Politics: A new beginning - Page 59

Atticus Grinch · 10-22-2003, 08:31 PM

Quote:

By arguing over which piece of George W. Bush's tax cut they would retain or rescind, the Democratic presidential candidates are passing up a big political and economic opportunity. The candidates should stop rearranging the Bush tax cuts and start proposing fundamental reform of the tax code.

Rahm Emanuel, a Democratic congressman from Illinois, and senior policy adviser to President Clinton. WSJ op-ed, reprinted.

Say_hello_for_me · 10-22-2003, 08:52 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
http://slate.msn.com/id/2090201/

There certainly is shrill and misleading rhetoric on both margins here, but even your article admits that viability was at "23 or 24 weeks" in 1992 (or was it 1993).

So, 10 years ago, viability was 2 weeks more than in Santorum's example. I hope that is not some sort of implied assertion that medical science hasn't moved viability up since 1992, is it?

I mean, because your author is the one bringing up the study from way back when, right?

And then there is the 14% survival rate at whatever week he admitted to. I'm not going to fight over what survival rate is appropriate, just as I can't do anything but cry with great sadness at the plight of the Schiavo family -- including the husband.

But, I find it reasonable that people would shed tears at taking away a 14% chance at life.

One thing that hasn't been brought up in this round. I remember reading that the great majority of PBAs were committed by just a few doctors in a few places, like Minnesota or South Dakota. Seriously, by "few doctors", I mean like 6 or 7.

Hundreds or thousands of other abortion doctors would argue that they had never found a good reason to perform even one PBA, but these guys would do like 125 per year. Or am I imagining this?

If it is just 6 or 7, then fuck them and the horse they rode in on. Americans have spent 7000 lifetimes arguing over this issue so these jagoffs can... whatever whatever.

Tyrone Slothrop · 10-22-2003, 09:31 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
But, I find it reasonable that people would shed tears at taking away a 14% chance at life.

I do too. But the suggestion that this procedure is being performed during birth is flat-out misleading.

The whole thing is, if not a tempest in a teapot, certainly being fought for political and ideological reasons and not because it is where the most lives/fetuses are being lost.

steam · 10-22-2003, 09:39 PM

Thanks for all your hard work, Ty. It was certainly a long time coming. But it was worth it, at least for me.

Say_hello_for_me · 10-22-2003, 09:44 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
I do too. But the suggestion that this procedure is being performed during birth is flat-out misleading.

The whole thing is, if not a tempest in a teapot, certainly being fought for political and ideological reasons and not because it is where the most lives/fetuses are being lost.

Clearly.

At the same time, if there is some sorta sliding scale of certainty where people can believe with (the most/almost the most) certainty that a fetus is considered/should be considered human when it is a.) outside the womb and alive; b.)partially outside the womb and alive; and/or c.) somewhere at or beyond viability, then they will focus on those because they are the easiest arguments for them to make.

Believe me, sad as it is, the whole reason this issue resonates so strongly is because of the "outside the womb" image that people can conjure.

But hey, I'm not refighting this civil war here. I'm just saying that your tempest in a teapot is my tempest in a teapot. But it helps a lot of people sleep a little better at night.

Hello

Tyrone Slothrop · 10-22-2003, 09:50 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by steam
IThanks for all your hard work, Ty. It was certainly a long time coming. But it was worth it, at least for me.

Was it good for you? I certainly had a good time.

Atticus Grinch · 10-22-2003, 09:55 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by steam
IThanks for all your hard work, Ty. It was certainly a long time coming. But it was worth it, at least for me.

I realize you were working under a lot of pressure, but I gotta say that wasn't worth all the build-up it got.

steam · 10-22-2003, 10:01 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
I realize you were working under a lot of pressure, but I gotta say that wasn't worth all the build-up it got.

Some of the steam was released early (not not not prematurely).

ltl/fb · 10-22-2003, 10:19 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by steam
Thanks for all your hard work, Ty. It was certainly a long time coming. But it was worth it, at least for me.

The former board motto was far far better.

rufus leeking · 10-22-2003, 10:23 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by ltl/fb
The former board motto was far far better.

concur. it was also the first thing I've seen you post that wasn't copped/paraphrased from a NYT op-ed piece, or from the Bell Jar.

Bil Mo' · 10-22-2003, 10:26 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
Ahhh. Burp.

I repeat.

Bil Mo' would never say this stuff.

Edited to add that I am missing something here. Just not what I think you think I'm missing.

I am Bil Mo'. You are missing Bilmore. Give it up. He's gone. He didn't fit in. Now you have me.

ltl/fb · 10-22-2003, 10:26 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by rufus leeking
concur. it was also the first thing I've seen you post that wasn't copped/paraphrased from a NYT op-ed piece, or from the Bell Jar.

That is a little scary, as I have never read The Bell Jar. Luckily I don't have a gas oven. She was a whore-y little flirt with anonymous men? Or is that the NYT op-ed page? I had never noticed that. You must get a different edition than I do.

Bil Mo' · 10-22-2003, 10:28 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by ltl/fb
It's nice to know you think of me having your head when you are coming for him.

Read more carefully, please.

I came "to prepare the way" for him, not for him. I can do that while you have my head. On a platter.

steam · 10-22-2003, 10:32 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Bil Mo'
Read more carefully, please.

I came "to prepare the way" for him, not for him.

Your efforts are appreciated.

Quote:

I can do that while you have my head. On a platter.

That's just creepy.

The Larry Davis Experience · 10-22-2003, 10:45 PM

I'm not at all sure that this type of reference to a discussion a month ago fits in with the retooled politics board, so excuse me if this is a breach of the new rules of engagement.

At any rate, just saw last night that the Oakland city council passed an ordinance making it easier to seize properties that foster drug use. Not much coverage in today's papers about the vote, so here's a summary from last week:
http://www.oaklandtribune.com/Storie...?search=filter

I don't have much confidence that this will be anything other than another layer of bureaucracy, but it's been clear that there has to be some response from a political perspective to the homicide rate (100th of the year a few days ago). Maybe this will be the start of a new aggressive approach.

Anyway, I'm posting because I was rather taken aback by this paragraph:

Quote:

Quan and Councilmember Larry Reid (Elmhurst-East Oakland) are working on another ordinance that would allow the city to go after properties based on a pattern of drug activity as far as 1,000 feet around them.

Uh, can they really do this? I would think that due process/the takings clause/whatever would require the showing of a link between the property and illicit activity that rises to a level above "a pattern of drug activity within 1000 feet." Anybody familiar with these types of ordinances elsewhere?