosen (I certainly don't), but conceptually, there's no dissonance in being engaged in war and pro-life. As to gun control, I don't think it's a matter of preference. I stated in an earlier post, the state of affairs as to gun rights was spelled out long before the Republican party existed.
This whole "how can you call yourself pro-life?" talking point will always haunt us, but I honestly don't think it stands up to more than the most casual of scrutiny. Granted, I would prefer we took the death penalty off the table, but I still don't see any conceptual contradiction. Thanks for the reply, I have a few things I'd like to address in your answer that pertain to my question, though. The first is the disposition of the Republican party and Conservatives towards being pro-war and pro-military. In terms of sheer gruesome carnage, war is a lot more destructive to human life than abortion. My question was more geared towards the question of support for war, including pre-war support for the war in Iraq when Saddam Hussein was cooperating with U.N. inspectors, and the current situation where Conservatives are considering a war with Iran. This position would seem to contradict the Conservative position on issues regarding "The sanctity of life." Second, concerning the fifth amendment - you've said "The Bill of Rights says no deprivation of life or liberty without due process" - and if a woman is carrying a baby, she is the vessel of that baby. If she dies, the baby dies. If the baby dies, she could also potentially die. Until birth, the baby is literally physically connected with it's mother, essentially making it a part of the mother's body. Any federal mandate to ban abortion would therefore, be unconstitutional, and the Supreme Court has ruled as such, which sets a precedent for pro-choice medical options to be constitutional. I don't see how the Constitution, which guarantees personal liberty, can be used to deny women legitimate medical care. Not that I want to see abortions happen, or ever considered getting an abortion personally; but the fact is that until the baby is born, a woman has the ultimate governance over something that is a part of her body, and a part of her health. I wrote a couple of different responses here. I mean, obviously this is deep moral stuff we're trekking through here, but in the end, I still don't find any hypocrisy in the Republican stance. We're not looking to go to war at the drop of a hat. Furthermore, under the Bush administration, the rules of engagement for military on the ground were incredibly restrained relative to any previous conflict. We do recognize the potential for unintended death in war, and we try very hard to act intelligently and minimize it. But, si vis pacem para bellum. If you want peace, you prepare for war. And yes, that's from The Punisher. I don't respect the pacifist version of peace. My Poly Sci professor called it Chamberlainian peace. Same idea with gun control. There is a chance that you'll meet someone one day who intends you harm, and sometimes talking isn't going to work. I don't mean to patronize you at all, but it's really that simple to me. What is extremely complicated is deciding when and where those situations have actually arisen on an international level. But once the decision is made, it is just to act. Regarding the fifth amendment, let me ask you something. Forget everything you know about abortion law. In a void where all is legal, if I wanted to pass a law that forbids an abortion IF the pregnancy had reached a point at which two doctors will sign off (at the risk of their licenses) on the notion that the child could be delivered viably THAT DAY without foreseeable consequence to mother and child beyond normal natal care, what would your feeling be on that law? I'm actually genuinely curious. The truth is, that's basically what the Court did in Roe. They said that on average, a fetus was not viable until six months into gestation. Ergo, prior to six months, states can't interfere with abortion. After six months, the fetus is deemed (not officially, but functionally) to be an unborn person with the right to not be aborted. More accurately, the state's interest in keeping the child alive had at that point risen beyond the mother's interest in medical privacy. Of course, the problem is that science keeps moving. In 1973, viability was around six and a half months. Now we're down to four months (at the absolute extremes of medicine, granted), but the concept is the same. Many believe that that's why the Court changed course in 1992 with Casey. They realized this whole viability thing wasn't going to preserve the right of abortion for much longer in a meaningful way. That's somewhat of a conspiracy theory, but it fits the language of the opinion. So, to be clear, you don't see any hypocrisy with condoning one form of killing, but condemning another? Show nested quote +On April 27 2012 22:27 SaintBadger wrote:
@Ninazerg
Of course I don't. I also would have opposed Japanese internment, but am perfectly comfortable with locking up convicted felons. The nation has a right to perpetuate its own existence against all enemies, foreign and domestic.
This is what bugs me the most about political ideologues. Let's be perfectly clear: War is mass murder, and the Iraq War, Vietnam War, Persian Gulf War, Bombing of Serbia, Invasion of Grenada, Invasion of Panama, Invasion of Haiti, Intervention in Somalia, and the recent calls for war against Iran are not pertinent to the survival of the United States. Conservatives seem to argue endlessly about hypothetical scenarios where these military actions were necessary because failure to engage in the said military actions would result in some sort of erosion of "national security". MILLIONS of lives have been thrown away because of these acts of aggression. If you have no conflict of conscience about these acts of violence, which leave nations devastated, families and lives shattered, cities destroyed, and hundreds of thousands of men, women and children butchered, but say "It's complicated, but sometimes necessary", when the same argument is applied to another form of killing which you condemn?
Are you suggesting that war is never justified? War is not a good thing, but it may still be a preferable outcome. War can save lives.
Let's be clear, national sovereignty is a internationally accepted thing. There are four ways to eliminate your own national sovereignty: Invading neighboring countries, Nuclear Proliferation, Genocide (or mass killings), and harboring and support of international terrorism. Saddam Hussein, may I point out, only missed out on the Nuclear Proliferation, not without lack of trying. In my opinion, it's the job of the international community as a whole (of which we're supposed to be the leader) to enforce such rules of sovereignty.
Now, I say this, but I'm no hawk. I don't think war is the best way to do things (in fact I think it's basically the worst). I don't really support most of the wars you mention, because not only is war bad but it also undermines our authority as a superpower. It makes us look like a bully, rather than an authority figure. Our military should be powerful, but only be used to advance human rights and humanity.
|
Let me go back a bit, did you just use Occam's Razor to support your belief in god? Are you familiar witih the Ultimate Boeing 747 gambit? The following link provides a good summary and explanation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultimate_Boeing_747_gambit
Anyways, Occam's Razor cuts the notion of an omnipotent "god" to pieces.
|
@57 Corvette
There are widely varying estimates as to how many undocumented immigrants are in the country right now, but a few states in the Southwest have had some serious issues. Immigration in and of itself is a financial burden, but CA in particular has had massive problems with providing medical care to a huge population influx, most of which lack the ability to pay for the services they require.
I would say it is probably slightly exaggerated, but not hugely.
|
On April 28 2012 06:50 SaintBadger wrote: I'm curious, anyone else want to join Nina (or stand alone) in exploring the so-called hypocrisy in the "pro-life" mantle? I've always assumed that was just a talking point to score some political points. Does anyone actually see moral equivalency among abortion, war, and the death penalty?
I don't know if it's hypocrisy exactly, but I would expect consistency in anyone's stance. It is important to understand the justifications for why someone is pro-life. Your definition of pro-life doesn't take a 100% moral argument. You realize there are social and economic costs, and that it shouldn't necessarily be outlawed entirely or absolutely, just that we shouldn't be necessarily be funding it with public tax dollars. I don't have an issue with that argument. For someone who is 'pro-life' like you (not on absolute moral grounds), you'd perhaps consider killing via war and death penalty justified. War because it is an opposing country, and our interests trump theirs, and blood must be split to enforce. For the death penalty, someone has committed crimes against society, and that justifies a killing. And by that same token you consider killing by abortion not justified. (note: I don't mean to say you think killing is or isn't justified for these reasons, I don't know. This is simply an illustrative example.)
However, many other people argue pro-life on purely moral grounds. If you are arguing pro-life on purely moral grounds, I must believe that you feel there is no justification for killing, full stop. In this case, the above justifications for killing during war and through the death sentence do not apply. If you attempt to apply them as 'exceptions' to an absolute moral argument then yes you are being hypocritical.
I also think some people who don't fully believe it to be a moral issue take it up only as a moral issue because they do not want to frame the debate in terms of justified reasons for killing, because then their opponents can take a stance that even if you see it as killing, like war and like the death sentence, there are good reasons to justify abortion.
So arguments for pro-choicers will now have two levels: (1) it should not be considered killing and (2) even if it is, there are good socioeconomic justifications for allowing abortion (having unprepared couples who do not want a child carry it to term does a lot of financial and social harm. The child will likely not be well cared for, either or both of the parents may be lead to financial ruin, etc. etc. etc.).
This, I think, tends to be a can of worms most pro-lifers don't want to touch, so they stick purely to the moral argument, and as I mentioned earlier, if you are morally against killing and refuse to consider any reasons/justification for killing valid, then I think it is reasonable to conclude that such a person believes that there is no justification for killing anyone. I think a lot of people view pro-lifers as hypocrites when they take the purely moral argument, but then do not apply that argument to war or the death penalty.
If you are not arguing the moral absolutely (e.g. you admit there are sometimes justifications for killing) then I don't think it's hypocritical, but now you must consider the justification arguments presented on abortion, why it is a good idea to allow (and maybe even fund) it. If you refuse to even consider or debate the justifications to abortion, then you absolutely are being hypocritical, and using moral grounds as a means to further an agenda you like, while burying it where it doesn't support the agenda you dislike. I don't want to hear "every life is precious, oh except if they are a serial killer. Clearly his life is not precious." Those two sentences are in clear contradiction.
I think part of the problem in debating justification is I've seen some studies that show the clear costs of not having abortion available, costs to society and people when the families break down, when the kids are neglected, and when the parents have to do crazy things to survive. The costs are clear, and I don't think pro-lifers want to get into the debate where they think the line should be drawn: at what point does it become justified, even if they think it should be justified for say, serial killers. I also have never seen any studies talking about the benefits of disallowing the abortion, so this is why most people default to the moral argument, as there is no economic one to be made. The absoluteness of the moral argument, and it's hyprocrasy in practical application I think is what ticks most people off. If you are going to claim life has no cost, no price, then I expect you to apply that in all situations. If you feel killing is justified in some cases, I expect to debate in what situations it is justified, and why those justifications apply, and how we can come to a consensus on where that line should be drawn.
I don't mind if people say they are morally against killing (let's use war here), but feel it is justified in certain cases because A. B. C (we need to protect our national interests/defend ourselves from invaders/whatever). I may not agree with such arguments, either if killing is or is not justified in any given situation, but I will not view them as hypocritical in conjunction with a moral argument when presented like that.
I do think this is another case where extreme views tend to come up on top, partially because they are so ridiculous, and partially because people believe they have the best chance of getting the argument through if they go to one extreme or the other, then go find 'middle ground'. Just more examples of how disgustingly disingenuous these things are sometimes.
Edit: spelling, nonsense removed, provided clarification on a number of sentences that could be interpreted multiple ways. Edit2: added more content, tried to clarify a bit more.
|
@IronMonocle
I disagree. And yes, I think I've read just about everything Richard Dawkins has published. He implicitly states that a multiverse theory is endorsed by the Razor over the concept of a prime mover. That to me is blatantly false. And furthermore, it smacks of the same sort of gimmick as Intelligent Design. He couches a completely unsubstantiated guess for how the universe is as it is in scientific terminology, and then feels free to use the Razor to endorse it. I honestly believe that the only reason his colleagues don't laugh him out of the building is the 70 or so years during which multiple dimensions has slowly worked its way into the pop culture nomenclature through science fiction. That group is somehow more comfortable endorsing that notion than a prime mover, but in terms of simplicity vs. complexity, I'd say the multiverse is far more complex.
And again, I hope people aren't assuming the most ignorant context of my arguments, because there is no progress to be made that way. The concept of a "prime mover" or "first cause" has zero to do with an Abrahamic God. As I said in the same post in which I mentioned the Razor, I'm skipping quite a few steps between that and how I came to the Catholic faith. So yes, I suppose I used the Razor to support my believe in God in much the same way integers are used to prove advanced calculus.
The reason I skipped the rest of my story is because this blog is not supposed to be a theological debate. I am well aware of the pride some TL members take in their rationalism, and how that has led them to disdain religious faith. I do not seek their affirmation. The only discussion of religion I have willingly begun is that which is necessary to explain how certain political issues are understood.
|
|
|
|