Night Falls
I started a discussion, quietly, over at ER's place, about abortion. What I said in a nutshell (since I just love saying things into nutshells) was that there now exists thirty-some-odd years of legal precedent set for the protest of legal actions, in this case, abortion. Let's state that a bit more clearly.
Abortion has been legal since 1973. Ever since then, we have had the pleasure of revisiting the statutes of what constitutes free speech and acceptable protest, in this case regarding something that the highest court of our nation had decided was legal conduct. All right.
So-if it has been decided, and it recently was, that we can not stop people from protesting at a site- where legal activities are being conducted- under current anti-racketeering laws then I should be able to harrass and condemn those who attend right-wing churches, and work in the state houses of South Dakota and Mississippi (so far).
Matter of fact, loving man of Gawd and former Republican Party Chair-idiot Haley Barbour is currently the governor of that fine, fine state that speaks hard truths about our polity to the rest of the world. They're saying that even if it's rape or incest, bitch gotta carry that li'l sack o' joy. To term. Because we fat white cracker fucks say so.
Which brings me to my next point. Remember the 'Nuremberg Trials' website, in which many loving people of Gawd put up lists of abortion doctors who they felt (in their loving, god-like way) should be killed for doing something that was entirely legal? Well, there was a lot of court cases there, and ultimately I believe some sane person decided that that sort of thing made us look like a bunch of mud-worshippers, and put a stop to it. But...
Precedent certainly exists now for the official representatives of a movement going on record and simply deploring things like that, while secretly nodding in approval, and definitely giving their god-loving money to such enterprises.
Since I'm not a fucking savage, I'll stop short of what those waterheads did. I'll say that we don't need to threaten death to all who would seek to take the freedom of powerless others...I'll just say that we need to see to it that they are forced to live in the same circumstances as those they would seek to disenfranchise.
You know; an eye for an eye. In theory, these loving men of god love that shit.
How about we see to it that you work your whole damn life for crap wages, no chance of decent medical care that you can afford, the highest thing you can do with your children is sacrifice them to whatever madness abroad whatever idiot democrat or republican has seen fit to embroil us in, and conform to the Bronze Age beliefs of the stupidest among us (since the nice men who run the show don't really believe any of that: they just know they can use it to control other people).
We'll even see to it that you no longer have a fair trial, if accused of something nasty by your paranoid neighbor, or just some angry, underpaid, control-issues mama's boy cop. How 'bout we see to it that your well-fed ass doesn't get a pass to walk down the street anymore if you sponsor legislation that strips the people who make our corporations rich of their constitutional rights? A lot of decent, humane things have been drowned by the real possibility of murder: how about reactionary-ism taking a similar road trip?
Abortion has been legal since 1973. Ever since then, we have had the pleasure of revisiting the statutes of what constitutes free speech and acceptable protest, in this case regarding something that the highest court of our nation had decided was legal conduct. All right.
So-if it has been decided, and it recently was, that we can not stop people from protesting at a site- where legal activities are being conducted- under current anti-racketeering laws then I should be able to harrass and condemn those who attend right-wing churches, and work in the state houses of South Dakota and Mississippi (so far).
Matter of fact, loving man of Gawd and former Republican Party Chair-idiot Haley Barbour is currently the governor of that fine, fine state that speaks hard truths about our polity to the rest of the world. They're saying that even if it's rape or incest, bitch gotta carry that li'l sack o' joy. To term. Because we fat white cracker fucks say so.
Which brings me to my next point. Remember the 'Nuremberg Trials' website, in which many loving people of Gawd put up lists of abortion doctors who they felt (in their loving, god-like way) should be killed for doing something that was entirely legal? Well, there was a lot of court cases there, and ultimately I believe some sane person decided that that sort of thing made us look like a bunch of mud-worshippers, and put a stop to it. But...
Precedent certainly exists now for the official representatives of a movement going on record and simply deploring things like that, while secretly nodding in approval, and definitely giving their god-loving money to such enterprises.
Since I'm not a fucking savage, I'll stop short of what those waterheads did. I'll say that we don't need to threaten death to all who would seek to take the freedom of powerless others...I'll just say that we need to see to it that they are forced to live in the same circumstances as those they would seek to disenfranchise.
You know; an eye for an eye. In theory, these loving men of god love that shit.
How about we see to it that you work your whole damn life for crap wages, no chance of decent medical care that you can afford, the highest thing you can do with your children is sacrifice them to whatever madness abroad whatever idiot democrat or republican has seen fit to embroil us in, and conform to the Bronze Age beliefs of the stupidest among us (since the nice men who run the show don't really believe any of that: they just know they can use it to control other people).
We'll even see to it that you no longer have a fair trial, if accused of something nasty by your paranoid neighbor, or just some angry, underpaid, control-issues mama's boy cop. How 'bout we see to it that your well-fed ass doesn't get a pass to walk down the street anymore if you sponsor legislation that strips the people who make our corporations rich of their constitutional rights? A lot of decent, humane things have been drowned by the real possibility of murder: how about reactionary-ism taking a similar road trip?
Labels: pol'tics
posted by rich bachelor | 1:01 AM
29 Comments:
Just because something is legal does not make it moral. Slavery used to be legal, but it was wrong. We had to shoot a lot of Democrats to pound that point home. And then Republicans had to prosecute a lot of Democrats and change a lot of laws to prove that segregation, black codes, Jim Crow and lynching war wrong. Now, Democrats are slaughtering unborn babies by the millions. It seems whenever there is a moral decision to be made in this country, the Democrats come down on exactly the wrong side of the fence. They never learn.
I committed the unforgivable sin of disagreeing with the tugboat capn sometime back. At that point I was branded a "bloggger terrorist". Since then I usually can't even bring his blog up onscreen. Today he is allowing me to view his posts but I am unable to even read the comments, let alone actually make one. Seems to me that republicans have a few wee control issues. Think, maybe?
I pointed out to the Ranger last evening that his party had a great record on civil rights, as of the 1800s.
And of course I anticipated that response, "legal doesn't equal moral". Of course it doesn't. Without giving tooo many of the examples that it would be cliche of someone like me to give: there's far bigger evils in this world and done by this country in general than this particular issue.
You and your pals care about it because it is an easy (and profitable) divisor of electorates. In short: they told you to feel this way, doggie.
s'true, moral and legal are two different things, as different as your ass and your elbow.
morality is transitory across many factors such as area, education, and age, and doesn't seem to change much at all. i think the idea of morality is set by the time you're 10 years old. legality is (ideally) an progressive ongoing refinement of a code in which those united (by whatever, usually geography) should live.
why did laws against segregation, abortion, and lynching end? not because your chosen party found it's moral compass pointing in the right direction and decided to act, that's for sure. hell, i'd wager your side of the fence still has trouble with where "thou shalt not kill" begins and ends. support the war?
oh and by the way "Democrats are slaughtering unborn babies by the millions", is the dumbest thing i've heard all day, but it's still early. the only word i don't take offense at in that sentence include "are", "by" and "the". all the other words in that sentence speak to your hatred, ignorance and gullibility. but like i said, it's early, and i'd rather eat breakfast than poke holes in your worldview.
RB, what are you trying to do to me? I cannot refrain from my opinion.
Well, Lone Ranger, when you grow a vagina, get raped by a blood relative and become pregnant, carry a baby to full term and THEN try to raise it Welfare because these Nazi Republicans don't believe in helping their own citizens when they need it, you can talk to me about abortion. And NO, I'm not saying I went through this. I've never personally been pregnant myself. If abortion is ever made illegal, you're going to see a lot of women poking themselves in their innards with a rusty hanger to abort that baby, and kill themselves in the process like back in the "good old days." Oh yay
I'm for birth control. I've never had an abortion, but I would NEVER judge someone who did. Until you can walk in that woman's shoes, don't even talk to me about abortion, much less having morals. People who want to preach about Christianity are hipocrits. Because half the men out there who get women pregnant don't give a flying shit about giving that woman any support for shooting his sperm around. Then you see their trifling asses in church the next Sunday to confess their sins. AND STILL not helping out the woman who gave birth to his illegitimate child. Give me a break.
Next topic....
Disco boy, YOU ROCK!!!!!!
Cats, I couldn't have said it better.
RB, shame on you for getting me all fired up. I forgive you.
Oh, and I guess the thousands of Americans being slaughtered in a war FOR OIL isn't a sin???? Thou shalt not do WHAT again? Kiss my FUCKING WHITE ASS UNTIL IT'S TAN AGAIN IN THE SUMMER!!!!!!!!!!!!
The words Republicans, Morality and Christianity SHOULD NEVER be said in the same sentence. When you lump them together, they mean NOTHING. Republicans only care about money, money money, and spending it on other countries so they can make even MORE MONEY, and FUCK EVERYONE ELSE if they don't have it. Look at the victims of Hurrican Katrina. They're on their own. If that bastard hurricane had hit on some affluent part of the East Coast, you'd better believe that Ol' George would be there helping them out. He'd probably even get his hands dirty, too. He only helped out with hurricane Ivan because #1 IT WAS AN ELECTION YEAR and #2 it hit in his brother's state of Florida. Bastards need tied up by their fucking nut sacks.
Bush is not only a fucking NAZI but he's also the ANTI CHRIST.
And George W. Bush is far from a Christian. He only played that card to get votes. Don't look at me, I didn't vote for him. I didn't do it once, and I sure as hell wasn't stupid enough to do it twice.
This, by my standards, is going well.
I dropped a bomb like this one, where I suspect that America is always going to be divided roughly half and half, and get outta the way.
That being said, I actually censored myself this morning. The original post contained links to four of the "conservative" blogs I read (including the Lone Ranger's). I commanded y'all to go shit down their throats, with a special jab at the tugboat cap'n, who spent a fair amount of time yesterday telling my brother that his disagreement amounted to being inflexible on the issues, and therefore not 'open to debate'.
So, after making fun of the guy for it, I wrote this inflammatory post, and waited for the Christer Jihad. In the morning, a great deal more sober, I thought better of the idea.
Most of them have Haloscan, so they can censor the comments they receive without evidence of doing so appearing anywhere, which is pretty lame, but is their prerogative. One of them, 'Gayle', actually admits that she will turn unfavorable comments into favorable ones, with a shitty little aside about how it ain't fair, but that's the way it is.
Eesh. For this level of discussion? Are you kidding me? Someone needs to insulate themselves that much?
Anyway, without my specific linking, I know you're all clever enough to find all the blogs I'm talking about. They're all on Blogspot.
Hell, there's Ranger's info right there, and he's linked to a shit ton of 'em.
Jacq - right on! Its good to hear you speak up - way to go!
Rich, I still am not allowed at any of the conservative blogs. What the hell is happening over there? Oh, and don't forget my shermans, please.
And nice targeting on that mortor barrage you sent. (definately more than just a lil ol' bomb)
And once again, just to show y'all how big my nut sack really is, everybody liberal and conservative is invited to debate me (or support me) over at my blog: hollanderspace.blogspot.com
Even though I am on the blacklist at conservativeassholesrusinameriKa, I will be happy to allow them at "The Space", my little answer to O'Reilly's The Zone.
I noticed the bit of editing you did. The post I read this afternoon...though no less provocative, was a small pull back from the morning. I knew it had been the result of a late nighter.
Thanks just the same for releasing the hounds. These folks are steadfast in their convictions I'll say that for them.
I've heard the slavery arguement from the lone ranger before, and he has a point. I think it is somewhere up under his white hat. The Reps did wave the civil rights banner at one time. But comparing Reconstruction to the gains in civil rights made during the last half of the last century is crazy.
I detest the idea of birth control. But at the same time to throw a blanket over the whole damn question is no answer at all. Education, adoption, there are many alternatives to abortion. But if that is the final act of a desperate woman it should be her choice to freely make.
You detest the idea of birth control? When did you embrace the Catholic religion?
Sorry, what I meant to say was that I detest the notion of abortion as a method of birth control.
Aw what the hell, let's over populate the world.
oh good. I thought maybe that new pope had gotten to you. Here's to over population, the true root of all evil.
Saturday, March 04, 2006
Standard of Living
After reading a short article at MSNBC.com on the state of the poor in modern day America, I have started researching this here little matter. Keep in mind that my research thus far is minimal and is culled mostly from newspaper reports.
According to the MSNBC article, the poor (and therefore everyone else too) are much better off comparatively speaking than their 1960's counterparts. The surface argument that everyone who reports on these things uses is that yes, homes at that time may have only cost $5000 and cars a little over $2000, and gas was less than .30 per gallon - but wages were also low at a median wage of $1.95 per hour. All this is true, but I couldn't help but wonder two things. One, how much real buying power have we gained or lost, and two, how well are basic necessities being met?
According to the Wall Street Journal the price of a base model 21" color television set in 1962 was $750. It took the average blue collar worker 2 and 1/2 month's pay to purchase that luxury. These days a base model 25" color (and stereo with A/V jacks, surround sound, solid state transistors and computer chips) television is considered a necessity and costs an average of $280. That breaks down to a little more than one week's pay for the same type of wage earner. The Journal applied that same math to milk, newspapers (natch), and school supplies. I haven't found any source material yet, but am curious what happens when you factor in homes that used to cost $5000 and are now $400,000 or cars that used to be $2000 and are now $30,000. How about school lunches, gasoline, health insurance, ANY insurance, rent on a studio apartment, bus fare, taxes, taxes, taxes, and all of the other small daily expenses?
I will continue to research all of this and welcome any input all ya bloggers and blogerettes may have. Anyone have an idea where a good starting point might be?
Hollander
"....Democrats are slaughtering unborn babies by the millions."
hey, prevaricating jackass. your outrageous dichotomy is meant to do nothing more than elicit outrage. go pound it back up your mangina, liar.
KEvron
Starting with the mid-term elections, the dems need to win back a majority in either the senate or the house.
And they're going to have to do a whole lot of campaigning to get there.
The only way the average American citizen is going to see the light is to sit in the dark for awhile. Well they've sitting in the dark for awhile now.
Dems are going to have to show the folks what they can do for the public and ease back on whacking the Bush all the time.
Rise above the rhetoric and mount a major publicity campaign to show Americans that our idea's aren't all about aborting babies and letting people get married to their favorite barnyard dweller.
It is going to be rough though when you have fools believing that it's good to have some people be so incredibly wealthy and some be so incredibly poor. As if humanity will crumble without some kind of harmonic balance. Or in this case imbalance.
Yeah, the Dems are concentrating a little too much on the bush bashing. Me thinks this is a good thing, more or less, for now. We need to show the voting populace what a lyin', cheatin', weaslin', corruptin', Orwellian asshole he and his cohorts are. They are doing a pretty fair job of that themselves, all the Dems have to do now is kick back and smile as the karlrovians disintegrate.
The second, and more difficult, step is to convince the middle-of-the-road moderate voters that the Democratic Party is the answer to the disasters the Bush administation visited upon the country. As Rich and others have said in the past, the Dems are nearly as crooked and corrupt as the pubicans but they are the only viable alternative at the moment.I think it was RB who said that during the last election anyway.
There's an anti-Katrina-victim video going around. I think it sums up the thinking on the part of those assholes on the right. I sent it via email to a few trusted folks (those whom I trust not to spread hatred of this sort.) I won't leave a copy here but if anyone would like me to email it to them just let me know your address.
Hey Cats,
I'm pretty sure I'd dig what your view was. I pretty much agree with all you've expressed. Incidently, I'm neither Democrat nor Republican. But I really hate the Republican view more than any other group.
The slavery card will continue to be ridden until the end of time. How about the Holocaust? Anyone using that as a card to ride on? And RIGHT ON to Jay Bellish. He's the teacher who compared Bush to Hitler. I'm glad someone said it.
Were we victims of a simple technical gltch or was it bloggger terrorists?
Hiya. I'm back in now. I don't know: but I notice you were able to get back in, so I guess the nightmare's over.
It is true that I've pissed off a couple of reactionaries who now how to swipe IP addresses lately. That Republican Vet fuck springs to mind.
Or how about Mark Maness? He keeps on making corny jokes that I remember from my childhood, and it intrigues me, so I ask where he heard them. He interprets this as some sort of insidious liberal trap that will make him look foolish or something, and freaks out. I'm not certain, but I think he's in with aforementioned R. Vet fuck.
And then? Maybe it's just the way things have been going lately. Everything's crashing, and it figgers I wouldn't even be able to do this thing that makes me happy.
In any case, I'm back on the case.
Oh, and the original point, of course, was not that legal automatically equals moral, and what I was really saying is that now the legal gains made by the anti-choice movement might now be used to fight them, perhaps.
Wow, should I feel PRIVILEGED??? Maybe you've noticed on my profile that my views went from 484 to 506! I suppose there are a few pissed off people looking for a blog to rip through.
It is also possible that the crybabies who largely populate the blogosphere found this posting so distatsteful that they repeatedly flagged it, causing Blogger to shut it down for a little while, as they reviewed it.
Then they noticed that there is nothing more going on here than someone (well, a lotta someones) expressing their opinion, and put it back up. Thanks, Blogger.
Big Brother alive and hell bent on blogspot.com? Damn, they can do that? Now I'm really gettin paranoid. How bout I post the Hollander family concept for a whole new govvermint system. A nice blend of socialism, capitalism, democracy and anti-feudalism. I'll probably get us all shot.
Dear pissed off folks who don't agree with what we've said:
We, like all of YOU, have the right to our opinions. We have exercised on this particular blog our right to free speech. We obviously DO NOT agree with you. And that's okay. We haven't harmed anyone, nor have we threatened to harm anyone. Just expressing our opinions. My advice to you is: GET OVER IT. If you don't like what you read, move along. Quit being pussies by telling "the man" about things being said that you don't agree with and causing particular blogs to have denied access. GROW UP. You'd be surprised how many people feel this way. In with regard to the commander in chief: Those in my area who once supported this president are now opposed to what he's doing. And then some.
BIG SURPRISE
And this issue about abortion always gets me riled up. Deal with it.
Sincerely,
Jacq The Catwoman
I don't know if this little line of debate has gone dead or not, but I did just want to make one little observation: OK, I'm a little confused about the lone ranger's understanding of history. It seems a little disingenuous to try and claim that all the accomplishments of the republican party throughout history can be in some way claimed by the rebublican party of today. The rebublicans of 1970 were avery different party than the republicans of today, the GOP of 1950 was also something different. The same is true in 1900 and 1865. Yes, Boston and Cambridge were Rebublican back during the civil war, but they are all Democrats now. The story of how that change occured is complex and doesn't necessarily indicate anything essentially, inherently true of either party. You have to follow the demographics and historical contexts to figure out who was liberal and who was conservative by our everchanging definitions of those words. It's interesting but to argue over ethics and morality we should probably start with the current context and look at things issue by issue and not try and invent fantasies of historical continuity that quite simply do not exist.
Post a Comment
<< Home