Not hard enough! (No menace implied, it was just low hanging fruit.)

Now that's what I call a serious tea cup.

When I saw that cup, it instantly transported me back to when Mike Myers used to make movies that were actually funny. http://new.wavlist.com/movies/270/maam-excuseme.wav

Quoting Joel_Cairo: Now that's what I call a serious tea cup.

http://abunooralirlandee.wordpress.com

Just to reiterate the points of concern on Obama backpedaling from progressive views (in no particular order): 1) Telecom immunity
2) Death penalty for rape
3) Timeline for withdrawal from Iraq
4) One-on-one talks with "Axis-of-evil" leaders
5) AIPAC suckup on Israel
6) Support for the Supreme Court right-wing on guns
7) Support for faith-based initiatives
8) Sporting of flag pin and speechifying on nationalism
9) Maneuvering for bragging rights on welfare reform
10) Just kidding about NAFTA
11) " " about campaign finance reform
12) We need a bigger army
13) Abortion rights "mental distress" exemption I will update as necessary.

these ladies make me feel a lot more pro-life ;-)

murray rothbard and some libertarian thinkers have talked about abortion the language of property right.

Great conversation. I've been a big fan of Rebecca's writing for years -- she's definitely not on the list of reasons why I let my subscription to Salon lapse. I thought both Michelle and she made a number of subtle and interesting points. Among them: I liked the segment about being sick of the nutcracker/cackle/pantsuit stuff, and on a related note, I liked how they broached the possibility that a man could dislike Hillary without being a raving sexist. I found the discussion about abortion instructive, especially the part about the third trimester issue. I was glad that they didn't spend too much time talking about the election in general, and that they are as sick of the the outrage factory as I am. I liked that they could talk about younger feminists who don't know what a coat hanger signifies without sounding resentful of their "lack of appreciation" or however some older feminists phrase it. I disliked some of the over-generalizations about what men think or care about. As with most stereotypes, there were some elements of truth here -- I'm probably as guilty as the next guy about being more interested in talking about

Wonder,
I was just about to ask if someone had a link to that list.

I thought the best part was the discussion of reproductive rights and policies in countries like Norway. Will Wilkinson and Kerry Howley have talked about this before on Bheads, but it was interesting to hear Rebecca and Michelle's view too. I'm looking forward to reading Michelle's book.

http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/127...5&out=00:36:25 Great diavlog. I liked the realism that both women displayed in regards to Obama's posturing that they didn't agree with, and why ultimately they doubt Hillary would have done any differently to win the general. This was one of the better "horserace" diavlogs in a while. And an interesting look at feminism. Have them both back.

Quoting Wonderment: I thought the best part was the discussion of reproductive rights and policies in countries like Norway.

Yeah, that was interesting, especially to learn about the length of the leave times (and paternity leave, no less). I have mixed feelings about this. My first instinct is to be happy about it -- society working together to support each other at a most stressful time. On the other hand, I get a little resentful that those of us who chose not to reproduce are, in effect, not getting anything in return. Arguably, the existence of children means the sustaining of Social Security, but still, something feels a little unfair about this arrangement whenever I think about it for awhile. Plus, as you know, I am not in general a big fan of natalism when the planet already has more people than we know what to do with. But we've beaten that one into the ground already, I think.

After listening to this diavlog, I skimmed the Times Magazine piece (I freely admit to not yet reading it carefully). It seems to me they consider only women's workforce participation as a factor in birth rates, and then argue what government policy can enable women to both work and have children. I think they miss the point, because women have always had to work for a living (except, briefly, in 1950's mythology), and they have always had babies. I think there are two factors that are more important than either work force participation or natalist government policy. Those are education and religion. Well-educated women tend to have fewer children. Thus high fertility groups, such as Satmar Jews, or Mennonites, or Mexican immigrants, with high birth rates, do not educate their women folk. It is commonplace to assert that as women's educational levels rise, birthrates will decline. Whether one sees this as a good thing or bad depends on the point of view. Clearly, for some peoples fertility is more important than education. The second important factor is religion. "Go forth and multiply" is the commandment that nearly all religious fundamentalists take seriously, and on this they are very successful. In addition

Plus, as you know, I am not in general a big fan of natalism when the planet already has more people than we know what to do with. But we've beaten that one into the ground already, I think.

I know. I have two words in response: adoption and immigration. I will also take this opportunity to preemptively protest any BH discussion of the New Yorker Michelle and Barack cover. Way too boring.

Quoting Wonderment: I know. I have two words in response: adoption and immigration.

With you there, brother.

I will also take this opportunity to preemptively protest any BH discussion of the New Yorker Michelle and Barack cover. Way too boring.

Man, I second that. I already chewed out the leftosphere on this -- frickin' people spend 14 hours a day ranting about every last thing they're pissed at Obama about, and then they go mental when someone does a little satire. Which was hilarious. I think we'll be okay on this one, though. I'm pretty sure Bob obsessively checks my blog for guidance on all matters.

Quoting bjkeefe: With you there, brother.

Man, I second that. I already chewed out the leftosphere on this -- frickin' people spend 14 hours a day ranting about every last thing they're pissed at Obama about, and then they go mental when someone does a little satire. Which was hilarious.

I think we'll be okay on this one, though. I'm pretty sure Bob obsessively checks my blog for guidance on all matters.

We know that Bob reads and comments on your input. Following your sage advice, less so. Which is more likely to be true about the next diavlog: That it will contain discussion of the "cover conflict" or, at least one female?

Quoting bjkeefe: Man, I second that. I already chewed out the leftosphere on this -- frickin' people spend 14 hours a day ranting about every last thing they're pissed at Obama about, and then they go mental when someone does a little satire. Which was hilarious.

I certainly enjoyed the fact that you used a 'satire' of hate politics to call Bush and Rove 'ratfu**ers'. I don't think the left will ever recover from that chewing out. While I didn't find the cover hilarious, I certainly see it for what it is, condescending projection of hate as a broadbrush generalization onto political opponents who won't supply it themselves. I could certainly visualize a New Yorker cover of McCain sending nukes towards Iran (albeit with a different title....maybe 'Obama or Die'), but as Obama-friendly as they are, I never would have figured them for such blatant hypocrisy.
It's like someone here recently comparing residents of Utah and the South to zoo exhibits, the hate is there all right but sometimes you need a mirror to find it.

About the end of the dialog...so if I don't want to be totally, completely absorbed with politics I'm what, flawed? Give it rest.

Seems . . . difficult to disprove. So devaluing women causes underpopulation except when it causes overpopulation.

Apparently, women are incapable of having an abortion for a bad or immoral reason. Not really a point from which you can have a discussion.

Quoting harkin: I certainly enjoyed the fact that you used a 'satire' of hate politics to call Bush and Rove 'ratfu**ers'.

Perhaps you should read some Rick Perlstein to understand that reference. I thought about linking to a picture of Rove alone, since that's who I was talking about, but I wanted people who are less familiar with what he looks like to have an additional hint about who was pictured. Many of my regular readers aren't from the US.

While I didn't find the cover hilarious, I certainly see it for what it is, condescending projection of hate as a broadbrush generalization onto political opponents who won't supply it themselves. I could certainly visualize a New Yorker cover of McCain sending nukes towards Iran (albeit with a different title....maybe 'Obama or Die'), but as Obama-friendly as they are, I never would have figured them for such blatant hypocrisy.

Sorry. Not sure what you're trying to say here, except that you appear to imagining things to be outraged about. First, I don't think the Obama cover attempted to say anything about any group except those whose membership is defined by using the exact smears pictured. Second, I really have no idea

You're easily impressed. I think they set the bhtv record for saying "I totally agree with you!" If they're serious about communicating their ideas, they should: 1. Think about them critically. 2. Take a stroll outside the echo chamber from time to time. 3. Take an intro to economics course. If calling an eight-month-old baby a baby is controversial, you have a long way to go before you're within sight of the mainstream, and thus at least a minimally relevant voice. P.S.
The phrase "baby-like organism" is not going to catch on.

Quoting Blancandrin: You're easily impressed.

You're unfamiliar with my history.

I think they set the bhtv record for saying "I totally agree with you!"

If they're serious about communicating their ideas, they should:

1. Think about them critically.

I think you just set the BH.tv record for vacuous advice.

2. Take a stroll outside the echo chamber from time to time.

3. Take an intro to economics course.

And then immediately broke it.

If calling an eight-month-old baby a baby is controversial, ...

I think we can all agree that an eight-month-old baby is a baby. An eight-month-old fetus, not so much.

... you have a long way to go before you're within sight of the mainstream, and thus at least a minimally relevant voice.

Always a laugh to hear the narrow-minded define what they'd like to think is the mainstream and what is relevant.

P.S.
The phrase "baby-like organism" is not going to catch on.

I wouldn't have thought so, either, but given that it appears to annoy you, I'm somehow suddenly more interested in promoting it.

Althouse strikes at bhtv again - Indirectly: http://www.feministing.com/archives/009478.html

I thought this was a great conversation. It was fierce, energetic, and thought-provoking. I think their discussion of Obama was the best one all week; deep and honest.

Quoting Native Vermonter: I thought this was a great conversation. It was fierce, energetic, and thought-provoking. I think their discussion of Obama was the best one all week; deep and honest.

I don't know if I agree with "best" (mostly because I dislike ranking things of this sort), but I certainly do agree that their abilities to articulate the complexity of evolving feelings about Obama was quite good.

Quoting graz: Althouse strikes at bhtv again - Indirectly: http://www.feministing.com/archives/009478.html

In fairness, that post wasn't anything that Ann said. Or are you saying that she struck at BH.tv for what it was that she (and Robin) discussed during the diavlog? Great comment by free rhoda, though.

Heart you too, threep.

It appears that Senator Obama prefers to present lengthy explanations about issues primarily when it is to his political advantage. Examples include his response to the Reverend Wright controversy which tried to explain away his strong ties to that church and placate everyone, his treatise regarding fatherhood in black America in his search of white voters, or his oft-repeated "I gave this speech against the Iraq war but didn't have to vote on it" explanations. He seems much less interested in taking on controversial issues that might not assist him in his political quest and will probably twist them around as any good Pander Bear will. Since he continually told us that he was a totally new kind of politician, it's actually surprising that his followers aren't even more angry at his sudden changes. I mean, who can or should admire a Bait and Switch artist, a Shell Game afficionado, or someone who Talks Out of Both Sides of His Mouth? John Kerry's candidacy suffered greatly from only one very dubious flip-flop -- "I was for the war before I was against it" -- my guess is that Obama

Clingon: For the record, I note that your characterization of Obama as a "bait and switcher" or whatever is nothing more than another opinion or perception. Not everyone sees him the same way. I, for example, see far less drastic changes than you apparently do. It seems to me, actually, that what you're more accurately describing is the change in the MSM narrative. You may share it, but it seems a little simplistic to me, a little too willing to reduce everything to a binary state of before and after. There seems, as part of this, to be a frequent exaggeration of what went on "before," in order to emphasize the distinction of the "after." There also seems to be a tendency to pick a couple of things that even I would admit are distressing changes and then try to jam everything else into the same sort of pattern. I'd also say that Kerry had more problems than just "I was for it before I was against it," although I grant that the rightwing noise machine was hugely successful in taking this ball and stretching it into the general meme of flip-flopper. To my mind, Kerry was just

Quoting Wonderment: I will also take this opportunity to preemptively protest any BH discussion of the New Yorker Michelle and Barack cover. Way too boring.

At the risk of provoking more protest, I thought Gary Kamiya's take was worth passing along. Since he agrees with me, I mean. ;^)

Quoting Clingon: [i]t's actually surprising that his followers aren't even more angry at his sudden changes.

Really? I thought they explained it quite well: an election is all about getting your guy elected. Whatever it takes to get into office. Although this hasn't percolated throughout the Democratic Party (cf the die-hard Clintonistas), the fact that Democrats are beginning to understand exactly how Republicans have been so successful in the seven of the last ten presidential elections must be giving some Republicans pause.

I guess their view is that the government should regulate everything except abortion. Michelle claims that late term abortions are a "life-saving procedure" for "medical emergencies". Then they both are upset that Obama does not embrace the "Health of the woman including "mental health" exemption in a late term abortion ban. Which is just a way of rendering the law useless as the ban can be bypassed by getting a psychiatrist to claim that the woman's mental health is in danger (she will become "depressed") if she does not have a abortion.

Quoting ohcomeon: Two females! Bob is certainly working to shut me up.

Not to trivialize the running gender score, I feel it's at least as important that they happen to be intelligent, articulate, interesting and compelling, and have engaged here, in a very important, and fascinating exchange, IMHO.

BJ Keefe -- I note that your characterization of Obama as a "bait and switcher" or whatever is nothing more than another opinion or perception. Not everyone sees him the same way. I, for example, see far less drastic changes than you apparently do.

JLF -- an election is all about getting your guy elected. Whatever it takes to get into office.

Granted, it is an opinion but others are beginning to see it as a problem and perhaps not the best way to win. In Salon's "Obama in the Catbird Seat" Walter Shapiro sights Obama's first presidential campaign choice of Jim Johnson as one of his VP vetters to be heading down the same old path, "as he did when he reversed positions on government snooping (the Senate vote on FISA), public financing of his campaign and holding joint town meetings with McCain. At a time when swing voters -- not all of whom were paying attention during the Democratic primaries -- are still getting comfortable with Obama, it is a political risk for the candidate to overlay his message of 'change' with a loud chorus of 'more of the same'." As a still

I love the smell of flip flopping in the morning.... it smells like.....victory. Nobody is talking about Mcgeezer, I think, because he's just so f'n boring. BTW this morning on a major network (NBC?) I saw back to back video clips of the presumptives, one had a flag pin and the other didn't!!! Maybe it's just not the issue the Fox news made out of it, or is Mcgeezer throwing in the towel already?

Quoting bjkeefe: Great comment by free rhoda, though.

Sorry. I didn't make that clear at all. Yes, interesting post by free rhoda.

Quoting Wonderment: Just to reiterate the points of concern on Obama backpedaling from progressive views (in no particular order):

2) Death penalty for rape

Wait a second, is he supporting death penalty for rape or death penalty for child rape? I'd suppose that support for the latter is much stronger than support for the former -- I imagine even many law-and-order types would be against the death penalty for the rape of an adult, while lots of people who are generally against the death penalty would make an exception for persons who rape kids.

Clingon: Noted. I had a long reply going, but it wasn't going anywhere. Mostly just me restating my perceptions contra your perceptions, which managed to bore even me. So I deleted it. Nothing personal -- just burnt out on horse race talk for the time being.

Quoting bjkeefe: Clingon:

just burnt out on horse race talk for the time being.

As long as it's not man-o-war by a nose.... sorry, I can relate..

Quoting PaulL: I guess their view is that the government should regulate everything except abortion.

That would be a guess alright, I didn't hear them talking about government regulation on everything.

Wait a second, is he supporting death penalty for rape or death penalty for child rape? I'd suppose that support for the latter is much stronger than support for the former -- I imagine even many law-and-order types would be against the death penalty for the rape of an adult, while lots of people who are generally against the death penalty would make an exception for persons who rape kids.

We don't know what he supports the death penalty for. I am shocked to find out that he supports it for crimes in which a life has not been taken. He may also support it for treason, espionage, membership in a terrorist organization. Who knows? He has not clarified.

We waited with baited breath for his clarification on this and many other issues. Unfortunately with each clarification his positions seem to become more obscure.

One reason progressives are so concerned with this issue is because many of us remember the lethal pander pulled by Bill Clinton back in 1992. Clinton took time off from his primary campaign in New Hampshire to oversee the execution of a retarded black man in Arkansas. This is particularly relevant to Obama because Clinton's position was also calculated to appeal to the right wing and defy international human rights standards. Ten years later, when Clinton was gone from the execute-the-retards bully pulpit, the Supreme Court ruled such killings inhumane and unconstitutional.

Quoting handle: That would be a guess alright, I didn't hear them talking about government regulation on everything.

Since they are Obama supporters who write/wrote for salon.com and believe that "abortions should be safe, legal and paid for by the government", I am guessing they are "progressives" and have the view that government should manage everything.

Quoting PaulL: Since they are Obama supporters who write/wrote for salon.com and believe that "abortions should be safe, legal and paid for by the government", I am guessing they are "progressives" and have the view that government should manage everything.

And I was emphasizing that you were guessing, thanks for the confirmation. Oh and thanks for the education, I was not aware that progressive was code for socialist, or are you just using free association to undermine their credibility?

As someone who generally leans progressives I look at it this way: even if Obama is a total flip-flopper and we have no guarantee on any one particular issue, looking at his history and the fact that he has much more direct accountability to progressives in the US (democrats) leads me to believe that even if every decision he makes as president was the flip of his own perceptual coin of judgement, he would still serve progressive interests on a whole much better than McCain. Therefore in the interest of promoting progressive policies a person should clearly vote for Obama. McCain has proven to be quite the flip-flopper himself (which nobody seems to worry about) but at the end of the day I'm pretty confident that he will land more often than not on the GOP side of most issues. Especially on ones like Iraq, where he seems determined to resolutely resist the correct course (IMO). I too am tired of the horse-race but I did find this interesting: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/barack..._b_110789.html It won't convince the skeptics and the haters, but to me it is a good sign. A Presidential candidate willing

Quoting handle: And I was emphasizing that you were guessing, thanks for the confirmation.

Oh and thanks for the education, I was not aware that progressive was code for socialist, or are you just using free association to undermine their credibility?

So what do progressives not want to regulated?
Other than abortion?
It seems that the term Progressive is used by Socialists to avoid the stigma of that word.
See Ezra Klein/Matthew Yglesias

Quoting PaulL: So what do progressives not want to regulated?
Other than abortion?
It seems that the term Progressive is used by Socialists to avoid the stigma of that word.
See Ezra Klein/Matthew Yglesias

How bout free speech? How 'bout right of assembly? How about sexual conduct between consenting adults? To name just a few. I consider myself a centrist, but I find your sweeping definition (pigeon hole) of progressives as inaccurate as saying all conservatives are wingnuts or neocons. Your agenda is transparent FYI.

Oh yea,The right to vote, equal rights for all, the right to legal representation, the right to a fair trial, habius corpis, due process, the right to die with dignity. Just off the top of my head, but maybe the "progressives" can site more...

Quoting bjkeefe: You're unfamiliar with my history.

Never sacrificing post quantity for post quality?

Quoting bjkeefe: I think you just set the BH.tv record for vacuous advice.
And then immediately broke it.

And this for trying to help you and your ilk out.

Quoting bjkeefe: I think we can all agree that an eight-month-old baby is a baby. An eight-month-old fetus, not so much.

37 weeks is full term, but feel free to be technically correct and sound ridiculous

Quoting bjkeefe: Always a laugh to hear the narrow-minded define what they'd like to think is the mainstream and what is relevant.

A comment on my post or your response?

Quoting bjkeefe: I wouldn't have thought so, either, but given that it appears to annoy you, I'm somehow suddenly more interested in promoting it.

Good luck with that. In the future, your flames will need more meat to get a response - at least one substantive point. This one's a freebie.

Quoting handle: Oh yea,The right to vote, equal rights for all, the right to legal representation, the right to a fair trial, habius corpis, due process, the right to die with dignity. Just off the top of my head, but maybe the "progressives" can site more...

Nicely handled. Now I know where your moniker comes from! ;-)

Quoting handle: That would be a guess alright, I didn't hear them talking about government regulation on everything.

True, they didn't mention government regulation on everything - just on everything they mentioned. Except abortion. Seems like feminism and socialism are synonyms to them.

Quoting handle: Oh yea,The right to vote, equal rights for all, the right to legal representation, the right to a fair trial, habius corpis, due process, the right to die with dignity. Just off the top of my head, but maybe the "progressives" can site more...

habeas corpus - how much can you care if you can't spell it?

Wonderment, I'm all for raising concerns about Sen. Obama's moves to the right, but I think this comparison is a little unfair. Clinton's action resulted in a man's death, Obama's was a comment saying on a Supreme Court case, saying he agreed with the minority which had already lost. Regardless of this opinion of Obama's, executing someone for child rape is still unconstitutional. The only possible relevance this position has to any actual cases is if you think that Obama will nominate Supreme Court Justices who will seek to overturn this decision in the near future, which is basically not going to happen. Even in Clinton's case, the two Justices he appointed to the Court both agreed that such executions were unconstitutional. But, I think it is right to find Clinton's action disturbing because an actual retarded man was executed. This is not the same as Obama making a perhaps politically motivated comment.

Quoting Wonderment: One reason progressives are so concerned with this issue is because many of us remember the lethal pander pulled by Bill Clinton back in 1992. Clinton took time off from his primary campaign in New Hampshire

I'm all for raising concerns about Sen. Obama's moves to the right, but I think this comparison is a little unfair.

Yes, I agree that Obama's remark was not in the small ballpark as Clinton's action. I'm just saying that any move rightward on death penalty issues raises a lot of eyebrows and makes a lot of us wonder if this guy really shares our values on the issue. In the primaries Obama had positioned himself as "technically" supporting the death penalty but as having fought for DP reform in Illinois. Now suddenly he's in bed with Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas and critical of the Clinton nominees to the Court.

Quoting Blancandrin: In the future, your flames will need more meat to get a response ...

If it means keeping you quiet, I'm happy to go vegetarian.

Quoting handle: How bout free speech? How 'bout right of assembly? How about sexual conduct between consenting adults? To name just a few. I consider myself a centrist, but I find your sweeping definition (pigeon hole) of progressives as inaccurate as saying all conservatives are wingnuts or neocons. Your agenda is transparent FYI.

Free speech. You mean like campaign finance regulation, the fairness doctrine, and hate speech/crimes?
Who created College speech codes?
So to the sexual conduct between consenting adults. Except when the two adults produce more than 3 children. Then it is a threat to the environment.
Does that also include support for polygamy? But point taken, I am generalizing the definition of progressives.
How about saying that progressive tend to favor more (not less) government regulation of peoples lives.
But no one has answered my question
If late term abortions are a "life-saving procedure" for "medical emergencies", why the outrage against not including the "Health of the mother" (including "mental health)" exemption in a late term abortion ban instead of a life of the mother exemption in a late term abortion ban?
Or is it because the "Health of the mother" exemption renders the ban useless?

Quoting sirfith: If late term abortions are a "life-saving procedure" for "medical emergencies", why the outrage against not including the "Health of the mother" (including "mental health)" exemption in a late term abortion ban instead of a life of the mother exemption in a late term abortion ban?
Or is it because the "Health of the mother" exemption renders the ban useless?

It's pretty simple: We don't want the state to be sticking its nose into the private business of a woman and her doctor. To put it even more directly, it's none of your business, and we don't want you, acting through the state or federal legislature, to stick yourself into the middle of other people's private lives. We wish y'all would keep your nose in your own affairs.

BJ Keefe said: just burnt out on horse race talk for the time being. Understood -- you've be at it for a much longer time than I have.

Quoting Clingon: BJ Keefe said: just burnt out on horse race talk for the time being.

Understood -- you've be at it for a much longer time than I have.

To the benefit of us all.

Quoting TwinSwords: It's pretty simple: We don't want the state to be sticking its nose into the private business of a woman and her doctor. To put it even more directly, it's none of your business, and we don't want you, acting through the state or federal legislature, to stick yourself into the middle of other people's private lives. We wish y'all would keep your nose in your own affairs.

So you/progressives support assisted suicide?
I guess that takes away the new argument for banning handguns from gun grabbing progressives because the available of handguns leads to higher suicide rates. Are progressives against Malpractice lawsuits?
If the doctor wants to try a risky new drug/technique on a patient, the government/FDA has no business in interfering?

Quoting PaulL: So you/progressives support assisted suicide?
I guess that takes away the new argument for banning handguns from gun grabbing progressives because the available of handguns leads to higher suicide rates.

Are progressives against Malpractice lawsuits?
If the doctor wants to try a risky new drug/technique on a patient, the government/FDA has no business in interfering?

I'm torn on the issue of assisted suicide and euthanasia. As for your second example, I absolutely do believe that the FDA should regulate drugs and various medical practices, for reasons that are well known to everyone. I suppose you feel you have caught me in a logical trap: Since I said the government should butt out of abortion questions, it should therefore butt out of all decisions. I don't buy that logic. Let's see how it works when we turn it around: You take the position that the government should be allowed to interfere with a woman's decision about abortion. Generalizing, then, you take the pro-government interference argument. Therefore, I suppose you think the government should be able to tell you whether to use mustard or mayo on your sandwich. I suppose you think the government should be able to tell you what

I think Eric Alterman expressed the viewpoint well a couple diavlogs ago. Although he was talking about "Liberals" I think it would be fair to substitute the word "progressives" for the case of this thread. Alterman essentially said that Progressives don't want the government to regulate or handle everything, but if there is a solution to one of society's problems and the government is the best vehicle for administering that solution, then the government should do it. The typical and least arguable examples are the building of infrastructure and services of the police, firefighters, millitary etc. He stressed that IF the private sector can achieve certain solutions more effectively and efficiently than the government can, then the private sector solution is optimal. When it comes to euthanasia (I'm for it), I would like the government to be involved because I want a guarantee of oversight, as well as equal opportunity. I wouldn't want it to become a procedure that only rich people had access to. I think the choice to end your life gracefully is one that comes down to the individual and much like many personal choices, my libertarianish side wants the government

Quoting TwinSwords: Let's see how it works when we turn it around: You take the position that the government should be allowed to interfere with a woman's decision about abortion. Generalizing, then, you take the pro-government interference argument.

Therefore, I suppose you think the government should be able to tell you whether to use mustard or mayo on your sandwich. I suppose you think the government should be able to tell you what color to paint your house.

Obviously, though, you don't really think those things.

The difference that a late-term abortion infringes on the rights of another person. The baby or as radical feminists label it the fetus/clump of cells/parasite.
So by your logic, I should be against the government not allowing people to perform theft, rape or murder. Do you support the view that a woman has the right to kill her baby a certain amount of time after the baby is born?
Heck Lets go all the way and say a mother can kill her child anytime she wants. Just for the radical feminist who catches her teenage male child looking at Internet pornography.

Quoting uncle ebeneezer: When it comes to euthanasia (I'm for it), I would like the government to be involved because I want a guarantee of oversight, as well as equal opportunity. I wouldn't want it to become a procedure that only rich people had access to.

I think the choice to end your life gracefully is one that comes down to the individual and much like many personal choices, my libertarianish side wants the government to have no involvement. However as a medical procedure I would put more faith in the government (warts and all) to regulate that industry rather than some Halliburton death company. And that's how I feel about abortion as well. I see no contradiction in that. Citizen has right to make decision...government regulates the parties that provide the applicable service involved in implementing that decision.

I agree with all of your reasoning. Well said. My concerns with the practice are: (1) Old, sick people feeling obligated to kill themselves off to alleviate whatever burden they perceive themselves being on their children. (2) People encouraging old people to die so their organs can be harvested. (3) Greedy doctors/others trying to drum up some business by finding old people

Quoting PaulL: The difference that a late-term abortion infringes on the rights of another person. The baby or as radical feminists label it the fetus/clump of cells/parasite.
So by your logic, I should be against the government not allowing people to perform theft, rape or murder.

Do you support the view that a woman has the right to kill her baby a certain amount of time after the baby is born?
Heck Lets go all the way and say a mother can kill her child anytime she wants. Just for the radical feminist who catches her teenage male child looking at Internet pornography.

Can you find me something where "radical feminists" refer to a fetus as a parasite? Also, if you don't mind me asking: Where did you first hear about BHTV?

#1 and #2 seem to just be personal considerations that unfortunately would be a part of the decision for the patient. I would hate to see people kill themselves earlier than necesarry based on those reasons alone, but I don't think that decision should be impeded by the government (in fact the government or non-profit orgs could work to keep the public informed of these scenarios in much the way that they do with suicide prevention, counseling). At the end of the day I would respect the patient's decision and have faith that the gravity of the situation along with the will to live would make most patients do what they believe is right. Of course it gets tricky if the patient has a disorder where their rationality is hindered. This is where I would expect the government to be involved in oversight in preventing the euthanizer from trying to influence the patient's decision (basically #3 scenario.)

Quoting Wonderment: ... I'm just saying that any move rightward on death penalty issues raises a lot of eyebrows and makes a lot of us wonder if this guy really shares our values on the issue.

In the primaries Obama had positioned himself as "technically" supporting the death penalty but as having fought for DP reform in Illinois. Now suddenly he's in bed with Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas and critical of the Clinton nominees to the Court.

Well Obama's previous position is (AFAIK) that he doesn't believe that the death penalty reduces crime ( correct ) etc. etc. but that a society should be able to use it if they want to in order to reinforce the fact that certain things are beyond the pale ( debatable ) etc. etc. In the Supreme Court decision he said that states should be allowed to reinforce the fact that certain things are beyond the pale etc.etc. His nuanced approach to the death penalty is NOT Scalia's. I do agree with other commenters that this diavlog on Obama was pretty good and I will agree that he could have used the talents he showed

And the issues that come up when Senator Obama is "President" Obama, will come up one at a time, evolve slowly and well spaced spaced? If he can't deal with these trivial issues, in the primaries, what gives you the confidence that he can deal with real life and death decision, as a President, epically ones that are unforeseen, happen instantly amidst the cacophony of issues already on his plate.

Quoting TwinSwords: Can you find me something where "radical feminists" refer to a fetus as a parasite?

Also, if you don't mind me asking: Where did you first hear about BHTV?

Best to try google before asking the question. Wackjob Alert: "This Fetus Is A Parasite, A Tick"
Not a radical feminist, but I wonder where this guy got the idea.
If anything, a fetus is merely a parasitical creature that uses the mother as its host. I first heard of BHTV in a link from Instapundit.com of Bob and Mickey arguing that straight men might an inherited revulsion to seeing gay men being "intimate" to explain the Box Office performance for Broke back mountain. Sorry I can't find the link.

Quoting uncle ebeneezer: This is where I would expect the government to be involved in oversight in preventing the euthanizer from trying to influence the patient's decision (basically #3 scenario.)

The problem that I have with this is the Government may become the provider/payer of Healthcare services and may be lack in that oversight to reduce costs.

This brings us to the age-old conundrum of government efficiency/trustworthiness which I fully acknowledge and have yet to find a satisfactory solution to. I will say that my logic is that with matters of life/death I feel more comfortable with the government because I can at least vote them out of office if they don't perform to my standards. I don't feel like I have such direct influence on the Microsofts, Mobils, Halliburtons etc. of the private sector. It's a choice between two sub-optimal solutions, to say the least.

Quoting PaulL: Best to try google before asking the question.

Wackjob Alert: "This Fetus Is A Parasite, A Tick"
Not a radical feminist, but I wonder where this guy got the idea.
If anything, a fetus is merely a parasitical creature that uses the mother as its host.

I first heard of BHTV in a link from Instapundit.com of Bob and Mickey arguing that straight men might an inherited revulsion to seeing gay men being "intimate" to explain the Box Office performance for Broke back mountain.

Sorry I can't find the link.

So, you haven't proven your point, which was that "radical feminists" use the word "parasite" as a substitute for "fetus." Instead, what you found was (1) a college sophomore, 19 years old, writing an idiotic opinion piece for his college paper calling the fetus a parasite. College kids are known for their inflammatory opinion pieces. And you found (2) a justifiably angry pregnant woman (with 3 children) whose efforts to obtain a legal abortion were repeatedly frustrated by Christian conservatives. That's hardly enough for you to broadly state that pro-choice people (or "radical feminists") use the words parasite and fetus interchangably. If you don't mind, I have another question for you: How many radical feminists do you think

Quoting piscivorous: And the issues that come up when Senator Obama is "President" Obama, will come up one at a time, evolve slowly and well spaced spaced? If he can't deal with these trivial issues, in the primaries, what gives you the confidence that he can deal with real life and death decision, as a President, epically ones that are unforeseen, happen instantly amidst the cacophony of issues already on his plate.

You voted for Bush twice?

Actually only once. Unless you count the First President Bush than it is twice.

Quoting Blancandrin: habeas corpus - how much can you care if you can't spell it?

Good point, in my defense, I was trying to get all the things written, and was late for an appointment, and the real time spell checker turned red and I'm not a lawyer, nor have I ever been accused of a felony, nor am I a lefty, who's group I was defending from a blanket socialist label. But since you feel misspelling something is the same as not caring about it, I will delay making my less significant point so as to correct any more important spelling errors in the future. Can I go to hell for being overly sarcastic? How 'bout if I do it without ignoring the spell checker?

Quoting PaulL: The difference that a late-term abortion infringes on the rights of another person. The baby or as radical feminists label it the fetus/clump of cells/parasite.
So by your logic, I should be against the government not allowing people to perform theft, rape or murder.

Do you support the view that a woman has the right to kill her baby a certain amount of time after the baby is born?
Heck Lets go all the way and say a mother can kill her child anytime she wants. Just for the radical feminist who catches her teenage male child looking at Internet pornography.

Don't forget "the blob."

Quoting TwinSwords: So, you haven't proven your point, which was that "radical feminists" use the word "parasite" as a substitute for "fetus."
(2) a justifiably angry pregnant woman (with 3 children) whose efforts to obtain a legal abortion were repeatedly frustrated by Christian conservatives.

That's hardly enough for you to broadly state that pro-choice people (or "radical feminists") use the words parasite and fetus interchangably.

I never say that all pro-choice people are "radical feminists".
I am on the fence with abortion leaning pro-life. I do not like abortion and would try to convince a woman not to have one. But I do not believe in outlawing abortion in the first term.
BTW, the "justifiably angry pregnant woman" wrote the following when she caught her teenage son looking at Internet pornography.
"(I) hate myself for not pouring him down the sink at Planned Parenthood or grabbing a rusty coathanger and doing the job myself even if it killed me."
But she is not a "radical feminist".

Quoting Blancandrin: True, they didn't mention government regulation on everything - just on everything they mentioned. Except abortion. Seems like feminism and socialism are synonyms to them.

Nice play on words, but your premise, based only on what was mentioned in a short discussion, is not only weak, but provides little support for the conclusion, which, I suspect, you made before fabricating the premise.

Quoting piscivorous: And the issues that come up when Senator Obama is "President" Obama, will come up one at a time, evolve slowly and well spaced spaced? If he can't deal with these trivial issues, in the primaries, what gives you the confidence that he can deal with real life and death decision, as a President, epically ones that are unforeseen, happen instantly amidst the cacophony of issues already on his plate.

My point wasn't about how a President Obama would deal with issues, whatever their frequency of occurrence may be. I was saying that Obama didn't have time to calm netrootsian fears ( or the "fears" of the diavloggers ) with more exacting rhetoric. So if my comment

Had there been more time to craft some speech on each item then fewer feathers might have been ruffled.

coming only a sentence after

and I will agree that he could have used the talents he showed in his "Wright Speech" to better effect on the abortion issue and such.

diluted my point I apologize. As for how "President" McCain would handle the difficult tasks ahead ... He'll get back to you after he studies it for while, he has

So it boils down to how can he more effectually tell them to buzz-off with out being offensive?

Quoting Blancandrin: habeas corpus - how much can you care if you can't spell it?

I'm as much of a fussbudget about spelling as anybody, and if a misspelled word is unintentionally funny, then I might say something about it, but basing your entire (humorless) rebuttal on the existence of a misspelling is lame. Worse, it's bad manners -- you're not adding anything but noise to the debate.

Quoting PaulL: I never say that all pro-choice people are "radical feminists".
I am on the fence with abortion leaning pro-life. I do not like abortion and would try to convince a woman not to have one. But I do not believe in outlawing abortion in the first term.
BTW, the "justifiably angry pregnant woman" wrote the following when she caught her teenage son looking at Internet pornography.
"(I) hate myself for not pouring him down the sink at Planned Parenthood or grabbing a rusty coathanger and doing the job myself even if it killed me."
But she is not a "radical feminist".

So, you just thought this was a great opportunity to equate progressives with socialists, using a hot button issue commonly wielded by those with political leanings toward the right, and then defend the issue, using an extremely radical example to make a generalized point?
Why can't you just come out and say you think women should not work, dedicate their time to raising children and serving the needs of men? Isn't that the underlying agenda here? Correct me if I'm wrong.
Could it be that saying what you really think is so

As for sharing values with Obama vs. McCain I think the choice is pretty clear. When it comes to women's issues as a for instance McCain believes that he can assert some sort of eminent domain over a woman's anatomy for 9 months at a time, Obama doesn't share this view.

I've noticed that everytime I even suggest a mild criticism of Obama, I need to make this clarification, so here goes (again): I would never in a million years vote for John McCain, and I will do everything in my power as a citizen activist to ensure Obama defeats him. I have a little buyer's remorse on Obama. He was my third choice for pres. behind Kucinich and Edwards, so I wasn't thrilled with him to begin with. But it's like being upset that a Prius gets only 45 gpm as opposed to the 50 the manufacturer claims. You're not going to trade it in for a Hummer.

TwinSwords:
At the risk of engaging in the dreaded back-patting, thanks for taking my lateral on this, as I am not only ill equipped to argue leftist policy, but had somewhere else to be.

an adaptation of something I just wrote in arguing with a friend :
__________________________________________________ _______________
No liberal democracy can in theory act arbitrarily or capriciously towards its citizens—a tyranny can, and arguably legally on a purely positivist account of what law is. If the state’s rational treatment of its citizens is one of its constituents—in the nature of a liberal democracy so to speak, partially constitutive of it, at least conceptually— preceded by man’s inherent, inalienable rights as he contracts socially with his fellow (soon to be) citizens and the liberal democratic state in giving birth to it. These state-defining rights flow from man’s inalienable individual rights and often get formal expression in states’ constitutional rights documents. That is surely the American theory in any event. And that theory is one way of understanding why enumerated rights, at least in American and Canadian constitutional law, do not preclude the constitutional status of unenumerated fundamental rights. Such rights in these two countries, according to the case law, await recognition and declaration by the court.
Are there in common (sense) usage material differences between “the right to be let alone” and privacy? The latter does seem

Allow me to demur from yours and Wonderment's discomfort regarding Sweden's pro-natalist policies. I have no problem with non-breeders -- wish there were more of them in fact, particularly in countries and communities where the Enlightenment never happened -- but whenever anti-natalists express resentment that a new parent at the office is getting time or benefits that non-breeders don't get, I wonder if that non-breeder, so sensitive to injustice and the equal distribution of goods, is taking steps to reimburse the tax-payers for the free education and the other benefits that said non-breeder received. I wonder if they're working extra hours to reimburse Mom and Dad for the free labor. It should be obvious to anyone who claims liberal instincts that we all benefit from special accommodations made for those in the front-lines of the very human project of parenting. To be against that isn't environmentalism, it's misanthropy.

January: Noted. Just to be clear -- I was expressing mixed feelings in the post to which you were responding. Seemed like your reply missed that.

Quoting January: It should be obvious to anyone who claims liberal instincts that we all benefit from special accommodations made for those in the front-lines of the very human project of parenting. To be against that isn't environmentalism, it's misanthropy.

"Are we misanthropes?" "Lord no! We're a family!" --From The Proposition written by Nick Cave

Sure, third wavers, act surprised. I told you so. Is it the fourth wave yet?

Quoting Chef: "Are we misanthropes?"

"Lord no! We're a family!"

--From The Proposition written by Nick Cave

Maybe he's just a bad seed.

Quoting graz: Maybe he's just a bad seed.

Heh. nice to meet a fellow fan.

Yes, I should have acknowledged your moderateness in my post. My apologies. Parents can be soooo obnoxious, waiting for non-parents to come into the state of grace they believe they've achieved. Guilty.

Have you ever read his novel? http://www.amazon.com/Ass-Saw-Angel-...6430752&sr=1-1 It was pretty damn impressive...and DARK!

Have you ever read his novel?

http://www.amazon.com/Ass-Saw-Angel-...6430752&sr=1-1

It was pretty damn impressive...and DARK!

I thought about it after I saw the movie Proposition, but I was on a big Cormac McCarthy kick at the time, and I thought that it would be too much of a good thing. But I generally don't have a problem with dark, so long as the work illuminates human nature (as opposed to prurience, I suppose)