Democratic Party Crashers

Amy Austin | August 29, 2008
Whenever I choose to eat dinner at the base galley, I'm treated to non-stop CNN over my meal... Hardball & The Situation Room being the programming at that time. Tonight's coverage of the DNC was hilariously interrupted by a megaphone-wielding conspiracy crackpot who shouted "9/11 was an inside job" repeatedly. As I scan online news, I'm finding that the 9/11 conspiracy theorists appear to be out in force at the convention. What I'm wondering is... what exactly are they hoping or expecting to gain/achieve from their peace-disturbing presence???

Of course, I'm also wondering the same about the disgruntled Hillary crowd and snidely amused Republicans... what, exactly, is their agenda -- to spread hate & discontent??? I can't believe that there are still such die-hard Hillary supporters out there that one woman proclaimed to the microphone, "I'm voting for McCain! This wouldn't be happening if we still had the caucuses..." What are you, stupid?, that you would sabotage all the efforts of your party just to spite the selection of Obama??? I can't help but think that someone like this has no effin' clue whatsoever about the real issues at stake to be so willing to cast an opposing vote to their supposed values!!! And *why* doesn't it seem to mean anything at all to this nutcase that Hillary has unequivocally pronounced, "No way, no how, no McCain..."???

What the hell is going on in the heads of all these people?!?!?

Samir Mehta | August 29, 2008
[hidden by request]

Amy Austin | August 29, 2008
My point exactly!!!

Tony Peters | August 29, 2008
lets not forget that his 1st wife walked out on him because he was such a bastard when he got back

Jackie Mason | August 29, 2008
[hidden by request]

Aaron Shurtleff | August 29, 2008
Well (he said, tongue place firmly in cheek), maybe Hillary did such an awesome job explaining why she was a better choice than Obama for the democratic spot that a certain percentage of her supporters still are swayed, and now they can't (or won't rather) vote for him.

:)

Amy Austin | August 29, 2008
(firmly slapping tongue out of cheek)
She never once said that *McCain* was a better choice than Obama, though...

Lori Lancaster | August 29, 2008
[hidden by request]

Scott Hardie | August 29, 2008
I can't tell what exactly you're being sarcastic about, Aaron, so forgive me if I'm misinterpreting, but I don't think there's any "maybe" about it. That's precisely what's happening.

McCain has made a bold choice. I'm thrilled to see a woman at that level again, but as an Obama supporter, I'm even more thrilled to see McCain forfeit his biggest line of attack against Obama, the "lack of experience" thing.

Tony Peters | August 29, 2008
It's a brilliant choice, obscure and no one knows anything about her...

Jackie Mason | August 29, 2008
[hidden by request]

Erik Bates | August 29, 2008
[hidden by request]

Samir Mehta | August 29, 2008
[hidden by request]

Amy Austin | August 29, 2008
LOL...

Samir, I just love to read when you talk politics!

Steve Dunn | August 29, 2008
I initially thought Palin was a smart move for McCain, but now I think she's more like McCain's Harriet Miers. Thinking women (likely voters) will see through the blatant gender-based pandering and be turned off my Palin's ultra-conservative stances on abortion, environmental issues, Creationism, etc.

McCain can no longer attach Obama on experience. I find it amazing he sacrificed this perfect talking point. I think Obama can still credibly attack Palin's lack of experience because Obama was actually elected as the nominee whereas Palin was merely selected. Obama's lack of experience has already passed muster with the voters, but Palin's just been a short term mayor and governor of a tiny town and state.

I am convinced there are only about 37 real PUMAs in America and they all get interviewed on TV 25 times per day. Everyone else associated with the PUMA movement is an opportunistic Republican mischief maker.

We'll see how it plays, but I think Obama sets America's imagination on fire and Biden is safe and secure. McCain is boring and Palin will come off as a far right-winger chosen solely for cynical pandering reasons. Like Dan Quayle, only worse.

At least, that's how I hope it plays out. No politician has ever inspired me like Barack Obama.

Amy Austin | August 29, 2008
I initially thought Palin was a smart move for McCain, but now I think she's more like McCain's Harriet Miers.

That *is* the token female I was trying to think this reminded of...

Jackie Mason | August 31, 2008
[hidden by request]

Amy Austin | August 31, 2008
Cecile Richards (head of PP) sent out a letter of dismay about it, and MoveOn.org sent this out yesterday (one thing I really like about MoveOn is their inclusion of sources):

Dear MoveOn member,

Yesterday was John McCain's 72nd birthday. If elected, he'd be the oldest president ever inaugurated. And after months of slamming Barack Obama for "inexperience," here's who John McCain has chosen to be one heartbeat away from the presidency: a right-wing religious conservative with no foreign policy experience, who until recently was mayor of a town of 9,000 people.

Huh?

Who is Sarah Palin? Here's some basic background:

* She was elected Alaska's governor a little over a year and a half ago. Her previous office was mayor of Wasilla, a small town outside Anchorage. She has no foreign policy experience.1
* Palin is strongly anti-choice, opposing abortion even in the case of rape or incest.2
* She supported right-wing extremist Pat Buchanan for president in 2000. 3
* Palin thinks creationism should be taught in public schools.4
* She's doesn't think humans are the cause of climate change.5
* She's solidly in line with John McCain's "Big Oil first" energy policy. She's pushed hard for more oil drilling and says renewables won't be ready for years. She also sued the Bush administration for listing polar bears as an endangered species—she was worried it would interfere with more oil drilling in Alaska.6
* How closely did John McCain vet this choice? He met Sarah Palin once at a meeting. They spoke a second time, last Sunday, when he called her about being vice-president. Then he offered her the position.7

This is information the American people need to see. Please take a moment to forward this email to your friends and family.

We also asked Alaska MoveOn members what the rest of us should know about their governor. The response was striking. Here's a sample:

She is really just a mayor from a small town outside Anchorage who has been a governor for only 1.5 years, and has ZERO national and international experience. I shudder to think that she could be the person taking that 3AM call on the White House hotline, and the one who could potentially be charged with leading the US in the volatile international scene that exists today. —Rose M., Fairbanks, AK

She is VERY, VERY conservative, and far from perfect. She's a hunter and fisherwoman, but votes against the environment again and again. She ran on ethics reform, but is currently under investigation for several charges involving hiring and firing of state officials. She has NO experience beyond Alaska. —Christine B., Denali Park, AK

As an Alaskan and a feminist, I am beyond words at this announcement. Palin is not a feminist, and she is not the reformer she claims to be. —Karen L., Anchorage, AK

Alaskans, collectively, are just as stunned as the rest of the nation. She is doing well running our State, but is totally inexperienced on the national level, and very much unequipped to run the nation, if it came to that. She is as far right as one can get, which has already been communicated on the news. In our office of thirty employees (dems, republicans, and nonpartisans), not one person feels she is ready for the V.P. position.—Sherry C., Anchorage, AK

She's vehemently anti-choice and doesn't care about protecting our natural resources, even though she has worked as a fisherman. McCain chose her to pick up the Hillary voters, but Palin is no Hillary. —Marina L., Juneau, AK

I think she's far too inexperienced to be in this position. I'm all for a woman in the White House, but not one who hasn't done anything to deserve it. There are far many other women who have worked their way up and have much more experience that would have been better choices. This is a patronizing decision on John McCain's part- and insulting to females everywhere that he would assume he'll get our vote by putting "A Woman" in that position.—Jennifer M., Anchorage, AK

So Governor Palin is a staunch anti-choice religious conservative. She's a global warming denier who shares John McCain's commitment to Big Oil. And she's dramatically inexperienced.

In picking Sarah Palin, John McCain has made the religious right very happy. And he's made a very dangerous decision for our country.

In the next few days, many Americans will be wondering what McCain's vice-presidential choice means. Please pass this information along to your friends and family.

Thanks for all you do.

–Ilyse, Noah, Justin, Karin and the rest of the team

Sources:

1. "Sarah Palin," Wikipedia, Accessed August 29, 2008
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarah_Palin

2. "McCain Selects Anti-Choice Sarah Palin as Running Mate," NARAL Pro-Choice America, August 29, 2008
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=17515&id=13661-8096382-0t5368x&t=1

3. "Sarah Palin, Buchananite," The Nation, August 29, 2008
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=17736&id=13661-8096382-0t5368x&t=2

4. "'Creation science' enters the race," Anchorage Daily News, October 27, 2006
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=17737&id=13661-8096382-0t5368x&t=3

5. "Palin buys climate denial PR spin—ignores science," Huffington Post, August 29, 2008
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=17517&id=13661-8096382-0t5368x&t=4

6. "McCain VP Pick Completes Shift to Bush Energy Policy," Sierra Club, August 29, 2008
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=17518&id=13661-8096382-0t5368x&t=5

"Choice of Palin Promises Failed Energy Policies of the Past," League of Conservation Voters, August 29, 2008
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=17519&id=13661-8096382-0t5368x&t=6

"Protecting polar bears gets in way of drilling for oil, says governor," The Times of London, May 23, 2008
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=17520&id=13661-8096382-0t5368x&t=7

7 "McCain met Palin once before yesterday," MSNBC, August 29, 2008
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=21119&id=13661-8096382-0t5368x&t=8

Amy Austin | August 31, 2008
And let's not forget this gem of a video clip:

"What is it, exactly, that the VP does...?"

Jackie Mason | August 31, 2008
[hidden by request]

Amy Austin | September 1, 2008
God, I can only hope so. But at what cost to women in politics? I hate everything about it...

Tony Peters | September 1, 2008
doesn't seem fair...replace Hillary with Palin....I mean why does the democrate have to be THAT woman???? and the republicans pull out the Anti Woman????

Steve West | September 1, 2008
Borowitz claims that Palin was McCain's choice to emphasize Obama's lack of experience in running a 5000 person town in Alaska. Also, Joe Biden is sorely lacking in a resemblance to Tina Fey.

Steve Dunn | September 1, 2008
As I continue talking to people, it becomes clearer that the selection of Palin had much less to do with Hillary voters than shoring up the conservative base. They seem to think it was a great pick. I know a few folks who were iffy on McCain but now they're solidly behind the ticket.

We'll see how it goes. I think there's a good chance she'll be a gaffe machine or some embarrassing personal detail will surface. I don't think McCain did his homework on this one. It sounds like he barely knows her at all. I guess that's why they call it the Hail Mary...

Jackie Mason | September 1, 2008
[hidden by request]

Amy Austin | September 1, 2008
Glad I could help, Jackie!

As for the "frighteningly strong ticket" -- don't be so sure that everyone else will see what we do with Palin... I have already talked to one female friend, slightly older than myself, who when I said that I hoped she wasn't supporting McCain and his new pick, said, "But isn't it a woman?" UGH!!! Proof positive that there will be a number of women out there who know nothing, seek nothing out, and be inclined to vote for "her" anyway!

Even Michel Martin (NPR host, Tell Me More), while appearing on Bill Maher's Real Time season premiere Friday (one thing I really like about Bill Maher is that he tries to balance his panels with at least one Republican or non-Democrat voice, as well as allow them to use it... and his guests are almost always intelligent/well-spoken people), said that she thinks "Democrats underestimate her to their peril"... taking the opportunity to also point out that Obama supporters couldn't fault her "lack of experience", since one of his own candidates for veep -- Gov. Tim Kaine (D-VA, and also a guest by satellite!) -- had less than Palin. Presumably (given that the other two panelists were Gov. Jim Corzine (D-NJ) and Craig Ferguson), she is a Republican, and while she didn't outright say so, will likely be casting her vote with Flakeville, too.

So... point being, don't get too cocky about the obvious "problems" with McCain's brilliant-but-risky choice (or is it really risky-but-brilliant???) -- and NEVER underestimate the crazy conservative factor or, worse yet, the ignorant voter factor! Best you can do is to keep doing what you're doing, and share the information with anyone who will listen... that's what Cecile Richards plans to do (her emphasis included):

If you can only do one thing, it should be to tell every woman you meet that McCain and Palin are the most anti-choice, anti-women pair imaginable. Don't stop at just telling your friends. You can bet that I'll be telling strangers in the checkout line at the grocery store, the women I see at the gym, parents at my kids' schools.

Amy Austin | September 1, 2008
Thought I'd also point out that, as Steve had stated, emphasis was definitely given (by Martin) in "shoring up the conservative base/vote" -- but, as Maher said, picking a woman on top of it was an undeniably political move. And when you really think about it... she could hardly be a dreamier pick for McCain -- pretty young woman (age/gender), conservative "hockey mom" of five! -- including a Down's baby (pro-life, with a heart-warming story... aww), hunter/fisher (pro-gun and already trained for a Cheney VP moment), governor of the hotbed of oil drilling... and values the oil over the polar bears... former PAT BUCHANAN SUPPORTER...

Do you see how she's a conservative's dream-come-true???

Tony Peters | September 1, 2008
Hey now Amy she lives in Alaska where being able to shoot straight is rewarded with continued life (you miss a polar bear he will eat you) so I think we will probably avoid any Cheney accuracy moments...but as for the rest.....propaganda or truth? you decide

Amy Austin | September 2, 2008
What a delightful scandal if it were true... but if it were, it'd be pretty weird to be followed up by this:

Bristol is 5 months pregnant, to wed father

Samir Mehta | September 2, 2008
[hidden by request]

Amy Austin | September 2, 2008
LOL!

Scott Hardie | September 2, 2008
Perhaps when she turns 18, the Alaskan jokes will go something like this. Ahem.

I'm not a huge fan of MoveOn.org anyway (no disrespect Amy), but I still managed to be annoyed by their frequent use of the political smear word "anti-choice" in the quotation above. Like PETA, I'm no fan of an organization that feels the need to smear its opponents rather than argue on principle. Every time I see that word, I think MoveOn.org must be "anti-fairness" or "anti-interested-in-a-rational-debate-of-the-issues-when-we-can-call-people-names-instead."

Jackie Mason | September 2, 2008
[hidden by request]

Steve West | September 2, 2008
You're being a little overly semantic here bordering on quibbling. Of course it was her choice. In her opinion she made the right choice. As we all have choices to make in life, there are several options that are poor, sometimes illegal, or other reasons that make them wrong. But they are still choices. Let her commend her for making the right choice for goodness sake.

Samir Mehta | September 2, 2008
[hidden by request]

Samir Mehta | September 2, 2008
[hidden by request]

Amy Austin | September 2, 2008
Preach on, Samir, preach on... my feelings, exactly. I'm not here to say that I am a pure-of-heart, non-judgmental Christian *or* atheist who wouldn't form similar opinions on the "welfare" mom... but I *am* here to say that it's the stinking hypocrisy that seriously irks me. I frown on unplanned pregnancy in general, sorry to say... but only because of the general implications of burden on surrounding people, taxpayers, resources and the rest of the world... not because of any sexual morality issues that almost *always* go along with from the conservative crowd -- which is only half of the annoying "pro-life" equation, I know... the other half being all the other (sorry to say it, but it really *is*) "anti-choice" nonsense. Palin's daughter may currently have a "choice" based on our current legislative environment, but is it really a choice under the laws that her mother and McCain would favor??? For that matter... does anyone here really believe that a girl in her position, whether willingly or by pressure, wouldn't haven't "chosen" the exact same thing in either case? This is how pro-lifers can say things like "the right choice" and not see any irony in it at all... because in their minds, it is effectively the *only* choice... and would be if they had their way with the laws on it -- laws that govern very personal and private decisions... like the one being discussed here, which would have remained that way if it weren't for the damned hypocrisy! Obama rightfully says that it should be off-limits, but how can it be when it's an issue that's been wrongfully thrust into the political realm by the very same people?!?!? I guarantee you that none of these things would be made into fodder for political "smearing" if it were left where it belongs... which is OUT of the political campaigning and IN the doctor's office with the provider and the mother. Great for Palin and her family that they are excited to have a fifth Downs/"angel baby"... great that her daughter (supposedly) has all the love and support of her family... great that they will provide for their own. But not all the women in the world, or even in the USA, have the luxury to be able to say that. I have *always* found it totally ironic that the party with the self-appointed guardianship of the unborn are the same people who do the least for the people most adversely affected by their nonsense. How many pro-lifers do you see lined up to adopt, provide for, or otherwise take care of all the unwanted crack babies, dumpster babies, and "angel babies"??? Sorry... but that's just blatant hypocrisy, plain and simple.

Edit: And speaking of ironic "choice" commentary... this is from one of the many-linked articles in that alleged grandmother piece, the one about her weird-as-hell choice to fly back to remote Alaska while supposedly leaking amniotic fluid (a condition that ought to be seen ASAP) -- a defender of her decision says:

Who cares that she flew when she was in labor. Last I looked it she was an adult and she can make up her own mind.

Amy Austin | September 2, 2008
Oh, and the potty-mouth on McCain doesn't surprise me in the least... I've said all along that his temper is only one of the many things in his general disfavor... that he curses is of no real import to me (obviously), except that it does absolutely nothing to diminish his hot-headedness... in fact, it only emphasizes it.

Samir Mehta | September 2, 2008
[hidden by request]

Amy Austin | September 2, 2008
But it *is* the profanity, by your argument -- if he was silently thinking and feeling the exact same thing, you'd have no way of knowing it... and chances are, it would be a fleeting thing, either way... *except*, as you said, for those bearing witness to it. The fact that he can't control himself enough to save the rest of us from that impression is what makes it unacceptable. And "context"? Well, the same thing applies, whether it's his wife or our country/world leaders... but it's not all that uncommon for those closest/most familiar to receive the unkindest treatment (hence the saying, "Familiarity breeds contempt."). But if he can't control his mouth with his wife or other Congressmen, how long before he's chummy enough to spout some words at some other country's leader? Maybe this is the real reason he doesn't want to do any "talking" with Iran...

Tony Peters | September 2, 2008
McCain's potty mouth is inheireted....his dad (John McCain the Admiral) was a "right bastard" (this is a quote from my grandmother) though he was a much better naval officer than his son (he just hated my grandfather) John McCain the son wasn't very good until he reached the crucible of his life, being a POW. He returned to the world a changed man but still a bastard, his first wife walked out when she was dianosed with cancer and in truth John had his own problems at that time, they didn't have time for eachother...

I agree with Samir the hypocrasy of abstinence is beyond stupid....beyond that I'm staying out of the CHOICE argument....

Aaron Shurtleff | September 2, 2008
If abstinence was actually used, and, you know, people kept it in their pants, most of the whole "CHOICE" argument would be a moot point. But I guess being able to discern that parenthood should be treated as an informed decision made when it is appropriate is more than we can expect from people. I mean, come on, now! If we have sexual organs, shouldn't we just use them and use them and use them, to hell with the consequences? And, best of all, let's just say that anyone who disagrees with us is obviously doing it for "moral" or "religious" reasons, and discount their opinions altogether. I mean, religion is the only way anyone could ever that decision, of course!

And, of course, 17 is plenty old enough to get all knocked up, but at that tender tender age, you can't actually make a decision to terminate a pregnancy if your parents don't like it, so obviously, any decision on that by Palin's daughter is based entirely on the parent's wishes and not her own. I mean, we can all see how blatantly obvious that is, right?

The funniest thing is, I am mostly pro-choice. I just wish the other people who supported it weren't so hard to agree with.

I also think it's awesome how Obama can take issues, say "I don't feel it's appropriate to discuss.", and then reap the benefits of EVERYONE ELSE (I'm looking at you CNN!) talking the shit out of it, but no one will call BS on him. Awesome. When Obama tells CNN and everyone else that they are welcome to not interview him anymore until they stop discussing Palin's family's private life, then I'll believe he wants it out of the realm of campaign issues.

I'm dying for someone I can get behind, not just a bunch of the same old same old bullshit. If someone like that comes along, let me know.

EDIT-> I'm not talking about Ron Paul in that last sentence, thank you. :(

Amy Austin | September 2, 2008
I'm not sure where the sarcasm begins or ends there, Aaron, but what I am saying can be summed up pretty simply like this:

Philosophically speaking (or morally, if you prefer), it's quite possible to be pro-choice *and* anti-abortion. However, it doesn't work the other way around or when you throw legislation in there with it. People who don't want legislation on the issue ("pro-choice") aren't out there going, "rah, rah, rah, abortion!!!" and picketing women's clinics while yelling, "GET AN ABORTION!" at all who enter... or blowing up people like Palin & McCain because of their willingness to provide this legislation. People who do want legislation are most certainly engaging in "anti-choice" behavior by this simple act alone... without even including all the extremist behavior (exclusive to the "pro-life" movement, btw) that I just mentioned.

Scott Hardie | September 2, 2008
Amy, there's a tiny fringe element that engages in that behavior. Most pro-life people would want nothing to do with those extremists.

Obviously abortion is one of the most divisive issues in our nation. Conventional wisdom holds that there is no common ground on the matter. Most other issues hard-fought by either side are just a matter of priorities: Republicans don't want more pollution, Democrats don't want higher taxes, etc; it's just that other things are more important. I have long wondered whether we would ever be able to compromise on this most heated issue, and what form that compromise might take. That's why I was so glad to read TIME's article a week ago, at the beginning of the DNC: (link)

Democrats declare for the first time their commitment to supporting policies — including contraception, education and economic support for pregnant women who want to carry their babies to term — that get at the root causes of abortion. To make this shift easier for abortion-rights advocates to swallow, Dems have beefed up the party's full-throated support of the Roe v. Wade decision. The negotiations seem to have paid off — the abortion plank has been hailed by both pro-life and pro-choice Democrats as an important step forward.

Amy Austin | September 2, 2008
I realize that it's fringe behavior, Scott... just like the PETA tactics that you so despise (and that I, an animal lover, disassociate myself from, BUT... am sympathetic to the cause of... and they are really not in the same league of crazy, honestly... but they do nothing to bring outside favor to the cause, either).

I suppose it's an issue that's much like capital punishment... which again, ironically, is so often favored by the very same "pro-life" demographic! I cannot commit to a position on it myself, but I lean more toward favoring it for exactly the same reasons as I mentioned in frowning upon unplanned pregnancy. An imperfect penitentiary system, however, seems far less abominable than, say... children like Dani (the practically feral child you recently highlighted), as a consequence of taking a particular stance.

As for "education and economic support for pregnant women who want to carry their babies to term" -- I can't say that it makes me as hopeful, honestly. It just sounds like "welfare" wearing a fancier dress... and I have a hard time imagining fiscally conservative members of either party being all for it. Sorry.

Scott Hardie | September 2, 2008
Another job to be glad you never have: Republican spokesman who must explain why Sarah Palin has enough national security experience to run the country, and Barack Obama does not.



After one fallacious argument after another is debunked -- resort to attacking the reporter asking the question! You couldn't pay me enough to take this guy's job.

Amy Austin | September 2, 2008
Tucker Bounds? With a name like that, he *had* to take this job...

Amy Austin | September 3, 2008
Speaking of McCain's temper...

Anna Gregoline | September 3, 2008
Scott, I have to disagree. Anti-choice is what they are for. They do not want women to be able to decide to end their pregnancies. It matches pro-choice as to what the debate is actually about, no emotion, no religion. Just the facts - it's about laws over whether women get to decide or not.

Conversely, there is no pro-life and anti-life. Pro-choicers don't advocate abortions. Besides that, I think it's nifty cause it points out the hypocrisy so common on the Right. They are masters at re-framing the debate - I don't see any foul play by lobbing that back at them.

Anna Gregoline | September 3, 2008
And gah, that's an old picture of me.

Kris Weberg | September 3, 2008
Exactly, Anna: In a pro-choice America, people who oppose abortions can, well, not get abortions. In a pro-life America, people who don't want abortions keep everyone else from access to abortion.

You have to argue harder to restrict a freedom than you do to preserve one, or at least you should

Tony Peters | September 3, 2008
Mind you Kris this is the same country that believes that liberty should be curtailed for security

Samir Mehta | September 3, 2008
[hidden by request]

Kris Weberg | September 4, 2008
They say that they view abortion as murder, but when you combine this with their more general stance on deeply intertwined issues like sex educatrion, contraceptive availability, even the freakin' HPV vaccine labeled as a spur to promiscuity, it becomes pretty clear to me that it's about a very narrow view of sex and sexuality.

Non-procreative sex is bad, period. Abortion-as-murder is a particular in that more global view. I would agree that they think of a fetus as a living person and abortion as murder, but that derives from a more basic belief that anything with the biological potential to become a fetus -- spermatozoa and ova -- must be treated as potential life. Then sex has to bear the risk of pregnancy, and contraception becomes something almost like preemptive abortion (i.e., preventing the possibility of life without going all the way to murdering a living individual, as they perceive a fetus). This is why gay sex is bad, as well: it takes potential life and, to them, decadently wastes that potential on mere pleasure.

I don't really think of a fetus as a living person, obviously. Extrauterine viability is the defining issue for me, and even there I'll put the mother's power over her body and right to control it above the prenatal's right to its body if that's the legal divider. A fetus may not have chosen to be conceived, but a fetus doesn't choose or have the capacity to choose. The woman, on the other hand, is using her body or having her body used (depending on her perspective). Pro-lifers essentially argue that the fetus gets to commandeer the woman's body as the price of her having sex. And they do everything they can to increase the chance of that price being charged.

Amy Austin | September 4, 2008
Wow, Kris... you indict the Right even more heavily than I would! While I wouldn't disagree with your Sex For Heathens/Every Sperm Is Sacred analysis, I do think that this represents the farthest right of the Right/"Moral Majority" and that there are plenty of Christian types out there who do engage in (other than procreative) sex, with contraception, without serious issue, but who are also anti-abortion. Of course, as I type this, I can't help but also think, "Well, if they are this reasonable/rational thus far, then they probably wouldn't be the ones fighting for legislation, either..." -- though, I wonder how many of them would consider themselves "pro-choice". I guess what I'm saying is that you make a very strict black-and-white argument for something that I think many people arrive at through a lot of "gray"... oftentimes unexplored gray, even -- and yet, I do find it really hard to make that defense when there *is* such black-and-white, and often unswayable, positioning on the topic.

Regardless... your comments also happened to remind me of a book I've been reading -- I suppose many might consider it "New Age"-y, as writings of a spiritual, but non-religion-specific, nature (even when framed for Christians), are now categorized... leading to a rather pejorative use of the term (much like "feminist")... but anyway -- it's The Power of Now, by Eckhart Tolle. There is about a page and half (113-115) that I am reluctant to quote, for reasons of length (among others), but it specifically asks: Why have most religions condemned or denied the body? It seems that spiritual seekers have always regarded the body as a hindrance or even sinful.
I find the answer, as well as much of the rest of the book, to be quite resonant with my particular beliefs, and I recommend it for anyone who might be interested in readings of this nature.

And this is why it's so hard to keep religion separate from state, even in a country that was specifically set up and designed to do so. But I am not "religious" per se, and even under God, I stand completely with you on the legal argument.

Anna Gregoline | September 4, 2008
Kris, I agree, and there are many litmus tests that prove, at least to me, that most anti-choicers actually DON'T consider the fetus to be truly human and worthy of protection. Most anti-choicers seem to propose penalties on doctors, not on the women seeking abortion, but how does that make sense? If it's really murder, shouldn't the doctor be the murderer-for-hire, and the woman indicted right alongside the doctor? There are a million more, but I'll leave you guys with this instead.

Why it's difficult to believe that anti-choicers mean what they say.

Tony Peters | September 4, 2008
I will preface this by saying that as a man I really have no stake in the matter one way or another. My biggest issue is with those that use abortion as a means for of birth control (especially more than once) but again it's not my body and I had a Vasectomy so that I would never have kids so my opinion is likely skewed a bit. Abortion for health whether for the mother or the child I have no problems with and actually beleive that it should be required in some cases. Example there was a baby born to a couple here at my base with no brain just a brain stem...that child lived for nearly a year at the cost of $400-$600K a month and only died of a freak infection (or so I've heard). This was a military couple so under the military anti abortion law the child had to be carried to full term (DOD health insurance usually refuses to pay for abortion especially late term which is when I understand the baby's condidtion was discovered the couple could have paid out of pocket for an abortion but would have also been on the hook for any complications) we the tax payers paid millions to keep alive a body with absolutely no chance of any contribution to society. I personally consider this to be Fraud waste and abuse but also heartbreaking when you consider what this couple had to go through

Amy Austin | September 4, 2008
Indeed.

Aaron Shurtleff | September 4, 2008
Anna, I think it's an end-around, if you will. Obvously, trying to impose penalties on the women having the abortions isn't working, and isn't likely to happen. So, let's switch it up and penalize the doctors (and probably this would extend to pharmacists selling morning-after pills, but that's a digression) for performing them. End result: less doctors willing to perform the abortion, less abortions.

I mean, seriously, a lot of the examples given are, whether you personally like to think of it that way or not, the pittances that "conservative" people are willing to give up to try to get the more abortion restrictive policies through. If anti-choicers didn't support exceptions for rape and incest, for example, there's no way they would get what they want {EDIT: not that they are getting what they want!}. Are you seriously trying to fault conservatives for trying to somewhat loosen their stance and try to work with others? Would you honestly respect the anti-abortion stance more (at all?) if they had a strict "it ain't happening no matter what" policy?

And Tony, I'm with you on the abortion as birth control thing. I'm less with you on the "let's kill every baby with a birth defect" thing, not necessarily for your more extreme example, but for the slippery slope I think it creates. Who decides what defect or disease is "bad enough" to encourage abortion? What about HUntington's, for example. It can be tested for in gestation, doesn't really start to show symptoms until later in life (USUALLY), but it is painful and davastating once it does start hitting. Would you support abortion, essentially saying that, even though the fetus might live 40 or 50 years, it's got a disorder, and will be in pain later in life, or would you force a parent to give birth, knownig that the child they have to have will have a painful early death? It's not an easy decision for anyone to have to make, and I don't think anyone should be forced to have OR terminate a baby/fetus/whatever.

Tony Peters | September 4, 2008
OK maybe required is the wrong word and it certainly leads donwn a slippery slope.....I'm not always good about my choice of language though I try. My issue is removal of choice more so now than in the past I used to be more conservative but the party I grew up with isn't what's here now I guess a better way to say it would be to say keep religion out of politics, my bedroom and especially out of my heathcare.

The example I gave was real world though exteme in the outcome that the fetus born was self sufficient with the assistance of modern medice but without that would never be a thinking person. And it was the result of the environment that the conservatives have forced on military medicine. My assumption is that national heathcare would/could be equally impacted. If pregnancy wasn't such a mission impacting condition over the last decade the religious right would have attempted to remove birth control from military medicine (this was a real issue it was attempted a number of times and common sense prevailed). Another example....4 urologists at Naval Hospital Yokosuka, all refused to perform a vasectomy on religious grounds (but they would perform a bris), as a result the Navy had to import an Air Force Doctor to perform the surguries requested by navy personel. Yes small population effected but an example of they way the conservative fringe thinks/acts

I guess the problem we have in the USA right now is a lack of ballance both sides are more beholding to their fringe than they are to the center...my problem is I really don't trust either side

Anna Gregoline | September 5, 2008
My biggest issue is with those that use abortion as a means for of birth control

You know, this talking point gets repeated a lot, but who ARE these "abortion as birth control" women? Abortion is a scary, often physically and emotionally painful procedure. Not to mention that abortion providers are very keen on educating women so that it doesn't happen to them again. There have to be precious few that are "using it as birth control." It wouldn't make sense to use it as your only method of birth control.

Are you seriously trying to fault conservatives for trying to somewhat loosen their stance and try to work with others? Would you honestly respect the anti-abortion stance more (at all?) if they had a strict "it ain't happening no matter what" policy?

I've seen NO such "working with others." If THAT were true, they'd be for sexual education about contraception and promoting things that REDUCE abortions. That is not the case. So I don't believe that they're trying to reduce abortions, but rather, make sure that everyone thinks it's evil and and wrong and ensure that women have no choice at all. I WOULD respect it more if it was "it ain't happening no matter what." I don't agree with it at all, but it's the only morally arguable position for what they claim to believe.

Although if there are no health exceptions at all, you're damning a non-negligible amount of women to certain death. Thinking, breathing, feeling. already bestowed with human rights women. To death. The stories I have read where abortion was necessary to save the mother are heartbreaking and it's absolutely horrifying to imagine a world where doctors would say, "Sorry, you'll have to die. We cannot save you at the expense of the baby."

Amy Austin | September 5, 2008
You know, this talking point gets repeated a lot, but who ARE these "abortion as birth control" women? Abortion is a scary, often physically and emotionally painful procedure. Not to mention that abortion providers are very keen on educating women so that it doesn't happen to them again. There have to be precious few that are "using it as birth control." It wouldn't make sense to use it as your only method of birth control.

Excellent points, all... not to mention what an *expensive* method of birth control it would be...

Jackie Mason | September 5, 2008
[hidden by request]

Samir Mehta | September 5, 2008
[hidden by request]

Samir Mehta | September 5, 2008
[hidden by request]

Scott Hardie | September 5, 2008
That "executive experience" line has been bugging me too, Jackie. If Barack Obama has merely been a senator and has no executive experience and thus is not qualified to be president, then neither is John McCain. For some reason, I'm reminded of the 2004 RNC attendees who wore Band-Aids with little purple hearts drawn on them, to criticize John Kerry accepting a Purple Heart for a "flesh wound" – and what, they prefer George W. Bush's military experience?

Samir Mehta | September 5, 2008
[hidden by request]

Amy Austin | September 5, 2008
Oh, I caught it... tonight was even better. Hypocrisy definitely seems to be the theme of the week.

Steve West | September 6, 2008
Speaking of party crashers, there are several candidates to choose from beyond the Democratic and Republican hopefuls. Here is the list of all candidates still running for president in 2008. I'm considering the Libertarian candidates because I've heard Wayne Allyn Root's radio ad for his sports betting info line. There's an incorruptible candidate if I've ever heard one!

Aaron Shurtleff | September 6, 2008
Is he the one who always says, "Winner winner chicken dinner", because he might be up to 2 votes if he is!

Although (go down there and look for it) President Bootie or President Kissing do have a nice ring to them...

I might have to go with Jonathon "The Impaler" Sharkey of the Vampires, Witches, and Pagan Party. No one f$cks with a President whose nickname is "The Impaler"!!

Jackie Mason | September 6, 2008
[hidden by request]

Scott Hardie | September 17, 2008
I'm not as much bothered by Sarah Palin as I am by the conservative voters who have embraced her, present company excepted. They say she lives conservative values, when in fact she distorts them. They say she has more experience than the other guys, when this would disqualify her own ticket. The list of rationalizations that one must make, and the glaring deficiencies one must overlook, to support her is long.

That said, the attitude that really bothers me this week is that it doesn't matter that she doesn't know what the Bush Doctrine is. Who cares! The average American doesn't know what it is! An otherwise reasonable appreciation of her said this:

Nobody cares if Palin knows the Bush doctrine. I defy anyone to tell you what the Bush-Cheney strategy has been over the last seven years (other than getting re-elected) or what doctrine has been practiced by this "gang that can't shoot straight." And who cares? They are gone in 126 days.

Samir Mehta | September 17, 2008
[hidden by request]

Scott Hardie | September 18, 2008
Two things on my nerves today:

1) Please reassure me that I'm not the only one reading these stories...
Palin will not cooperate with 'Troopergate' inquiry
Palin staff won't testify in trooper probe
Palin calling for an end to investigation she requested
...and wondering why in the hell any voters would want four (more) years living in a void of accountability like this.

2) Apparently, some people are still undecided whether to vote for Obama or Palin, so Palin brought "her running mate" to a Michigan town-hall meeting. Reports CNN:

GRAND RAPIDS, Michigan (CNN) -- Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin took questions with her running mate Wednesday night, offering at one point to play "stump the candidate" with a mostly friendly Michigan crowd.

Asked for "specific skills" she could cite to rebut critics who question her grasp of international affairs, she replied, "I am prepared."

"I have that confidence. I have that readiness," Palin said. "And if you want specifics with specific policies or countries, you can go ahead and ask me. You can play 'stump the candidate' if you want to. But we are ready to serve."

GOP presidential nominee John McCain stepped in, pointing out that as governor of a state that is oil and gas plentiful, Palin was familiar with energy. She knows it to be "one of our great national security challenges," he said.

He also cited her nearly two years as commander of Alaska's National Guard. "I believe she is absolutely, totally qualified to address every challenge as the next vice president of the United States," McCain said.

Amy Austin | September 18, 2008
I'm afraid that I am lately finding myself so completely overwhelmed and infuriated by this "farce of a campaign" that I don't think I can calmly discuss it anymore. I have never been this profoundly perturbed and disturbed by politics, and at 35, I feel entirely to young to be this completely disgusted with (and fearful of) "mainstream America" and the bullshit that's passing for its leadership.

This is the latest... "annoyance" seems a bit understated... to make me question my willingness to keep subjecting myself to "the news" over dinner. I'm pretty sure that "antigastronomical" isn't really a legitimate word, especially considering where I was eating (the galley), but it seems to capture the essence of my dining experiences lately... and I don't know if I can keep following it all for the next six or seven weeks.

source 1
source 2
source 3
source 4

Because of slant, I always try to find multiple sources of the same stories, but the four links all pretty much convey the same information about the party-jumping traitor Lynn Forrester de Rothschild's decision to back the Palin/McCain ticket (might as well call it what it is), citing Obama's "elitism" as one of her reasons (not in any of the articles -- but I saw it out of her own mouth -- and only obliquely referenced by the partial quotes in source 2 where she talks about her modest NJ upbringing).

If irony can pass for humor, then I suppose I did at least get a couple of laughs listening to the self-proclaimed lifelong Democrat and BARONESS talk about the "state of mind" known as elitism... but the rest of the time I was putting down my fork for a moment of indigestion.

Erik Bates | September 18, 2008
[hidden by request]

Amy Austin | September 18, 2008
Heheh... so true, so true -- I think "Babygate" was probably the nadir of it all.

Samir Mehta | September 19, 2008
[hidden by request]

Amy Austin | September 19, 2008
Gaitgate. Nice. How about a cloning/DNA controversy... like the movie Gattaca?

Jackie Mason | September 19, 2008
[hidden by request]

Tony Peters | September 20, 2008
Did anyone watch the Palin/Hannity interview/lovefest? I spent most of my time trying to figure out where the teleprompter was the Palin was reading from. The perfection of her talking point answers was mind boggling. At the end Hannity remind reminded me of a dog with a chew toy he wouldn't accept that both sides have lobbyist working on their campaigns

Samir Mehta | September 20, 2008
[hidden by request]

Samir Mehta | September 20, 2008
[hidden by request]

Amy Austin | September 20, 2008
Yes! That happened to be the only clip I saw from the interview... and I was like, omg let's not make this widespread public knowledge, please... Yeah, I find it completely amazing that this is something that would be a highlight for a Republican candidate -- it totally is socialism. Just like bailing out Wall Street. Or as one of Bill Maher's guests last night, Naomi Klein, more eloquently put it... "crybaby capitalism" (first cousin of croney capitalism, no doubt).

Samir Mehta | September 20, 2008
[hidden by request]