I just had a (loud) discussion with a pro-life friend who told me what his church is telling people about this amendment. Now, this guy is intelligent and literate, but has fully bought into the Bible-as-inerrant-literal-truth philosophy. Maybe you've read Erich's Missouri Amendment 2 entry from April. Maybe not. Here…
According to this article by McClatchy, U.S. federal spending “increased by 9 percent in fiscal 2006, the biggest jump since 1990. It's risen sharply for education, agriculture and several non-defense programs as well as for the war on terrorism and homeland security.” Surprising to me, defense and homeland security account for…
Many years ago, a fellow employee and I got into political and philosophic discourse weekly, sometimes daily. One of our basic disagreements had to do with abortion. She was Irish Catholic, and a very bright woman. Her position was consistent with her church. But she was not so dogmatic as to be incapable of engaging the debate without getting so defensive as to shut off her brain.
One day we both heard a news report about a statutory rape case in England. The girl–14–was pregnant. The judge ordered her to have an abortion. The circumstances were bizarre and extreme. Naturally, though, the debate at work that day was about abortion.
“I suppose,” she said to me, “you agree with the judge’s order.”
“No, I don’t,” I said. She blinked, dismayed, and asked why. “Because it’s supposed to be a matter of choice, for Pete’s sake. Choice. Why is it so hard for you to get that? It’s not the court’s decision, it’s her decision, whether to keep it or get rid of it.”
She had a hard time with that–with both aspects. The idea of abortion and my support of a woman’s right to keep her fetus.
An earlier post elicited some responses dealing with the Establishment Clause of the Constitution, one of which asserted that there is no explicit statement in the Constitution separating church and state. As far as it goes, no, there isn’t, but the Establishment Clause in the First Amendment lays a logical basis for first …
The NewsHour is allegedly a “low-key, evenhanded [newscast], inclusive of all perspectives. FAIR studied NewsHour’s guestlist from October 2005 through March 2006 (six months) To evaluate NewsHour's claim to evenhandedness and commitment to the public interest. Here’s what Extra found: At a time when a large proportion of the U.S. public…
Mark Foley is a political whore, like most of his elected peers in Washington, DC. Yes, this post is yet another plea for radical campaign finance reform.
Our country appears to be going down the tubes and for the most part it is not because of perverts like Mark Foley are trying to seduce young boys. The reason we are really in trouble is because hundreds of elected officials (Mark Foley among them) are perverting our Constitution by acquiescing in our corrupt (though technically legal) election system.
How often do you hear a politician discussing an issue in a way that makes intuitive sense to you and seems straightforward? Not very often, in my experience. Almost all political conversations emanating from DC are contorted by money. That is why very little political dialogue makes sense to those who are not closely monitoring the flow of contributions. The result is that we the citizens are getting is a steady stream of legislation geared toward helping big contributors (mostly big companies) at the expense of individual citizens.
Today, Salon.com featured an article about Mark Foley, a known sex pervert. Foley has also been busy perverting our electoral system (as have most other elected federal officials) by taking big money from corporate interests and working hard to reward those contributors. Since Foley himself happened to be in the news already, Salon.com made him today’s poster boy in an article demonstrating that political/financial quid pro quo is alive and well.
The Salon.com story …