AJC.com > Opinion > Woman to Woman > Archives > 2008 > August > 22 > Entry
Which party runs the most vicious presidential campaigns?
Andrea Cornell Sarvady, a left-leaning columnist, writes the commentary this week and Shaunti Feldhahn, a right-leaning columnist, responds.
Commentary
Though this summer has been dominated by legendary swimmers and gymnasts, there’s another “sport” looking at lifetime achievement gold: the dirty political trick.
Judges, who makes the Dream Team?
Karl Rove leaps to mind, followed quickly by the late Lee Atwater, Newt Gingrich and a host of other Republican politicos. Even now, in a year when the Democratic campaign seems poised to stick the landing, they still lag behind when it comes to offering up strong competition in the Take-No-Prisoners Olympics.
“The job is to win,” former GOP operative Allen Raymond recently told the Washington Post. Raymond isn’t as famous as the rest of the championship team, only the most forthcoming, perhaps because he actually did prison time for his Republican National Committee smear campaigns. “…You have an obligation to do the best job you can to get the outcome your clients want, which is to win.”
This all-important obligation propels self-proclaimed proponents of God and country to behave in a consistently immoral and unpatriotic manner. The patently false “Obama is a Muslim With terrorist ties” campaign follows quite a greatest-hits series: Atwater’s 1988 “Willie Horton” ad that put Michael Dukakis in cahoots with a murderer, the 2004 “Swift Boat” ad that turned John Kerry’s Vietnam bravery into something traitorous. Saving the worst for last: the Bush team’s hideous 2000 South Carolina “poll” that encouraged voters to assume McCain’s adopted daughter from Bangladesh was an “illegitimate black child.” Republican strategists go after their own with such vengeance it makes the Hillary Clinton / Barack Obama sniping look like a schoolyard spat.
Democrats are not above dirty tactics and both major parties have self-serving windbags on television and writers penning tell-alls that read like middle-school “slam books.” Yet we’re not debating media coverage here, despite the Right’s incessant efforts to deflect its thuggery by whining about the “liberal media”.
No, when it comes to in-house campaign conniving, the gold goes to GOP operatives, blithely unconcerned if families are destroyed and reputations shattered. Forget all their noise about God and country, and remember: for the Republican strategist, this is about serving the client, no matter the collateral damage.
As for serving the USA? I guess that’s just for Beijing.
Rebuttal
Campaigns have an unfortunate tendency to bring out the worst in everybody — yet the conservative “worst” is indignantly trumpeted in the press, while the equal volume of Democratic dirty tricks are hardly mentioned.
I had to laugh when Democratic strategist Paul Begala told CNN that Democrats are too polite and wait until they are attacked to respond - and even then don’t really know how to do it. He said, “I think a lot of Democrats are worried and wondering if Barack Obama is going to hit, and hit back hard.” As MSNBC’s First Read political web site pointed out, Obama has been running aggressively negative ads in swing states like Ohio this whole time — just very carefully. Their analysts said, “one of Obama’s biggest candidate strengths — which doesn’t get the attention it deserves — is that he plays political hardball as well as his opponents; he just sometimes does it under the radar.”
There is no excuse for “smear campaigns,” but the worst tactics are often part of neither the official Republican or Democratic machines. The racist anti-McCain phone calls in 2000 were not from the actual Bush team, and officials never learned who paid for them.
How can anyone say with a straight face, that Democrats aren’t just as vicious? Consider Kerry supporters’ 2004 attacks on Ralph Nader — complete with bumper stickers reading “Real Greens Say: [expletive] Nader 2004.” Or, more recently, Obama supporters’ primary-season mud slinging to prevent Hillary Clinton from trumping the man regarded as one step shy of a messiah. Or the recent deceptive Democratic congressional ads tying Republicans to everything from the KKK to forced abortions in China.
And don’t even get me started on “swiftboating.” According to an IRS report on large gifts to those notorious 527 soft-money groups, 24 donors gave $56 million to left-leaning groups in 2004; just one donor gave $1.5 million to conservative groups. Everyone knows about the horrendous Swift Boat ads - why don’t we equally know about the atrocious moveon.org videos comparing Bush to Hitler?
Sen. Lieberman explained his support for John McCain by admitting that the Democratic Party “has been effectively taken over by a small group on the left of the party that is protectionist, isolationist and…..very, very hyper partisan.” Let the games begin.
Services »
Comments
Commenting is now closed for this entry.
By Mrs. RepubLady
August 22, 2008 8:50 AM | Link to this
Republicans! And that’s as it should be. The end justifies the means, period. Who wants a bunch of sissy, lets-play-nice Democracks running the country? Who cares about their ridiculous ideas for peace and prosperity? This is a big bad world. If you’re not brave enough to lie, cheat, steal, and kill, then you’re not brave enough to defend and protect America! I have to disagree with Shaunti. Those stupid, numb-headed wussy Democracks have NOTHING on us! PUH-lease!
By funnyBone
August 22, 2008 8:58 AM | Link to this
It is interesting watching the Dems, with a black male pitted against a white female..The Clintons, as political veterans, are on the receiving end of charges of racism....Charges they have hurled at the GOP for years..The Clintons have been in unchartered waters.....how to campaign against a strong black candidate. It has been amusing hearing the race card played against the Clintons, who know dirty politics.By funnyBone
August 22, 2008 8:59 AM | Link to this
It is interesting watching the Dems, with a black male pitted against a white female..The Clintons, as political veterans, are on the receiving end of charges of racism....Charges they have hurled at the GOP for years..The Clintons have been in unchartered waters.....how to campaign against a strong black candidate. It has been amusing hearing the race card played against the Clintons, who know dirty politics.By AMDG
August 22, 2008 8:59 AM | Link to this
AC Says: The patently false Obama is a Muslim With terrorist ties” campaign follows quite a greatest-hits series:
AMDG Responds: It is patently false to accuse Republicans of mounting a campaign accusing Obama of being a Muslim. Please name the Republican that has made that charge. As for having terrorist ties one only look at Obama’s relationship with William Ayers to point to the merits of that charge.
AC Says: Atwater’s 1988 “Willie Horton” ad that put Michael Dukakis in cahoots with a murderer.
AMDG Responds: While Atwater did use Horton the issue, was first introduced by Al Gore during the primaries.
AC Says: the 2004 “Swift Boat” ad that turned John Kerry’s Vietnam bravery into something traitorous.
AMDG: The Swift boat Veterans were people who served with Kerry. They were not associated with the Republican Party or the Bush campaign. Furthermore, Kerry could have authorized the complete release of his records which he has yet to do. It should also be noted that Kerry’s dissembling about his tour of duty (the false story about Christmas in Cambodia and his congressional testimony for example) indicated that he had problems with the truth about his time in Vietnam.
Now would Sarvardy consider the following things as dirty tricks?
There perpetrator of those. None other than the messiah
By Jeff
August 22, 2008 9:00 AM | Link to this
Who was it that called the young Chelsea Clinton the “white house dog”?
Rush Limbaugh.
GOP for the win.
By DeKalb Voter
August 22, 2008 9:05 AM | Link to this
No party is more vicious and worthless than the current Democratic party headed by the token, only got the gig because she is a woman; one worthless pile of human garbage… Nanci Pelosi. She is mean and anti- military, anti- American and is the biggest token appointment in history. No Congress has enacted fewer laws and has been more impotent and benign than the current Democratic held Congress. Let’s see how wean and vile they are when Obama loses the election. I don’t doubt they’ll be protest and marching in street, a la Rodney King. Democrats always cut off their noses to spite their face and we the people suffer. IMPEACH PELOSI !!!!!!!!!
By marko
August 22, 2008 9:08 AM | Link to this
Any man that falls victim to dirty campaign tactics does’nt deserve to be president. If Obama can’t handle the Roves or the Atwaters of the world how do you expect him to handle the Russians or the Iranians? Dirty campaigns are as old as our republic none of this stuff is new. I fully expect the right wingers to portray Obama as a Muslim extremist ploting with homosexual flag burners to overthrow the National Rifle Association. Only this time they’re going to find a public a little less gullible, and a candidate that enjoys a good fight.
By Chilao
August 22, 2008 9:13 AM | Link to this
Didn’t Lee Atwater, on his death-bed, come out with “my illness has taught me something about the nature of humanity, love, brotherhood and relationships that I never understood, and probably never would have. And then he wrote letters of apology to those he had slimed against. I hope the people who received the letters told him to go do unnatural acts with himself. Walked into his hospital bed and told him direct, I would have.
And he died at 40, so so much for the saying Only the good die young. Good riddance to trash.
Of course both parties engage in scumbag tactics. I will confess. I just think the Gestapo Party is probably better at it.
By Matt Lauer
August 22, 2008 9:14 AM | Link to this
Stay tuned as an entire week of “Well THEY did this….” “Well THEY said THAT!” unfolds before us. Who will win the gold medal in the “I’m Rubber You’re Glue” competition? Bob Barr is aching for the bronze. Will he make it? Will you care? Will we lose advertising revenue for bringing you this garbage? Not a chance!
By Voice of Reason
August 22, 2008 9:20 AM | Link to this
Republicans are the most vicious-spirited people, hands down. They do some wicked things when things don’t go their way. Their attacks are vile and malicious. Even their god, Rush—what a miserable soul he really must be on the inside. Rich, but miserable. How can anyone be happy sitting and spewing venom for 3 hours a day? And many of them look alike—they have that “look.” [Off-topic a bit]: I did think it cute that on today’s front page, there are the two Black presidential candidates and the lone white boy (McCain) is in the middle.
By Mara
August 22, 2008 9:38 AM | Link to this
LOL!! This is really, really funny! Shaunti actually believes that there’s some kind of “tactical equality” between Democrats saying “F—- Nader” and the Republicans linking Max Cleland to Osama Bin Laden!!
the best one though is where Shaunti says “Everyone knows about the horrendous Swift Boat ads - why don’t we equally know about the atrocious moveon.org videos comparing Bush to Hitler?” LOL!!! Shaunti…doesn’t that illustrate exactly the differences between party tactics?! Democrats simply don’t have the enjoyment for baseless lies and smear that Republicans do. Unlike GOP gambits, which get whispered about, forwarded in e-mail, spread on Fox and Limbaugh as though it was “news”, and gleefully disseminated through rightwing websites, mailing lists, and the faith community…Democratic ‘dirty pool’ seldom makes it into the mainstream.
It’s the difference between wanting to win and needing to destroy your enemy.
By NYer
August 22, 2008 9:40 AM | Link to this
What a pointless and stupid topic.
By ZEKE
August 22, 2008 9:41 AM | Link to this
Democrats and liberals are the biggest threat to the USA! They want to turn us into the failed Soviet Union because it is the ideal way and they can do it better than the Soviets! HOGWASH! Democrats are the scourge of a free USA! More and more entitlements taking more and more from those who work, contribute and become successful to give to those with their hand out! From each according to his ability to each according to his need! Sound familiar! KARL MARXX! THE SOVIET UNION! And the liberals fall all over themselves in awe of Mao, Castro, Chavez and others! That should tell you something about their agenda! And when will you liberal nuts in the liberal media quit calling those here illegally immigrants? THEY ARE NOT IMMIGRANTS! THEY ARE CRIMINALS AND NEED TO BE ARRESTED AND DEPORTED NOW! AND ALL THE CRAP ABOUT WE CANNOT ARREST AND DEPORT 20 MILLION, WHAT ABOUT THEIR CHILDREN BORN HERE? IF THEY ARE BORN HERE TO SOMEONE HERE ILLEGALLY, THEY ARE NOT CITIZENS! YOU CANNOT MAKE SOMEONE LEGAL WHO IS HERE FROM UNLAWFULL ILLEGAL ACTIONS!! And it is the DEMOCRAT PARTY , NOT THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY! THERE IS NOTHING DEOMCRATIC ABOUT IT! LIBERAL SOCIALIST THUGS CANNOT BE DEMOCRATIC!!!!!!!!!!
By Gale
August 22, 2008 9:54 AM | Link to this
The campaigns will always be ugly while the uninformed and refuse to be informed are permitted to vote. The campaigns will say what ever gets votes from the masses. For most of the voters in the country, it is easier to vote for whoever you think do what they think is right. Of course, they somehow ignore the fact that same person promises something else to a different group, and oh, by the way, there are a whole bunch of folks, elected, appointed and career non-political government workers in DC who might have other ideas. The campaigns are rallys full of rah-rah and meaningless promises, mixed with implications the opponent is not as good. The goal is money and power to spend my/our money.
The process is unlikely to change without serious upheaval. We are not by nature benevolent creatures.
By USinUK
August 22, 2008 10:04 AM | Link to this
Shaunti -
Everyone knows about the horrendous Swift Boat ads - why don’t we equally know about the atrocious moveon.org videos comparing Bush to Hitler?
the difference being that the Swift Boat ads AIRED NATIONALLY and were produced by the organization. the Hitler ad was submitted TO moveon - not produced BY moveon - was disqualified from the contest and was NEVER aired by the organization.
but, facts, schmacts … let’s not let accuracy get in the way of a good smear.
oh, and AMDG - you are absolutely WRONG when you say The Swift boat Veterans were people who served with Kerry only ONE of them served with Kerry. A number of them served on his boat, but only AFTER he left.
By USinUK
August 22, 2008 10:08 AM | Link to this
NYer -
What a pointless and stupid topic. seriously.
By Bruno
August 22, 2008 10:15 AM | Link to this
Good morning, Mara,Gale, NYer. And good morning to Truth, wherever you are. So much for the goodwill we had going earlier this week……..
The campaigns are rallys full of rah-rah and meaningless promises, mixed with implications the opponent is not as good. The goal is money and power to spend my/our money. The process is unlikely to change without serious upheaval. We are not by nature benevolent creatures.
Gale, you are right on the money once again—which is why I don’t really give a rat’s a* about politics anymore. The only real impact politicians have on my life is when they either raise or lower taxes.
Special note to Mrs. RepubLady: It’s sad to me that you are so bitter about life. Big hug to you.
By USinUK
August 22, 2008 10:15 AM | Link to this
Zeke -
Prozac.
Thorazine.
Valium.
Pick any one … then take plenty. You seem to need it.
By Bruno
August 22, 2008 10:24 AM | Link to this
Good morning to you, too, USinUK. My mini-vacation is almost over, but wanted to tell you how much I enjoyed blogging with you and the gang this week. Too bad it all had to end on a sour note today.
Did you watch the men’s beach volleyball last night? Very inspiring win by the US men. I saw that your adopted country has done well in the medal count as well, though the networks didn’t show any of their matches. I got a big kick out of the women’s BMX bicycle racing again last night. Watching them wipe out left and right almost reminded me of watching a dog race at the dog track.
Take care, beautiful.
By USinUK
August 22, 2008 10:25 AM | Link to this
Bruno …
fine. ignore me, just because I’m a Gemini … you’re … you’re … you’re anti-geminist!
:-P
By Truth
August 22, 2008 10:25 AM | Link to this
Yesterday, McCain was asked how many houses he owns. The problems is that Cindy, his wife own several, which of course, by law make them his houses. Several members of her family are in those houses and a few are sub-leased. So the 20 second sound bite showed McCain, for the first time in quite a while as being indecisive.
This morning, Obama, who is out-spending McCain 5 to 3 (and losing ground like crazy) released an ad talking about how McCain didn’t understand the housing problems that the country is going through because he is such an elitist that he can’t keep up with the number of houses he owns. Kind of slimy, but not really that bad, simply because McCain’s single response just didn’t make that good of an attack point.
McCain’s people have already responded. They pointed out how Obama owned a mansion that was partially financed by the Chicago Mobster, Tony Resco. They didn’t even address how he was the strong arm attorney for a Chicago slum lord and was directly responsible for many poor families losing their home.
But was McCain’s camp playing too dirty by bringing up Obama’s ties with organized crime? It’s simple. When you wade into a fight and you take a swing at someone, just because you only land a glancing blow, don’t be surprised if your opponent lands a knock out. Don’t pick a PR fight with a shoplifter if you are a bank robber.
Clinton was so slimy that one of the campaign slogans of 1992 was “Character Doesn’t Matter”. So if the Republicans jumped on that, they were playing dirty politics.
Kerry had three purple hearts. In an interview with one of the doctors that treated him, it was revealed that the treatment took less time than filling out the papers to apply for the purple heart. A lot of families only got their loved one’s purple hearts instead of their living loved ones. They just might be offended by a man that gave false testimony against his fellow soldiers and was strutting around with purple hearts for band-aid wounds.
My advice to the Democrats would be to take a look at the people you are running for office.
A tailor trash, two timing philanderer in 1992.
An ex-bible pounder that became the darling of Hollywood after he denounces his and his wives campaign against the filth in Hollywood in 2000.
A man that threw his Viet Nam medals over the fence at the White House, but somehow, now proudly displays those same medals in his office in 2004.
And a Chicago politician that attended and supported an institution that is as racist as any KKK clan and has ties to the Chicago mob in 2008.
By Gale
August 22, 2008 10:36 AM | Link to this
We can always change the topic again.
Dogs never fell down in the dog races I’ve seen. I am hearing bitter complaints about the coverage of the decathelon, almost non-existant. I can watch baseball and basketball most months of the year, why most the tv coverage spend so much time on sports we see too much of already. We never did see Tai Kwan Do. And table tennis? I really don’t understand the Chinese fascination.
By USinUK
August 22, 2008 10:37 AM | Link to this
Bruno -
My mini-vacation is almost over, but wanted to tell you how much I enjoyed blogging with you and the gang this week. Too bad it all had to end on a sour note today
it’s been great to see you back in the sandbox! hopefully, all will go well at the big event next week - you’ll have to pop in and let us know how it goes!! and, also, what you decide to do for a sports program! me, I go for anything rhythmic you can do for distance (cycling, swimming and inline skating, for instance) - if you can find a place to do it - like a trail - where you can set a good pace then get in the zone, there’s nothing better to boost those endorphins and defeat the funk!!
~hugs~
By Bruno
August 22, 2008 10:38 AM | Link to this
fine. ignore me, just because I’m a Gemini … you’re … you’re … you’re anti-geminist!
I would never ignore you, dear. You’re my ray of sunshine, geminist and all.
By Gale
August 22, 2008 10:47 AM | Link to this
Truth, I don’t really know what wounds Kerry sustained to receive his purple hearts, or whether he was actually in battle. I don’t really care. But if a wound is received in battle, however slight, it deserves public notice. My first ex was a river boat sailor in Viet Nam. He was grazed by a bullet on the back of the neck. Minor wound, sure. A shiver at the wrong moment would have meant death. Yes, the medal was deserved.
By Bruno
August 22, 2008 10:50 AM | Link to this
We can always change the topic again.
That would probably set a new record for W2W, off-topic in less than 2 hours! I give Andrea credit for writing a strong column, but hardly see how pointing fingers at each other for a week is going to help anyone.
me, I go for anything rhythmic
My imagination is reeling…… ; > }
By Mara
August 22, 2008 11:12 AM | Link to this
Truth - you say Rezko, I say Keating Five. Glass houses and flying stones.
But that’s kind of beside the point. This is exactly the kind of tactic that Republicans are prone to use. There was nothing illegal about Obama’s dealing with Rezko, nor have any of the investigations implicated Obama in any of Rezko’s wrongdoing. Yet here we are listening to you imply that anyone with any decency should have known what a slime Rezko was, therefore Obama must not be a person of decency. And that because Obama didn’t know that Rezko was a criminal, it’s unfair to point out that McCain is so wealthy he doesn’t even know how many houses he and his wife own.
Rezko has nothing, absolutely nothing, to do with whether Scrooge McDuck understands the situation many middle-class Americans find themselves, so why bring it up? Because it does allow you to change the subject and you can then impugn Obama’s character without actually saying that he sympathizes and conspires with slum lords and criminals.
By Bruno
August 22, 2008 11:13 AM | Link to this
there’s nothing better to boost those endorphins and defeat the funk!!
Thanks again for your encouragement, USinUK. I’m going to do all that I can to get out of this funk, and hopefully sports will help. Otherwise, I’m trying to figure out the easiest way to check out of this mess. The only thing keeping me hanging on these days is my dear Sweetie, my pet rabbit.
Ultimately, however, I think the best solution will be to find my “soulmate”, wherever she is. I’ve been emailing back and forth with a beautiful Asian woman in NC through the Fitness Singles website. We’ve been getting into some deeply spiritual discussions, so who knows? I’m probably not good enough for her, but maybe she needs a punching bag.
By JokesOn
August 22, 2008 11:14 AM | Link to this
Dog,
(off topic question for you) Got back from a great vacation to find out my sister-in-law was referred to a chiropractor by a friend for a free exam. She explained to the chiropractor on arrival that insurance at her new job has not kicked in yet, but would in 30 days, so she cannot incur any charges what-so-ever until then. He said that he fully understands and that she should have the free exam and begin the patient/doctor relationship and take it from there.
Long story short, although she reiterated her need to not to incur charges three times in the visit, the last time was when he said they were now going to take x-rays, but was assured “they would take care of her and everything is alright.” “My secretary will explain all future charges and make sure she is comfortable with them.”
I had heard of this happening a few times before to other people and the ending is always the same. She meets with the secretary the next day, before making an appointments to be adjust a couple times before insurance kicks in, and the lady tells her she currently owes about $900 for x-rays and an extended visit. My sister-in-law is floored, since she knows she made her situation absolutely clear. A few days later and after many heated telephone conversations, he does leave a message that he will zero out any balance and would just consider it a misunderstanding.
The question: It seems a lot of chiropractors work this way and she is now turned off by the notion of seeing another. Is this actually normal for a chiropractor to act? How does one know the ones that do not act this way? This one was referred by a friend, so even the word of mouth aspect seems untrustworthy. Is there a rating site or such you know about? (she lives on the west coast, not georgia)
(on topic) The McCain ad that alludes to Obama being the Antichrist is a prime example of the truly slimy and wrong tactics the rebubs will use.
By USinUK
August 22, 2008 11:20 AM | Link to this
Bruno -
Ultimately, however, I think the best solution will be to find my “soulmate”, wherever she is.
oh, honey - marriage/dating/being in a relationship won’t fix your problems … and it puts WAY too much pressure on the other person to make you happy (or in your case, bunster, “hoppy”).
look for a soulmate, by all means, but look for your happiness within yourself.
By Mara
August 22, 2008 11:22 AM | Link to this
Gale - For most of the voters in the country, it is easier to vote for whoever you think (will) do what they think is right. Of course, they somehow ignore the fact that same person promises something else to a different group…
you’re right. sigh. I wish you weren’t.
Bruno - I’m so glad that the “FunForSingles” thing is already working out for you! Yeah! Good luck and don’t give up. As the song says, “there’s someone for everyone…”
by the by, for all the math/physics geeks that hang out here…does a kite rise with the wind or against the wind?
By Truth
August 22, 2008 11:32 AM | Link to this
Gale
My Dad died in 1972 from complications of wounds he received at Iwo Jima. I resent Kerry making such a huge deal out of flesh wounds. Kerry was there exactly the time he needed to qualify for the campaign ribbon. Not one day more. I had several friends die in Nam, and most of those died in the closing months of their service. If they would have had the same strings to pull as Kerry, they would be alive, today.
One of his decorations was for shooting a 16 years old in the back with a 50Cal, mounted on his boat. Look at the thickness of your wrist. That is around the size of the diameter of a 50 cal round. Do you know what that would do to a human body? And then he testified in front of a senate Sub-committee, calling his fellow soldiers murderers, after he had thrown his medals over the fence. I love you girl, but Kerry is slime.
By dittohead
August 22, 2008 11:35 AM | Link to this
Don't think Voice of Reason has ever listened to(3) hours of Rush. Nor an hour of FOX NEWs.I'd bet he listens to left-wing network TV, CNN, MSNBC. & liberal talk radioBy Truth
August 22, 2008 11:38 AM | Link to this
Mara
I know. That’s whet the debate is about. McCain wasn’t quick with an answer so the Democrats attack him for it. To respond, the Republicans make a very real connection between Obama and an organized crime figure. Both attacks were slimy, but who attacked on a very weak premise first?
Don’t throw a punch and not expect one back.
By Lyrazel
August 22, 2008 11:41 AM | Link to this
Both party candidates come off as tepid— remember they approve of this ad. its the floaters who wage the nasty-to-be-heard campaigns and those people are not up for elections. Its the politico commentators who rough up candidates positions—but none are up for election—just want advertising dollars and eyeballs & ears for their shows. More people listen to spin commentary than gather factual information about candidates—a sad bit of truth to our political system. American election campaigns are historically rough and its the heat that captures voter interest during the periods of no debate. Its a pity after the elections are over so few people can actually name their congress and representatives—
By Bruno
August 22, 2008 11:41 AM | Link to this
The question: It seems a lot of chiropractors work this way and she is now turned off by the notion of seeing another. Is this actually normal for a chiropractor to act? How does one know the ones that do not act this way? This one was referred by a friend, so even the word of mouth aspect seems untrustworthy. Is there a rating site or such you know about? (she lives on the west coast, not georgia)
Hey, buddy. Sorry to hear one more story about an unethical chiro. Please extend my sympathy to your SIL.
The answer to your question is three-fold. First, from a legal standpoint, if the chiro offered something for free, then it it’s free, no ifs ands, or buts. I’m not sure about the state laws of CA, but here in GA if the doctor-patient relationship starts off with a “free exam” offer, then any additional treatment/services, including x-rays, must be agreed upon in writing, in advance. Period. I’m not buying the “misunderstanding” explanation by the chiro. It sounds to me like he knew he did something wrong and is back-pedaling as fast as he can.
Secondly, from a moral standpoint, I think that luring people in with some kind of free offer, then socking it to them on the back-end is reprehensible. $900 for x-rays and a treatment, however long, is way out of line.
Thirdly, your SIL has to take some responsibility here as well. There’s no free lunch in this world, so what was she thinking when she went in looking for a free exam, x-rays, and treatment? I’m not letting the chiro off the hook, but I can’t agree with her way of thinking either.
I’m not aware of any rating sites for chiros, but what she experienced is not uncommon. When I had my own practice, I avoided all that mess by accepting cash on the barrel only. I set my fees as low as possible ($10 for an exam, $27 for a treatment, and almost never took x-rays). Furthermore, if I didn’t think chiro care was the right option for someone, I would tell them upfront, and give them the option to try a treatment if they wanted, with no guarantees of success. For that reason, I never had to advertise or make any offers of any kind to folks to get them in to see me. Word-of-mouth is still the best way to find a good doctor, chiro or medical, IMO, but you still have to ask a few questions.
Sorry again for her bad experience.
P.S. Did you catch any fish?
By Observant
August 22, 2008 11:42 AM | Link to this
When this idiotic nation realize the problem with the nation is more than “Democrap” and “Republikkkan” maybe then we can truly see progress. Until then, everything will continute to be the same. When certain segments realize Rush and Hannity aren’t the mouthpiece of god (little g for a reason), when people realize the difference between the two isn’t that great (they show what is needed to appease we the stupid masses) then the country can flourish. But lets look at the blogs…is this really going to happen? Conservate or Liberal, it doesn’t matter. Rome didn’t know it was falling………
By Truth
August 22, 2008 11:44 AM | Link to this
USinUk
oh, honey - marriage/dating/being in a relationship won’t fix your problems … and it puts WAY too much pressure on the other person to make you happy (or in your case, bunster, “hoppy”).
Girl, you got that right.
look for a soulmate, by all means, but look for your happiness within yourself.
Home run. I know so many singles that are looking for happiness. I met a lot of women after my divorce that wanted me to make them happy. Me making me happy is hard enough.
By Bruno
August 22, 2008 11:50 AM | Link to this
oh, honey - marriage/dating/being in a relationship won’t fix your problems … and it puts WAY too much pressure on the other person to make you happy (or in your case, bunster, “hoppy”).
I know, USinUK. For the record, I’ve never looked to a partner to make me happy. For me, having someone in my life primarily helps me to have a goal greater than just my own satisfaction. That’s all.
Don’t throw a punch and not expect one back.
Truth, maybe you need to study the principles of Aikido more closely. In Aikido, the right response to a punch isn’t to punch back, but to deflect the opponent’s energy in a way that keeps everyone safe. Be a bigger man, don’t just punch back. Not preaching to you, just trying to give you some encouragement, as you have done for me.
by the by, for all the math/physics geeks that hang out here…does a kite rise with the wind or against the wind?
I’ll have to think about that for a minute, Mara, but my instinct is to say that it’s a yin-yang situation. The kite rises BOTH with the wind AND against the wind, all at the same time. Does that make any sense to you? Your question strikes directly at the heart of the concept of “duality”.
By Gale
August 22, 2008 11:51 AM | Link to this
Mara, I wish I wasn’t right too. But it is the behavior I have observed all of my adult life.
USinUK to Bruno: Truer words were never spoken (written). Happiness only comes from within. Another person cannot give you happiness.
Truth, war is ugly. It becomes uglier when we have no valid reason to be where we are, shooting people and being shot at. A medal is a poor reward for the horror. And regardless of any opinion of Kerry, a flesh wound is only small measure from a serious wound.
By USinUK
August 22, 2008 11:52 AM | Link to this
d-oh! that should have read anti-aircraft gun, not missile
By dittohead
August 22, 2008 11:52 AM | Link to this
When McCain was asked by a reporter how many houses he owned, he should have ain."None of your damn business." It was none of the reporters business. It was a biased reporter seeking to embarrase McCain...I would bet most reporters get their questions from the DNC & Howard DeanBy Bruno
August 22, 2008 11:56 AM | Link to this
When this idiotic nation realize the problem with the nation is more than “Democrap” and “Republikkkan” maybe then we can truly see progress. Until then, everything will continute to be the same. When certain segments realize Rush and Hannity aren’t the mouthpiece of god (little g for a reason), when people realize the difference between the two isn’t that great (they show what is needed to appease we the stupid masses) then the country can flourish. But lets look at the blogs…is this really going to happen? Conservate or Liberal, it doesn’t matter. Rome didn’t know it was falling………
Good point, Observant. Quick question for you, what are you personally doing to lift people’s spirits?? Are you applying the “idiot” label to yourself as well, or only pointing fingers at everone else? Just wondering…….
By Truth
August 22, 2008 11:58 AM | Link to this
Bruno
I love to talk about cars, relationships, movies, music, airplanes, building stuff . . all those things and most people here are good people that are great to talk to. But this is a political blog. We are three days from the DNC convention and then we have the RNC convention. There has been so much happen this week, but everyone was afraid to bring up the political aspects of it all.
Even though we all let it be, this should not be personal. But the reason why people can’t talk politics or religion in public is because it is so personal.
There’s always going to be snipers, and these little respites are great because we get to see the human side of each other, but this is politics.
Good luck with the singles thing. Just be positive and don’t expect too much. Just keep depression and past loves completely out of the conversation. Just be nice and you will do great.
By Susan
August 22, 2008 12:23 PM | Link to this
Republicans will do virtually anything to discredit Democrats. They make up lies which are repeated by Limbaugh, Hannity and Fox “News” until they become “fact”. It has never been so vicious and it is tearing this country apart. I don’t think in the past 4 decades that it was ever anything like it is now. Anyone watching Fox or even the major networks in many cases is not getting unbiased news - it’s all to keep the Republicans happy because they are the ones who have the biggest alliances with the news corporations. We need to all be fighting for the truth and focusing on the real issues of the campaign.
W
By Bruno
August 22, 2008 12:40 PM | Link to this
Republicans will do virtually anything to discredit Democrats.
But not the other way around?? Give me a break.
The bottom line, Susan, is that NO politician truly has your best interests at heart. They only have their own interests at heart. Which is why I don’t really care about politics anymore. The best advice I can give you, and everyone else here, is to focus all of your energy on making the world a better place and to make your own life as happy as possible.
P.S. Do as I say, not as I do. ; > }
By Restore Freedom
August 22, 2008 1:06 PM | Link to this
Doesn’t this make you want to vote Paul? If he wasn’t incompetent for the role of commander and chief he’d make a perfect president. But since most Americans don’t even consider that the president’s consitutional role is commander and chief, not economic controller or medical practices regulator, it is ironic they don’t vote to the most economically and medically advanced candidate. Perhaps it is because he runs on the very principle of the constitution (which would relegate him primarily to being an incompetent commander and chief) that justices and the people alike have steadily ignored to a greater degree over the last 160 years. But maybe we need an incompetent commander and chief to remind us that this is the role on which a candidate should be judged.
By JokesOn
August 22, 2008 1:08 PM | Link to this
Dog,
Thirdly, your SIL has to take some responsibility here as well. There’s no free lunch in this world, so what was she thinking when she went in looking for a free exam, x-rays, and treatment? I’m not letting the chiro off the hook, but I can’t agree with her way of thinking either.
I disagree about her being partly at fault only because she did make it absolutely clear 3 times. She did that because she knew the stories and wanted to cover herself.
Republicans will do virtually anything to discredit Democrats.
But not the other way around?? Give me a break.
The key word is anything, and I agree. Can you find instances where democrats slander? Yes. But, on a thematic basis, repubs take the cake.
And for someone to say that thousands of soldiers should not have gotten a purple heart because their wounds were not significant enough is sickening.
By Dr. Phil
August 22, 2008 1:29 PM | Link to this
You don’t need to hire a prostitute to be nasty all by yourself.
By Bruno
August 22, 2008 1:32 PM | Link to this
She explained to the chiropractor on arrival that insurance at her new job has not kicked in yet, but would in 30 days, so she cannot incur any charges what-so-ever until then.
I disagree about her being partly at fault only because she did make it absolutely clear 3 times. She did that because she knew the stories and wanted to cover herself.
JokesOn—Under what scenario can someone walk into a doctor’s office, whether chiro or medical, and expect free treatment for thirty days? I’m not following your logic here. Did she strike some kind of “deal” with the guy—“Hey, treat me for free for thirty days and then go ahead and sock it to the insurance company on the back-end”??? That’s what it sounds like to me. If that’s the case, then I think that your SIL has to share some responsibility for the “deal” going sour. Is there something I’m missing?
My point here is that if you pick up a dead skunk in the middle of the road, you shouldn’t complain when your hands stink later. That’s all. I’m sure your SIL is a nice person, but I think she made an error in judgment by trying to strike some kind of back-end insurance deal with the chiro. As I’ve stated before, any type of third-party payor system automatically makes crooks out of both doctors and patients. Which is one more reason that I am not in favor of more insurance coverage ala Obama’s “free chicken in every pot” proposal.
By USinUK
August 22, 2008 1:40 PM | Link to this
Well, it looks like posting is going to be interesting this week … I’ve had not one, not two, but THREE posts hijacked by the AJC - what do they have in common??? linkees.
okay. so.
Bruno -
go to the Times of London - www. timesonline. co. uk. I’d make that a link, but it seems that I can’t. click on sports, then Olympics - there’s an article about sex at the games that I think you’d appreciate, ya big horn-bunny.
Truth -
Kerry didn’t get his silver star for shooting any VC - he got it for capturing an anti-aircraft gun with a round still in the chamber. I linked to factcheck.org (if you google “truth about swift boat” that should be the first link)
grrr … if we can’t include links, this is going to be a long and very irritating week.
By JokesOn
August 22, 2008 1:44 PM | Link to this
JokesOn—Under what scenario can someone walk into a doctor’s office, whether chiro or medical, and expect free treatment for thirty days?
Maybe I was unclear, but this is one visit, not thirty days.
In thirty days she would start actual treatment that would be paid for and is what she explained multiple times; not to get treatment during that time and retro-actively apply it to insurance.
By Truth
August 22, 2008 1:45 PM | Link to this
Gale
It becomes uglier when we have no valid reason to be where we are, shooting people and being shot at.
People were saying that we had no valid reason to be in England, ready to launch D-Day. Germany didn’t attack us. WWI was about the assassination of a Prince. Viet Nam was simply about “stopping the red menace.” The Civil War was about southern planters being able to ship cotton to Europe from Southern Ports instead of being forced to pay Northern dock fees. It had little to do with slavery until the Emancipation Proclamation was drafted to keep the anti-slavery European forces from helping the South. The ‘91 Gulf War was about giving back billions to billionaires.
I can’t think of a single war that was justified by everybody. The difference is that in today’s world, politicians believe that their political careers are more important than the lives of our soldiers.
Iraq is the second largest producer of oil in the Middle east, the least stable area in the world. This is going to be a “Resource War Century.” That’s what Georgia is all about. My GF is in the Ukraine right now helping the rest of her family get the hell out of there. They don’t have oil. They have wheat. Russia needs the wheat and since we now have half of our political world here in America as being known to make political hay out of the earth shaking fact that War Is Bad, Russia knows that we are not going to do a damn thing to defend our allies, even though tiny Georgia sent troops to help us in Iraq.
The US has been the world’s policeman for the last half of the last century. The Democrats have finally managed to castrate that policeman. And the spineless Republicans are folding to the pressure that the liberal media has been pounding them with.
So the Democrats have gotten their way. We are no longer a good, dependable ally. We will NOT protect our friends. The most evil people in the world know that. We are probably OK. No one is going to invade the US at least for a while. But watch what happens to our allies, now that we are a paper tiger. Russia is not even going to slow down before they are once again the evil empire that Reagan talked about.
Thanks to people like George Soros that would sell a nuke to Osama bin Laden if it would make him a few bucks, the world is a very mean and horrible place and it will get meaner and more and more people are going to die while we are building windmills and getting fatter on fast food.
Whomever is the next person in the White house is going to face major wars in South America. Major wars in Europe. Major wars in Africa. Major wars in the Middle east. Major wars in the far east. And we will set and smugly watch it all, while we beg people to clean up their air.
Depressing outlook? Yes it is.
By JokesOn
August 22, 2008 1:53 PM | Link to this
JokesOn—Under what scenario can someone walk into a doctor’s office, whether chiro or medical, and expect free treatment for thirty days?
Just to be sure it is completely clear: She expected and stated she wanted the free exam primarily to get to know what he could do and get in his records etc, and then would return when insurance kicked in.
She walked out at the end of that day with a bill that was just over $1000.
By Truth
August 22, 2008 1:54 PM | Link to this
USinUK
The blog is weird. Notice that some posts are not separated by a space. And earlier in the week, we were posting all night, but not now. Yesterday there was a space of several hours that nothing posted.
I haven’t tried to post a link, but now you say that is a problem.
Maybe Bruno is right. We should stick to discussions about cars and food, but how can i show you all those cars that i could never afford?
i’ll check on the Kerry link, but you aren’t going to convince me that he was a good soldier. Not after that damned testimony.
By JokesOn
August 22, 2008 1:58 PM | Link to this
We are a paper tiger because we exhausted our resources in areas of little interest if you compare them to: border security, Afghanistan, Nuclear Ability in the two countries that were known to be pursuing it, our own infrastructure/economy that was showing sings of ailing.
By USinUK
August 22, 2008 1:59 PM | Link to this
Truth -
We are no longer a good, dependable ally. We will NOT protect our friends.
look, I understand the point you’re trying to make here - but the US is really a crap ally. we stood by and did bupkis - niente - nada - while London, Liverpool and other cities in the country were getting bombed nightly by the Luftwaffe. Nothing. For a year. while 100,000 innocent civilians were killed in their homes, on their streets and in their shelters. we did nothing until we were bombed by the Japanese, THEN we started to help them.
so, please. before you start with what a stellar ally the US is, stop and consider the facts, first. the US is a great country, full of good people - but, it has also a long isolationist past where it didn’t jump in to help its allies in their hour of need.
By USinUK
August 22, 2008 2:04 PM | Link to this
Truth -
i’ll check on the Kerry link, but you aren’t going to convince me that he was a good soldier. Not after that damned testimony.
look. you can dislike him for your own personal reasons - just make sure they’re accurate, yeah?
:-)
By Bruno
August 22, 2008 2:04 PM | Link to this
She meets with the secretary the next day, before making an appointments to be adjust a couple times before insurance kicks in, and the lady tells her she currently owes about $900 for x-rays and an extended visit.
I’m trying to follow your story, JokesOn, but from what you stated earlier, she DID attempt to contract for treatment before her insurance “kicked in”. Am I misreading your original post?
In thirty days she would start actual treatment that would be paid for and is what she explained multiple times; not to get treatment during that time and retro-actively apply it to insurance.
Your wording is still a little unclear. Either way, I’m not sure of what value it would be to have an exam and x-rays without followup treatment. If she didn’t intend to receive treatment until the insurance kicked in, then why not wait until then to receive the exam and x-rays? If she was hoping to get treated now, with “retro-active billing” to occur at a later time, then she is just as guilty of insurance fraud as the doctor would be.
But let ME be clear: While I think your sister made an error in judgment to contract for services w/o payment, I primarily blame the chiro for what sounds like shady business practices. OK? I don’t know all the facts of the case, but the last thing the chiropractic profession needs is more bad practitioners. As a “professional person”, the chiro should have immediately rejected any insurance “scheme” and do what is right.
By USinUK
August 22, 2008 2:09 PM | Link to this
Truth -
I can’t BELIEVE I forgot to tell you!!! There is now an electric sports roadster … check out teslamotors. com!!! it goes for 200 miles before you need a recharge and is supposed to be perfectly silent on the road and fast-fast-fast! (saw a pic of it … it’s sassy, too!)
as for cars you can’t afford … I’m still disappointed that you turn your nose up at a Lamborghini (especially the Gallardo) … son, we need to talk!
By JokesOn
August 22, 2008 2:18 PM | Link to this
I’m trying to follow your story, JokesOn, but from what you stated earlier, she DID attempt to contract for treatment before her insurance “kicked in”. Am I misreading your original post?
She did not try to contract anything. She only stated that she was to be made aware of anything that would be billed before it occurred. She stated that simply because she knew of chiros that moved from the free exam to treatment/billable services without ever making that clear.
Why would she go to the free exam now? Simply because seeing a chiro was in her near future plans and it happen that her friend got the free card because she mentioned my SILs issue.
I do not know about you, but I always start shopping around (be it a car or medical services) before I am in actual need. That is what she was doing. checking him out to see if it would be a match.
By Bruno
August 22, 2008 2:27 PM | Link to this
Just to be sure it is completely clear: She expected and stated she wanted the free exam primarily to get to know what he could do and get in his records etc, and then would return when insurance kicked in.
She walked out at the end of that day with a bill that was just over $1000.
I follow you now, sorry for the earlier confusion. If what you are saying is true, then the chiro was completely in the wrong. In GA, the guy could be subject to a board complaint, with possible loss of license. I’m not familiar with the state laws of CA, but GA is very strict regarding the “free exam” offers.
I’m sure there are bad practitioners in every profession, but I am always saddened to hear about bad chiros, since we’re fighting an uphill battle to begin with. Obviously chiros can’t help any and all conditions, but I know for a fact that I’ve saved hundreds, if not thousands of people from having back surgery.
Thanks for the clarification—your SIL’s good name is reinstated in my book.
By Truth
August 22, 2008 2:27 PM | Link to this
USinUk
OK I checked. the “shell that was in the chamber” was actually a shoulder fired missile that had not been fired by the kid that he had shot in the back while the kid was fleeing. That engagement did have more elements than I had thought, but he still shot a kid in the back as he ran away.
I agree that we waited too long to come to the aid of England. Hell, we let the entire continent fall before we finally moved. We weren’t quite the world policeman that we became after the war. That’s why i said that we have been the policeman for the last half of the last century.
My point is that all that is happening again. A lot of WWII was about resources. Japan bombed Pearl Harbor because we had cut off their oil supplies.
The Viet Nam War kept China from controlling all those shipping lanes that go all around Indo-China. It cost us 50,000 American lives, but we did keep them from having control of a large part of world commerce. Was it worth it? Not to me. I lost good friends over there. And the guys that came home were crazy as hell, not to mention what it did to our country.
If we are going to be isolationists, let’s do it. Let’s drill our own oil. Let’s close off foreign trade. Let’s lock down the borders. We could survive here for the rest of our lives and probably for generations to come. But nobody is doing that. We want all the benifits of world commerce without the costs of keeping a peaceful world.
By JokesOn
August 22, 2008 2:37 PM | Link to this
Obviously chiros can’t help any and all conditions, but I know for a fact that I’ve saved hundreds, if not thousands of people from having back surgery.
That is why I also asked about a rating site or such. I am sure a chiro could help her. She has 3 blown disks in c5,6,7 which has rapidly affected every part of her life over the last 2 years.
Just for added info, I do consider chiros a very advanced area of physical therapy and can serve a much needed purpose. Especially, since you are always in recovery and never actually “cured.” At least in situations like deg spine disorders.
By Bruno
August 22, 2008 2:38 PM | Link to this
go to the Times of London - www. timesonline. co. uk. I’d make that a link, but it seems that I can’t. click on sports, then Olympics - there’s an article about sex at the games that I think you’d appreciate, ya big horn-bunny.
Fun article, USinUK—but not much of a surprise, I guess. Thanks for thinking about me. ; > }
Maybe Bruno is right. We should stick to discussions about cars and food, but how can i show you all those cars that i could never afford?
Actually, Truth, that wasn’t my suggestion at all. I’m all for political discussions, but just don’t see any value in demonizing one political party while nominating the other for sainthood. They’re all crooks in my book, and not a one of them truly gives a hang about the “little guy”, to borrow a British expression.
At any rate, quoting Billy Joel from Chilao’s earlier post:
I’d rather laugh with the sinners
Than cry with the saints
The sinners are much more fun
By So
August 22, 2008 2:45 PM | Link to this
but he still shot a kid in the back as he ran away
so? that ‘kid’ was VC, and it was war.
By Bruno
August 22, 2008 2:48 PM | Link to this
look, I understand the point you’re trying to make here - but the US is really a crap ally. we stood by and did bupkis - niente - nada - while London, Liverpool and other cities in the country were getting bombed nightly by the Luftwaffe. Nothing. For a year. while 100,000 innocent civilians were killed in their homes, on their streets and in their shelters. we did nothing until we were bombed by the Japanese, THEN we started to help them.
The US has been the world’s policeman for the last half of the last century. The Democrats have finally managed to castrate that policeman. And the spineless Republicans are folding to the pressure that the liberal media has been pounding them with.
Actually, once again, I think that you’re both right. Prior to WWII, with the exception of our involvement in WWI, the US followed an isolationist policy for the most part. And for good reason—we really didn’t have the resources to help anyone. There seems to be a common misconception that the US has ALWAYS been a nation of great wealth, which isn’t true at all. Though we’ve always been a nation full of tremendous natural resources, it took WWII to advance us to the front of the pack economically. In the modern world, both Africa and South America remain loaded with natural resources, but they remain at the bottom of the heap economically.
By Lyrazel
August 22, 2008 2:49 PM | Link to this
Happy Friday peoples!!! Its been a wonderful week reading the blog and finding polite conversation is still possible here!
If we are going to be isolationists, let’s do it…We could survive here for the rest of our lives and probably for generations to come. But nobody is doing that. We want all the benifits of world commerce without the costs of keeping a peaceful world.How true, Truth—but we also must admit the mistakes of our past involvements in promoting rogues, juntas and despots.
By Bruno
August 22, 2008 2:57 PM | Link to this
Just for added info, I do consider chiros a very advanced area of physical therapy and can serve a much needed purpose. Especially, since you are always in recovery and never actually “cured.” At least in situations like deg spine disorders.
FYI, there has been a big movement to bring the two profession together recently: The PTS are clamoring to include spinal manipulation as part of their treatment, and the chiros are learning more and more about spinal rehab using exercises along with manipulation. In fact, GA changed the scope of practice laws last July to require the chiros to obtain PT certification. I’m back in school every other weekend through mid-November to meet the requirement.
In the end, I hope that one day the “compartmentalization” of health care will end. Healing is healing is healing, whatever the mode. Of course, as a chiro, I favor “natural” methods to stimulate healing over chemically-induced ones, but recognize that sometimes drugs and surgery are necessary. Especially once the body loses its ability to heal on its own, such as in the case of severe disc degeneration.
Without pointing too many fingers, however, I blame the MDs for the lack of greater alliance. They’ve got all the power, both economically and legally, and aren’t keen on letting “alternative” professions stand shoulder to shoulder with them. Fortunately, a large segment of the population is now demanding less invasive treatment.
Thanks again for clarifying your SIL’s situation.. I didn’t mean to impugn her in any way.
By Bruno
August 22, 2008 3:08 PM | Link to this
Happy Friday peoples!!! Its been a wonderful week reading the blog and finding polite conversation is still possible here!
I agree with you, with the exception of some of the one-sided rants earlier today from Mrs. RepupLady, Chilao, Voice of Reason, and Zeke. No one is ever going to convince me that one party is all good, and the other all bad.
How true, Truth—but we also must admit the mistakes of our past involvements in promoting rogues, juntas and despots.
Personally, I’m not so sure how much value these retro-active apologies carry. Did it really mean much when Pope John Paul “apologized” for the past egregious actions of the Catholic Church several years ago? Ditto for the SBC apology a few year’s back for their support of racism through the years. WOld it really make a big difference if the US COngress officially apologized for slavery in our country. Sorry to be a little cynical, Lyrazel, but lip-service for historical wrong-doing doesn’t mean a lot to me. Nor do I particularly approve of “reparations” for groups that feel they have been wronged. All we can do is make the system fair, and then move forward, IMO. Otherwise, we will be stuck with permanent forms of “affirmative action”, which keep us from all being on the same playing field together as equals.
By NYer
August 22, 2008 3:09 PM | Link to this
USinUK,
you are not the only gemini on the blog… (wink)
By Bruno
August 22, 2008 3:18 PM | Link to this
you are not the only gemini on the blog… (wink)
Sounds like we’ve got a bunch of Geminis and Aquariuses on board, with me being the lone Virgo Our long-lost friend Monica is an Aries. (Where are you, Monica?) Our long-lost friend jack is a Leo. Did I miss any other signs?
By So
August 22, 2008 3:18 PM | Link to this
search “kerry shot kid in the back” at google. 26 or 27 is pretty old for a kid in anybody’s culture.
By Truth
August 22, 2008 3:21 PM | Link to this
USinUK
There is now an electric sports roadster … check out teslamotors.
I’ve seen a piece on that. 200+mph and it looks soooo good. There are several DeLorean type car makers out there that are building monster cars. Could that name be taken from Testa Rossa , the hot as hell FERRARI that dominated the car world during the 70s and 80s?
The only Lambo I really didn’t like was the Countach and that was because it was a thrown together piece of junk that was built only to beat out the Ferrari Testa Rossa for the world’s fastest production car. The seats weren’t even adjustable. The Ferrari was a real car with air, radio and ADJUSTABLE SEATS!!!
There’s something about a Ferrari. The sound is like no other car. I have only driven a few, but they just seem to be a living thing that you are trying to hold back. It’s like a race horse that loves to run.
It’s like being a Tennessee Volunteeer fan. I know Florida has a great team. But that don’t mean that I am rushing out to buy a gator tee shirt.
By Bruno
August 22, 2008 3:26 PM | Link to this
Ooops, I forgot to include you, Truth, you unbalanced Libra you!
By Truth
August 22, 2008 3:30 PM | Link to this
Lyrazel
Truth—but we also must admit the mistakes of our past involvements in promoting rogues, juntas and despots.
It is a constant tap dance. Ho Chi Menh was a great ally in WWII. He was a great Japanese killer. All of that nasty stuff that he did to us, he perfected in WWII. Saddam? What a mess. You never know who’s going to end up being a bad guy.
But our choices are few. Close the door and live in our own paradise while the world is screaming outside, or wade into the mess.
Personally, I want a 60 foot, tri-mast and a good radio (and a Barrett 50 Cal hidden underneath.)
By Bruno
August 22, 2008 3:33 PM | Link to this
It’s like being a Tennessee Volunteeer fan. I know Florida has a great team. But that don’t mean that I am rushing out to buy a gator tee shirt.
Will someone please sic a Bulldog on this man?
Old joke for the Auburn fans on board:
Q: How do we know that the toothbrush was invented in Alabama?
A: Because if it was invented anywhere else, it would be called a teeth brush.
By Truth
August 22, 2008 3:33 PM | Link to this
Bruno
Unbalanced? Me?
By Truth
August 22, 2008 3:37 PM | Link to this
Bruno
BTW. I now have a chiro as a client. I have found a new respect for the profession, especially the way this guy approaches it.
By Bruno
August 22, 2008 3:38 PM | Link to this
My favorite Jeff Foxworthy joke:
You know you’re a redneck if……your family tree has no branches.
By Truth
August 22, 2008 3:40 PM | Link to this
Bruno
Alabama:
So many recipes.
So few squirrels
.
By JokesOn
August 22, 2008 3:40 PM | Link to this
Thanks again for clarifying your SIL’s situation.. I didn’t mean to impugn her in any way.
What I like about you is that you always make it apparent that there may be a misunderstanding and are seeking clarification. If I was saying what you thought, I would agree with you totally, which is usually the case in misunderstandings. It is only when someone has to be right in their misinterpretation that these things get nasty.
I forgot to answer the question about how the fishing went: Superb. Friends of mine have a house down there (i do not stay in Cancun proper, but in Xcaret) and run a fishing business. So they take us out for free and then we go back to their place and have a huge cookout with a number of the locals and neighbors. We totaled 28 fish over 24” on a 3/4 day trip. Two Mahi’s, 7-10 snook, and some snapper and such. It was a blast of a feast.
By Bruno
August 22, 2008 3:42 PM | Link to this
Unbalanced? Me?
Just kidding you, guy. I gotta get my shots in fast before returning to the “real” world next week. What a drag!
By Bruno
August 22, 2008 3:47 PM | Link to this
BTW. I now have a chiro as a client. I have found a new respect for the profession, especially the way this guy approaches it.
Glad to hear that. It’s tough being at the bottom of the heap in terms of public acceptance. But, with guys running around like the one in CA that JokesOn’s SIL visited, it’s not easy to get the respect we deserve.
Hope your friend who had back surgery is coming along ok.
By JokesOn
August 22, 2008 3:52 PM | Link to this
One of my favorites:
Son and dad are walking down the sidewalk and a pair of dogs humping in the street catch the kid’s attention.
Kid asks: “What are they doing dad?”
Dad replies “You see, the dog on top has hurt paws and the one under is a friend helping him across the street,” since his child is too young for the talk.
Kid replies: “Isn’t that just like a friend” with disgust in his voice.
Dad asks: “How so, son?”
Kid replies: “Just when you need help the most, the friend helping you is really effing you in the a$$.”
By JokesOn
August 22, 2008 3:54 PM | Link to this
Correcttion:
“When you go out of your way to help a friend,they end up effing you…”
By Bruno
August 22, 2008 3:55 PM | Link to this
What I like about you is that you always make it apparent that there may be a misunderstanding and are seeking clarification. If I was saying what you thought, I would agree with you totally, which is usually the case in misunderstandings. It is only when someone has to be right in their misinterpretation that these things get nasty.
Glad to know you thin I have at least one redeeming quality.
Now, if I could only get kimberly to forgive me for being such a scumbag to her, I could go to my grave in peace.
Where are you, kimberly?
By Bruno
August 22, 2008 4:00 PM | Link to this
When you go out of your way to help a friend,they end up effing you…
That is a good one, JokesOn, hadn’t heard it in a while.
BTW, is the plural for Aquarius actually Aquarii?
By Bruno
August 22, 2008 4:23 PM | Link to this
Thanks for a great time blogging this week, everyone. Special thanks to USinUK, Mara, Truth, and JokesOn for the encouragement. Depression really sucks.
By JokesOn
August 22, 2008 4:36 PM | Link to this
Anyone else read this:
MONTGOMERY, Ala. - Alabama, pushed to second in national obesity rankings by deep-fried Southern favorites, is cracking down on state workers who are too fat.
The state has given its 37,527 employees a year to start getting fit — or they’ll pay $25 a month for insurance that otherwise is free.
By Truth
August 25, 2008 8:43 AM | Link to this
Any thoughts on Biden?
I was relieved that he didn’t pick Clinton. I was also glad to hear that Obama didn’t consult her. According to a couple of polls, 6 million Clinton supporters now support McCain. We could use another million or so.
By Richard Aubrey
August 25, 2008 9:08 AM | Link to this
Shaunti. You need to revisit the Swift Boat situation. Pretending to believe it’s awful in order to get a fake smile from a leftist makes you look bad. The guys in the campaign served with Kerry and their assertions have not been successfully contradicted. Kerry’s vile Winter Soldier slime is a matter of public record. There is no contradicting that. Nor, for normal people, excusing it.
By NYer
August 25, 2008 11:18 AM | Link to this
I think the Biden pick helps to shore up some of Obama’s perceived weaknesses when it comes to experience, foreign policy and security, but I think it undercuts his message of change since Biden, having been elected to the Senate at age 30, is a career politician who’s been in the Senate for 35 years and is only about five years younger than McCain. I think all of the gaffes that Biden made years ago about his grades and his willingness to plagiarize others has been sufficiently forgotten or become irrelevant with time. In a bit of irony, I recall Biden suggested to Kerry that he pick McCain as his running mate in 2004.
Based on his policy positions, Obama has been coming across (to me) as an old school “tax and spend” democrat from the 60’s, 70’s and 80’s rather than as a “New Democrat” of the 90’s (a la Bill Clinton). The selection of Biden only cements that view for me.
Overall I think it was a good strategic pick for Obama, but not a strong tactical choice since Biden doesn’t help in any particular swing state.
It will be interesting to see what kind of bump Obama gets coming out of the convention and with the Biden news. He has been sliding in recent weeks and in some polls, McCain had overtaken him or the two were within the margin for error in many national polls.
By Truth
August 25, 2008 11:52 AM | Link to this
NYer
I think America is looking for answers. Neither candidate is giving them answers. Although I have to say that McCain’s camp pulled a strategic home run with a personal attack ad.
After Obama’s trip to Europe, McCain managed to brand Obama as an international celebrity: all show and nothing of substance. I thought that was a thin move, but it is beginning to make sense (at least why they did it).
Madonna started her Sweet and Sticky tour this weekend. In the beginning of that show, she has a video that rails against McCain and compares him to Hitler.
Score: Republicans.
That reinforces what the Republicans are saying and it’s not like Madonna has a lot of political credibility among most of the undecided folks that will decide the election.
It was a brilliant move. Hollywood is all about egos and inflated self-worth. The more entertainers like Madonna come out in support of Obama, the more that seed will grow. So the Republicans have not only canceled out the effect of Hollywood’s expected endorsement of Obama, they have managed to turn that endorsement into a detriment.
I also don’t believe that the fact that Biden rides the train to work will excuse him from being branded as a Washington insider.
It’s going to be an interesting election.
By Archie
August 25, 2008 11:57 AM | Link to this
I agree with Andrea that republicans run the most vicious campaigns and because of that the republicans win the presidency most of the time. Republicans know the majority of people in this country are prejudiced and they appeal to that part of the american psyche better than democrats. Democrats talk good,debate good, and study the issues carefully but they don’t support their candidates for the presidency using common sense. John Kerry and Al Gore should have won their races by landslides because you had bad economic times and high unemployment with the incumbent but democrats lie to themselves as to why they don’t support their candidate. Republicans will go after your wife,your brother, mother, etc. to win and they do. Do you want your sons and daughters in Iraq for 4 years at a time for the next 100 years? Well if you don’t you had better not vote for McCain and if that comments seems vicious, well, so be it.
By NYer
August 25, 2008 2:01 PM | Link to this
Truth -
I think the branding of Obama as a celebrity by McCain was and will continue to be a success, because I agree with you that Obama sounds great and looks great but is lite on substance.
I’ve talked to a number of democrats over the last couple of weeks and to a person nearly all of them admit that they have reservations about what he’ll actually do if elected. You’ll get free admissions that his style as a manager is virtually unknown because he has limited leadership experience, his voting record is relatively short and is decidedly not-center. Even the people that have read his health care plan can’t tell you how he’s going to save every family an average of $2,500 per year on health insurance.
For the first couple months following the primaries, I thought Obama was going to win relatively easy given Iraq, economic malaise and general distate for GWB. Now that I’m seeing more recent polls and hearing anecdotes about democratic doubts about their guy, perhaps McCain really can win the election. That all being said, there is a LOOONG way to go before November and a lot of things can and will change.
I just wish that McCain hadn’t had to stoop to the level of using celebrities in the ads. I am so tired of the celebrity culture in this country and the incessant references to them. Why this country cares to read about and make celebrities out of people like Paris, Nicole, Heidi, Spencer, and Bruce Jenner’s kids, Brody and that Kardashian girl, when they literally have done thing worthy of attention (other than what should be embarrasing sex tapes), is beyond me.
By Truth
August 25, 2008 2:40 PM | Link to this
NYer
“I am so tired of the celebrity culture in this country and the incessant references to them.”
I think it might be a lot like the Seinfeld episode when Elaine was dating a guy that turned out to be pro-life. Jerry had asked her: “So why do you think he is pro-choice?” Elaine’s answer was: “Well, he’s just so good looking.”
Says it all.
By John
August 25, 2008 4:04 PM | Link to this
The consequences of being a p^!($ can be deadly. Best to blame somebody else.
By USinUK
August 26, 2008 8:39 AM | Link to this
Truth -
Madonna started her Sweet and Sticky tour this weekend. In the beginning of that show, she has a video that rails against McCain and compares him to Hitler.
hey, wasn’t Madonna on MtP last Sunday? or maybe it was NewsHour?
my point … who really pays attention to what these ninnies (on both sides of the celebrity aisle) say? whether it’s Madge or Babs … or Patricia Heaton or Tom Selleck … who really gives two flips??
(and as far as “her madgesty’s” opening video … this is Madonna doing the old tried-and-true trying to be controversial, just like her book X, just like her kiss with Britney, just like her Like a Prayer video - she’s 50, making mediocre-at-best music and looks god-awful … she’s just trying to make column inches the only way she knows how)
By Gandalf, the Grey
August 26, 2008 9:30 AM | Link to this
The John Kerry Swift Boat ads were the best ads ever. They exposed John Kerry as the coward that he was.
Throwing someone elses medals over the White House fence is a lot easier than throwing your own. What a piece of crap this man is.
Now find the [insert Democrat that wasn’t a piece of crap here] of our generation and have him run. This John Kerry/Barack Obama type of liberal canidate is getting the dems nowhere fast.
By Gale
August 26, 2008 9:43 AM | Link to this
I am glad Obama didn’t select Clinton for a running mate, albiet for different reasons than most. I don’t want to see her blamed for him losing the election, or should the worst happen, for the failings of his administration. That’s my negative ad.
By USinUK
August 26, 2008 9:45 AM | Link to this
GtG and Dick Aubrey -
the Swift Boat ads were debunked as a steaming pack of lies … every iota of them (especially the “I served with Kerry” claim - which none of them did)
scroll up and visit the factcheck-dot-org site I told Truth about - it debunked all of their lies.
By USinUK
August 26, 2008 10:03 AM | Link to this
Gale … I gotta ask … as a gay woman, how on earth can you contemplate voting for McCain??? you’ve heard the old one about “like a chicken voting for Col. Sanders”, right??? you want to be treated like an equal, right? do you honestly think McCain is going to do that with the LGBT community? while birth control may not be a huge concern of yours, do you really want to put someone in office who would continue the ruinous anti-birth-control policies of this administration? do you really want to put someone in office who is going to add yet another right-winger to the Supreme Court (cuz that’s REALLY going to help your issues in particular and women’s issues on the whole)
everyone on the board knows you’re not an Obama fan, but I just don’t understand why you can’t hold your nose and vote for the man who is a better candidate for the issues that have a direct impact on your life as a gay woman in particular and as a woman, in general
btw … :::waving::: hi!! :-)
By Gale
August 26, 2008 10:19 AM | Link to this
USinUK, I do not plan to vote for McCain. I plan to write in Hillary Clinton. Both Obama and McCain are poor choices.
I’ve hear all the ‘how can you vote for someone who’ arguments. I can’t. I agree with a lot of what the Republicans say, and I disagree with a lot of it too. The same goes for the Democrats. I want both parties to get out of my personal decisions and quite spending my money on stuff that is not good for the country.
By USinUK
August 26, 2008 10:25 AM | Link to this
Gale -
I plan to write in Hillary Clinton.
despite Hillary’s call to stand behind Obama?
By Truth
August 26, 2008 10:27 AM | Link to this
USinUK
Madonna was an example, maybe not a good one. The celebrities that do help the Democrats are people like Tom Hanks that everyone likes and respects. I think it is funny that she has always loved drag queens and now she is one. For God’s sake, we have seen her crotch enough.
But I can’t fault her musical talent. She wrote most of her huge hits and while I have never bought a single CD, she figured out how to make millions and she stayed on top of the charts for years. Somebody just needs to tell her that no one wants to see a grandmother with popeye arms and every stance with her legs spread almost to the point of somebody making a wish. GAK!!
Something is going on at ABC News. I know that they were pro-Hillary, but now they seem to be pro-McCain. Can the Clintons have that much power? Their evening news last night featured an expose’ on the huge parties being thrown by lobbiest. They even showed medal boy (John Kerry) getting off a private jet (Not a lear, a big nice stand-up in the aisle, full blown corporate jet) that belonged to some corporation that had actually flown him to Denver. They (an ABC crew) had tried to enter a couple of parties and they ran the video of them being asked to leave.
WTF? FOX hasn’t done a single story on that. Man, there is some crap going on behind closed doors! Personally, I think the Clintons are hard at work, proving that Hillary would have won the election, while Obama’s platform is just too thin to beat the Republicans.
By Gale
August 26, 2008 10:40 AM | Link to this
Gosh, I responded to your post without acknowledging the wave, USinUK. I didn’t mean to dis you. To be honest, while McCain holds personal beliefs I don’t like and his appointments are contrary to what I’d like, Obama is in pretty much the same camp from my perspective, only in his case, I am not at all sure what he would do. He hasn’t done anything but campaign since he gained public notice.
By Gale
August 26, 2008 10:45 AM | Link to this
Hillary’s call for unity is to protect her career.
By USinUK
August 26, 2008 10:47 AM | Link to this
Truth -
I think it is funny that she has always loved drag queens and now she is one. For God’s sake, we have seen her crotch enough.
thanks for that … I just spewed water all over my screen … you gonna pay for the new keyboard??? ;-)
Something is going on at ABC News.
NOW will you listen to us when we say to you that the media isn’t “liberal” … please, please, please look up Mark Halperin and his daily The Note - there is no flippin way you can read that and still walk away saying that the media is liberal.
… meanwhile … I remembered the other thing I linked to last week when I realized that the board wasn’t allowing for linkees … while I love watching the Olympics, it just isn’t the same without ABC’s Jim McCay … yeah, Bob Costas is good, but he just isn’t the same. I loved McCay - the Wide World of Sports was a weekend institution at our house, regardless of what sport they were showing. your thoughts?
also - did you watch the closing ceremonies??? what did you think of the London hand-off? especially our mayor, Boris Johnson … I want to hear what you thought before I share …
By USinUK
August 26, 2008 10:58 AM | Link to this
Gale -
Obama is in pretty much the same camp from my perspective, only in his case, I am not at all sure what he would do
do you honestly think he’s going to institute policies that are going to be worse than what’s in place? do you honestly think he’s going to nominate someone to the SC who is going to be worse than Roberts and co??
as much as one can want to act on principle (ie, write in Hillary’s name), sometimes one needs to look at the realities of the consequences of that action - all that does is put another vote in McCain’s pocket.
By Gale
August 26, 2008 10:59 AM | Link to this
Jim McCay was the voice and face of sports at our house too. Although my biggest complaint about coverage was the lack of coverage for sports we rarely see, but hours for team sports we see a lot of; baseball, basketball, and soccer. What did I see of decathalon? Highlights of the winner. If he is such a great athlete, why couldn’t we see some of the competition?
By Truth
August 26, 2008 11:03 AM | Link to this
USinUK
I just got the new MAC keyboard. Really nice.
The media is liberal, it just isn’t “hard wired” liberal.
I missed the closing ceremonies. I am animating a children’s book and getting ready to return to Virginia next week for the completion of the Ghost Inn. I was also pretty disgusted with the officiating.
I loved ABC wide World of Sports. The agony of defeat. ouch. That guy wasn’t hurt that bad.
By USinUK
August 26, 2008 11:10 AM | Link to this
Gale -
Although my biggest complaint about coverage was the lack of coverage for sports we rarely see, but hours for team sports we see a lot of; baseball, basketball, and soccer. What did I see of decathalon? Highlights of the winner. If he is such a great athlete, why couldn’t we see some of the competition?
two big thumbs up for the BBC and for digital satellite … first of all, we got HOURS of coverage in real time, rather than holding off until prime time (I called my sister Sunday morning to see if NBC was showing the closing ceremonies - she said they weren’t going to show it until later … wtf???)
secondly, we got the main sports (T&F and all the big events for Team GB) on BBC1, but then, a lot like a website, you could click in and see other events where GB may not be participating. I was blown away by the time and resources they put into it. they did a fantastic job, although they didn’t do the tug-the-heartstrings backstories on the athletes.
so … who’s planning on coming to London for 2012??? :-)
By NYer
August 26, 2008 11:17 AM | Link to this
Gale,
do you really want to put someone in office who is going to add yet another right-winger to the Supreme Court (cuz that’s REALLY going to help your issues in particular and women’s issues on the whole)
In case you haven’t figured it out, right wingers on the SCOTUS are bad because conventional conservative jurisprudence, based upon varying combinations of textualism, original meaning and strict construction is obviously detrimental to those wishing to use the supreme court and its wholly unelected justices as vehicles for usurping legislative powers to make up laws and rights rather than the court’s traditional and proper role as neutral interpreter of rights and laws.
(Now dripping with sarcasm) It’s awful I tell you. Just awful. We need more judges and justices that are conjurers of rights and makers of laws since the people won’t elect the legislators to write the laws we wish they would. We lack the temerity (not to mention the votes) to put forth actual amendments to our constitution to allow it to say what we want it to say. The quaint notion of separation of powers represents just a minor statutory hurdle, so if we can stack the court and rationalize our way over the separation of powers speedbump, we’ll all be better off. !Si se puede!
By USinUK
August 26, 2008 11:17 AM | Link to this
Truth -
I loved ABC wide World of Sports. The agony of defeat. ouch. That guy wasn’t hurt that bad.
gah. the same way Jaws put me off swimming where I can’t see my feet, that shot put me off snow skiing.
The media is liberal, it just isn’t “hard wired” liberal.
please, to ‘splain.
By Gale
August 26, 2008 11:26 AM | Link to this
I could do without the athlete backstories. I would rather see the competition that means so much to the athletes that they have spent years preparing for. I like seeing sports I usually don’t see. Rowing was fantastic. My favorite is fencing. It was a ticket I could afford in Atlanta and my introduction.
By USinUK
August 26, 2008 11:28 AM | Link to this
NYer -
right wingers on the SCOTUS are bad because conventional conservative jurisprudence, based upon varying combinations of textualism, original meaning and strict construction is obviously detrimental to those wishing to use the supreme court and its wholly unelected justices as vehicles for usurping legislative powers to make up laws and rights rather than the court’s traditional and proper role as neutral interpreter of rights and laws
funny that. the FFs had remarkably little to say about abortion. or gays. or corporate whistle-blowers. or the internet. (I won’t go on - you get my point).
as much as one might like to live in a “strict constructionist” world, this ain’t one.
By Truth
August 26, 2008 11:32 AM | Link to this
USinUK
This is not the day to go into my philosophy about the media. I am so slammed.
I have been in a shark cage, shooting. Didn’t get sh*t. We had nothing but four and five foot nurse sharks. That’s the story of my life. I lost a job with Real Stories of the Highway Patrol because nothing ever happened with me in the car. I had a New Years playing gig so I recommended a friend. They had shoot outs in the projects. When I was with them, they got teen-aged drunks that were too drunk to fight. The good thing about that was when I would be with the cops busting into crack houses, no one shot back. How I lived to be this old, I will never know.
By Gale
August 26, 2008 11:34 AM | Link to this
NYer, I’d like to know which side decided to interpret the clause about “born or naturalized” citizens to mean if you are born on American soil, you are a US citizens, regardless of the legality of your parents’.
By Gale
August 26, 2008 11:44 AM | Link to this
Although the US constitution was intended to be a document capable of growth, the words “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal” are the basis of the intent of the document. If a strict constructionist holds to the intent, I will likely agree. It is when the interpretation of a law is so narrow that a wrong is declared right, then I disagree. And even as I write, I realize many people filter “right” through religious dogma and do not see the same “right” that I see.
By Truth
August 26, 2008 11:49 AM | Link to this
Gale
I would end up with tickets to stuff that no one wanted. I went to China vs. Greece in basketball. Both teams were horrible. The only good thing about the game was the announcer, who barely spoke English. He would say China ball… Greece ball. The crowd would go nuts when ever he said Greece Ball. I still have tickets to the US vs Cuba Baseball game. The seat were nosebleed, outfield and I wanted to see that game so I ran home and watched it with the kids.
Great memories. I had a fantastic job during the Olympics. I was working for a city agency that not only allowed me to shoot for anyone who needed a shooter, (BBC, TV Monte Carlo, Network 10 Autralia, The NHK, Japan) but would actually get the jobs for me. It was a real rush knowing what I was shooting would be seen all over the world. And the pay was staggering, especially for the NHK. They paid for everything with cash and would “tip” me at the end of the day. One of the tips was $1,000. It was the day they met my kids. After that, I wanted to borrow kids to show them. But they were very nice and let me do what I wanted, as far as creatively.
I also had to set up a news conference every morning at 5 AM. I honestly don’t remember a single morning, but I must have done OK. I have pictures of me standing behind the scenes.
That was really a great time in the atl.
By USinUK
August 26, 2008 11:57 AM | Link to this
Truth -
That’s the story of my life.
I was about to say it sounds like you’ve been in the wrong place at the wrong time - but in a life-saving kind of way (bad for the career, but good for the blood remaining in your veins) … but then I read that about the 96 olympics … so it hasn’t always been that way. :-)
good luck in VA - when ya heading out?
By NYer
August 26, 2008 1:10 PM | Link to this
funny that. the FFs had remarkably little to say about abortion. or gays. or corporate whistle-blowers. or the internet. (I won’t go on - you get my point).
If something you think should be a constitutionally protected right wasn’t included in the constitution, it can be for one of two reasons: (i) it didn’t exist at the time, or (ii) the writers of the constitution did not believe it rose to the level of being worthy of constitutional protection. [Please note (and I think you get this, but others may not) there is a difference between an activity being legal and an activity being constitutionally protected. From personal experience I think many people blur the line between the two.]
In either event, the framers provided you with the means to address the shortcoming: amendments.
as much as one might like to live in a “strict constructionist” world, this ain’t one.
Why is that, USinUK? Is it simply because you say so? Or because it is politically inconvenient to subscribe to a philosophy that essentially boils down to “it means what it says and it says what it means”?
The entire point of a written constitution is to establish our method of government and codify the rights we believe are the highest, best, and most worthy of protection against the ebbs and flows of the political pendulum one way or the other, except in the cases where there is such overwhelming support for something that the threshold for amendment to the constitution is satisfied. Justices are appointed for life, the least democratic role in our entire government, precisely so that they will be abvoe the sway of politics and be neutral arbiters and interpreters. Yet by adopting a loose interpretation of the constitution that may change with political winds, our “highest and best” rights are constantly subject to potential adjudication, re-interpretation, and change by the courts. I would hope that everyone would find that disconcerting; I do, and whether you realize it or not, you do to, USinUK.
Take for sodomy for example. In 1986 the court determined that sodomy was not a constitutional right. It could be legal if the states permitted it, but it was not constitutionally protected. In 2003, the supreme court essentially ruled the opposite, that sodomy was a constitutionally protected right. Nobody voted, no new law was passed, and certainly no amendment to the constitution was enacted. This right just came into being.
If we as a society believe that things like sodomy (and abortion) are such highly personal and intimate decisions that they fall under the pursuit of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, then let us remove the ambiguity about it - let us write an amendment that says as much. Personally, I would support both measures.
Doing so would provide us all with much greater certainty that whatever right that we hold dear won’t be taken away from us by a future court that interprets it as something that does not pass constitutional muster. The problem with the living constitution is precisely what you are afraid of - the politics of the day will bring forth a new judge and cause a re-interpretation of women’s rights (presumably concerning abortion) that undermines what you view today as being your fundamental, constitutionally protected rights.
My method of passing an amendment solves your problem unless the tide changes dramatically. Adherence to your philosphy will always leave you where you are today - fearful of who gets elected due to the politicization of the courts.
By Gandalf, the Grey
August 26, 2008 1:33 PM | Link to this
EXPAT,
You disappoint me. Kerry is vile and a hater of American, like his friend ALGORE with his pseudo science movie about global warming, which he made while cruising around in his own private jet. You all are stupid about this Obama cat and God help us if we have to pay the price of 4 years of socialism.
By Gandalf, the Grey
August 26, 2008 1:33 PM | Link to this
EXPAT,
You disappoint me. Kerry is vile and a hater of American, like his friend ALGORE with his pseudo science movie about global warming, which he made while cruising around in his own private jet. You all are stupid about this Obama cat and God help us if we have to pay the price of 4 years of socialism.
By Truth
August 26, 2008 2:10 PM | Link to this
USinUK
I will leave on Sunday. I have friends in Knoxville, and then on to Virginia. This will be fun. lots of reenactments. The local historians are already fighting like cats and dogs over the authenticity of the reenactments. Should be a Jerry Springer kind of week.
I am having a frustrating day. I’m missing calls, I have a business partner who keeps trying to deal with people who don’t have any money. My laptop is going belly up. I am starving and there is nothing here to fix. My GF is thousands of miles away. I can’t find phone numbers. Both PCs are cranking out animation frames so only the expensive MAC can be used for anything and I really try to keep this thing shut down whenever possible. I may drop back and punt, today. My computers are working quite nicely, so I really could just stop answering the phone.
By Researcher
August 26, 2008 2:34 PM | Link to this
In 2003, the supreme court essentially ruled the opposite, that sodomy was a constitutionally protected right
research the decision! that is gross misinformation, so you must be a Rushitte.
what the court ruled was you could not have sexual activity illegal for same sex if it was not also illegal for hetero sex.
geez.
By Gandalf, the Grey
August 26, 2008 2:44 PM | Link to this
I am also currently researching the sodomy decision myself, on behalf of both heterosexuals and their same-loving counterparts. There are indeed subtle differences beyond the comprehenion of you idiots in blog world. When I reach a decision as to the relative legality of each, I’ll grace you socialist morons with the knowledge you lack. Now go away I am busy.
By Gale
August 26, 2008 2:48 PM | Link to this
“Now go away I am busy.” GTG, back at you.
By NYer
August 26, 2008 3:17 PM | Link to this
Researcher,
Only O’Connor hung her hat on equal protection. The majority held that it was protected under due process.
Nice try, though.
By USinUK
August 27, 2008 8:32 AM | Link to this
GtG (and a little bit for Truth at the end) -
You disappoint me. Kerry is vile and a hater of American (sic)
I’d love to say that your opinion surprises me … but it doesn’t. I’m not at all surprised that you fell hook-line-and-sinker for the Swift Boat Campaign. You hear and cling to what you want to believe.
Kerry said nothing but the truth when he testified in Detroit against the war, whether you and Truth like it or not. Don’t forget - he wasn’t the only one who spoke at that event - there were more than 100 veterans who all said the same thing: Americans did commit atrocities bombing and burning innocent civilians during Viet Nam.
If you want to hate someone for lying, look no further than McNamara, the prime architect of Viet Nam.
And “hate America”?? that’s just weak. here’s a guy who volunteered for the military, has served as a state prosecutor, an ADA, and a Lt. Gov before going on to work in Washington - do you honestly think he hates the America he has dedicated himself to serving??? weak, weak, weak.
(… and, Truth, you think Kerry was wrong for shooting someone in the back during a battle??? are you willin to hate all other vets for the same thing?? heck, even a pacifist-leaning person like myself knows that, in the heat of the battle, you shoot your enemies in the front, side or back)
By USinUK
August 27, 2008 8:36 AM | Link to this
Truth -
This will be fun. lots of reenactments. The local historians are already fighting like cats and dogs over the authenticity of the reenactments. Should be a Jerry Springer kind of week.
what reenactments? which part of VA are you going to??? I thought you were just wrappign up the Ghost show … ??
By USinUK
August 27, 2008 9:10 AM | Link to this
NYer - If something you think should be a constitutionally protected right wasn’t included in the constitution, it can be for one of two reasons: (i) it didn’t exist at the time, or (ii) the writers of the constitution did not believe it rose to the level of being worthy of constitutional protection. [Please note (and I think you get this, but others may not) there is a difference between an activity being legal and an activity being constitutionally protected. From personal experience I think many people blur the line between the two.]
I think we can all agree that, in the 1770s, abortion existed - and that the FF knew about it. (as it was in the 1670s and the 1570s and so on …) I agree with you that the architects of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights weren’t interested in writing a big ol’ laundry list of all the things that were to be covered - *which is why it’s asinine to use “framers’ intent” as a measure of Constitutionality.
Why is that, USinUK? Is it simply because you say so? Or because it is politically inconvenient to subscribe to a philosophy that essentially boils down to “it means what it says and it says what it means”?
yes. because I say so. that’s how life works, doncha know? ;-)
no, because it’s no longer the 1770s. The world has changed. Guns have changed. Technology has changed (criminey, the FFs probably would have worded the 4th a little different had they had any idea of the capabilities of satellite technology to track a person’s behavior) We didn’t even have beginnings of public schools until the late 1700s, so the FF didn’t even have an opinion of prayer in public school.
My method of passing an amendment solves your problem unless the tide changes dramatically.
I understand your reasoning for passing an amendment - and agree with your intent. However, I think the last thing we need to do is have a laundry list of rights - (remember the 18th amendment? amendments for specific rights/restrictions don’t really seem to work that well)
By Truth
August 27, 2008 10:06 AM | Link to this
USinUK
Americans did commit atrocities bombing and burning innocent civilians during Viet Nam.
Yes and Americans did the same thing during WWII. It’s called war. Children walked up to soldiers to get candy that just happened to have grenades strapped to them. How many of your buddies do you need to see blown to bits before you start walking into villages and killing the entire population?
Yes, war is hell. War is bad. War involves killing innocent people. When you work out that magical Disney War that only soldiers are hurt and they only shoot back at bad people, let me know. We’ll all join hands and sing camp songs.
The real atrocities are when politicians send young men to war and then expect them to turn the other cheek. But when they don’t, those same God Damned politicians make political hay by having gutless grand standers turn on their fellow soldiers and make up facts to cry about in front of TV cameras.
you think Kerry was wrong for shooting someone in the back during a battle
No That’s called WAR. The same thing he was testifying against his fellow soldiers for doing. What i hate is someone shooting someone in the back and then testifying against others for committing similar atrocities. And to top it off, after the gutless coward did that, he claimed to be a war hero. My Dad was a war hero. John Kerry was a worthless piece of sh*t.
By Truth
August 27, 2008 10:10 AM | Link to this
USinUk
The show was canceled. I am finishing this up to satisfy contractual agreements with the producers and the local government that owns the Inn. They were promised DVDs that they can sell. The reenactments are to show how the people became ghosts.
By NYer
August 27, 2008 10:11 AM | Link to this
USinUK,
However, I think the last thing we need to do is have a laundry list of rights
I agree. The way I believe it should work is that if it’s not addressed in the constitution, you revert to the tenth amendment. Simple, and frankly, that’s why the tenth is there to begin with. I’d love that but you guys won’t go for it. So we’re left with attempts to use the due process clause and a few other clauses in the constitution as safe harbors covering things that aren’t addressed. So I’m back to the following - I’d prefer to use the tenth as my guidepost for many items, but if the tenth doesn’t work for you, let’s be unequivocal about it and not try to use the 14th as a backdoor. You run the risk of the backdoor being locked at some point by a court that views the world differently in the future. Said another way, instead of ceding this kind of power to unelected justices, who were never intended to wield such power, why don’t we leave it with the states, the people and legislatures? Sadly, you and I both already know the answer.
By NYer
August 27, 2008 10:21 AM | Link to this
USinUK,
no, because it’s no longer the 1770s. The world has changed.
I hope you don’t interpret my position (or that of most “judicially” conservative judges) to be that only things that were constitutionally protected in the 1780’s can be constitutionally protected today. Certainly that is not the case. My thinking is not limited in this manner.
Freedom of speech will be interpreted somewhat differently in an internet world. And certainly the fourth amendment will apply differently due to satellite technology. The framers couldn’t have anticipated cars, so we grapple with how the fourth amendment applies to “searching” a vehicle that has windows that the police can see into. Etc., etc.
By Truth
August 27, 2008 10:23 AM | Link to this
UsinUK
Sorry for getting emotional there, but the only time I remember my Dad crying was during the My Lai Massacre hearings. It brought back memories that haunted him until he died. He talked about going ashore on any number of South Pacific Islands after the islands had been shelled. He said they were guessing whether or not the islands were occupied, so many times, they would only find body parts from women and children because the Japanese had already been there and either enslaved the male population or had killed the male population.
He said that they would find a village and kill everybody. They did not have a choice. It was kill or be killed. Viet Nam was the same thing. Kerry is a grandstanding coward. That’s why any soldier that has actually really seen action and actually served their entire time in Nam hated Kerry.
You may perfer to side with the SOB that has spent his life grandstanding about a three month involvement where he collected three purple hearts for band-aid wounds. I’ll side with my Dad. Pardon me for believing him and not believing some slimy politician.
By USinUK
August 27, 2008 10:25 AM | Link to this
Truth -
the reason I brought up the issue of shooting in the back was because of your comment on Friday, “That engagement did have more elements than I had thought, but he still shot a kid in the back as he ran away.”
1) the guy was in his mid-20s according to other officers’ descriptions and, 2) so what, he shot him in the back? because 3) the VC in question was firing anti-aircraft ammo which 4) Kerry captured before it was completely spent.
and that was just the first of engagements that day in which Kerry charged into enemy fire. Sorry, you may not like it, but he is not a gutless coward.
As for the testimony - it outlined things done OUTSIDE of battle such as (btw - none of these are John Kerry)
“My testimony basically covers the maltreatment of prisoners, the suspects actually, and a convoy running down an old woman with no reason at all—no provocation or anything. And bounties were put on our own men in our own companies if they were inadequate in the field. And they were either disposed of, or wounded, or something to this effect just to make sure they were taken away. I was a Pfc. in the service.”
“my testimony concerns the leveling of villages for no valid reason, throwing Viet Cong suspects from the aircraft after binding and gagging them with copper wire, and racism in the assignment of priorities to medical evacuations where white people were given priority over nonwhite people.”
“My testimony involves burning of villages with civilians in them, the cutting off of ears, cutting off of heads, torturing of prisoners, calling in of artillery on villages for games, corpsmen killing wounded prisoners, napalm dropped on villages, women being raped, women and children being massacred, CS gas used on people, animals slaughtered, Chieu Hoi passes rejected and the people holding them shot, bodies shoved out of helicopters, tear-gassing people for fun and running civilian vehicles off the road.”
“In Loc Ninh, a young boy about twelve years old was attacked by two American soldiers, severely beaten, resulting in a broken arm. There is no reason known for this attack. On one occasion, a North Vietnamese Army nurse was killed by 11th Armored Cavalry troops; subsequently a grease gun of the type used in automotive work was placed in her vagina and she was packed full of grease.”
“They’d shoot all structures; they’d shoot all people, be they men, women, or children—old men, children, whether they had arms or not. They’d shoot all livestock, destroy all food. They’d destroy everything they saw that was man-made. Also, to prove that they’d been getting body counts, the troop commander had given the order (not given an order, but let it be known) that the next time Vietnamese were killed, the body would be taken and dumped from two hundred feet right to Brigade TOC, right in front of the TOC, and this was done, and there was no reprimand to the officer. Explosives have been put in the dumps for the purpose of exploding and injuring men, women, and children while they’re going through the trash—while they’re going through this valuable trash.”
you can read through all the Winter Solder testimony online, if you like.
I understand that accidents happen in wartime - eggs and omelets and all that. However, what happened and what these men were testifying against were NOT accidents - they were deliberate acts, deliberate war crimes.
By USinUK
August 27, 2008 10:29 AM | Link to this
Truth -
They were promised DVDs that they can sell. The reenactments are to show how the people became ghosts.
yeah, babbee … now, that sounds like a fun shoot! (and no worries that the actors won’t show up … unlike the ghosts)
By USinUK
August 27, 2008 10:37 AM | Link to this
NYer -
So we’re left with attempts to use the due process clause and a few other clauses in the constitution as safe harbors covering things that aren’t addressed.
here’s the thing, though (alluded to so often in SC hearings): precedent. the abortion decision in particular, didn’t happen on its own - there were 2 birth control rulings before it that laid the groundwork … think of it as evolution, if you will … and then the decision has been upheld on 3 or 4 occasions. So, yeah, while it may have been built on a penumbra, the ground is prety solid, now.
So I’m back to the following - I’d prefer to use the tenth as my guidepost for many items, but if the tenth doesn’t work for you, let’s be unequivocal about it and not try to use the 14th as a backdoor.
gah. backasswards states having say over people’s liberties. don’t like it? move. I hear where you’re coming from, but it is the UNITED states of America, not the Loosely Held Together by a Common IRS States of America. There needs to be a common level of civil liberties throughout the country.
Freedom of speech will be interpreted somewhat differently in an internet world. And certainly the fourth amendment will apply differently due to satellite technology. The framers couldn’t have anticipated cars, so we grapple with how the fourth amendment applies to “searching” a vehicle that has windows that the police can see into. Etc., etc
and that’s my point. same with whistleblower laws. and sexual harassment laws. etc etc etc
By USinUK
August 27, 2008 10:47 AM | Link to this
Truth -
I’ll side with my Dad. Pardon me for believing him and not believing some slimy politician.
and I remember when McNamara came out with his book which basically said that he was against the build-up, against his strategy, that he only did those things because of administration policy. The man I was dating at the time’s father served in Viet Nam and, fortunately, came back - my boyfriend chose to get his hate on for McNamara for putting his father in danger rather than for the people who talked about what was going on there.
have atrocities in war always happened? of course they have. Unlike in the past, though, it was time people spoke up about it -
By Gale
August 27, 2008 11:01 AM | Link to this
Truth, Your comment about your father is part of why we are seeing so many PTSD cases today and why there are so many suicides among our military. We do not accept that it is needful to destroy a village full of civilians. It is just as true today that someone who looks like a civilian may be the enemy and it is safer for the soldier to kill them first. But the trauma of that needful action is damaging. More soldiers today are willing to admit to and get treatment for the damage. You father and many more from previous wars should have been treated, instead of just living with the pain.
It doesn’t make it right. Kerry might have made a better case. But we had a different social environment in the 70’s. Maybe Kerry was grandstanding, and maybe he had not been in long enough to be indoctinated or desensitized to the situation.
By Truth
August 27, 2008 11:13 AM | Link to this
USinUK
*have atrocities in war always happened? of course they have. Unlike in the past, though, it was time people spoke up about it *
And why is that? Are our enemies concerned about the lives of anyone? While I’m sure your heart is in the right place, you cannot re-write the rules of war. That Disney / Hollywood war doesn’t exist.
i’ll say it again: if we are going to allow the cowards in Washington that have the backbone of a jellyfish to send our children to war and then tie their hands with civil laws that address a battlefield situation like a playground fistfight, then we need to keep our children at home and let the despots of the world have our allies. (Sort of like what is happening now.)
Maybe this is a little self centered, but I’m glad my Dad did what he needed to do to survive WWII. Fortunately for him and his generation, they understood what was important, and because of that, we are not speaking Japanese or German.
John Kerry is slime. Most of his testimony was hearsay, but for some reason was allowed. John Kerry will always be slime. I don’t hate him any more than I hate maggots on a dead body. It is a fact of life that people like him will always exist. What I hate is that this gutless culture allows him to live outside a military prison.
By Gale
August 27, 2008 11:15 AM | Link to this
USinUK: but it is the UNITED states of America, not the Loosely Held Together by a Common IRS States of America. There needs to be a common level of civil liberties throughout the country. ::applause::
I love it. Everytime some politician sidesteps the abortion or gay marriage issue with the “states rights” reasoning, I turn purple.
By USinUK
August 27, 2008 11:30 AM | Link to this
Gale -
I love it. Everytime some politician sidesteps the abortion or gay marriage issue with the “states rights” reasoning, I turn purple.
I hear ya, sister … of course, if it was THEIR rights under assault, they’d demand a Constitutional amendment …
By USinUK
August 27, 2008 11:38 AM | Link to this
Truth -
first of all, your dad had to do what he had to do - kill or be killed.
scroll up and read the testimony I copied from Winter Soldiers - NONE of those cases were that situation. They were deliberate. They were unprovoked. They were war crimes.
And again, you may not like Kerry, but he was one of more than 100 Viet Nam vets who testified in Detroit. He was not alone - and all branches were represented.
Are our enemies concerned about the lives of anyone?
I’m so effing sick and tired of that excuse. “does al quaeda care? does the taliban care?” I don’t flipping CARE if they care - WE are supposed to be better than our enemies. WE are supposed to be the moral authority. WE are supposed to be the shining city on the hill.
Acting otherwise makes us no better than those who would defeat us. YOU may be fine with that, but I am not.
By Gandalf, the Grey
August 27, 2008 11:39 AM | Link to this
ALL, THIS ISN’T ME!
” am also currently researching the sodomy decision myself, on behalf of both heterosexuals and their same-loving counterparts. There are indeed subtle differences beyond the comprehenion of you idiots in blog world. When I reach a decision as to the relative legality of each, I’ll grace you socialist morons with the knowledge you lack. Now go away I am busy.’
By Truth
August 27, 2008 11:45 AM | Link to this
USinUK
The actors aren’t the problem. The historians are the problem.
I just got an e-mail saying that they don’t want any furniture moved during the reenactments. i don’t think I have ever been able to shoot even an interview without rearranging the furniture. One of the reenactments is a knife fight in a bedroom. And we are going to shot that without moving furniture?
At this point, it is a matter of getting it shot and put together. I hate it when projects turn out like this.
By Gale
August 27, 2008 11:52 AM | Link to this
if it was THEIR rights under assault, Ain’t that the truth.
Gandalf, Glad to hear it because that is so NOT Gandalf!
By USinUK
August 27, 2008 11:55 AM | Link to this
Truth -
And we are going to shot that without moving furniture?
be prepared to either shoot through the window or have an EXTREME close-up!
By Truth
August 27, 2008 12:09 PM | Link to this
Gale
But we had a different social environment in the 70’s.
And this is the problem. The smell of burning flesh in 1970 was just as horrible as it was in 1944, 1917, 1899, 1865 and every war going back to the invasions of the great Khans and the great Ceasers. Men defecated on themselves from a very basic animalistic fear of dieing. That same fear of dieing was the same fear that every soldier in every battle of every war has seen.
My Dad had a common nightmare that he woke us all up with until the day he died. The nightmare was actually what happened when his two best friends were both blown to bits while the three of them were walking together. One of his friends were close enough to have brain and organic matter blown all over my dad. He woke up screaming about that on an average of once or twice a month. But anyone on the beaches of Iwo Jima and/or Okinawa had the same problems. But I’m also sure that the men that charged up Bald Hill to try and dislodge Gen. Sherman from what is now East Atlanta and the same nightmares.
It is war, Gale. My Dad didn’t have nightmares about killing innocents until My Lai. Leon, his best friend started having the same problems. They were able to live with what they did because they understood what was at stake. But My Lai made them look like criminals for doing what they did. Is that what you want? A man that was considered a hero his entire life was, because of a “different culture”, now considered a criminal?
He was wounded (cracked skull, several broken ribs) when his LST was blown out from under him at Iwo Jima. He had made it to a hospital ship, but volunteered to go back to his ship because he would be needed to drive an LST at Okinawa. He was again wounded at Okinawa. That wound was finally enough to put him out of action. Do you really want this man to be remembered as a criminal?
By USinUK
August 27, 2008 12:13 PM | Link to this
Truth -
But anyone on the beaches of Iwo Jima and/or Okinawa had the same problems. But I’m also sure that the men that charged up Bald Hill to try and dislodge Gen. Sherman from what is now East Atlanta and the same nightmares.
and yet again … no one is talking about what happens in BATTLES.
READ. THE. TESTIMONY. these were deliberate acts that were NOT done in the heat of the battle.
By Truth
August 27, 2008 12:31 PM | Link to this
USinUK
be prepared to either shoot through the window or have an EXTREME close-up!
I just hired a location scout to find another location to shoot this thing. I’m just not going to deal with this. We have several fights, a couple of shootings and a woman that started fires to capture.
Acting otherwise makes us no better than those who would defeat us. YOU may be fine with that, but I am not.
Girl, you have never been in battle and neither have I. I know what i read and what my Dad told me. I know that war screws people up. They don’t arrest people, they shoot people.
Just think about it. You are in Baghdad. You see four men walking toward you. You can’t see their hands or what they are carrying. Just a few minutes ago, your best friend was killed by a man dressed the exact same way. Are you going to give a crap about what some woman setting in a comfortable office in London thinks about how you defend yourself?
It is WAR. We either fight the war or bring our soldiers home and turn the rest of the world over to who ever has the biggest gins. Sending children into battle while we set and decide how they are to defend themselves is simply murdering our own children.
On another topic, I read a very disturbing screen play last night. It was about a vigilante organization that starts to kill the families of criminals that had killed innocents. The film starts with a poor Black family setting around Sunday dinner and snipers start killing everybody at the table. Then a thug that had been convicted of killing a family in order to rob them is sent pictures of the assault. It was his mother and brothers and sisters that had been killed at Sunday dinner.
The writer already has seed money from a major studio. I’ll let you know if it is picked up.
By Gandalf, the Grey
August 27, 2008 12:36 PM | Link to this
Why did carry only serve in SW Asia for 4 months? Becuase he put himself in for 2 Purple Hearts, if not 3. What other Sailor left viet nam, on their feet with only 4 months in country? Kerry is a POS. Don’t you forget it.
Carter sucked so bad we still feel his suckiness today. Gave away the Canal Zone, Gas Shortage, 20% intrest Rate, Failed mission to rescue Hostages in Iran, His personal flip flop on abortion, He never appointed a Justice, the only President that served a full term not too, they were all scared of what would happen to step down!, some might have been dead for months, but the other justices wouldn’t let that nut job jimmy replace one of them, reacted to the Soviet invasion of Afganistan by stopping wheat shipments, the Pulled out of SALT II. His greatest single accomplishemnt was legalizing HOME BREW. And this asshat one the libel prize for peace??? What a foolish organization. At least the liberal weren’t stupid enough to get him elected twice.
Oh, that right, the greatest President of our time ran against him. Ron Reagan. Hard to beat that. Never mind, the liberal tried to get him elected twice…asshats!
By Gandalf, the Grey
August 27, 2008 12:43 PM | Link to this
Kerry saw none of this, if it he did, he’s a War Crimminal. As an Officer he would have to stop it and report it. Either way, he’s either committed perjury, or a war crimes. Both these exclude him from the world I allow myself to interact with. A moral coward in either case, the leaving your men 8 months ealy…that makes him a low life c** sucker in my book.
By Truth
August 27, 2008 1:06 PM | Link to this
Gandalf, the Grey
ALL, THIS ISN’T ME!
I thought you were losing it. There is a real slime ball that lurks here that does crap like takes other’s names. I now ignore him so he has gone after you.
As far as Kerry, i loved the shot that ABC News got of him climbing out of the private jet of a lobbiest that had brought him to Denver. He is a parasite. He lives in a mansion that a hard working Republican built and used that Republican’s money to promote the lies that he expected would put him in the White house. I don’t get a natural feeling of disgust from seeing many people, but seeing that traitor does exactly that.
By Archie
August 27, 2008 1:59 PM | Link to this
hear ya, sister … of course, if it was THEIR rights under assault, they’d demand a Constitutional amendment … That’s the truth USinUk.
The film starts with a poor Black family setting around Sunday dinner and snipers start killing everybody at the table. Then a thug that had been convicted of killing a family in order to rob them is sent pictures of the assault. I think, I think that the actor in that film will be Don Cheadle. I don’t know this for sure.
Truth,made me laugh last week when you said you purposely gave your son all the alcohol he could handle to teach him a lesson. I don’t have a son so I don’t know what I would do but I am not mad that you did what did. As a grown person I can say that there’s no purpose for alcohol most of time and it’s really more of a preference kind of thing. I am drinking less and when I do drink I want more of the sweet and sour drinks such as Midori sour, Whiskey sour, etc. Basically I want something that tastes good versus drinking to get a buzz.
By Truth
August 27, 2008 3:05 PM | Link to this
Archie
This is a very disturbing movie. After the first killing, the next part was a guy breaking into a house and brutally raping the wife and slaughtering the kids. The film quickly goes through the trial and shows the guy getting a sentence of 20 years, will be out in 8-12. He is arrogant as hell all through the trail and you are really torn, because you know what is going to happen. Now this bad guy is a white guy and his family lives in a mobile home. They are burnt alive. You really want the criminal to feel the pain, but you certainly don’t want the innocent family members to die, but no one anted the victims of the criminal to die. It is a very compelling movie that makes you look inside yourself and realize that you might not like what you see.
Is this the same film you are talking about with Don Cheadle? He was fantastic in Hotel Rwanda. There is a cop that he could play, but I got the impression that the criminals were all young people. He could be the father of the victims of the white criminal. I think they were Black.
The author is sort of a casual friend. This guy has been living off a couple of movies he wrote in the eighties.
you purposely gave your son all the alcohol he could handle to teach him a lesson.
Teenagers are hard to kill. The mix we were feeding him would have made anybody sick. He was a big boy, but it didn’t take much. I worked in bars since I was 14 and shot video of more car wrecks than you can imagine. If it was up to me, a person would need to be 35 before they could legally drink, and that is only after a 6 week indoctrination program where a person watches gory car wrecks, every day. Not that I’m opinionated or anything.
I drank two drinks on Sunday night and went to bed. I don’t even like the buzz.
By Gandalf, The Grey
August 27, 2008 3:58 PM | Link to this
I have reached a decision, morons. Emotionally, its better when a woman does it because I am a heterosexual male. But tactically, a man knows his way around better. Conclusion: Legalize both and keep the law out of people’s private indulgences. I realize of course this makes me a liberal, so I must kill myself to remain honorable. But first I’m going to see Manuel one more time. Mios Dios that was good, buddy! Now go away.
By Gandalf, the Grey
August 27, 2008 4:05 PM | Link to this
Truth, I reckon it’s that copyleft, but I may be wrong. I post enough crap when I am half crocked after my 3 beer lunch breaks at the Pink Pony, but that isn’t one of mine!
By Archie
August 27, 2008 4:11 PM | Link to this
Is this the same film you are talking about with Don Cheadle? Nope, I was wrong!!! I saw a commercial with Cheadle in it shooting at someone and I thought you were talking about that but I was wrong.
A lot of what people do is more about preference than purpose. I heard a sermon about that Sunday. The minister couldn’t keep his entire sermon at that profound level the entire time but it was a good sermon that I heard on the way to church. So many people are extremely angry with John Edwards because he chose his preference over his purpose but one thing I have realized about human beings and that is, each one of us is flawed in some way. If Barack wins that would mean the last two presidents used illegal drugs and if McCain wins you have a guy that’s openly admitted to having an affair and other bad things.
By NYer
August 27, 2008 4:25 PM | Link to this
USinUK & Gale,
gah. backasswards states having say over people’s liberties. don’t like it? move. I hear where you’re coming from, but it is the UNITED states of America, not the Loosely Held Together by a Common IRS States of America. There needs to be a common level of civil liberties throughout the country.
Enjoyable hyperbole, but there are common civil liberties among the states - they are those guaranteed by the constitution. The activities not protected by the constitution are free to be legally proscribed by the state. That’s how the system is supposed to work.
of course, if it was THEIR rights under assault, they’d demand a Constitutional amendment
Huh? Remove the potential for emotion in the topic of abortion and realize one thing quite clearly: that’s exactly what I’m suggesting you ask for. I don’t want a laundry list of rights either, but seriously, let’s quit pu$$yfooting around - if we as a society want gay marriage and/or abortion on demand (or with whatever restrictions we can agree on) let’s have it, and let’s codify it in the constitution. And voila, then these rights won’t be subject to state interference. Otherwise, you’re stuck with the 10th.
It’s funny that the quote even uses the word “rights”. People seem to be missisng the big picture that under a loose interpretation of the constitution, what you think is a “right” today, that wasn’t a “right” thirty years ago might not be a “right” thirty years from now. That’s why you don’t want to rely on using the 14th as your backdoor (no pun intended).
and that’s my point. same with whistleblower laws. and sexual harassment laws. etc etc etc
There is that a stark difference between grappling with the interpretation of existing rights in a changing world, and creating new rights that previously did not exist. One makes plenty of sense. The other does not.
here’s the thing, though (alluded to so often in SC hearings): precedent.
I wouldn’t mind seeing a little more adherence to precedent, but I wouldn’t hang my hat on the SCOTUS relying upon it. It appears to do so at its whim rather than with any consistency. Sometimes you have clear adherence to precedent. Sometimes you have Lawrence or Brown, where prior rulings are overturned. And then sometimes you get Casey, which leaves pretty much everybody scratching their heads.
By Obsurvar
August 27, 2008 4:39 PM | Link to this
and Truth NEVER posts under other people’s name. and here we thought HE had started that trend. oh, wait, that was Bruno. THEN Truth.
tried to get into the slop-spelling bit with my name, how’d I do?
By Gandalf, the Grey
August 28, 2008 9:33 AM | Link to this
Abortion? A right? You people are really silly! It’s murder. Murder is not a right. You are so silly! It’s worse than what the Nazi’s did to the Jews and you people call it choice? How very, very silly.
By USinUK
August 28, 2008 9:54 AM | Link to this
GtG -
Abortion? A right? You people are really silly! It’s murder. Murder is not a right.
yes. just like birth control. it is a right. you may not like it, but not everyone agrees with YOUR definition of murder. in fact, a majority (roughly 80%) of Americans believe that abortion should remain legal.
(and, considering there are people who consider some forms of birth control murder, pardon me for not letting YOU be the one who draws that line)
By Truth
August 28, 2008 9:58 AM | Link to this
Gandalf the Grey (If that is you and not the half-wit playing his stupid little games)
I don’t think it is copyleft. It is the same gutless wonder that it always is.
By Truth
August 28, 2008 10:04 AM | Link to this
USinUK
I just read a ABC poll that said 46% support abortion. Where do you get 80%?
By Gandalf, the Grey
August 28, 2008 10:05 AM | Link to this
Birth Control, before conception, isn’t murder. Letting a live baby die after a failed abortion is. That is what Obama voted for, and it’s sick. Also murder, ripping it apart during partial birth abortion.
By Truth
August 28, 2008 10:11 AM | Link to this
USinUK
Gallop poll from 7/07 said Pro-Choice, 49%, Pro life 45%.That same poll 35% wanted Roe v Wade overturned. That is from a site called pollingreport.
By USinUK
August 28, 2008 10:21 AM | Link to this
Truth -
danged linkee issue … it was a LA Times poll that showed less than 25% of people wanted to prohibit all abortions. Everyone else favored abortion remaining legal (in one form or another)
By chuck
August 28, 2008 10:23 AM | Link to this
USinUK
We didn’t even have beginnings of public schools until the late 1700s, so the FF didn’t even have an opinion of prayer in public school.
Actually THEY DID HAVE an opinion on that when they SPECIFIED THAT CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW…
Had they said that STATE GOVERNMENTS shall make no law…you might have a point there, but I can tell you that they were VERY SPECIFIC in their use of the language here for a REASON. They did not presume to tell STATE GOVERNMENTS what they should and should not do with religion. The basic right to freedom of religion is a PERSONAL right, but they recognized the important role that religion plays in maintaining a VERY FRAGILE SYSTEM like democracy. The social order in a democracy is DEPENDENT on the will of the people to DO WHAT IS RIGHT. Unfortunately, the more SECULAR our society has become, the more LAWLESS it has become. Religion (more importantly FAITH) reminds us that there is a HIGHER POWER, a more important reason to be moral that resides outside of ourselves. Without it, it is CLEAR that we will eventually slip into anarchy which will soon be followed by some sort of AUTHORITARIAN government.
The entire point of a written constitution is to establish our method of government and codify the rights we believe are the highest, best, and most worthy of protection against the ebbs and flows of the political pendulum one way or the other, except in the cases where there is such overwhelming support for something that the threshold for amendment to the constitution is satisfied. Justices are appointed for life, the least democratic role in our entire government, precisely so that they will be abvoe the sway of politics and be neutral arbiters and interpreters. Yet by adopting a loose interpretation of the constitution that may change with political winds, our “highest and best” rights are constantly subject to potential adjudication, re-interpretation, and change by the courts. I would hope that everyone would find that disconcerting; I do, and whether you realize it or not, you do to, USinUK.
Excellent post NYer. The FF’s NEVER INTENDED the kind of power that has been usurped by the SCOTUS and COA’s. I have often wondered what would happen if a REAL MAN became President and decided to just tell the SCOTUS NO!!!. We really haven’t had that happen since Andrew Jackson. We’ve had a number of bills passed by HUGE MAJORITIES in congress that have been overturned. That’s just CRAZY.
USinUK
there were 2 birth control rulings before it that laid the groundwork … think of it as evolution, if you will … and then the decision has been upheld on 3 or 4 occasions. So, yeah, while it may have been built on a penumbra, the ground is prety solid, now.
In what way does STARTING OUT ON SHAKY GROUND somehow turn into standing on SOLID GROUND? That makes no logical sense. If the underlying decisions constituted an overreach by the courts then precedence is MEANINGLESS.
another gem:
of course, if it was THEIR rights under assault, they’d demand a Constitutional amendment
IF IT WAS A RIGHT, WE WOULD NOT NEED A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT!!!
A constitutional amendment is needed TO CREATE A NEW RIGHT, NOT CURRENTLY GRANTED UNDER EXISTING LAW. That is the whole point of the amendment process. Why do we have an amendment granting 18 year-olds the right to vote? Because that right was NOT GRANTED under the Constitution. THE AMERICAN PEOPLE decided that we needed to grant that right because these men and women in the armed forces were fighting to defend the right to self-government while at the same time they were not being allowed to participate in it. A NEW RIGHT was created.
but it is the UNITED states of America, not the Loosely Held Together by a Common IRS States of America. There needs to be a common level of civil liberties throughout the country.
UsinUK, here’s a definition for you.
FEDERALISM: a political system that divides powers between the national and state governments.
By Gale
August 28, 2008 10:28 AM | Link to this
From either poll, there are insufficient votes to pass an amendment to ban abortion. Remember the effort to pass the equal rights amendment?
Gandalf, when you are able to get get pregnant, and face the decision of whether to bring a seriously deformed baby into the world or abort it, then you can scream murder when a woman has to make that wrenching decision. Until then, shut T F up.
By USinUK
August 28, 2008 10:34 AM | Link to this
GtG -
Birth Control, before conception, isn’t murder. Letting a live baby die after a failed abortion is. That is what Obama voted for, and it’s sick. Also murder, ripping it apart during partial birth abortion.
in reverse order … late term abortions are done to maintain the fertility/health of the mother, are done because of severe health problems with the fetus and are less than 1% of all abortions performed. lastly, you have to have more than 1 doctor agree that they are medically necessary. you may not approve of them, but they’re not done blithely.
letting a live baby die - if you look at the legislation in question, it required doctors to do everything they could to save a baby, even one they knew had no chance of survival (it did NOT say that, if the mother gave birth to a healthy live child she had tried to abort, the doctor could/should let it die).
Birth Control, before conception, isn’t murder.
you gonna define conception? the Catholic church says it’s when sperm meets egg, doctors say implantation. you gonna ban the Pill?
By Truth
August 28, 2008 10:40 AM | Link to this
USinUK
I couldn’t post the links either.
Gale
Big disappointment in your post to GtG. When you are ready to say that the man should not be obligated to support that child for the next 18 years, then the guy should shut the hell up. But that isn’t the real issue. The real issue is that men are Fathers, a role that is just as important as the mother role, at least in a functioning family.
One of my best fiends just fathered down baby. Damn, what a decision that had to be. This is not easy for anybody, but to dismiss the viewpoint of the man is completely wrong.
By chuck
August 28, 2008 10:43 AM | Link to this
Gale:
From either poll, there are insufficient votes to pass an amendment to ban abortion. Remember the effort to pass the equal rights amendment?
Roe v. Wade is a load of CRAP. Again, this is a matter BEST left to the STATES. I can garauntee you that MANY states would pass COMMON SENSE laws restricting abortion THIS YEAR were it not for this ridiculous decision. I think it would be GREAT if states stood up for their rights under the Constitution and passed the laws ANYWAY. If the 35 or so states refused to abide by Roe v. Wade, what would or COULD the feds do? NOT MUCH. It would really be nice if our leaders had a little moral courage.
By Gale
August 28, 2008 10:44 AM | Link to this
A trip to the museum Monday where an exhibit of Houdan busts, caused me to google Rousseau regarding the social contract. I remember reading that Rousseau and Locke greatly influenced Jefferson. I think the social contract with the US government is broken. ANyone agree? From Wikipedia: The social contract and the civil rights it gives us are neither “natural” nor permanently fixed. Rather, the contract itself is the means towards an end — the benefit of all — and (according to some philosophers such as Locke or Rousseau), is only legitimate to the extent that it meets the general interest. Therefore, when failings are found in the contract, we renegotiate to change the terms, using methods such as elections and legislature. Locke theorized the right of rebellion in case of the contract leading to tyranny.
By USinUK
August 28, 2008 10:46 AM | Link to this
chuck -
Had they said that STATE GOVERNMENTS shall make no law…you might have a point there, but I can tell you that they were VERY SPECIFIC in their use of the language here for a REASON
so basically, you’re saying that state governments are, in fact, stronger than federal governments and can pass laws abridging civil liberties that the federal government cannot.
mmm-hmm.
The FF’s NEVER INTENDED the kind of power that has been usurped by the SCOTUS and COA’s
Neither the Supremes nor Congress are usurping power when they do their jobs acting as checks and balances. you may want a “real man” in the White House, but the FFs didn’t - they saw the tyranney of rule by 1 person and wanted none of that for the US. perhaps you’d be happier in North Korea, chuck …
Checks and balances - a system that allows each branch of a government to amend or veto acts of another branch so as to prevent any one branch from exerting too much power
By Gale
August 28, 2008 10:52 AM | Link to this
Yeah, let them ban all forms of contraception and condoms, too while they are at it. Let’s see how far that gets. (I am felling particularly bitter this morning.)
By Truth
August 28, 2008 10:54 AM | Link to this
USinUK
This is the original Hippocratic oath. It is not what doctors now take. They had to revise that “do no harm” part, which is basically the whole thing.
I swear by Apollo, Asclepius, Hygieia, and Panacea, and I take to witness all the gods, all the goddesses, to keep according to my ability and my judgment, the following Oath.
To consider dear to me, as my parents, him who taught me this art; to live in common with him and, if necessary, to share my goods with him; To look upon his children as my own brothers, to teach them this art.
I will prescribe regimens for the good of my patients according to my ability and my judgment and never do harm to anyone.
To please no one will I prescribe a deadly drug nor give advice which may cause his death.
Nor will I give a woman a pessary to procure abortion.
But I will preserve the purity of my life and my arts.
I will not cut for stone, even for patients in whom the disease is manifest; I will leave this operation to be performed by practitioners, specialists in this art.
In every house where I come I will enter only for the good of my patients, keeping myself far from all intentional ill-doing and all seduction and especially from the pleasures of love with women or with men, be they free or slaves.
All that may come to my knowledge in the exercise of my profession or in daily commerce with men, which ought not to be spread abroad, I will keep secret and will never reveal.
If I keep this oath faithfully, may I enjoy my life and practice my art, respected by all men and in all times; but if I swerve from it or violate it, may the reverse be my lot.
By Truth
August 28, 2008 10:59 AM | Link to this
USinUK
so basically, you’re saying that state governments are, in fact, stronger than federal governments and can pass laws abridging civil liberties that the federal government cannot.
How do you feel about California going past the SCOTUS in legalizing gay marriage?
By Gale
August 28, 2008 11:04 AM | Link to this
Truth, I believe the father of a child is the only person who should have an opinion in a woman’s choice to abort. However, if the father cannot change her mind, or agrees with the woman, then it is nobody else’s business. The government should stay out of this decision.
By USinUK
August 28, 2008 11:09 AM | Link to this
Truth -
When you are ready to say that the man should not be obligated to support that child for the next 18 years, then the guy should shut the hell up
I have no problem releasing men from their obligations to raise a child if all parties agree. However, I wonder how many of the 68 percent of child support cases which were in arrears in 2003 (according to FOX) were men who had families and walked out on them. In other words, not a case of a 20-year-old woman demanding support from her boyfriend, but a case of a 45-year-old man not paying for the child of the wife he deserted.
In other words, considering the majority of child support cases AREN’T being paid, your point is kind of moot.
By Gale
August 28, 2008 11:11 AM | Link to this
Interesting line, Truth. I will not cut for stone, even for patients in whom the disease is manifest; I will leave this operation to be performed by practitioners, specialists in this art. Should we have practicioners of abortion and euthanasia who are not MDs? That might resolve some conflict.
By USinUK
August 28, 2008 11:17 AM | Link to this
Truth -
How do you feel about California going past the SCOTUS in legalizing gay marriage?
going past the Supremes? In 2004, the Supremes declined to hear a challenge to the MA ruling on gay marriage, letting the MA law stand. So, they didn’t dodge the Supremes, if anything, they followed the Supreme’s lead.
By John
August 28, 2008 11:18 AM | Link to this
My woman made the decision without me. Now I wish I hadn’t been such a pr!ck. Wish I could go back in time and tell her I would have been there for them both. All she had to go on was what a pr!ck I was. For a long time I blamed everybody else. Fact is, she was to scared to handle it and thats because of me.
By Truth
August 28, 2008 11:23 AM | Link to this
USinUK
In other words, considering the majority of child support cases AREN’T being paid, your point is kind of moot.
That would mean that all men are to be punished for the misbehavior of other men. It only works like that in the world of Democrats. In the real world, millions and millions of good men give a large part of their income to support their children.
But by your logic, since there are always cases of the Moms taking that hard earned money and wasting it or spending it on themselves, all men should be released from that obligation. Right? Or does Democratic fantasy law only apply against men?
By NYer
August 28, 2008 11:28 AM | Link to this
Neither the Supremes nor Congress are usurping power when they do their jobs acting as checks and balances.
Of course this is the case. But that’s not what happens when the Supremes, or other courts, create rights that did not exist previously. That is usurping the authority of the people and the legislature.
The supremes have a very delicate job. They should not overstep their bounds because, as justices are appointed for life, they are beyond the reach of the electorate. This was obviously intended to the case, but was done so that they would remain neutral arbiters and interpreters of the law, not makers of it. They wield tremendous power if they begin to “make law” and “make rights”.
Lord Acton certainly did not say “Power tends to purify”.
By Truth
August 28, 2008 11:29 AM | Link to this
USinUK
*Declining to hear a challenge is not supporting the stance. But if we are talking about the actual legallity of gay marriage: (From Wikipedia)
In 1996, the United States Congress passed the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman amongst other stipulations.[15] As of May 2007, twenty-six states have passed constitutional amendments explicitly barring the recognition of same-sex marriage.[16], eighteen of which prohibit the legal recognition of any same-sex union. Nineteen additional states have legal statutes that define “marriage” as a union of two persons of the opposite-sex.[17] The territory of Puerto Rico ratified a similar statute in 1998. Nonetheless, some states are beginning to offer legal recognition to same-sex couples, whether in the form of marriage or as civil unions or domestic partnerships.
By Gale
August 28, 2008 11:33 AM | Link to this
For the men who ARE paying child support, and I know or have known several, one who was dutifully paying for children he fathered when still a legal minor, the time to object to a child is when he first knows of it. Hopefully, the woman is honest enough to talk about it right away. I suspect most of those men who are faithfully paying child support wanted those children to be born.
By Truth
August 28, 2008 11:35 AM | Link to this
John
If anybody would know whether or not you are a prick, it would be you. And apparently you are convinced that you are a prick. At this point, I simply can’t, nor do I want to disagree with you.
So you win. I think everyone can agree: you are a prick. Thanks for playing.
By Gale
August 28, 2008 11:41 AM | Link to this
I would like to reprase what Truth said: That would mean that all women can to be punished for the misbehavior of some men. Criminalizing abortion without exception would mean that women can be forced to give birth to a child they did not want or agree to carry. Sometimes, this woman will be a child as young as 10 years old.
By Truth
August 28, 2008 11:42 AM | Link to this
Gale
Strange stuff. The medical field is considered an “Art”. Surgeons are considered something else.
In the classical re-do of the oatth, that line says: I will not use the knife, not even on sufferers from stone, but will withdraw in favor of such men as are engaged in this work.
I think that means that a doctor will not practice surgery. Sufferers from stone? I have been a sufferer of stoned, but that doesn’t require surgery, at least not with the sh^t that we were smoking.
By USinUK
August 28, 2008 11:45 AM | Link to this
Truth -
re: gay marriage -
you asked what I thought about Cali dodging the Supremes. my point was they didn’t. the Supremes decided not to hear the MA case, so Cali didn’t dodge anything. when they decided on the Cali law, they applied the Cali constitution. nothing whatsoever to do with the US constitution or the US Supremes.
re: child support -
That would mean that all men are to be punished for the misbehavior of other men. It only works like that in the world of Democrats.
um - only in the world of Democrats? who paints all welfare recipients with the “welfare queen driving a Caddy” brush??? why, I do believe that would be the GOP.
and, no, I’m not saying that all men should be punished for the misbehavior of a majority (68%). I’m simply saying that it makes your point moot. more than 2 out of 3 men aren’t paying support to begin with, so it’s not like they’re experiencing “taxation without representation”, as it were.
By Truth
August 28, 2008 11:45 AM | Link to this
NYer
The supremes have a very delicate job.
They had a very delicate job, alright. Dealing with that Diva would have been tough on anyone. But after Diana Ross left them, they didn’t even have a job, or not much of one, anyway.
By Gale
August 28, 2008 11:47 AM | Link to this
Geez Truth, John did say ‘was”. You could give him the benefit of the doubt. Maybe he has reformed.
By Frank
August 28, 2008 11:50 AM | Link to this
Looks like States Rights champions like the concept, just as long as States don’t approve gay marriage. Then they wish it to be a Federal/amendment Issue.
By USinUK
August 28, 2008 11:53 AM | Link to this
Truth -
I think that means that a doctor will not practice surgery. Sufferers from stone? I have been a sufferer of stoned, but that doesn’t require surgery, at least not with the sh^t that we were smoking.
kidney stones - according to wiki, they were removed by barbers (!!!) and it was considered “beneath” physicians to do this kind of surgery
(considering how many women sought out the help of crones/wise women, it does lead one to wonder if abortion was considered the same)
By USinUK
August 28, 2008 11:58 AM | Link to this
NYer-
They should not overstep their bounds because, as justices are appointed for life, they are beyond the reach of the electorate. This was obviously intended to the case, but was done so that they would remain neutral arbiters and interpreters of the law, not makers of it. They wield tremendous power if they begin to “make law” and “make rights”.
you say “make rights” - I say “interpret the Constitution and what privacy from government intrusion” really means.
to-may-to
to-mah-to
By chuck
August 28, 2008 12:00 PM | Link to this
USinUK
so basically, you’re saying that state governments are, in fact, stronger than federal governments and can pass laws abridging civil liberties that the federal government cannot.
Why don’t you try reading the entire post. If the word CONGRESS is not significant as you claim, WHY DID THEY USE IT ONLY FOR THIS AMENDMENT?!?!?
The whole purpose of this amendment was to prevent the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT FROM ESTABLISHING A NATIONAL RELIGION (see Church of England). It was not to PREVENT ALL PUBLIC (EVEN GOVERNMENT SPONSORED) RELIGIOUS ACTS OR DISPLAYS. Their own actions have made this abundantly clear. They begin each session of congress with PRAYER. They PAY a congressional Chaplain. Are these the actions of people who would have REMOTELY extended that amendment to the degree of that done by the SCOTUS?
USinUK, once again, nice job trying to obfuscate the point when you have no REAL answer to it.
Neither the Supremes nor Congress are usurping power when they do their jobs acting as checks and balances. you may want a “real man” in the White House, but the FFs didn’t - they saw the tyranney of rule by 1 person and wanted none of that for the US. perhaps you’d be happier in North Korea, chuck
If you look up the definition of USURP, you might note that the point of the post was the OBVIOUS fact that the SCOTUS has gone way beyond what the Constitution allowed them to do in their role in “checking” the other branches. They have taken over the role of the legislative branch by MAKING LAW from the bench. They have taken over the role of the executive branch by FORCING specific implementation of their decisions. Andrew Jackson was given as an example of a President who had the guts to tell the SCOTUS to go stuff themselves. He basically said “Do you have an army with which YOU can enforce that decision?” Then he refused to enforce it saying:
“the decision of the supreme court has fell still born, and they find that it cannot coerce Georgia to yield to its mandate. ”
Jackson did exactly what he should have done in that situation. When huge majorities in congress pass legislation and the President signs it, the SC has NO RIGHT to impose it’s POLITICAL view OVER THOSE of the people WE ELECTED to make those decisions. Being on the SC DOES NOT MAKE THEM SUPREME BEINGS.
As for the little North Korea comment…BITE ME!
By Truth
August 28, 2008 12:03 PM | Link to this
Gale
Don’t do this third person crap. I know you are having a bad day, but I am not your enemy. All I want as does anyone is that the number of abortions drop dramatically. Ideally, we would launch extensive sex education classes that told the real story of the agony that a woman must endure in order to decide to kill her child. But instead, abortion is presented as just another birth control option. That 10 year old should have been taught that having sex as a nine year old was dangerous and wrong on every front. That wasn’t done. It also wasn’t taught to the guy that impregnated the 9 year old.
I am for at least improving the problem instead of simply accepting it.
If you get a chance to see last week’s ABC 20/20 called Babyland, you will se the problem. They state the problem with a frankness that i have never seen on a national network, The VAST number of abortions are performed on specific sub-cultures in this country that have the same lack of sex education. They get the democrat’s version of sex ed, but the result is obvious. The democats tell 9 year old that they have a personal choice.
This is telling a girl that can’t make the choice between chocolate and hard candy that she has the choice of life or death over another human being that just happens to be her own child. Most abortion supporters want that 9 year old to have the power to decide the life or death and her own parents would have no say in whether or not she kills her child.
Don’t you want the number of abortions to drop? Maybe if we stop trying to hang these talking point titles on each other, we could make some headway in reducing abortions. Let’s figure out how to teach certain sub-cultures that a boy impregnating everything that is able to walk, does not make that boy a man.
By USinUK
August 28, 2008 12:04 PM | Link to this
observation about AJC censors …
they have no problem with the word “prick”
but, when I talked about the act of getting a bullet in a chamber (c o c k), they got the vapors …
::: rolling eyes :::
By NYer
August 28, 2008 12:05 PM | Link to this
Gale,
Truth, I believe the father of a child is the only person who should have an opinion in a woman’s choice to abort. However, if the father cannot change her mind, or agrees with the woman, then it is nobody else’s business. The government should stay out of this decision.
Two points:
1) All of the abortion decisions recognize the state’s obvious interest in protecting the life of the unborn, so to say that woman and her husband are the only people who should have a say (at any time during the pregnancy) ignores even the existing precedents concerning abortion.
2) Timing matters. In the balance between the interest of the state in the life of the unborn, and the interest that the woman has in maintaining control of her body and reproductivity, the courts have clearly said that the balance is tilted to the woman until the fetus is viable, and then once the fetus is viable, that balance shifts toward the state and the unborn. That was part of the basis for allowing abortions in the first trimester in Roe.
Frankly, I agree with that kind of compromise - the woman is in charge and makes decisions until viability. Once that is established, the interest of the state and the unborn take priority.
For the avoidance of doubt, what I find so troubling, is not the ends, but the means. The way in which the decision was reached, through the SCOTUS, using the due process clause, is very problematic (IMO) from a separation of powers standpoint.
By NYer
August 28, 2008 12:10 PM | Link to this
Looks like States Rights champions like the concept, just as long as States don’t approve gay marriage. Then they wish it to be a Federal/amendment Issue.
That’s certainly not what I’ve said.
By Truth
August 28, 2008 12:18 PM | Link to this
SUinUK
Where do you get that 68% figure?
By NYer
August 28, 2008 12:22 PM | Link to this
you say “make rights” - I say “interpret the Constitution and what privacy from government intrusion” really means.
Again, I revert to let’s be unequivocal about it, lest you run the risk of a different court “interpreting” the Constitution differently.
But you guys will never go with that. It’s too easy to go the route you’ve traveled the last forty years or so than to either push through an amendment or to make the case at the state level for state laws. The only way you lose is when you get a different court that gives you a different interpretation, which I think is a big reason the court has become so politicized in my lifetime.
My problem with all of this is that there already exists a method for accomplishing what you want to get done. And I would be wholly supportive of the actual liberties themselves (in the case of early term abortions and recognition of homosexual unions consistent with heterosexual ones). But the method in which this is currently being accomplished strikes me as being obviously outside the bounds of how the system was intended to work and therefore undermines the system going forward. And that, I believe, will eventually be a problem for us all.
By USinUK
August 28, 2008 12:28 PM | Link to this
Truth -
Where do you get that 68% figure?
it was a story from FOX - they cited a 2003 Federal report. - google “in defense of deadbeat dads” - it’s the first link that pops up
:::shaking fist at AJC and the link problem:::
By Truth
August 28, 2008 12:34 PM | Link to this
USinUK
Kidney stones? Yeeeee. What were these people eating and even more disturbing, what was the procedure. YEEEEEEEE!!!
I’m telling you, girl. We have all won the super-duper powerball lottery. To be born at this time and in this country compared to the options. Wow, “I really hurt when I pee, so I’m going down to the barber shop and get it fixed.” No thanks. Maybe my HMO is not as bad as i thought.
I think the AJC just has a search engine that finds words and censors them.
By USinUK
August 28, 2008 12:39 PM | Link to this
NYer -
Again, I revert to let’s be unequivocal about it, lest you run the risk of a different court “interpreting” the Constitution differently
and, as I mentioned earlier, I do understand where you’re coming from (a perfect illustration of your point - separate but equal) - but laundry lists … bad bad idea …
But the method in which this is currently being accomplished strikes me as being obviously outside the bounds of how the system was intended to work and therefore undermines the system going forward. And that, I believe, will eventually be a problem for us all.
I think we’re more in agreement that you may think - because I do understand and agree with the intent … I just think that, the minute you start enumerating rights, that means anything not on the list isn’t.
By Pepe Le Pew
August 28, 2008 12:42 PM | Link to this
Does anyone know what Truth is talking about? Nine year olds getting the “democrat’s version of sex ed” and deciding to have sex and make life or death decisions? Men impregnating nine year olds because they haven’t been taught not to? That’s the reason? “The VAST number of abortions are performed on specific sub-cultures in this country that have the same lack of sex education. They get the democrat’s version of sex ed, but the result is obvious. The democats tell 9 year old that they have a personal choice.” What? Where and what decade or century is this happening? Which sex ed programs implemented where tell nine year olds they can choose abortion if they want to go ahead and start screwing? What data is used to make these claims? Is there a basis for this rambling besides an infotainment show specifically edited and promoted to get you to watch their channel over another? Since when did “truth” become a subjective entity? Facts actually exist outside of how you want to interpret them. That’s why there is are different words in the language for the terms “facts”, “opinions”, “lies” and “propaganda”.
By USinUK
August 28, 2008 12:48 PM | Link to this
Truth -
I’m telling you, girl. We have all won the super-duper powerball lottery. To be born at this time and in this country compared to the options. Wow, “I really hurt when I pee, so I’m going down to the barber shop and get it fixed.” No thanks. Maybe my HMO is not as bad as i thought.
I’m sayin!! 2 of my neighbors just had bladder stones zapped and extracted - something that would have been unheard of a few years ago … my sister just had breast cancer found in such early stages she wouldn’t have felt a lump for months - they took it out and she’s free and clear! laser eye surgery … hip/knee replacement …
we do live in amazing times.
makes you start to think about the treatments we do now - and which are going to seem “stone age” in the next 20-50 years!
By Truth
August 28, 2008 12:52 PM | Link to this
Here we go.
The sideline sniper is back. I guess that 14 day vacation that only lasted for 6 days just didn’t do the trick.
By Gale
August 28, 2008 1:10 PM | Link to this
Truth, the 10 year old was a victim of rape, others, 10-13, were victims of incest, and some, yes, were stupid. It doesn’t mean they should carry the fetus to term, either way. One case had a judge tying the process of an abortion decision for an 11 year old for months while he deliberated until it was too late. They are too young. Odd how someone can be concerned about the bone maturity of a 13 year old gymnist, but think it is ok to give birth at that age. Here’s another consideration for these very young women. Many of them will hide the pregnancy for months because they are afraid to tell their parents. While my personal opinion is that a first trimester abortion is the woman’s decision alone, I will grant that a later decision really should be discussed with a doctor at the least.
Democrats version of sex-ed? It is George W who removed funding for family planning in developing countries if they provide birth control and abortions. Sure, just say no will work.
By ed
August 28, 2008 1:11 PM | Link to this
Based on reading these comments, the Democrats are trying to have a reasonable, rational discussion; the Republicans are just plain nasty. You decide.
By Truth
August 28, 2008 1:17 PM | Link to this
USinUk
Remember the Star Trek movie where they came back to modern day San Fran? great flick, and i can never find it in the $5 bin at Walmart, Target or Best Buys.
Remember when Bones was standing in the elevator (lift to you limies), he overheard two doctors talking about radical chemotherapy. He said something about the dark ages. I always thought about that when i would video tape surgery. Sometimes, it would really look like something out of a horror movie. Someone completely opened up and you can see the beating heart. It is straight out of Friday the 13th.
And the really disturbing thing is how casual everyone is. The doctor says “Spreader”, is handed this horrible looking piece of equipment that is lodged between the sides of an incision on the breastplate, and it rips the guys rib cage open. Sometimes I wanted to run screaming into the hallway.
By Truth
August 28, 2008 1:28 PM | Link to this
Gale
Who said that it is OK for the 13 year old to give birth? If you had looked at anything about the 20/20 episode I mehtioned, you would see that the term Babyland is the Memphis “Potter’s Field, (Publically funded cemetery) that was called Babyland because so many young babies died because they had been children of children. I worked TV news for almost ten of my 29 years in the industry. Any horror stories that you have heard or read about, I have probably seen. I understand the problems. I understand that it is never Black or White. i understand that it is an incredibly complex issue.
Why does it have to be like this, Gale? Can’t you civilly discuss abortions without trying to make me look like some f^cking monster? I want to save lives of children. Does that make me a monster?
By Gale
August 28, 2008 1:29 PM | Link to this
What makes you think you can determine from the comments which are dems and which are repubs, unless they say so of course. Well, I might guess someone pointedly criticizing the dems would be a republican or an independent. But I might be wrong there too.
By NYer
August 28, 2008 1:34 PM | Link to this
USinUK,
You may disagree, but I honestly don’t think my method would lead to a laundry list. The bar is set so high for an amendment, or to fight a state law battle in every state that only the really important items would ever come close to reaching that kind of threshold.
I think we’re more in agreement that you may think - because I do understand and agree with the intent
There is hope for you yet, my dear! big smile and wink.
I just think that, the minute you start enumerating rights, that means anything not on the list isn’t
But that’s kinda how it works, though. We’re talking about the rights enumerated under the federal constitution. Everything else is (supposed) to be left to the states and/or the people. The states have their own constitutions that can and do provide more/different liberties, providing for slight to even material variations depending on the individual state and the issue at hand. The states will continue to do so as long as they don’t get crosswise with the federal constitution. That’s federalism.
By NYer
August 28, 2008 1:40 PM | Link to this
Truth,
Come on man - The Voyage Home a great flick? It can’t hold a candle to Wrath of Khan.
Kirk: “I’m laughing at the superior intellect”
By Gale
August 28, 2008 1:50 PM | Link to this
Truth, I don’t watch 20/20 and I don’t actually watch much TV. Citing a TV program does not make anything clear for me. You are probably right and I am sorry you take my position on abortion personally. When anyone talks about removing legal abortion with no exception, I get very angry.
By Big Fish
August 28, 2008 2:32 PM | Link to this
Ask for the back story. It’s a whopper!
By Truth
August 28, 2008 2:32 PM | Link to this
NYer
The only one I didn’t like was the first one. And I didn’t really compare anything. I thought the Voyage Home had some clever moments, but the plot was pretty weak.
I am not a huge Sci-Fi fan. I think it is because there is so much crap because it is so cheap to produce, nowadays.
I like unusual twists like the backwards Seinfeld episode or Ground Hog Day. I also like very good stories like any of the Neil Simon trilogy, especially Boluxi Blues.
By USinUK
August 28, 2008 2:33 PM | Link to this
NYer -
There is hope for you yet, my dear! big smile and wink.
I should hope so, fellow Gemini!! :-D
We’re talking about the rights enumerated under the federal constitution. Everything else is (supposed) to be left to the states and/or the people
aha … but basically, the way SC challenges work is that you are assumed to have that right unless a law abridges it and is challenged. (at least, that’s always been my interpretation of the basic legal process). doing the laundry list will result in the opposite - assumption that you DON’T have the right if it isn’t in the list.
By USinUK
August 28, 2008 2:38 PM | Link to this
Truth -
I’m not a Trekkie (unless forced), so I’ll take your word for the movie …
you think rib spreaders are bad? you should hear what they do for bowel operations … or see what knee replacement surgery looks like … eeeeyyyyikes.
the most interesting thing I read about is surgery they’re starting to do through your mouth … instead of “keyhole” surgery, they’re calling it “piehole” surgery hahahaha …
By Truth
August 28, 2008 2:40 PM | Link to this
gale
When anyone talks about removing legal abortion with no exception, I get very angry.
When I take that stance, get very angry with me. But until then, try to read what I actually say. I don’t want any abortions … or crime, or pain or hunger. Who would? But I understand why they happen. I would like to start by reducing the number of abortions by girls not getting pregnant. You know, without that pregnancy, there would be no abortions.
Does that make you angry? Let’s start to fix the causes. Is there anything wrong with that? “Just say no” is a great place to start. And then let’s educate why it is so damned important that they just say no. This summary dismissal of any solution other than “Let’s kill it, and let’s kill it now”, tends to make me a little angry.
By Gandalf, the Grey
August 28, 2008 2:41 PM | Link to this
Truth, Any poll number found on this blog is a statistic. and we all know what Sam Clemens, AKA Mark Twain, said about that: “There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics”
By USinUK
August 28, 2008 2:45 PM | Link to this
chuck -
Why don’t you try reading the entire post. If the word CONGRESS is not significant as you claim, WHY DID THEY USE IT ONLY FOR THIS AMENDMENT?!?!?
I read your entire post. you want to endow states with more power than the federal government. you think states should be able to make laws abridgiing free assembly, free speech and free practice of religion. I’m sure the non-Mormons in Utah appreciate your sentiment, but would gladly decline your generous offer. Just as I’m sure the non-SoBaps in GA would do the same.
They have taken over the role of the legislative branch by MAKING LAW from the bench. They have taken over the role of the executive branch by FORCING specific implementation of their decisions.
they interpret law and whether or not it contradicts the rights afforded to us by the Constitution. just because you don’t LIKE their decision doesn’t make it WRONG or an act of USURPING power.
As for the little North Korea comment…BITE ME!
hahahahahahahahaha … you were the one who likes manly men who rule without regard to balance of power or democracy … I just recommended one for you …
By USinUK
August 28, 2008 2:55 PM | Link to this
Truth -
But I understand why they happen. I would like to start by reducing the number of abortions by girls not getting pregnant. You know, without that pregnancy, there would be no abortions.
that lines you up with every pro-choicer I know. we ALL would like to see abortion disappear - but because it’s no longer needed, not because it’s no longer legal.
Does that make you angry? Let’s start to fix the causes. Is there anything wrong with that? “Just say no” is a great place to start. And then let’s educate why it is so damned important that they just say no.
except “just say no” doesn’t work - teen pregnancy rates have been RISING over the last few years, following the adoption of the abstinence-only lessons. we need facts - all the facts - the more information they get, the better prepared they are to make the right decision.
By NYer
August 28, 2008 3:16 PM | Link to this
USinUK,
but basically, the way SC challenges work is that you are assumed to have that right unless a law abridges it and is challenged. (at least, that’s always been my interpretation of the basic legal process). doing the laundry list will result in the opposite - assumption that you DON’T have the right if it isn’t in the list.
First, I don’t think we end up with a laundry list, as I’ve said before. Second, I don’t think the default position of having the liberty is altered in my view/method. I still believe you can do what you want as long as you don’t infringe upon the law. And then if you’re found to be violating the law you can challenge its constitutionality either at the state or federal level. I don’t see how that is changed, and frankly, don’t want to see that changed.
By NYer
August 28, 2008 3:23 PM | Link to this
I thought the Voyage Home had some clever moments, but the plot was pretty weak.
I’m with you there, Truth.
By Mara
August 28, 2008 3:26 PM | Link to this
afternoon, folks. Reading through the posts and decided to make two comments, both in regard to NYer’s and USinUk’s topic -
NYer - But that’s not what happens when the Supremes, or other courts, create rights that did not exist previously.
I disagree that SCOTUS or state courts are “creating rights”. Regarding same-sex marriage, the Mass Supreme Court didn’t “legalize” it nor “create” any special right for gays that hetero’s don’t already enjoy. What they did do was point out that there was no state law prohibiting it, therefore it was already legal within that state. That’s why there was such a flurry of states writing constitutional amendments to criminalize it within their own juristictions.
While you and others rail about some citizens finally being afforded the same rights as others already enjoy, I’d like to point out that many of the rights that were listed in the Constitution are no longer actually “rights” so much as “suggestions”.
Free speech is no longer an unabridgable right..just try expressing sympathy for the “wrong” causes or groups.
Free assembly is no longer an unabridgable right either. Just ask anyone who wants to have any kind of rally or march. Local administrators can refuse you and even have you arrested if you persist in gathering without a permit. And then you have “security zones” which push protestors away from any “sensitive” areas and out of sight/mind of those they’re trying to influence.
Search and seizure protections are pretty irrelevant these days, as is due process, habeus corpus, and the prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment.
While you’re complaining about one group being allowed to share the same rights as another bunch, the rights that the founders considered unassailable and vital to the survival of democracy have been eroded and chipped away until they are little more than pretty anachronisms. Instead of demanding that we hetero’s be allowed to retain the extra-special status of our relationships, maybe a bit more attention should be lavished on the Bill of Rights before those are considered “special rights” too.
By Truth
August 28, 2008 3:26 PM | Link to this
USinUK
Nothing has worked very well.
Yes, of course REAL education and hard core anti-sex programs need to be established. The final optimum result would be for the girls and the boys to know enough to JUST SAY NO. This accepting that the kids are just going to have sex hasn’t worked very well. And the horrible thing about it is the fact that such young girls are now having babies at a higher rate than ever before. Let’s start by teaching kids not to have sex at age 10. There’s no pregnancy risk or STDs if they just don’t have sex, at least until they are post puberty. It isn’t a matter of teaching morality. it is a matter of survival.
By Gandalf, the Grey
August 28, 2008 3:34 PM | Link to this
“if my daughter made a mistake I wouldn’t her want to pay for it by having a baby” I guess he knows what kind of sluts his wife is raising!
By Gale
August 28, 2008 3:59 PM | Link to this
Re: abortion, I agree with USinUK. Abstinence only programs do not work. And yes, kids will have sex. The homones rage at those ages and we all know it. They need all the facts. It is sad that such young kids voluntarily engage in sex. If I ran the zoo, they would all get long term birth control that wouldn’t be removed until they passed a parenting class. But even that is a partial solution and will not protect them from STDs.
Mara, you remind me of my earlier comment about Russeau. The social contract with our government is broken.
By Jenna Jameson
August 28, 2008 4:18 PM | Link to this
“hard core anti-sex programs?” Well make up your mind!
By Truth
August 28, 2008 4:36 PM | Link to this
Gale
No it doesn’t eliminate STDs and it also doesn’t eliminate the culture that dictates that the girl’s total worth is located between her legs. Since when are 13 year olds ” just going to have sex”? This is the problem. I’m not saying that teen agers aren’t going to have sex, but let’s start pushing that acceptance age up as far and as fast as we can.
There are sub cultures in the country that have an extremely low occurrence of teen pregnancies. As horrible as this may sound, let’s look at what they are doing and start teaching those approaches to the sub-cultures that are less successful. Instead of this socialtal engineering in order to continue to strengthen just one political party, let’s use it to fix some problems.
What we are doing isn’t working. We are killing a million babies a year. While you believe in astrology, i believe in Karma. Killing a million babies a year with all the pain and anti-instinctive training that it takes to openly accept abortions can not be good Karma.
By NYer
August 28, 2008 5:15 PM | Link to this
Mara,
My examples of creating rights did not include same sex marriage. I spoke specifically to Lawrence and Roe.
In both those decisions, the SCOTUS invalidated existing laws that had been in place. So yes, in both those situations, the courts determined that the “right” existed, where previously it did not. And it is obvious that the right did not previously exist because it had already been proscribed in the state, passed into law by the people and/or their elected legislatures. Many of the laws invalidated by these cases in Texas and in states with similar laws had been in effect for significant lengths of time, so it would be rather preposterous to argue that the right had always existed and had somehow been illegally proscribed by the states.
While you and others rail about some citizens finally being afforded the same rights as others already enjoy,
You must have glossed over the part where I said I personally would be in favor of states recognizing homosexual unions in the same way they do heterosexual ones.
Frankly, my discussion with USinUK is far less about any particular issue, be it gay marriage, abortion or something else, but rather, the way in which the system works today, and whether that really coincides with how the system is supposed to work. Even though I agree with the legality of private consensual sodomy and early term abortions, I think I’ve very cleary stated I have a problem with the manner in which these results were achieved. The ends don’t justify the means in my book.
Free speech is no longer an unabridgable right..just try expressing sympathy for the “wrong” causes or groups. Free assembly is no longer an unabridgable right either.
The rights enumerated in the constitution are not and were never intended to be absolute. I do have the right to free assembly; I just can’t exercise it in the middle of I-285 on a Friday afternoon and cause a huge traffic jam. Ergo I don’t have the right to cause a public disturbance. I have the right to free speech; but I am not immune to dissenting commentary from others exercising the same right.
By Georgia Gal
September 14, 2008 9:52 AM | Link to this
Both parties over the years have run extremely negative campaigns, but far and away this year the truly guilty party is definetely the Republicans. I feel like I am living in South Carolina during the Republican primary in 2000. Did the McCain campaign hire Karl Rove or something??
By Cathy Letts
September 17, 2008 12:53 PM | Link to this
I have just witnessed, with the receipt of a strategically-timed and inflammatory DVD, the depths to which some politicians will stoop to be elected.
How did we end up in Iraq? The Bush administration convinced the public and Congress that Saddam Hussein was out to get us, that his possession and use of “weapons of mass destruction” was imminent. This public brainwashing was perpetrated in spite of the fact that there were weapons inspectors who had visited Iraq and found no supporting evidence of this assertion. One such investigator, Scott Ritter, had once criticized the Clinton administration for not being tough enough on Iraq. In 2002, prior to the U.S. invasion, Mr. Ritter very publicly went on record saying that there were no WMD’s in Iraq. The point is that our elected leaders used propaganda to mislead us into sitting back while they invaded another country, overthrew a leader who we had helped bring to power with funding, arms, and CIA connections beginning as early as 1959 and continuing into the early 1980’s with the Reagan administration.
Now, the “mavericks” McCain and Palin are strategically using the same fear-mongering propaganda to ooze their way into the White House. First, they played clips of the September 11th attack at their Republican Convention. During her rare interview with Charlie Gibson, amongst questions about the economy, Palin made sure to mention how wary we must be of Islamic terrorism. Now, the battleground states are being flooded with a DVD mailing (Obsession: Radical Islam’s War Against the West) intended to promote fear. It’s full of scenes of 9-11, bloody images, and angry-looking crowds chanting in a language few Americans understand. One of the film’s touted experts, Itamar Marcus, espouses, “That’s the purpose of the Islamic’s propaganda. It’s to make the people angry, hateful against the West…to be willing to fight them.”
It would appear that this is precisely the tact that the Republicans are currently using. Once again, they are attempting to make Americans angry and fearful of Muslims so that we will be anxious to fight them and be more apt to elect a warrior rather than a diplomat to our highest office. After the past eight years, still embroiled in an unfounded war, do we REALLY want another warrior rather than a president with strong diplomatic skills and the wisdom to know when to use words and when to use force? Will we as a nation fall for this old diversionary tactic once again?