Letters to the Editor
-
...my momma said, yes she did. In 1973 when Roe Wade, war, abortion, and euthanasia was talked about....
I thought, and who is bombing peasants, why are prisons filled with Vietnam Vets, and why are over 100,000 dead vets recorded from drugs, suicide, and masses are prison-incarcerated?
Of the 3.2 million who went to Nam...a mere 6% were grunt-infantry! Earlier I do thank "someone" who conveyed the present dead/wounded...stats....
PRETENDERS!
I forgot what I was gonna say....or, I mean, write.
-
Anonymous re: Paul and marriage
This opposition to federal power also includes Paul's view that the federal government has no authority to define marriage, not that gay marriage is illegitimate or somehow dangerous.
I'm well awere of Paul's general views on the limited role of federal government. And I agree - and have said before -- that if the Constitution does not allow the Federal Government a particular power, then it doesn't really matter if it would be good or "convenient" for the Federal Government ot do it. The Constitution can't be violated just because there are good results that will accure; the solution is to amend the Constitution (or abide by it as is).
But that explanation doesn't work for Paul's support of The Defense of Marriage Act. DOMA does define "marriage" -- as exclusively between a man and a woman. It creates a federal definition of marriage for purposes of federal government fucntions, including ones that even Paul believes are legitimate federal powers (i.e., immigration).
Thus, your explanation -- that Paul opposes federal involvement in marriage -- doesn't justify Paul's support for DOMA. It actually contradicts it. And by supporting DOMA, Paul isn't merely advocating states' rights. He's advocating a federalized defintion of marriage as between a man and a woman only -- one which has rather oppressive effects on a lot of your fellow citizens.
-
Lets Rely on Charity ... Maybe for Fundamental Benefits for Gays Too
"And in those handful of states that would criminalize still, for a decade or two we'd have to have feminist charities and such willing to foot the bill to send women across state boarders for abortions, for those who lacked the means to get there themselves"
Lol. I'm sure that in the "handful" (representing tens of millions of people ... not going into the many more with fairly conservative policies who will suck in special needs cases involving many more) teens or women who need an abortion will be quite happy to rely on feminist charities, since they will be quite reliable in getting to all who need services.
Are we really to take this seriously? As to Roe (Casey really, which allows more regulations), it represents a core issue of privacy, equality, deciding moral choices invidually, etc. Now, as others noted as to his stance on gay unions, there is more than this one issue to be upset about. But, it's a pretty fundamental issue. And, again see the gay unions issues (but hey, he's good on drugs), it represents issues that go beyond just one issue.
Ron Paul is not opposed simply for one issue though his absoluist stand on that one issue (which he wants to ban via federal amendment, not just allow states to ban) is troubling for cause. And, his critics have made this clear too.
-
Never mind!
It was gonna be a rant about "Pulling The Plug!"
I'll go diddy. Scram. Get. But do Hope I'm Lucky?
Denise Levertov said, The Lucky already got Luck!"
-
THANK YOU
This just isn't how elections work. You don't get to create your ideal candidate by slapping together all the important beliefs you have. You have to pick from the ones who are actually running.
Thank you thank you thank you, Glenn. If I could crack open the head of every ninny who treats the presidential election as his own personal popularity contest, and pour in this paragraph in liquid form to permeate every self-involved neuron, I would. Over the last thirty years I've grown sick and disgusted at the prevalence of the "None of them are My Perfect Candidate, so I'm just not going to vote!" attitude. Too many people, especially young voters, espouse this viewpoint. When they don't get exactly what they want, they throw what basically amounts to a tantrum, taking their balls and going home. Thus the country is deprived of the majority of its voters' voices, all because those voters can't behave like adults.
Personally, I think it should be mandatory by law to vote, just like in Australia. Over there, anyone who doesn't vote is fined. It is our duty to add our voices to the political discourse in this country. That is exactly how we've gotten into this horrid mess - too many voters couldn't be bothered to lower their oh-so-precious standards, then they get all discouraged and apathetic, and then they whine about how bad the government is. What the hell do they expect? If you abandon the fortress walls, you can't get pissy when the Huns start pouring in.
Growing up in America, I never thought I'd see this country taken down by its own citizens' lack of interest, defeatism and childishness. But is is, and here we are, and I at least have the Franklinesque pleasure of saying "I told you so!"
-
Ron Paul is an extremist, and he's wrong, pt1
I'm really fed up with Ron Paul and especially Greenwald's bizarre obsession with making Ron Paul out to be anything other than a extremist right wing conspiracy mongering protest candidate. I think I can justify this title with Paul's own positions, though if there is any question as to my suppositions I will try to locate links (for which I'm too lazy to find right now).
Ron Paul is an extremist: I don't mean to use the term extremist in a negative sense, because on its face that is not an insult. He takes views which are not considered part of the American mainstream, and despite his amazing fundraising abilities he does not poll well. His views on American empire and foreign policy are not the mainstream, as are his views on the central bank, taxation, federal powers, etc. He holds essentially normal Republican views on abortion, though he detests the mis-use of federal law to regulate abortion. What's so odd about that is that he claims to believe that a fetus is a person and should be regarded as such, thus he sees no conflict in his own libertarianism to oppose what is regarded as a right to an abortion, yet he believes even more so in federalism such that he would oppose federal actions which, in his mind as he has claimed, are protecting human life, on the basis that they are not a federal issue. Even going so far as to oppose (though proposing it for the purposing of making a point) a federal constitutional amendment to end legal abortions in the US. This is also the point where many liberals get confused about Ron Paul, because they mid-understand that from his own point of view, opposing abortion is not an exception to personal freedoms, anymore than opposing murder would be. Being a liberal, I view the right to choose to be one more in the line of rights that the “conservatives” have aimed their sights at. So while Greenwald wants to paint Ron Paul's views on abortion as being just an aberration which is a consequence of Paul's worldview and not a signal about the rest of his commitment to rights, I don't share that optimism. If the Republican Party in general did not seem to keen to dismantle what I regard as fundamental protections to my liberty, then I might be willing to overlook Ron Paul's stance on abortion. As it is, I don't take chances that his principles in regards to my other liberties (like the right to sue an employer in court) might be similarly limited by his (from my perspective, regressive) worldview.
But on extremism, Bush has made many previously sane positions, like opposing torture or illegal wiretaps, extreme positions in the modern discourse. When Joe Klein referred to “civil libertarian extremists” for opposing the illegal NSA program(s), I nearly choked on my own bile. I take hope that our political discourse has traditionally been about weeding out bad ideas and making them less and less palatable over time. The lack of Communists and Fascists in our political discourse is one success of this weeding out process; and I hope that Bush becomes nothing more than a horrible mistake, and not the first in a line of Nero-like Presidents. If Ron Paul's extremism was confined to areas I agreed with, like restoring our Constitutional and Human rights, then I would not mind being called a fellow extremist with him. But his extreme positions are on almost every front, and many of them are on ideas that I felt had been weeded out of our discourse a long time ago, like nationalization of the means of production, mercantilism, or corporatism, but have reared their ugly heads again.
Ron Paul likes the US Constitution, and wants to get back to that document. I think that's a good goal, because I agree with about 70% of the Constitution as it was written, and want to get back to a lot of that stuff. Like Habeaus Corpus. But there is a lot that wasn't in the original Constitution that I think is a good to have in government, things like a right to privacy, a central bank, progressive income taxes, a general grant for Congress to act (the “necessary and proper” clause could be brought back by the Supreme Court in order to limit the ridiculous scope of the commerce clause), anti-discrimination laws, welfare, national health care, and so on. Your typical liberal agenda. Ron Paul holds right wing views, and does not want the same things I want. I will agree that he holds a very strict view to the Constitution, but his positions don't flow from the Constitution first. I think it's the other way around. If he wanted a different policy for the USA, and it wasn't in the Constitution, then wouldn't he support changing the Constitution? If he wanted single-payer healthcare, but couldn't support it because it wasn't a power of Congress, wouldn't he demand an amendment? So in my mind, it's not about his constitutional principles, its about his policies. I know that single-payer healthcare isn't in the constitution; that's why a general powers clause for congress would be useful. And if Congress couldn't get it done that way, I would want an amendment to the Constitution in order to get it. That is why I say his is a right wing guy, because the vast majority of his views on policy are right wing: abortion, gay marriage, taxes, welfare policy, etc. And the view that many issues should be handled at the state level is just absurd. As long as we have open boarders between states, and Article 4 still exists, then there are some policies which need to be federalized. I'll certainly admit he has better understanding of the legal issues involved in the implementation of his right-wing policies than most of his “conservative” brethren, but he is still a right winger.