A Voice of Reason: Sane Views for a Crazy World

May 11, 2007

Cuba: Michael Moore a Victim of Censorship

From the Seattle Times

HAVANA — Cuba characterized American filmmaker Michael Moore as a victim of censorship and the U.S. trade embargo as it reported Friday on a U.S. Treasury Department probe of his March visit here for his upcoming health-care documentary, “Sicko.”

Now that is an endorsement that only someone who is a bit out of the mainstream could take pride in. Ahh, Michael, Michael, Michael, one can only hope that this gets much more exposure. If Karl Rove were giving you advice this couldn’t have been planned better for the RNC.

“Any resemblance to McCarthyism is no coincidence,” the newspaper opined, referring to the political witch hunt that U.S. Sen. Joseph McCarthy carried out against suspected American communists in the 1950s.

The U.S. government’s targeting of Moore “confirms the imperial philosophy of censorship” by American officials, it added.

“I understand why the Bush administration is coming after me – I have tried to help the very people they refuse to help,” Moore wrote in the letter, which he posted on the liberal Web site Daily Kos. “But until George W. Bush outlaws helping your fellow man, I have broken no laws and I have nothing to hide.

We shall see, hopefully there is a long trial so you and your friends of the fringe can get LOTS of press coverage, because I honestly feel the best chance for the GOP is for you, who represent the DNC base is to speak. Loudly, clearly, and frequently.

May 4, 2007

Pro Life, Pro Choice: Symbol Over Substance

One of the more controversial instances in a rather ho hum “debate”, which was really trying to squeeze talking points between questions that sometimes lacked great meaning, may have been former NYC Mayor and front runner, Rudy Giuliani hedging a pro-choice political position in a very pro-life atmosphere. Did the former mayor handle the matter deftly, the consensus seems to be probably not, but was his answer the wrong answer is another issue entirely.

The GOP has made it a point to put a pro-life face on the party since Ronald Reagan’s stance in 1976. This was used to contrast against GOP apparatus candidate the then unelected, President Ford. Reagan’s bold campaign, which did benefit slightly from the pro-life movement’s involvement in his campaign. By 1980, the pro-life movement was a force in the GOP and played a role in Ronald Reagan, who had governed California with policies which were anything but “pro-life”, but publicly stated the lingo that the movement wanted to hear, and propelled the issue to prominence within the party. Pitted against this, oh Lord forgive me for invoking this with the name of Reagan with this term, flip-flop, George Bush who was not as ardently pro-life, but had never cast a pro-abortion rights vote or signed pro-abortion rights legislation, was seen as “soft” on the issue, simply because he didn’t run it up a flagpole, and inferred there was room for reasonable disagreement.

Now while I don’t doubt that President Reagan may indeed have had a turning moment in his life, and I would argue that Mit Romney deserves the same benefit of the doubt, the actual impact of his support of the pro-life agenda – and that is not inherently a perjurative, since “everyone” has an agenda – was little of substance and a lot on symbol. You have to hand it to President Reagan, he knew how to get mileage on an issue, and nobody expected him to come out of California, home of the most progressive abortion rights laws, many signed by him, and overturn Roe v Wade. Talking the talk was enough, and has remained so for the past 27 years. This is not to say that the sincerity of GOP candidate’s opposition to abortion on demand is disingenuous, it is to say that despite their sincerity and placing it as a bona fides to be a “true Republican”, very little has been accomplished towards ending this practice despite it being a rallying cry for the political party that has held the executive office for nearly 20 of the past 28 years, and has had control of Congress for approximately 12 of those years. Simply put, there appears to be a lack of political will to push the symbol into substance.

One can look to the steps that have been made towards restricting or to at least stemming the tide of abortions taking place, although they still run about one million or more a year. Although the raw numbers are going up, the percentage rates seem to be decreasing, partly because of shifts in public sentiment towards unwed mothers raising children. However, abortion remains a relatively common practice in the nation, and despite gains such as the Hyde Amendment – which is very good legislation from the pro-life vantage point, and the recent SCOTUS affirming of a ban on partial birth abortions, which is the epitome of symbol over substance when one considers the miniscule numbers of abortions performed in this admittedly disturbing manner, and even the wrapping of nine of the GOP candidates firmly in the mantle of symbolicly being pro-life there is little to hope that much substance will be reaped from this act.

Which leads us to Roe v Wade, or the decision that fires the hearts of the pro-life movement much in the same way that the number 666 makes a old fashioned tent revival preacher tone up the occilation in his voice with the mandatory appearance of veins bulging from the neck. The real point is that Roe v Wade is symbol, and not really much in substance. If the decision is overturned, and the best path for the pro-life advocates is via the judiciary making decisions pushed forward by state legislatures which will take away the reach of the law, there is no reason to believe that abortion will be outlawed in the vast majority of states, nor that the number of abortions performed in the nation will go down in a drastic manner. Just as Roe v Wade served as a symbol for the women’s movement, rather than giving much substantive relief, as abortion was readily available in most areas, its overturning will be a symbol without much substance. If this issue were cereal, it would have snap and crackle, but lack pop.

So what is the big deal about having the pro-life mantle and wearing it proudly? What is so heretical about saying, as Rudy Giuliani did last night, that this is a highly personal decision that is ultimately up to the woman? If a woman wants to end a pregnancy, she will do so. Should the state make it easy by funding her desire, well the law says no, however, should the state governments “put obstacles” in the path in the exercise of this decision, would be fully in line with Federalism. However, the role of the Federal government advancing or putting up obstacles remains the area that will likely be debated. Perhaps this is just the instance the the 9th Amendment was framed, let the states fight it out, and keep it out of the pervue of the Feds. Although it is the “dream of dreams” that abortion will be nationally outlawed by the of the pro-life movement, and conversely the “sum of all fears” of the pro-abortion rights crowd, both sides need to face reality, that like it or not, abortion is a reality and an option that whether Federally deemed as woman’s right, or given protection by the states, is likely to remain among us. It would also be the reciprocal of a bad decision that allowed Roe v Wade, and if you understand math reciprocals have the exact qualities of their counterpart. It would likely be just as bad from a Constitutional framework as the 1973 decision.

A reasonable position is that probably both poles don’t have a monopoly on the truth. To assert this position as a human right, although it is the law, is hard to imagine to be the intent of the framers of the Constitution, but rest assured, women were having abortions, lots of them in colonial days. They just didn’t get Federal funds for it, nor have Congress stopping production of whatever plant women used in a “tea” to end an unwanted child, and this disinterest is likely the best position. Funny how the middle of the road, although hated by the poles, is where the vast majority of the public, and in this case,  Constitutional ground.

Survey USA Poll: Giuliani Beats Opponents in Debate

A poll of 317 viewers watching the debate were asked to rate the performance of the candidates:

Rudy Giuliani 30%
Mitt Romney 12%
John McCain 11%
Jim Gilmore 8%
Duncan Hunter 7%
Sam Brownback 4%
Mike Huckabee 4%
Tom Tancredo 4%
Ron Paul 2%
Tommy Thompson 2%

UPDATE: Drudge report is having an interactive poll, but it does allow for multiple voting, so pretty worthless.

The Debate: Who Won and Why?

You see the title; what is your answer. I will reply after I think.

Updated: Well I thought and I will now take out my teacher’s red pencil and give each a grade in no particular order.

Rep. Tom Tancredo – Looked frustrated at times. I think part of it is that his campaign is struggling for air, and the format hurt him as he tried desparately to get out his views and distinguish himself, particularly on immigration. I also think that people saw that frustration and it didn’t help. Grade D

Rep. Duncan Hunter – Was clear, concise, and strong in many of his answer. One area that may hurt him was he was the most aggressive on Iran, and to a country that is not at all happy with Iraq, showing this posturing towards another nation in the area, one that does make everyone nervous may hurt with many even among Hawks. His trade and pro-worker solutions were noteworthy. Grade B-

Mayor Rudy Giuiliani – He was strong on war on terror and framing himself in his model of Conservativism. The questions on abortion won’t help with the base, and will help him with those who are softer on pro-life/pro-choice. He stumbled on that area, but did make his case with his time as NYC Mayor. I still support him. Grade B-

Sen. John McCain – Anyone who said that he lacked vigor got the reply in spades, he was energetic, perhaps too much so, to the point of aggressiveness in tone and body language. He also really had a problem keeping to the time, and wasn’t held to the time limits strictly. He didn’t hurt himself, but I don’t think he helped himself too much. He came out fairly strongly against President Bush, with saying numerous times, “The war was mismanaged”. He seemed passionate and assertive, but perhaps too agressive. Grade C+

Gov. Mit Romney – Of all the candidates the former Bay State Governor stood out. I am not a big Romney fan, but if I had to declare an overall winner, it would be him. He was able to frame his “flip flop” on abortion, and gave a reason that was credible. He also was well versed on the issues and inviting. Grade A

Gov. Jim Gilmore – Did very well tonight too. He was able to state that he was the “consistent Conservative”. He also did well to elicit his positions. However, there are few moments that make him stand out, and he probably won’t see his coin rise. Grade B-

Gov. Tommy Thompson – Did very well on many areas, but there was one area that may hurt him, and that was the question about firing people due to their sexual practices. I also believe that there was a pause that would have allowed him to nuance his position, and his silence was pregnant. This will be picked up. I don’t know if this is a valid reason to terminate an employee in the private sector, other than religious organizations, such as a parochial school, which are exempt from such restrictions and understandably so. His Iraq solution is interesting and deserves a look. Grade B-

Sen. Sam Brownback – Made some good points tonight, and particularly in his stressing the need for the political process to have a more dominant role in the process. His stands on abortion will help only with those who don’t know him, as they are well known. He also held up his credos to the bases fondness of evangelical base. Overall he may have helped himself, but like so many in the second tier is so far behind. Grade B-

Rep. Ron Paul – Made his stand as the maverick in the field. He also came across as passionate, principled, and had a good wit. However, his views on foreign policy are going to hurt him in the end. As much as America may wish to go back to isolationism, that ship has sailed. He advocated himself well, but his views won’t hold. Hard to grade with this dynamic, but based on his performance, and not his substance B.

Gov. Mike Huckabee – He had some good moments, and probably the biggest yuck of the night with his joke concering “The Governator”. He came across as genuine but may have suffered from the format as his positions are hard to define from some of the others, and nuance of his stands may be lost in the shuffle. Grade B-

Overall big winner has to be Romney. He did very well, and being slotted first, by the draw helped him. I think the big loser was Tom Tancredo, and this is not a slight, but he seemed frustrated and this won’t give him much of a bump.

I think that the only shift will be Romney moving up, but the question is who will pay for this hike Giuliani – who probably won’t lose support, McCain or maybe the non-announced candidate, who will also miss South Carolina’s debate, Fred Thompson.

If I had to be like a reality show and only promote five I think these five will likely be in SC.

Giuliani, McCain, Romney, Rep. Hunter, and either Sen. Brownback or Gov. Huckabee.

Then again, I could be wrong.

May 3, 2007

Where You Stand Politically

So, you want to  know where you stand and how you can get that cool little icon like I have on my blog?

Well, just go to this site and take the quiz.  I would put no opinion if you are not sure about something.

Please post your results, and you get BIG TIME BONUS POINTS for reasonableness if you score Moderate, Conservative or Liberal!  I “hope” I have constructed a place where divergent views are allowed and where we gain from seeing each other’s perspective.  I also hope that sometimes someone will say, I see your point, or something like that.

So often politics are too personal, so maybe this would at least bring back agreeable discussion and dissent to the forefront.

I’m posting this on all topics to hopefully get maximum participation.

IF you wish to take the quiz it is here.

Thanks!

May 1, 2007

Pistachios Helpful in Reducing Stress and Cholestoral

Filed under: Culture,Health — avoiceofreason @ 9:01 pm

For all you nut lovers out there is a report that pistachios are helpful in reducing stress and another that states they are helpful in lowering cholestoral.

I wonder if that holds for pistachio ice cream.  I hate that red dye anyhow!

April 26, 2007

From Russia With Love? Not Anymore

From NPR.org

I urge you to click on the link and listen to the audio.

Heard this report on Morning Drive. Yes, I listen to NPR. I think I’d rather listen to newstalk, but NPR will do. They cover a wide variety of stories, and this one about Russian adoption policy shifts was worthwhile. You can hear the audio from the link.

Russian authorities have suspended the work of foreign adoption agencies. That has put into limbo the plans of many Americans waiting to adopt Russian children, even as human rights groups say a growing number of institutionalized children in Russia are living — and dying — in wretched conditions.

Most of the nearly 800,000 children called orphans in Russia still have living parents.

The article goes on to describe the children who have left their parents due to the horrific treatment they received from them. These children are lucky, in the sense that they are in an orphanage that is well run, has a good school, and these children are well treated. This is by no means the norm in Russia’s orphanages.

However, even these children are subjected to horrors that thankfully, most people only read about.

“Children are traumatized even in the best orphanages because they have no time to themselves,” Menshov says. “Even this school is too crowded. It needs to be bulldozed. Children shouldn’t live in such places.”

The government has only recently started to encourage Russians to adopt. But very few Russian families want to adopt orphans because they’re often seen as sick or somehow damaged. Half of the 15,000 children adopted in Russia each year are taken in by foreigners.

However, this is about to change.

Americans adopt more children from Russia than from any other country except China and Guatemala. But now the government has suspended the work of all foreign adoption agencies. Officials say it’s a temporary measure, part of the new registration requirements for all non-governmental organizations.

Still, Education Ministry official Sergei Vitelis says Russian children should stay in Russia.

Adoption by foreigners probably isn’t entirely right,” Vitelis says. “Any normal state should create conditions for children to grow up in their own country. That’s what we’re aiming for.”

In principal, I’d have to say that I agree with Mr. Vitelis, but sadly, very few of Russia’s children are adopted by anyone, Russian or American. Overcrowding and neglect are the order of the day for Russia’s orphanages. This is shown by Russia’s own internal reports.

A baby lies crying in a decrepit, wooden maternity hospital in Russia’s poverty-stricken Far North. Many child advocates say places like these are where the problems start. Hospital staff often try to persuade parents of babies with disabilities to give them over to state care. Poverty and alcoholism also drive parents to abandon their children.

Sergei Koloskov, head of the Down Syndrome Society, says that contrary to government figures, the number of orphans in Russia is growing — and overloading the state’s orphanage system.

Healthy babies are lying in hospital beds all day as if they were sick, sometimes for months or longer,” Koloskov says. “They’re completely ignored. No one plays with them or provides any kind of stimulation. That happens because orphanages where they’re supposed to go after birth are full.”

A book that I made myself read to educate myself, and to help in my understanding of my wife’s emotional concerns, as well as those children with whom my job in public education puts me into contact with everyday, The Primal Wound, talks about the gap that is caused by the abandoning of a child’s birth mother. Some mystic and primal force is obviously at work in the bonding process which occurs, and it is clear that more research is warranted into this phenomena. However, an area which has been thoroughly researched is the importance of stimulation and interaction of an infant in the first formative months, where these young human beings come into contact with the world around them. Russian children who are adopted by Americans typically demonstrate severe social disorders, which are caused by the notorious and well documented lack of intimacy and basic interaction between these babies and other humans, and the problem, in Russia is getting much worse as a system which is overstrained is resorting to methods which border on barbarism due to the severe overpopulation of abandoned infant children.

Consider these reports:

“I was stunned,” she says. “They were completely alone. They were fed several times a day and that was it. After a while, they just stop crying.”

Last winter, another patient in a central Russian hospital noticed a room of abandoned babies with their mouths taped shut to stop them from crying. Her cell phone video shocked the country when it was played on national television. Reports of babies tied down in their cots are common. Many believe that’s because hospital staff are seriously overworked.

Boris Altshuler of the Child’s Right group says it’s often immediately clear to visitors that abandoned babies are left to “rot alive.”

“First of all [there’s] the smell — [the] smell of unchanged linens or even children lying on just plastic. And [a] terrible smell because nobody changes, nobody cares,” Altshuler says.

These are in the “good institutions”, and a developing trend is for many children, many of whom have no real illness but may show some anti-social behaviors – wonder why – or due to overcrowding are sent to “special institutions”.

Children considered mentally or physically disabled are sent to special institutions, which Altshuler calls “terrible places.”

A Human Rights Watch report says that children in such institutions may be up to twice as likely to die than those in regular orphanages. Evaluations deciding orphans’ fates are often cursory. Misdiagnosis is common, and sometimes even doled out as punishment for misbehavior.

These institutions seem little better than places where children are sent to die. Set behind high walls, often in remote areas of the country, or outside the main part of cities, little attention is drawn to these places. Their remoteness combined with a cultural acceptance of never questioning the actions of the state, combine to make these little slices of hell on earth a growing reality in Russia.

While there is likely some truth in Russians desiring to have these children raised by Russians, there is also a world that deals with a political reality. In a recent newscast, commentator Charles Krauetenheimer referred to the disturbing trend of Russia’s retreat from democratic principals. His analysis, which is mirrored by many other watch groups, is that Russia has retreated back into a police state, where the KGB no longer reports to the Politburo, but to President Putin. The reality is that modern day Russia may have exchanged Communism for a form of Capitalism, but has gone back to the form that it has held historically since the time of the Tsars, as a people who are more than comfortable with a repressive state’s boot-heel firmly planted on their neck. This, and a growing rift between Russia and the United States in policy goals and as rivals for control of the balance of power in dealings with the EU have put a frosty edge to US and Russian foreign policy, and make no mistake that this shift in adoption policy is part of the fallout of this developing rift. While Russia and the United States are no longer in an adverserial stance, they are certainly in a relationship that would best be described as a rivalry.

These children are now left in limbo, pawns of Putin’s political chess game.

April 22, 2007

China Forces 61 Christian Women To Abortion

From Chinaview: Commentary will be limited on this. Some things are just too heinous to inject sanity, satire, debate or much else.

61 Christian Women Forced to Have Abortions in China
According to China Aid Association (CAA), a massive forced abortion campaign is ongoing in China’s Guangxi Province targeting Christian pregnant women. It’s reported that 61 Christian women were forced to have abortions in 2 days on April 17 and 18. Here’s China Aid Association’s reports.

41 Forced on April 17

Midland, Texas (April 17, 2007)- CAA has learned that a massive forced abortion campaign is ongoing in China’s Guangxi Province(Autonomous Region).

One Christian lady, Ms. Linrong Wei, 7 months pregnent, was dragged into the hospital from her home on April 17 at 8:45 AM (Beijing time) by 10 officials from the Population and Family Planning Commsssion in Baise City, Guangxi. Her husband Yage “James” Liang was formerly a pastor in the government-sanctioned TSPM church before he became a House church pastor a year ago.

According to eyewitnesses’ reports to CAA, 40 other preganant women was forcefully moved to the Youjiang District People’s Hospital of Baise City on the same day to perform forced abortion.

Eyewitnesses told CAA that pastor Liang’s wife was pregenant accidentally and they wanted to keep this baby because of Christian principles. Ms. Wei was injected with medicine to induce birth at 11 AM on April 17. Ms. Wei’s hospital bed number is No. 39.

Eyewitnesses report that another woman, 9 months preganent, on bed number 38 was also injected at 12 PM.

One Church leader in that area who has visited Ms. Wei told CAA that these so-called ‘illegal pregnant women” were treated so bad that they were just forced to lay down on the very simple beds in the hospital corridor before the injections were done.

The family planning officials told relatives of the women that their babies will be born and most likely die within 24 hours.

2o Christian Women Forced to Have Abortions on April 18

Midland, Texas (April 18, 2007)- The Massive forced abortion campaign continues in Guangxi province. After 41 women were forced to have abortions on April 17, CAA has learned that the Youjiang District People’s Hospital of Baise City performed forced abortions for at least 20 more pregnant women on April 18.

Eyewitnesses report to CAA that at around 5:00pm on April 18, more than 20 more pregnant women were transported into the same hospital by the Family Planning officials. Within 30 minutes, about 10 of them were injected forcefully for an abortion.

This means within last 24 hours, at least 61 babies were killed with forced abortions.

At Bed number 37, Ms. He Caigan was 9 months pregnant. Officials injected her baby’s head and 20 minutes later, her baby stopped moving and died.

About 6am on April 18(BJ time), pastor James Liang’s wife Ms Wei Linrong gave birth to a boy, but he was dead because of the injection. She received three doses of injection-one is to induce the birth and the other two to kill the baby in the womb.

After China Aid reported the forced abortion, many PSB were seen surrounding the section of the hospital where these women are held.

What can be said to such barbarous acts. Remember what you support when you save a couple of bucks to buy Chinese goods. Please pass this post around, while I have no doubt that the commercial interests our nation has with China will preclude Congress from any action, even a whisper of this on the House or Senate floor, perhaps awareness could be raised. I am posting this on all political tags, and who knows, maybe a candidate will have the guts to mention this horrific practice and make this an issue.

Playing at God at the Risk of Pissing the Real One Off

My wife and I had a conversation on the way to an Easter Sunday family gathering. I had hinted at it, and I out and out said it. What do you think about adopting a child.

The reaction was stone cold silence. We had discussed children in the past, it had met the same reaction. I accept this, and I think that a part of it is a reaction to hitting middle age. My children are 23, 21, 18,17 and 16. I don’t feel that I am wanting a child because I recognize I am on the back nine of life. There are other reasons for desiring the experience of a child with my wife, and us raising that child together. I guess I’ll have to hint that grandkids would be a nice idea, once my children find potential spouses to satisfy this yearning. By the way an hour or so of holding one of my many grand nieces/nephews took the edge off, and hearing them cry really helped.

My wife is an adoptee, and I by proxy have become interested and hopefully empathetic to her issues concerning not knowing her birth mother, and the mounds of red tape that she goes through trying to even get her non-identifying information. However, in truth, I’ll never know how she feels, and candidly I am thankful that I won’t.

Another issue she has, and I have learned many other adoptee children have is what I call the I’m mad at you, my birth mom and everyone syndrome. Even though her adoptive parents did their best and loved her, and she had the “pool and the pony” so typical of adopted children’s experiences, she was deemed ungrateful; some times I think – in moments of non empathy, she’s earned it. Many people simply will never understand, and I think I have begun to do so, that sense of the missing piece that leads to so many adopted children growing up, and being “ungrateful”. Trust me, there are times when she gets on that roll, and when it happens, she’s no fun to live with.

However, there are a group of children, many now who are growing up, who have an even more viable reason to be “ungrateful”, and I refer to the generation growing among us, the test tube generation. Think about what these kids go through. Am I person or am I a human/dell project put together from only the best parts that a catalogue of prospective mothers and fathers could buy. I mean, I think EVERY child wants to believe that they were conceived from some concept of love ( I know some aren’t).

However, I can’t imagine the mixed emotions that these sci-fi children must feel. Even a social faux pas in the back of a Chevy on a hot July night, has to be BLISS considering the research and marketing that goes into these type of “parental” choices. So, adopted kids, move over on the ungrateful bandwagon, cause, there’s a new bunch of kids in town, and these kids aren’t in the same ballpark, they’re not in the same f***ing sport, to quote Pulp Fiction.

They have issues that Freud in his wildest dreams couldn’t have fathomed. Q: Tell me about your mother. A. She was picked from a catalogue for her GPA, skin tone and facial structure and also was D&D free (not dungeons and dragons for any geeks who may be stopping by). Freud is rolling over in his grave, and cursing himself that he didn’t think and have some part of him saved, so he could be cloned, because these kids, well, let’s just say that why do I overeat and seem to be stuck in the oral phase, just got bumped by a whole other bunch of issues.

Consider your average John and Jane Q “Can’t Have a Kid”. I know many don’t fit the profile, but a hell of a lot do. They marry, say in their 20’s or lately early 30’s. They both have a career, and they really want to keep that career and have a kid when they have it all. So, the biological clock starts to tick away and if they are lucky they have a child. Of course the “fact” that children born by mothers after a certain year have a much higher chance of developing issues, including miscarriage, and also learning disabilities, down’s syndrome and other minor inconveniences, won’t stand in the way of too close to middle age to have a kid from “having it all”. Then you have the others that waited a bit too long. Or they find out that John’s sperm count is lower than President Bush’s approval ratings, or that Jane’s womb has become as welcoming as the Serengetti Plains during drought season. Now, rational people suck it up and move on, and consider other options, like adoption.

But no, not John and Jane, they MUST have their biology pass on, and the hell with the fact they didn’t wait. So, they try, and maybe they succeed. Or, maybe they don’t, but they want to have a “wee wittle baby of their dreams”, so they don’t adopt a child, and honestly the miles of red tape and the Tony Soprano mentality of some “adoption agencies”, and I trust these groups about as much as I would Bill Clinton at a sorority dance, make them decide to purchase a child piece by piece, just like a Dell it is custom made. They rent a woman’s uterus, purchase her egg and a man’s sperm, and instant family!

This leads them to find Mr. Perfect Sperm and Ms. Wonderful Egg, kinda of a scary hi tech Barbie and Ken search, I mean Who wants an ugly-stupid kid?

Certainly, not Jennalee Ryan, and yes she’s a real person, so maybe she’s out there reading;  she runs a Dell/baby company, and justifies it, and yes, that above link are her words. Jane, “people” like you, make me in favor of retroactive abortion rights – well after the third trimester. You remind me of… Josef, not MARY and Joseph you sci-fi facist, Josef Mengele.

Gandhi once said, “Science without Humanity” is a social sin.

If this offends you, remember that all people deserve to at least believe they were welcomed, and wanted, but putting together a “human being” from a list of vendors was warned to mankind as early as Mary Shelly in Frankenstein. Life is the life of life, wrote Pascal. I think that means you take what life gives you with grace, and don’t play God. If you try to, you’re likely to piss the real one off.

If you are concerned about this issue of mass marketing human beings, please consider this site.

Because Children have Rights. We all do.

April 19, 2007

The Candidates Views on the “Supremes Latest Hit” Ban on Partial Birth Abortion

The candidates have been voicing their comments on today’s Supreme Court ruling affirming a Nebraska ban on partial birth abortions.

Rudy Giuliani: “The Supreme Court reached the correct conclusion in upholding the congressional ban on partial birth abortion,” Giuliani said in a statement on the 5–4 decision. “I agree with it.”

Okay, I know that in 2000 in a Senate run he did state that he would not vote for a woman’s right to undergo the procedure, however, times change. Call it a flip-flop if you want. Lincoln flip-flopped on slavery, and maybe this is one that the GOP can live with. Giuliani is protecting his right flank, but so are the other GOP frontrunners.

Hillary Clinton: Washington, DC — “This decision marks a dramatic departure from four decades of Supreme Court rulings that upheld a woman’s right to choose and recognized the importance of women’s health. Today’s decision blatantly defies the Court’s recent decision in 2000 striking down a state partial-birth abortion law because of its failure to provide an exception for the health of the mother. As the Supreme Court recognized in Roe v. Wade in 1973, this issue is complex and highly personal; the rights and lives of women must be taken into account. It is precisely this erosion of our constitutional rights that I warned against when I opposed the nominations of Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito.”

Well one good news for Sen. Clinton, there is now way the law effects her. I don’t think many men are interested and we all know that Bill is not really that interested either. Okay, that was horrible and mean, but it was fun to do!
This does little to help her with her base, and may actually hurt with some “Blue Dog” Democrats.

Sen. Obama: I strongly disagree with today’s Supreme Court ruling, which dramatically departs from previous precedents safeguarding the health of pregnant women. As Justice Ginsburg emphasized in her dissenting opinion, this ruling signals an alarming willingness on the part of the conservative majority to disregard its prior rulings respecting a woman’s medical concerns and the very personal decisions between a doctor and patient. I am extremely concerned that this ruling will embolden state legislatures to enact further measures to restrict a woman’s right to choose, and that the conservative Supreme Court justices will look for other opportunities to erode Roe v. Wade, which is established federal law and a matter of equal rights for women.

To his credit this is about as much as Sen. Obama has said about “any” issue this campaign. His candidacy seems to be a great deal about being who he is – Barack – and who he’s not – Hillary – and not about his views and positions. However, this does little to effect his base, and also may hurt with some Blue Dog Democrats.

John Edwards: “I could not disagree more strongly with today’s Supreme Court decision. The ban upheld by the Court is an ill-considered and sweeping prohibition that does not even take account for serious threats to the health of individual women. This hard right turn is a stark reminder of why Democrats cannot afford to lose the 2008 election. Too much is at stake – starting with, as the Court made all too clear today, a woman’s right to choose.”

It’s just too bad that when he was a Senator, he MISSED the vote. Must have had other things to do I spose.
Well, this may hurt Sen. Edwards among Blue Dogs, but time will tell.

Sen. McCain: “I’m very happy about the decision given my position on abortion. Partial birth is one of the most odious aspects of abortion,” Arizona Sen. John McCain said while campaigning in South Carolina. In a separate statement issued by his campaign, McCain said, “It is critically important that our party continues to stand on the side of life.”

While some argue that Sen. McCain has been very consistent in his views about the abortion issue, in 1999 he did state that Roe v Wade should not be overturned, but has been advocating its repeal for the past few years. McCain has been making genuine statements to try and gather support from the GOP base.

Mit Romney: “Today, our nation’s highest court reaffirmed the value of life in America by upholding a ban on a practice that offends basic human decency,” Romney said in a statement. “This decision represents a step forward in protecting the weakest and most innocent among us.”

Romney has been on both sides of this issue in the past, but states that he does not favor an amendment to the Constitution to “ban” abortion, but feels it is an issue best decided by the states. Seems like Mr. Romney is also trying to ensure the base likes him.

Other candidates:
Sen. Brownback: the ruling would result “in lives being saved.” (the scope is too limited for that, but he is very popular with the Pro-Life movement.

Rep. Tancredo: said he hopes the decision is the first step toward a broader abortion ban.

Sen. Biden was unavailable for comment, though he voted in support of the ban.

Sen Dodd also was unavailable for comment, though he voted against the ban.

Next Page »

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.