Letters to the Editor
had_enough
Published Letters: 816 Editor's Choice: 48
-
I know this is hardly original, but....
[Read the article: Danger: Pregnant women thinking]
[Read more letters about this article: Here](sorry for the crossposting, but the article this was attached to is from yesterday, and I was curious about what others thought of this notion..)
...maybe it really is time to let the wingnut base have what it wants. Outright invaldation of Roe.
Maybe the reproductive rights organizations should go back to doing what they should have had to do all along: argue this one state-by-state.
As has been opined more than once in recent years, if the SCOTUS had just butted out of the abortion debate, we'd probably have legal abortion in most states, and abortion would not have been turned into such a powerful political weapon...a weapon that has been instrumental in allowing people like Bush and Cheney into the White House.
I *know* this kind of thing might result in a lot of problems for a lot of women...but you could make an argument that allowing abortion to become a political weapon of the Right in this country has made life far worse for all women than nationalizing the debate made life better for them.
I say, along with a number of other noted writers on the subject: let's have the SCOTUS overturn Roe and put the entire business back in the lap of the States. Even better, let's have the Court outlaw abortions for awhile.
How long do you think the GOP could hold out against that? Their entire political strategy for over 30 years has been to use abortion as a weapon to bash Dems and raise money, but no GOP politician has ever had to *defend* that actual outlawing of abortion on the Federal level. I think that alone could well be worth the cost. It might well destroy the GOP completely as a political party. That is something worth fighting for, at this point.
It's time to call these fuckers on their grotesque and cynical hypocrisy. I truly believe that if abortion law had not been nationalized the way it was in 1973, the GOP would not have ruined our country now. The law of Unintended consequences is a hard law.
Short of that national battle, the SCOTUS could simply turn the problem back to the States...and now each local legislator would have to defend the outlawing of abortion. This kind of thing could transform our country...the way it should have 30 years ago, if we liberals had not overreached, and given the Right the perfect weapon with which to assault us for the following 30 years.
I say, bring it on. Let the SCOTUS overturn Roe. And watch the entire GOP start squirming. There would still be legal abortion in this country, for the cost of a car trip or a plane ticket to New York or California. Or other states with legal abortion. No, that's hardly ideal. Not by a long way. But that wouldn't last long, I don't think.
Sometimes, you have to suffer some serious pain for some serious gain. And I know, it's not my pain. I'm an XY chromosome-type, and I understand I don't have the skin in this fight a woman has. But, consider all the alternatives, consider the present and past, and consider the way the nationalization of abortion law has utterly poisoned our political life.
It's time to have a real knock-down, drag-out fight over a woman's right to choose, and to have that fight end in victory for choice, as it inevitably will, once the issue is no longer nationalized.. and for those who say it's harder to fight for choice in 50 states rather than just nationally..hey, we're ALREADY fighting in 50-states, as anti-choice activists do everything they can to undermine Roe in every State.
Maybe it's time to force the GOP to face the consequences of its hypocrisy. Do that, and before too long, abortion would be legal in most states, with no strings. But it'd be a tough fight first. Tougher than what's happened in the last 30 years though? I think not.
-
Gonzales as insurance?
[Read the article: Setting the bar low]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Perhaps it's been suggested before, but what about the notion that the main reason the Prez isn't going to can Gonzales is because if Dear Leader had to put a new AG in office who had to pass muster in the Dem-controlled Senate, Dear Leader might end up with an AG who had just enough integrity that a number of investigations into illegal activity in the White House would start looking like a mandatory part of the job, rather than annoyances to be buried..
Any truth to that? That Bush keeps Gonzales around as insurance against something far worse...for Bush, that is.
-
malkin, schmalkin, what a loser...
[Read the article: More cruelty from right-wing crackpots]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]So. If some obvious nut were holding a loaded Glock 9mm on Michelle Malkin, and she was unarmed, she'd rush the guy. Right? Jesus. She'd stand there or lay there just like any other terrified civilian, and get killed. That woman really could stand to get a clue. But, then, that'd spoil her nice livelihood, now wouldn't it?
These right-wing nutjobs, along with most of the NRA, always fail to mention one signal fact: you have to be *trained* to pull the trigger on someone with intent to maim or kill. Ask any law enforcement professional or military combat professional, and they'll tell you the same. 99% of civilians, gun-nut or not, will not pull that trigger..or, at best, will hesitate too long, and get killed themselves, assuming their target is armed, and has some practice at this.
Only the trained pros, and the crazies, will pull that trigger. So, let's start debunking this crazy myth of how guns are good for "self-defense." They aren't. Mostly, they're good for killing people. Usually defenseless civilians.