French fighters vs Women Open Thread

mmghosh's picture

We're about to spend [$10 billion on fighters.  Why are we boosting employment in France, or more specifically, Dassault?

India's decision to buy 126 French-made Rafale fighter jets for its air force in a colossal 7.9 billion Euro deal, has understandably made headline news in France with a discreet popping of champagne corks, not just at Dassault Aviation, the makers of the plane, but within President Sarkozy's entourage and his Conservative UMP Party. This French victory over the rival Eurofighter Typhoon (made by EADS and financed by a four-nation consortium that includes Britain, Germany, Spain and Italy) comes at a crucial time for the French President who is facing a difficult re-election bid in May 2012. With less than 15 weeks of campaigning left and extremely poor ratings, Mr. Sarkozy, who in the past has described himself as his country's “top salesman” is likely to milk the deal for all it is worth. Serge Dassault, the Chairman and CEO of Dassault Aviation is a right-wing Senator and member of the ruling conservative UMP Party. He is also one of Mr. Sarkozy's most ardent supporters and uses his right-wing daily, Le Figaro, to further the President's cause. Both men are probably enjoying a rare moment of quiet victory before the fraught campaign weeks that lie ahead. France had almost given up hope of ever selling its hugely expensive technological marvel. Rafale in French means gale, gust or squall and an acerbic scribe once remarked that the cash-guzzling Rafale programme was more of a tornado than a gale, sucking up a massive chunk of the defence ministry's budget. Had the deal not gone through, Dassault Aviation, which has been experiencing significant financial difficulties, would have been obliged to stop the Rafale programme altogether. In its 26-year-old history, France has been incapable of selling a single plane outside its own frontiers. Defence Minister Gerard Longuet said last December after the nth prospective buyer opted out of bidding for the plane that if no foreign buyer could be found to underwrite the programme, he would have no choice but to scrap Rafale.

And who's going to fly them? Not many women pilots, perhaps.

NEW DELHI: It's official - India is the most dangerous place in the world to be a baby girl. Newly released data shows that an Indian girl child aged 1-5 years is 75% more likely to die than an Indian boy, making this the worst gender differential in child mortality for any country in the world. --- Infant (0-1 years) and child (1-5 years) mortality are declining in India and across the world, though not as fast as was hoped in India. Simultaneously, most of the world is experiencing a faster fall in female infant and child mortality than in male, on account of well established biological factors which make girls better survivors of early infancy given equal access to resources. The world's two most populous countries, however, buck this trend. Newly released United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs ( UN-DESA) data for 150 countries over 40 years shows that India and China are the only two countries in the world where female infant mortality is higher than male infant mortality in the 2000s. In China, there are 76 male infant deaths for every 100 female infant deaths compared with 122 male infant deaths for every 100 female infant deaths in the developing world as a whole. The released data has found that India has a better infant mortality sex ratio than China, with 97 male infant deaths for every 100 female, but this is still not in tune with the global trend, or with its neighbours Sri Lanka (125) or Pakistan (120). When it comes to the child mortality sex ratio, however, India is far and away the world's worst. In the 2000s, there were 56 male child deaths for every 100 female, compared with 111 in the developing world. This ratio has got progressively worse since the 1970s in India, even as Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Egypt and Iraq improved.

What a strange world to live in.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

And. . .PETA's At It Again

M Scott Eiland's picture

Slavery at Sea World! I suppose the next step will be to picket those house orcas at Sea World for pretending to be fat and happy. What a bunch of Uncle Shamus. . .*

*yes, yes--closed-captioned for the sarcasm impaired.

. . .and Don Mattingly must be fired (bye Ned--don't let the door hit you in the @$$ on the way out!).

Why file a slavery of orcas case?

brutusettu's picture

Don't they know they don't have legs to stand on.

I think those Orcas...


...need that joke like they need a hole in the head.

In the medical community, death is known as Chuck Norris Syndrome. 

Oh, it was just a fluke nt

HankP's picture


I blame it all on the Internet

Quit yer blubbering -nt-



A man must be orthodox upon most things, or he will never even have time to preach his own heresy.


Whale of a story. n/t

mmghosh's picture


freedom is a fundamental value that does not need to be justified in terms of some other value like efficiency

A killer! nt

Jay C's picture


You should all express punitence for this thread



Accept us as we are

aireachail's picture

orcinus up for counseling.

Republican primaries a mess, Santorum all over

HankP's picture

Tonight Santorum was the not-Romney of choice, sweeping all three contests. How much longer will this round robin go on?

I blame it all on the Internet

All the way to the convention, one hopes



Aside from the


fun of the watching the blood flow,  it does seem right that once in while the other 47 states after IA/NH/SC should get some say in who the nominees will be.


Jay C's picture

Site alert help? For some reason, The Forvm has gone wonky on me this morning: I have opened the site in all 3 of my browsers (Firefox, Opera and AOL/IE) and

1, The colors in the header and sidebars is off-tone

2. I don't get the diaries list in the RH sidebar

3. "My" box shows up, after login, as do the comments list in the LH sidebar, and the blogroll, but no diaries


ETA: diaries are missing from my iPad (Safari) as well

Did a bunch of upgrades last night

HankP's picture

1. I'm not seeing that at all, try emptying your cache

2. Fixed

3. Fixed


RSS - I'll check tonight, heading out to a client soon.

I blame it all on the Internet

Site seems to be fixed now.

Jay C's picture

back to (you'll excuse the expression) normal.


China is just the leading foreign holder of US debt dude

brutusettu's picture

The internet needs to get to work parodying this guy


A first stab:



They no speaka-dee-English so good in China!


They taking all American jobs!


... Lame racism as an excuse to cut social spending rather than to make the US competitive by investing in our infrastructure or devaluing our currency.


Anyway, I'm sure this kind of thing happens all the time with Democratic candidates.

C'mon, catchy

Jay C's picture

It's "No speakee Engrish so good"


If you're going to use offensive ethnic-stereotype accents in an ad, you should sho' 'nuff do it right!

So, to recap


The American Dream is dead, our nation is losing out to a Scary Asian Power that happens to own all of our debt, and the Democratic president has a scary plot to institute socialism and dictatorship.


Did I wake up in 1993?  Am I actually typing this on CompuServe?





Japan -

mmghosh's picture

smaller, few natural resources, no aggression. China is none of these.

freedom is a fundamental value that does not need to be justified in terms of some other value like efficiency


HankP's picture

They've managed to alienate Jews, blacks, and hispanics. Now they're going after asians. Are there any minorities left that they can alienate?

I blame it all on the Internet

Distant Thunder

M Scott Eiland's picture

Six months and counting to the 2012 London Olympiad--and barring injury or an unexpected new arrival on the scene there should be no question as to who the star will be:

I was hoping he'd go for the 100-200-400 triple, but the scheduling would be brutal if not impossible, and he really hates running the 400.

. . .and Don Mattingly must be fired (bye Ned--don't let the door hit you in the @$$ on the way out!).

Yohan Blake


was better than Bolt last year in the 200. Not saying that Bolt can't return to form but he won't have an easy time of it as Blake has the second fastest time ever at 200m and is very young (and presumably still improving).

Very interesting article in the FT

HankP's picture

about real religious discrimination in the US: the widespread bigotry against atheists. Onward Christian soldiers!

I blame it all on the Internet

It was an interesting read

stinerman's picture

But it wasn't anything I didn't already know.  I can't be up front about my beliefs like other folks can, lest I severely offend them.  Yes, I believe that if you believe in God you are deluding yourself, but I don't go out of my way to tell people that.  On the same token, if a friendly discussion regarding religion comes up at work, I know my comments would not be welcome.


On a not-really-related note we've got an abnormal amount of Jehovah's Witnesses at work, or at least did.  One of them found a new job recently and another one converted to mainstream Christianity.

The Constitution does not vest in Congress the authority to protect society from every bad act that might befall it. -- Clarence Thomas

stinerman, you are confusing the topic with tact


Nobody can be totally upfront with their beliefs or opinions without severely offending folks, regardless of the topic.  Check it out.  Randomnly say the following to various people. 

I think you are deluded if you believe in God (religion, gods etc)

Yes, those pants do make your ass look fat.

the muffins and green beans with bacon were great but the turkey was just straight sh*t

Ohhhhhh, ewwwwww, did you pay or that hair-cut?

All are similar in that the response will be, but isn't limited to, a raised and extended middle-finger waved in your general direction.  Why you think religion should be any different than the next three is what I don't understand.

In the medical community, death is known as Chuck Norris Syndrome. 

Well that's just it

stinerman's picture

Saying you don't believe in God is tantamount to saying those pants do make your ass look fat when there is no intent to disparage. If someone tells me that they're a Christian, I don't get offended.  As I said, I think they're deluding themselves, but I'm not offended by the simple fact that they believe in God.  People are actually offended by the fact that there's an atheist in their midst and he hasn't been smited yet.


I figured you'd get that as a Catholic.  Maybe not in your neck of the woods, but there are still places where Catholics are seen as not being truly Christian and are treated with scorn and disrespect.


In general, I believe if someone asks my honest opinion, I will give it to them without a filter.  If that's offensive to them, well they shouldn't ask questions they don't want answered.

The Constitution does not vest in Congress the authority to protect society from every bad act that might befall it. -- Clarence Thomas

I've been lucky

HankP's picture

as I've always lived where you can say whatever you want about religion and not have to worry about it.


I'm not talking about meeting someone, shaking their hand and saying "BTW I'm an atheist". I'm talking about when people ask you and you respond honestly. I guess I'm just lucky that I've never had to live in backwards places ruled by superstition.

I blame it all on the Internet

Words of christians


from the mouth of Christ:



Religion in science is ridiculous.

mmghosh's picture

[url=]via Pharyngula[/url]

[quote]Jamaal Haamid, students at Qassim University examined a saying by the prophet, and have published it in a freely available pdf, The Hadeeth on the Fly, which you can download if you desire. Or you could just read this post, which summarizes entirely the complete content of the short paper, which is pretty much unpublishable and unbelievable anyway.

Here are the holy words.

(Notice that I include the original Arabic so there can be no confusion!)

If a housefly falls in the drink of anyone of you, he should dip it (in the drink), for the one of its wings has a disease and the other has the cure of the disease.[/quote]



freedom is a fundamental value that does not need to be justified in terms of some other value like efficiency

Mmghosh, should a housefly land in your drink


you will hold him over the glass and twist his 6 little legs until he spits what he took back out.  It's from an Irish joke rather than the Cuddly book of proverbs, but it works.

An Irishman, a German and a Frenchman agree to go into a bar and have a drink.  The bartender delivers the three drinks but each has a fly in it.  The German plucks his fly out  and drinks his.  The Frenchman, looks horrified and says 'Mon Dieu, I cannot drink this'.  They're both disturbed by a sudden commotion where the Irishman has his fly in a headlock screaming 'Spit it out! I'll kill you if you don't spit it out!'

In the medical community, death is known as Chuck Norris Syndrome. 

So you can tell me

mmghosh's picture

is it OK for an adult voter here (over 18) to have a can of beer in the open in the US?  What's the prohibition status?

freedom is a fundamental value that does not need to be justified in terms of some other value like efficiency

Ok, I'm just going to ask what am I missing here?


Your response to my joke and Hank's response to you leaves me thinking I missed some comments.  Religion and science shouldn't mix, ok.  I am missing how that relates to the drinking age in he US. If they aren't related and you're just asking for sh*ts and grins, I can appreciate that.  If they are related, at least in your mind, I gotta ask you to spell it out a bit.

In the medical community, death is known as Chuck Norris Syndrome. 

Um, Darth?

HankP's picture

this is widely available in India. Something to consider when reading what Manish writes here.

I blame it all on the Internet

Your joke was good!

mmghosh's picture

We're planning to visit the US in May, and this site is where I get my travel info, and what one can do and so forth.  You seem to know about drink and so forth! 


I'm a little surprised at the drinking age.  Also, how can one have a picnic without beer?  Which I guess we'll have to be careful about.

freedom is a fundamental value that does not need to be justified in terms of some other value like efficiency

I know about drink?


mannish, I have absolutely no idea what ever gave you that idea.  I only drink when I've already decided I'm going to beat the wife and kid anyway.  I kid, I kid.  I'll talk about drinking anytime but I couldn't tell you half of the legalities out there and I suspect I'm occassioaly in violation of said legalities.  Not drinking and driving, but walking around with an open container?  Oh yeah, absolutely.

In the medical community, death is known as Chuck Norris Syndrome. 

When I was in high school

HankP's picture

these were quite popular.

I blame it all on the Internet

Hank, speaking of the way the ancients used to drink


Have you ever watched older movies and seen how folks drank whiskey?  Gregory Peck in '12 O'clock High' pours some scotch (Vat 69 IRCC) into a glass and then pours like a half-pint of water on top of it.  I've never seen this done in person and was raised to believe one sleeps in a barn if one uses more than 2 ice cubes or just a dash (2 spritzes on the Cuddly table of weights and measures) of water.  Is this something you ever see?

In the medical community, death is known as Chuck Norris Syndrome. 


aireachail's picture

Vat 69 is blended.


So it's not like it really matters


HankP's picture

people who don't actually like the taste of liquor dilute the hell out of it. And from what I've tasted of well liquor, that's understandable (seriously, well scotch is pretty vile stuff). Haven't tried Vat 69 so I don't know if that's a reasonable move or not.

I blame it all on the Internet

Fixed that for you....

TXG1112's picture

This is more accurate :)

people who don't actually like the taste of liquor Scotch dilute the hell out of it. And from what I've tasted of well liquor Scotch, that's understandable (seriously, well scotch is pretty vile stuff). Haven't tried Vat 69 so I don't know if that's a reasonable move or not.

I've tried numerous single malts and have never been able to acquire a taste for it. So far as I'm concerned it might as well be hydraulic fluid flavored with swamp sludge. I suppose it's just as well, as it's one less vice I need to fund.


--- I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed, or numbered. My life is my own.

Try Glenmorangie

HankP's picture

light, sweet, not too smoky. Very nice stuff. But sure, scotch is an acquired taste.


My point still stands, well liquors are usually pretty horrible. I bartended for years and wouldn't touch the stuff, except maybe for vodka.

I blame it all on the Internet

I was pulling your chain, but you're right

TXG1112's picture

I drank vat loads of cheap vodka in plastic bottles in college and I can't say there was much to recommend it. These days I actually keep some under my kitchen sink as a solvent. Works well for removing pine sap and I don't have to worry about it destroying my hands.


A couple of people have mentioned Glenmorangie to me so I might have to try it, though as I said, it's not like I need another expensive vice.



--- I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed, or numbered. My life is my own.

First of all

HankP's picture

the drinking age was raised to 21 back in the 1980s due to coercion by the federal government. Drinking in public from an open container is illegal almost everywhere with a few exceptions.

I blame it all on the Internet

Mmghosh, generally it's not legal


All the specifics vary between states and counties but 21 is the standard drinking age.  The uniformity for the drinking age is due to federal funding rather than federal law.   If there's a state that has an age limit under 21 I don't kow about it, but I wouldn't.  Me and mine are either so far above or below any form of age restriction that it's something we don't keep tabs on.

In the medical community, death is known as Chuck Norris Syndrome. 

I guess you missed this

HankP's picture


I blame it all on the Internet


M Scott Eiland's picture

This should be the final guarantee that if Nanny Bloomberg's ego gets the best of him and he runs for President, virtually *all* the votes he gets will be at the expense of Democrats, or, perhaps Roseanne Barr.

*Scott raises his glass to Nanny Bloomberg*

This one's for you, King RINO.

. . .and Don Mattingly must be fired (bye Ned--don't let the door hit you in the @$$ on the way out!).

Funny thing

HankP's picture

virtually every mayor and police chief of major cties supports some form of gun control. I wonder why that would be?

I blame it all on the Internet


M Scott Eiland's picture

And while you're at it, list the political party for each? I suspect a pattern will be visible.

. . .and Don Mattingly must be fired (bye Ned--don't let the door hit you in the @$$ on the way out!).

Look at the list yourself

HankP's picture

[link] Awful lot of red states represented there. Also, police chiefs are generally not listed as supporting specific parties, but I'm sure they're all Dems /sarcasm

I blame it all on the Internet

Hank, that's weak tea.


Mayors against illegal guns.  I'd sort of expect my mayor to be against illegal guns and really don't see a pro/anti-gun control agenda here.  On their webpage that gets into any sort of actual gun control initiative the following disclaimer can be found 'Please note that the programs and ideas listed on this page have not been formally endorsed by the coalition.'

I will point out their quote of 30k killed by gun violence is a complete fabrication.  There were only ~15k murders total last year and of those less than 10k involved a firearm.  I suppose they could be rolling up suicides but that's sort of retarded as they'd sooner be caught dead than saying something like 'medicinal violence' or 'gravity violence' for folks who pop pills or jump out of windows.

In the medical community, death is known as Chuck Norris Syndrome. 

You haven't been reading your NRA newsletter

HankP's picture

because every attempt by any level of government to restrict the flow of illegal arms in any way is opposed by the NRA. The biggest one, the gun show loophole, is the second biggest source of illegal firearms in the country. So nice attempt to sound reasonable, but it certainly is something fought against by pro gun ownership groups.

I blame it all on the Internet

Well, I am reasonable


The quote was  'found gun shows to be the second leading source of illegally diverted guns in the nation'.  The 'gun show loophole' is an intentional misnomer and deals with the private sale of firearms, a totally different animal.

'...because every attempt by any level of government to restrict the flow of illegal arms...' Not true, every attempt to restrict the flow of illegal arms that is also an attempt to restrict the flow of legal arms is opposed and rightly so.  Laws that specifically target illegal activity, such as straw purchases, are a mixed bag but when you dig into the details of what's being opposed, there's often a bit of a stink there.

In the medical community, death is known as Chuck Norris Syndrome. 

And there you go

HankP's picture

anything other than being able to buy and sell guns at will with no restrictions whatsoever is an unconstitutional attack on the second amendment.


You know, even the first amendment isn't absolute but you guys won't accept any restrictions whatsoever on the second. And that's why everyone, even terrorists, know how easy it is to get guns in the US.

I blame it all on the Internet

Hank, you were being reasonable to this point


First, to close the gun show loophole would require an interpretation of the commerce clause such that you could call it the 'Garage Sale Loophole' and actually be more accurate.  Second, your side is the one with the history of distorting the facts, often inflating the numbers by multiples, not fractions.  Third, your side of the argument considers the interference with the legal sale of firearms as a feature not a bug.  Fourth, admittedly counter-intuitive as it may be, the increasing body of fact is shaping up such that there is virtually zero correlation with gun control/availability and violent crime.  Thems some issues your side needs to overcome before I'm willing to stand aside and let you fiddle with my rights.

In the medical community, death is known as Chuck Norris Syndrome. 


HankP's picture

1. Call it the private sale loophole if you want, it allows psychos and sociopaths to buy guns with no problem at all.

2. Facts not in evidence, escpecially if you actually read what 2nd amendment people write about OMG OBAMA GON TAKE ALL R GUNZ

3. Facts not in evidence

4. Wrong. Lots of guns used in crimes in NYC are traced to states with a "loose" interpretation of who can buy guns. Also from my link, undercover agents sent to private gun shows are able to buy guns illegally 2/3 of the time


See, you proved my point. Any restriction on crazy people buying guns is something "reasonable" people consider a violation of their 2nd amendment rights.

I blame it all on the Internet

Hank, is there some baggage here?


I mean that respectfully, and would rather just drop it if there's some personal or emotional skin in the game.  If not, let me know and I'll drive on.

In the medical community, death is known as Chuck Norris Syndrome. 


HankP's picture

just another example of the Republican BS I've had to listen to my entire adult life. I especially get annoyed when reasonably intelligent people repeat it.

I blame it all on the Internet

Hank, it's not BS.


Why is it when authoritarians seek to step on civil liberties they are accused of scare-mongering except on this issue?  Look at the numbers you qoted.  The smart-ass (and I am one) would say that after Bloomberg inc launched a 4 month 3 state sting all they could muster was 22 illegally purchased weapons.  The expected reply is 'but they only hit 33 sellers' which brings us back to step 1.a., after a 4 month 3 state sting operation they could only make 33 attempts.  That's horsesh*t.  Those sellers were vetted, the most likely to sell were picked and the results were passed off like it was a random sample.  See the ATF investigation in the following paragraph where they openly claim they vetted sellers in a much larger sampling size and only got an 11% higher rate of illegal sales.  Bloomberg Inc bullshat you man, and I in turn get annoyed when I see this crap repeated.

In the medical community, death is known as Chuck Norris Syndrome. 

Yeah, it is

HankP's picture

the fact is that no one, and I mean no one in this country has been deprived of their right to purchase and bear arms. They treat a background check as tyranny and any attempt to keep guns out of the hands of crazy people as the second coming of the SS. Everyone reading this can go out and buy as many guns as they can afford, and privately sell them to anyone they want. That's not gun control in any possible meaning of the term. But it keeps the rubes scared, and buying guns and ammo, and voting Republican.

I blame it all on the Internet

No, the rubes are scared


because they believe the liberals who say that they want to see gun ownership banned with things like the Brady Law and 1994 Ban Weapons That Look Like the Ones in Action Movies assault weapons legislation as baby steps in the right direction of total prohibition.


The only reason that gun ownership survives as an individual right is because there's a lobby that fights like rabid wolverines to preserve that right.  I'm personally glad that the Democratic Party has given up on banning guns as a desiderium, but I'm under no illusions that the decision to do so was only because they wanted to ever win a rural election again.

Once again, hyperbolic and out of touch with reality

HankP's picture

and of course, the victimization again. But most of all, confirming what I said above - any attempt to put any kind od limitation on the ability of anyone to buy any kind of weapon anywhere = complete ban on owning all guns. But it sure does work the rubes.

I blame it all on the Internet

So how many direct quotations from liberal politicians,


media figures, etc. about how they want to see private gun ownership banned to convince you that it's not "hyperbole" and "victimization?"

Sure. Show my the quotes

HankP's picture

where liberals want to ban all guns for everyone. I'll be back later today.


Oh, BTW, actual politicians would be nice, not blog comments.

I blame it all on the Internet

Looking Forward To The Frantic Hand-Waving -nt-

M Scott Eiland's picture


. . .and Don Mattingly must be fired (bye Ned--don't let the door hit you in the @$$ on the way out!).

Looking forward to an actual cite.



"I've been on food stamps and welfare.  Anybody help me out?  No!" Craig T. Nelson (6/2/2009)

I grabbed these after a quick Google search




"I believe all handguns should be abolished."  - Sen. John Chafee, 1/9/97.

"If it were up to me, We'd ban them all."  - Rep. Mel Reynolds, CNN Crossfire, 12/9/93.

"Ultimately, I would like to see the manufacture and possession of handguns banned except for military and police use." - Rep. Bobby Rush, Chicago Tribune, 12/5/99.

"We need much stricter gun control, and eventually we should bar the ownership of handguns except in a few cases."  - Rep. William Clay (D-MO), St. Louis Dispatch, 5/8/93.

"If it was up to me, no one but law enforcement officers would own hand guns."  - Chicago Mayor Richard Daley, 11/13/98.

"We can't be so fixated on our desire to preserve the rights or ordinary Americans to own firearms ... that we are unable to think about reality."  - President Bill Clinton, March 1, 1993.

"We are going to hammer guns on the anvil of relentless legislative strategy! We're going to beat guns into submission!"  - Representative Chuck Shumer, 12/8/93.

"Mr. President, what is going on in this country?  Does going to school mean exposure to handguns and to death?  As you know, my position is we should ban all handguns, get rid of them, no manufacture, no sale, no importation, no transportation, no possession of a handgun.  There are 66 million handguns in the United States of America today, with 2 million being added every year."  - Senator John H. Chafee, (R-RI), 6/11/92.

"Mr. speaker, we must take swift and strong action if we are to rescue the next generation from the rising of tide armed violence. That is why today I am introducing the Handgun Control Act of 1992. This legislation would outlaw the possession, importation, transfer or manufacture of a handgun except for use by public agencies, individuals who can demonstrate to their local police chief that they need a gun because of threat to their life or the life of a family member, licensed guard services, licensed pistol clubs which keep the weapons securely on premises, licensed manufacturers and licensed gun dealers."  - Rep. Stephen J. Solarz, 8/12/92.

"Indeed, that the Second Amendment poses no barrier to strong gun laws is perhaps the most well-settled proposition in American constitutional law.  Yet the incantation of this phantom right continues to pervade Congressional debate."  - Erwin N. Griswold, Solicitor General, Nixon Administration (Washington Post, 11/4/90)




"My personal opinion is that guns kill people."  - Sam Donaldson, ABC News Primetime Live, 2/22/90.

"We will never fully solve our nation's horrific problem of gun violence unless we ban the manufacture and sale of handguns and semi-automatic assault weapons."  - USA Today, Dec. 29, 1993.

"Twenty years ago, I asked Richard Nixon what he thought of gun control. His on-the-record reply: 'Guns are an abomination.' Free from fear of gun owners' retaliation at the polls, he favored making handguns illegal and requiring licenses for hunting rifles. - William Safire, LA Daily News, 6/15/99.

"Jonesboro, Arkansas; Edinboro, Pennsylvania; Fayetteville, Tennessee; Springfield, Oregon -- all towns that live in infamy because a troubled teenager with access to a deadly gun went on a killing spree.  There are no panaceas to stop such violence but there are too many guns and too many teenagers have too easy access to them.  It is an outrage to deny that as too many politicians in the back pocket of the National Rifle Association are too wont to do."  - CNN Capital Gang, 5/23/98.

"We are inclined to think that every firearm in the hands of anyone who is not a law enforcement officer constitutes an incitement to violence.  Let's come to our senses before the whole country starts shooting itself up on all its Main Streets in a delirious kind of High Noon."  - Washington Post, 8/19/65.

"By a curiosity of evolution, every human skull harbors a prehistoric vestige: a reptilian brain.  This atavism, like a hand grenade cushioned in the more civilized surrounding cortex, is the dark hive where many of mankind's primitive impulses originate.  To go partners with that throwback, Americans have carried out of their own history another curiosity that evolution forgot to discard as the country changed from a sparsely populated, underpoliced agrarian society to a modern industrial civilization.  That vestige is the gun - most notoriously the handgun, an anachronistic tool still much in use."  - Time, 4/13/81.

"As you probably know by now, Time's editors, in the April 13 issue, took a strong position in support of an outright ban on handguns for private use."  - Time Magazine, Letter to NRA, 4/24/81.

"The only way to discourage the gun culture is to remove the guns from the hands and shoulders of people who are not in the law enforcement business."  - New York Times, 9/24/75.

"Why should America adopt a policy of near-zero tolerance for private gun ownership?  Because it's the only alternative to the present insanity.  Without both strict limits on access to new weapons and aggressive efforts to reduce the supply of existing weapons, no one can be safer."  - Editorial, Los Angeles Times, 12/28/93.

"No presidential candidate has yet come out for the most effective proposal to check the terror of gunfire: a ban on the general sale, manufacture and ownership of handguns as well as assault-style weapons."  - Guns Along the Campaign Trail, Washington Post, 7/19/99.

"There is no reason for anyone in the country, for anyone except a police officer or a military person, to buy, to own, to have, to use, a handgun.  I used to think handguns could be controlled by laws about registration, by laws requiring waiting periods for purchasers, by laws making sellers check out the past of buyers.  I think the only way to control handgun use in this country is to prohibit the guns."  - Michael Gartner, President, NBC News, in USA Today, 1/16/92.

"Whatever is being proposed is way too namby-pamby.  I mean, for example, we're talking about limiting people to one gun purchase, or handgun purchase a month.  Why not just ban the ownership of handguns when nobody needs one?  Why not just ban semi-automatic rifles?  Nobody needs one."  - Jack E. White, Time national correspondent, Washington Times, 5/8/99.

"The great majority of Americans are saying they favor gun control when they really mean gun banishment ... I think the country has long been ready to restrict the use of guns, except for hunting rifles and shotguns, and I think we're prepared to get rid of the damned things entirely - the handguns, the semis and the automatics."  - Roger Rosenblatt, Time Magazine, 8/9/99.


"I don't understand why we're piddling around.  We should talk about getting rid of guns in this country."  - Juan Williams, Washington Post, on Fox News Sunday, 5/23/99.

"Repealing the Second Amendment is no cause for the faint-hearted, but it remains the only way for liberals to trigger an honest debate on the future of our bullet-plagued society.  So what if anti-gun advocates have to devote the next 15-20 years to the struggle?  The cause is worth the political pain.  Failing to take bold action condemns all of us to spend our lives cringing in terror every time we hear a car backfire."  - Walter Shapiro, USA Today columnist, 9/17/99.

"Get rid of the guns.  We had the Second Amendment that said you have the right to bear arms.  I haven't seen the British really coming by my house looking for it.  And besides, the right to bear arms is not an absolute right anyway, as New York's Sullivan Law proves.  We talk about ourselves as a violent society, and some of that is right and some of it is claptrap.  But I think if you took away the guns, and I mean really take away the guns, not what Congress is doing now, you would see that violent society diminish considerably."  - Roger Rosenblatt, PBS NewsHour essayist, 5/20/99.




Can't vouch for the authenticity of them all, since this was posted on a couple of right-wing sites and gets passed around, but this seems in character for most of the people and organizations.  It's of note that they're all starting to age, but then, that's because, as I've noted, the anti-gun folks have mostly admitted defeat over the last few years.

That's it?

HankP's picture

I count 1 Republican Senator, 3 Democratic congressmen and 1 Democratic mayor calling for a ban on handguns from the 1990s. That's your giant boogeyman of a huge Democratic wave of anti-gun legislation?

I blame it all on the Internet

You might have noted that the most recent comment...


...from a politician is 15 years old. The most recent media comment is 12. Are you trying to suggest that right-wingers are too stupid to find contemporary sources? For the love of Jeebus, I could quote 300 year old medical literature supporting bleeding as the best treatment for an acute appendicitis, but it wouldn't make me right.

"I've been on food stamps and welfare.  Anybody help me out?  No!" Craig T. Nelson (6/2/2009)

Not to mention that John Chafee was a Republican

stinerman's picture


The Constitution does not vest in Congress the authority to protect society from every bad act that might befall it. -- Clarence Thomas

Well, yeah, sometime around 2000


the Democratic Party (and a lot of the American left) gave up on gun control because they were thoroughly beaten.  They were beaten because the NRA was willing to go to the mat and more or less turn every effort to destroying pro-gun control politicians in even remotely competitive districts.


But it's still within living memory.

More To The Point. . .

M Scott Eiland's picture

. . .there are a lot of active politicians and journalists on that list (Chuckie Schumer and Bobby Rush certainly leap out at one, but also Juan Williams, Sam Donaldson, and Richard Daley, among others). Certainly enough to curbstomp Hank's claim, and to make JKC's seem less than, ahem, factually based.

. . .and Don Mattingly must be fired (bye Ned--don't let the door hit you in the @$$ on the way out!).



Don't call me liar, counsellor, unless you have the facts to back it up. I based my statement on Andrew's link, which did not contain a single statement younger than what I stated.

"I've been on food stamps and welfare.  Anybody help me out?  No!" Craig T. Nelson (6/2/2009)

I Addressed The Comment, Not The Commenter

M Scott Eiland's picture

And the comment was completely ridiculous, given all of the non retired/non dead people on it. Are liberals going to start pretending things that conservatives said back in the 90's never happened?

. . .and Don Mattingly must be fired (bye Ned--don't let the door hit you in the @$$ on the way out!).



I specifically said that none of the somments in Andrew's list were new. You stated that my statement was factually inaccurate. That would only be true if one of us can't do arithmetic. I know I can, and I assume you can, too. Therefore, PRV.

"I've been on food stamps and welfare.  Anybody help me out?  No!" Craig T. Nelson (6/2/2009)

Still Addressing The Comment

M Scott Eiland's picture

But if you can convince the troika to change the longstanding rules for this case, more power to you.  Also, the dates on the comments doesn't make them not-contemporary when still active politicians and journalists are involved (making the "300 year old medical reference" riff particularly lame).

. . .and Don Mattingly must be fired (bye Ned--don't let the door hit you in the @$$ on the way out!).

So Mitt Romney should be judged


by his position as Governor of Massechussetts vis a vis the individual mandate for health insurance, not on his current position.


As a helpful suggestion, you might want to spend some of the energy you expend on name-calling and violent metaphors on a Google search. Other than Michael Bloomberg (a Republican), you haven't shown one contemporary cite of a politician calling for a blanket handgun ban.

"I've been on food stamps and welfare.  Anybody help me out?  No!" Craig T. Nelson (6/2/2009)

To The Extent That He Hasn't Disavowed His Prior. . .

M Scott Eiland's picture

. . .position, certainly. Have any of those Democrats disavowed their position on gun control? If you can produce such a disavowal, I'll acknowledge it. Terrified silence is not a disavowal.

And again--as long as the originators still active, those quotes are contemporary. If you don't care to admit that, that's not my problem.

. . .and Don Mattingly must be fired (bye Ned--don't let the door hit you in the @$$ on the way out!).

No, those quotes are 12+ years old.


That is not "contemporary." My suspicion is that the bluster presented here is to gloss over the fact that you can't find anything newer.

"I've been on food stamps and welfare.  Anybody help me out?  No!" Craig T. Nelson (6/2/2009)

Fine then


Apparently I've got more important work to avoid than Scott,  so I'll take a stab at it.


Exhibit 1:

Brief filed with the US Supreme Court by 53 members of Congress, dated Jan 6, 2010. The brief, among other things:


- states that the 2nd Amendment should not apply at all to state/local regulation or prohobition of firearms

- implies that the 2nd Amendment only applies if federal war-making or militia capabilities are impacted

- explicitly supports a total ban on handguns in Chicago


You do realize

HankP's picture

that the brief contained the accepted meaning of the 2nd amendment since the founding of this country, right? And that the idea that it is an individual right is the radical revision pushed by the Republicans for the past 30 or 40 years?


So much for actually being conservative.

I blame it all on the Internet

It's never too late


to get it right.

Your argument

HankP's picture

is that Democrats, and Democrats alone, are some sort of huge threat to the second amendment. I just pointed out that the amicus brief reflected bipartisan thinking prior to about 30 years ago. And guess what - there was no huge threat to the second amendment back then.

I blame it all on the Internet

Bipartisan thinking


Prior to Brown vs Board of Education there was also some "bipartisan thinking" on the 14th Amendment.

Welcome to the 21st Century!


I'm not a lawyer, so I can't tell you whether those arguments presented were valid or not. I don't support the notion of a total ban on handguns, either, and I'm glad the other side won that case. Personally, I think long guns are more useful, but that's my upbringing speaking. If people who aren't either criminals or insane want to own them, that's fine. But, as I said before, my perspective living in rural upstate NY is different than that of someone living in a city of millions.

"I've been on food stamps and welfare.  Anybody help me out?  No!" Craig T. Nelson (6/2/2009)

The point isn't that the


arguments are invalid (even though I think they are).  It's that the brief shows that there are still plenty of current Democratic politicians who'd like a rollback on private gun ownership if they could talk the courts into approving it. 



But today's "conservatives" sure are doing a good job pretending the Aughts never happened.  

So the Right won on gun control...


...but still spend an enormous amount of time yammering and bleating about how the bad ol' Democrat Party is going to come and take away all their guns.


In a way I can understand it: if the Right declared victory, grifters like Wayne LaPierre would lose their gravy train, and the NRA would have to go back to teaching firearm safety. Can't have that now, can we. 

"I've been on food stamps and welfare.  Anybody help me out?  No!" Craig T. Nelson (6/2/2009)

Now With RINOs For That Extra Flavor!

M Scott Eiland's picture

As the original comment points out, the SOBs haven't given up and need to be beaten down again.

. . .and Don Mattingly must be fired (bye Ned--don't let the door hit you in the @$$ on the way out!).

Anything to back that up with...


..other than the run-of-the mill opiate-induced paranoid fever-dreams the grifters in the NRA have whenever the term "gun control" comes up? 

"I've been on food stamps and welfare.  Anybody help me out?  No!" Craig T. Nelson (6/2/2009)

Nanny Bloomberg Just Bought A Super Bowl Ad

M Scott Eiland's picture

That's enough for me to approve of calling in the NRA nukes.

. . .and Don Mattingly must be fired (bye Ned--don't let the door hit you in the @$$ on the way out!).

Untwist your panties, counsellor.


Look, I grew up in rural upstate New York and learned to shoot at a young age. Where I grew up, guns were a tool used either for hunting (by just about everybody) or for varmint control and livestock euthenasia by farmers. (A .22 Magnum is still considered a humane way to kill an animal prior to butchering.) They weren't used as penis extenders, and unlike Wayne LaPierre and his merry band of fellow-travellers, none of my contemporaries growing up were dumb enough to waste ammunition shooting at imaginary black helicopters.


Guns aren't a problem in sparsely populated rural areas, even "illegal" ones. That's not to say that gun crimes don't happen, but they are relatively rare. The situation in cities is different: in NYC, for example, there are a lot of people in a very small area, and not much in the way of hunting or farming. Guns, especially illegal ones, are a huge problem for NYPD, and I can understand why Mike Bloomberg might want to see fewer of them within the city limits. My bet is that the mayor has had to talk to the widows of far more police officers killed in the line of duty than you have. Of course, recognizing that might require nuance and careful judgment, which is much less fun than calling for beatings and nuclear weapons.


And what happened to the Conservative Priciple of local control and States Rights? Or does that only apply when passing anti-immigrant and voter disenfrachisement laws?

"I've been on food stamps and welfare.  Anybody help me out?  No!" Craig T. Nelson (6/2/2009)

Incorporation Of The Bill Of Rights

M Scott Eiland's picture

New York wouldn't be able to get away with establishing a state religion these days, either.

. . .and Don Mattingly must be fired (bye Ned--don't let the door hit you in the @$$ on the way out!).

But I'd like to find any judge that would see a ban on handguns

brutusettu's picture

the exact same as implementing a religion though.

So don't ever meet in the sensible middle


if the other side doesn't want all the same things as you.


That seems to sum up conservtives in 2012 pretty well.

And Liberals On Any Number Of Issues -nt-

M Scott Eiland's picture


. . .and Don Mattingly must be fired (bye Ned--don't let the door hit you in the @$$ on the way out!).



Liberals love to compromise and appear reasonable. 


Obama pursued bipartisan compromise as his top priority for nearly two years and enjoyed very high approval ratings among self-identified liberals.


That's unthinkable among today's conservatives.


Mind you, I'm not saying it's a stupid tactic, but it's here being justified as an end in itself versus a means.

Two Obvious Examples

M Scott Eiland's picture

--right to work laws;

--parental notification laws with judicial bypass for minors seeking abortions.

. . .and Don Mattingly must be fired (bye Ned--don't let the door hit you in the @$$ on the way out!).

Well you can't have it both ways

stinerman's picture

If "interstate commerce" is to be read as "commerce" or "whatever the hell we want it to mean", both sides have a lot to lose. 


Under Gonzales v. Raich (my new favorite SCOTUS case), Thomas rightly declared that now everything is interstate commerce.  Under current jurisprudence Congress can indeed regulate garage sales if it so wanted.  We're just lucky it doesn't want to (at least not yet).  I don't particularly have a problem with the sale of firearms to anyone who is responsible enough to own them.  That being said, the right to own them is singled out as a specific right.  Which means that you get to own them without any specific licensing requirements (notwithstanding due process issues).  We don't have free speech licenses, so we don't need firearms licenses either.


Incorporation cuts both ways, too.  It'd be nice if we could start from scratch on this whole Constitution thing, but people are so risk-averse that no one would go along with it.



The Constitution does not vest in Congress the authority to protect society from every bad act that might befall it. -- Clarence Thomas

Not To Sound Like Statusquobuster. . .

M Scott Eiland's picture

. . .but Article V exists for a reason--if something is specifically wrong with the Constitution, we can and have in the past amended it--or undo a past amendment if it turns out to have been a bad idea (18th and 21st). Blowing up the whole thing and starting over seems like an extraordinarily bad idea.

. . .and Don Mattingly must be fired (bye Ned--don't let the door hit you in the @$$ on the way out!).

I would have thought


you'd trust the architects and implementers of national domestic and foreign policy to be in charge with issues like this. You know as a "libertarian" and all. 

And I'd have thought that as a liberal


you'd be against faith-based intiatives.  BTW, you seem to be hung up on 'architects and implementers of national domestic and foreign policy'.  Not sure what your issue is here and why you keep bringing up libertarian in quotes but I have to assume you are new to the reading thing.  All I can really work with are words here, I wish I had shapes and colors to help you understand that I don't think that US Senators running a country with huge and growing debt, a few wars, massive unemployment, trade deficits, needed DOD cuts that will add to the unempoyment problem, a growing police state etc etc need really concern themselves with who spits on who on an entirely diffrent continent.  Clear enough?  See there's a cut line for the things these guys should give a sh*t about and I think spitting is well below that, particularly when it's happening half-way around the world.

In the medical community, death is known as Chuck Norris Syndrome. 

I am against faith based initiatives.


I never said I was for faith based initiatives... perhaps you need to take the "reading" comment that you directed directed towards me to heart.


I've said before that the many, many handgun fatalities that happen every year in homes will by and large skew towards "conservative" households, so even though I can see it as a negative, it's also a net positive. The genie is out of the bottle with guns in the US, and it's kind of pointless to even think about. Idiots will kill each other, and I just hope to be out of the line of fire. Hell, I live in murder capital USA! Gotta look sharp.


It seems as a "libertarian" you're perfectly happy with government butting in on your pet peeves, and keeping out of stuff you support. A cafeteria libertarian perhaps? This is why I put it in quotes. Maybe you don't even consider yourself a libertarian.

Ben Gazzara has passed away


Very sad.


He was excellent in several John CAssavetes and Peter Bogdanovich films.


I especially enjoyed his starring roles in The Killing of a Chinese Bookie and Saint Jack. 

You forgot his most seminal, important movie

Bird Dog's picture

One that will span the generations, the film that viewers will come back to at various stages of their lives and grasp new meaning and understanding. Of course, that movie is Road House.

"Transparency and the rule of law will be the touchstones of this presidency."

--Barack Obama, January 2009


HankP's picture

it's obviously the character of Jackie Treehorn in The Big Lebowski.

I blame it all on the Internet

which was inspired by his role as Jack Flowers in Saint Jack



How to destroy an organization in 72 hours

HankP's picture

also How to turn a respected non-partisan charity into a conservative clusterf(*k

also How to prove how popular Planned Parenthood is

also How to show that anti-abortion activists are lying cheating weasels


I'm sure you've all read about the Susan G. Komen for the Cure foundation's transparently phony reasons for cutting off Planned Parenthood, the resulting uproar, and their craven collapse that followed. The most interesting thing is that it showed very graphically what kind of support Planned Parenthood has in comparison to anti-abortion groups. Also how corporate sponsors (and this ties in to support for gay rights) are now much more likely to be progressive on social issues than they used to be. There's a lesson to be learned here, but I don't think it will be.

I blame it all on the Internet

There's more to this:



It's a well put together article and came out last year before komen decided to shoot themselves in the foot. Every year in CHicago, there's a barrage of slick TV and outdoor ads. Can't think of anything other charity anywhere similar. Breast cancer fund raising has meant big, big money for the organizers and little advancements to show for it. Not surprising at all that a former bush administration official is involved in this mini-iraq style clusterfvc|<


edit: and right on cue from BD's link, the "conservatives" are painting themselves as the real victims. They are having a collective sad like they do every saturday.

Playing victim? How?

Bird Dog's picture

What I'm seeing is the Left howling in mass protest.


"Transparency and the rule of law will be the touchstones of this presidency."

--Barack Obama, January 2009

Did you even read the article you linked?


Planned Parenthood's attitude toward abortion opponents is not unlike that of Egyptian officials in the old regime toward Israelis.



The Times's view exemplifies feminism's gradual transformation into a totalitarian ideology. 



This would not have averted the smear campaign that followed, for Planned Parenthood and its supporters have internalized the notion that abortion is health, and are determined that everyone else internalize it too.



There wasn't some centralized movement orchestrated by PP. This was a public outcry, and you just don't like it. Like I said, free market. 


I like the scary capitalization of the Left. And yes, people like me calling bullsh!t on a political move by an organization that claims it's interested in women's health is a protest. And it wasn't all from people on "the Left"


edit- "conservatives" can't openly rant about f@gs, sp!cs or n***rs anymore, so they're rousing up angry white people against Planned Parenthood, an organization that's been quietly helping impoverished women for decades. It's a way to convince lower income people to vote for a party that has zero interest in them. Culture war.  I think the "conservatives" thought they had another ACORN opportunity here, but I'm pretty sure they're mistaken. Yeah the latest evidence is that komen didn't really reverse itself, but I'd say the pink-frou-frou komen brand is essentially dead. Half the population of the world has a uterus and a vagina, they enjoy having sex with other humans and don'tr want to be forced into giving birth by a patriarchal government. Welcome to the 21st century.


Bird Dog's picture

And PP's reaction wasn't political? As I recall, SKG didn't push their decision across the entire Interweb.

As for your edit, fairly pointless. Your opinion is already well known.



"Transparency and the rule of law will be the touchstones of this presidency."

--Barack Obama, January 2009

Adding to this


SGK wouldn't exist if it weren't for 2 things:


1. breast cancer

2. people giving them money and buying their pink crap


Why wouldn't there be public outcry against a political move from a charity? The whole business scheme (with its leader pulling in around 400,00/year) would fall apart if people stopped giving them money. Think about it. Their whole big money business operation is based on the idea that people should simply give them money. Then they hire some deranged right wing buttholes who make it take a political turn against abortion rights. There's a public backlash, and SGK comes up with a fake excuse that they won't fund orgs. that are under investigation by the govt. They lied to the people who were handing them cash. Cancer survivors and cancer victims' families that were simply handing them cash. Then they weasled out of the phony excuse and reversed their decision. I feel bad typing that as the weasel is a much nobler animal than the dic|< heads at SGK.


Screw them upside down and sideways.

Because no matter the decision, the decision is political

Bird Dog's picture

It became political when when Komen quietly started sending PP money, and it remains political. Planned Parenthood is a contentious and polarizing political animal. The way I see it, it's bad form for an organization dedicated to saving lives to send money to organization that kills 300,000 lives every year. Now that SKG has backtracked, I do expect that their donations will take a hit.


"Transparency and the rule of law will be the touchstones of this presidency."

--Barack Obama, January 2009

Uh, no.


If they were, they'd have pro-choice billboards and a PAC.  They're not NARAL.  You forget that aside from the legality of abortion, it's a procedure that requires medical expertise to avoid complications.  It's not inherently political to even provide an abortion, in the sense that PP isn't the agent making the decision to terminate the pregnancy.

They are no more political than the pharmacist who fills birth control prescriptions. 

Not true

Bird Dog's picture

Last year alone, they spent $1.7 million on lobbying, and they spent hundreds of thousands to help elect Democrats. The Planned Parenthood Action Fund is the advocacy and political arm of Planned Parenthood.


"Transparency and the rule of law will be the touchstones of this presidency."

--Barack Obama, January 2009

You can hardly expect them to give to Republicans


when the GOP is actively trying to destroy them.


I can understand a moral or ethical opposition to abortion. The problem is that abortions will take place whether they are legal or not. The only difference is that a lot more poor women will die because of botched back-alley jobs by unqualified people. If your aim is to decrease the number of elective terminations, then the surest and most humane way to achieve that goal is to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies by providing access to contraception.

"I've been on food stamps and welfare.  Anybody help me out?  No!" Craig T. Nelson (6/2/2009)

Beside the point

Bird Dog's picture

Abortion is legal. The point is that PP is a political entity as well as a group that snuffs out over 300,000 lives a year.


"Transparency and the rule of law will be the touchstones of this presidency."

--Barack Obama, January 2009

Potential lives

HankP's picture

and remember that nature (or nature's god if you swing that way) aborts far more fetuses than any other cause.

I blame it all on the Internet

Nature (Or God). . .

M Scott Eiland's picture

. . .kills everyone at one point or another--that's not a valid argument against laws banning murder.*

*--In other words, this argument is lame and I'm really rather irritated that it's being offered by my side on this issue.

. . .and Don Mattingly must be fired (bye Ned--don't let the door hit you in the @$$ on the way out!).

The argument isn't that natural deaths = murder


It's that people try to prevent all sorts of natural deaths - owing to disease, famine, flood, etc. etc.


yet pro-lifers haven't shown the slightest interest in preventing the greatest natural killer of innocent life known to man - fertilized eggs dying b/c they fail to attach to the uterus wall.


It follows that "life begins at conception" has absurd consequences - it recommends expending vast resources preventing this cause of death, just as we do for other, lesser natural causes of death.


It may be the case that even pro-lifers themsleves don't believe that life begins at conecption, since they don't accept even the most obvious consequences of the belief. 


Here's the final link -  "life begins at conception" was also the justification for viewing abortion as murder.


Since that justification has been cast into doubt, so has the claim that abortion is murder.


Stop insulting this argument. It's not that bad.

Anti abortionists don't believe it

HankP's picture

and neither does the culture at large. There are no death certificates or funerals for early miscarriages and never have been as far as I know.

I blame it all on the Internet

No, It's That Bad

M Scott Eiland's picture

For reasons I have mentioned before, and because consciously and intentionally ending a life is different under our traditions. One might as well argue that all fertile women have a duty to be continuously pregnant for as long as they are able and as soon as they are able, to "save" as many eggs and sperm from oblivion as possible.

. . .and Don Mattingly must be fired (bye Ned--don't let the door hit you in the @$$ on the way out!).

There are no obligations to egg and sperm that aren't united.


 That's what "life begins at conception" means, which is the most common pro-life justification.


I understand that intentionally ending a life and "natural" death are different.


Nevertheless, "life begins at conception" has implciations for both cases.


For the case of natural death, its implications are patently absurd.


So we should reject its implications for the intentional death case as well, i.e., we should reject that abortion is murder.


Just give this argument another chance. It's all I'm asking. 

Potential life

HankP's picture

people always want to drop that adjective for some reason.

I blame it all on the Internet

That only makes sense

HankP's picture

if you consider a fetus a human being - which nobody does, despite what they claim.

I blame it all on the Internet

No. . .

M Scott Eiland's picture

. . .they just have to think that nature causing something isn't the same as someone intentionally doing something. Natural death vs. murder is just an example of that.

. . .and Don Mattingly must be fired (bye Ned--don't let the door hit you in the @$$ on the way out!).

My version of the argument


doesn't rest on that equivocation (and I don't think Hank's does either).


It's spelled out above!

snuff connotes interfering with significant respiratory capacity


The majority of abortions occur before the 9th week of pregnancy. Here's early fetal respiratory development at six weeks:

Colour code:
Foregut - oropharyngeal membrane, oesophagus, pharynx (dark salmon - Foregut, oropharyngeal membrane, oesophagus, pharynx)
Trachea and Lung Buds (dark blue - Trachea and Lung Buds)
Mesonephros (yellow - mesonephros)
Mesonephric Ducts (light blue - mesonephric ducts)
Hindgut and Cloaca (brown - hindgut and cloaca)


I don't believe there's much snuffing going on at this stage.  

It's another word for...

Bird Dog's picture



"Transparency and the rule of law will be the touchstones of this presidency."

--Barack Obama, January 2009

say what?

brutusettu's picture

[quote]it's bad form for an organization dedicated to saving lives to send money to organization that kills 300,000 lives every year. [/quote]

Monday morning


and a link pretty much summing up what I posted:


I see douthat is trying to claim that half of the US is against the right to choose, but that 50% sure as hell didn't say much.


edit- Douthat is a liar. Gallup shows abortion legal under any circumstances out polls abortion illegal under any circumstances. Add the number who want abotion legal under certain circumstances (legal abortion!) and you have over 70% support of legal abortion.



A law prohibiting health clinics that provide abortion services from receiving any federal funds




No opinion





2011 Jul 15-17






SGK announced it, not PP nt

HankP's picture


I blame it all on the Internet


Bird Dog's picture

It helps to actually respond to what was written.


"Transparency and the rule of law will be the touchstones of this presidency."

--Barack Obama, January 2009

Your claims are false

HankP's picture

I'll admit I don't know what the "entire internet" is, but SKG made the initial announcement and PP reacted to it. So PP wasn't the one that whipped up this s&^tstorm, that was SKG and they paid the price for it.

I blame it all on the Internet


Bird Dog's picture

Your claim is false. SKG announced it, and PP whipped up the frenzy, aided and abetted by its defenders and apologists.


"Transparency and the rule of law will be the touchstones of this presidency."

--Barack Obama, January 2009

I'm going to have to call BS on this

HankP's picture

and all the other victimization and tears (and OUTRAGE!) that happen every time someone disagrees with the neanderthal positions that conservatives have devolved to.  PP didn't have to whip up a frenzy through corporate owned media the way Republicans do, they just needed ordinary non-insane people who disagree with the anti-abortion and anti-contraception nuts that form the thick deluded base of the GOP. You don't need "defenders and apologists" to oppose that, just people who graduated 8th grade and don't want to overturn the Enlightenment. I'll admit that there are places in this country where people like that are thin on the ground, but overall there are far more that don't want some twisted anti-woman and anti-minority primal scream running the country.


Face it, the GOP has gone insane. What Republicans see as some giant shadowy conspiracy is now just normal Americans.

I blame it all on the Internet


Bird Dog's picture

And I'll call BS right back. PP played the victim card, not the other way around, and they successfully catalyzed a PR campaign against Komen. People like you aided and abetted by saying Komen destroyed itself, even though its mission was every bit as worthy after the kerfuffle as before.



"Transparency and the rule of law will be the touchstones of this presidency."

--Barack Obama, January 2009

That'a called the marketplace of ideas...


Komen lost, Planned Parenthood won. And whining about the "victim card" being played is hysterical coming from the party currently sobbing over how the mean ol' Democrats are declaring religious war on them. The Republican Party is nothing but a pitiful collection of Ruff Tuff Creampuffs.

"I've been on food stamps and welfare.  Anybody help me out?  No!" Craig T. Nelson (6/2/2009)

Cite on that?

HankP's picture

I haven't seen anything from PP that even approaches the constant butthurt emanating from conservative media.


And yes, I destroyed Komen. All by myself at this little blog. Millions of women had nothing to do with it.


I really can't wait for the epic meltdown when you guys lose in November.

I blame it all on the Internet

None necessary

Bird Dog's picture

How it unfolded was fairly obvious.

"Transparency and the rule of law will be the touchstones of this presidency."

--Barack Obama, January 2009

What do you expect PP to do?


Seriously, in your opinion, how should they have handled this? 


Edit- go check out komen's facebook page. And yoplait's. This is the free market expressing itself, but you just don't like what it's saying.

Say "thank you" and move on

Bird Dog's picture

Judging by their donations received, they don't need Komen's money anyway.


"Transparency and the rule of law will be the touchstones of this presidency."

--Barack Obama, January 2009

PP made the outcry,

Bird Dog's picture

and the Mighty Left-Wing Wurlitzer dutifully roared to life. SKG wanted a quiet backing out and PP wanted none of that. They wanted a political fight.


"Transparency and the rule of law will be the touchstones of this presidency."

--Barack Obama, January 2009



You realize this was a huge online movement. It wasn't led by fox news or cnn or cbs or whater media outlet you want to choose. It came from all over the place, but you want to paint this as a purely left-wing thing. It isn't. 


And yes, I roarerd to life on this. Fvc|< komen's right wing bulls!t. Komen is a big business in the business of making money more than anything, and it got misled by hiring and listening to a bunch of right wing politically motivated grifters. Ari Fuc|<ing Fleisher, for crying out loud. Think he was at komen for non-political reasons? Then you're not thinking things through. Komen stepped in it willingly then smeared it all over themselves. Looks like they're going to eat it too.

And speaking of self-'victimization"...

Jay C's picture

... as if on cue, National Review Online steps up with more of the usual overheated vaporings conservative bloggers tend to trot out every time they're handed undeniable proof that one of their pet boogeyman-jihads actually isn't all that popular with the public:


In the NROHQ kitchen just now, Charlie Cooke wondered aloud, and here I paraphrase: “Does anyone on the Left even ask the basic question of whether a private charitable organization has the right to dispose of its money as it sees fit?” But in fact, that anyone thinks there is a question here is a sign we’ve already lost.


Any Constitutional scholars here who can point out where "the right to be free of criticism" appears in that document, or in case law?


That's Justice Palin's interpretation

HankP's picture

the interesting thing to me was how the conservatives involved in this fiasco had to start backpedaling and lying immediately. Why no proud declaration of the evils of abortion? Because they'd get reamed even worse in the court of public opinion.

I blame it all on the Internet

Free market


is good only when applied to "conservative" causes.


I'd bet that the real impetus to walk this back was public pressure on komen's big corporate sponsors more than anything else. It's a goddamn industry - pink ribbons, 30 second tv spots, glossy direct mail, donate, donate donate! Thankfully many ameicans still don't think that women getting affordable access to healthcare and control over their own biological issues is a totalitarian nightmare. Free market!


Bird Dog's picture

All they had to say was that they elected to opt out of sending future monies to abortion advocacy groups, pro or anti, and stay above that fray. Their problem was stepping into it in the first place.


"Transparency and the rule of law will be the touchstones of this presidency."

--Barack Obama, January 2009

Great job James

brutusettu's picture

A source basically backdoor promoting "lifenews" as a trustworthy site and using George Orwell to smear others.

Lifenews would think and claim Mexican lemons actually do literally make US highways deadlier if that could be used to criminalize all abortion.

Is the Dailer Caller stenographing the double the funding comment by Brinker? Funding has doubled over what? How much has PP's gone up?

Great, James Taranto compared anyone that doesn't want to criminalize abortion, to Jew Haters.

And he lost me at "Ministry of Information"

"Abortion advocacy" is propaganda

HankP's picture

making abortion available as an option to women is not advocating for abortions. It just allows the rural and non-wealthy to exercise their rights.


BTW, Taranto is an a$$hole. What happened wasn't a smear campaign, it was just reporting the facts. People got upset on their own, no smearing necessary. The only "intolerant fanatics" and "totalitarians" are the anti-abortion fanatics who demand control of other women's uteruses and will lie repeatedly when caught.And when they go head to head with Planned Parenthood, they lose every time. Lying about PP doesn't work.


The fact is that abortion is legal. Religious fanatics can't seem to accept it, but the louder they complain the more support they lose. Conservatives, and especially religious conservatives, hate the parts of America's cuture that are open, tolerant and liberal. They have lost, they just don't realize it yet.

I blame it all on the Internet

Propaganda? No, fact

Bird Dog's picture

They have an advocacy arm that is pro-abortion, and they walk the walk, killing over 300,000 potential human beings in 2009 alone. Though legal, the procedure remains controversial, which is why Komen decided to go Switzerland on the matter. All the rest is just typical left-wing liberal rhetoric.


"Transparency and the rule of law will be the touchstones of this presidency."

--Barack Obama, January 2009

Potential human beings


Please. Every time you jizzed out on a girlfriend's leg you denied a "potential human being" from coming to term. ME TOO. Hell, you may have actually knocked up your girlfriend in twelfth grade and not even known it. ME TOO. BD II may have died a lonely death, disconnected from the uterine tissue into a high shool toilet or maxipad. It's the way of the world. Most "pregnancies" end in a spontaneous abortion. We'd be wallowing in a surplus of humans if it weren't so. As would every goddam animal on the planet.


If it's murder, classify it as murder. It's obvious that no one really thinks this. They just want to keep women in their place.



That's what you call...

Bird Dog's picture illogical extreme. The fact is that the DNA of a human being is fully formed once an egg is fertilized and lodged in the uterus. Not the case with sperm or eggs alone.

Abortion as population control is a separate issue.

Re your concept of murder, I didn't say abortion was murder because it's not murder under the law.

But all of that is beside the point. The point is that an organization that has done good for decades in reducing breast cancer is all of a sudden "destroyed" because it chose to abstain from making future financial commitments to an organization that has the Left-Wing Stamp of Approval. It's a silly, temper-tantrum argument, fomented by the Professional Left, and amplified by the Mighty Left-Wing Wurlitzer. SGK is the same organization with the same mission. The only difference is that they're trying to extricate themselves out of a debate that has exactly nothing to do with their primary mission. SKG wanted it to happen quietly but apparently PP wanted to pick a fight.


"Transparency and the rule of law will be the touchstones of this presidency."

--Barack Obama, January 2009



komen gave 7.5 million to penn state which is under investigation for child sexual abuse. Etc., etc., etc.


komen hired a bunch of right wingers who promptly shat the bed by playing politics to begin with. And they're in the big business of making themselves wealthy to the point that they actively sue other, much, much smaller charities for using the term "Cure" in their names:


So do you think abortion should be murder under the law? Slavery was once legal, would that make it OK? What do you want to do with a woman who gets an abortion after it is made illegal? Jail? Public shaming? A fine? For murder? 


This whole discussion exists because "conservatives" want to limit women's sexuality and rights as human beings. 

At Some Point, Certainly

M Scott Eiland's picture

And to save a lot of pointless reiteration of previously aired arguments, I'll link to this golden oldie from 2007.

And while I'm at it--a Thirteenth Amendment balancing test for abortion rights, delivered while standing on one foot:

--a fetus, at least on a genetic level, is human, making arguments that a fetus should have at least some of the rights that a fully formed human being should have reasonable, and making an argument based around pointing at the Ninth Amendment a tad flimsy (which is why, IMO, NARAL and other such organizations feel obligated to use rhetoric that compares pre-viability fetuses to warts or--as with one distasteful comment at Tacitus a while back--fecal matter, in spite of the backlash caused by such language: if a fetus is arguably a human being or even something close to a human being in the pre-viable period, the public isn't going to buy "privacy" as grounds for allowing abortions);

--However, the 13th Amendment creates an absolute right for persons living within the United States not to be subjected to slavery or involuntary servitude (with narrow exceptions that clearly do not apply to pregnancy). It seems reasonable to argue that forcing a woman who does not want to remain pregnant--or to give birth--to do so could be considered to be a form of involuntary servitude, and if this is the case then abortion *has* to be permissible;

--these two principles would seem to be in conflict, as they both are based around basic and strong constitutional principles: the right to life found in the Fifth Amendment and the prohibition of slavery/involuntary servitude found in the Thirteenth Amendment;

--the obvious solution to this conflict is a balancing test based on viability: this would allow a woman who did not wish to give birth time to obtain an abortion, but would not allow her to change her mind once the fetus had reached the point of presumptive viability (unless a doctor was willing to certify that the pregnancy posed an elevated risk of death or severe physical harm significantly above and beyond the risks posed by pregnancy itself).

That's it, more or less and standing on one foot. I'd have to look for some old notes I have on the subject and maybe do some more searching in Google to flesh it out a bit more.

. . .and Don Mattingly must be fired (bye Ned--don't let the door hit you in the @$$ on the way out!).

First point is ridiculous

HankP's picture

unless you think that if I nick myself shaving that the clump of cells on my razor have a reasonable expectation of at least some of the rights of a fully formed human being - it is, on a genetic level, human. If you want a rational attempt at a legal theory covering the state of a fetus you should look to property law.

I blame it all on the Internet

Arguing That. . .

M Scott Eiland's picture

. . .skin tissue is the equivalent of a fetus is even more ridiculous--notwithstanding that it is the functional position on the issue for Planned Parenthood and NARAL, among others.

. . .and Don Mattingly must be fired (bye Ned--don't let the door hit you in the @$$ on the way out!).

Theoretically, Hank may be correct.

mmghosh's picture


Stem cells are now identifiable within skin layers.  As the article notes, with the correct proteomic and genomic signalling stimulus, they may be even be [i]pluripotent[/i].  In other words, be the start of a clonal colony, which could theoretically transform into an adult.


In fact, Dolly the Sheep was cloned by the SNCT technique from a stem cell from the mammary gland of a sheep, which is technically a modified apocrine (skin) gland. 

freedom is a fundamental value that does not need to be justified in terms of some other value like efficiency

Theoretically, I Could Win The Olympic 100 Meter Dash

M Scott Eiland's picture

In practice, it ain't happening. It will certainly never be the case that a shaving clot will, left to develop in a natural way, become a biologically unique human being. The argument that Hank is adopting is--as it is whenever it is posed--designed to deal with the fact that "privacy" is a woefully inadequate ground for allowing the killing of something that is at the very least in the process of becoming a human being. The fact that the argument violates common usage, common sense and offends countless people in the middle of the spectrum on the issue does not seem to interest those who make it.

. . .and Don Mattingly must be fired (bye Ned--don't let the door hit you in the @$$ on the way out!).

"violates common usage and common sense"

mmghosh's picture

OK as far as it goes, but making a facility for termination of pregnancy available to those who should want it, for reasons they think appropriate (i.e. doesn't violate common usage and common sense in their community), does not mean that it should be taken up by those who find it offensive.  I'm usingthe logic that people kill people, knives or guns don't, for example.


To illustrate this point, the people of our southern states (such as Kerala) have the same sort of exposure to availability of prenatal ultrasound and pregnancy termination clinics.  There is a similar mix of Hindus, Muslims and Christians in the communities as in the north.  Yet the southern states have normal sex ratios (they are also more liberal and economically better off).  So, anthropologically speaking, its not the availability of facilities that causes the problem.  

freedom is a fundamental value that does not need to be justified in terms of some other value like efficiency

Your argument

HankP's picture

was based on the fact that a fetus is genetically human. If your argument can't stand after pointing out that there are other things that are genetically human but that no one would consider granting human rights to, it's a pretty weak argument. In fact it's a completely invalid argument. You're free to come up wth another reason why a fetus could expect having human rights granted to it, but the genetics argument isn't it.


BTW, I'll help you out by mentioning that any argument that's based on the potentiality of a cell or cells would founder on the fact that you'd then have to give human rights to stem cells.

I blame it all on the Internet

If You Can Identify. . .

M Scott Eiland's picture

. . .a circumstance where the product of a shaving injury can become a human being without the use of millions of dollars of not-yet existing technology--as opposed to, say, a three month old fetus whose parents already consider and refer to as a baby*--I'll be fascinated. Your position, in terms of views held by the general public, is more extreme than Rick Santorum's--which is why the fact that it is also more or less what Planned Parenthood and NARAL argue to be the case is bad for the pro-choice movement.

*--for the woman who doesn't feel that way about her three month old fetus, I'll gladly respect and defend her right to terminate her pregnancy--that doesn't ultimately change the nature of what is inside her. To use another example, the right of self-defense may entitle me to kill someone who is trying to murder me--it doesn't permit me to demand that the law consider the person I justifiably killed to not be a human being.

. . .and Don Mattingly must be fired (bye Ned--don't let the door hit you in the @$$ on the way out!).


HankP's picture

expectant parents say "We're having a baby", not "we have a baby". They recognize that there's a process that may result in a baby if all goes well, but it's not a baby yet. I can buy a canvas, brushes and paint but that doesn't mean I can refer to my "painting" until the process of creating it has completed. This is reflected in the broader culture, there are no death certificates issued for miscarriages and no funerals.


Your argument fails again, because a preemie may require thousands to hundreds of thousands of dollars of advanced medical technology to survive, but I'm pretty sure that you wouldn't refer to a preemie as non-human because of that.


You can call my position extreme, but that's a cop out and indicates that you can't challenge the argument on the merits.

I blame it all on the Internet

Never forget


A conservative's hatred for women. Name a culture anywhere on earth and the conservatives in that reality are trying to keep women down at heel.

And This Is Relevant. . .

M Scott Eiland's picture

. . .to the vacuous argument that a shaving clot/tumor/wart is equivalent to a fetus, how?

. . .and Don Mattingly must be fired (bye Ned--don't let the door hit you in the @$$ on the way out!).

Pure BS

HankP's picture

1. They don't push women to have abortions, they only make sure they know it's an option. Look up the definition of "advocate". Calling that advocacy is Orwellian double talk.


2. 50% of all pegnancies spontaneously terminate on their own. God is the biggest abortionist of all time. OF ALL TIME.


3. The procedure is only controversial to God botherers and other fanatics. You guys lost, get over it.


4. You know what else kills potential human beings? Menstruation and masturbation. Feel free to make your arguments about why they should be outlawed.

I blame it all on the Internet

Pure nonsense

Bird Dog's picture

1. I didn't say that PP pushes women to have abortions. I did say that they are pro-abortion in advocacy and practice.

2. Straw man

3. Straw man.


"Transparency and the rule of law will be the touchstones of this presidency."

--Barack Obama, January 2009

#2/#3 Where you thinking something along the lines of....

brutusettu's picture

---Those in those denominations, they tend to think God was very hands on in the [i]creation[/i] of human reproduction systems.
If spontaneous abortion is the norm, what does that say about God's feelings on the subject to those in those denominations?
And if it isn't their denomination's God, in their eyes, doing all the spontaneous abortions due to poor design, then wouldn't their denominations God surely have of a way a fairly simple way to stop all the spontaneous abortions?

It's so much easier for an ex-catholic

HankP's picture

they've had thousands of years to handle the arguments on either side. Basically it comes down to: no man knows God's plan or can know God's plan. But it's all part of God's plan.

I blame it all on the Internet

Yeah. . .

M Scott Eiland's picture

. . .that kind of temper tantrum really helps the pro choice side--particularly the contempt for religion and non-sequitur parts.

. . .and Don Mattingly must be fired (bye Ned--don't let the door hit you in the @$$ on the way out!).

Not that I said anything

stinerman's picture

But if it comes down having to suffer the fools in order to keep abortion legal, well I'm not suffering any fools.

The Constitution does not vest in Congress the authority to protect society from every bad act that might befall it. -- Clarence Thomas

I think the point bears making, however.


In fact larger than 50% of all fertilized eggs never attach to the uterus wall and subsequently die.


If the "life begins at conception" crowd were at all consistent, they'd be focusing their resources and attention much more on this problem than on than any other cause of death, including cancer and certainly including abortion, which is a miniscule fraction of lost life.


Yet as far as I know, no one has even proposed spending a single $ of research on the issue. It's almost as if people who claimed to be pro-life don't believe what they say.

death row inmates get all the attention

brutusettu's picture

Strident pro-lifers must really haven't gotten around to taking a step back and examining how to limit the number of all types of abortions it would seem.

If upwards to over half the people ended their prison sentence by dying in prison, I have my doubts the death row cases would get so much attention relative to other sentences.

Straw Man

M Scott Eiland's picture

Particularly since the resources needed would be far greater. Not at all an impressive argument, even from the POV of someone such as myself who doesn't want the pro-life side to prevail.

. . .and Don Mattingly must be fired (bye Ned--don't let the door hit you in the @$$ on the way out!).

"the resources needed would be far greater"


What an absurd assumption. 


There's no evidence in favor of it and it's highly unlikely to be true.

To Keep. . .

M Scott Eiland's picture

. . .any fertilized eggs from dying? I'd say that simply laying out the full parameters of what would be required to execute such a plan would make it clear that such a plan would not only be orders of magnitude more expensive than anything in the current pro-life agenda--it would also be orders of magnitude more invasive of privacy than anything in the pro-life agenda.

. . .and Don Mattingly must be fired (bye Ned--don't let the door hit you in the @$$ on the way out!).

The point


is that consistent pro-lifers should be advocating for dedicating more resources toward discovering how to get fertilized eggs to attach to the uterus wall. On their view that is equivalent to discovering how to save the lives of more than 1/2 the babies that die in this country.


The 25-30% of the population who identifies as ardently pro-life should also be interested to take any extant drugs, especially fertility drugs, that already help with this.


Further they should be trying to convince others to take these drugs, since that will save the life of what they claim are full-blown babies.


I have no idea why you think this is massively expensive or orders of magnitude beyond the resources of the pro-life movement.


The more likely answer is that pro-lifers are simply inconsistent and unwilling to embrace even the most obvious entailments of their stated positions. 



Back to the "religion" thing, again?

Jay C's picture

Maybe the "contempt" bit stems from the near-universal reliance on one sort of "religious" argument or another by the fanatic anti-abortion lobby for the comprehensive criminalization of the procedure, health or any other issues notwithstanding - and the decisions/opinions (whether religious or secular-based) of the women involved usually reduced to irrelevancies on "moral" grounds.


Oh, and the holy-holy shibboleths of "abortion" being extended by the most active of the activists to almost all  forms of contraception as well. It's fine with me if you and yours want to restrict yourself to Jesus-approved methods of family planning (whatever those might be) - it's just that why making those limitations into public policy and the law of the land is a fine idea escapes me.

You And Yours?

M Scott Eiland's picture

I'll dispense with the obvious "Posting Rules" rejoinder and remind you that I'm pro-choice (and agnostic). Then I'll ask again--are outbursts like Hank's comment above (and which are quite common among the online left) helpful to the pro-choice cause, given that 90+% of the public is religious in one way or another, and that there are plenty of people who are nominally pro-choice who find such outbursts offensive?

. . .and Don Mattingly must be fired (bye Ned--don't let the door hit you in the @$$ on the way out!).

Tribal affiliation

HankP's picture

is the only thing that explains a pro-choice agnostic to line up with religious fanatics.


BTW, I notice you didn't deal with the factuality of the actual statements I made, which is a wise move on your part. And really, talking about what may be offensive to the other side is quite humorous coming from you based on the content of your comments over the years. In this thread, even.

I blame it all on the Internet

That's too much directed at the commenter


Especially the general intimation that MScott has an offensive posting history. It's an ad-hom reply to his specific point. 

I didn't say he was offensive

HankP's picture

but anyone who's been here more than a few days knows what his comments are like.

I blame it all on the Internet


Bird Dog's picture

You didn't say he was offensive, but with the "but", you canceled out your original statement, which is PRV coming through the back door.


"Transparency and the rule of law will be the touchstones of this presidency."

--Barack Obama, January 2009

Glass Houses

M Scott Eiland's picture

Particularly given the number of posting rules violations that your comments have included over the years. Ah well, moderating is not my problem at least for another six months.

As for "facts," there was no factual content to be rebutted, other than in the non-sequiturs.

. . .and Don Mattingly must be fired (bye Ned--don't let the door hit you in the @$$ on the way out!).

Big difference

HankP's picture

I don't concern troll about how divisive other's comments might be while consistently posting the most denigrating and divisive comments on the site.


Plenty of facts in the earlier post, but as I said it's wise of you to avoid them.

I blame it all on the Internet

Pro Tip

M Scott Eiland's picture

(all hypothetical, of course)

Pro choice commenter suggesting that comments generally ridiculing religious people and using absurd non-sequiturs don't help the pro-choice movement: not concern trolling;

Self-identified liberal making dozens of comments over a period of years, all amounting to "x position isn't what a *real* conservative would do": most *definitely* concern trolling, albeit a particularly inept variety of it.

Happy to clear that up.

. . .and Don Mattingly must be fired (bye Ned--don't let the door hit you in the @$$ on the way out!).

More pro tips

HankP's picture

commenter who has consistently over many years made the most denigrating, anti-liberal and anti-democratic comments on the site suddenly worries that comments by anyone else might alienate people = silly and laughable.

I blame it all on the Internet

The notion


that any rhetoric on this site will influence any public policy at all is laughable, so the idea of being concerned about it is by itself laughable.

It's not that

HankP's picture

it would be like me suddenly arguing against stupid humor or catchy arguing against paying too much attention to philosophy or Traveller arguing against people posting too many photos on the site or manish saying we pay too much attention to India. It's just inherently ridiculous.

I blame it all on the Internet

What's the source of anti-abortion fanatacism?

HankP's picture

that's involved harassment and murder, BTW. Funny how the word "thug" doesn't come up to describe them. Ah well, starnge bedfellows etc.

I blame it all on the Internet

I actually advocate for abortions

stinerman's picture

I don't go shouting it from the rooftops, but I'm generally for more abortions.


Step one is sex education.  Tell kids how you knock someone up (or get knocked up) and how to prevent it (don't have sex, but if you do, don't rely on pulling out).  Step two is highly subsidized birth control -- like free for minors if they so want it.  Step three is give your kid up for adoption if you can't afford to take care of them.  Step four is have an abortion (unless you dithered for too long and now you're out of the 1st trimester).  No one under the age of 18 should be having a kid unless they're fabulously wealthy.  End of story.


Abortion should be the last resort, but it should be an option on the table if you're in a bad situation.  If you think abortion is murder, that's all fine and dandy, but if you don't, there isn't any reason why you should have a kid that you can't take care of and will probably keep you poor for the rest of your life.

The Constitution does not vest in Congress the authority to protect society from every bad act that might befall it. -- Clarence Thomas

That's Fine Before Viability

M Scott Eiland's picture

Problem is, Planned Parenthood and NARAL want it to be impossible to verify whether third-trimester (and therefore rebuttably presumed to involve viable fetuses) abortions involve medically necessary circumstances. Since Roe and its successor cases specifically state that the protection of viable fetuses is a legitimate state interest, this is a problem to me--and it is a self-inflicted injury to the pro-choice side.

. . .and Don Mattingly must be fired (bye Ned--don't let the door hit you in the @$$ on the way out!).

Problem to you


Do you have a uterus?

Posting Rules

M Scott Eiland's picture

Also, is this an argument that men can't be pro-choice either? Either way--no uterus.

. . .and Don Mattingly must be fired (bye Ned--don't let the door hit you in the @$$ on the way out!).

I think it's OK to point out that


the discussion is being had by men, who are less directly affected by the issue.


The comment is directed at the commenter, but I take it that's not much of an insult.

So. . .

M Scott Eiland's picture

. . .can childless adults be opposed to infanticide (actual, unequivocal infanticide--not abortion)?

. . .and Don Mattingly must be fired (bye Ned--don't let the door hit you in the @$$ on the way out!).

I had my mod hat on


I wasn't saying the point was dispositive, just that it wasn't a PRV. 

Oy vey


I understand and applaud the fact that you are pro choice, even if you do align with a political party that wants to outlaw abortion under any circumstances. Hooray for Scott!


I was just making a point via a rhetorical question. Yes it was aimed at you, but having a uterus is not an insult, at least until the republican party gets its way. I was simply underscoring the fact that women are the ones affected by all this, by making a wry joke via rhetorical question.


Are we OK now? 

Still Not Answering The Question

M Scott Eiland's picture

Here's a historical version: was it legitimate for non-slaveholding non-slave inhabitants of the US in the mid-nineteenth century to be prominently involved in the abolition movement? Or should they have just minded their own darned business?

. . .and Don Mattingly must be fired (bye Ned--don't let the door hit you in the @$$ on the way out!).

A completely different question.


Yes they should have been involved in the pro-abolition movement. Owning a human being is not biologically restricted to males or females, or southerners or whites. Hell, any american could kidnap someone and "own" a slave today, but it would be illegal.


Only women can get pregnant and give birth. Abortion has always happened and always will happen. The opposition wants to make it illegal and dangerous, at least for those who can't afford a trip to another country.


And of course men are involved in the anti-choice movement. Every goddamned priest in the roman catholic church is politically active in restricting women's rights. I'd wager to guess that the majority of anti choice organizations in the us are headed up by men, or at least prominently composed of men. Doesn't mean that Ithink they shoul butt the hell out and mind their own damn business.

It was just a question.


Calm down man.

Unless The "Question" Was Posed. . .

M Scott Eiland's picture

. . .with a genuine ignorance of the answer, no it wasn't.

. . .and Don Mattingly must be fired (bye Ned--don't let the door hit you in the @$$ on the way out!).

it was a rhetorical


question. my point was the people with potentially real problems in this debate are women. As in, 'women get pregnant and have abortions, not men'


get it now? sorry if i hurt your feelings

Agree almost 100%


I think more women should get abortions.


Hell, I've donated to PP the last few years, and I hope all of my money has gone to help women who need help get safe abortions. Of course it's a last resort. It's an invasive process, and though I'll never have to through with it, I can imagine it's uncomfortable to painful, and nobody likes doctors poking around on them anywhere. The only people deranged enough to think a woman would go through that process with a smile are "conservatives" who sell it as a straw man in their unending attempts to control women, especially the sexuality of women.


The "give it up for adoption" thing is a joke, however. Yeah, an ideal happy outcome might happen, but it's the exception. Take a look around and see how many abandoned kids there are in the US. Unless you're a very lucky infant, once you grow up a little you're basically screwed, and the modern day "conservative" movement is working tirelessly to make sure there's even less of a social safety net for the poorest among us, who happen to be kids.


Abortions happen. Spontaneously, induced or otherwise. Make it illegal and it's still gonna happen. "Conservatives" know this but don't care. A maimed or injured woman who gets a botched illegal abortion would have it coming to her, I guess. Just like the freakout about HPV vaccine, it's all about controlling women, and especially women's sexuality, not about health.


I look forward to a day when human beings stop paying attention to old boys' clubs full of elderly men with a penchant for velvet slippers, silly hats and little boys. But I don't expect to ever see it in my time.

You guys can advocate whatever you want

HankP's picture

but that's not what PP does. They just make it available as an option. The only "advocates" of abortions are doctors telling women that they're likely to die if they don't terminate a pregnancy.


Conservatives don't want women to have the facts in such a decision, that's the difference. Because they don't bellieve that women are  human beings capable of making their own moral choices.

I blame it all on the Internet

John Cole has it figured out

Jay C's picture

Over at Balloon Juice,  John Cole puts his finger on the source of the Susan G. Komen Foundation's problems: the Reverse Midas Touch of ex-Bush 43 Administration alumni! SGKF seems to have hired Dubya's old court jester press secretary Ari Fleischer as a behind-the-scenes advisor to shore up their support on the anti-abortion, anti-Planned Parenthood Right.  As Cole notes, the net result of SGK's starboard outreach has been to damage their own brand to an astonishing level, and generate a (spontaneous,  genuine and widespread) national  firestorm of support for the wingnuts' pet boogeyman, PP.


Heckuva job, Ari!

This basically proves this


This basically proves this battle of the culture war has been settled.


HankP's picture

WWII was won at Stalingrad and Midway, but it still went on for another three years and millions of lives lost.

I blame it all on the Internet

Komen's flame-out was rather heartening to see:


Proves there is some small measure of justice in the universe, and that Americans may not be as brain-dead as I sometimes fear in my more cynical moments.

"I've been on food stamps and welfare.  Anybody help me out?  No!" Craig T. Nelson (6/2/2009)

I doubt this happens too much in any sport

brutusettu's picture

Home grown and from a rural public school with graduating classes of about 60 kids. The school district has a population a little over 4,000.

All 4 were 4 time state champs in wrestling. It was in DIII, the small school division, but they were beating top D1 wrestlers in Ohio and wrestled unbelievably great as a group versus a pretty brutal schedule in high school.

[url=]133 LBS NCAA Rankings - 3. Logan Stieber-Ohio State (Fr)[/url]

[url=]141 LBS NCAA Rankings - 6. Hunter Stieber-Ohio State (Fr)[/url]

[url=] 149 LBS NCAA Rankings - 14. Cam Tessari-Ohio State (Fr)[/url]

[url=]Chris Pilllips[/url] the [url=]11th ranked wrestler in the recruiting class of 2011[/url] will transfer to Ohio State.

In my son's senior year,

Bird Dog's picture

he would've been an all-American if he didn't have to face two Ohio wrestlers at nationals. Ohio and Pennsylvania kids are pretty good.


"Transparency and the rule of law will be the touchstones of this presidency."

--Barack Obama, January 2009

It's that Big Ten


German stock.  Real burly folk.  Not a coincidence that the three largest college football markets are Ohio State, Michigan and Penn State.  Heck, I'm a 5'10'' 220lb former defensive tackle and I felt lithe and skinny walking around Columbus on game day.

stupid reasons


I guess the Indians have their reasons to blow 10 billion on French military aircraft. The kickbacks from this deal will be impressive.

I thought it was drone technology that was the latest thing. I recall hearing of the new `top gun`in America, an all but illiterate spotty faced teen who owes his position to his skills as a video gamer. When introduced to the grizzled pilots of iconic military jets, they weren`t impressed at this sorry specimen of manhood, even though his record on the battlefield put them all to shame. Pride and greed - I can only think of stupid reasons for the Indians to make this deal.

Did you here that Iran was able to comandeer American made drones and cause them to land? Can`t Indians see the potential in a drone of Indian make and design that is uncomandeerable by Iran and other countries like Venezuela, Russia, China and Nicaragua.

You will kill 10 of our men, and we will kill 1 of yours, and in the end it will be you who tire of it. - Ho Chi Minh

The polity reflects the views of an elite

mmghosh's picture

who value military expenditure over the health of the people.  And even though it might appear to be, no, the situation is not comparable to the West - as MSE points out below.


I might add that, bizarre though I think we are, our politicians [i]are[/i] in a relatively difficult situation. Consider that we are bordered by a highly unstable nuclearised power armed to the metaphorical teeth with state of the art war machinery (obtained from where I seem to forget right now) - which smart, bipartisan and informed people in the USA consider enough of a threat to spend $10 billion [i]a month[/i] in spite of that country [i]being 10,000 miles away[/i].


And also that we have actually been in a "hot" war with the country 4 times in the past 60 years.


And furthermore, the majority of our people follow a culture and religion - which incidentally happens also to be the only refuge of that religion and culture in the world - that is in diametric opposition to everything that Islam holds to be good and true (at least the Koran prescribes respect to the people of The Book, whereas we polytheist idolators get extreme damnation).


Did I mention a nuclearised Communist dictatorship on another border (hot war x 1 in the past 40 years)? We all know how advanced Western governments respond to a Communist regime in other countries in the past century. Nepal has a Maoist government, too.


Finally, our Armed Forces have never involved themselves in civilian affairs - not even in the way that ex-warriors enter politics after retirement. This is something of a novelty here, and from that point of view, $10 billion worth of toys to keep our warriors happy might seem a relatively cheap buyoff. After all, we are the masters of baksheesh in all forms.


Re drones - I do think it unlikely that the US will pass on drone tech to our neighbours in the West or north.  Since we are not, and hopefully never will be at war with the US, it is an unnecessary spend right now.  The Rafale [i]was[/i] the cheapest of all the fighters in the market.

freedom is a fundamental value that does not need to be justified in terms of some other value like efficiency

the argument for drone development


I don´t think the argument for drone development requires bad relations with the US. Their versatility, cost, size and usefulness make them the ´technology of the future´. I understand you can´t buy them off the shelf in Europe.

Also the purchase of a few fighters is not going to make relations with China or Pakistan any safer or more predictable. The French use this aircraft against only weak and non threatening countries. The US is taking advantage of an overwhelming gap in technological with respect to Afghanistan and it doesn´t appear to be the way to victory.

You will kill 10 of our men, and we will kill 1 of yours, and in the end it will be you who tire of it. - Ho Chi Minh

Heh. I'm a complete pacifist,

mmghosh's picture

the classic even-against-the-Nazis Gandhian variety.  I don't think fighter aircraft, or drones are the answer to anything.  But that's the way the arguments are made, here.   

freedom is a fundamental value that does not need to be justified in terms of some other value like efficiency

Buy or don't buy the Raffales it won't make a difference


to the women of India. I was shocked when I visited Dehli, by the contempt for women (and indeed, just about everyone else). The amount of "eve teasing" as I believe you call sexual assault, in the broad daylight, on busy city center streets, of perfectly ordinary women.  Much much worse than anything I've seen, even in dark backstreets in Cairo.


Something that  puzzled me was the gulf between behaviour in Dehli and Kathmandu. Different scale of city of course and many KM apart, but still, many similarities in terms of poverty and culture (at least to this unaccustomed eye). As far as respect for your common man goes though, they might as well have been on different planets.

As in most cases, the capital city rarely defines

mmghosh's picture

the country. But yes, your observations are true. Did you have a female partner? Its all about conservative patriarchical societies. Though we also have our matriarchical societies in other parts.

The Swiss are liberal, naturally.

freedom is a fundamental value that does not need to be justified in terms of some other value like efficiency

The countryside seemed to be different alright.


The Swiss were illiberal 70 years ago and women were often treated very poorly. The cities led the way, as they did for the Irish 40 years later. I'm not sure where your cities are leading you.

To wealth, as cities have ever done.

mmghosh's picture


freedom is a fundamental value that does not need to be justified in terms of some other value like efficiency

En passant, how different is the West?

mmghosh's picture

[url=]Very different?[/url]
[quote]I have been working for nearly twenty years and have made no difference to anything. It is difficult to describe the sheer alienation one feels to participate in – even to chair and moderate – a discussion about arts, politics, culture, the world, in which no woman or her achievements is mentioned once, by anyone, at any time. I can’t keep sitting in a studio feeding flattering questions to a guy who’s written an average book and is busy namechecking 20 other ‘great’ men, while a female producer and female PR gape like groupies and ten works of actual genius by women fester in the bin. It is difficult to describe the surge of pain as one mentions a woman, any woman, in any context, only to see one’s companion automatically roll their eyes, then wait their way through the rest of the anecdote. It is devastating to begin pitching an item about an excellent book/play/film, “It’s about this woman who....” and see that your boss has already lost interest. Should you complain outright, there is always a moment when they look at you with open dislike and you realise you will never work for them again, and that part of your career is over.

I have become one of the countless women standing at the edges, pleasant, elegant, mutedly smiling as men pass the prizes and job offers amongst themselves and competent geisha-minded women crawl all over themselves to help. I have not been able to compel producers to have more women on the shows I participate in. Instead, the few female artists on the roster are pushed onto my shows to shut me up. They do not actually employ or feature any more women than before. I have used my time, energy and intellect working alongside, publicising and aiding the careers of powerful/rich/famous men who are open philanderers, lechers, johns, liars, bullies, harassers. Neither I, nor other women, nor any male colleagues or friends have been able to do anything about this, though it has been known by 'everyone'.

I have been offered great jobs by great sleazebags and wondered what to do. I have been polite to their leering, lying, hypocritical, sexist, pathetic faces and listened, wanting to laugh outright, if only to divert myself from being sick, as they two-facedly pay pseudo tribute to their much-deceived wives, partners and daughters. I have dutifully watched their films and read their novels, in which women are either totally absent or nothing more than insulting age-old misogynist stereotypes. We women have helped make these men famous, and they have used their fame to help other men. I have become, to use an ancient phrase, a handmaiden of the patriarchy.

It is no longer a fresh challenge, as it was when I was fourteen and beginning my career. It is no longer baffling and frustrating, as it was when I grew older. It now makes my skin crawl with claustrophobia, despair and crackling pain. There is a horrible sense of the realness and depth of cultural femicide as women are simply ignored. There is a terrifying frustration as I encounter so many powerful women’s own misogyny and submissiveness. There is a deep dread as I contemplate two more decades of this bullshit. I think of my former friend, the one I’d so admired, and see just how ably the boys’ club works to aid and protect its abusive brothers, showering them with perks….

…But not without help from the ladies! One of the most painful things is witnessing how many of the devoted pillars, the dutiful stalwarts faithfully keeping inequality firmly in place, are women. Quote from the (female) producer on a flagship arts show: “It’s all blokes today so it’d be good to get a female.” Quote from the same producer a month later: “It’s all men so if you want to sandwich a female artist in between, you can, if you want.” It is hard to watch discrimination up close, in realtime, and realise that these institutionalised women will never do anything at all to change things.[/quote]

freedom is a fundamental value that does not need to be justified in terms of some other value like efficiency

Opinions Vary

M Scott Eiland's picture

However--hyperbole from gender feminists aside--the idea that women have a right to exist for their own sake is pretty much won as a battle in the West: the numbers you quoted along with known statistics regarding gender-based abortions suggests that this is not true in much of Asia. As for the article, writing talent and the evaluation of it is a very subjective thing, and even the writer acknowledges that women as a group seem to prefer male writers (I'd be interested to see a gender breakdown of the works promoted by Oprah Winfrey through her book club). Clearly, there is no bar on women becoming wildly successful in terms of total sales if their works appeal to the public, and this was true long before anyone ever heard of Gloria Steinem or Sandra Day O'Connor.

. . .and Don Mattingly must be fired (bye Ned--don't let the door hit you in the @$$ on the way out!).

the right to exist for their own sake


The struggle of women in the west has never been about ´the right to exist for their own sake.´ That´s a crazy idea. Women have struggled over reproductive and sexual issues, the right to own property (put aside that women´s genre fiction and read some Henry James), rights in the workplace and voting etc. In many cases like reproductive rights, women are still distinctly second class, with the federal government in the last health care bill explicitly denying medical care to women desiring an abortion. But nowhere have I read of a womens right to exist being questioned.

I doubt that in Asia the struggle has ever been about the right of women to exist for their own sake. It may take that form in the future but that would only be in response to heavy handed population control methods of the government which are rather recently introduced. I think the fault lies with these programmes and the suffering inflicted on women is an unintended consequence.

You will kill 10 of our men, and we will kill 1 of yours, and in the end it will be you who tire of it. - Ho Chi Minh

Some would say that men are 2nd class citizens

stinerman's picture

I'm pretty sure if a man impregnates a woman in any way (even if he was coerced in some fashion) he's on the hook for child support and cannot waive his parental responsibilities.  For instance if the broad you're banging says she's on the pill or pokes some holes in your rubber, because she wants to get her hooks into you, you're hooked.  You have no recourse.


I'm 100% sure that if a woman wants to keep a child and a man doesn't, he doesn't have the right to terminate the pregnancy.  Women have that sole right.  I agree that this is the proper state of affairs; biology makes it such that the women get to make the decision, but some people don't see it that way.

The Constitution does not vest in Congress the authority to protect society from every bad act that might befall it. -- Clarence Thomas

Yes, and some are idiots

HankP's picture

if you don't want to worry about supporting children, get a vasectomy. If you don't want to get STDs, use a condom. Don't kids take health classes anymore?

I blame it all on the Internet

Hank, does your head hurt?


You've mixed a feminist and pro-life argument.  Setting aside the pro-life 'just don't get pregnant' argument, isn't the right to chose all about....well, choice after conception?  The male having no rights but some and potentially all the responsibility (if the mother dies after birth, for instance) lacks a certain equality.  I wouldn't have it any other way, and this is a far cry from second class citizenship but it has nothing to do with fairness or equality which is all anyone is asking for, right.

In the medical community, death is known as Chuck Norris Syndrome. 

This shows how differently we think

HankP's picture

I don't make "feminist" or "non-feminist" arguments, or "pro-choice" or "anti-abortion" arguments. I make arguments that make sense to me based on my beliefs and available data. I'll leave the labels to others.


"Don't get a girl pregnant" isn't a pro-life argument, it's a common sense argument to anyone who doesn't want children. Birth control isn't 100% effective, so I'm not saying people have to abstain, just take into account that there's always a small chance of pregnancy and likewise that the woman in question may decide to bring the baby to term. Similarly, wearing a condom to avoid getting STDs is pretty much common sense. Men have all the rights in the world, specifically the choice of whether or not to have sex at any particular time. But if they choose to have sex and get a woman pregnant they have the responsibility to deal with that. Their rights don't extend to tell a woman what she can and can't do with her body. The only lack of equality is that women can get pregnant and men can't, but I'm afraid that's the way things work. Humans can't fly but birds can, only an idiot would waste time arguing about how that's "unfair".


And "women have control over their own bodies" is pretty straightforward if you believe that women are human beings and have moral agency. I know there are men who don't like to deal with the facts about how sex and reproduction works, they are idiots and can be ignored.


I blame it all on the Internet

"Coerced into impregnation?"

mmghosh's picture

Some think this happens, seriously?



freedom is a fundamental value that does not need to be justified in terms of some other value like efficiency

Well, not physically.


Although I recall a dKos diary about a guy saying he'd been raped by a woman... something to do with rubber rings to conserve rigidity... anyhoo.

I would have to be blackmail-related or something.  I also remember something about a woman impregnating herself after oral sex and the court deciding the guy was still on the hook.  But such situations are extremely rare and hardly worth bringing up in debates.

The One That Is Worth Bringing Up. . .

M Scott Eiland's picture

. . .is that states will still enforce child support orders even if DNA tests later prove that a woman's husband (or non-married partner) is not the biological father of a child. To remedy that, I would make a simple law: no court-enforced child support order shall issue without a conclusive DNA test to prove paternity (assuming the child wasn't adopted in the first place). That should do away with cuckoo child support laws quite nicely.

. . .and Don Mattingly must be fired (bye Ned--don't let the door hit you in the @$$ on the way out!).

There are those among us Americans, that want that

brutusettu's picture

"(Women should be homemakers, baby factories, not wear hats during church, not teach men, etc.)"

[url=]If it wasn't for constant vigilance, forces for more patriarchy in the states would likely get some more annoying and louder supporters[/url]

Curiously, one-third of the country is ruled by women

mmghosh's picture

- Chief Minsters of populous States (over 50 million people each); [url=]roughly equivalent to your Governors[/url].  And no, not all politicians' WAGs, though there are those, too.

freedom is a fundamental value that does not need to be justified in terms of some other value like efficiency

The 21st Century GOP, in a nutshell,


courtesy of Slate via Kevin Drum:
[quote]If you're a Democrat, you are my enemy. Democrats piss me off. They've gotten extremely socialistic. Every time they get in, they raise taxes. They screw things up. I've got a jeep I've had for ten years; I pay $100 a year on the license plate. We just got a new Dodge; $600 to license it. You pay your money, they pass it on to the Mexicans, the colored people. Free education, handouts, all of that.[/quote]

"I've been on food stamps and welfare.  Anybody help me out?  No!" Craig T. Nelson (6/2/2009)

Memory lapse and loss of google fu

brutusettu's picture

What's it called when people search comment sections for the most nutty batmerde crazy post and strike that off as the norm for a given group?

That said, that guys views aren't exactly uncommon.

there seems to be a 1:1 ratio of that guy's views and favoring bar napkin economics.

And don't license plate fees normally pay for crazy things like fixing pot holes and such?

That's fair...


but let's not forget that one of our own conservatives here feels that African Americans tend to vote Democratic because the Democrats are apt to keep the welfare checks coming.

"I've been on food stamps and welfare.  Anybody help me out?  No!" Craig T. Nelson (6/2/2009)

Who said that, JKC?



In the medical community, death is known as Chuck Norris Syndrome. 

The link is


here. I'm not going to quote it or call the commenter out, because I don't believe for a nanosecond that said commenter is a racist. That's the problem with all the coded dog-whistles in this campaign: the underlying ideas get buried in the heads of people who really do know better.

"I've been on food stamps and welfare.  Anybody help me out?  No!" Craig T. Nelson (6/2/2009)

Oh, definitely

stinerman's picture

We are lucky to not have an out racist here.  Our conservatives are really moderate.  And we've also got our resident Guerriste.


However there is no doubt that our friend said that Black folks vote for Democrats because Democrats support the welfare state.  Extrapolate from there what you will.

The Constitution does not vest in Congress the authority to protect society from every bad act that might befall it. -- Clarence Thomas

I suppose you could make a chain of reasoning


that avoids racism (but not condencension or fallacies).  Historical persecution of blacks --> inherited socioeconomic disadvantages --> more dependance on government aid -->  culture of dependancy.

It's wrong because it causes a feedback loop of underachievement and low expectations, because it attributes a lack of socioeconomic pride and dignity to one group over another and because it ignores that climbing out of desperation is a prerequisite to climbing the economic latter, not a hinderance.

I don't believe blacks vote Democratic because they're addicted to those sweet sweet welfare chacks and Medicaid prescriptions.  Blacks vote Democratic because Republicans treat them like spoiled children and, more importantly, try to benefit from racial polarization.  One need only look at R-dominated state legislature's attempts to restrict voting vs their minority outreach efforts.

It's a negative feedback loop

stinerman's picture

Republicans don't get the black vote because of some 'X' way back when.  Republicans notice this and realize that demonizing black folks gets racist white people to vote for them (cf. Southern Strategy), which further pushes black conservatives away from the Republicans.


We're to the point that Republicans have made the calculation that their dog-whistle politics regarding race issues is getting them more racist white votes than it loses black conservative votes.  Do I believe that Republicans are attempting to supress the black vote because they're racist?  No, they've just figured out that black people tend to vote Democratic and they want to supress the Democratic vote.  I don't know that that is any better, but it's what I think they're trying to do.


Really both sides do the "supress the other side's vote".  It's called gerrymandering.  It doesn't go anywhere because it's a boring process issue and because the true believers would really vote to do things that disenfranchise their political enemies.

The Constitution does not vest in Congress the authority to protect society from every bad act that might befall it. -- Clarence Thomas

Nice Of You To Add "State"

M Scott Eiland's picture

As you pointed out, there's more to the welfare state than writing welfare checks.

. . .and Don Mattingly must be fired (bye Ned--don't let the door hit you in the @$$ on the way out!).