Politics: A new beginning

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
For the last time:

no last times here. i bet we get another argument someday about how JFK was the only skipper to lose a PT boat in WWII.
so humor me.

Because the official unemployment rate is a function of the number of people who report that they have been looking for work and unable to find it, not a measure of the percentage of people in society who do not have work.

"the number of people who report that they have been looking for work and unable to find it" can only be part of the equation for a percentage. the nopwr is divided by the total number of people in the workforce, which grows 150K each month.

that means 150 is less than 60 + people who drop out, right. I know you wrote on this, but it was late. Is there anything else?

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
Skipping 600 words to the chase here. Roe federalism? What is that, the "we make shit up" type?

Frankly, yes. Federalism don't mean shit to the GOP when we're talking about social legislation. Esp. when GOP leaders say stuff like "We're a Christian nation" when what they really mean is that their home town was 100% Baptist and they think everyone in America should have experienced their childhood. Even the ones who are now grown up, and must now experience it as 40-year-olds.

OK, so we have Congress staging weekly debates. Are we premising this on the idea that pro-lifers (mild or extreme) are the majority of the electorate and the majority of congress? Don't tell my crowd this, but I'm pretty sure that this is demonstrably not true. Cf. anything but the PBA ban. The only truth I've seen is that pro-lifers are far more likely to be single issue voters (relatively and in absolute numbers) than pro-choicers. But, I think we are going to an "America is a pro-life majority" argument here. We'll see.

Congress as presently constituted would have no problem enacting a resolution to the effect that the policy of the United States is to encourage live births of all fetuses conceived in the U.S. Even the pro-Roe crowd has to pay lip service to the miracle of birth, and that abortion is a necessary evil, lest they be seen as ghoulish. It's not just another arrow in the birth control quiver, even to the pro-Roe crowd.

As to the second, uhm, you skipped a few dozen steps here. How do the 5 or 10 reps coopt the federal government into adopting a legitimate federal goal of "encouraging birth", at least insofar as that implies it is discouraging abortion?

The resolution first enacted will say nothing about discouraging abortion per se. It won't need to. Have you never listened to a congressional debate? You say things like "This bill will give every child conceived in the United States a fighting chance at living a full and productive life."

As to the first... anti-travel? Anti-speech? Ahh, I see why your avatar is smirking now.

What? I'm sure 90% of nations banning abortion have specific provisions making it illegal to travel overseas for the purpose of procuring an abortion. Why is it absurd to predict that a state will attempt this, too? Why is it absurd to think that a congressman will campaign based on federalizing interstate travel regs? Bilmore seems to think this is a potential Commerce Clause regulation, and he's a smart guy.

And, of course, the congressional involvement somehow seems to miss the premise that the Sup. Ct. has already tossed it out of the Federal arena. How do we get it back in?

Because the Constitution has more than one sentence in it. Overturning RvW implies that there is no constitutional right to medical privacy imposed on the states by the 14th Amendment, not that the Congress has nothing to say about regulation of the medical profession or burdening interstate travel or commerce.

I also don't buy your argument about who you think we worry about. Why worry about California but not Canada? Why worry about California but not Ireland? I mean, are you willing to recognize only the U.S. borders as the boundaries of my concern?

If you think that after 30 years of the anti-abortion movement, Virginians only care about Virginia babies, and Sooners only care about Oklahoma babies, you're looney tunes. I'm sure they're disgusted by what the Canadians do to their babies, and the French do to theirs. But casting a vote for and in Congress is easier than invading.

Well, the insurance question is an interesting one, as is anything related to the extension of state legislative authority. But the rest? Well, I just don't see how the electorate suddenly starts electing 51% single-issue pro-lifers to both houses, or how congress suddenly gets to start ignoring the Sup. Ct.

Congress will need to step in to regulate the relations between the states with regard to conflicting abortion policies in states that border each other, at the very least. Neither you nor I have the power to overturn Roe. If it happens, bookmark my post and we'll see who winds up closer to the truth. If one party controls Congress, it will enact some watered-down version of its party's abortion philosophy in order to fulfull the campaign promises of, and thereby re-elect, its extremists. Then, those policies will all be overturned when Congress changes hands.

Thirty years of stability that pisses off one side will look like a cakewalk compared with alternating two year cycles. Bilmore's pendulum overcorrection theory will result in ever-increasing policy oscillations.

Sheesh, I'm almost sorry I asked now, seeing as how the only satisfying response I got, that actually raises an issue, is one that relates to insurance regulation.

If I could have tied it to asbestos litigation, I would have. Medical insurance seemed to have a deeper nexus to abortion, though.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
Jesus Christ. Pay my hourly rate if you want things on a timeframe.

anyone with that many posts is value billing. I won't agree to any rate, quote a total. you are a worry wart.

[list=1][*]O'Connor or Stevens die during Bush II presidency. Anti-Roe ideologue appointed to Supreme Court.

Very unlike. The Dems gatekeepers would stop it. Plus, the more moderate Republicans wouldn't support em. If this guy gets confirmed several safe R. Senators become immedialetly vulnerable.

[*]Some state (doesn't matter which) immediately enacts law that places substantial burden on woman's ability to obtain abortion.[*]Law is struck down in district court and circuit court of appeals as contrary to Roe and Planned Parenthood cases.[*]Supreme Court accepts cert; says Roe was wrongly decided in 1973 and at all later times thereafter. Departs from current stare decisis law by overturning law notwithstanding its recent reaffirmation and substantial body of law below further developing and relying on that precedent; just says we've changed our minds.[*]With no constitutional issue raised by abortion controls, about 15 states (I'm making this up) ban abortion outright without exception for rape and incest. Another ten or so enact severe controls that basically substitute statutory standards and permit abortions to be performed only upon showing before court of some set standard.[*]States with constitutional provisions guaranteeing personal privacy continue to permit abortion solely upon request by pregnant woman. I imagine this will be somewhere around sixteen to twenty states.[*]Nation is now split in three: states allowing abortion "on demand"; states allowing abortion to be performed with court order; and states allowing no provision whatsoever for termination of pregnancy.

that the above is all possible (probable?) confuses me, but i know it is possible. but, remember 1 isn't realistic.

[*]Politicians in states allowing no abortions rail against the Sodoms and Gomorrahs allowing abortions;

this happens now, minus the qualifier

candidates for President are asked whether fetus is a person in all future presidential debates (because candidates will no longer be allowed to use Roe federalism as a euphemism for the moral issue).

they could still defer to the S. CT.

[*]Congress stages weekly debates on whether there is a national policy to "favor" carrying a fetus to term. Findings are entered into the legislative record about birth rates and fetal development stages and all the same shit that came in during the partial birth abortion ban.[*]The states banning abortion elect single-issue House reps who will be the Dana Rohrbachers and Bob Dornans of abortion policy, repeatedly introducing legislation to end the holocausts of abortions being performed in NY, CA, MA and elsewhere.[*]It will begin to be seen as a legitimate policy goal at the federal level to "encourage" birth, and it will be seen as a legitimate means of achieving that goal to employ coercive funding conditions (like what federalized drinking age and basic speed law) to coax states to standardize "personhood" law.

another problem here. If the first few things happened, the next Presidential election Dems win, the next election they take over the House and Senate.

[*]States banning abortion will enact anti-travel provisions, which will be struck down in the courts, further inflaming the voter base. State legislatures there will instead do things like revise medical profession regulations to ban doctors from informing patients of their right to travel across state lines. States will also be free to enact laws banning insurance coverage for abortion and contraceptive-related medical care, which affect even the provision of out-of-state abortions. States free to enact laws that require insurance companies to report and publish names of covered women who've obtained abortions. Congress is asked to step in, but no idea how this plays out.[*]With no constitutional right to privacy in the doctor-patient relationship, Congress enacts federal controls on interstate travel for the purpose of procuring abortion. Maybe favoring; maybe restricting --- depends on how the elections go.[/list=1]

In short, I think the people who think it's simply going to be a matter of the states making up their own minds once, and the nation becoming comfortable that American babies are put to death depending solely upon which side of a state border the mother resides, is hopelessly naive. I must say I'm a little surprised that the conservatives on this board all think abortion is a states' rights issue. I surmise that those people have never lived in a Southern state. It's a matter of morality, and it will not stop with ending abortions in a 100, 200, or 500 mile radius. Hell, Bilmore can say it's a state's rights issue at the same time he's describing how anguished his friends are to think of babies being slaughtered. You think it's just Minnesota babies that keep them up at night?

maybe some people will just quit. give up trying!

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
Frankly, yes. Federalism don't mean shit to the GOP when we're talking about social legislation. Esp. when GOP leaders say stuff like "We're a Christian nation" when what they really mean is that their home town was 100% Baptist and they think everyone in America should have experienced their childhood. Even the ones who are now grown up, and must now experience it as 40-year-olds.

If you are pointing out that the GOP (and lotso conservatives) are hypocrites (you are I believe), then I'm forced to agree with you here. The "Christian nation" stuff is absolutely at odds to my fundamental conservative beliefs, and I'm a friggin Christian. As for social legislation generally, I guess it depends how you define "social legislation". I, and most of my conservative family, are generally opposed to social legislation, social spending etc... except where it relates directly to our national interests. Even there, I'd rather see the money spent effectively.

The premise of state's rights though is that some things just do not belong in any way to the federal government. Defining when life begins or how much money a state should spend on its students, are just not things that congress should have a word to say.

Believe me, I know the GOP doesn't want me either.

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch

Congress as presently constituted would have no problem enacting a resolution to the effect that the policy of the United States is to encourage live births of all fetuses conceived in the U.S. Even the pro-Roe crowd has to pay lip service to the miracle of birth, and that abortion is a necessary evil, lest they be seen as ghoulish. It's not just another arrow in the birth control quiver, even to the pro-Roe crowd.

"conceived" or "born" or "living"? I mean, Hillary wrote a whole book about encouraging something or other for every child living in the U.S. And I don't even think that I'm making a cheap shot there. Frankly, if what you wrote above was true, I think they'd already have done this, including using the word "conceived" or some equivalent. Fly on out this way and I'll join you at the protest when this happens.

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
The resolution first enacted will say nothing about discouraging abortion per se. It won't need to. Have you never listened to a congressional debate? You say things like "This bill will give every child conceived in the United States a fighting chance at living a full and productive life."

If we are just disagreeing about the use of the word "conceived", I think you just admitted a second ago that its only a prospect. What you are now talking about I think relates to things like "no child left behind" and other illegitimate falsehoods.

Then again, I'd argue that this nation does have an interest in having a healthy birth rate, at least because some youngster is gonna need to change my bedpan when my wife dies. Not to mention wars, tax bases, funding the social security pyramid scheme etc....

Basically, are you sure about "conceived" in a congressional resolution? If so, that is fairly appalling to me too, at least because it undercuts one of the central arguments I'd rather they make.

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch

What? I'm sure 90% of nations banning abortion have specific provisions making it illegal to travel overseas for the purpose of procuring an abortion. Why is it absurd to predict that a state will attempt this, too? Why is it absurd to think that a congressman will campaign based on federalizing interstate travel regs? Bilmore seems to think this is a potential Commerce Clause regulation, and he's a smart guy.

But do they have our constitution?

FWIW, I'm not saying its absurd to say anyone will try anything. We all know better than that. Cf. Hank's cite to that Kennedy PT boat thing. I just don't see how that would comport with a Sup. Ct. decision that says its up to every state... implying that state's can't effect negative control on other states.

And Bilmore is dead to me. I have no Puffin to admire anymore.

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch

Because the Constitution has more than one sentence in it. Overturning RvW implies that there is no constitutional right to medical privacy imposed on the states by the 14th Amendment, not that the Congress has nothing to say about regulation of the medical profession or burdening interstate travel or commerce.

If you think that after 30 years of the anti-abortion movement, Virginians only care about Virginia babies, and Sooners only care about Oklahoma babies, you're looney tunes. I'm sure they're disgusted by what the Canadians do to their babies, and the French do to theirs. But casting a vote for and in Congress is easier than invading.

"right to medical privacy". That's what I meant by "making shit up" before.

Regulating the medical profession could be interesting. Does anyone really do that? Burdening interstate travel and commerce could be interesting, but I think an explicit Sup. Ct. opinion could make it clear that this is not an area for anyone to try and do so. There was something about legitimate interests and all somewhere in that Con law class. But, if the Sup. Ct. explicitly said "do not touch" states rights in this area, than I don't see how we get back go touching states rights. We'll have to agree to disagree about whether Congress presently or prospectively is disposed to do so in the manner you suggest.

And of course, Virginians care about Oklahomies. The point is that people do tend to care more about things closer to home that they can otherwise help control. And I'm not sure you are disagreeing. In the congressional horse-trading game, I'm not sure most people would want to pay California what California would exact for an abortion ban or anything close. But that's only the third main reason I don't think its really likely they'd seriously consider doing so.

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
Congress will need to step in to regulate the relations between the states with regard to conflicting abortion policies in states that border each other, at the very least. Neither you nor I have the power to overturn Roe. If it happens, bookmark my post and we'll see who winds up closer to the truth. If one party controls Congress, it will enact some watered-down version of its party's abortion philosophy in order to fulfull the campaign promises of, and thereby re-elect, its extremists. Then, those policies will all be overturned when Congress changes hands.

Again, that is assuming that:

1.) States would have the legal ability to interfere with other states;
2.) Congress would have the legal ability to step back in;
3.) Congress would have the practical wherewithal to do a single thing to ban abortion nationally at any significant level.

I'll keep my ears to the ground on 1, but I have my doubts; 2 runs contrary to the premise of this (putting it explicitly back on the individual states), and 3 is something I just don't see (but you indicate its already happening).

If you believe 3 is already happening, I apologize for wasting any of your time asking you to explain how it *would* happen.

Hello

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
[Stuff I largely can't disagree with, save the trust in GOP moderates]

It sounds like the contours of our disagreement take the shape of your trust in the GOP and Dems to steer their respective parties away from a cliff, despite being urged by core constituencies to do so. I don't share that trust, at least with regard to the GOP. (The Dems have been pretty good about selling out core constituencies since 1992.)

I have tremendous respect for the libertarian traditions of the GOP, and even greater respect for its moderating counterpart on other side of the aisle, the religious social justice underpinnings of the Dem platform. However, as the GOP has gotten ahold of the Bible and shaken it until its core principles are fundamentally altered, I don't trust that the GOP can keep its hold on the South without being the official party of Christian wingnutism, and this is their GOTV issue that elects their candidates in large swaths of the country. It does not appear that many rational right-side posters here defend that ground --- indeed, they always seem a little embarassed about it all --- but it remains a fact that the GOP wins elections because of its appeal to those voters. N.B. Principle bends to electoral necessity in both parties.

So we'll be at the same protest marches, but you'll be a lot more optimistic than I that anyone is listening. The leadership of the GOP as presently constituted either (1) is not moderate on this issue; (2) hasn't been honest with their core constituencies about honestly federalist "it's over; we won; nothing more to do here" intentions in the post-Roe world, or (3) honestly hasn't thought much about what they'll do once they overturn Roe. I suspect Bush is 3, Congressional leaders are 1. If you're 2, I commend you on your intellectual honesty, and I look forward to a fair fight for Southern electoral votes back in play.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Not on WMD, I'm waiting for Kay's final report. I don't remember ever suggesting that Iraq would pay for its own reconstruction, but Wolfowitz' claims that oil revenue would pay for most were clearly wrong (though I think a certain amount of leeway should be given because they didn't know what they would find on the ground. Nonetheless, the assessment was off). It was a cake walk - major military action is over. Seriously, as war's go, even given the injury and death toll, it has been an easy war.**

But I still appreciate your objectivity on the contracts issue.

Mother of god, dammit, WTF is the "**" for? THERE IS NO NOTE that corresponds to this. STRAIGHTEN UP AND FLY RIGHT. And note that I am kindly overlooking your grammatical and/or spelling errors this time in favor of a complaint about incomplete substance.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
However, as the GOP has gotten ahold of the Bible and shaken it until its core principles are fundamentally altered, I don't trust that the GOP can keep its hold on the South without being the official party of Christian wingnutism, and this is their GOTV issue that elects their candidates in large swaths of the country. It does not appear that many rational right-side posters here defend that ground --- indeed, they always seem a little embarassed about it all --- but it remains a fact that the GOP wins elections because of its appeal to those voters. N.B. Principle bends to electoral necessity in both parties.

I think you underestimate the amount of support the GOP gets from those who hate taxes or just want less taxation.

I don't think RvW will ever be overturned. Rather, I think that more laws regulating abortion will be upheld as constitutional.

I think that ultimately the way things will play out is that first trimester abortion on demand will remain relatively regulation free, but second and third trimester abortions will be more heavily regulated.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Not Me
I think you underestimate the amount of support the GOP gets from those who hate taxes or just want less taxation.

I don't think RvW will ever be overturned. Rather, I think that more laws regulating abortion will be upheld as constitutional.

How is it that the GOP comes out against regulation -- regulation is bad bad bad, the government should stay out of it -- when it's environmental regulation, or workplace safety regulation, or worker pay regulation, but when it comes to abortion regulation is fine and dandy?

And, in the same vein, how is it that the GOP yaps and yaps and yaps about how states' rights should be respected etc., but when a state's law permits two people of the same sex to be married, the GOP passes a law that says that the federal government will in no way, shape or form respect that law?

Fucking hypocrites. Yes, I know the Democrats are likely just as bad and I don't tend to notice the means because I'm in favor of the ends.

Don't worry, soon I will have had enough to drink that I won't want to type.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
Don't worry, soon I will have had enough to drink that I won't want to type.

d'accord. this is why i'll never be a good hunter thonpson knock-off.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
How is it that the GOP comes out against regulation -- regulation is bad bad bad, the government should stay out of it -- when it's environmental regulation, or workplace safety regulation, or worker pay regulation, but when it comes to abortion regulation is fine and dandy?

Because those areas you (cyber)speak of don't involve another person losing their life when that person gets no say in the matter. I realize that the Dems and many others don't consider a fetus a person, but you asked me how is it that the GOP advocates this, and in the GOP, many believe that the fetus is a human life. And many in the GOP believe that the state has a compelling interest in the protection of human life. So did the RvW court as I remember. It was just that the compelling interest in human life that the state had was weighed against the women's right to privacy.

Originally posted by ltl/fb
And, in the same vein, how is it that the GOP yaps and yaps and yaps about how states' rights should be respected etc., but when a state's law permits two people of the same sex to be married, the GOP passes a law that says that the federal government will in no way, shape or form respect that law?

I think the GOP favors not forcing one state that does not recognize gay marriage into having to recognize another state's civil union/gay marriage. That is consistent with state's rights, although, not consistent with the Full Faith and Credit Act.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Not Me
Because those areas you (cyber)speak of don't involve another person losing their life when that person gets no say in the matter. I realize that the Dems and many others don't consider a fetus a person, but you asked me how is it that the GOP advocates this, and in the GOP, many believe that the fetus is a human life. And many in the GOP believe that the state has a compelling interest in the protection of human life. So did the RvW court as I remember. It was just that the compelling interest in human life that the state had was weighed against the women's right to privacy.

I think the GOP favors not forcing one state that does not recognize gay marriage into having to recognize another state's civil union/gay marriage. That is consistent with state's rights, although, not consistent with the Full Faith and Credit Act.

Last things first, the GOP is refusing to let the federal (not state) government recognize gay marriage or civil unions between gays, even if it is recognized in the state in which they reside. The federal government recognizes common-law marriages, even though most states do not. But gay marriage, no. While you may be kinda sorta focused on state laws, there are a few federal laws (e.g., the Internal Revenue Code) that have provisions that relate to marriage (say, oh, whether or not you can use the "married filing jointly" tax rates that are quite favorable if one spouse earns considerably more than the other).

First things last, what, people don't die because workplaces are unsafe? Since when? I realize that it has to do with preventing injuries etc. as well, but people die in unsafe factories (e.g., trapped inside when the place is burning down). People also die when food is unsafe, but that doesn't mean the GOP won't try to limit the FDA's (or the Dept. of Agriculture)enforcement efforts. People also die or are quite a bit harmed from poisons in their drinking water. Bet that really fucks up those unborn children. Fetuses are soooooo delicate. But let's roll back the regulations on that one, right?

And, back to the abortion thing, apparently the FDA is considering letting the morning-after pill go OTC. Medical groups are for it, religious/political groups are against it. Article (from NYT via Yahoo!) http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?<a ...thecounter</a>

And, Hank, if you go Hunter Thompson you will never get off ignore (which, obviously, I override with some regularity and which you likely don't care about anyway).

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by Not Me
I don't think RvW will ever be overturned.

I respectfully disagree. Its the whole pendulum thing. It won't be overturned in isolation, but its gone before I die if I can make it til 70.

Hello

[Not Me]

I say send this Freeman guy to jail. This is so much worse than wipe out a donorcyclist for blowing through a stop sign.

82-Year-Old Florida Woman Killed by Neighbor's Pit Bulls
The Associated Press
Published: Dec 12, 2003

CITRA, Fla. (AP) - Seven pit bulls escaped from their owner's home and mauled an 82-year-old neighbor to death Friday.
Alice Broom died at Munroe Regional Medical Center in Ocala, officials told the Ocala Star-Banner for its Saturday editions.

Broom was found by the dogs' owner, Robert Freeman, 67. He said the dogs were attacking the woman when he arrived, and speculated that the attack had gone on for at least 10 minutes.

The dogs were seized by county animal control officials. Freeman, who was not immediately charged with a crime, said he told county officers to destroy the dogs.

Broom's daughter Mary Alice Smothers said Freeman's neighbors had called animal control officials several times in recent months about the dogs, who had been involved in at least two other biting incidents.

"I can't blame (Freeman). I blame animal control," Smothers told the Star-Banner.

Marion County sheriff's officials said Friday night that an investigation is continuing.

Citra is north of Ocala and about 80 miles northwest of Orlando.

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by ltl/fb

First things last, what, people don't die because workplaces are unsafe? Since when? I realize that it has to do with preventing injuries etc. as well, but people die in unsafe factories (e.g., trapped inside when the place is burning down). People also die when food is unsafe, but that doesn't mean the GOP won't try to limit the FDA's (or the Dept. of Agriculture)enforcement efforts. People also die or are quite a bit harmed from poisons in their drinking water. Bet that really fucks up those unborn children. Fetuses are soooooo delicate. But let's roll back the regulations on that one, right?

Hi sweetie,

The factories/OSHA I think help your point, or maybe I'm just tired. Though I woudn't mind seeing OSHA-stuff left largely up to the states unless there was a good reason for the feds to be involved.

The food is at least a federal issue if its imported. I'd have to check my old books to see the justification for the rest.

The EPA doesn't help you though, as pollution almost always involves interstate externalities. No way the feds should stay out of that, and no way the states should duke that one out. New Jersey would kill us all if it could.

In other words, while we might not all agree on what makes a compelling* reason for federal involvement/regulation in any particular area, I'd guess that almost all of us agree that someone has to at least be able to credibly assert that a compelling reason exists for federal regulation. What is the deal with OSHA anyway?

Hello

*or some other word that a lawyer would use when he doesn't know what standard(s) are actually required.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Not Me
I say send this Freeman guy to jail. This is so much worse than wipe out a donorcyclist for blowing through a stop sign.

What ever happened to personal responsibility? That aged bitch should have moved away from the dogs. We should not interfere with that nice man's right to own dogs to protect himself. The biddy probably instigated the whole thing when one of them dug up her flowers. She should know better. I would not be surprised to find she's NFH's grandma.