Why Educate Our Kids? Part Three: Their Enemy Is Us

11 06 2010

Teach your parents well,
Their father’s hell will slowly go by.
You who are on the road,
Must have a code that you can live by. . .
And so become yourself
Because the past is just a goodbye.

UPDATE:
[C]ults – whether they are political, religious, psychotherapeutic, commercial, or educational – seek to make people dependent and obedient.

. . .When we get serious about thwarting cult recruiters we will expose those techniques of persuasion and prepare our young people with the tools to combat cultism. . . take it upon ourselves, in our homes, schools and even places of worship, to address and expose cultism and give our children, parents and teachers the tools to combat it.
*************

“Despite what opponents of this legislation say, this bill does not hinder a woman’s ability to have an abortion,” [GOP lt. governor Jeff] Kottkamp wrote. “However, it most certainly provides the opportunity to change their hearts — and open their eyes.”

A Thinking Student might use analogies to help analyze whether this is actually an argument for free education or authoritarian exploitation, of individually sovereign girls and women.

For examples, we’re all about education freedom here, and we’ve been debating vaccine freedom as a civil rights issue. Both education choice and antivax arguments assert the individual family’s ultimate right to be left alone by society, to have nothing forced on it physically or mentally.

An educated student might notice the overlap is extensive in arguments for individual rights up to and including homeschool mom brinksmanship about public education standards as not merely “an opportunity . . .to change their hearts and open their eyes” — until we come to anti-abortion activists, making Kottkamp’s argument that government should intrude right into the examining room and force an emotionally exploitative mandate by government fiat upon the individual, expressly designed as public interference with the individual’s right to make her private decision regardless of the rest of society.

Would Kottkamp support a similar bill to mandate that at any well-baby checkup involving a vaccine delayer/refuser, the child would be held by a social worker in another room while the mom was forced to view (and PAY FOR!) sophisticated video simulations of her own child suffering all manner of ravage from childhood diseases, ending with an image of the mom herself weeping over a grave . . .?

The antivax/antiabortion argument about individual rights is wrong to demand for moms the right to be left alone by government in one case, but not the other.

Advertisements

Actions

Information

51 responses

11 06 2010
Crimson Wife

I get a lecture from my pediatrician every checkup about vaccines and I don’t consider it horribly intrusive. She gives her spiel and I listen politely, tell her I understand what she’s saying, then tell her I’m going forward with delaying or skipping the vaccine in question.

I personally became much stronger in my feelings against abortion after I had the first trimester ultrasound with my oldest. I always considered abortion wrong, but it wasn’t that big of an issue. But then when I saw that perfectly formed little baby with her heart beating on the screen it really struck home to me that abortion is murder.

I’d like to see a requirement in all 50 states for an ultrasound followed by a 24 hour waiting period prior to abortion. That would give women a chance to think through their decision, whether it’s truly what they want.

11 06 2010
JJ

How is that permissible as compulsory “public education” much less any of your business though?

11 06 2010
JJ

To spell it out, if there are vax advocates who strongly believe babies and children and pregnant women are being harmed and even murdered by your individual choice of vaccine resistance, is it constitutional and acceptable to you if they can get enough votes to manipulate you into it emotionally, requiring you to pay for their manipulation of you, and eventually force it on you if you are in the shrunken-enough minority?

11 06 2010
JJ

when I saw that perfectly formed little baby with her heart beating on the screen it really struck home to me that abortion is murder.

I’d like to see a requirement in all 50 states for an ultrasound followed by a 24 hour waiting period . . .

So direct from the feds then, compulsory “education” for adults as well as children, so much for states’ rights rhetoric and Rand Paul can pound sand!
From a January comment I made here:

Not recognizing and reconciling the real meaning behind all the words we mouth as we clash, is such a big part of the problem. . .

We had a whole section of the NHEN forums devoted to “What’s in a Name?” and I have a well-used blog category for it here too.

What is objectively murder, under the law and/or ethically, do the ethics and law definitions match and when they don’t, who gets to impose the definition, in a free society? The murder verdict today against an admitted doctor killer had to overcome his personal twisting of the term to justify himself as saving life FROM murder, by murder.

Some of the same people who agree with him on that will accept the new twisted definition of “investigative journalism” given by this bad actor-accused felon out on bail insisting against all reason he’s the only one who gets to define it, claiming all the major news organizations all are wrong and slanted, while only he is fair and ethical.

And what is a homeschooler — Neil DeGrasse Tyson was on my car radio just now, discussing whether and why Pluto (and heavenly bodies generally) should be considered a “planet” — in intellectually lively and refreshing fashion, examining why it’s a complex and interesting question worth studying and discussing to learn about, not something to just fight about!

11 06 2010
JJ

WAPo: On cable TV and talk radio, a push toward polarization:

I speak to people for whom the issues are a mixed bag; they are liberal on some, conservative on others, middle of the road on the rest. But politicians don’t take their cues from those people. No, politicians emulate the world of punditry.

Opinions from the middle are underrepresented, even shunned, in the modern debate. . .There is no room for nuance. Either you offer a consistent (possibly artificial) ideological view or you often don’t get a say.

11 06 2010
JJ

First good news of any kind we’ve had down here as the Corporate Rape both politically and literally continues:

Crist, who has three sisters, has repeatedly called himself “pro-life” but often has said he prefers changing hearts to changing laws. He did so again in the veto message.

“Such measures do not change hearts, which is the only true and effective way to ensure that a new life coming into the world is loved, cherished and receives the care that is deserved,” Crist wrote

Of course, a true freedom-lover anywhere left or right, would be squeamish about both the Gov AND Lt Gov admitting they target legislative policy toward “changing women’s hearts” to make us feel and choose what men in power decide we ought to feel and choose . . .

But can anybody on any side articulate a red, white and blue policy principle against this?

“Individuals hold strong personal views on the issue of life, as do I,” Crist wrote. “However, personal views should not result in laws that unwisely expand the role of government and coerce people to obtain medical tests or procedures that are not medically necessary.”

I’ve searched, asked, called out, thought about it, turned it upside down. I read Dworkin’s elegant “Life’s Dominion” with an open mind and heart, but I’ve never heard it done.

11 06 2010
Nance Confer

CW: I’d like to see a requirement in all 50 states for an ultrasound followed by a 24 hour waiting period prior to abortion. That would give women a chance to think through their decision, whether it’s truly what they want.

********

I’d like to see awesome prenatal and postnatal care provided to all women, regardless of ability to pay. That probably isn’t going to happen either.

But I think you can rest easy, CW. The women having abortions have much longer than 24 hours to think through, yes, their decision. Their legal decision. They have that whole time after they find out they are accidentally pregnant. These women have the opportunity to start thinking about their choice right then. They don’t have to wait for the movie to panic.

I think, though, that anyone considering having a baby should have to live with a baby for a year or two first. Then they’d have plenty of time to think through their decision. My proposed waiting period is longer, of course. But it may take the wannabe parents that long to truly experience sleep deprivation and the rest of the life-altering — good and bad — business that comes with having a baby.

Also, with my plan, the child’s real parents might get a helping hand when they need it.

11 06 2010
Crimson Wife

Only a tiny fraction of abortions are medically necessary procedures. The rest are elective. So the rhetoric from Crist about the ultrasound being a medically unnecessary test is absurd. These women are already undergoing a procedure that is unnecessary from a medical standpoint.

I’d be okay with waiving the requirement for an ultrasound if the abortion is done to save the life of the mother. Also for victims of rape or incest since they did not consent to the sex that resulted in the pregnancy. I still think abortion for rape victims is a case of 2 wrongs not making a right but it’s a horrible situation to be in.

As for ultrasound not changing minds about abortion, there wouldn’t be such a big fight over it if that were indeed the case. However, large percentage of women considering abortion who do receive an ultrasound wind up continuing their pregnancy. And several high-profile pro-Life activists are former abortion clinic staff who changed their views after witnessing ultrasounds.

There’s also been talk that one of the big reasons why younger Americans are more likely to be pro-Life than Baby Boomers is that we’ve grown up in an age where ultrasounds are the norm. My older 2 witnessed their baby sister multiple times in utero via ultrasound. They’ve also seen printouts from their own ultrasounds in their baby books. They’re less likely to believe the claim that the pre-born baby is “just a clump of tissue” as a result.

11 06 2010
Nance Confer

I’m not surprised that the video viewing works, if it does. That doesn’t make it right.

BTW, the younger Americans in my home are pro-choice. Really, really pro-choice. Having seen the havoc an unplanned baby brings to many lives, they get it.

11 06 2010
JJ

Red herring. It doesn’t matter whether it is elective. Most everything about sex and reproduction is elective to some extent these days and legal, even Viagra. Should that involve a deterrent video to be forced on men before getting their dose? (come to think of it, hmmm . . .)

11 06 2010
JJ

Depends on how well the meaning of works works.
Of COURSE it works, when the goal like cults and subliminal advertising or talk radio is emotional short-circuiting, in this case to get women and girls to reflexively do what the Deciders demand, while making it seem like their free choice.

Lots of other indefensible things “work” too, like say beating children and animals (and women depending on culture and constitution) to make them behave as the abuser demands.

I’m still listening for how the libertarian defense of to all other individual human choice — including not forcing taxpayers to send their children to school, to purchase health insurance or get vaccines — can simultaneously argue the federal government should coerce when it comes to the most private individual and family choices of all.

12 06 2010
Nance Confer

They get away with it, JJ, by leaving a slim thread of choice available.

We won’t pay for any of it, we will make it as difficult and unpleasant as possible to access services, we want you to watch this video explaining that you don’t know your own mind, and, btw, when you do decide to have the baby, we will be of little or no help and will castigate you for being a single mother . . . but you still have the choice to have an abortion, don’t you. Libertarian triumph! 😦

12 06 2010
JJ

CW, would you like to take that on? Can you explain why women and girls should be subjected to government-mandated “reeducation” before exercising any constitutionally protected civil right?

13 06 2010
JJ

And why any unaccountable global Church should be the compelling power behind secular law in America?

Power corrupts and superpower corrupts superbly. At least this is some honest free speech from a church spokesman for once, putting institutional religion’s all-powerful overriding human-killing survival instinct out in the open where real people can see it and maybe talk about it.

See some powerful stories of how Church power turns against its own, starting with a married couple each raised in the Church, pledged for a billion years to its service, but now trying to get out and exercise free speech about their actual religious freedom. In America — you know, where such human rights are supposedly guaranteed to the people in the so-called Bill of Rights?

What will we choose to believe about who/what is being threatened in this story, and what we are prepared to do about it on behalf of our fellows and communities? Where is the greater good, the greater evil, the authentic freedoms and rights and traditions to be honored and/or reinstated, the fabricated truths and evil powers and human wrongs to be righted, as best we humans can manage it?

13 06 2010
Lynn

Hey, I want to be a Decider, too.

My government-mandated reeducation program of choice would be related to the religious indoctrination of children. I’d like to see a requirement in all 50 states that every child with religious parents be forced to watch a video about the *true* history of his/her parents’ church. Children contemplating Catholicism, for example, would be required to view reenactments of priests forcing their young charges to go down on them (complete with close-ups of priestly genitals, ejaculate on the faces of children, the whole shebang). Yes, the video *must* be realistic and graphic – so that children make a truly informed decision, about a grave matter. The video would then be followed by a 24-hour waiting period to give children a chance to think through their decision to accept or reject association with the Catholic Church. In this way, the videos will serve to turn public sentiment against religion,… until enough hearts have been changed to outlaw it entirely. Change takes time, afterall.

(/snarkiness)

13 06 2010
JJ

Snark notation aside and as a serious public policy specialist, I honestly can’t see the difference between Lynn and CW advocating for their own convictions in law despite how offensively intrusive or not to others, they may be — I suspect the only real difference is that Lynn sees they are the same and CW cannot.

13 06 2010
Lynn

The second video in the series would be about how the children cried out for help, but clergy and parishioners pretended not to hear. I’d call it, “Silent Scream.” 😉

13 06 2010
Lynn

Btw, JJ, the “biggest difference” is that I’m kidding.
😦

13 06 2010
JJ

Precisely. It wouldn’t occur to any of US to seriously advocate for such manipulation as constitutional or ethical . . .

13 06 2010
Lynn

It’s also part of my secret, wicked plan to convert CW. I’m giving myself until Christmas to lure her into godless, liberal-limousine feminism. Though I may need help. Who will assist me?

13 06 2010
JJ

All it takes, says my conservative lt. gov, is “the opportunity to change her heart and open her eyes” —

13 06 2010
Crimson Wife

Lynn, how many times do I have to point out that the rate of child abuse by Catholics priests is NO HIGHER than that of clergy members of other faiths and LOWER than that of similar “helping” professions such as schoolteachers, sports coaches, Scout leaders, etc. From a secular source: http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/do-the-right-thing/201003/six-important-points-you-dont-hear-about-regarding-clergy-sexual-abus

It’s a tragedy when any child is abused by someone in an authority position, but it has nothing to do with Catholicism as a religion.

13 06 2010
Lynn

CW: “the rate of child abuse by Catholics priests is NO HIGHER than that of clergy members of other faiths”

So, children being raised in other religious faiths should see the video, too. Okay, fair enough.

(I’m going to need more than seven months, aren’t I?)

13 06 2010
Nance Confer

CW is far beyond our reach, Lynn, and content in her worldview. At least she is actually willing to hang out with godless liberals and hear our critique of her beliefs.

It’s the millions who never hear anything that contradicts their wrongheadedness that I worry about.

Especially if they actually stop fighting among themselves long enough to elect enough wingnuts to pass legislation that imposes their craziness on the rest of us.

13 06 2010
Nance Confer

CW: It’s a tragedy when any child is abused by someone in an authority position, but it has nothing to do with Catholicism as a religion.

This is incorrect. Tolerance of abuse by Catholic priests — by the children and everyone else involved — has everything to do with the religion’s structure and the roles everyone involved has beaten into them. Literally or figuratively, take your pick.

When abuse happens in other situations where one person has authority or power over another person, that is also a bad thing and also has to do with the structure that allows the abuse of power.

That is no comfort, I imagine, to the true believers who have a special feeling about the role of priests.

All of these situations are offensive to the rest of us because of the gross hypocrisy involved.

But there is no get out of jail free card just because there are other morally corrupt criminals in the world.

13 06 2010
JJ

Agree, and to add another distinction, Lynn’s approach would save some actual born, living. breathing children. Not potential hypothetical children.

To add to CW’s perspective, see Newsweek’s new cover story, Saint Sarah telling her personal choice story . . . which wouldn’t be as meaningful, one notices, had she been strong-armed into it against her own choice but never mind the rational, right?

13 06 2010
NanceConfer

You’re ignoring the veneer of choice, though, JJ. The anti-choice harassment and coercion are just this side of legal and therefore okey-dokey. And consider that poor Sarah only knows what she was taught, too.

13 06 2010
JJ

But then what about the anti-choice crowd’s simultaneous insistence on complete choice in education, including standards and testing, texts and credits, sex education, religious education, “science” and “history” and “governance” and even the library books available for free check-out — it’s not much of a believable story that intelligent conservatives wouldn’t see the glaring contradiction.

13 06 2010
NanceConfer

But those are all completely separate issues and as long as we keep them that way, never develop a principled, coherent “story,” we can pick and choose when my choice of what is right is better than your choice (hint: always).

And none of these choice issues are really about choice — they are about getting away from government, from liberals, from science, from progress. Back to the good old days — when men were men, kids were taught the bible and women had back-alley abortions.

13 06 2010
JJ

Nance, your telling of this story is getting quite compelling!

13 06 2010
Lynn

“Lynn, how many times do I have to point out that the rate of child abuse by Catholics priests is NO HIGHER than…

I don’t remember talking about this over here, but my memory isn’t what it used to be. Did any of this come up?

Apparently, many lay Catholics cite the “John Jay Report” — a survey, actually — commissioned by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops — based on questionnaires completed by U.S. Catholic dioceses.

Incidentally, the PT blogger, Thomas Plante? He’s a Professor at a Catholic university. And, Vice-Chair of the National Review Board for the Protection of Children for the U.S. Council of Catholic Bishops. In 2002, Plante was named one among “three leading (American) Catholics” by TIME Magazine. Etc.

I guess “secular sources” aren’t what they used to be.

And, the Catholic Establishment is even dirtier than I thought.

13 06 2010
JJ

Ahem. The most frequent abuse of all is from parents and other family members. That’s gonna be some scary video to force kids to watch! And parents are sure gonna screech about it being mandated . . .

13 06 2010
JJ

Kids and parents will want to watch out for this freedom fight too:

Arizona Republicans will likely introduce legislation this fall that would deny birth certificates to children born in Arizona — and thus American citizens according to the U.S. Constitution — to parents who are not legal U.S. citizens. The law largely is the brainchild of state Sen. Russell Pearce, a Republican whose suburban district, Mesa, is considered the conservative bastion of the Phoenix political scene.

. . . “They use [the 14th amendment] as a wedge,” Pearce says. “This is an orchestrated effort by them to come here and have children to gain access to the great welfare state we’ve created.”

Pearce says he is aware of the constitutional issues involved with the bill and vows to introduce it nevertheless. . . He and other Republicans in the red state Arizona point to popular sympathy . . .

13 06 2010
Lynn

JJ: “Ahem.”

Hi JJ,
Is the “ahem” for me? If so, pls. go ahead and delete any comments I’ve made that you feel are not appropriate for your blog. 😦

14 06 2010
JJ

Heck no! I was “ahem-ing” myself first and foremost, feeling that we’re all parents and so we ought to point at ourselves while we were making the case for these cautionary videos. 🙂

A concept I really like btw and intend to play out, then declare even the most compelling of them cannot be compelled and we don’t need no thought control . . .

14 06 2010
NanceConfer

Thanks for pointing out Plante’s bio, Lynn. That hadn’t clicked in my brain before you pointed to it.

Awkward thing, that Constitution. Putting wedges between the real Americans the one ones who were only born here.

Idiot!

14 06 2010
NanceConfer

OTOH, as we are now “Deciders” . . .

And, apparently, we can completely rewrite (far beyond that tame “activist” interpretation) the Constitution to fit this week’s hysteria . . .

Citizenship based on IQ tests? Whiteness? (Oh, wait, that’s AZ’s thing.) Atheists first?

14 06 2010
JJ

Yes, no need to focus on child abuse per se, just religion as the root of evil. We could open some hearts and minds for that, once the government mandates our videos be shown at the top of the worship hour in every venue (like the warning labels on every pack of cigarettes?)

I lost track of my private religious freedom being unconstitutionally encroached, in the assault on all my life, liberty and pursuit of happiness protections — environmental disasters, highest state in home foreclosures, two indefensible wars full of illegal inhumanity that no one supports but no one can stop, hey, what about videos against that, forced on every kid approaching a military recruitment table? That’s pro-life propaganda if anything is . . .

Hmmm, that’s a politically useful thought, maybe. Each time the mandated video for mama-to-be is proposed, why not amend the bill with other such “pro-life” videos to open eyes and hearts and minds in similarly vulnerable mental states? Isn’t that the purpose behind those disgusting church protesters at military funerals, to exploit a fecund opportunity? (pun intended)

Oh, wait. Awful as they are, even those demonstrations aren’t mandated by government to be inflicted on the military mourners. But I guess they can be, once we toss out the constitutional principle that prevents it . . .

14 06 2010
JJ

Awkward thing, that Constitution. Putting wedges between the real Americans and ones who were only born here.

Consider this — if Arizona also enacts some anti-choice video reeducation law, arguably it won’t apply to any mom who tells the doctor she’s 1) not a citizen herself and therefore b) can’t possibly have a potential American citizen life inside her whose rights have been legislated above her own and must be protected by red America. Interesting. That could lead to citizen daughters like mine say, ironically protecting their own American freedoms best, by denying they are entitled to them and proceeding with their medical care more freely!

14 06 2010
JJ

The Whole truth and nothing but the truth, in media and public relations:

My own view is that manipulating the darker forces of human nature is inappropriate. . . . Here are my Ten Commandments . . .

14 06 2010
Crimson Wife

It’s also part of my secret, wicked plan to convert CW. I’m giving myself until Christmas to lure her into godless, liberal-limousine feminism.

I’ve lived all but 6 months of my 33 1/2 years in the bluest of the blue states (Massachusetts and California) and nearly all of my relatives are liberals. So if I were easily swayed, I think it would’ve happened already 😉

From an objective standpoint, I’d say why I remain Catholic is a factor of my birth order (oldest kids like tradition & rules), generation (grew up during the Reagan era), and the fact that it’s one of the more intellectual of religions (no “Young Earth Creationism” and I get to delve into great thinkers like Thomas Aquinas, Augustine of Hippo, etc.)

14 06 2010
JJ

Nah – I am a whole different person in too many ways since I was that age! The next 20 years of your own life may shock the s**t out of you, honest . . .

14 06 2010
Lynn

Ahh, to be 33 1/2 again ~~ [pausing to reminisce] ~~ Not that at 49 9/12 (or 49 3/4, if you reduce), I’m done changing. In fact, I think I just may have a couple cult memberships left in me. I’d like to find one where you get to dress up and burn stuff. (Not the Klan though.)

14 06 2010
Crimson Wife

Well, if I can go from a Type A jr. executive at 27 stressed out over the prospect of getting my kid into a Manhattan “baby Ivy” (I’d even made inquiries to a couple of kindergarten admissions consultants, ugh) to a homeschooler by my early 30’s then I suppose we’ll just have to see what I’ll be like in another 15-20 years 😉

14 06 2010
JJ

See??!

😀

CW, I do think you’re right about the oldest child preferring rules and traditions, at least when young and wishing to grow up fast. I’m an oldest and what a prig I was, looking back . . . I remember writing a high school newspaper editiorial about why marijuana should never be legalized and this was at the height of marijuana use circa 1969-72. And also, FavD agrees with you about the Catholic thinker traditions and gives them much more credit for making the effort than say, Sarah Palin’s Pentecostalism or whatever sports models spout as belief from show to show.

Lynn, I recommend community theatre for your next cult!
I’d like to find one where you get to dress up and burn stuff. (Not the Klan though.)

Ours dresses up all the time of course, what’s the point of clothes if they aren’t costumes,and then a couple of times per year after we strike the sets for each show’s run, we have a big bonfire! 🙂

14 06 2010
Crimson Wife

I plan on voting for the proposition to legalize (and tax) marijuana in California. It’s never been my substance of choice but it seems pretty stupid to allow tobacco & alcohol to be legally sold and not pot.

15 06 2010
NanceConfer

I wonder if followers of other religions feel the same way about their choice — that theirs is better.

It seems to me there is a substantial difference between studying as FavD does and believing as CW does.

For one thing, FavD doesn’t pretend to be able to tell anyone else how to live and make personal, deeply personal, decisions. And I doubt she’d be in favor of the government further restricting choice.

15 06 2010
JJ

Nance is right, too. FavD the open and principled atheist, is learning omnivorously, becoming what we might punnily call “well versed” in religions as human history, culture, psychology, language, literature, law, art, ethics, diet, etc. The more she learns, the more she realizes how much more there is to question and seek and to learn and think about and ask, and the better her questions get, the more her life expands in all directions.

Her studies are in reality what FL’s so-called pro-life lt. gov. called “opening hearts and eyes” — and what they’ve opened her eyes to, is how religion and law and politics aren’t about opening anything.

(She was more outraged about the forced ultrasound bill than I was, and with better arguments!)

Here’s a story to study about Kottkamp, his own religion and politics and personal life: He went from defending companies to suing them. But was it really a change of heart?”

So our supposedly “heart and eye opening” GOP lt gov is a: 1)theocrat 2) corporate lawyer 3) politician. Three strikes that don’t open up our world to better questions that could lead to better answers in any endeavor. . .

In all three, the answer or story is picked first, and then the “study” begins to figure out how to win with its story. It’s personal interest — making money and/or playing for a particular belief team or cause — that makes preachers and lawyers and politicians (to be redundant, sigh) come up with a story first and then go “study”seeking ways they can win with that story by shutting down questions, arguing it as truer than any other story with whatever sophistry or tortured logic may be required.

On the contrary, they consider themselves ethically bound to help One Story win (for their god, cause or client, party or firm) rather than to study and question and seek better stories with happier endings for actual living humans. They are apologists and warriors, not scholars. There’s no search for collective wisdom through better questions and actually opening hearts and eyes. It is about opening only pocketbooks while closing off storylines, channeling us all into a narrowing chute until their one chosen answer appears inevitable, case closed.

Men of the cloth and the bar and the capitol do read and think of course, but they do it the way corporations and even pollsters do now: with their chosen end justifying the means.That’s not what I call choice! — much less study or scholarship or enlightenment. That controls and closes minds and hearts and eyes and lives, no peeking allowed, on pain of more pain, amen. And a man like Kottkamp has ample means to dole out that pain as he sees fit. He controls the power of the purse AND the government, and if that doesn’t shut you down, he’s got the power of prayer too.

Read his story. It’s all right there if we just open our eyes . . .

15 06 2010
JJ

From Nance way above:
I think, though, that anyone considering having a baby should have to live with a baby for a year or two first. Then they’d have plenty of time to think through their decision. My proposed waiting period is longer, of course. But it may take the wannabe parents that long to truly experience sleep deprivation and the rest of the life-altering — good and bad — business that comes with having a baby.

This is the closest parallel to the ultrasound mandate we’ve talked about, I think. So, however will the conservative and libertarian “parent rights” meme argue for one but against the other, at the same time? Can it be done with integrity that helps resolve or at least acknowledge conflict between ideology and freedom/privacy/ethical principles, rather than ignoring or denying them? Inquiring minds want to know!

See what I mean? — opening my eyes to better questions! 😉

15 06 2010
JJ

Two more “pro-life” rich and powerful corporate and christian believers who don’t study, don’t ask questions OR answer them, just pit-bully full steam ahead, damn the torture or torpedoes, remember this?

If there’s a common cause for Bush and Palin’s less-than-complex worldview — one that should disturb the security minded of both parties — it’s their profound disinterest in understanding or even experiencing other countries and cultures.

. . . as well as an unusual ability to project an aura of moderation and post-partisanship (“I reached across the aisle”; “I’m a uniter, not a divider”) even while engaged in viciously political behavior.

Part of what helps them preserve that firewall is the human cocoons with which they’ve surrounded themselves, tight circles of devoted long-term insiders. . .

It’s an environment that encourages a with-us-or-against-us, win-at-all-costs mentality, a mindset that has been expressed in both their politics and their governance. . .

Oh, and this:
Cinderella Meets Tokyo Rose in GOP Fairy Tale — read down to the comment discussing the real story of “Look out, Old Mack is back!”

29 06 2010
JJ

Yet where are the anti-vaccine alarmists when real babies are really being conspired against and really harmed by those who really run America’s medical and health care systems (corporations of course) —

The company determined that it could save $20,000 for each neonatal baby that was removed [from coverage] and $11,500 for every terminally ill patient that was removed, the lawsuit charges.

At one point, the company threw a celebratory dinner for the “neonatal babies disenrollment team” after the team successfully removed 425 babies from its membership rolls . . .

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s




%d bloggers like this: