So we are supposed to let Bush bugger and swagger for another four years, simply so that the 2008 Democratic victory is a landslide? (As it would be).
By that time, the poor will be poorer and the rich richer, hiding in gated communities. The Baghdad Green Zone a fortified nest of power surrounded by US troops and an orgy of hatred. More pollution and more McJobs in the US. All over the world people spitting at the Stars and Stripes.
You want to bring us to this, just to get a resounding victory?
what is odd to me, is that sounds like the same mcworld we've been threatenened with for the thirty or so years I've been around. Some years better, some years worse.
I don't see a compelling reason why this year is different than any other year, nor do I see Kerry bringing an end to that world.
I don't believe that we've given Bush enough of a chance to prove his mettle. I think we've seen some bad signs, true, but no more than other years. I don't believe that anything done will be be irreversibly undoable in the next four years.
I think that the best analogy I can give is that Bush is a republican Carter: a possibly decent leader who's been dealt a shitty hand. The disaster of the last four years is not of Bush's making, but of Clinton's. I think people were so horrified by the events during Carter's administration that they never gave them time to bear fruit before pulling out the trees. Reagan had his good points, in the long run, but I don't believe he "caused the USSR to collapse" or whatnot, and in the long run, Carter was moving toward the metric system and legalization of marijuana and we forsook those admirable goals by not letting the administration's policies take root. We forsook Carter bacoming the greatest president alive, because we were too fickle about our leadership.
What I want to see is to let the evil shrub bear its fruit, for better or worse. We will be better able in four years to evaluate the situation. I predict that either the doomsday scenario which has people so riled will come to pass, or not, no matter what the outcome of the election. I forsee it not happening, and people being shocked by that. If I'm wrong, we shuffle again in four years anyway.
Kerry/Edwards just look like a power hungry opportunistic duo, who have no plan, no better plan, for healing the scars of the last four years.
Again: I'm not arguing to change people's vote- I'm arguing to take a harder look at what may be positive about a Bush reelection. It might happen. For me, when given the choice between two bad choices, you stick with the one you've got until the right choice comes along.
And furthermore, I'm trying to be scientific about it. How can you evaluate whether or not an experiment is working, or not, when you're constantly changing all the variables?
2004-10-15 10:55 am (UTC)
Re: what I want to see
Interesting to see that you referred to Roe v Wade. This is a very interesing law, because it explicitly gives states the rights to prohibit abortion in the third trimester with an exception for women's health, and in the second trimester with an exception for health and "well being". Roe actually places well defined and reasonable limits on laws against abortion, and in many states that had very strict laws they now have *no* laws because they refuse to write something which could easily restrict things and still stay within Roe. So, basically, from what I can tell from reading the Roe decision (along with the Doe and ... class action suit that it was linked with) is that the issue is about which side can be more rational, and there's nothing rational about anti abortion nutjobs.
I don't believe Roe is at any risk from the Republican presidency, irrespective of political bluster aimed at duping ultracons into giving endorsement. It is about having to pull together a party base, which is an unfortunate side effect of two party politics. I don't think it's a bad thing, compared with the alternatives.
As for the so called rights of privacy, I don't buy the whole argument that people are being "called out" somehow by participating in protests etc. by the FBI showing up at home or work. People love to refuse to accept consequences for their own actions. I should know, I was young and stupid once, too. But what I learned was not how to be more closeted, but about when it is appropriate to be out.
If anything, what this world needs is more intelligence, not more privacy. But: intelligence in the right hands. I'm a strong believer in "getting it all out in the open". But irrespective of my admittedly weird views about the right to privacy, I just don't see how protesting a political convention, whether in your face or in free speech zones, represents an effective usage of speech. I also don't see where speech has been "stifled" in the media, the press, or on the internet, in ways tht would not have been equally enforced by a Gore or a putative Kerry andministration, anyway. My barometer for free speech is when both conservatives and liberals are squawking equally about the trampling of their rights- and that about sums up how I see things.
But- I don't see you as the kind of person who would spend more than a few seconds actively listening to conservatives speak, so maybe it's not as useful a barometer for you.
2004-10-15 11:58 am (UTC)
Re: what I want to see
No, I don't believe "they did", mostly because the article never said that it happened- ony that it was a policy decision that was considered, then suspended, for implementation.
As for chipping away at "abortion rights"- I think that they should! There's nothing appealing about the act of partial birth abortion. The government should be trying to formulate better laws, as long as they stay within the (IMO) excellent formulation of Roe.
2004-10-15 12:36 pm (UTC)
Re: what I want to see
The article is so *completely* scare tactics. She's trying to argue that because it is made illegal it will be made rare, so that the few people who legally need to have such a procedure done won't be able to find a good doctor when it comes to need.
Such a procedure is not called abortion, and even the author admits that extracting a dead fetus from the womb would *never* be made illegal. But, yes, the procedure is one of many possibilities including induced labor that could be used to perform the surgery, and that due to inexperience, a doctor might choose a "less desirable" procedure to the patient. Which would make that patient's experience with medicine and doctors just like every other patient's. There's zillions of similar examples: like the doctor who gives you Prozac for antidepression because the sales rep "just showed up" with free samples and has them to hand. There's no good scientific rationale for giving one med over the other except on anecdotal evidence, and a not-as-experienced doctor might make a convenient or apparent choice even though such a choice was ill-informed. There's too much to need to know for every doctor to make the right decision: it has to be an informed and ongoing dialogue. And, medicine is a maze of tough choices, any one of which might be a compelling but wrong hypothesis.
As for the lack of credibility: it is extremely non-credible. I'm not trying to say because I see no Jews, there is no Holocaust here, but the hushed "evidence" of a politician trying to make a point through allegory is extremely suspect, and no better than water-cooler rumour.
He tries to mention it as an afterthougt proof for something he's already self-discredited. That's not honest debate.