I was going to write a big, long post about how if people who call themselves Pro-Life aren't phonies, they'll get behind the health care reform bill the House just passed, now that the Stupak Amendment has been adopted. But I deleted that post and I'm starting new one about why I support the current HCR bill as the Pro-Life thing to do. One of my character flaws is in judging people. I do it a lot, and it's not right. I can't know what's in others' hearts, and I shouldn't judge them for what I think they believe.
"Pro-Life" is so much more than just anti-abortion. It means respecting all life. That means the unborn, convicted criminals, the elderly and infirm and the poor. If I have a responsibility to protect life from abortion, if I believe that this is the job of the government (that abortion should be outlawed), then I also have a responsibility to protect the lives of people who do not have access to affordable health care, and to use the government to that end as well (if necessary).
From a pragmatic perspective, I've heard people from the Right telling me all the other ways that the goal of affordable health care for all Americans could be accomplished without "Socialism," but they don't seem to have been terribly interested in fixing those problems before the Left was on the verge of passing their own reforms without their help. If you oppose something until you're no longer needed, why should you expect cooperation? What kind of sense is that?
As a Christian, I'm unaware of any evidence that Christ was a Capitalist. I'm not going to say he was a Socialist, but the argument there is stronger. But he believed in paying taxes. He said "Give unto Caesar what is Caesar's," in reference to the Jew's paying taxes to their Roman government. If Christ instructed us, his followers and supposed imitators, to pay taxes to a conquering, occupying, foreign government (that was to eventually murder him), why wouldn't he want us to pay taxes to provide health care to the poor? Health care that protects the life that he has given us and them, which we want the government to protect from abortion and euthanasia.
And this is why I feel that Universal Health Care is the Christian, Pro-Life thing to do.
Monday, November 9, 2009
Wednesday, June 17, 2009
Iran - A Brief History
This is a short history of Iran, since WWII. And how the West fucked their country up and made it what it is today. Most of the material here is taken from assorted, annotated Wikipedia articles. Feel free to check my facts.
In 1941, Iran was ruled by Reza Khan, the Shah. American allies in WWII, the UK and the USSR, invaded Iran to gain control of the railroad infrastructure that Reza Shah, a modernizing leader like Peter the Great in Russia or Ataturk in Turkey, had been developing since he took power in 1925. The Allies needed this Iranian railroad to move supplies into the Soviet Union while they fought the Nazis on the Eastern Front.
The British and Soviets forced Reza Khan to abdicate, and had his son, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi (hereafter referred to as The Shah) installed as monarch of the country. The Shah was younger, and the invading powers believed he would be more easily controlled (by the West).
In 1951, Mohammed Mossadeq led the Iranian Parliament to unanimously nationalise the oil industry in Iran. Mossadeq was a nationalist, and his primary goal was to remove foreign influence from Iranian politics. Most notably, Mossadeq wanted half of the profits from the oil that Britain was taking from Iran, to stay in Iran so they could continue to modernize their country.
The British Anglo-Iranian Oil Company, that later became British Petroleum (BP), controlled all the oil that came out of Iran, and all the profits went to the UK. Have you ever wondered how England was the supreme world power for so long, when they just had that tiny island without many natural resources? It was by colonizing un-developed countries, exploiting the native populations, and moving the natural resources from one colony to the others (and home) at a significant mark-up.
So as I said, Mossadeq wanted 50% of the oil profits to stay in Iran for the benefit of the people of Iran. Obviously, the British didn't want this. They refused, so Mossadeq led the Parliament to nationalize the oil industry, shutting out the British entirely.
The British responded by enlisting the aid of their Special Friends, the USA. Operation Ajax was a covert operation by the CIA to remove Mossadeq from power and replace him with a General that had been selected by the British and American governments. Operation Ajax initially failed, and The Shah went into exile.
Shortly after, covert CIA operatives and their paid assets in Iran organized riots and ultimately a military coup, that resulted in Mossadeq's arrest. And The Shah came back from exile to resume ruling Iran.
If all this sounds, to hard to believe, like some crazy conspiracy theory, like the shooter on the grassy knoll, try Googling Operation Ajax. This is all declassified, and the information is there for you to read. There's far too much detail to go into. Suffice it to say, Iran had a strong, SECULAR leader who was intent on modernizing his country, who some historians say could have been Iran's Ataturk, and because he tried to force the British to pay Iran for the oil they were taking, we removed him from power through trickery. And it was all personally authorized by President Eisenhower.
So now The Shah rules Iran again. He's been put into power TWICE by the West, and he knows that we own him. He brings the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company back. They resume shipping out Iran's oil, and not really paying for it. America gives Iran money to build their military, because now they're our ally against the Soviet Union. We train his SAVAK secret police (think Gestapo) who were widely known for their use of torture (techniques that the CIA shared with them, and with Sadat's secret police in Egypt, and elsewhere). Basically, America propped up The Shah's dictatorship.
One of the victims of The Shah's SAVAK was the now infamous Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini. Khomeini was a political critic of The Shah who was arrested by the secret police, tortured and imprisioned. When he got out, he didn't have nice things to say about America. Go figure.
In 1978, the people of Iran had had enough of the dictatorship. They organized strikes and protests. In January 1979, Khomeini returned from exile to Tehran, and ten days later The Shah abdicated and went into exile. The people of Iran took Khomeini as their new national leader, and in a national referendum they overwhelmingly adopted a theocratic constitution and Iran became an Islamic Republic.
In November 1979, a group of Iranian students raided the American Embassy and took it's people hostage, accusing them of being CIA spies (which we know that at least some of then were). They released most of the women and African-Americans before long, but the rest they held for over a year while they demanded the return of The Shah to Iran so that he could be tried for his crimes against his people. Of course, America was not going to accomdate them. Khomeini's government was not aware of the plans to attack the embassy, but publicly supported it once it had happened. This is the moment in history where the US finally had a reason to call Iran an enemy.
Enter Saddam Hussein. Enemy of America, right? No, it's the 80's Hussein is our ally, as is Osama Bin Laden. Saddam decides to attack Iran, and they spend years fighting each other. Oh, let's not forget Iran-Contra, where the Reagan administration sold weapons to the Iranians, as well as the Iraqis. Yes, we sold weapons to both sides.
I think that pretty much brings you up to speed. This is why there is so much animosity towards the West in Iran. I think they have some reason to be angry. I only hope that with a moderate American President, and a moderate Iranian leader, we can begin to heal the divide that we created to help the British continue their exploitation of the un-developed world.
What we should NOT do, is interfere. All of our allies in developing countries end up being monsters. Sadat, Pinochet, Saddam Hussein, Osama Bin Laden. They all ended up butchering their own people or attacking us. When they are ready, the people of Iran will take their freedom. This may have already started in the last few days. But they have to win their freedom, and we need to stay out of it, ready to welcome them when they emerge from the darkness.
In 1941, Iran was ruled by Reza Khan, the Shah. American allies in WWII, the UK and the USSR, invaded Iran to gain control of the railroad infrastructure that Reza Shah, a modernizing leader like Peter the Great in Russia or Ataturk in Turkey, had been developing since he took power in 1925. The Allies needed this Iranian railroad to move supplies into the Soviet Union while they fought the Nazis on the Eastern Front.
The British and Soviets forced Reza Khan to abdicate, and had his son, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi (hereafter referred to as The Shah) installed as monarch of the country. The Shah was younger, and the invading powers believed he would be more easily controlled (by the West).
In 1951, Mohammed Mossadeq led the Iranian Parliament to unanimously nationalise the oil industry in Iran. Mossadeq was a nationalist, and his primary goal was to remove foreign influence from Iranian politics. Most notably, Mossadeq wanted half of the profits from the oil that Britain was taking from Iran, to stay in Iran so they could continue to modernize their country.
The British Anglo-Iranian Oil Company, that later became British Petroleum (BP), controlled all the oil that came out of Iran, and all the profits went to the UK. Have you ever wondered how England was the supreme world power for so long, when they just had that tiny island without many natural resources? It was by colonizing un-developed countries, exploiting the native populations, and moving the natural resources from one colony to the others (and home) at a significant mark-up.
So as I said, Mossadeq wanted 50% of the oil profits to stay in Iran for the benefit of the people of Iran. Obviously, the British didn't want this. They refused, so Mossadeq led the Parliament to nationalize the oil industry, shutting out the British entirely.
The British responded by enlisting the aid of their Special Friends, the USA. Operation Ajax was a covert operation by the CIA to remove Mossadeq from power and replace him with a General that had been selected by the British and American governments. Operation Ajax initially failed, and The Shah went into exile.
Shortly after, covert CIA operatives and their paid assets in Iran organized riots and ultimately a military coup, that resulted in Mossadeq's arrest. And The Shah came back from exile to resume ruling Iran.
If all this sounds, to hard to believe, like some crazy conspiracy theory, like the shooter on the grassy knoll, try Googling Operation Ajax. This is all declassified, and the information is there for you to read. There's far too much detail to go into. Suffice it to say, Iran had a strong, SECULAR leader who was intent on modernizing his country, who some historians say could have been Iran's Ataturk, and because he tried to force the British to pay Iran for the oil they were taking, we removed him from power through trickery. And it was all personally authorized by President Eisenhower.
So now The Shah rules Iran again. He's been put into power TWICE by the West, and he knows that we own him. He brings the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company back. They resume shipping out Iran's oil, and not really paying for it. America gives Iran money to build their military, because now they're our ally against the Soviet Union. We train his SAVAK secret police (think Gestapo) who were widely known for their use of torture (techniques that the CIA shared with them, and with Sadat's secret police in Egypt, and elsewhere). Basically, America propped up The Shah's dictatorship.
One of the victims of The Shah's SAVAK was the now infamous Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini. Khomeini was a political critic of The Shah who was arrested by the secret police, tortured and imprisioned. When he got out, he didn't have nice things to say about America. Go figure.
In 1978, the people of Iran had had enough of the dictatorship. They organized strikes and protests. In January 1979, Khomeini returned from exile to Tehran, and ten days later The Shah abdicated and went into exile. The people of Iran took Khomeini as their new national leader, and in a national referendum they overwhelmingly adopted a theocratic constitution and Iran became an Islamic Republic.
In November 1979, a group of Iranian students raided the American Embassy and took it's people hostage, accusing them of being CIA spies (which we know that at least some of then were). They released most of the women and African-Americans before long, but the rest they held for over a year while they demanded the return of The Shah to Iran so that he could be tried for his crimes against his people. Of course, America was not going to accomdate them. Khomeini's government was not aware of the plans to attack the embassy, but publicly supported it once it had happened. This is the moment in history where the US finally had a reason to call Iran an enemy.
Enter Saddam Hussein. Enemy of America, right? No, it's the 80's Hussein is our ally, as is Osama Bin Laden. Saddam decides to attack Iran, and they spend years fighting each other. Oh, let's not forget Iran-Contra, where the Reagan administration sold weapons to the Iranians, as well as the Iraqis. Yes, we sold weapons to both sides.
I think that pretty much brings you up to speed. This is why there is so much animosity towards the West in Iran. I think they have some reason to be angry. I only hope that with a moderate American President, and a moderate Iranian leader, we can begin to heal the divide that we created to help the British continue their exploitation of the un-developed world.
What we should NOT do, is interfere. All of our allies in developing countries end up being monsters. Sadat, Pinochet, Saddam Hussein, Osama Bin Laden. They all ended up butchering their own people or attacking us. When they are ready, the people of Iran will take their freedom. This may have already started in the last few days. But they have to win their freedom, and we need to stay out of it, ready to welcome them when they emerge from the darkness.
Monday, June 8, 2009
Freedom?
A few weeks ago, I took a road trip with three friends to Southern Ohio. While on the trip, I saw a pick-up truck with a bumper sticker with this slogan:
Obviously, this person didn't vote for Obama. But it got me thinking about how Conservatives see Freedom.
It seems to me like I frequently hear from self-identified conservatives about how social welfare programs and nationalized health care are "Socialist" and are somehow taking away their freedom. I've always thought that "Socialist" was just a dirty word that the Right threw at the Left, an insult left over from McCarthyism. To some extent, I still think that's the case. But as always, it's more complex.
Somehow, money has become equated with freedom. A conservative friend of mine said that taxes infringe on his freedom, because he doesn't get to decide how that money is spent. I sugested that he does have a voice in how it's spent, since he's electing the lawmakers who spend the money ultimately anyway. Another conservative friend suggests that there should be no income taxes, only usage fees for things that we actually use. So instead of paying taxes that are used to build and maintain roads and bridges, everything would have tolls that would be paid. Personally, I don't see how any of this makes anyone more "free."
I feel it's become necessary to define Socialism, just in case someone is not familiar with the writings of Karl Marx. Socialism is an economy where the means of production are controlled by the workers. In our American democracy, it could be argued that the workers are the "people" and the people are the government. So if the government controls the means of production, that would be Socialism.
Socialism is not, however, making health care and education accessible to every American. It's not even giving money to failing banks and auto manufacturers to help keep our post-industrial economy afloat. If President Obama gave GM a boat-load of money and then fired the Board of Directors and appointed a whole new board, then I'd be concerned. But to my understanding, that's not what he's doing.
As I sink deeper and deeper into student loan debt with every passing quarter of community college, I ask what is so wrong with the idea of free education. Or what would be so terrible about everyone being able to go to the doctor when they're ill, without worrying about how they're going to pay for it. How does it make you less "Free" for a poor child to have the same access to health care and education as a child whose parents have more access to these resources? What about the freedom of someone who is born into less advantageous circumstances?
In America, the middle class has seems to have the illusion that everyone has equal freedom. I don't think this is the case. The poor are not as free as the middle class, who are not as free as the wealthy. Sure, a poor kid can bust their ass and get a scholarship to an Ivy League school, but do you think that it's as easy for that poor kid as it is for the child born into privledge? Of course it's not. So that poor kid has less freedom.
It sounds like I'm changing my own mind. Maybe money does equal freedom. But that guy in Portsmouth, Ohio with the bumper sticker doesn't have as much freedom as he thinks.
Obviously, this person didn't vote for Obama. But it got me thinking about how Conservatives see Freedom.
It seems to me like I frequently hear from self-identified conservatives about how social welfare programs and nationalized health care are "Socialist" and are somehow taking away their freedom. I've always thought that "Socialist" was just a dirty word that the Right threw at the Left, an insult left over from McCarthyism. To some extent, I still think that's the case. But as always, it's more complex.
Somehow, money has become equated with freedom. A conservative friend of mine said that taxes infringe on his freedom, because he doesn't get to decide how that money is spent. I sugested that he does have a voice in how it's spent, since he's electing the lawmakers who spend the money ultimately anyway. Another conservative friend suggests that there should be no income taxes, only usage fees for things that we actually use. So instead of paying taxes that are used to build and maintain roads and bridges, everything would have tolls that would be paid. Personally, I don't see how any of this makes anyone more "free."
I feel it's become necessary to define Socialism, just in case someone is not familiar with the writings of Karl Marx. Socialism is an economy where the means of production are controlled by the workers. In our American democracy, it could be argued that the workers are the "people" and the people are the government. So if the government controls the means of production, that would be Socialism.
Socialism is not, however, making health care and education accessible to every American. It's not even giving money to failing banks and auto manufacturers to help keep our post-industrial economy afloat. If President Obama gave GM a boat-load of money and then fired the Board of Directors and appointed a whole new board, then I'd be concerned. But to my understanding, that's not what he's doing.
As I sink deeper and deeper into student loan debt with every passing quarter of community college, I ask what is so wrong with the idea of free education. Or what would be so terrible about everyone being able to go to the doctor when they're ill, without worrying about how they're going to pay for it. How does it make you less "Free" for a poor child to have the same access to health care and education as a child whose parents have more access to these resources? What about the freedom of someone who is born into less advantageous circumstances?
In America, the middle class has seems to have the illusion that everyone has equal freedom. I don't think this is the case. The poor are not as free as the middle class, who are not as free as the wealthy. Sure, a poor kid can bust their ass and get a scholarship to an Ivy League school, but do you think that it's as easy for that poor kid as it is for the child born into privledge? Of course it's not. So that poor kid has less freedom.
It sounds like I'm changing my own mind. Maybe money does equal freedom. But that guy in Portsmouth, Ohio with the bumper sticker doesn't have as much freedom as he thinks.
Thursday, April 23, 2009
On Tolerance
When I first heard some of my conservative family members talk about liberals being "intolerant", I thought it was just another case of everyone wanting to be the underdog.
It's been a belief of mine for a while that people usually think that they're disadvantaged in some way. Christians think that the Atheists are pore powerful than them and out to keep them from worshiping God. Atheists think that the religious people are out to force their God on them. Jews think that the whole world hates them and wants to see them annihilated. White people think that affirmative action steals jobs, black people think that they can't get decent jobs because of institutional racism.
These folks are all right to some extent, but these ideas of persecution are usually exaggerated. I've heard Jews equate Evangelical Christianity with Antisemitism. Sure, there are some people who hate Jews still, but they don't make up a majority of the world or even a majority of Christianity. You get the idea.
So when it was suggested that the liberal Atheists were being "intolerant" of conservative Christians, I didn't take the idea too seriously.
This business with Miss California USA and Perez Hilton has me reconsidering that though. First of all, I will restate that I do not agree with her. I do not believe that what we call "Marriage" in this country should be exclusively between one man and one woman. A discussion that I had with a Mormon Libertarian caused me to refine this position, I do not believe the government should be involved in "Marriage" at all, but rather it should be responsible for issuing and dissolving Civil Unions for anyone (and any combination of consenting adults) who wants them and these Civil Unions should replace the LEGAL institution of "Marriage", leaving real Marriages the exclusive domain of the religions.
Previously, I saw nothing wrong with same-sex marriage. But it was suggested to me that if the government recognized same-sex marriages, then they government could force churches who believe that homosexuality is a sin, to marry homosexuals. This, to me, would amount to a terrible violation of the "Separation of Church & State," and I thought the idea was ridiculous and this could never happen. But it was further pointed out that the Southern Baptist church was forced by the government to perform inter-racial marriages with the threat of withdrawal of their tax-exempt status. One's first impulse would be, "Of course! You can't let those racists discriminate against blacks or gays or anyone else!" But if religion has no business dictating to government, doesn't the protection go both ways? Should the government demand that the Catholic Church allow Priests to marry? Or allow women to become Priests?
So if the government recognized same-sex marriage, there is a precedent for that to be taken a step further to forcing churches to recognize same-sex marriage. So I support Civil Unions for all, and marriages for those whose churches allow them. And if your church doesn't, maybe you should find a new church.
SO. Miss California USA was asked by Perez Hilton what she thought about same-sex marriage. Miss C-USA said she believed marriage should be between one man, and one woman. Perez Hilton called her a Bitch and a Cunt publicly. Though I basically disagree with Miss C-USA, I think this qualifies as intolerance. She has a right to her opinion, and her opinion may have effected the outcome of her contest. I suspect that PH knew what her answer was going to be before he asked the question. It should have been left at that.
But it wasn't, and it killed a little more of my liberal idealism.
I think that nasty attacks like this are why conservatives push back so hard, and try to pre-emptively ban same-sex unions. In my state, Ohio, we amended our constitution to ban any state even APPROXIMATING marriage for anyone but a man and a woman, effectively cutting off same-sex civil unions before they could happen. And it's bullshit like THAT, that makes liberals push back so hard.
So yes, idealogical intolerance, just like racism, can go both ways. And it's bullshit, either way.
It's been a belief of mine for a while that people usually think that they're disadvantaged in some way. Christians think that the Atheists are pore powerful than them and out to keep them from worshiping God. Atheists think that the religious people are out to force their God on them. Jews think that the whole world hates them and wants to see them annihilated. White people think that affirmative action steals jobs, black people think that they can't get decent jobs because of institutional racism.
These folks are all right to some extent, but these ideas of persecution are usually exaggerated. I've heard Jews equate Evangelical Christianity with Antisemitism. Sure, there are some people who hate Jews still, but they don't make up a majority of the world or even a majority of Christianity. You get the idea.
So when it was suggested that the liberal Atheists were being "intolerant" of conservative Christians, I didn't take the idea too seriously.
This business with Miss California USA and Perez Hilton has me reconsidering that though. First of all, I will restate that I do not agree with her. I do not believe that what we call "Marriage" in this country should be exclusively between one man and one woman. A discussion that I had with a Mormon Libertarian caused me to refine this position, I do not believe the government should be involved in "Marriage" at all, but rather it should be responsible for issuing and dissolving Civil Unions for anyone (and any combination of consenting adults) who wants them and these Civil Unions should replace the LEGAL institution of "Marriage", leaving real Marriages the exclusive domain of the religions.
Previously, I saw nothing wrong with same-sex marriage. But it was suggested to me that if the government recognized same-sex marriages, then they government could force churches who believe that homosexuality is a sin, to marry homosexuals. This, to me, would amount to a terrible violation of the "Separation of Church & State," and I thought the idea was ridiculous and this could never happen. But it was further pointed out that the Southern Baptist church was forced by the government to perform inter-racial marriages with the threat of withdrawal of their tax-exempt status. One's first impulse would be, "Of course! You can't let those racists discriminate against blacks or gays or anyone else!" But if religion has no business dictating to government, doesn't the protection go both ways? Should the government demand that the Catholic Church allow Priests to marry? Or allow women to become Priests?
So if the government recognized same-sex marriage, there is a precedent for that to be taken a step further to forcing churches to recognize same-sex marriage. So I support Civil Unions for all, and marriages for those whose churches allow them. And if your church doesn't, maybe you should find a new church.
SO. Miss California USA was asked by Perez Hilton what she thought about same-sex marriage. Miss C-USA said she believed marriage should be between one man, and one woman. Perez Hilton called her a Bitch and a Cunt publicly. Though I basically disagree with Miss C-USA, I think this qualifies as intolerance. She has a right to her opinion, and her opinion may have effected the outcome of her contest. I suspect that PH knew what her answer was going to be before he asked the question. It should have been left at that.
But it wasn't, and it killed a little more of my liberal idealism.
I think that nasty attacks like this are why conservatives push back so hard, and try to pre-emptively ban same-sex unions. In my state, Ohio, we amended our constitution to ban any state even APPROXIMATING marriage for anyone but a man and a woman, effectively cutting off same-sex civil unions before they could happen. And it's bullshit like THAT, that makes liberals push back so hard.
So yes, idealogical intolerance, just like racism, can go both ways. And it's bullshit, either way.
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
Newt Gingrich converting to Catholicism and now gets to speak for us all? No, thank you.
I caught a discussion on Twitter regarding Newt Gingrich's outrage that the "anti-life" President Obama should be allowed to speak at the Catholic, Notre Dame University.
Apparently, Newt Gingrich is converting to Catholicism this weekend so he might share religion with his THIRD wife. Now Mr. Gingrich feels that his pending conversion qualifies him as some sort of authority on the Church's teachings.
I'd like to point out Mr. Gingrich's hypocrisy, as he has supported increased use of the Death Penalty in Federal cases. My folks have a bumper sticker on their car that says something to the effect of, "You can't be Catholic AND Pro-Choice." Being Catholic means being Pro-Life. So in the same vein, you can't be Catholic and Pro-Death Penalty. Capital Punishment and Abortion are equally violations of the sanctity of human life. According to the teachings of the Catholic Church, ALL LIFE IS SACRED. That doesn't mean all life, except murderers and rapists and other criminals and people who have done evil things.
Apparently, Newt Gingrich is converting to Catholicism this weekend so he might share religion with his THIRD wife. Now Mr. Gingrich feels that his pending conversion qualifies him as some sort of authority on the Church's teachings.
I'd like to point out Mr. Gingrich's hypocrisy, as he has supported increased use of the Death Penalty in Federal cases. My folks have a bumper sticker on their car that says something to the effect of, "You can't be Catholic AND Pro-Choice." Being Catholic means being Pro-Life. So in the same vein, you can't be Catholic and Pro-Death Penalty. Capital Punishment and Abortion are equally violations of the sanctity of human life. According to the teachings of the Catholic Church, ALL LIFE IS SACRED. That doesn't mean all life, except murderers and rapists and other criminals and people who have done evil things.
Thursday, March 12, 2009
Where the Catholic Pro-Life movement is going wrong
As I mentioned previously, my family is very Catholic, and very Pro-Life (or should I say Anti-Abortion, we can't agree on a definition of Pro-Life). Consequently, I hear a lot from the Catholic Pro-Life perspective. I tried following people like Patrick Madrid who are rudders of this movement, but I gave up. And this is why.
If you consider yourself Pro-Life, chances are you're voting Republican. The rhetoric coming from the Pro-Life folks is all anti-Democrat, because the Democrats have made "protecting a woman's right to choose" a plank in their party platform. This makes them "Officially the party of Death" (according to Patrick Madrid). I didn't see the Pro-Life folks out protesting the Iraq invasion.
My point is not that people who call themselves "Pro-Life" more often than not really just mean "Anti-Abortion" and don't support all of Pope John Paul II's components of being Pro-Life (including opposing war, capital punishment, etc). My point is that continued condemnation of the Democratic Party only serves to push people towards the Republicans, and the Republicans will make trivial policies that will somehow limit abortions, only to be overturned the next time the Dems take over. While abortion is a partisan issue, things will only continue to fluctuate from better to worse and back, depending on who has been screwing up in Washington.
If the Republican party was going to save us from abortion, don't you think they would have under Reagan, Bush or Bush II?
The only effective way for the Pro-Life movement to make any meaningful progress on the abortion issue, is to make it non-partisan, by supporting organizations like the Democrats for Life America. Being Pro-Life does not mean you must vote Republican or Independant. I voted for Barack Obama in spite of his position on abortion because I thought (and think) that he is better fit to lead our nation at this time than a racist, philanderer hiding behind the "Moral Majority."
So WHY is the Democratic Party "Officially the party of Death"?
Because there are people out there who vote Republican because they think it's a vote against abortion, when all else being equal they would be Democrats. If there were more Pro-Life membership within the Democrats, the party's policies would eventually reflect that. In the meantime, people are taught that if you're a Liberal, you're Pro-Choice ("I think abortion is wrong, and I would never have one myself. But I think it's a woman's right to choose what to do with her own body." Sound familiar?) and if you're Pro-Life, that means you're a Conservative. Regardless of whether or not you think capital punishment is wrong, or if you think that the government should provide universal healthcare. At best, you call yourself and Independant and you vote R unless there's a Republican running as an I (looking at YOU, H. Ross Perot).
What I'm saying is that the Democrats are "Officially the party of Death" because the Pro-Life movement makes it so by abandoning it. And this has done more damage to the anti-abortion cause than any pro-choice Democrat could hope to do.
If you consider yourself Pro-Life, chances are you're voting Republican. The rhetoric coming from the Pro-Life folks is all anti-Democrat, because the Democrats have made "protecting a woman's right to choose" a plank in their party platform. This makes them "Officially the party of Death" (according to Patrick Madrid). I didn't see the Pro-Life folks out protesting the Iraq invasion.
My point is not that people who call themselves "Pro-Life" more often than not really just mean "Anti-Abortion" and don't support all of Pope John Paul II's components of being Pro-Life (including opposing war, capital punishment, etc). My point is that continued condemnation of the Democratic Party only serves to push people towards the Republicans, and the Republicans will make trivial policies that will somehow limit abortions, only to be overturned the next time the Dems take over. While abortion is a partisan issue, things will only continue to fluctuate from better to worse and back, depending on who has been screwing up in Washington.
If the Republican party was going to save us from abortion, don't you think they would have under Reagan, Bush or Bush II?
The only effective way for the Pro-Life movement to make any meaningful progress on the abortion issue, is to make it non-partisan, by supporting organizations like the Democrats for Life America. Being Pro-Life does not mean you must vote Republican or Independant. I voted for Barack Obama in spite of his position on abortion because I thought (and think) that he is better fit to lead our nation at this time than a racist, philanderer hiding behind the "Moral Majority."
So WHY is the Democratic Party "Officially the party of Death"?
Because there are people out there who vote Republican because they think it's a vote against abortion, when all else being equal they would be Democrats. If there were more Pro-Life membership within the Democrats, the party's policies would eventually reflect that. In the meantime, people are taught that if you're a Liberal, you're Pro-Choice ("I think abortion is wrong, and I would never have one myself. But I think it's a woman's right to choose what to do with her own body." Sound familiar?) and if you're Pro-Life, that means you're a Conservative. Regardless of whether or not you think capital punishment is wrong, or if you think that the government should provide universal healthcare. At best, you call yourself and Independant and you vote R unless there's a Republican running as an I (looking at YOU, H. Ross Perot).
What I'm saying is that the Democrats are "Officially the party of Death" because the Pro-Life movement makes it so by abandoning it. And this has done more damage to the anti-abortion cause than any pro-choice Democrat could hope to do.
Thursday, February 12, 2009
Hi. I'm Joe Harris, and I can almost guarantee that you're going to disagree with me.
I've decided to start a separate blog for my political ruminations, so I may post publicly and keep my political opinions apart from my business blogging.
I'm 28 years old, married, and the father of two young children, a 3.5 year old girl and a 2 year old son. I was born and lived in the Central Ohio area my entire life. I was raised in a Conservative, Roman Catholic family. My parents are baby-boomers, but chose to be part of the establishment during the 60's rather than rebelling. I'm a photographer, a creative person. I am still consider myself a Catholic, not just a Culture Catholic, though due to a lack of willpower I rarely manage to get my family to Mass.
I read an article once that said that being a Conservative is a hereditary, psychological disorder. At this point in my life, that doesn't seem far from the truth. Some of my earliest political memories are of my father, during the 1988 election, bitching about the neighbor girl's parents being Socialists (I was 7 or 8 and had NO idea what this meant). My folks claim that they don't just vote for anyone with an (R) next to their name on the ballot, but I'm not sure. I think my father bases this claim on the fact that he voted for Perot. At the very least, I'm pretty sure that even if he's not voting (R), he's voting AGAINST whoever has a (D) next to their name.
When I was a teenager, I learned about Libertarianism. It made more sense to me than the Republican Party. I never understood the need for the Government to protect informed citizens (and their souls) from themselves with anti-drug and prostitution laws, seat-belt laws, helmet laws, censorship. I considered myself "fiscally Conservative, but Socially Liberal." This lasted for probably 10 years, until I was not only financially independent, but responsible for others. Even during the 2000 election, I thought George W. Bush sounded like he would be a good President. Boy, was I disappointed!
After W was elected, I got married (2002), got laid off from Worldcom (2003), started college and discovered my calling in Photography (2004) and had two kids (2005 & 2007). Sometime between 2000 and 2004, I realized that I'm not a Conservative at all. I am constantly clashing with my family AND friends, there's always something to disagree about. To me, it all makes perfect sense and isn't contradictory at all. This blog is going to be my attempt to organize my thoughts. It's an inventory of what I believe.
First of all, there are a few Conservative values that I maintain. My positions are by no means a rejection of my upbringing.
I am Pro-Life. It seems to me that for most of the folks that call themselves "Pro-Life", all they really mean is Anti-Abortion. I'm not just Anti-Abortion, but I believe that Capital Punishment is immoral, left over from the Dark Ages and that America is being left behind in the world by still practicing it. I question the morality of most of the wars in the last 100 years. We were tricked into joining WWI by the British. We forced the Japanese to attack us in WWII, then dropped the atomic bombs on them after rejecting terms for surrender they'd offered to us. Korea and Vietnam were not our battles, and we lost them anyway. The first Gulf War is the only conflict I believe might have had any moral justification. I believe that Euthanasia is wrong, and that doctors deciding when their patients should die is murder and a violation of the Hypocratic Oath. BUT, I believe that using contraception is not itself a sin.
I am Pro-Gun. I believe that if you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns. The guns that the criminals in this country have, they probably procured illegaly anyway. In countries where guns are more strictly controlled, they have knife-crime and higher rates of (non-homicide) violent crime.
I believe that the "Seperation of Church and State" is an invention and was never the intention of our Founding Fathers. It's been taken to the extreme point of being used to supress religion, which, I believe, is counter to it's original purpose.
As far as I'm aware, this is the extent of my Conservative ideals. So here are a few more, that don't mesh so well with the GOP's platform generally.
I believe that the Government has a responsibility to make sure that every child gets a good education, for free. That elevating the least of our population, elevates our society as a whole.
I believe that no American should have to NOT seek medical treatment that they believe might be necessary, because they're worried about how they're going to pay for it. This means Universal Heathcare.
I believe that teaching Abstinence Only sex-ed programs does not work. I would much rather give students access to contraception than have them getting pregnant, and then murdering their babies.
I believe that the sexual habits of consenting adults is not my business, nor the concern of the gocernment. Whether homosexuality is a sin or not, I don't know. But frankly, it doesn't matter to me because I'm not doing it. I think that 'Marriage' should be left exclusively to churches and the State should have jurisdiction over 'Civil Unions' for anyone who wants them. (I'll expand on this at a later date.)
I believe that our immigration system is flawed, and like our laws prohibiting drugs and prostituion, the laws cause more problems than the problems they are supposed to fix.
I believe that history has already shown us that trying to legislate morality can only backfire.
I believe that the race problems in America really have an economic basis, and that affirmative action programs (if we have them at all) should be based on economic status of a person's Family of Origin.
So I'm confused about where I fit in politically. Like I said, this blog is going to hopefully help me find that place. At this point, the only thing I'm reasonably sure about is that I'm not a Republican. The 2007 election was the first time I voted, and 2008 was my first Presidential election. I voted for the Big O, because what the Republican Party has become makes me ill, and I generally agree with what Obama has to say. With the notable exception of the subject of Abortion. I've come to believe that the Republicans are, generally, hypocrites. The Democrats may be passing laws that let people murder unborn children, but at least they're honest about it.
Chances are, you've already disagreed with me about something that I've written here. If you agree with me 100% so far, let me know because it will be a pleasant surprise for me.
I'm 28 years old, married, and the father of two young children, a 3.5 year old girl and a 2 year old son. I was born and lived in the Central Ohio area my entire life. I was raised in a Conservative, Roman Catholic family. My parents are baby-boomers, but chose to be part of the establishment during the 60's rather than rebelling. I'm a photographer, a creative person. I am still consider myself a Catholic, not just a Culture Catholic, though due to a lack of willpower I rarely manage to get my family to Mass.
I read an article once that said that being a Conservative is a hereditary, psychological disorder. At this point in my life, that doesn't seem far from the truth. Some of my earliest political memories are of my father, during the 1988 election, bitching about the neighbor girl's parents being Socialists (I was 7 or 8 and had NO idea what this meant). My folks claim that they don't just vote for anyone with an (R) next to their name on the ballot, but I'm not sure. I think my father bases this claim on the fact that he voted for Perot. At the very least, I'm pretty sure that even if he's not voting (R), he's voting AGAINST whoever has a (D) next to their name.
When I was a teenager, I learned about Libertarianism. It made more sense to me than the Republican Party. I never understood the need for the Government to protect informed citizens (and their souls) from themselves with anti-drug and prostitution laws, seat-belt laws, helmet laws, censorship. I considered myself "fiscally Conservative, but Socially Liberal." This lasted for probably 10 years, until I was not only financially independent, but responsible for others. Even during the 2000 election, I thought George W. Bush sounded like he would be a good President. Boy, was I disappointed!
After W was elected, I got married (2002), got laid off from Worldcom (2003), started college and discovered my calling in Photography (2004) and had two kids (2005 & 2007). Sometime between 2000 and 2004, I realized that I'm not a Conservative at all. I am constantly clashing with my family AND friends, there's always something to disagree about. To me, it all makes perfect sense and isn't contradictory at all. This blog is going to be my attempt to organize my thoughts. It's an inventory of what I believe.
First of all, there are a few Conservative values that I maintain. My positions are by no means a rejection of my upbringing.
I am Pro-Life. It seems to me that for most of the folks that call themselves "Pro-Life", all they really mean is Anti-Abortion. I'm not just Anti-Abortion, but I believe that Capital Punishment is immoral, left over from the Dark Ages and that America is being left behind in the world by still practicing it. I question the morality of most of the wars in the last 100 years. We were tricked into joining WWI by the British. We forced the Japanese to attack us in WWII, then dropped the atomic bombs on them after rejecting terms for surrender they'd offered to us. Korea and Vietnam were not our battles, and we lost them anyway. The first Gulf War is the only conflict I believe might have had any moral justification. I believe that Euthanasia is wrong, and that doctors deciding when their patients should die is murder and a violation of the Hypocratic Oath. BUT, I believe that using contraception is not itself a sin.
I am Pro-Gun. I believe that if you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns. The guns that the criminals in this country have, they probably procured illegaly anyway. In countries where guns are more strictly controlled, they have knife-crime and higher rates of (non-homicide) violent crime.
I believe that the "Seperation of Church and State" is an invention and was never the intention of our Founding Fathers. It's been taken to the extreme point of being used to supress religion, which, I believe, is counter to it's original purpose.
As far as I'm aware, this is the extent of my Conservative ideals. So here are a few more, that don't mesh so well with the GOP's platform generally.
I believe that the Government has a responsibility to make sure that every child gets a good education, for free. That elevating the least of our population, elevates our society as a whole.
I believe that no American should have to NOT seek medical treatment that they believe might be necessary, because they're worried about how they're going to pay for it. This means Universal Heathcare.
I believe that teaching Abstinence Only sex-ed programs does not work. I would much rather give students access to contraception than have them getting pregnant, and then murdering their babies.
I believe that the sexual habits of consenting adults is not my business, nor the concern of the gocernment. Whether homosexuality is a sin or not, I don't know. But frankly, it doesn't matter to me because I'm not doing it. I think that 'Marriage' should be left exclusively to churches and the State should have jurisdiction over 'Civil Unions' for anyone who wants them. (I'll expand on this at a later date.)
I believe that our immigration system is flawed, and like our laws prohibiting drugs and prostituion, the laws cause more problems than the problems they are supposed to fix.
I believe that history has already shown us that trying to legislate morality can only backfire.
I believe that the race problems in America really have an economic basis, and that affirmative action programs (if we have them at all) should be based on economic status of a person's Family of Origin.
So I'm confused about where I fit in politically. Like I said, this blog is going to hopefully help me find that place. At this point, the only thing I'm reasonably sure about is that I'm not a Republican. The 2007 election was the first time I voted, and 2008 was my first Presidential election. I voted for the Big O, because what the Republican Party has become makes me ill, and I generally agree with what Obama has to say. With the notable exception of the subject of Abortion. I've come to believe that the Republicans are, generally, hypocrites. The Democrats may be passing laws that let people murder unborn children, but at least they're honest about it.
Chances are, you've already disagreed with me about something that I've written here. If you agree with me 100% so far, let me know because it will be a pleasant surprise for me.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)