Politics

[tussin]

That's exactly right. The State became involved in marriage because it has a compelling interest in promoting a stable environment for the raising of children. Traditional marriage provided that. But marriage ceased being about child-rearing long ago, as indicated by the legislation of contraception and no-fault divorce. Now it's primarily about the sharing of property rights between couples; and there's no compelling reason for the State to be heavily involved in such arrangements. But Social Justice Warriors have found it to be to a powerful wedge issue for forcing cultural change, so I doubt the libertarian argument for "Getting Government Out of Marriage" will find much purchase.

Do you think adopted children in SSM households are less likely to have a "stable" home life? If so, is it caused by the fact that their parents are SSM or possibly because there are other unique circumstances with adopted children.

Asking as a Catholic who is personally opposed but on the fence with government involvement in SSM. If your view on home life stability is inarguable, then I agree with your stance. I just haven't seen the data yet to confirm.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

Do you think adopted children in SSM households are less likely to have a "stable" home life? If so, is it caused by the fact that their parents are SSM or possibly because there are other unique circumstances with adopted children.

I'm aware of only one study that indicates children raised in SSMs are worse off, but it's been widely discredited since its publication. When gay couples commit to each other and adopt children, I have a hard time seeing how society isn't benefited. All parties involved are likely better off than they'd be alone.

Asking as a Catholic who is personally opposed but on the fence with government involvement in SSM. If your view on home life stability is inarguable, then I agree with your stance. I just haven't seen the data yet to confirm.

It has more to do with the categorical differences between traditional and SSM. The former is uniquely generative, which is why the State was justified in granting it preferential legal status. But since we, as a society, have decided that marriage is no longer about bearing and raising children in a stable environment, no marriage (traditional or otherwise) deserves preferential legal treatment.

So, as far as practical solutions go, I'm a proponent of getting government out of marriage entirely. There are all sorts of religious liberty issues involved with pretending that the bundle of legal rights government authorities confer via a marriage certificate is even remotely similar to the Catholic sacrament which happens to share the same name.

 

[Old Man Mike]

With GRAVE reluctance: I told myself long ago that I would not post on the topic of abortion, but as it entered this thread and was surprisingly met with civil exchange, I'm going to dump a little knowledge and opinion gained during my biology-teaching days. The intended purpose of this is to show how opposing viewers of this issue can still both be holders of thoughtful positions. Sadly it's a long dump so it will be in more than one post.

A). The lesser portion of the abortion controversy: what science can tell you about the physical/biological facts.

1). Human Life [scientifically defined] exists at conception. It also exists at all other times and in all other cells. Eggs, sperm, skin cells, hair follicles are all human life.

2). Once an egg is fertilized by a sperm, it will in the majority of cases develop into a normal human baby. It is estimated that between 1/3rd and 1/5th of all fertilized embryos spontaneously abort "naturally". Of those that remain, more than 90% will enter the world independently without any noticeable serious physical or physiological defect --- there may of course be hidden genetic time bombs.

3). Embryos appear as undifferentiated [featureless] hollow balls for about 14 days post-fertilization. After that, a ridge or bump forms which will become the body of the fetus, while the ball becomes the amniotic sac et al. Up until this time, it seems that [though this is rare] two such embryos can fuse and become one [a "chimaera"] with two different genetic lines. This rare phenomenon can also occur at the site of implantation if two "fraternal twin" fertilized embryos would try to occupy the same site on the womb wall and fuse there. As this would involve slightly more advanced cells, this chimaera would be more grossly "patchy" genetically, and could even be a male-female fusion. {this is not how "siamese twins" occur, which is the opposite --- a falling apart of an early single embryo, which however maintains a fused area in common}.

4). At about day 25, the primitive brain stem seems to begin activity and the undeveloped heart begins beating.

5). At about week 8, all "human" structures exist in the fetus, including details like the fingerprints. Following this, simple movements of the limbs begin, indicating that the motor function of the brain is beginning. Sometime, though this is not known, merely deduced, between week 8 and week 13, some activity in the sensory cortex may begin. This would be the first time that the fetus could be said to be able to experience pain. Wether it actually can experience pain is of course scientifically unknowable.

6). In a typical pregnancy, the mother cannot feel any movement of her fetus [it's much too small] until week 13 or later, the so-called "time of quickening."

End of "Dump Portion One".

 

[Old Man Mike]

Dump Portion two....

B). Some simplistic combinations of the science with hypotheses/ramblings:

1). The argument about abortion cannot be simply about "human life". This must be more sophisticatedly defined [and continued to be discussed using the sophisticated definition] so that we're communicating what we're really concerned about. "Human Life" is obviously terminated in an abortion, even pro-choice medical people easily admit that. The issue is: what SORT of human life, and what value are we placing on THAT particular sort? Obviously, we don't want to object to any of us taking a shower and scrubbing some viable human cells down the drain.

2). Beating this theme to death: the argument is not about reproductive cells --- sperm and eggs being haploid incomplete cells with no present potentiation to become an independent human being. Mother Nature cares little for them [individually] either, as we have huge natural wastage of those cell types. The argument cannot be about normal diploid somatic or structural cells either, which are currently also made and lost in abundance, and with current technology cannot be made into an independent human being ... yet [but that will happen].

3). The argument is about embryos/fetuses at their various phases of development, and whether all phases of development must be considered equally, and whether any "lines" should be drawn through the entirety of the entity's dependent development [including, for intellectual honesty reasons, early years AFTER birth.]

4). How we weigh these "answers" tends to depend [for most] a lot less on science and statistical facts, than on social, economic, psychological, and theological viewpoints/conditions surrounding the debate.

A few facts, prior to going onwards in the next dump:

A). about 90% of abortions occur in the first trimester [13 weeks], these procedures are produced almost entirely by dilating the cervix and suctioning the womb wall ;
B). about 1 1/2% occur post week 21 --- these [if legal] require a doctor's diagnosis of severe health threat under the current law, these actions are defined as "medical abortions";
C). about 50% of the women who later had an abortion were using a birth control method at the time; the scientific rate for failure of the pill is much less than one percent, but the HUMAN screw-up rate is 6-to-8%;
D). mortality rates for pills and most other BC methods, but also including early "suctioning" abortion procedures, are significantly less statistically than going through with a pregnancy to term. Statistics don't determine decision, of course, but it is a statistical fact which arguers use.

End of Dump two....

 

[Domina Nostra]

I'm aware of only one study that indicates children raised in SSMs are worse off, but it's been widely discredited since its publication. When gay couples commit to each other and adopt children, I have a hard time seeing how society isn't benefited. All parties involved are likely better off than they'd be alone.

When kids get involved, we have to act in their "best interests." For example, a judge can can force a parent to provide a certain type of education. She can choose-whether the child lives with the mother or father.

Those judments necessarily imports all kinds of value judments.

One assumption that gets glosses over is that American social scientists have an idea of what "the Good" is. We pretend that they can neutrally tell you who is or isn't better off. However, what is their basis for saying this? I am not sure the billion Muslims, billion Indians, billion Chinese, hundreds of millions of Africans and Chrisitans, would all agree.

Those are value judgments, plain and simple. Judges and social scientist can pretend they aren't importing them, but they are. And they will be imposed with the force of law on children and the parents who are not acting I the child's "best interest."

This whole debate is framed as traditional marriage opponents imposing their values on everyone. Are they imposing their beliefs unfairly on their kids? Are they teaching their kids to be bigots? If so, what is the government's role in ensuring each kid has a fair chance at a normal open-minded education and well-adjusted childhood. Can they force the kids to go to sensitivity training? What about de-programming?

 

[Old Man Mike]

Dump Portion 3:

Attempting to draw a line....

1). Day One "Conceptionists". This is one extreme, labeled "conservative", position. The argument is that fully potentiated human life [defined as a potentially independently-functioning human individual] exists. Since only God knows about the spiritual "content" of that fertilized egg {I'm phrasing this in the most calm way that I can, involving the least evocative language}, we cannot "play God" and must assume the position that the soul is infused. Terminating such life is therefore murder, or at least manslaughter. Some modification of this position exists for some if the case can be honestly made that one individual's life is threatened by another. Then, as in the Irish law, the protection of the life of the fully existing person may supersede the life of the "merely" potentiated one;

2). Day Seven "implantationists", and Day Fourteen "Differentiationists" {yeh, I made that word up}. These folks [rare birds] can argue that God would not implant souls in fertilized eggs and then toss in a second soul [when the "twins" split] or yank one soul out when the embryos fused. In a chimaeric Hermaphroditic person, God would have put two souls in the separate to-be-female and to-be-male embryos, and when they fused had to decide which early-girl or early-boy soul to take back out. Since this scenario seems borderline insane for our highly organized God, these folks would reason that God waits at least past these deadlines to infuse the soul;

3). Day "LATER" futurists. Because it's easily envisionable that in the forsee-able future, we will be able to clone a human being from any body cell containing a full set of genes, it will then be true that ANY cell is a viable fully-potentiate-able human being. The thought that God has already ensouled every living cell in one's body "just in case", is a patent absurdity, leading these folks to insist that ensoulment doesn't occur with the first fully chromosomed cell either. The objection to these folks that this situation doesn't exist yet, is met with the retort that then moral choice changes with new technology?

4). Day Twenty Five "Heart-Lovers". The beating heart must indicate the fully human. For what it's worth, biology and medicine almost never consider whether the heart is still beating part of the critical definition of death --- the key there is now "brain death" which can happen [in the cortex] without stopping the lower brain stem, which sends out the heartbeat signal;

5). Week Eight "fetalists". This is magic in that the human structure now has all its details. Embryologists stop calling this "embryo" and shift over to "fetus". They think that "something" important has happened though it's tough to scientifically know for sure. But any significant evidence of brain function is still absent;

6). Week Thirteen "first-trimesterists". Brain activity, body part movement, major organs should be developed --- these plus the time necessary to have done genetic, chromosomal and general health screenings, have made the Courts decide {Roe vs Wade} that this is one drawn line to make. They said: prior to this any abortion is legal. Because the Supreme Court said it does not necessarily make it right, but they had their reasons; the genetics thing is in here because screening can with almost perfect accuracy detect certain defects. Some of these defects {Trisomy 13, Trisomy 18, Lesch-Nyhan Syndrome} are legitimately horrible things with no life quality at all in the baby, and lots of terrible pains [Lesch-Nyhan is self-mutilating] plus added pregnancy complications for the mother;

7). Week 21-22. "Viability-seekers". This was the other half of the Court decision. It was picked because the Court felt that after some time in development the fetus by definition reaches a state where it could live outside the womb --- i.e. be a "viable independent citizen entitled to protection under the law." Whereas there is a lot of political wisdom in the reasoning, in turns out, upon inspection, to have a weird component: it is "technologically arbitrary." Viability is not a scientific concept but a technological one. A fetus becomes viable much later in my old state of West Virginia than in my new state of Michigan. Should we be making "life or death decisions" based on the technology close by? Even stranger: bioscience is desperately trying to save earlier and earlier "preemies". Some day we'll get all the way to an artificial womb technology. At that moment, EVERY fetus/embryo will be technologically "viable". By the current law, NO abortion will be illegal except sudden emergency death-threat to the mother ones. Fans of Roe vs Wade might note that.

8). Post-birth "Cord-cutters" and "Infanticidists". Does the moment the umbilical cord being cut have rationale as a line of legality? VERY hard to maintain that the "closing of the scissors" is magic citizenship or personhood-wise. But if it is not, then is the line before that act or after? If before, we're back down the previous rabbitholes. If after, there there is no reason to forbid infanticide. --- other than emotionality, which, by the way plays a HUGE factor in where people come down on these things --- thus the success in showing embryos but only if they resemble babies.

End of Dump 3... last one still to come.

 

[Old Man Mike]

Last dump, God be praised.

Just a couple odd things:

A). this is an important controversy, which needs the informed discussion that our country is not prepared to give it. The main reason for its importance is what our decision, either way, can do to our heart values. This following is to me the real crux of this as it affects the nation: no matter whether one is "Pro-Life" or "Pro-Choice" one must admit that the majority of abortion decisions [leaving the individual reasons justifying them aside] are not about rape, incest, severe health threat etc. These pregnancies are, for other reasons "unwanted". If we speak of them as a philosopher would, they would be describable as choices made because the pregnancy was "inconvenient". Whatever the "level" of inconvenience might exist, that is what most are. When one reads Utopian literature, and totes up the qualities that one would most like and not like in one's ideal state, "death for expediency" is probably the least desirable cultural quality that one would hope for. IF legalizing choice in this area is to be a national long-term decision, we must have the depth multilog needed to clarify why we are living with a certain legal position and why it's not merely death-for-expediency.

B). of lesser but not insignificant stature by a long shot, let's say just for conversation purposes that we're OK with the current law. Is that all there is to the controversy? If most abortion decisions are for unwantedness, then WHY are these "unwanted?" We know the answer to this quite well. The "girls" are poor, and many uneducated, and many in ghettoes, etc. If they were persons who had decent lives and opportunities, many of these decisions would not be made, and many of the pregnancies not happened in the first place. As usual, abortion masks much deeper tougher issues infesting America. But do we set our political course to attack the actual roots of the problem? Of course we don't --- too much trouble, too much personal commitment and sacrifice --- just like crime and drugs and violence against women. But with abortion we have a typically American solution. Unwanted pregnancy? ---> abortions === "technological fix". SOLVED the American Way!! Yeah for us.

C). Catholicism: the Church has not had a fixed position on this despite trying to project that they have. Just one example: Thomas Aquinas, of whom there was no whomer theologically, said that God did NOT infuse the soul at conception, but waited several weeks thereafter --- the 40th day for boys; the 90th day for girls. Not sure why he had the gender difference, but I'll assume that he knew that girls were nicer and so God left their fetuses to develop longer without an interfering de novo soul distracting the process. Lord knows the final product looks better.

In the end, neither science nor religion can claim to know enough about this controversy to speak "authoritatively" about it... and all of us should admit at least that.

End of mental processes.....

 

[IrishinSyria]

Mike, good series of posts. My own opinion is that, given the complexities of "line-drawing" we should error on the side of individual freedom. One hopes that the decision to have an abortion is not made lightly, regardless of what the law is. When "neither science nor religion can claim to know enough about this controversy to speak 'authoritatively' about it," it seems to me like the best role for the state is to let individuals reach their own conclusions as to what the "right" course of action is.

 

[Me2SouthBend]

I was simply stating the "why" he's doing it.

If he is breaking law, then he will pay the price.

I don't think government has any place in marriage at all...another scam to extort money out of us

In light of today's development, this is a rather ironic line.

 

[Domina Nostra]

Mike, good series of posts. My own opinion is that, given the complexities of "line-drawing" we should error on the side of individual freedom. One hopes that the decision to have an abortion is not made lightly, regardless of what the law is. When "neither science nor religion can claim to know enough about this controversy to speak 'authoritatively' about it," it seems to me like the best role for the state is to let individuals reach their own conclusions as to what the "right" course of action is.

How can someone "error"? Wouldn't that imply something was right, and something was wrong? That we really could murder a baby, and that murdering was wrong, even if nobody cared about it. Can you really error on the side of freedom when murder is involved?

Because we're not really arguing about personhood. That is ridiculous. "Personhood" is a legal term with no set definition. It can mean anything we want it to. Like property or contracts. Can science or religion tell us what a constitutes a contract in Minnesota? This is like saying neither science or religion can tell us for sure when is the proper time to allow teenagers to get their driver's licenses. 15? No. 17. No. 16. Yes. Someone else can ALWAYS just give it a different arbitrary meaning.

"Person" is a shorthand way of signaling the decision the legal system has made about which humans get human rights. So what makes a "person"? Is it when life begin? Yes, that's it! So when are you are a "full-fledged" human When is that? Seems like when there is a full human genome… Woah, that seems to early, so I say no. That's not really when life "begins" the way I mean it if its that early. Maybe personhood when they feel pain? Is it memory? Science and religion can't ever "know enough" to define an arbitrary term. So I guess we should just throw up our arms.

But no one is really searching for answers here, we are just trying to reach a reasonable, emotionally-satisfying consensus point. The real question is "when is a baby baby-like enough that most of us agree killing it would be very difficult to justify."

Who gets to decide that? Apparently, Ivy League educated judges.

And what is the consequence if they are "wrong"? Nothing! Because there really is no such thing as right or wrong! So the little guy is dead. He probably didn't even realize he was alive! You go on with your life. He returns to the blackness from which he came. And we live our lives in "freedom" until its our time to go.

Unless there is a God, of course. Than you have murdered his creation.

"The sayings of the wise are like goads, and like nails firmly fixed are the collected sayings which are given by one Shepherd. My son, beware of anything beyond these. Of making many books there is no end, and much study is a weariness of the flesh. The end of the matter; all has been heard. Fear God, and keep his commandments; for this is the whole duty of man."

 

[IrishinSyria]

Unless there is a God, of course. Than you have murdered his creation.

Which is a risk people have to take for themselves.

 

[Domina Nostra]

Which is a risk people have to take for themselves.

For themselves, and the person they murder, and that person's future friends and family…

That's why it is not a personal question--at least conceptually--and why courts intervene (even if they ultimately agree with you). If the baby is a person, their are two people involved.

 

[IrishinSyria]

For themselves, and the person they murder, and that person's future friends and family…

I mean, we put cars on the roads knowing they'll kill over 30,000 people a year. We allow guns manufacturers to make guns knowing that guns will kill over 30,000 people a year. If you stretch any causal chain far enough you'll eventually get to preventable death. Every time I eat meat I'm the beneficiary of the death of one of God's creations, as you so eloquently put it. Some Americans believe that's murder. Does that mean the government should outlaw meat?

I'm not making a traditional liberal argument here. I don't really think it's possible to nail down the "moment life begins" and I don't really think it matters. Put in more direct terms, it does not bother me at all if some people view abortion as state sanctioned murder. I think it's reasonable to see it like that, and I think it's reasonable to see it as something else. Given the clear disagreement of Americans on what it is, as well as the lack of any obvious utilitarian benefit to outlawing abortions, I'm more than happy to let individuals wrestle with the moral hazards of partial baby murder.

 

[Domina Nostra]

I mean, we put cars on the roads knowing they'll kill over 30,000 people a year. We allow guns manufacturers to make guns knowing that guns will kill over 30,000 people a year. If you stretch any causal chain far enough you'll eventually get to preventable death. Every time I eat meat I'm the beneficiary of the death of one of God's creations, as you so eloquently put it. Some Americans believe that's murder. Does that mean the government should outlaw meat?

I'm not making a traditional liberal argument here. I don't really think it's possible to nail down the "moment life begins" and I don't really think it matters. Put in more direct terms, it does not bother me at all if some people view abortion as state sanctioned murder. I think it's reasonable to see it like that, and I think it's reasonable to see it as something else. Given the clear disagreement of Americans on what it is, as well as the lack of any obvious utilitarian benefit to outlawing abortions, I'm more than happy to let individuals wrestle with the moral hazards of partial baby murder.

- Accidents are to intentional killing as apples are to oranges. Every human being since the begining of the world has acknowledged that intention matters, right?
- Same with babies and cows. Babies might not always get the protections, but I am pretty sure no one has ever pretended not to see an important distinction (except for Princeton's Peter Singer).

But you are right that in a bare ethical system that relies on nothing but empirical knowlege and utilitarian calculations, there is no way of making this distinct as an absolute.

I agree that your way of understanding things is rational. Seeing abortion as sanctioned murder--a necessary or tolerated "evil"--is by far the most honest way of understanding it.

I am still a little confused about what a "moral hazard" is in a utilitarian system? Does that mean someone chose less good for all over, what was later revealed to be, greater good for more people? Maybe my point is that the consequences of choosing incorrectly are... nothing. So the "error" in the utilitarian system is that sometimes the powerful might get to kill the weak, and the weak sometimes just have to die quietly. Quite an error! This can get nasty pretty fast (See, antebellum South, Nazi Germany, Communist Russia/China, etc.).

My other point is that even utilitatrian systems have to make arbitrary value judgments at some point. Someone has to decide who is or isn't a "person." Somebody has to decide whose good wins out. What kinds of good win out. Etc., etc....

Maybe that is all unknowable, so the goverenment should let the individual decide.

Personally, I am not sure I buy that letting individuals make that decision is not the EXACT same thing as goverenment determining that the baby IS NOT a person. If we left slavery up to the individual, I am pretty sure like it would feel like the law approved of slavery, not just that the law couldn't say whether it was right or wrong (i.e., whether slavery achieved the greatest benefit for the greatest number). "But a slave is a person!" Well, they are now. That consensus wasn't always there. Respectable scientists, and not respectable clergy, used to compare them with apes.

We also have to admit that the government has the power to go the other way on the issue, like they did with slavery. They have the guns! If they will defend your right to do something with a gun, and can later change their mind and stop you from doing it with a gun, it seems like the goverenemnt is, in fact, making decisions.

Still, the goverenment not enforcing something is different than its actively mandating something. So while I agree that there is a hair-wide distinction there, leaving the decision of whether a chimp or a dog is a person means that corporations can do experiments on them (barring some statue). If the chimp is a person, that sucks for him.

The point is that some "persons"--even adult persons--are completely incapable of defending themselves. They need the law to do it.

 

[Corry]

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p>Oregon governor to resign over ethics scandal <a href="http://t.co/tenmVVfnwc">http://t.co/tenmVVfnwc</a> <a href="http://t.co/w7znBHhIFX">pic.twitter.com/w7znBHhIFX</a></p>— NBC News (@NBCNews) <a href="https://twitter.com/NBCNews/status/566334384606035969">February 13, 2015</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

Longtime Oregon Gov. John Kitzhaber says he will resign next Wednesday due to allegations of public corruption involving his fiancée.

Kitzhaber has been under fire since allegations began swirling that his fiancée, Cylvia Hayes, improperly used her position as an energy policy adviser for personal gain by working with outside consulting groups. She's also been accused of failing to disclose her income from consulting work.

Oregon Secretary of State Kate Brown will become governor once Kitzhaber steps down. She will become the nation's first openly bisexual governor.

 

[IrishJayhawk]

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p>Oregon governor to resign over ethics scandal <a href="http://t.co/tenmVVfnwc">http://t.co/tenmVVfnwc</a> <a href="http://t.co/w7znBHhIFX">pic.twitter.com/w7znBHhIFX</a></p>— NBC News (@NBCNews) <a href="https://twitter.com/NBCNews/status/566334384606035969">February 13, 2015</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

Good. Sounds like he was a mess.

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

ISIS beheaded 21 more Christians this weekend. Another shooting in Europe where suspect is tied to radical Islam. Starting to think all these "incidents" of "extremism" might need their own thread.

 

[BGIF]

Eygpt Answered

Eygpt Answered

ISIS beheaded 21 more Christians this weekend. Another shooting in Europe where suspect is tied to radical Islam. Starting to think all these "incidents" of "extremism" might need their own thread.

Egypt says it bombed ISIS targets in Libya after killings of Christians - CNN.com

By Jethro Mullen, CNN
Updated 4:00 AM ET, Mon February 16, 2015


'The right of retaliation'

Egyptian President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi had warned Sunday that his country "reserves the right of retaliation and with the methods and timing it sees fit for retribution for those murderers and criminals who are without the slightest humanity."

He also declared a week of mourning in the Muslim majority nation for the dead Christians.

 

[IRISHDODGER]

. Longtime Oregon Gov. John Kitzhaber says he will resign next Wednesday due to allegations of public corruption involving his fiancée.

Kitzhaber has been under fire since allegations began swirling that his fiancée, Cylvia Hayes, improperly used her position as an energy policy adviser for personal gain by working with outside consulting groups. She's also been accused of failing to disclose her income from consulting work.

Oregon Secretary of State Kate Brown will become governor once Kitzhaber steps down. She will become the nation's first openly bisexual governor.

So the supreme decision maker in the state of Oregon can not even decide if she prefers women or men as her sexual partner? Guess she can always flip the state coin: "Heads I want hair-pie....Tails...ball across the nose!". Sorry, I saw this as a great way to infuse an Andrew "Dice" Clay quote into this thread. In other words...I'm just goofin'.

 

[phgreek]

So the supreme decision maker in the state of Oregon can not even decide if she prefers women or men as her sexual partner? Guess she can always flip the state coin: "Heads I want hair-pie....Tails...ball across the nose!". Sorry, I saw this as a great way to infuse an Andrew "Dice" Clay quote into this thread. In other words...I'm just goofin'.

Andrew Dice Clay...Oh man, repeating that guy's humor got me in trouble more than once...hehehe.

My aunt used to tell me not to get hung up on one girl...she'd say "be like Jesus and Love 'em all". Maybe her aunt gave her the same advice sans the gender qualification...???

 

[phgreek]

Good. Sounds like he was a mess.

What flavor of politician was this guy?

 

[IrishJayhawk]

What flavor of politician was this guy?

Corrupt. But if you mean party, he's a democrat.

 

[phgreek]

Corrupt. But if you mean party, he's a democrat.

slow clap...on the corrupt answer.

Usually the Party is part of the lead in the story...I didn't see it and thought, well, Oregon, hell he could easily be socialist.

 

[IrishJayhawk]

slow clap...on the corrupt answer.

Usually the Party is part of the lead in the story...I didn't see it and thought, well, Oregon, hell he could easily be socialist.

Many thanks.

I had known his party already, but the article also makes mention of "his fellow democrats."

 

[phgreek]

Many thanks.

I had known his party already, but the article also makes mention of "his fellow democrats."

Yea...I'm sure I skimmed it pretty quickly...missed it. Typically party affiliation is as much a story as the story, so its in the headline or first sentence...SOANDSO (D), Governor, Oregon [fill in chicanery]. That one, not so much...odd.

 

[irishog77]

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/414023/we-are-marie-harf-kevin-d-williamson

I concur with Williamson-- our society is ripe with misguided secularism.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[ACamp1900]

National Review

I concur with Williamson-- our society is ripe with misguided secularism.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I would never lower myself to read anything written by a Lutheran hack like Williamson....

 

[T Town Tommy]

National Review

I concur with Williamson-- our society is ripe with misguided secularism.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The difference with Marie Harp and most of the rest of us is the fact that she is currently one of the many representatives of a severly misguided belief that we are in fact not at war with terrorists who's very identity is founded in... dare I say... Islamic fundamentalism. Her views about economic conditions and lack of jobs leading people to terrorism was so far off base that either she is not as educated about who and what drives terrorism or she is stuck in this cesspool of Obamanism to the point that her mind is conditioned to believe such nonsense. Either way... I would hope that most of us are quite the opposite of her.

As far as Williamson's claim, while there is truth in some of what he states, it's also not as simple as his claims. While most of us want to be able to afford a better life for ourselves and our children, lost in his essay is the fact that the overwhelming majority of us value human life, helping our neighbors in times of need, and showing compassion and benevelance when called upon to do so. So... there is a huge difference between being stuck where he appears to believe we are and the life the rest of us try to lead. Where there is people, there will always be corruption. Where there is society, there will always be haves and have nots. It is up to the individual person to decide what really drives them in life. And with that, I still hold hope that in our country that drive leads us to help our fellow man above all else.

 

[GoIrish41]

The difference with Marie Harp and most of the rest of us is the fact that she is currently one of the many representatives of a severly misguided belief that we are in fact not at war with terrorists who's very identity is founded in... dare I say... Islamic fundamentalism. Her views about economic conditions and lack of jobs leading people to terrorism was so far off base that either she is not as educated about who and what drives terrorism or she is stuck in this cesspool of Obamanism to the point that her mind is conditioned to believe such nonsense. Either way... I would hope that most of us are quite the opposite of her.

As far as Williamson's claim, while there is truth in some of what he states, it's also not as simple as his claims. While most of us want to be able to afford a better life for ourselves and our children, lost in his essay is the fact that the overwhelming majority of us value human life, helping our neighbors in times of need, and showing compassion and benevelance when called upon to do so. So... there is a huge difference between being stuck where he appears to believe we are and the life the rest of us try to lead. Where there is people, there will always be corruption. Where there is society, there will always be haves and have nots. It is up to the individual person to decide what really drives them in life. And with that, I still hold hope that in our country that drive leads us to help our fellow man above all else.

Good to see you back Tommy

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

The difference with Marie Harp and most of the rest of us is the fact that she is currently one of the many representatives of a severly misguided belief that we are in fact not at war with terrorists who's very identity is founded in... dare I say... Islamic fundamentalism. Her views about economic conditions and lack of jobs leading people to terrorism was so far off base that either she is not as educated about who and what drives terrorism or she is stuck in this cesspool of Obamanism to the point that her mind is conditioned to believe such nonsense. Either way... I would hope that most of us are quite the opposite of her.

As far as Williamson's claim, while there is truth in some of what he states, it's also not as simple as his claims. While most of us want to be able to afford a better life for ourselves and our children, lost in his essay is the fact that the overwhelming majority of us value human life, helping our neighbors in times of need, and showing compassion and benevelance when called upon to do so. So... there is a huge difference between being stuck where he appears to believe we are and the life the rest of us try to lead. Where there is people, there will always be corruption. Where there is society, there will always be haves and have nots. It is up to the individual person to decide what really drives them in life. And with that, I still hold hope that in our country that drive leads us to help our fellow man above all else.

Nail on head. The old insanity is the new sanity. These $hitheads beheading Christians and all else all over the world aren't screaming "jobs, more jobs!!!" They're screaming, "Alluha akbar."