Posts
- Abortion
- Health Care
- Public Education
- Higher Education
- Taxes
- Social Security
- The War in Iraq
- Other Issues - Including energy independence, ethics, and poverty.
Showing posts with label 8TOI. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 8TOI. Show all posts
Monday, November 3, 2008
RECAP: 8 Thoughts on the Issues
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
The Other Issues
8 Thoughts on the Issues #8
Here are some short thoughts from what passes for my brain on a few of the other issues in the campaign.
Here are some short thoughts from what passes for my brain on a few of the other issues in the campaign.
- Energy Independence and the Environment - It's clear that our reliance on foreign oil is endangering both our security and our economy. Increased drilling of our own oil will do nothing to alleviate the pain at the pump. It will do nothing to ween us off foreign oil. Solid investment is needed in proven, environmentally safe technologies such as wind and solar. The government should finance research into clean coal and safer nuclear technologies. This investment will lead to an increase in jobs and will keep us from damaging entanglements in the volatile Middle East.
- Civil Rights - We cannot continue to pretend that our national battle against bigotry is over. It is to our shame that the current campaign has shown us that racism is alive and thriving in our country. It is obvious in the characterization of Obama as a monkey by McCain supporters. It is obvious in the race baiting of the Latinos by the anti-immigration crowd. (I'm looking at you Lou Dobbs.) We need a President who can heal this racial divide. Of course, racism is only one element of bigotry prevalent today. Bigotry against homosexuals is condoned and endorsed by states across the Union. The time has come to put a stop to all bigotry.
- Ethics - The influence of money in Washington has been destructive to the needs of the common people. The public should have ready access to who is doing the lobbying in Washington, and which politicians are being lobbied. We need greater oversight over the lobbying that takes place. We need rules that prevent government employees cashing in on their public service by joining lobbying groups immediately after leaving the government. We need stiffer penalties for the violation of ethics rules and laws. Who will provide this? The candidate whose campaign is run by lobbyists or the candidate who refuses to accept lobbyist money?
- Poverty - With the exception of John Edwards in the primaries, no candidate pays enough attention to the issue of poverty in our country. Our security and our survival as a nation depends upon the reduction of poverty. We must provide more jobs across all sectors of our economy. More of these jobs must pay a living wage. We must increase the supply of affordable housing. We must strengthen our educational system to give our young citizens the ability to achieve. We must restore hope.
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
The War in Iraq
8 Thoughts on the Issues #7
The Bush/McCain War in Iraq has been an unmitigated disaster. How can the right not acknowledge this?
Do they care that no weapons of mass destruction have been found? (Source)
Do they care that Al Qaeda was not in Iraq before the war? (Source)
Do they care that this was has ruined our moral standing in the world? (Source)
How do they justify the 4000+ American troop deaths since the war began? (Source)
How do they justify the 500 billion dollars spent on the war? (Source)
How do they justify the 300,000 troops who are now suffering from PTSD? (Source)
How do they justify the nearly 100,000 documented deaths of Iraqi civilians? (Source)
How do they justify ignoring the Geneva Conventions and our own constitution when fighting this war?
What have we accomplished with this war?
Are we any safer?
Is the world safer?
Are the terrorists on the run?
When will it end?
How much will it cost?
How many will lose their lives?
The Bush/McCain War in Iraq has been an unmitigated disaster. How can the right not acknowledge this?
Do they care that no weapons of mass destruction have been found? (Source)
Do they care that Al Qaeda was not in Iraq before the war? (Source)
Do they care that this was has ruined our moral standing in the world? (Source)
How do they justify the 4000+ American troop deaths since the war began? (Source)
How do they justify the 500 billion dollars spent on the war? (Source)
How do they justify the 300,000 troops who are now suffering from PTSD? (Source)
How do they justify the nearly 100,000 documented deaths of Iraqi civilians? (Source)
How do they justify ignoring the Geneva Conventions and our own constitution when fighting this war?
What have we accomplished with this war?
Are we any safer?
Is the world safer?
Are the terrorists on the run?
When will it end?
How much will it cost?
How many will lose their lives?
Social Security
8 Thoughts on the Issues #6
There is no crisis with Social Security. The system is not in trouble. It is not a ponzi scheme. It is not the government’s version of Enron. It is not the absolute disgrace that John McCain has claimed. It is not a "joke" as claimed by that infamous phony, Joe the Plumber. The attempts by the Republican Party, led by the worst President ever, to privatize Social Security is a disgrace and it failed in 2005 and it will fail every single time they try.
First, let's discuss the true reasons behind the conservative attempts to "reform" social security. It must be understood that they are not looking to save social security, but to replace it with a savings program that would amount to a huge giveaway to the Wall Street financial firms that have done such a wonderful job handling our economy. They are, as Dr. Krugman put it, looking to bury social security. These types or large entitlement programs are not compatible with conservative philosophy.
It doesn't matter to conservatives that Social Security has been our nation's most successful anti-poverty program. It doesn't matter to conservatives that Social Security has lowered the rate of poverty among the elderly to a number lower than that of the population as a whole. It doesn't matter to conservatives that the survivor's benefit has saved many families from financial destruction. For a conservative, ideology will always matter more than providing real assistance to people. As Dr. Krugman said ...
In 2005, the American people and our elected representatives from the Democratic Party stood up to the destroyers and handed them a massive defeat. It would be foolish to think they have given up. In the upcoming election, one candidate still believes that we must privatize Social Security to "save" it from an impending crisis. The other proposes to strengthen it. This is just another reason to cast your vote for Barack Obama for President of the United States.
There is no crisis with Social Security. The system is not in trouble. It is not a ponzi scheme. It is not the government’s version of Enron. It is not the absolute disgrace that John McCain has claimed. It is not a "joke" as claimed by that infamous phony, Joe the Plumber. The attempts by the Republican Party, led by the worst President ever, to privatize Social Security is a disgrace and it failed in 2005 and it will fail every single time they try.
First, let's discuss the true reasons behind the conservative attempts to "reform" social security. It must be understood that they are not looking to save social security, but to replace it with a savings program that would amount to a huge giveaway to the Wall Street financial firms that have done such a wonderful job handling our economy. They are, as Dr. Krugman put it, looking to bury social security. These types or large entitlement programs are not compatible with conservative philosophy.
It doesn't matter to conservatives that Social Security has been our nation's most successful anti-poverty program. It doesn't matter to conservatives that Social Security has lowered the rate of poverty among the elderly to a number lower than that of the population as a whole. It doesn't matter to conservatives that the survivor's benefit has saved many families from financial destruction. For a conservative, ideology will always matter more than providing real assistance to people. As Dr. Krugman said ...
Social Security is a government program that works, a demonstration that a modest amount of taxing and spending can make people's lives better and more secure. And that's why the right wants to destroy it.The problem for conservatives is that Social Security has proven to be the most popular of our government programs. A conservative politician who stands up and says that they hate Social Security is asking for defeat. Instead, they attack it around the edges and will try to chip away at it until it dies off.
In 2005, the American people and our elected representatives from the Democratic Party stood up to the destroyers and handed them a massive defeat. It would be foolish to think they have given up. In the upcoming election, one candidate still believes that we must privatize Social Security to "save" it from an impending crisis. The other proposes to strengthen it. This is just another reason to cast your vote for Barack Obama for President of the United States.
Monday, October 27, 2008
Taxes
8 Thoughts on the Issues #5
Here is the gist of the conservative argument about taxes as I understand it. By keeping taxes low on the rich, the rich will in turn invest more in our economy which will lead to increased employment. The increased employment will lead to more tax revenue being collected over all. There is, as with most conservative philosophies, no data to support this concept. This is famously known as “trickle down” economics.
What are some additional conservative thoughts on taxes? Well, when discussing tax fairness, they consider the poor to be lucky because many don’t pay income tax. (In fact, a conservative usually finds it best to ignore payroll taxes.) They believe the rich in our society are overburdened by taxes and will lose all incentive to excel and accumulate wealth.
Many even support the so called Fair Tax Doctrine, which would replace all federal taxes with a sales tax that would be around 28%. (As anyone with a brain can figure out, this would result in the poor and middle classes paying a larger percentage of their income in taxes. Most poor people, and much of the middle class, have to spend their entire paycheck. The rich can sock their money away, tax free.) Anyone who supports the Fair Tax doctrine can be rightly considered an idiot.
As a liberal, I don’t believe there is any such thing as an ideal tax level. I believe that the current economic situation of the country dictates our taxation needs. For example, if you find yourself involved in a war, you don’t cut taxes, you raise them. When things are going well, then you can safely lower the taxation levels.
As a liberal, I believe that the rich should shoulder a larger portion of the tax burden. This isn’t about socialism, the redistribution of wealth, as the McCain campaign loves to claim. It is for a much more basic reason. They can afford it. Obama’s tax increase on the rich will do nothing to reduce the quality of life of the rich. It will do nothing to reduce their civil liberties. In fact, it will benefit the rich by allowing for a more stable society and a more stable economy.
Finally, as a liberal, I believe that paying taxes is our patriotic duty. Taxes provide for our public infrastructure. They provide for the education of our children. They provide for the military that protects our freedoms. Progressive taxation is necessary for the survival of the middle class. This is not about class warfare, this is about genuine fairness.
Here is the gist of the conservative argument about taxes as I understand it. By keeping taxes low on the rich, the rich will in turn invest more in our economy which will lead to increased employment. The increased employment will lead to more tax revenue being collected over all. There is, as with most conservative philosophies, no data to support this concept. This is famously known as “trickle down” economics.
What are some additional conservative thoughts on taxes? Well, when discussing tax fairness, they consider the poor to be lucky because many don’t pay income tax. (In fact, a conservative usually finds it best to ignore payroll taxes.) They believe the rich in our society are overburdened by taxes and will lose all incentive to excel and accumulate wealth.
Many even support the so called Fair Tax Doctrine, which would replace all federal taxes with a sales tax that would be around 28%. (As anyone with a brain can figure out, this would result in the poor and middle classes paying a larger percentage of their income in taxes. Most poor people, and much of the middle class, have to spend their entire paycheck. The rich can sock their money away, tax free.) Anyone who supports the Fair Tax doctrine can be rightly considered an idiot.
As a liberal, I don’t believe there is any such thing as an ideal tax level. I believe that the current economic situation of the country dictates our taxation needs. For example, if you find yourself involved in a war, you don’t cut taxes, you raise them. When things are going well, then you can safely lower the taxation levels.
As a liberal, I believe that the rich should shoulder a larger portion of the tax burden. This isn’t about socialism, the redistribution of wealth, as the McCain campaign loves to claim. It is for a much more basic reason. They can afford it. Obama’s tax increase on the rich will do nothing to reduce the quality of life of the rich. It will do nothing to reduce their civil liberties. In fact, it will benefit the rich by allowing for a more stable society and a more stable economy.
Finally, as a liberal, I believe that paying taxes is our patriotic duty. Taxes provide for our public infrastructure. They provide for the education of our children. They provide for the military that protects our freedoms. Progressive taxation is necessary for the survival of the middle class. This is not about class warfare, this is about genuine fairness.
Higher Education
8 Thoughts on the Issues #4
It is in the best interest of this country that every kid who wants a college education and has shown the potential to succeed in college is given the opportunity to attend college. This should be done without regard to race. This should be done without regard to economic status. This should be done now.
Money is needed for tuition, books and room and board. Money is needed for additional research at our universities. Money is needed to provide loans for these individuals to start their own businesses after completing their degrees.
The benefits for American business are obvious. The benefits for our economy are undeniable. Why are we waiting?
It is in the best interest of this country that every kid who wants a college education and has shown the potential to succeed in college is given the opportunity to attend college. This should be done without regard to race. This should be done without regard to economic status. This should be done now.
Money is needed for tuition, books and room and board. Money is needed for additional research at our universities. Money is needed to provide loans for these individuals to start their own businesses after completing their degrees.
The benefits for American business are obvious. The benefits for our economy are undeniable. Why are we waiting?
Friday, October 24, 2008
Public Education
8 Thoughts on the Issues #3
Education is one of those issues where Republicans twist themselves into knots trying to come up with a plan. Ultimately, when you're opposed to public education on "principle", how do you ensure equal opportunity to a quality education in America? Well, if you want to get elected, you don't actually say you are opposed to public education. That would be one of those mammoth blunders that would become part of the political folklore for generations.
Instead, you attack public education on the fringes. You throw around concepts like "vouchers" and "school choice" and "accountability". You turn the teachers and the schools into the problem. You don't offer new ideas, you simply try to create business opportunities in the realm of education. You turn it into a market. The goal is to make education profitable.
For all it's problems, the goal of the public education system is to provide the best education possible for our children. In many districts across the nation, the public education system has come up short of its goals. While the children are the biggest victims of our public education failures, we have to acknowledge that the teachers and the schools are victims as well. The government and the politicians have failed public education.
It is indisputable that there is a crisis in funding for public education. Don't get me wrong, the Republicans are right when they say the answer isn't simply throwing money at the schools. However, we can't pretend that we don't need to pour additional funds into our school systems. We cannot allow schools to continue to cut programs. We cannot expect more from our teachers without paying them a professional salary that their education and the importance of their job demands.
We need to do this, and not only because the 21st century job market will require more of the current generation of America children than has been required at any point in our past. We need to do this to save our country from the rampant mistakes of the past three decades.
If we expect our government to behave honorably in our foreign policy, we have to educate our children about the mistakes we have made in our past and we must educate them about the good we have accomplished.
If we expect our government to avoid financial catastrophes, we must educate our children about the Great Depression and the New Deal. We must ensure that they have a better understanding of our economic system than most adults of my age do. We must teach children how to responsibly manage debt.
If we expect our children to be entrepreneurs, to create their own wealth and provide for their own security, then we must ensure that our children are familiar with the newest technologies. We must also foster their creativity. A student who learns about art and music is more creative than a student who simply learns the basics of education. It is a creative student that will have that idea that business magazines will talk about for decades.
If we expect our politicians to better serve our people, then we must educate our children about civic responsibility. They must be taught that our leadership in government reflects the interest of the people. If the people aren't interested in our government, then we will have government, and consequently politicians, that are not interested in our people.
If the United States of America is to prosper again, we need to provide the public education system that our children and our nation deserve.
Education is one of those issues where Republicans twist themselves into knots trying to come up with a plan. Ultimately, when you're opposed to public education on "principle", how do you ensure equal opportunity to a quality education in America? Well, if you want to get elected, you don't actually say you are opposed to public education. That would be one of those mammoth blunders that would become part of the political folklore for generations.
Instead, you attack public education on the fringes. You throw around concepts like "vouchers" and "school choice" and "accountability". You turn the teachers and the schools into the problem. You don't offer new ideas, you simply try to create business opportunities in the realm of education. You turn it into a market. The goal is to make education profitable.
For all it's problems, the goal of the public education system is to provide the best education possible for our children. In many districts across the nation, the public education system has come up short of its goals. While the children are the biggest victims of our public education failures, we have to acknowledge that the teachers and the schools are victims as well. The government and the politicians have failed public education.
It is indisputable that there is a crisis in funding for public education. Don't get me wrong, the Republicans are right when they say the answer isn't simply throwing money at the schools. However, we can't pretend that we don't need to pour additional funds into our school systems. We cannot allow schools to continue to cut programs. We cannot expect more from our teachers without paying them a professional salary that their education and the importance of their job demands.
We need to do this, and not only because the 21st century job market will require more of the current generation of America children than has been required at any point in our past. We need to do this to save our country from the rampant mistakes of the past three decades.
If we expect our government to behave honorably in our foreign policy, we have to educate our children about the mistakes we have made in our past and we must educate them about the good we have accomplished.
If we expect our government to avoid financial catastrophes, we must educate our children about the Great Depression and the New Deal. We must ensure that they have a better understanding of our economic system than most adults of my age do. We must teach children how to responsibly manage debt.
If we expect our children to be entrepreneurs, to create their own wealth and provide for their own security, then we must ensure that our children are familiar with the newest technologies. We must also foster their creativity. A student who learns about art and music is more creative than a student who simply learns the basics of education. It is a creative student that will have that idea that business magazines will talk about for decades.
If we expect our politicians to better serve our people, then we must educate our children about civic responsibility. They must be taught that our leadership in government reflects the interest of the people. If the people aren't interested in our government, then we will have government, and consequently politicians, that are not interested in our people.
If the United States of America is to prosper again, we need to provide the public education system that our children and our nation deserve.
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
Healthcare
8 Thoughts on the Issues #2
In my first thoughts on the issues, I tackled abortion in kind of a random fashion. It was a purely emotional reaction to the abortion issue, something I feel rather strongly about. For my other seven items on the issues leading up to the election, I decided to put a bit more research behind my posts. Today, I'm going to look at the health care plans of both candidates, and then I'll draw some conclusions.
John McCain
As you would expect, McCain's web page on his health care plan is less about the plan itself than it is about attacking Obama. If I were offering his plan, I'd stick to talking about my opponent as well. The crux of McCain's plan is a change in the way in which health care benefits are taxed. Currently, your employer is excluded from paying taxes on the amount they pay for your health benefits. Under the McCain plan, this exclusion would be replaced by a tax credit available to each family. McCain wants to create a health insurance market for individuals by removing the tax incentive for employer's to provide insurance. McCain asserts that this would save money.
Barack Obama
Obama's plan is to strengthen the employer provided health care system, while increasing options for those who do not already have health care through an employer, including a public plan that would be similar to the plan that members of Congress now have. Obama mandates that every child must be covered by insurance, but does not mandate that every adult have insurance. Obama believes that he can cut health care costs for everyone by aggressively resolving inefficiencies in the health care system. Additionally, Obama would provide consumer protections, especially for those with preexisting conditions.
My Thoughts
I'm a liberal and I want universal health care and single payer insurance. Since neither candidate is offering this approach, I'll have to choose one or the other.
It is no surprise that the Republican candidate is advocating a market based approach to solving the problem of the uninsured. The goal is for the market to drive down costs allowing more people to purchase their own insurance, with the help of the previously mentioned tax credit. There are no mandates of any kind and very few consumer protections. Will it save money? According to a quarter of experts in the Health Affairs journal:
Obama's plan accomplishes two things better than McCain's plan: it will do more to reduce the cost of health care, and it will bring us closer to universal coverage.
In my first thoughts on the issues, I tackled abortion in kind of a random fashion. It was a purely emotional reaction to the abortion issue, something I feel rather strongly about. For my other seven items on the issues leading up to the election, I decided to put a bit more research behind my posts. Today, I'm going to look at the health care plans of both candidates, and then I'll draw some conclusions.
John McCain
As you would expect, McCain's web page on his health care plan is less about the plan itself than it is about attacking Obama. If I were offering his plan, I'd stick to talking about my opponent as well. The crux of McCain's plan is a change in the way in which health care benefits are taxed. Currently, your employer is excluded from paying taxes on the amount they pay for your health benefits. Under the McCain plan, this exclusion would be replaced by a tax credit available to each family. McCain wants to create a health insurance market for individuals by removing the tax incentive for employer's to provide insurance. McCain asserts that this would save money.
Barack Obama
Obama's plan is to strengthen the employer provided health care system, while increasing options for those who do not already have health care through an employer, including a public plan that would be similar to the plan that members of Congress now have. Obama mandates that every child must be covered by insurance, but does not mandate that every adult have insurance. Obama believes that he can cut health care costs for everyone by aggressively resolving inefficiencies in the health care system. Additionally, Obama would provide consumer protections, especially for those with preexisting conditions.
My Thoughts
I'm a liberal and I want universal health care and single payer insurance. Since neither candidate is offering this approach, I'll have to choose one or the other.
It is no surprise that the Republican candidate is advocating a market based approach to solving the problem of the uninsured. The goal is for the market to drive down costs allowing more people to purchase their own insurance, with the help of the previously mentioned tax credit. There are no mandates of any kind and very few consumer protections. Will it save money? According to a quarter of experts in the Health Affairs journal:
Senator John McCain's (R-AZ) health plan would eliminate the current tax exclusion of employer payments for health coverage, replace the exclusion with a refundable tax credit for those who purchase coverage, and encourage Americans to move to a national market for nongroup insurance. Middle-range estimates suggest that initially this change will have little impact on the number of uninsured people, although within five years this number will likely grow as the value of the tax credit falls relative to rising health care costs. Moving toward a relatively unregulated nongroup market will tend to raise costs, reduce the generosity of benefits, and leave people with fewer consumer protections.I'm puzzled by the lack of a universal mandate in Obama's plan. It would increase the size of the risk pool and help lower overall costs. Other than this, I'm fine with Obama's plan. It mandates coverage for all children which is a must. It might be the best bet to get true reform as well. Most people are happy with their employer based insurance and Obama's plan will strengthen the existing system while offering an alternative system for those without coverage.
Obama's plan accomplishes two things better than McCain's plan: it will do more to reduce the cost of health care, and it will bring us closer to universal coverage.
Thursday, October 9, 2008
It's All About Control (Abortion)
8 Thoughts on the Issues #1
Not content with the damage of the past eight years, the Bush administration has decided to impart one last bit of punishment on the women of Africa. In his column in this mornings N.Y. Times, Nicholas Kristof reports that the Bush Administration has decided to withhold birth control supplies from many women in Africa. The effects of this will be more abortions, more women dying in childbirth and more poor children in the world who aren't wanted. Congrats to the Bush folk.
It will come as no surprise that this has nothing to do with abortion or saving the lives of babies or forced abortions in China. Nobody buys that. This is about one thing and one thing only: forcing their morality on the world at large. It is a morality that, of course, forces women into subservient roles where even their bodies are under the moral control of rich white "Christian" men.
The game is up when you realize that the Republicans never support anything that will actually reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies, rather here in America, in Africa, or in the world at large. Why? Because dealing with the issue of unwanted pregnancy practically requires the acknowledgement that no matter how much preaching of the virtues of abstinence takes place, people are going to have sex. Rich or Poor. Young or Old. Black or White. African or American. People like sex. You know what they don't like? Being told what to do.
Rather than presenting common sense alternatives to women and allowing them to choose among the options what will best fit their life best the Republicans want to condemn women to parenthood, whether they are ready or not. If we were to travel to deepest, darkest recesses of their psyches, we would see that they do not believe we should be having sex for any reason other than procreation. Now, that's that we should not ... they do not include themselves of course.
You see, Republicans, at least those with power like politicians, preachers and corporate executives, are free to have as much sex as they want. Already married? Only wrong for a Democrat! If they get someone in trouble, well, what do you think they will do? Encourage the woman to exercise their right to choose an abortion.
You see, if they succeed in outlawing abortion across the land, poor women will die in back alley abortions, but Republican power brokers will still have access to safe, underground abortions. That's how hypocritical power brokers work.
As for the sincere people who are morally oppossed to abortions and would never stray from that belief, well, I really don't have much respect for them either. I accept and applaud Pro-Life as a choice and that is the end of my respect for this position. The notion that your religious belief in the life of a fetus should matter in even the slightest to anyone who doesn't share your religion or other belief system is stupid. Sincere religious belief doesn't interest me.
Let me come out and admit it now: I am Pro-Abortion. Legally, I am Pro-Choice of course because I do not think the government should ever be in the business of forcing abortions on women. However, I believe it is in society's best interest that if a woman wants an abortion, then the government ought to pay for it. It's almost never mentioned anymore but the world is experiencing a crisis of over population. If you think the oil shotages are bad, wait until food and water shotages hit the majority of the world.
Candidate Scorecard:
Barack Obama: Pro-Choice
Joe Biden: Pro-Choice, opposes any federal funding of abortions because of stupid Catholic voodoo
John McCain: All over the map depending upon his particular political circumstances, but is currently Pro-Life and pledges to appoint judges who would overturn Roe.
The Prom Queen: Pro-Life, even in cases of incest and rape and actively involved in a shotgun wedding. Brags about her choice to carry her son with Downs to term and brags about her daughter's choice to keep her baby even as she would take that choice away from other women.
Not content with the damage of the past eight years, the Bush administration has decided to impart one last bit of punishment on the women of Africa. In his column in this mornings N.Y. Times, Nicholas Kristof reports that the Bush Administration has decided to withhold birth control supplies from many women in Africa. The effects of this will be more abortions, more women dying in childbirth and more poor children in the world who aren't wanted. Congrats to the Bush folk.
It will come as no surprise that this has nothing to do with abortion or saving the lives of babies or forced abortions in China. Nobody buys that. This is about one thing and one thing only: forcing their morality on the world at large. It is a morality that, of course, forces women into subservient roles where even their bodies are under the moral control of rich white "Christian" men.
The game is up when you realize that the Republicans never support anything that will actually reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies, rather here in America, in Africa, or in the world at large. Why? Because dealing with the issue of unwanted pregnancy practically requires the acknowledgement that no matter how much preaching of the virtues of abstinence takes place, people are going to have sex. Rich or Poor. Young or Old. Black or White. African or American. People like sex. You know what they don't like? Being told what to do.
Rather than presenting common sense alternatives to women and allowing them to choose among the options what will best fit their life best the Republicans want to condemn women to parenthood, whether they are ready or not. If we were to travel to deepest, darkest recesses of their psyches, we would see that they do not believe we should be having sex for any reason other than procreation. Now, that's that we should not ... they do not include themselves of course.
You see, Republicans, at least those with power like politicians, preachers and corporate executives, are free to have as much sex as they want. Already married? Only wrong for a Democrat! If they get someone in trouble, well, what do you think they will do? Encourage the woman to exercise their right to choose an abortion.
You see, if they succeed in outlawing abortion across the land, poor women will die in back alley abortions, but Republican power brokers will still have access to safe, underground abortions. That's how hypocritical power brokers work.
As for the sincere people who are morally oppossed to abortions and would never stray from that belief, well, I really don't have much respect for them either. I accept and applaud Pro-Life as a choice and that is the end of my respect for this position. The notion that your religious belief in the life of a fetus should matter in even the slightest to anyone who doesn't share your religion or other belief system is stupid. Sincere religious belief doesn't interest me.
Let me come out and admit it now: I am Pro-Abortion. Legally, I am Pro-Choice of course because I do not think the government should ever be in the business of forcing abortions on women. However, I believe it is in society's best interest that if a woman wants an abortion, then the government ought to pay for it. It's almost never mentioned anymore but the world is experiencing a crisis of over population. If you think the oil shotages are bad, wait until food and water shotages hit the majority of the world.
Candidate Scorecard:
Barack Obama: Pro-Choice
Joe Biden: Pro-Choice, opposes any federal funding of abortions because of stupid Catholic voodoo
John McCain: All over the map depending upon his particular political circumstances, but is currently Pro-Life and pledges to appoint judges who would overturn Roe.
The Prom Queen: Pro-Life, even in cases of incest and rape and actively involved in a shotgun wedding. Brags about her choice to carry her son with Downs to term and brags about her daughter's choice to keep her baby even as she would take that choice away from other women.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
