Catching Up, Part X – The War on Women’s Rights, Part II

Image via Wikipedia

It started this year with the “forcible rape” language in the “No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act” (which has since been removed).  Next was Joe Pitts’ (R – PA) “Protect Life Act” which could, because of very broad language, allow doctors perform any abortion regardless if not doing so could be fatal to the woman in question.  As with the previous bill, supporters of this bill say it only clarifies existing law.

Currently, under the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act, a woman with a life-threatening condition cannot be refused treatment at any hospital in the country even if the treatment involves an abortion.  Under Pitts’ proposed law, this would change.  A doctor could potentially deny a woman an abortion even if that abortion would save her life.  The doctor would also be able to refuse to transfer the woman to a facility which would provide her the care necessary to save her life.

In South Dakota, Governor Dennis Daugaard is likely to sign a bill that would extend the time a woman is required to wait before being legally allowed to go through with an abortion from 24 hours to 72 hours.  During this time, a woman would be required to attend mandatory counseling about why an abortion is a bad idea.  His justification is that women should wait more time and counseling to ensure they are making the correct choice because the decision is “very important.”  He’s correct in the regard that it is a very important decision.  However, it’s no business of the government to get involved in that decision.  The decision should be solely between the woman (or couple) in question and her doctor.

A loophole caused by vague language in a Utah bill could potentially result in women being charged with assault or murder if “reckless behavior” results in a miscarriage.  The bill was prompted by an isolated incident of a teenager who paid someone to beat her up in the hopes of causing her to miscarry.  However, because of the bill not containing clear and concise definitions of what would constitute “reckless behavior”.  A woman could potentially be charged with murder if her unborn child dies because she does not leave an abusive relationship.  Women have enough trouble, both emotionally and financially, leaving an abusive relationship.  This idea would only greatly increase this burden.

Abortions are already extremely emotionally difficult decisions and in many cases they can already be a financial burden as well because of the continuing limitations being placed on women being allowed to obtain financial assistance if they are poor.  We need to stand up and be counted in opposition to these fascistic theocratic viewpoints that erode the civil rights and the equality of women.  These are NOT the kind of laws we should be pushing for in an America that is founded on and who’s laws are still based on the Constitution.

– “Left of Center”

Catching Up, Part IX – The Lies Against Planned Parenthood

Just when one thought the Republican controlled House of Representatives could go no further, this happens.  Someone tries to pull off a fake “sting” undercover video inside Planned Parenthood like they did at ACORN.  No truth, substance or merit to the allegations being levied.  No verification yet if the “video evidence” was creatively edited together as was so shamefully done in the ACORN case.  Yet what do Republicans do?  Denounce the fact that it’s become okay to throw together a clearly biased and almost certainly false or exaggerated hit piece against an organization that does so much good?  No, Republicans instead moved right to calls for immediately ceasing all Federal funding to Planned Parenthood.

Why?  Of course, the false clarion call of abortion.  A battle they already legislated and lost decades ago, but one they’ve continued to fight regardless.  Despite the reality that the “video evidence” is a mockery of investigative journalism at best and despite the fact that there is no actual evidence of any crime having been committed.  Going on nothing more than thin and uncorroborated circumstantial evidence they want to immediately remove the primary source of funding for one of the organizations most crucial to the health care assistance of poor and under-privileged women and children in the country.

Planned Parenthood is funded via Title X of the Family Planning Services and Population Research Act of 1970 which is itself an amendment to the Public Health Service Act of 1944.  Yes, it’s true that the organization assists women in getting abortions.  However, that is only a small part of their operation.  Attacking them for one out of the many necessary and useful services they provide is just another notch on the Republicans belt in their war against women and anyone who isn’t white and rich.

In over 800 clinics across the country, Planned Parenthood provides low cost health care services to poor women, children and families.  These services include providing breast, cervical and testicular cancer screenings, pregnancy screenings and counseling, testing and treatment for sexually transmitted diseases, sex education, menopause treatments, vasectomies and other reproductive system surgeries and yes abortions.  All to Americans who would potentially not be able to afford these services, some of which could potentially save their lives.

So, the fact that Republicans want to effectively bring an end to the organization’s ability to operate in this country over a minor portion of the services they provide is positively repugnant.  Where would these Americans go for these essential health services if the Republicans succeed? Private insurance?  No, because many of them don’t have that option because they can’t afford it.

So the Republicans would leave these  only remaining options are (as very appropriately said by former Florida Rep Alan Grayson) – Don’t get sick or if you do, die quickly.  That’s not the America I want.  It’s not the America that any American should want.  It’s not the America that we should be aspiring to.   It’s most certainly not the America the Founding Fathers envisioned.  Stand with the logical, the rational, the just and support an America that does it’s best to help those less fortunate — Sign the petition —

– “Left of Center”

Related Articles:

• http://crooksandliars.com/2008/09/25/thanks-sarah-planned-parenthood-gets-upsurge-in-donations
• http://crooksandliars.com/taxonomy/term/299,1586
• http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/heather/mike-pence-rails-against-planned-parenthoo
• http://crooksandliars.com/breaking-news/house-votes-de-fund-planned-parentho

Injunction Against “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”, Part II – The Reaction

 

Image via Wikipedia

 

Earlier, I covered the facts regarding “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” and the Federal Judge’s ruling. Now let’s review what the predictable Conservative reaction will be. This one is too easy. The primary vector the Republican Tea Party and it’s associated talking heads will use will be nothing more than two words – “judicial activism”.  This very statement gives light to their sad and obvious irrational misunderstanding of how our Federal Government is structured.

As anyone who passed high school history (and/or government) class should have learned, there are three branches to our government. The Legislative Branch is comprised of the House of Representatives and the Senate. This body writes bills and votes on them. The Executive Branch – The President, Vice President and their respective cabinets and staff. Once Congress passes a bill, it’s sent to the President to be signed. Once the President signs the document, it is considered officially law.

Here’s where the Conservatives that constantly throw around the idea of “judicial activism”. The next branch of our government is the Judicial Branch. Their job is to review bills passed into law by the other two branches and decide based on the Constitution (and precedent set by previous rulings) if the items in question are legal! So when Conservatives whinge about “judicial activism”, they are protesting the fact that the Judicial Branch is doing it’s Constitutionally appointed duty!

So, despite that reality, individual Americans who subscribe to the Republican Tea Party mantra are under educated in matters of civics, political science will still echo the cries of “judicial activism” coming from the likes of Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, et al. What excuse do those individuals have? Do they not understand the function of the Judicial Branch any better, or are they intentionally ignoring the reality of their job for the purpose of making people afraid and angry? Has anyone else noticed that Conservatives only cry “judicial activism” when it’s a decision they don’t agree with, but they seem to have no complaints or concerns about the Citizen’s United decision?

– “Left of Center”

What Exactly Is Big/Large Government? – Part III

Image via Wikipedia

Thanks everyone for joining in for Part III of this topic.  Hopefully the our readers (current, old and new) have picked up some interesting information and are definitely using the information provided to make informed decisions today, as well as in the future.  This topic was left off yesterday at why we should be very vigilant regarding Big/Large Government and this entry will address some of those items.

For the “Big Government” statement, you should ask some of your neighbors here (United States) about tying in religion with government.  If my last post did not catch you, again, let’s take a look at today’s countries where religion and government are one, mainly where Sharia Law is ever present (Saudi Arabia).  Now I know people are going to argue that their religion is different, or they will argue that it isn’t supposed to be like that.  Such comments are to be dismissed; as long as one person is part of that “gang” and the tribalism is running full steam, they will not object to anything that falls in line with their belief system.

Any form of “Big Government” is very dangerous to people who promote individuals freedom (like myself).  Regardless if the influence of “Big Government” stems from secular or religious means, the end result is that a group of individuals is going to be persecuted.  History has proven it over the thousands of years of civilization and the amount of literature we have available.  You can’t guarantee the protection of a country’s citizens as long as there are “Big Government” influences running around.  Hence why corporate lobbying, wanting to bring religion as part of public life, false security (I’m looking at your DHS) should be frowned upon, and fought against.

Likewise, with the “Large Government” perspective, you have the arguments of public services versus private services.  The main item of concern more than anything is the costs for such items and the employment and middle management issues you will find (the same issues you will find with any private corporation).  To maintain such items is going to cost money, and we’ve seen countries with very high tax rates compared to our country (like Denmark, for a good example).  It becomes a citizen’s choice and action (voting, leaving, et. al.) to work within such a system, reform such system, or even change it.

I’ll be one of the first to tell you that there is a lot of waste in the government system (that may shock some people because of my moniker, but rest assured, the ones you call “Liberals” are not liberals to begin with); there are quite a few paper pushers as well as middle management and of course, excess waste that can be trimmed while still enjoying some of the same services (if you are one of those that feel that certain items should remain public-controlled and not private-controlled).  I’ve been displeased at the way this country has been handling tax payer money for the past 40 years, as well as the voodoo economics that was sold on this country.

Every good citizen should pay attention to what is happening with our government everyday; and a proud citizen would fight against those who attempt to harm their freedoms.  More often than not, the ones who want Big Government (and to a lesser extent, a very Large Government, but no where in comparison to Big Government) is not the Government itself.  It is your neighbors; they are the ones you have to watch, because they’re willing to use legislation and votes to get their way, and to violate your way of life.

– “Classic Liberal”

What Exactly Is Big/Large Government? – Part II

Image by caddymob via Flickr

Thanks for joining for part two of this topic.  In the last post I’ve made, I pointed out the key differences between the phrase “Big Government” and “Large Government,” mainly because the two are used interchangeably but they can be mutually exclusive items.  Let’s go into some detail as to how both of them affect our daily lives.

With “Big Government,” there is usually a negative impact on freedoms.  There is heavy opposition on people’s personal lives and freedoms (speech, et. al.) as well as dictating the lives and affairs of others.  You will commonly see these types of government with theocracies (integration of church/religion and the State).  If you need to further understand how bad this can affect others, please look at the following:  Saudi Arabia (today), countries that institute Sharia Law (today), Holy Roman Empire (past); the previous items are just a few examples of “Big Government” in action.  We can agree that it isn’t especially pleasant.

With “Large Government,” you tend to be affected more by taxes.  Now we’re not going to argue about taxes on this topic (we’ll save that for another discussion) but it mainly comes down to willingness to have specific services as well as employ the people necessary to provide such services.  This is also a topic that will be saved for another time (especially for the Austrians and Anarcho-Capitalists, since they only want to argue about money and the “free market,” I’ll address that audience another time).  The amount of monies required based on the amount of services and individuals to perform such services can rise/fall, definitely impacting your own personal pay (given the way current first world nations operate).

As I’ve highlighted above, the two items (they are mutually exclusive items, by the way) can impact your own day-to-day life in ways that at very minimum are to be questioned.  However, a concerned, well-informed citizen would always keep their eyes opened on such items.  My next post on this item would highlight why such items can be very dangerous to the people out there and why we should always keep our eyes peeled open and vigilant.

– “Classic Liberal”

Carl "The Nose" Paladino Prefers Theocracy Over The Constitution

 

Image by azipaybarah via Flickr

 

Carl “The Nose” Paladino would rather have a Federal government that makes and enforces laws based on enforcing Christian morals and viewpoints than to require that the government abide by the Constitution.  He said in a campaign visit with local Orthodox Jewish leaders that children shouldn’t be “brainwashed into thinking that homosexuality is an equally valid and successful option — it isn’t.”     (there is “…nothing to be proud of in being a dysfunctional homosexual.”)

In a single sentence, this small angry man has equated all LGBT persons in this country as being less than equal to straight people which he perceives as normal. In a single sentence he has shown us that his perception of homosexuals is the same as how, incorrectly and illegally, slaves were considered 1/3 of an individual at the founding of this country.

Mr. Paladino has said in the past if he wins the election, he would veto any bill that would give marriage rights to homosexuals. He claims to be a “defender of the sanctity of marriage”. As with all others that play that tired tune of keeping marriage “pure”, he would eagerly deny the Constitutional protection that is long overdue those who are no less human than anyone else. Regardless of the fact that marriage existed before Christianity, these people continue to sing the same old song and place themselves on the wrong side of history. Rational and clear thinking has started to, and will eventually overcome this, but in the meantime we have to deal with the reality of  candidates like Mr. Paladino.

This is a man who, by his own policy viewpoints, would gladly replace the separation of Church and State and the Constitution with Christian theocracy.

Update 10-11-10: New information came out today that Mr. Paladino did not say the words that are crossed-out above. They were in the prepared speech or notes, but he did not use them. The War On Logic, while at times hyperbolic and clearly having no love lost for the ignorance of any politician, does strive for accuracy in it’s reporting. So there you go, mistake corrected. We make an error, we’ll update with a correction. Imagine that.. This blog has more journalistic integrity than FOX News!

– “Left of Center”

Sources:
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/page/226864_Carl_Paladino-_Kids_Shouldnt_B
http://www.nydailynews.com/blogs/dailypolitics/2010/10/carl-paladino-kids-shouldnt-be.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/10/10/carl-paladino-in-blast-at_n_757433.html

What Exactly Is Big/Large Government? – Part I

Image by mindfrieze via Flickr

This is a pretty popular topic as we hear this term quite often but no one can provide a valid definition of viewpoint.  That is to be expected though, as what you hear amongst your friends, the general media (not the liberal media rhetoric that is displayed constantly, that has been proven to be false in my first post about that), it is more to identify what exactly is “Big Government” and the common misnomer to, “Large Government.”

Here is exactly what the term “Big Government” actually means.  It is basically when the Government (regardless of level) legislates your daily life to the point where you are not free to do as you choose (as long as you’re not violating the freedom of others).  That is all; sorry for all the Austrian-school individuals and the Anarcho-Capitalists out there who only believe the world’s woes can be solved by money and Big Government affects that.  For that crowd, pick up some actual literature and information beyond the ramblings of those that live in their own fantasy world.

“Large Government” which we hear of occasionally is not the same as “Big Government.”  “Large Government” entails two key items:  a significant portion of the population working in some capacity for the government (directly, or indirectly); and the steady growth of government workers/agencies due to natural circumstances (mainly the increase of a country’s population).  There is a very key difference between the two, and clearing those items up is one of the first steps before we continue on with this topic.

Stay tuned, as tomorrow I will have Part II up as I go into details about this item and provide more information as how the two affect our daily lives.

– “Classic Liberal”

Ms. O’Donnell, Let’s Learn A Bit About You, Part II

Continuing with our discussion about Ms. O’Donnell, we are going to further examine Ms. O’Donnell’s stances on various topics.

Ms. O’Donnell is an advocate of teaching creationism in our schools.  For anyone who wants to talk about liberty and the public, you never mix religion with the public or government (that is a theocracy for those keeping track of definitions).  Ms. O’Donnell correctly highlights that theory of evolution is a theory (after all, that is what is called now).  Scientific theories have their appropriate place in the classroom as they follow a rigorous scientific method of examining empirical data.  However, she wants to have creationism as part of the curriculum in public schools.

How about abortion for the ladies out there?  She opposes abortion even in severe cases like rape and incest (there are a few other prominent politicians and party-backed individuals with this nonsensical behavior).  Ladies, you and old who value freedom, take note of someone within your fellow sex and their beliefs.  I’d have some concern if I were any of you who value the free ability to make your own choices (and live with that choice).

Now I understand that she has made statements only recently regarding if she is elected, “it’ll be the Constitution on which I base all of my decisions, not my personal beliefs.”  That goes without saying, there are more links and articles  to validate her statements (which she only made recently mind you).  We’re talking about Ms. O’Donnell’s stances only, nothing more (I am concerned less about what the rest of the article says, I am merely using it a reference to her statement and it will only be treated as such).

My quick analysis of Ms. O’Donnell over the two posts relating to her are not meant to be an attack, negative.  They are meant to be commentary, but also meant to be informative.  I strongly feel that with any person running for office, regardless of what state, county or federal office they are running for, the proper stance for “We The People” is to truly understand and know with whom we are dealing with.  Honestly, with some of her ideals and stances, as a “Classic Liberal” I see someone who is more than willing to violate the freedoms of all.  That is someone who can not have my backing (as with most, if not all politicians today).

– “Classic Liberal”

In Memoriam IX – 9/11/01

Image via Wikipedia

Today marks the anniversary of the murders of nearly 3000 American citizens of all nationalities & faiths.  Today we look back and reflect on both their loss and the sacrifice of dozens of first responders, heroes one and all, both in the collapse of the towers and from related illness in the years that have followed. Just as I did nine years ago, I look back today and wonder.. why? What could possibly have driven 20 people to become so hateful, so despondent, so unhappy with the world and with life that they could do something so monstrous.

I, like many may have done at first, blamed religion. I’ve come to accept that though I may have my disagreements with all religions, that religion is not at fault for this. No, I’ve come to firmly believe that the cause of the 9-11 attacks rests solely in the lack of jobs, education, and overall opportunity that citizens of many other countries in the world deal with on a daily basis. Items that many of us in America take very much for granted. Even when times are tough here we still have it better here than many other people on this planet.

Like has happened countless times throughout history, a small minority of evil and/or powerful people is able to use the promise of fortune, opportunity and success to trick and motivate people that are facing a life with little to look forward to into becoming misguided followers. These evil people poison and close off the minds of those that are just looking for a chance to do good or right by their families. A chance to move up or move out or make something of themselves. This is not just a problem that happens in the Middle East. We have several instances of similar, though certainly smaller scale troubles, in our own past in this country. Sadly, these people that become followers of whatever perverted version of whatever belief system they have been brainwashed into will go to nearly any length to achieve that which their mental captors desire them to go.

When I look back on September 11th, 2001 I cannot help but still feel the same things I felt then. I can’t help but still feel revolted by both the video and the media’s constant need to replay it endlessly. I can’t help but feel the shock and the pain and the heartbreak and the anger that I first felt living through that day. I can’t begin to even pretend to imagine how those in New York, DC, & on Flight 93 that were directly involved feel.  My mind reels at the thought of it. My heartfelt condolences to all those that suffered direct and personal loss on that day. As Americans we all lost something that day, but their loss is greatest and I know for those that actually lost a loved on in the towers or the Pentagon or on Flight 93, even nine years hence that pain is still fresh and it will be for awhile.

I have an additional sadness over the events and the years that have followed. I am sad for us as a country that the spirit and attitude of togetherness and unity that we showed that day and in the weeks and months that followed. The true patriotism and civility, even for a short time, replaced the self-importance and the disregard that we generally have for our fellow Americans. I am disheartened by the fact that I strongly believe that we have not learned the lessons the tragedy was meant to teach us.

When one group of Americans rise in protest against protecting Constitutional Rights for another group of Americans, we all lose.  We saw it in the days and weeks following the attacks and we’ve seen that unfortunate ignorance rear it’s ugly head again in the recent months both in regards to politics, Muslim Americans, gay rights, and other issues. Each time one group of Americans argues for only protecting Constitutional rights when the issue at hand doesn’t make us uncomfortable, then we all fall short of the goals and aspirations that the Founding Fathers had for this nation.

It is my hope that as we move past this day and toward the 10 year anniversary that we rediscover that sense of unity and togetherness that we found for a short time following the attacks. Only this time I hope that we can keep it part of how we behave and who we are for good. We need to stop forgetting that regardless of nationality, race, sexual orientation, or religious denomination we are all Americans and we all have and deserve the same rights and protections under law outlined in the Constitution.

To all of those that suffered personal loss, I hope that one day finds you the solace that you need to keep the memories of your loved ones alive but be beyond the pain.

We Will Never Forget!

– “Left of Center”

Related Articles

• 9/11 anniversary (tfa.net)
• 9-11, In Remembrance and Healing Over Our 4,397 Souls Lost: A Muslim Prayer-Poem (themoderatevoice.com)
• Illinois, Obama Commemorate Anniversary of 9/11 Attacks (chicagoist.com)

Proposition 8 – The Fervor With Gay Marriage – Part II

Image via Wikipedia

Touching up on this topic, I’d like to present some of the list of reasons that are utilized against the legalization of gay marriage:

• The “Un-Natural” Clause – This tends to be pretty popular. Gay/Lesbians that are “allowed” to marry is unnatural due to some arbitrary reason that is decided by a group of people (usually religiously inclined, but other reasons are provided).
• The “States’ Rights” Viewpoint – You’ll find this to be pretty popular with your “Libertarians” in this country. The viewpoint is mainly that the State Government (not the Federal Government) should be the ones to decide this.
• The “Slippery Slope” Argument – Allowing gay marriages will start creating other issues and other “un-natural” acts (stems from bullet point one) such as marrying animals.

Let’s be realistic here and examine these viewpoints and see how badly these “jusifications” fail:

• Un-Natural Clause – We used this to justify not having inter-racial marriages, but remember, there are other items that are considered un-natural (dictated by society or by religion or whatever arbitrary set of rules you want to make your life more difficult with).
• “States’ Rights” – This is an easy one, “States’ Rights” have repeatedly failed when it came to civil rights (slavery, Jim Crow laws, et. al.); don’t get me wrong, the Federal Government has messed up as well (Separate But Equal), but the states will have and will mess it up far worse. Civil rights have been proven to be a Federal issue and a 14th Amendment issue, and the topic of gay marriage is no different.
• Slippery Slope – Now this is just terrible. Anyone can use this argument; it is pretty baseless to begin with. That’s akin to a parent telling their child if studying is missed for one night, you’ll fail all your classes in school and never amount to anything in this world (notice how ridiculous and hyperbolic that sounds?).  The Slippery Slope is typically used when you have absolutely nothing of substance (basically, like all the other excuses) and try to make something from nothing.

More than anything though, why are we legislating such items? Where are the your anti-big government “Libertarians” coming out to shame these types of actions? Simply put, your “Libertarians” like Ron Paul use the “let the States decide” are not for liberty. Legislation of people’s lives at any level of the government (County, State, Federal) is the EXACT definition of Big Government.  How is legislation of a person’s private life and their rights/privileges at the State level more appropriate than the Federal level?  It isn’t is the correct and only answer, history and the example of slavery has proven that point very clearly.  An individual like myself (Classic Liberal) is against legislating morality, and people’s livelihoods (both public and private) as it is none of my business, nor should it be any of yours. Liberty and freedom doesn’t mean to place other in bondage according to your ideals.

The simple litmus test is this. Would you like any outsider dictating your personal life, and dictating with whom you can marry? You don’t? They should mind their own business you say? Well, you’re in the same boat with a lot of others, the difference is, you feel that the same consideration and respect should not be given to those who don’t think/act/behave like you. Take your own advice for once, and remember this, as long as the affairs of others do not violate your civil rights and privileges (hint: gay marriage does not), then you need not be concerned with their affairs and private lives.

– “Classic Liberal”