Church & Gov't - the Original Mistake

Now this is convoluted and I haven't really followed everything on the Pro-Life front like I used to when I got pro-life stuff in the mail back in the day (PLEASE please don't tell Janet Napolitano!!) but my pastor was explaining this past Sunday that due to something in ObamaCare, the finer print now all Church institutions like hospitals and universities will have to provide contraceptives and sterilization to their employees. OK so by now you know my thoughts, if sex is a private affair then so is birth control and leave me and everyone else the hell out of it. I mean why not hit me up for some lube and anal beads too while we're at it and I totally agree with my pastor regarding religious freedom and conscience exemptions but there's a BUT here and you knew that. The root cause and what John Kennedy once warned about is the Church and the Gov't getting in bed together. Once you work with the government, once you as a religious institution or body agree to some federal funds and yes it's always altruistic at first be it helping the homeless, getting immigrants set up and assimilated, low-income housing projects, drug rehab, whatever, once you get in bed with the Government you then have to do its bidding maybe not today, maybe not tomorrow, maybe in a year or two from now but THEY will be setting the Terms make no mistake. Take Catholic Charities which accepts some federal funds for their charitable work, laudable stuff to be sure but not that long ago they were told by you know who that they also have to place kids for adoptions with some gay couples because that's the law and so they stopped placing kids for adoptions altogether. The point is this, the Church should be the Church and the Government the Government so while I agree with my pastor I am somewhat agitated that the Church still doesn't get it, understand the root causes here. You wanna do something with Habitat for Humanity and work with Jimmy Carter and Bob Vila knock yourself out, have at it but your funds should be your funds and their funds their funds and may Obama stay out of it and just watch the Superbowl or go shopping with the missus or go on another Hawaiian vacation and crack open a coconut. Just be careful is all, you may have to pay for some poor worker's IUD down the road:)

Straights have destroyed the institution of marriage

& over time gays will too. You want leaner and meaner government? that'll be when the gov't finally says we are no longer going to recognize failing institutions like marriage. I was thinking about this the other day, polygamy is technically illegal but that's a religious issue isn't it? Why not have the gov't simply say have at it, we're not gonna recognize it but you won't go to jail over it? Word now that ABC News is gonna give one of Newt's ex-wives two hours to dish and it's gonna air on the Monday after the SC primary. Apparently there was some big internal discussion over there about when to air it, personally I wouldn't air it at all but what's with the two full hours? American Idol season premieres get two hours but this is what journalism has turned into. Newt must pose some sort of threat or something. I once had a workable theory that gays have gay sex because straight sex often leads to feticide and well maybe it's some sort of protest act over the destructive power of women but there's holes if you'll pardon the expression in the theory as gays are often the most pro-choice. Ah my meandering mind! Funny though both gays and straights, even those who are for and against the gay marriage have one thing in common, they both seem to feel that marriage is still some type of viable institution or something. One final question though and it's been nagging at me of late: how come many of the same people who are for the so-called woman's 'right to choose' want to take away your right as a consumer to purchase an incandescent light bulb? Liberals are only libertarian on the social issues but not much else and listening to people like Shaw and Saty wax poetic about the golden right to abortion I'm, I'm just getting into a mood here and I might accidentally delete something:)

GOP Has-Beens

The subject of has-beens interests me. One day Rocky and Blaine are one of the biggest things in the NYC radio market, the next day they're frying chicken at some Popeye's off the Interstate. These days the GOP has-beens are Sarah Palin, Michele Bachmann, that pizza godfather guy and maybe, make that probably Newt who can already feel the powerful vortex of the has-been hole sucking him in. IMO the architect of 1994's "Contract with America" deserves more respect than he's getting but that's just me. Michele Bachmann, too many brain farts and maybe the last straw was her mistaking Elvis' birthday for his deathday. I know it's not a big thing but taken as a whole you don't want her trying to reset Russian relations or pondering ending the embargo against Cuba. I want to devote the bulk of this blog though to Sarah Palin. Now when her star was early rising in the political sky (it didn't hurt that most men would've done her) early conservative commentary focused on such things as a family that hunts together stays together but the Gander Mountain voting bloc is only so big. Many many people have a mild distaste for the sport of hunting not through some elaborate theory of critter rights but Sarah and her family having a fine bowl of Moose Nose Stew on a snowy winter's night doesn't exactly impress them. Those be all-American values, heartland stuff to be sure but maybe not to a Manhattanite. So what makes a has-been or who has has-been potential? Could simply be just the inexorable Passage of Time, I mean Danny Bonaduce had to beat up a tranny to get back on the radar screen but in Palin's case and this is a biggie it was her overall Lack of Knowledge especially on the foreign affairs scene. You don't want this chick going up against Bashar al-Assad or negotatating some Arab/Israeli peace deal. I think the final nail in the coffin though, no it wasn't Tina Fey but Back in the Day some 8' giant black man who played the hoops plowed her. Sure it was back in the day but it's still a shock to the evangelical mind, yeah I know she's for the smaller gov't and pro-life and all so we can forgive her her youthful dalliances, her sex'chal 'perimentation but we kinda can't forget it either. Thanks Joe McGuiness! Oh yes Herman Cain and that's the really painful part of being a has-been nobody talks about you anymore. You know gimme someone who quietly has staying power through the years. Um I hate to say this but you can kinda say that about Romney. I hope to never become a blogging has-been btw, please lemme know:)

Romney

I'm not gonna be spending a whole lot of time on this guy, hell I may not even vote. To all the Ron Paul critics out there and it's all good but tell me why I should vote for Romney. He probably has the nomination wrapped up by now but to me it's boring, hardly blogworthy on a daily basis anyway. It's been rather apparent for some time now that the conservative infrastructure in this country, pundits, commentators, talking heads, chuckleheads, opiners-at-large while not maybe passionately in love with Romney at first have tacitly nodded their assent and the question is why? I kind of pride myself on my astute political analysis but to me it's a mystery, all I can come up with is he's not scary. Saw him recently on The Charlie Rose Show and he's articulate and can talk and again maybe he makes mainstream conservatives comfortable in a coffee, cruller and blog sort of way, throw in a nice sweater and a cat on the couch. I honestly don't even think pro-choice Republicans are that threatened by him and even here I think his flipflopping may be the wrong term. He's gone from pro-life to pro-choice back to pro-life again and in physical terms, to put it in the jargon of science this is more like a vibrating strand of energy, a string (pro-life pro-choice pro-life pro-choice pro-life pro-choice pro-life pro-choice) and it's not to be taken seriously, it could be a mood. It's fluidity that's all like tipping that glass chemistry tube with the blue liquid inside, swishing it back and forth to study it and if he was pro-choice once he can be pro-choice again since he's able to see so many angles and sides. He ain't no static Santorum that wants to outlaw buggery or something and take away the coils and pills. Mormonism is an interesting subject and I've been meaning to google it, oh hell let's do it - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mormonism. It's just a touch Secret Circle-ish to me but that don't bother me none, hell if the guy's a Mormon the guy's a Mormon. I don't think though that ABO (Anybody But Obama) is the right way to look at it, the political calculus for modern conservatives to live by. On another note "I ain't no angry black woman." OK so go tell Oprah:)

Jaded Politics

This past Tuesday (Election Day) I chose not to vote. People act like you have a duty to vote even if all the candidates suck, never got this. Anyway Democrat Mike Spano won the mayoralty of Yonkers, wasn't even that close so because she brought it up first this Italian woman at work asked if I voted and I said no so then I asked her who she voted for just to make lite conversation. She said Spano of course and so I then engaged her in a series of questions all the time being the epitome of Civility because HELP ME TO UNDERSTAND!!! I'm just curious I said why so many voted for the guy, what was the attraction? Did he say he'd lower taxes and she said he talked about Education (oh) and she added children are our future (I've never heard this before) and so I said but they all say that and she conceded the point. I said Obama talked about education among other things and she even helped me finish my sentence - "but look what we got." The Yonkers election was personal for me, all those red-light cams in the big YO were put up under the Republican and pro-life administration of Mayor Phil Amicone so my philosophy is what difference does it make, nobody really represents ME and my interests and values and me, my brother and my friend too always somehow vote for the losing candidate. The power of your vote is definitely overrated, it's a kind of Quantum Mechanics, chaos theory applied to Politics (see I have been watching The Fabric of the Cosmos over on PBS) but getting back to the woman at work it's as if pols have some sort of Svengali-like influence over people. We hate their guts and make fun during normal times but when it comes time to vote and they open up their mouth we buy into it. Help me to understand. So basically but I didn't put it in these terms exactly I said to my co-worker but we know they're basically full of Shit and we vote for them anyway. All it takes is a charming facade......Now I hate Hitler analogies as much as the next responsible blogger but around Yonkers someone painted in a Hitler mustache on Spano's face on a bunch of signs of his and the motto underneath put there by the Spano campaign themselves simply says A NEW APPROACH. Get it? you have to laugh at this stuff. Funny thing is the cops didn't even take the signs down yet, maybe it's the first crack in political correctness after all. It's all good:)

What is the role of government?

This is the essence of ALL of our blogging when you get right down to it, a distillation of our political POVs. Soapie likes local states but not the federal government, Dave sees a clear role for the feds. Beth is a charitable person but wants this to be her own decision. Saty says time and again we don't understand what socialism is, we need to do our homework but I beg to differ, we have enough of an idea. Throw this out there, would YOU eat at Soapie's Libertarian Meat Market and Deli? (this is of course a utopian place, a figment of our imaginations where the USDA rules don't apply to him). I was struck my Mal's rather agnostic position on abortion as stated in the previous blog, basically take abortion as an issue off the political table, scrape that dried crap off the plate and into the garbage bin which is interesting since pro-choicers then would no longer have any say in party platforms either. While we're at it get RACE off the table too, don't wanna offend the guests. Herman Cain, the current GOP frontrunner is pro-life among other great things. I say this, his 9-9-9 is at least better than the 666 Plan but should we not vote for him because he doesn't subscribe to Mal's wisdom which also happens to be Pam's? OK so you go into soapie's place and ask for a roast beef wedge with all the trimmings and a big pickle and a side of potato salad only his deli clerk ain't wearing any gloves, maybe you just caught him scratching his nuts as you walked in but as my instructor in a food-safety course once said latex or vinyl gloves are overrated, people somehow get a false sense of security with gloves since they get dirty too especially if you're not constantly changing 'em and then you gotta order extra gloves which runs you into some money. If I may put words into soapie's mouth since I kinda got the gist by now and I know he's on a coffee break at his law firm and is reading this and will respond shortly -- better that one person get diarrhea so his staff can learn than have the feds come in and say how it's gotta be. So the free-market has some dribbles, that's the beauty of it. I would hazard a guess Dave ain't eating there either:)

The libertarian conundrum

If a child cannot be born (because of abortion) how can it enjoy Liberty? WE have a great libertarian package for you IF you manage to be born.

Mitt Romney - I can't get all that jazzed up about the guy

First off his health care program in Massachusetts was the model for Obamacare. Judging from his latest debate performance with Rick Perry (oh, are there others?) he doesn't seem to want to touch the third rail of Social Security so that's second. Third off he seems rather bland, very bland in fact like a safe conservative choice in a polyester suit (read: moderate). I believe that as we speak he's pro-life but I don't think he's firmly rooted in any one direction except the zeitgeist or the base or whatever, four. Mormonism, you can take it or leave it but for me it has just the touch of the cult but that's not a five. I'm just not that into him. The GOP Establishment (Nancy Reagan, Henry Kissinger, Bush, the New York Post) pushing Chris Christie on us has the feel of someone trying to fix you up and I always hated that. It's the pushing that I find suspect (what, nobody else out there?) and Ron Paul is McCain's age. It'd take the edge away if Hillary ran against Obama which usually when there's no primary to speak of it means the guy's a champion but c'mon. A champion to whom, Shaw? Personally I prefer to watch X Factor, it takes my mind off things:)

Joe Biden and the Tea Party Terrorists

Originally this blog was taking shape as all the various ways critics, usually liberal ones invalidate those with whom they disagee by the use of the political pejorative "extremist." SHAW does this and neocon David Brooks of the New York Times does it as well and it's an argument from intimidation, a deliberate polemical device to curb free-flowing and robust intellectual, philosophical and political debate and its purpose is to circumscribe already shrinking respectable parameters of civic discourse and yes it's an attempt at thought control although I can't obviously impugn motives to everyone here. On my walk today the way this was shaping up in my mind though is why we worship moderation so much (seems kinda boring and bland to have this as your overall guiding life philosophy), why it's now considered the supreme political virtue and basically I want to know do we worship moderation in and of itself as a goal and an end or is it simply a technique, an important at times and pragmatic step towards the Larger Goals (the Reagan approach)? If it's the former what's the point? if it's the latter I can understand and there may be times that it makes eminent practical sense although I can imagine my idealist colleague soapie disagreeing. Used to be if the word extremist was bandied about everyone pretty much knew who everyone was talking about, those who oppose abortion and gay marriage for instance, narrow folks who were seen as being overly cramped on the social issues. NOW it means especially for liberals anyone whom the wielder of the term disagrees with. If you're for fiscal responsibility and government living within its means you're an extremist. If you're against higher taxes on the wealthy (and don't kid yourself on everyone else) as a way of dealing with the debt and deficit then you're an extremist and I can imagine the list expanding. It means whatever SHAW and Brooks and others want it to mean. For liberals and conservatives some things are just not for sale whereas moderates want to sell the whole house. Oh isn't Joe Biden charming btw, just had another brain fart:)

The guy has a first name you know

The weird part about the Anthony Weiner scandal is he didn't actually have sex with any of these women so it's like a kind of pseudo-scandal, it'd be like going to hell for masturbation and where in hell does Bill Clinton get off being mad at him? Now if you're name is Weiner and you do decide to engage in this type of behavior wouldn't you go with a legal name change first? You know there's a side street over by Cross County in Yonkers called "Hiscock Place" and it'd be like if Mr. Hiscock ran for office and got embroiled in some big gay sex scandal you might wanna dot your i's and cross your t's first is all I'm sayin'. The existential coldness of Anthony Weiner's situation, even his own party wants to throw him overboard. Maybe he didn't push abortion enough, dunno but Slick Willie got away with more, far more and it made him stronger. Been meaning to pose this: so who do conservatives hate more, Bill Clinton or Barack Obama? You remember back in the day you couldn't live through 24 hours without hearing of Paula Jones or Kathleen Willey or even Juanita Broaddrick, dead teenagers on the Arkansas train tracks and drug-running at the Mena Airport, Whitewater, Lewinsky, those 500 or was it 900 FBI files? Ken Starr, Chinagate, impeachment, last-minute pardons......we don't even talk about that anymore, that's like a Three's Company or Sanford and Son rerun but the void has been filled by one Barack Hussein Obama. I must caution the Republicans if they're buying tickets to board the big old PhallusShip into the next election. An overindulgence in Weiner minutiae is not gonna get you there but with Huma being pregnant and all this throws a curve into normal conservative thinking. Mr. Weiner doesn't even have a business or law degree to fall back on like some of the others, what's he gonna be a deli clerk? and you wouldn't want those economic pressures to lead to a bad decision here. BTW some rich guy is gonna scuba-dive for bin Laden's corpse in the North Arabian Sea next month and our corporate media is wasting no time in calling him an eccentric.

FREE SPEECH - abortion, gay jokes, the works

Beth thought this important enough to discuss and I agree. The link: http://beta.news.yahoo.com/jilted-ex-boyfriend-puts-abortion-billboard-194142831.html
Since I subscribe to the principle that in the vast majority of cases free speech should win at the end of the day it didn't take me long to reach my conclusion. I read the article twice and it doesn't say if the ex's name was used on the billboard but it clearly falls under free speech even if he shouldn't have done it. Of course you could make the argument that since it's a specific guy on the ad people in the local area can easily put 2&2 together and deduce who the ex probably is but it's a very interesting case and I love this stuff. Now Tracy Morgan of 30 Rock has said some stuff, some antigay jokes down in some nightclub and well it didn't take long for the almost immediate pro-forma apology from Mr. Morgan (maybe in the future it can come right after the joke, saves time) but the thing about these cases is I absolutely HATE political correctness. Now I'm not antigay by any stretch but when the obligatory gay spokesman from some group issues the mandatory official statement that everyone's feelings got hurt you just wanna call him a faggot. You see the thing about humor is it's entirely subjective, it's in the eye of the beholder. There's no objective norm to humor in the first place and so some people in the club, the ones who weren't offended did find his comments hilarious but that doesn't prove exactly they hate gays. The best gay jokes I ever heard in my life came from liberals btw. Here's the other thing, how does censorship solve the Problem? Why not let Tracy Morgan make his jokes and the gay guy can call him a dick? Works for me and why if he's such a big star on 30 Rock is he doing standup in the first place?:)

Abortion

......(continued)......

Would you vote for Donald Trump?

He's tapping all the right buttons. Wants to bring jobs back to America, has been stroking the seniors over Medicare and has even told Pat Robertson on the Christian Broadcasting Network that he's done a conversion and is now pro-life. Sounds serious about reducing our debt and deficit but on foreign policy looks a little weak, kind of bullshitting his way through. I look at it this way, if he doesn't work out we can always fire him. If it came down to Trump vs. Obama would I vote for the guy? brief and to the point, YES.

The overweening government of Yonkers and its ticket blitz

There have been severe budget cuts in Yonkers of late, that's nothing new but seems the city under the mayorship of Republican and self-described pro-life conservative Phil Amicone have hit upon a solution. Wasn't gonna do another blog about this so soon since I got my very first traffic camera ticket issued on March the 4th for allegedly not coming to a complete stop going northbound on Nepperhan Ave. in order to make a right onto Odell but I got another nice thing in the mail just yesterday for allegedly doing the exact same thing on March the 16th. The letterhead reads like it did before: City of Yonkers Red Light Traffic Safety Program PO Box 22091 Tempe AZ 85285-2091. That's some intercity racket these cities and municipalities have going on and then there's the website where you can view actual video footage of your moving violation at http://www.ViolationInfo.com/ and they even give you your very own PIN # for this. That's an invasion of Privacy right there, Big Brother would be proud. Fine again is 50 bucks with no points attached to your license and I'm leading up to a very larger point at the end which the soapster should be able to appreciate (he must be rubbing off on me). There really should be an audit from a totally outside independent agency of these things (actually they really shouldn't exist these red light cam programs in the first place as they are unconstitutional but be that as it may) and then we can find out Things like who's involved? who's collecting the money? who knows who? can they target people they don't like? etc. etc. Yonkers is legendary for its corruption, there have been problems in its police and fire departments down through the years and you'd think they'd want to change the image of the City of Gracious Living so why not investigate everything to make sure everything is on the up-and-up? The older reader may remember the Parking Violations Bureau scandal down in New York City during the Koch Administration and for any PVB to be collecting such vast sums of money the need for massive oversight should be obvious. The red light cams at Nepperhan and Odell might also prove bad for business down the road. There's a popular and major shopping area here anchored by an A&P and Walgreen's and I would think the merchants would want to fight this as I'm sure many consumers in the area have already had their tickets doled out in the mail and are thinking of taking their business elsewhere. Now the Overriding Theme where the personal becomes political: I am no longer voting for someone who calls himself a conservative Republican, throw in pro-life too if you want if that person like Mayor Amicone does not really believe in the tenets of limited government and acts that way. Yonkers' Red Light Traffic Safety Program is happening under his watch, he has to have knowledge of it and this is no way to close budget gaps. It's not the Tea Party way and he can find work elsewhere after his mayoralty is over. Last I checked it's the consent of the governed:)

emotional judo, mind masturbation & other techniques of the ancient fighting skills

Channel-surfing last night and on came this commercial about animal cruelty, some animal group which does good work but I always change the channel. I'm sensitive to this stuff so it begins with some hungry and tired dog walking the sidewalk with the caption "when will I eat?" The thought occured why doesn't the cameraman or whoever is filming this give the dog a bowl of Alpo and some water? Watch me suffer to make a political point - the former abortionist turned pro-life activist Dr. Bernard Nathanson passed away Feb. 21 at his home in Manhattan. The Silent Scream, basically he was friends with an abortionist, Dr. Jay Kelinson in New York City and since the procedure was gonna be done anyway it was shot in ultrasound and the rest is history. I would have done without the title though, slightly Elvira-ish. So I was watching this NOVA/National Geographic special couple weeks back about venomous critters and they showed some guy suffering in a Vietnamese hospital after getting bit by a poisonous snake known as a krait. Seems antivenin is rather expensive there and most folks can't afford it so they hooked him up to a respirator instead so he could breathe and it takes a few weeks for the venom to run its course this way and, I don't know it's fucked up.

Does Obama care more about gay marriage than Libya? I really don't care how he's evolving, Rodan the Thinking Man. Just do Something, about Libya that is. He's the kind of person if he worked in a deli he'd be farting around in the kitchen making a seafood pastry puff and you'd have to kick him in the ass to help with the line up front.

I caught Joe Scarborough on the Today Show this morning and it reminded me once again of why I never liked the guy. He said Newt Gingrich is unelectable as president because in the past he has called Obama a socialist among other things. Joe has made a fetish out of pointing out when he feels other conservatives are being a little extreme, think McCain's daughter but less stupid. I even question whether the guy is a real conservative but if Newt's policies are good for the country I don't see a problem. At some time it was decided that it's a Bad Thing to call Obama a socialist, it's a control issue between liberals and elite conservatives like David Brooks to kind of fence us in, the whole argument from intimidation thing. It's a I Want to be Popular at Manhattan Cocktail Parties brand of conservatism, it's hip to be hip, the whole moderation is sexy thing until I'm so dull maybe I don't stand for anything anymore. BTW you can't say the work "cocktail" at Hannityland, discovered that once otherwise it'll be cut off. Reminds me of why I don't miss the place:)

Liberal diversity of thought on abortion?

Not as I see it. Saty believes overall that conservatives all share the same political opinions basically whereas liberals do not and she believes, actually believes this applies to abortion as well. Well obviously it doesn't because while liberals may wax poetic about our nation's diversity and pluralism their overall conclusion is exactly the same re the practice notwithstanding the occasional oddball like Nat Hentoff. That conclusion is that abortion should remain entirely legal, they wholeheartedly support Roe in other words. Now if you had some libs saying abortion legal only during the first few weeks, others saying maybe 4 or 5 months and still others advocating parental notification laws and others not, IF you had one hearty group of libs saying yeah we're pro-choice but the legal framework behind Roe really sucks and needs to be overturned or at least revisited and another group saying no 'tis fine, these and other finer shades and nuances would indicate liberal diversity of thought on the issue but you lose on this one Saty, oh boy do you lose!

Now if I were a liberal Democratic strategist I would counsel the Left distance themselves from abortion. Push the green issues, labor issues, the rights of dissidents in foreign lands and whatever else floats your boat but to chug away at something that is by its very nature ugly makes no eminent practical political sense to me. It's a creepy brand imo (make that creepy-cubed when you throw in Terri Schiavo). There doesn't seem to be that great a diversity of thought on gun control either or immigration for that matter. I'd go so far as to say that overall liberal and conservative thought tends to be fairly homogeneous over time and that is to be expected since liberals have roughly the same ideals as other liberals and conservatives share generally the same ideals as other conservatives and there's gambling in Vegas. So for Saty to tout liberals as somehow being the Great Thinkers of the Age on what planet?

Have at it. I'm pumped and primed and when it comes to splitting hairs and parsing language I already know your next move. I wasn't going to do an abortion blog so soon but her misguided encomia to modern-day liberalism cannot go unaddressed. BTW when it comes to liberal diversity of thought on abortion I want copious documentation and quotes:)

afterthought: You know here's a weird thought, there actually is more conservative diversity of thought on abortion than liberal diversity of thought on the issue. Conservatives also from what I've been reading in the blogosphere and in organized punditry these days also have differing views on gay marriage, Jonah Goldberg is rather all over the map......hmmmmmm......

Do liberals and conservatives share the same goals?

The fashionable answer is yes and I've been hearing alot of this lately but it really is a rather vague statement and is it even true? I'm gonna go with a no. Do liberals and conservatives both agree on you keeping more of your hard-earned money? Do liberals and conservatives look at the wealthy in the same way especially regarding the previous question? Do liberals and conservatives view Big Business and Labor the same way? I daresay liberals have a problem with Walmart and conservatives want you to work your ass off for even peanuts because by so doing you're setting yourself up for a mansion and Lamberghini down the road (HAH!!!) Do liberals and conservatives share the same goal of making abortion rare? Again the fashionable answer is yes but just saw on Yahoo News abortions increasing in major cities and in NYC it's almost like an Olympic Event so what have liberals done for us lately?......do liberals and conservatives view your right to self-defense the same way? Does this include the right to bear a firearm? Do liberals and conservatives view RACE the same way? (do liberals ever ask blacks why they commit so much crime?) our nation's security? war & peace? the cops? God and faith in general? SEX? (that there deserves its own blog) and so on down the list. Name any political issue and is the basic goal the same? Of course your personal health not to mention health care deserves another blog but I'm gonna go with libertarians just wanna be left alone and liberals would rather you eat an apple instead of a Funny Bone and seem rather obsessed about it at times. The same goals? I just don't see it.

On the shooting

In the tragic wake of the shooting last Saturday in Arizona where Democratic Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords was critically wounded you could almost have written the msm's script for them (actually strike the word "almost"). Channel-surfing last night and stopped to browse a little at "Meet the Press" (but only a little as I can't take much of this stuff lately) and caught key words like Tea Party (what did they have to do with it?), free speech, we have to watch the words we use, Sarah Palin (but of course!) etc. etc. This is the usual framing of the issue by the msm after such a tragic event and follows the narrative arc set by the George Tiller murder which is basically that right-wing rhetoric is ultimately responsible for these happenings. The young shooter, Jared Loughner is known to be anti-government and as soon as I read that in my morning paper the day after the massacre I already knew what the media spin would be. Now many people and groups have been "anti-government" down through the ages and many were lauded by the Left (e.g. Vietnam) so when did all of a sudden being against the government or anti-government if you will become

a bad thing?

Used to work with a Jamaican chef back in the day, always struck me as being very intelligent and he felt AIDS was invented by the U.S. government which when you stop to think about it why should there be a new disease? You had the CIA's MK-ULTRA's social experiment dosing unsuspecting citizens with the mind-altering LSD, a documented conspiracy so who's to say where one's grasp on reality ends and paranoia begins? At any rate the Moral of the Story is that assholes exist, have always existed and will always exist. It is said the Columbine shooters were obsessed with the movie The Matrix, does that mean the movie should never have been made or we can't enjoy it (although the sequels were existentially painful)? So to kind of drive the Point home here the Tea Party ain't the real problem or Glenn Beck or Sean Hannity or O'Reilly or Sarah Palin or your right-wing mailman......the simple fact of the matter is the existence of the asshole a problem eternally perplexing to Mankind that dates back to the Stone Age. I don't know what makes the Asshole tick and they can wreak all kinds of havoc but if Leviathan Government uses the case of the asshole who takes matters into his own hands to say you shouldn't criticize Leviathan Government and if the media backs them up then I see that as kind of a bigger problem and I think that's the whole point actually of the predictable media commentary (I almost said coverage, 'twould be nice if the msm could just get back to coverage). It's using such tragedies for political ends and then the second point after they're done bashing conservatives becomes Gun Control. It's really why I've been reading field guides to mammals lately:)

Oh God, now we have to relive the social issues with another Cuomo?

Background: NY GOP gubernatorial candidate Carl Paladino as you may have heard spoke to a Brooklyn Hasidic congregation the other day and said some things. Kids should not be "brainwashed into thinking that homosexuality is an equally valid and successful option. It isn't." They'd "be much better off and much more successful getting married and raising a family." Emphasized that he chose not to march in New York's Gay Pride Parade whereas his Democratic rival Andrew Cuomo did. Cuomo spokesman Josh Vlasto said his speech was "stunning homophobia and a glaring disregard for basic equality. These comments, along with other views he has espoused, make it clear that he is way out of the mainstream and is unfit to represent New York." The Paladino spokesman shot back that Cuomo should discuss with his pastor his support for partial-birth abortion.

Deconstruction: Kids are being brainwashed into thinking -- Well that really is undeniable when you consider the thrust of modern-day sex education.
Kids would be better off and more successful getting married -- Not quite true if you're looking at it from purely the financial angle. Seems alot of gay men are rather affluent, cultured and successful in their own right. Going down the old poop shoot and having a respectable bank account do not seem interrelated or maybe they are.
Stunning homophobia -- There's that word again. Eye of the beholder stuff but hey it's a buzzword to appeal to a certain base. You have four urinals at a rest stop along the Interstate and two guys naturally space themselves apart. Are they homophobes? who worries about this stuff?
Glaring disregard for basic equality -- Has Paladino advocated discrimination against gays in the workplace? reinstating anti-sodomy laws? seems he's just voicing a POV at odds with, well liberalism. Cuomo should stop talking smack.
Way out of the mainstream -- It is clear Paladino is appealing to the social conservative base part of which is the Hasidim. If the social conservative base in this country were that tiny and out of the mainstream he wouldn't waste his time appealing to it. Remember he is campaigning for a high political office and if his views were really that far outside the mainstream he wouldn't have said it. Makes no sense.
Unfit to hold public office -- In what way? because he has politically incorrect viewpoints? What about Charlie Rangel? Cuomo was last seen hobnobbing at the Harlem Congressman's 80th birthday bash and this guy wants to clean up Albany?
Partial-birth abortion -- My thing is I don't want to go through another Cuomo explaining the Social Issues. It's grueling, the sophistry and obfuscation is a slow form of torture and Once Is Enough. It's like Gaga replicating Madonna, do we deserve this?
& finally a word about societal mores: Be that as it may there will always be some residual cultural distaste for rectal activity among the boys. Combined with the civic virtue of tolerance this amounts to at worst being mildly anti-gay. That's a social more, always has been and so Paladino, agree or disagree with him here is not outside the mainstream. Liberals have a problem with social mores, always have and if Cuomo were say carpetbagging and campaigning in Ohio or Wisconsin would he be saying these things? Should Paladino have gone here? who knows but there was Meredith Vieira interviewing Congresswoman Michelle Bachmann this morning about basically her views on all this even though her thing ain't New York and as I said it really is a tempest in a teapot. You should be able to raise your kids any way you want. They're not wards of the State after all and this really is the libertarian position here.

probably has a wide stance.

Pro-choice and pro-abortion

Re Pro-Lifers
Soapie: "...they demonize Pro-Choice advocates (even calling them pro-abortion in some instances)..."
Satyavati: "It's proCHOICE Beth. Can you stop with the hyperinflammatory rhetoric now? Please?"

It's not demonizing or hyperinflammatory. If we called them pro-death it would be but pro-abortion in most cases is simply accurate and objective. Let's break it down:

IF you say you're personally opposed to abortion but support abortion rights you are by proper definition pro-choice and not pro-abortion. People who work for Planned Parenthood are not personally opposed to abortion otherwise they wouldn't be working there. To say they are pro-abortion is not a pejorative simply that they have no moral objections to the act otherwise again they would be doing something else with their lives. Planned Parenthood is known for pushing abortion but let's say they didn't, just presented all the options. Then they would be pro-choice but would also at the same time be pro-abortion because, let's face it that's what they do. If you're not against abortion then you're something else. If you present neutrality on the act then that makes you morally indifferent to the act and in a roundabout way makes you pro-abortion. You can be against porn but be for Free Speech. You can also be for porn and obviously for free speech. You can be indifferent to porn and be for free speech in which case you're not against porn. If you work in a porn shop you cannot in any way be said to not be pro-porn. ONLY in the first case though can it accurately be said you're not pro-porn. If you do not in some sense oppose something then you are for it. In all his years of journalism I've never heard Bill Moyers voice a personal qualm about the act of abortion so it's fair to conclude he doesn't oppose it in even a personal way. That's not demonizing or hyperrhetoric just a fair verdict. I have not yet called Saty with her preternatural compartmentalization pro-abortion because in the past anyway she made it clear she feels killing any living creature is wrong and carries with it bad karma. That's a clarification or important nuance most pro-choicers never make but for Beth and me we just find her fascinating as well as perplexing. It's interesting and curious why the very label "pro-abortion" conjures up such feelings since there would seem to be something wrong with the act itself if one shies away from the label. I'm very pro-heart surgery and pro-appendectomy ya know? Trouble is Pro-Choice doesn't tell me much and can run the gamut from personally opposed as I said to gungho. It's the safest thing to say at a Manhattan cocktail party and you don't have to go out on a limb, it's like some safe box you check off on some questionnaire. In my labelling system though I call them pro-choice and pro-life and that works. Perhaps anti-anti-abortion?