Bush, G15P5's and other things that drive you crazy...

[debtridden]

Hamas sweeps to election victory

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4650788.stm

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[EctopicFetus]

Uh yeah we have been talking about it..Screw those terrorists..

 

[EctopicFetus]

Yes, I understand the need for personal responsibility. I know that I, as a (currently abstinent) first year medical student living in a tiny apartment and barely getting by on my student loan money and barely finding the time to take care of myself, would be in quite a pickle if I got pregnant. And the guy would have no worries. Yes, I suppose I could go after him for child support, but I have friends who get child support from their "baby daddies" and it amounts to something like $200/month when the guy is pulling in 50K a year. $200 a month would not help me raise a child.

These numbers are usually more in the range of $800 to 1K which is MORE than enough for diapers, formula etc. Daycare would be an issue but I am just saying it would be enough for the basics.

Would I have an abortion? Probably not. I would take time off from school to save some money and enlist the help of my family (I am lucky enough to have a mom who doesn't work, and would pitch in to help) and make it somehow and be able to give that child a very nice life - financially, educationally, and emotionally. But what percent of the population am I? What percent of the population has less support than I do? I would guess that a very high percentage do.

Agreed. IIRC from what I saw yesterday in the link to the CDC I think 81% of abortions were by single women, and 52% or so were white women. I am sure if you looked at the level of education at the time they had an abortion it would be people who are either in high school or only have a HS degree (either in college or working without going to college). I have NO basis to back this up just my guess..

I realize that the G15P5 patients you see are probably NOT there due to contraceptive failure, but they are there due to lack of contraceptive education.

Not so sure I agree with this. Perhaps the first and heck even the 2nd time but at some point before she had her 6th Ab either SHE could have taken the repsonsibility to learn about this or I would GUESS SOMEONE sat down and told her. IMO she didnt care. socute I just dont but that someone could have had 10 ABs and it is ANYONEs fault but their own.

I also think I raise a valid point about the fact that unplanned babies are likely to encounter more problems due to maternal behavior. Their moms are way more likely to be using drugs, not be taking folic acid (my family has a history of neural tube defects, so this always sticks in my mind) and to be drinking alcohol during pregnancy. What happens when nobody wants those kids? Where do they go and what kind of lives are they going to have?

This is my 2nd reason why I think Abs should be ok. its not like there is line out the door of people trying to adopt crack addicted babies, or HIV babies, or babies with birth defects.

 

[CS_22]

Yes, I understand the need for personal responsibility. I know that I, as a (currently abstinent) first year medical student living in a tiny apartment and barely getting by on my student loan money and barely finding the time to take care of myself, would be in quite a pickle if I got pregnant. And the guy would have no worries. Yes, I suppose I could go after him for child support, but I have friends who get child support from their "baby daddies" and it amounts to something like $200/month when the guy is pulling in 50K a year. $200 a month would not help me raise a child.

Would I have an abortion? Probably not. I would take time off from school to save some money and enlist the help of my family (I am lucky enough to have a mom who doesn't work, and would pitch in to help) and make it somehow and be able to give that child a very nice life - financially, educationally, and emotionally. But what percent of the population am I? What percent of the population has less support than I do? I would guess that a very high percentage do.

I realize that the G15P5 patients you see are probably NOT there due to contraceptive failure, but they are there due to lack of contraceptive education. If we can make it so that unintended pregnancy is a statistical anomaly, then frankly I think that the right wing will be appeased enough to just be quiet about it for the most part if there are only 1000 abortions a year as opposed to close to 1,000,000 (data from CDC, 1999, at which point there had been a significant downward trend for 4 years. Suspect it has increased since the institution of new sex ed policies since 2000).

I also think I raise a valid point about the fact that unplanned babies are likely to encounter more problems due to maternal behavior. Their moms are way more likely to be using drugs, not be taking folic acid (my family has a history of neural tube defects, so this always sticks in my mind) and to be drinking alcohol during pregnancy. What happens when nobody wants those kids? Where do they go and what kind of lives are they going to have?

I agree with your point that the conservatives would be much more likely to accept 1,000 instead of a million. I do think the emphasis of both sides of the debate are wrong. Work on preventing unplanned pregnancies and reduce/eliminate the need for elective abortions.

As far as unplanned pregnancies being better off aborted because of possible defects. I truthfully think that is a reach. Two arguments come into play -- how do you select which ones would have had problems? I mean, you don't know that they all do, but your feeling is to abort them all?

*If in any way that comes across as attacking, I apologize. Tough to ask the question without it sounding like that... I've truly rewrote it 3-4 times.

Also, those are making some broad generalizations about the public who has elective abortions performed. I really don't feel as though its all persons in poverty that are having these procedures. But a lot of well educated, normal people are choosing that route.

 

[CS_22]

hey IIRC Hugo Chavez was also elected in Venezuela we dont like him much either , of course on Fox news they refer to him as a "dictator" but I believe he was voted in.

I agree with CS here on this point. Their hatred of us comes from the fact that we support Israel (for a lot of reasons, including the fact that they are the ONLY Democracy in the Middle east). Is there a reason though that we should "care about them as a society"? I just wonder what the long term effect of this will be. Should be interesting esp because I cant see the US giving $100 Mil to a US defined Terrorist organization.

We can debate the Israel vs Palestine thing. I for one am VERY pro-israel..

Its funny, cause we keep trying to make Chavez look like such a bad guy -- call him a terrorist, try to assassinate him, then fund a coup against him, and he turns back around and offers the NE US free/reduced price heating oil for the winter. We only dislike him, because he speaks out against our foreign policy and he's not who "we" want in the office of an oil rich country like his.

What we all need to realize, is that we do have a truly imperialistic view of ourselves. All we look out for is our best interests, and that's going to get us in trouble one day. With the Hamas situation today, we shouldn't have expected anything else. We bully others around, then we don't like the results when the people don't like it.

 

[SoCuteMD]

These numbers are usually more in the range of $800 to 1K which is MORE than enough for diapers, formula etc. Daycare would be an issue but I am just saying it would be enough for the basics.

I happen to know a number of single moms and each of them receive far less than 800-1000 a month. The one woman I know who receives over 1000/month is responsible for paying her daughter's health insurance ($200 extra/month).

 

[EctopicFetus]

As far as unplanned pregnancies being better off aborted because of possible defects. I truthfully think that is a reach. Two arguments come into play -- how do you select which ones would have had problems? I mean, you don't know that they all do, but your feeling is to abort them all?

CS I dont think the point is that they will all be defects.. But rather some might be (prob more than those planned) but the larger majority are unwanted and hence would simply be put up for adoption and perhaps wouldnt be taken care of throughout the pregnancy.

 

[EctopicFetus]

I happen to know a number of single moms and each of them receive far less than 800-1000 a month. The one woman I know who receives over 1000/month is responsible for paying her daughter's health insurance ($200 extra/month).

Well I know some "baby daddies" who make 50K or so and thats what they are paying, I dont know if it is a NC thing or what. Also this obviously depends on how much $$$ the baby daddy makes and how much the baby momma makes..

 

[hyperbaric]

I disagree.

 

[hyperbaric]

I disagree.

Actually, I didn't even read what was being discussed. It just seemed like fun to post those words in the politics thread. Or a good way to pad post.

 

[SoCuteMD]

I think some of it is that the kid is born, dad is making nothing (and neither is mom). Dad finally gets a "real" job, but mom doesn't have time (or doesn't think) to go back to court and get the order changed.

 

[EctopicFetus]

Socute thanks for the clarification. Interesting..

 

[EctopicFetus]

This Hamas thing is only getting more interesting. Israel basically told them to go F themselves and America basically told them that they wont deal with them until they change everything they believe in.. Should be exciting. With a 60% or so unemployment rate and the US undoubtedly ready to cut funds I want to see what sort of social improvement they will be able to enact..

Hamas of course comes out and said that they will now "free the remaining parts of Palestine". This could get super ugly.

 

[corpsmanUP]

Anyone know why we really give a flip about that piece of dust on the Med called Israel? Can't we just rope off a big corner of the Tetons and NW Wyoming, or perhaps West Texas (there they might feel more at home) and give the Palestinians Israel? I mean isn't that all they want anyway? Give it to em', and build a 90,000 person stadium in Jeruselem and play the annual "Dust Bowl" there. I just find it ridiculous that we get ourselves all involved with that part of the world anyway. Its time to take Willie Nelson's idea and start burning corn oil for energy!

Vote Kinky Friedman!!

 

[schutzhund]

Anyone know why we really give a flip about that piece of dust on the Med called Israel? Can't we just rope off a big corner of the Tetons and NW Wyoming, or perhaps West Texas (there they might feel more at home) and give the Palestinians Israel? I mean isn't that all they want anyway? Give it to em', and build a 90,000 person stadium in Jeruselem and play the annual "Dust Bowl" there. I just find it ridiculous that we get ourselves all involved with that part of the world anyway. Its time to take Willie Nelson's idea and start burning corn oil for energy!

Vote Kinky Friedman!!

My opinion of these posts is rapidly diminishing.

 

[corpsmanUP]

My opinion of these posts is rapidly diminishing.

Lighten up friend, this is not meant to be an extremely serious thread. And have you really seen the choices we have for governor right now in Texas? At least Kinky has a reasonable way to protect our Texas borders.....anyone see him on Leno last night? He's another Jessie Venture or Arnold, so don't take him lightly...he might surprise a lot of people!

But really, can someone educate me as to what our legitimate interest is in Israel besides the fact that is was the birthplace of Jesus? I just don't get it....and it seems to be the main reason the terrorists hate us. Would the world just come to a crashing halt if we decided to leave the Israel debate and instead just remained customers of the Arabs selling the oil?

Time to drill in Alaska baby.....!!!

 

[DocCM]

Lighten up friend, this is not meant to be an extremely serious thread. And have you really seen the choices we have for governor right now in Texas? At least Kinky has a reasonable way to protect our Texas borders.....anyone see him on Leno last night? He's another Jessie Venture or Arnold, so don't take him lightly...he might surprise a lot of people!

But really, can someone educate me as to what our legitimate interest is in Israel besides the fact that is was the birthplace of Jesus? I just don't get it....and it seems to be the main reason the terrorists hate us. Would the world just come to a crashing halt if we decided to leave the Israel debate and instead just remained customers of the Arabs selling the oil?

Time to drill in Alaska baby.....!!!

Right there with you on Alaska.

As for Israel- Someone already mentioned the fact that they were the first and most well established democracy in the ME. IN addition, they are our allies. Is it popular to support Israel? not really (at least over there) But again, if we chose to make decisions, domestic or foreign, based on popularity where would that put us? I've said myself that our support for Israel is a major reason for conflicts between the US and Arab countries. That doesn't mean you turn your back on an ally and let the surrounding countries wipe it of the face of the earth (declared goal of Hamas and Iran)
CM

 

[corpsmanUP]

Right there with you on Alaska.

As for Israel- Someone already mentioned the fact that they were the first and most well established democracy in the ME. IN addition, they are our allies. Is it popular to support Israel? not really (at least over there) But again, if we chose to make decisions, domestic or foreign, based on popularity where would that put us? I've said myself that our support for Israel is a major reason for conflicts between the US and Arab countries. That doesn't mean you turn your back on an ally and let the surrounding countries wipe it of the face of the earth (declared goal of Hamas and Iran)
CM

Lets not kid ourselves...all the Arab states combined could not knock off Israel. In fact, Israel is one of the few militaries I would personally be worried about facing. They wrote the book on many modern military warfare strategies and the have arguably the world's best air force and special operations soldiers. And don't forget they hold all the nukes! Maybe our friendship with them is actually just a way to keep in the dialogue to help them refrain from anihilating the Arabs. Because that is exactly what they will do if they get attacked in any serious capacity. They do not need us for anythign related to military assistance I can assure you.....

 

[DocCM]

Lets not kid ourselves...all the Arab states combined could not knock off Israel. In fact, Israel is one of the few militaries I would personally be worried about facing. They wrote the book on many modern military warfare strategies and the have arguably the world's best air force and special operations soldiers. And don't forget they hold all the nukes! Maybe our friendship with them is actually just a way to keep in the dialogue to help them refrain from anihilating the Arabs. Because that is exactly what they will do if they get attacked in any serious capacity. They do not need us for anythign related to military assistance I can assure you.....

You're right about their military. I guess the main reason for our support is the long standing relationship and our reluctance to trun our back on an ally. I think you may be dead on as far as Israel's desire to use a nuke on someone. Afterall, I don't think there's been any other country who's suffered more at the hands of terrorists than Israel.

Also, let's not forget where Israel got alot of their military weapons (F16's at least).
CM

 

[EctopicFetus]

As I stated I am a Pro-Israeli guy. As such corpsman obviously knows about their military the IDF is a very well trained force. I think the US interest comes in the fact that 1) there are a lot of jews with a lot of $$ in the US and they have a vested interest in that country for obvious reasons. 2) the US helped establish Israel after WW2 so FWIW there is an interest there. 3) as stated they are a democracy and are very pro-US (because they know what they need).

What I find interesting is the way Israel is percieved. Israel is also a very heterogenous society in its beliefs. The orthodox jews tend to be the conservatives and the less religious jews tend to be much more liberal. Most of the people in Israel wanted to withdraw but the religious folks there didnt want to see it happen because they believe the land there is given to them by god.

Believe me if their military sucked the Arabs would have wiped them off the map a long time ago. As some of you know Egypt tried in the war in 1967 and as the famous south park episode goes "they got served".

Sorry the last line was to lighten up the post.

 

[EctopicFetus]

Interesting thought.. The relation of the legalization of abortion and the drop in crime..
http://www.prospect.org/print/V12/1/abramsky-s.html

Last summer word began circulating, first in the academic community and then in the media, that two professors, John Donohue and Steven Levitt, had found solid evidence of exactly that: They had discovered a link much stronger, more statistically demonstrable, than the link between anticrime policies and crime rates. More shocking still, the link they found was between abortion and crime. Or to be more precise, between the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision legalizing abortion and the much heralded fall in crime rates starting about 18 years later, in the early 1990s.

During the course of their research, Donohue and Levitt had almost accidentally stumbled upon the number of abortions performed in America and the fact that--in Donohue's words--"poor, unmarried, young, low-education women tend to have more abortions. And their kids tend to have higher rates of crime." The two researchers began crunching the numbers, and after several years they concluded, to their own surprise as much as anyone else's, that fully half of the decrease in crime that has occurred over the past decade can be directly attributed to the fact that women in the 1970s and 1980s had ready access to abortion.

Looking at state-by-state and year-by-year figures, the two professors found a remarkable correlation between abortion rates and crime rates 15 to 18 years later. And that's not all. They also determined that in the states that legalized abortion prior to the Roe v. Wade ruling, crime rates began falling earlier than in other parts of the country

The social benefit to reduced crime as a result of abortion may be on the order of $30 billion annually."

This should turn up the fodder.. I am in NO way condoning this it was put forth by a couple of economists at Stanford and U of Chicago (2 of the finest Economics Depts in the US) and I believe both are actually liberal which makes it more interesting because these results surely are NOT "Politically Correct".

 

[a_ditchdoc]

I agree that a political win by Hamas complicates the mideast dialogue. Something that is not very much known outside of Israel is that Hamas also has a social agenda. For quite a few years Hamas has build and funded schools, hospitals, and other social programs in an area that is extraordinarily impoverished. Thus, their popularity among the people that voted them in was probably based on these deeds. While the rest of the world sees Hamas as a terrorist organization with lawless militants, the Palestinians often see them as their saviors, willing to risk their lives for their people against a much stronger army. The truth often lies somewhere in the middle. Either way, the US and Israel should use this as an opportunity to coax them away from their militant stance. For once someone in the West Bank and Gaza is in power that actually HAS the power to change things. The world should take advantage of it considering there are few options: continued war, or peace.

I noticed a few references about oil earlier. I am not sure if I was taking the references out of context, but I do not think that Israel supplies oil to anyone. In fact, almost all of the oil consumed in Israel comes from abroad.

 

[EctopicFetus]

No no one on here stated that Israel supplied anyone with Oil. We were simply stating that the reasons the ME hates us is because (my opinion on order of importance)
1) We have military bases in their countries
2) We support Israel
3) We wouldnt give 2 poops about them if there werent lakes of black gold under their feet.

 

[EctopicFetus]

A ditchdoc you are right. Hamas has a huge social agenda which has benefited the palestinians,hospitals etc.
http://www.palestinecenter.org/cpap/documents/charter.html
The issue is that their charter states

"Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it."

In Article 7 -

The time will not come until Muslims will fight the Jews (and kill them); until the Jews hide behind rocks and trees, which will cry: O Muslim! there is a Jew hiding behind me, come on and kill him!

So I totally understand why they were elected by their people. The real question is what will happen when their estimated 60% unemployed people realize that the roughly $100 million in US aid stops showing up at their door and Israel and the US wont sit at the negotiating table with them? If Israel erects a wall and basically stops dealing with the Palestinians will they be able to for a self sustaining plot of land? IMO they will not. Also keep in mind that Saddam used to give 25 or 50K to the families of suicide bombers, that money has dried up as well. I fully understand why Hamas won the real question is where this move will lead them in the future.

Ditchdoc, I know one of the people running was a mother of a homocide bomber do you know if she won? Im just curious.

 

[Jeff698]

Sorry for the interuption but I think my boy Kinky would certainly agree with me when I ask everyone to stop for a moment and sing with me:

"The internet is for porn.....The internet is for porn"...

Sorry, I just had to share. That damn song is keeping me awake.

And now back to your regularly scheduled arguments.

Take care,
Jeff

 

[EctopicFetus]

Dude there is something about the way he says it that has totally stuck in my head. "The internet is for porn.." BTW when the chick is like didnt you send me a birthday card on the internet etc.. Thats the funniest part of the song.

 

[corpsmanUP]

And what about his song called "They ain't making Jews like Jesus anymore"? That dude is a total riot! The good news is that he can't mess much up...Texas already has the worst schools and the worst children's healthcare access in the nation. And for God's sake, what has Rick Perry been sporting on that head of his? He's starting to look like the Donald with that do!

 

[EctopicFetus]

The Fatah "supporters" are getting a little antsy.

 

[debtridden]

Will it make healthcare--and this time, wealth too--more unequal?

--"The savings accounts, in effect, give financial institutions a vital, but behind-the-scenes role in shaping the nation's health care system."

--"For wealthier people, the tax break could provide a generous incentive to build a nest egg for future health care; poorer people with smaller annual contributions could wind up spending all the money they put away during the year."

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/27/business/27health.html

 

[debtridden]

"EM, as a young, clinically oriented specialty, does not yet have the research base to be mentioned along side medicine, surgery, etc. Ask an investigator in which journal they would rather publish: Annals of EM, AEM, or the New England Journal of Medicine? It's a rhetorical question".

I've heard this and similar statements from many attendings in EM. I wonder if those programs and schools who are more academically oriented should redouble their efforts in improving EM's research reputation.

Check out this article.

http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/01/25/healthscience/snfraud.php

"Some journal editors are considering adopting a test, in use at The Journal of Cell Biology, that could have caught the concocted images of the human embryonic stem cells made by Dr. Hwang Woo Suk."

Shouldn't we try to be ahead of the curve?

 

[CS_22]

The Fatah "supporters" are getting a little antsy.

Just a few takes from MSNBC today...


"Fatah leaders have rejected a coalition with Hamas and thousands of Fatah supporters, including gunmen firing into the air, marched in the Gaza Strip in protest at the idea.

In the first armed clash between Hamas and Fatah militants since Wednesday’s vote, three people were wounded in a gun battle near the southern city of Khan Younis, witnesses said.

The violence erupted, they said, after Hamas militants were angered by a sermon by a Fatah-appointed Muslim preacher during Friday prayers.

At the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, Israel threw into doubt its willingness to continue the transfer of customs revenue to an aid-dependent Palestinian Authority.

“We will face practical problems of how you deal with people that call for the destruction of Israel,” said Joseph Bachar, director general of the Israeli Finance Ministry.

Palestinian Economy Minister Mazen Sinokrot, sitting on the same panel as Bachar, said the Israeli transfers amounted to monthly revenues exceeding $40 million to $50 million, money needed to help pay salaries for 135,000 government employees.

U.S. Consul-General Jacob Walles in Jerusalem said the United States would halt aid to Palestinians should a Hamas-led government come to power and not renounce terror.

The United States gave the Palestinian Authority $400 million in direct aid last year and several million more through U.N. charities, Walles said. Some of the money was handed directly to Palestinian ministries.

“I don’t see how we would do that if those ministries were controlled by Hamas,” he said."

So much for the "road map".

 

[MeganRose]

First off, thank you for your service to our country. I can only imagine what you went through in Iraq the first time and am extremely grateful to you.

Now, please don't reference F911- it's left wing propaganda and is full of inaccuracies and flat out lies. Almost every clip in the movie is taken from context in order to portray replubicans as nefarious evil-doers. Anytime someone uses this "documentary" to prove a point, they quickly lose credibility.

As for the timing of the invasion- yes the administration chose to invade after 9/11 because they had same intelligence that those before them had. While there was and is no link between 9/11 and Iraq, there is an obvious and strong link between Iraq and terrorism. After 9/11, the main goal was to seek out and destroy terrorism, not only al queda, but all those who pose a threat to the US and it's allies.
Let me ask you this: Who would you blame if we had spent all of resources finding Osama, found him and then quit, only to suffer a nuclear attack from Saddam or one of the factions he supported? I'm guessing it would still be Bush, because afterall he did have the intelligence that Iraq possessed WMD's and did nothing about it. Osama is not the only terrorist in the world capable of hurting the US.
As for your argument concerning the way Bush asked for a vote: As I already posted, the problem in Iraq was long recognized before Bush came ito office. Some of the same democratic senators who now say he lied were calling for missile strikes and attacks on Iraq in 1998. If the first time any of these senatros thought about the threat of Iraq was in 2001, they were severly uninformed.
All this being said, I want this war to end. I don't, however, want the US to pack up and leave a politically and militarily unstable country to terrorists.

CM

I don't care what political party you belong to and how much of F9/11 is false/fabricated, that scene where Bush is reading the book to the children and he finds out that the US is being attacked is some of the funniest ish I have seen in my life.

 

[MeganRose]

The typical conservative response: if we outlaw abortion, perhaps it would force people to be a little more responsible in their sexual practices.

Doubtful-- people are pretty persistant in their insistance on hurting themselves. Just ask my pt w/ end stage COPD and FEV of 32%, on 5L of home O2 who continues his 2ppd habit...

 

[MeganRose]

I was wondering the same thing as far as hard numbers(%abortion from rape that is). In a utopian society we would make exceptions for the victims of rape, however I'm not sure how that would work out legally. I personally have more of a problem with idea that people have an easy way out after making a poor decision as opposed to the morality of the topic. On the whole, this is one of the few topics where personal responsibilty and education would make it a non-issue.
CM

But only if many of the same people that are against abortion would admit that the aforementioned education should consist of far more than just lectures on abstinence...

 

[MeganRose]

I wasn't calling it "emergency birth control." I hope and pray that women empower themselves in preventing unwanted pregnancies/STDs. But, I also have done a lot with respect to learning about the barriers to effective contraceptive use. And I think I did a good job of shedding some light on those (probably a very good job, since you didn't have a response).

If you are a woman and hypertensive and can't be on the Pill, you have a 1 in 100 chance of becoming pregnant over the course of a year (assuming you are sexually active) because you can't use both the Pill and condoms. Is it realistic to expect that this woman will only have sex when she wants to become pregnant? Is it realistic to expect her partner to agree to that (well, yes) but is it realistic that her partner would agree to that? Ummm...no.

I want abortion to be a last resort for every woman. I want every woman to go into a sexual encounter with a condom in her purse (to presumably be removed and used!), and knowing that even if the condom breaks, her doctor will prescribe Plan B and her pharmacist will fill the prescription. I want her to know where to go, who to call, and how to effectively use contraception. Unfortunately, with this administrations' championship of "abstinence only" education, teens just don't know this stuff. And they need to. They need to know that the safest sex is NO SEX. But they also need to know how to have safer sex.

Great post.

 

[CS_22]

Great post.

I agree. May not be my point of view, but her point was very well taken. This has been a really amazing thread in terms of opinions being shared, but it not getting heated.

 

[DocCM]

But only if many of the same people that are against abortion would admit that the aforementioned education should consist of far more than just lectures on abstinence...

I agree- The education should also include the economics and life changing responsibility that come with having a child. At what point do we stop blaming the public school system and federal government and start blaming parents for the education of their children in this matter? Everyone likes to think that if we hand out condoms and tell everyone to use them, it will stop teen/unwanted pregnancy. It might help, but until people become fully aware of the consequences of their actions, nothing's going to make a significant impact.
CM

 

[Jeff698]

Texas already has the worst schools and the worst children's healthcare access in the nation.

Now, now. Don't exagerate. We're not that bad. Repeat after me the state motto: "We're not Mississippi".

You joke about Kinky. Voting Democratic at the state level is a pointless endeavor (sadly, one I have all too much experience with). A vote for Kinky may actually get us somewhere. Especially since Perry is almost universally viewed as a *****, even among Republicans.

Take care,
Jeff

 

[masterofpuppets]

bush and his gang are just a bunch of puppets whose strings are pulled by giants in corporate america, filling their pockets with taxpayer money to fund this war and having a ball with power tripping.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2023320890224991194

 

[BKN]

This from a guest writer on the NYTimes page today:

Finding a Place for 9/11 in American History

IN recent weeks, President Bush and his administration have mounted a spirited defense of his Iraq policy, the Patriot Act and, especially, a program to wiretap civilians, often reaching back into American history for precedents to justify these actions. It is clear that the president believes that he is acting to protect the security of the American people. It is equally clear that both his belief and the executive authority he claims to justify its use derive from the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

A myriad of contested questions are obviously at issue here — foreign policy questions about the danger posed by Iraq, constitutional questions about the proper limits on executive authority, even political questions about the president's motives in attacking Iraq. But all of those debates are playing out under the shadow of Sept. 11 and the tremendous changes that it prompted in both foreign and domestic policy.

Whether or not we can regard Sept. 11 as history, I would like to raise two historical questions about the terrorist attacks of that horrific day. My goal is not to offer definitive answers but rather to invite a serious debate about whether Sept. 11 deserves the historical significance it has achieved.

My first question: where does Sept. 11 rank in the grand sweep of American history as a threat to national security? By my calculations it does not make the top tier of the list, which requires the threat to pose a serious challenge to the survival of the American republic.

Here is my version of the top tier: the War for Independence, where defeat meant no United States of America; the War of 1812, when the national capital was burned to the ground; the Civil War, which threatened the survival of the Union; World War II, which represented a totalitarian threat to democracy and capitalism; the cold war, most specifically the Cuban missile crisis of 1962, which made nuclear annihilation a distinct possibility.

Sept. 11 does not rise to that level of threat because, while it places lives and lifestyles at risk, it does not threaten the survival of the American republic, even though the terrorists would like us to believe so.

My second question is this: What does history tell us about our earlier responses to traumatic events?

My list of precedents for the Patriot Act and government wiretapping of American citizens would include the Alien and Sedition Acts in 1798, which allowed the federal government to close newspapers and deport foreigners during the "quasi-war" with France; the denial of habeas corpus during the Civil War, which permitted the pre-emptive arrest of suspected Southern sympathizers; the Red Scare of 1919, which emboldened the attorney general to round up leftist critics in the wake of the Russian Revolution; the internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II, which was justified on the grounds that their ancestry made them potential threats to national security; the McCarthy scare of the early 1950's, which used cold war anxieties to pursue a witch hunt against putative Communists in government, universities and the film industry.

In retrospect, none of these domestic responses to perceived national security threats looks justifiable. Every history textbook I know describes them as lamentable, excessive, even embarrassing. Some very distinguished American presidents, including John Adams, Abraham Lincoln and Franklin Roosevelt, succumbed to quite genuine and widespread popular fears. No historian or biographer has argued that these were their finest hours.

What Patrick Henry once called "the lamp of experience" needs to be brought into the shadowy space in which we have all been living since Sept. 11. My tentative conclusion is that the light it sheds exposes the ghosts and goblins of our traumatized imaginations. It is completely understandable that those who lost loved ones on that date will carry emotional scars for the remainder of their lives. But it defies reason and experience to make Sept. 11 the defining influence on our foreign and domestic policy. History suggests that we have faced greater challenges and triumphed, and that overreaction is a greater danger than complacency.

Joseph J. Ellis is a professor of history at Mount Holyoke College and the author, most recently, of "His Excellency: George Washington."

 

[SoCuteMD]

dup post

 

[SoCuteMD]

Thanks for posting that BKN. I used to be a dedicated NY Times reader...but I don't have time anymore.

 

[EctopicFetus]

I guess this post is still alive and kicking. Nice work.

 

[DocCM]

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion...,4137172.column?coll=la-news-comment-opinions

Many of you may have already read this, but here's an ariticle from a recent LA Times edition.
CM

 

[corpsmanUP]

Now don't tease us BKN. We know you really want to get a piece of this action. Say what YOU really think!!!

 

[corpsmanUP]

Hey Jeff, we passed Mississippi like 2 years ago I am afraid!! I think its mostly based on our failed CHIPS program. I could be wrong though, but I recall reading something about it. And I know for sure we are 50th in schools. I read that just last week, and Kinky mentioned it on Jay Leno. Just remember NOT to vote in the primary if you want to vote for Kinky, because otherwise you can't vote for him in the general.

 

[BKN]

Now don't tease us BKN. We know you really want to get a piece of this action. Say what YOU really think!!!

Well, another chance to make an a** of myself.

At the front end of the Iraq conflict, I said:

1. It's immoral to attack somebody who didn't attack you. Iraq didn't attack us.
2. It was never about WMD. Whether Saddam wanted them or not, the sanctions were working. It was always about regime change and protection of oil production, hidden under a banner of "spreading democracy."
3. The neocons wanted to finish the job that Bush Sr wouldn't do.

I think I was right about all of that. Big deal. The issue is going forward.

I don't know what the right path is from here. But I sure wish that we weren't led by a pack of people who have demonstrated mendacity, a disrespect for the constitution, willingness to trample human rights (read rendition and torture), incompetence and a general ability to alienate our friends and inability to make new ones or think outside of the box. In short I think the administration has destroyed America's leadership and moral advantage.

OK C, was that candid enough?

 

[DocCM]

Well, another chance to make an a** of myself.

At the front end of the Iraq conflict, I said:

1. It's immoral to attack somebody who didn't attack you. Iraq didn't attack us.
2. It was never about WMD. Whether Saddam wanted them or not, the sanctions were working. It was always about regime change and protection of oil production, hidden under a banner of "spreading democracy."
3. The neocons wanted to finish the job that Bush Sr wouldn't do.

I think I was right about all of that. Big deal. The issue is going forward.

I don't know what the right path is from here. But I sure wish that we weren't led by a pack of people who have demonstrated mendacity, a disrespect for the constitution, willingness to trample human rights (read rendition and torture), incompetence and a general ability to alienate our friends and inability to make new ones or think outside of the box. In short I think the administration has destroyed America's leadership and moral advantage.

OK C, was that candid enough?

Thanks for replying to this thread. It's been a great discussion and continues that way.

As for your 1st point: Germany didn't attack us (ww2), nor did Iraq during the 1st gulf war. These were wars to defeat tyranny while defending our allies. I'm not sure you can say this Iraq war is immoral for this reason without calling of the rest of these wars unjustified/immoral.

Were the sanctions working? According the Saddam's own 2nd in command, the WMD's he did have were moved to Syria before the allied invasion:
http://www.nysun.com/article/26514?page_no=1
Granted, he is an expatriot trying to participate in a capitalist market by selling books, but if anyone would know the truth it would be him.

Edit: I had orginally included ww1 as an example, but had forgotten about the Lusitania.

Let's keep the thread alive!
CM

 

[BKN]

Thanks for replying to this thread. It's been a great discussion and continues that way.

As for your 1st point: Germany didn't attack us (ww2), nor did Iraq during the 1st gulf war. These were wars to defeat tyranny while defending our allies. I'm not sure you can say this Iraq war is immoral for this reason without calling of the rest of these wars unjustified/immoral.

Were the sanctions working? According the Saddam's own 2nd in command, the WMD's he did have were moved to Syria before the allied invasion:
http://www.nysun.com/article/26514?page_no=1
Granted, he is an expatriot trying to participate in a capitalist market by selling books, but if anyone would know the truth it would be him.

Edit: I had orginally included ww1 as an example, but had forgotten about the Lusitania.

Let's keep the thread alive!
CM

Don't want to quibble. I'll accept attacks on allies as part of proviso no 1 (although not attacks by allies).

That said, I believe that Germany did declare war on the US first, after their ally Japan attacked us. Date of declaraton was 12/11/41. They used as their reasons the fact that the US Navy had commenced unrestricted naval warfare on German submarines and convoy escort duty in Sept 1940. I glanced at couple of naval history sites. Seems to be true.

Here's a good website about it. http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/wwii/gerdec41.htm

But the important thing is how to go forward.

 

[DocCM]

Don't want to quibble. I'll accept attacks on allies as part of proviso no 1 (although not attacks by allies).

That said, I believe that Germany did declare war on the US first, after their ally Japan attacked us. Date of declaraton was 12/11/41. They used as their reasons the fact that the US Navy had commenced unrestricted naval warfare on German submarines and convoy escort duty in Sept 1940. I glanced at couple of naval history sites. Seems to be true.

Here's a good website about it. http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/wwii/gerdec41.htm

But the important thing is how to go forward.

That's an interesting article.

At this point, I'm not sure what the answer is as to ending this war as fast a possible. A complete withdrawal of forces would create such a vacuum of leadership and stability, the results would be more devastating than the previous situation. On the other hand, we have already lost too many soldiers and staying the course will only lead to more of the same. I'm afraid that unless the people of Iraq decide to take a stand and demand their own freedom (which they've shown to be incapable of in the past), there's no immediate end in sight. This is truly heartbreaking, as I'm sure like myself, most people are sick and tired of hearing about the deaths of fellow Americans.
CM