tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6851578517872251953.post6747170618612310676..comments2023-10-10T05:07:13.577-07:00Comments on En Tequila Es Verdad: Woozle and Mike Debate ThreadDana Hunterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00890312745525306991noreply@blogger.comBlogger106125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6851578517872251953.post-35161911386331652162009-10-19T13:29:11.756-07:002009-10-19T13:29:11.756-07:00My response will be here, as soon as it goes out o...My response will be <a href="http://entequilaesverdad.blogspot.com/2009/09/woozle-mike-debate-thread-mark-ii.html" rel="nofollow">here</a>, as soon as it goes out of moderation. (Blogmistress to the front desk...)Woozlehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17948248776908775080noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6851578517872251953.post-3389629483903160442009-10-19T08:38:25.430-07:002009-10-19T08:38:25.430-07:00So I finally decided to jump back in here and I...So I finally decided to jump back in here and I'm just going to piggyback off of the anger you seemed to be projecting in your last couple of comments...<br /><br />So, I still don't really understand why liberals are so outraged that Republicans won't play ball on their scheme *ahem* <i>plan</i> to overhaul healthcare. Well, no, that's actually a fib. I DO understand but I think most on the Left are being dishonest about why it hacks them off so much. The truth is that they have this great big majority and they really should be able to ram all sorts of ultra-liberal legislation through. I actually wish they would go with the nuclear option and get things done. Why? Because I want to see if they have the balls to stand alone on this legislation. My gut feeling is that they would prefer not to because they will have no political cover if it fails. And with the current proposals, failure is a distinct possibility. <br /><br />The truth is that the minority party has no responsibility to propose alternative legislation. The Dems didn't do it with SS back in 2005. The GOP isn't doing it now. That's a poltical choice. And it's a principled one, even if you don't see it as such. Trust me, if the GOP thought that this was going to be a homerun, they would want to be on-board. But they <i>really</i> don't think it's good legislation. And seriously, do you honestly think anyone on the Left would be receptive to GOP counter-proposals? <br /><br />So here's my proposal: Get the Democrats' plan through, whatever that looks like. Don't be pussies and put 2013 on it and instead make it effective next year. Then when the 2012 election comes around the voters will have had two years to form an opinion of the plan and can voice their opinion of it with their votes. Doesn't that seem like the honest way to tackle this issue?Mike Dwyerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00741136015944133141noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6851578517872251953.post-43121354628251681232009-09-18T06:06:13.467-07:002009-09-18T06:06:13.467-07:00I've kind of lost interet in the abstinence di...I've kind of lost interet in the abstinence discussion. i haven't forgotten the healthcare debate - just trying to get myself more informed before I reply.Mike Dwyerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00741136015944133141noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6851578517872251953.post-46618865681349153032009-09-17T05:51:01.117-07:002009-09-17T05:51:01.117-07:00Paging Mike, who once said "You are so comple...Paging Mike, who <a href="http://entequilaesverdad.blogspot.com/2009/04/woozle-and-mike-debate-thread.html?showComment=1246982785256#c1349138162953748655" rel="nofollow">once said</a> <i>"You are so completely skeptical of abstinence only at least in part because it is unrealistic when confronted with hormonal impulses. But yet you completely dismiss the equally strong hormonal impulse for people to be irresponsible. Education will not cure that, no matter how thorough."</i><br /><br /><a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32884806/ns/health-kids_and_parenting/" rel="nofollow">This</a> isn't exactly conclusive, but it's yet more evidence pointing towards what I've been saying all along -- and there sure as death and taxes isn't any evidence saying the opposite:<br /><br /><i>"...study researcher Joseph Strayhorn of Drexel University College of Medicine and University of Pittsburgh offers ... the most probable explanation: "We conjecture that religious communities in the U.S. are <b>more successful in discouraging the use of contraception among their teenagers than they are in discouraging sexual intercourse itself</b>."</i> (emphasis mine)<br /><br />Still out there, Mike? Or should I put on my flight suit and declare victory?Woozlehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17948248776908775080noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6851578517872251953.post-59921973053498944992009-07-31T08:45:25.616-07:002009-07-31T08:45:25.616-07:00(part two)
"If this doesn't pass it'...<i>(part two)</i><br /><br /><i>"If this doesn't pass it's because the Democrats were unable to offer a plan that appealed to the majority of the voters..."</i><br /><br /><b>Reality Translation</b>: "If this doesn't pass, it's because backers of the plan lacked sufficient PR skillz to overcome the doubts planted in people's minds by the opposition, who aren't constrained by accuracy or fairness...."<br /><br /><i>"...and by proxy, the members of Congress who represent them."</i><br /><br /><b>Reality Translation</b>: "...and, by proxy, the members of Congress who know who really elects them."<br /><br /><i>"What you can expect is for this debate to get more and more complex after Congress returns in September, after they've had a month to hear their constituents complain about the misplaced priorities of healthcare 'reform' in lieu of job creation, and support for this will begin to collapse just like it has every time since FDR was in office."</i><br /><br />On this, we are agreed.<br /><br /><i>"The Democrats are never going to see any real changes in the system until they stop emulating Europe and start focusing on a uniquely American system that addresses American sensibilities."</i><br /><br />Screw "uniquely American". I want healthcare that works. What we have now is "uniquely American" ineptitude. I'd much rather see "uniquely American" adaptability and ingenuity. We are the melting pot of the world -- why can't we use the best <i>ideas</i> from other cultures as well?<br /><br />Plus, I don't see how the plan as originally envisioned <i>isn't</i> "uniquely American"; it will be based around American government (medical care in Europe doesn't have "states" to deal with, for example), American medical care facilities, American doctors, and the American way of life.<br /><br />The requirement that it must be "uniquely American" is a scare tactic and total BS.<br /><br /><i>"But your position is not one held by the majority of Americans I am afraid."</i><br /><br /><a href="http://crooksandliars.com/susie-madrak/bush-played-guitar-while-people-drown" rel="nofollow">orly</a>?<br /><br /><i>"..both of us have to realize that in a Democracy we can't always blame the other side just because we don't get our way."</i><br /><br />No, I'm blaming the other side because they're being dishonest sleazy bastards on this issue (among many others).<br /><br />I don't suppose "honesty" matters anymore, though. You know you're right, so any argument you can use to convince people is a good one.<br /><br /><i>"If you have a good plan, the American people will not be tricked by propaganda and lies."</i><br /><br />Do you honestly believe that, Mike?<br /><br /><i>"Right now Democrats do not have a good plan. You seem to acknowledge its deep flaws yourself."</i><br /><br />Um... I did? Where?<br /><br /><i>"I will bet you $5 that the latter approach wins the day."</i><br /><br />The race goes not always to the swift.Woozlehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17948248776908775080noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6851578517872251953.post-79881617551374014102009-07-31T08:42:58.390-07:002009-07-31T08:42:58.390-07:00"Your understanding of public desire for this...<i>"Your understanding of public desire for this is incorrect. I saw a poll yesterday on MSNBC that indicated that healthcare is a far distant second when compared to the economy/jobs."</i><br /><br />That has absolutely nothing to do with my statement that the public is "ready and waiting" for it. For a lot of people, apparently it's not a big priority -- but for a large minority, it's the big one.<br /><br /><i>"it intends to kill the insurance industry completely."</i><br /><br />That's a flaw? That's what we <i>need</i>.<br /><br /><i>"I realize that Democrats are big fans of the legislate-now-fix-later approach..."</i><br /><br />I thought you said that we always insist on the "brilliant" approach rather than one that is "good enough"?<br /><br /><i>"...but how did that work out with the stimulus?"</i><br /><br />We won't know until it has had a chance to take effect. Why do Republicans insist on taking the car out for a test-drive when it's still being built, and then failing it because the wheels aren't all on yet?<br /><br />Because they're dishonest and will do anything to make the Dems look bad.<br /><br /><i>"We've had little job creation..."</i><br /><br />No wonder Republicans think a chart with colorful shapes on it is the same as a "plan"; they seem to think these things work instantly, by magic or something.<br /><br /><i>"The GOP has suggested alternatives, such as healthcare co-ops..."</i><br /><br /><a href="http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2009/07/20/obama-i-continue-to-believe-that-a-robust-public-option-would-be-the-best-way-to-go/" rel="nofollow">Yeah</a>, <a href="http://blogs.wsj.com/health/2009/07/06/how-long-does-it-take-to-set-up-a-health-co-op/" rel="nofollow">right</a>.<br /><br />You go ahead and set up those co-ops <i>first</i>, before calling them an "alternative". Do you think you can have those ready by, say, 2030?<br /><br />If Cons really believe they're a good solution to the healthcare mess, why didn't they propose them anytime during Bush II -- or as a counter to Clinton's plan? You've had 15 years in which to impress me with your alternatives, and what I see is that CONS DON'T WANT HEALTHCARE REFORM.<br /><br /><i>"The Democrats have 60 votes in the senate."</i><br /><br />...until you take out the Blue Dogs, who (as I mentioned earlier) just agreed to a "compomise" which stalls the final decision until after the recess -- long enough for the GOP noise machine to convince people that Obamacare kills grannies and will destroy our economy while taking away the freedom we supposedly have now to choose our own doctors.<br /><br /><i>(over 4k chars, to be continued...)</i>Woozlehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17948248776908775080noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6851578517872251953.post-49455825147529116302009-07-31T07:19:52.763-07:002009-07-31T07:19:52.763-07:00Your understanding of public desire for this is in...Your understanding of public desire for this is incorrect. I saw a poll yesterday on MSNBC that indicated that healthcare is a far distant second when compared to the economy/jobs. <br /><br />The bill is flawed in about a hundred different ways (rough estimate) but the chief problem is that it intends to kill the insurance industry completely. The Democrats should have been upfront from the start that they wanted universal, government-provided healthcare. At least then there would have been an honest debate. As it has gone down it's been a lot of smoke and mirrors and misdirection, not from the Right but from the Left who have to keep contradicting all conventional logic and several non-partisan CBO reports that say the bill is a stinker. <br /><br />Your colorful use of the word 'traitor' to describe the Blue Dogs is not surprising. I believe that is what Dana said about anyone who didn't rush to pass the stimulus bill last year. I realize that Democrats are big fans of the legislate-now-fix-later approach, but how did that work out with the stimulus? We've had little job creation, mostly because the President transferred the responsibility for the bill to Nancy Pelosi who loaded it up with Democrat pet projects that created no new jobs. He's done the same on healthcare, letting Congress run the show, which is crazy considering the disparity between their approval rating and his. <br /><br />The GOP <i>has</i> suggested alternatives, such as healthcare co-ops which might benefit someone like yourself. The problem seems to be though that the biggest fans of government-provided healthcare are the ones who really like the idea of the government giving them lots of goodies as a sort of reward just for residing here. They don't think about the long-term viability of the program (see Medicare, Johnson, Lyndon) just about their own needs. That sort of hierarchy of needs mentality is effective in building larger Democratic coalitions, linked only by their desire to get theirs, but it's not viable as a way to get legislation passed. <br /><br />Let me be clear here: If the healthcare bill doesn't pass it is not going to be because of the GOP. The Democrats have 60 votes in the senate. The President has a very high approval rating and should still be in the 'honeymoon' phase of his first term. If this doesn't pass it's because the Democrats were unable to offer a plan that appealed to the majority of the voters and by proxy, the members of Congress who represent them. What you can expect is for this debate to get more and more complex after Congress returns in September, after they've had a month to hear their constituents complain about the misplaced priorities of healthcare 'reform' in lieu of job creation, and support for this will begin to collapse just like it has every time since FDR was in office. The Democrats are never going to see any real changes in the system until they stop emulating Europe and start focusing on a uniquely American system that addresses American sensabilities. <br /><br />I am truly sorry that you haven't been able to get healthcare for yourself despite trying so hard. In my 19-year working life I've never had that problem. But your position is not one held by the majority of Americans I am afraid. I realize it may seem really important to you, sort of like the way stopping the Ohio River Bridges Project here in Louisville seems to me, but both of us have to realize that in a Democracy we can't always blame the other side just because we don't get our way. President Bush tried hard to reform a dying Social Security program. Democrats did a good job of stopping social security reform (why?) but I was mature enough not to blame them because the responsibility of persuasion ultimately lies with the reformer. If you have a good plan, the American people will not be tricked by propaganda and lies. Right now Democrats do not have a good plan. You seem to acknowledge its deep flaws yourself. Your solution is to pass a bad bill now and fix it later. Ours is to wait for a good bill. I will bet you $5 that the latter approach wins the day.Mike at The Big Stickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11510309563965977831noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6851578517872251953.post-33565098457393246442009-07-30T15:17:41.140-07:002009-07-30T15:17:41.140-07:00#1: What, this isn't enough?
That Obama has t...#1: What, <a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/health-insurance-consumer-protections/" rel="nofollow">this</a> isn't enough?<br /><br />That Obama has to "sell" the plan implies that there's someone he needs to sell it <i>to</i>; my understanding is that most of the country is ready and waiting for it -- or would be, if Republicans hadn't done their slimy best to turn people against it.<br /><br />#2: What "crap" might this be, exactly?<br /><br />Knowing <a href="http://crooksandliars.com/susie-madrak/why-are-blue-dogs-fighting-against-co" rel="nofollow">where the Blue Dogs get most of their campaign money</a>, I doubt very much that their "balls" consist of anything more than excuses pumped into them by the insurance industry (like an athlete on steroids).<br /><br />And knowing how much the GOP despises any change that might accidentally aid the common good, I suspect that the only thing wrong with Obama's plan is that it doesn't go far enough. The vital thing is to get it through, warts and all, before the GOP can turn people against it with the aforementioned lies and propaganda. Any problems can be patched by further bills later on, but the main change needs to go through <i>now</i> or else we'll probably have to wait another 15 years to try again.<br /><br />The Blue Dogs are traitors to this cause for delaying it just long enough that the vote won't be until after the "recess", and for that they too will be on my aforementioned list if (as I expect) the reform is defeated or bastardized into something more "industry-friendly".<br /><br />#3: What is the point of pointing out flaws if you don't have your own plan?<br /><br />Besides, you know as well as I do that the GOP aren't interested in "fixing" the plan; they want to bloody well KILL IT FOREVER, no matter who gets hurt, and have <a href="http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2009/07/kristol_kill_it_and_start_over.asp" rel="nofollow">said as much</a>.<br /><br />Kristol implies they are only doing this so they can "start over"; that too is a lie. They had 6 years of unfettered control of the legislative and executive branches in which to push through their own reform without any substantial Dem opposition.<br /><br />Furthermore, there are reasonable alternative plans which might be proposed (I suggested one in an earlier comment); the GOP has not come within light-years of any of them. Their sole intent is to stop change, at any cost to the rest of us. <br /><br />Any claim that the GOP isn't trying to kill health reform as dead as possible is a flat-out lie.<br /><br />I have come to despise them, and to despise those who should know better than to support them.<br /><br />--<br /><br /><i>"How does one get by?"</i> By being ridiculously healthy and damn lucky. <br /><br /><i>"What is the rationale for not trying?"</i> Who said I haven't been trying? This sounds like the classic conservative assumption that honest effort always leads to success, which simply isn't true.Woozlehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17948248776908775080noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6851578517872251953.post-85689295324589429712009-07-30T11:57:50.424-07:002009-07-30T11:57:50.424-07:00I think they tried for universal healthcare under ...I think they tried for universal healthcare under FDR. Still waiting. <br /><br />Healthcare reform is being sunk by a few factors, only one of which is 'republican'. <br /><br />1) The president has done a piss-poor job of selling it and hasn't advanced his own plan.<br /><br />2) Blue Dog Democrats have the balls to fight against all the crap that Pelosi and Co. loaded into the bill.<br /><br />3) Republicans are adequately pointing out the multitude of flaws in the proposal. <br /><br />I'm curious though, how does one get by for 8 years without healthcare and what is the rationale for not trying to find a job where it would be provided?Mike at The Big Stickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11510309563965977831noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6851578517872251953.post-21225520603281983252009-07-29T16:43:48.383-07:002009-07-29T16:43:48.383-07:00"As for sex ed being the 'best way' t...<i>"As for sex ed being the 'best way' to reduce abortions...I find that interesting."</i><br /><br />Actually, I didn't say "sex ed", I said <i>education</i>. All kinds. Obviously sex ed is especially important in reducing abortion rates specifically, but I was referring to the general upward effect that education has on prosperity.<br /><br />I'm glad you find it interesting; it is also what we logic-obsessed liberals call "factual".<br /><br /><i>"You are so completely skepitcal of abstinence only at least in part because it is unrealistic when confronted with hormonal impulses. But yet you completely dismiss the equally strong hormonal impulse for people to be irresponsible. Education will not cure that, no matter how thorough."</i><br /><br />The facts contradict you; sex ed <b>has been shown to reduce the rate of unwanted pregnancies</b>. This is a factual matter about which there <b>is no debate</b>, unless you have some new information which you haven't chosen to share.<br /><br />If it makes it any easier, I can suggest a mechanism whereby this might work (while your solution doesn't): which is easier (a) fighting the urge to have sex altogether, or (b) fighting that urge just long enough to deploy an appropriate contraceptive or two?<br /><br />---<br /><br />On a slightly different topic, I just saw the following update from the New York Times:<br /><br /><i><b>Poll Shows Obama's Clout on Health Care Is Eroding</b><br /><br />President Obama's ability to shape the debate on health care appears to be eroding as opponents aggressively portray the effort as a government-takeover that could limit Americans' ability to chose their doctor and course of treatment, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News poll.<br /><br />Americans are concerned that overhauling the health care system would reduce the quality of their care, increase their out-of-pocket health costs and tax bills and limit their options in choosing doctors, treatment and tests, the poll found.</i><br /><br />I've tried logic and reason; now have some well-framed emotional narrative (as recommended by Dr. Haidt!) for an apertif.<br /><br />I currently have no healthcare, and have not had any for 8 years or so (since the last time I worked for a giant soulless corporation; well-behaved sheep are taken care of by those who own the means of production).<br /><br />I'm sure you also have had plenty of my whining about our failures in getting proper mental health care for my hypertwin's autistic son, Josh.<br /><br />I just want you to know that <b>if you and your Republican friends succeed</b> in "slowing down" Obama's "headlong rush" to bring us a system we can afford, to the point where what comes out the other end isn't a system where I -- or Josh, or my hypertwin (uninsured since 1990), or anyone! -- can't easily obtain healthcare...<br /><br />...you guys are going to be <b>so very on my shit list</b>.<br /><br />I mean, I've already just about had it up to here with the ideology that calls itself "conservatism", but nonetheless we've been having this polite disagreement here in the comment section for the past 6-7 months now, in the hope of finding <i>some</i> kind of common ground. <br /><br />If, because of "conservative" propaganda, a reasonable healthcare plan doesn't go through, it won't be polite any more after that. There will be swear words, yes. And silence.<br /><br />And 28% approval will look like The Good Old Days -- or would, if there was any justice in the world and Americans didn't believe everything their TV tells them.<br /><br />Just remember that, and the three of us (you're "pro-family", right?), when you think about your opinion on this issue, and when you decide which SELF-SERVING RIGHT-WING LIES to repeat.Woozlehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17948248776908775080noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6851578517872251953.post-13491381629537486552009-07-07T09:06:25.256-07:002009-07-07T09:06:25.256-07:00Welfare reform has reduced the number of people de...Welfare reform has reduced the number of people dependent on the government for handouts and is considered a success on both sides of the aisle. Getting recipients back to work is the most benificial thing we can do for their kids.<br /><br />As for sex ed being the 'best way' to reduce abortions...I find that interesting. You are so completely skepitcal of abstinence only at least in part because it is unrealistic when confronted with hormonal impulses. But yet you completely dismiss the equally strong hormonal impulse for people to be irresponsible. Education will not cure that, no matter how thorough.Mike at The Big Stickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11510309563965977831noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6851578517872251953.post-26344954011451408702009-07-06T18:18:58.818-07:002009-07-06T18:18:58.818-07:00[M] ...before you claim the GOP hasn’t done anythi...<i>[M] ...before you claim the GOP hasn’t done anything to ‘help these children’ I would point out that Republicans helped pass welfare reform in the 90’s which was probably the best move either side has made towards ‘helping kids’ in a very long time.</i><br /><br />You mean <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_Responsibility_and_Work_Opportunity_Act" rel="nofollow">this</a>? I was skeptical at the time, and I can't say that the benefit of 13 years' hindsight has eroded that skepticism any. It looks to me like what it mainly did was make it universally harder to get welfare, rather than delivering it more efficiently or inexpensively.<br /><br />Moreover, it hasn't even succeeded on its own terms; the guy who introduced it was trying to reduce immigration by making the US a less appealing place to be poor. Well, he certainly accomplished the latter goal, but immigration has only accelerated in our neck of the woods. (Having experienced it first hand, I still don't understand why conservatives see this as a problem, much less something which will destroy society. Oh noes, brown people from Unamerica are taking over buildings abandoned by good, decent Americans and -gasp- turning them into thriving businesses!)<br /><br /><i>[M] I will also point out the most obvious comment which is that regardless of how far we have to go to make a life full of flowers and puppies for kids saved from abortion…it doesn’t justify your argument that in lieu of those changes the kids are better off not being born.</i><br /><br />It doesn't prove that they are <i>always</i> better off not being born, but it does counter the opposite assumption -- that "choosing life" is always better. It isn't. Anti-abortionists are being dishonest and manipulative when they pretend that it is not only so but <i>unquestionably</i> so, and they long ago lost my respect for that reason alone (not that there aren't plenty of other reasons).<br /><br />Abortion is never an easy decision. On what logic would you have the government -- which Republicans claim to be trying to <i>reduce</i>, in other contexts -- step in and take that decision away from those in the best position to make it, and say "no, we know what is best for everyone, we don't care what you think"? From what wellspring of compassion comes the belief that a potential mother, agonizing over what is best for her, her family, and their potential child, should be told that there is only one possible Right decision, and any other decision she might make would prove that she is evil, unfit to be a mother, and should go to jail along with her doctor?<br /><br />What customs, what vital social institutions, what cultural norms are being served by this?<br /><br />In short, how does outlawing abortion benefit <i>anyone</i>, fetus included?<br /><br /><i>[W] I don't like gender-screening...<br /><br />[M] Why? I’m curious as to the ‘logic’ behind that position.<br /><br />[W] Do I need a reason? Are you saying you think it's a good idea? .. Again, I would not outlaw it...<br /><br />[M] Why wouldn’t you outlaw it? You make a good case from a ‘logical’ perspective...</i><br /><br />Because sometimes outlawing things doesn't do diddly towards preventing them, and can even make things worse. Abortion rates in particular, as I know we have discussed previously, are pretty much unaffected by illegality; it just goes underground and becomes more dangerous for both mother and fetus.<br /><br />In this case, more to the point, the practice of gender-selective abortion is likely just one symptom of a bad idea that has taken root in the culture. I'd rather work to overcome that cultural idea, which would solve not only the gender-selection abortion problem but also many other gender-related problems this hypothetical culture probably has.<br /><br />And the best way to do that (as with reducing abortion rates in general) is education.Woozlehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17948248776908775080noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6851578517872251953.post-61830284655767404682009-07-06T16:54:06.871-07:002009-07-06T16:54:06.871-07:00Man, I hate telemarketers. Here's the sequence...Man, I hate telemarketers. Here's the sequence of events:<br /><br />- I spend maybe 20 minutes writing a reply comment<br />- Preview a couple of times, make tweaks; just about ready to post it when...<br />- There's a phone call.<br />- I open a tab to Google the phone number, because it looks vaguely familiar...<br />- Google results show it's probably a telemarketer.<br />- Firefox crashes.<br />- Telemarketer: "....hello?...." Hangs up without leaving any further message.<br />- Woozle experiences urge to kill. (It was time to give Josh his shower, so there was no time to rewrite the damn thing or even post a comment about how much I hate telemarketers.)<br /><br />So, if the following comment seems a little ragged around the edges, or a little disjointed -- as if, perhaps, it is a poorly-remembered reconstruction of earlier writing -- now you know why.Woozlehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17948248776908775080noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6851578517872251953.post-21299583279252520132009-07-02T06:37:33.048-07:002009-07-02T06:37:33.048-07:00[M] We are talking about adoption, remember? I wou...<i> [M] We are talking about adoption, remember? I would suggest you investigate who the primary sponsor of The Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997 was.<br /><br />[W]The two issues are related. You can't argue against abortion while making it more difficult to raise kids. Conservatives would get a lot more sympathy from liberals (or at least from me) on this issue if they would spend more of that anti-abortion energy working on solutions -- instead of just trying to make the problem illegal.</i><br /><br /><br />As for my own opinion, I would love to see more job training for low-skilled workers, tax credits that encourage one parent to stay at home during their early years, job sharing, increased maternity/paternity leave, guaranteed health care for uninsured children, etc. As you know, many of those ideas are embraced by conservatives. <br /><br />But before you claim the GOP hasn’t done anything to ‘help these children’ I would point out that Republicans helped pass welfare reform in the 90’s which was probably the best move either side has made towards ‘helping kids’ in a very long time.<br /><br />I will also point out the most obvious comment which is that regardless of how far we have to go to make a life full of flowers and puppies for kids saved from abortion…it doesn’t justify your argument that in lieu of those changes the kids are better off not being born. <br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><i>[W] I don't like gender-screening...<br /><br />[M] Why? I’m curious as to the ‘logic’ behind that position.<br /><br />[W]Do I need a reason? Are you saying you think it's a good idea?<br /><br />Again, I would not outlaw it...</i><br /><br /><br />Why wouldn’t you outlaw it? You make a good case from a ‘logical’ perspective that it could create an imbalance of one gender which compounds certain pre-existing gender tensions. So why not be firm and outlaw it?Mike at The Big Stickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11510309563965977831noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6851578517872251953.post-16280112267931578952009-07-01T12:01:08.499-07:002009-07-01T12:01:08.499-07:00Thanks for answering my question. Your conclusions...Thanks for answering my question. Your conclusions are actually very similar to mine (scary) :0Mike at The Big Stickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11510309563965977831noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6851578517872251953.post-21907367986379394662009-06-30T18:48:57.601-07:002009-06-30T18:48:57.601-07:00On the other question:
[M] "...Would you agr...On the other question:<br /><br /><i>[M] "...Would you agree with this theory?"</i><br /><br />In truth, I read that question several times, tried to come up with something meaningful to say in response, and then eventually got distracted before I came up with anything.<br /><br />I guess what it comes down to is that I haven't met very many "moderate Republicans", so I can't really say. The one Republican whose views I do know in any depth, and who might be described as "moderate" (especially on social issues), says himself that he is really more of a Libertarian (which is basically just a more respectable word for "anarchist", as far as I can tell), and the "live and let live" attitude seems to match your description.<br /><br />I think I'd describe liberalism and libertarianism as having a lot of ground in common (the idea of personal liberty) and a lot of compatible goals as a result of this common ground <br /><br />Libertarians lack the conservative obsession with imposing their customs and beliefs on everyone else, which is compatible with (but less active than) the liberal belief in supporting and nurturing diversity, but not with the liberal idea of using government as a tool for enforcing the level playing fields in which diversity can flourish. Libertarians sound more like conservatives in that area: if your customs and ways can't thrive on their own, "tough luck".<br /><br />This strikes me as at least a reasonable compromise up to a point -- but of course if fairness isn't enforced somehow, unfair practices will eventually dominate (which, as far as I can tell, ultimately reduces to something like feudalism). Libertarianism fails when it tries to be too ideologically pure on that issue.<br /><br />Does that answer your question?Woozlehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17948248776908775080noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6851578517872251953.post-25034296868854564792009-06-30T18:27:47.038-07:002009-06-30T18:27:47.038-07:00[M] But adoption is not a priority for liberals or...[M] But adoption is not a priority for liberals or, unfortunately, this President.<br /><br />[W] Don't even try that one. Most of the time we have been spending trying to get these services was during Bush's tenure. Obama's stimulus package has rescued some of the services which would otherwise have been cut due to the economic situation; as a Republican, McCain would have been honor-bound to let them die (and help bury them).<br /><br />[M] We are talking about adoption, remember? I would suggest you investigate who the primary sponsor of The Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997 was.<br /><br />The two issues are related. You can't argue against abortion while making it more difficult to raise kids. Conservatives would get a lot more sympathy from liberals (or at least from me) on this issue if they would spend more of that anti-abortion energy working on <i>solutions</i> -- <b>instead of just trying to make the problem illegal.</b><br /><br />But let's see about <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adoption_and_Safe_Families_Act" rel="nofollow">that Act</a>... it was largely instigated by that Clinton chick whom all good Republicans loathe, used additional ideas from both sides of the aisle, and was signed into law by that other Clinton whom all good Republicans also loathe.<br /><br />Moreover, checking what Obama's up to in this area, I see he just signed the <a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Statement-by-the-Press-Secretary-regarding-S-735/" rel="nofollow">Protecting Incentives for the Adoption of Children with Special Needs Act of 2009</a> (sponsored by a Dem, co-sponsored by a Repub) into law.<br /><br />It's true that Obama seems to lack policies specifically on adoption -- but as long as he is working to keep abortion available, to help struggling families to recover, to ensure care for special needs kids, and to fix our healthcare mess, I think he's got his priorities straight. Those are bigger problems whose solutions will help to reduce the <i>need</i> for adoptions. Adoptions are a bandaid solution.<br /><br />===<br /><i>[M]As for 'denying them a healthy child' what about denying them a child of the gender they want? What about denying them a child who has blue eyes?<br /><br />[W] Not a fair comparison. I'm arguing for making sure a child has a quality life, and you're talking about personal preferences -- it's the old "boutique eugenics" argument, and it's BS.<br /><br />[M] I believe it IS a fair comparison. You admit you have a problem with screening and aborting for gender. I have a problem with aborting for health issues when they are non-life threatening. It seems it’s fairly arbitrary.</i><br /><br /><b>First</b>: I said I dislike it, but it's not something I would outlaw. I would much rather address the underlying cultural issues which cause people to prefer one gender (or eye color) over the other.<br /><br /><b>Second</b>: It's not at all an arbitrary distinction -- unless you see the question of a child's long-term health as being of no more importance than their eye color.<br /><br />--<br /><br />[W] I don't like gender-screening...<br /><br />[M] Why? I’m curious as to the ‘logic’ behind that position.<br /><br />Do I need a reason? Are you saying you think it's a good idea?<br /><br />Again, I would not outlaw it, but here's my personal, biased reason: when societies show a gender preference, they tend to prefer boys. I personally like girls better. While I wouldn't go so far as to screen in the other direction (that wouldn't be fair to the heterosexual majority, who would then be competing for a relatively small population of potential mates), the side-effects to a society's female population when they are significantly in the minority can be rather harsh.<br /><br />That last bit is arguably logical and unbiased, if you allow empathy to figure in your logic (I do).<br /><br />--<br /><br />When we discuss the abortion issue, we only seem to make any progress when logic and reason are involved. Anything else (based on your guidance thus far) seems to be pretty much just "my feelings versus your feelings", best 3 out of 5 falls or whatever -- so I rather think I've made my point about the need for reason and logic to be the ultimate arbiters.Woozlehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17948248776908775080noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6851578517872251953.post-79871183751261037802009-06-28T10:14:19.563-07:002009-06-28T10:14:19.563-07:00This question from a few weeks ago may have missed...This question from a few weeks ago may have missed you so i am reposting, at least partially in an attempt to move the conversation away from abortion.<br /><br />From Mike:<br /><br />"As food for thought i am curious to hear your opinion on a mostly unrelated subject. i've been forming a theory that the so-called 'moderate Republicans' who are pro-choice, pro-gay marriage, etc really just have libertarian leanings and are confusing it for liberalism. I think that while a liberal might say they believe in equality for gays and that their relationships are just as 'normal' as hetero ones a libertarian-leaning Republican would be okay with gay marriage not because they approve but because they're all about personal freedom. Since they know liberals have similar general positions they assume they are 'moderates'. Basically they have equal goals with completely different reasons for arriving there. <br /><br />Would you agree with this theory?"Mike at The Big Stickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11510309563965977831noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6851578517872251953.post-73747314400844741222009-06-28T10:11:35.432-07:002009-06-28T10:11:35.432-07:00Don't even try that one. Most of the time we h...<i>Don't even try that one. Most of the time we have been spending trying to get these services was during Bush's tenure. Obama's stimulus package has rescued some of the services which would otherwise have been cut due to the economic situation; as a Republican, McCain would have been honor-bound to let them die (and help bury them).</i><br /><br /><br />We are talking about adoption, remember? I would suggest you investigate who the primary sponsor of The Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997 was. I would also ask you to relate tome what Obama’s adoption policy is according to his pre-election Blueprint for Change. <br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><i>Not a fair comparison. I'm arguing for making sure a child has a quality life, and you're talking about personal preferences -- it's the old "boutique eugenics" argument, and it's BS.</i><br /><br /><br />I believe it IS a fair comparison. You admit you have a problem with screening and aborting for gender. I have a problem with aborting for health issues when they are non-life threatening. It seems it’s fairly arbitrary.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><i>I don't like gender-screening…</i><br /><br /><br />Why? I’m curious as to the ‘logic’ behind that position.Mike at The Big Stickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11510309563965977831noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6851578517872251953.post-12953197897230565132009-06-28T06:26:16.665-07:002009-06-28T06:26:16.665-07:00[M] I think there's a big difference between a...<i>[M] I think there's a big difference between adopting a 16 year-old special-needs kid and a baby.</i><br /><br />1. This 16-y.o. was once a baby, believe it or not.<br /><br />2. A fetus with congenital deformities and who is not aborted is very likely to become a special-needs baby, a special-needs 16 y.o., and may even survive to become a special-needs adult -- from whom your Republican buddies would then take away funding for government services.<br /><br /><i>[M] Yes, there are lots and lots of people clamoring for adoptions in the U.S.</i><br /><br />Why weren't any of these people mentioned to us earlier on, when Josh was young, cute, and manageable?<br /><br /><i>[M] But adoption is not a priority for liberals or, unfortunately, this President.</i><br /><br />Don't even try that one. Most of the time we have been spending trying to get these services was during Bush's tenure. Obama's stimulus package has rescued some of the services which would otherwise have been cut due to the economic situation; as a Republican, McCain would have been honor-bound to let them die (and help bury them).<br /><br /><i>[M]As for 'denying them a healthy child' what about denying them a child of the gender they want? What about denying them a child who has blue eyes?</i><br /><br />Not a fair comparison. I'm arguing for making sure a child has a quality life, and you're talking about personal preferences -- it's the old "<a href="http://www.issuepedia.org/Abortion_for_boutique_eugenics" rel="nofollow">boutique eugenics</a>" argument, and it's BS.<br /><br /><i>[M] What about denying them a child with the correct genes to supply bone marrow to another child who has leukemia?</i><br /><br />This question begs further questions:<br /><br />(1) Are there no other reliable ways to get the necessary bone-marrow match? A test-tube fertilization using genetically pre-screened sperm and ovum (so that the child was guaranteed to have the necessary match), perhaps?<br /><br />(2) Is it ethical to spawn a child specifically for the purpose of being a medical donor, even <i>without</i> needing any abortions?<br /><br />I'm inclined to think that this would not be a good thing to do, but it would depend heavily on the situation (including information about what's medically possible).<br /><br />You seem to be assuming that the answer is so clearly "NO!" that preventing it requires banning <i>all</i> abortions. This makes no sense. Would it be any better to have seven kids hoping to get the right match, and perhaps failing anyway? I can't see that as being an improvement.<br /><br /><i>[M] If we have reached the point where we discard undesirable children based on 'health' then what is the next LOGICAL step? They are already allowing abortions based on gender in some countries.</i><br /><br />I don't like gender-screening -- but in an overpopulated world, I don't see anything wrong with increasing the amount of effort invested per child.<br /><br /><i>[M] As science progresses who knows what pre-birth traits we may be able to screen for a remove unwanted fetuses with similar ease? That is the road your argument goes down.</i><br /><br />As science progresses, we'll be better able to pre-determine the genes we want in a child without even having to mix sperm and ova to see how they come out. You may argue that this is not a good thing -- so what will your argument against abortion be then?<br /><br />Or will you just decide that science is bad for giving us too much control over ourselves and our world?<br /><br /><i>[M] And I think I mentioned this early in our discussions...but I'd like you to show me someone of a clear mental state that wishes they had never been born.</i><br /><br />I can do that, but only if you agree that suicidal thoughts do not automatically disqualify someone from having a "clear mental state". You should probably define "clear mental state", for that matter, so you can't go changing the criteria after I produce an example.Woozlehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17948248776908775080noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6851578517872251953.post-19428915141837428682009-06-27T23:13:16.823-07:002009-06-27T23:13:16.823-07:00I think there's a big difference between adopt...I think there's a big difference between adopting a 16 year-old special-needs kid and a baby. Yes, there are lots and lots of people clamoring for adoptions in the U.S.But adoption is not a priority for liberals or, unfortunately, this President. <br /><br />As for 'denying them a healthy child' what about denying them a child of the gender they want? What about denying them a child with the correct genes to supply bone marrow to another child who has leukemia? What about denying them a child who has blue eyes? If we have reached the point where we discard undesirable children based on 'health' then what is the next LOGICAL step? They are already allowing abortions based on gender in some countries. As science progresses who knows what pre-birth traits we may be able to screen for a remove unwanted fetuses with similar ease? That is the road your argument goes down.<br /><br />And I think I mentioned this early in our discussions...but I'd like you to show me someone of a clear mental state that wishes they had never been born. It's quite easy to make the judgement of being fit for survival as someone safe from abortion.Mike at The Big Stickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11510309563965977831noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6851578517872251953.post-35053677691378007792009-06-27T06:50:54.361-07:002009-06-27T06:50:54.361-07:00[W] If #1 had been untrue, you would insist that s...<i>[W] If #1 had been untrue, you would insist that she be born anyway, into a home where she might not be properly cared for, rather than killing the fetus before it has the ability to feel pain or loss (at which point it certainly is not a person by any reasonable criteria).<br /><br />[M] Knowing two couples who have spent thousands of dollars and waited nearly two years for children to adopt (one successful, one still waiting) I dismiss #1 completely.</i><br /><br />Where are all these couples desperate to adopt kids? Will they take <a href="http://wiki.hypertwins.org/Josh" rel="nofollow">my hypertwin's 16-y.o. autistic son</a> (who is totally nonverbal/noncommunicative but physically perfectly healthy and with an active and curious mind)?<br /><br />We've been trying to get him into a better residence for at least 2 years now, and we've been trying to get proper services (developmental therapy) for him since 2003 (when he was 10). If adoption were so widely available, you'd think that someone would have mentioned this at some point.<br /><br /><i>[M] #2 - I'm willing to make health of the fetus exceptions...but only for terminal diseases.</i><br /><br />Why only for terminal diseases? How about just horribly painful diseases, or diseases which leave the kid with little to no chance for a meaningful life?<br /><br /><i>[M] I know someone who recently aborted a 6 month pregnancy because the baby had Down Syndrome. That turns my stomach.</i><br /><br />The idea that you would deny them a happy, healthy child (and require a developmentally-disabled child to be born) rather than suffer a little stomach queasiness turns <i>my</i> stomach.<br /><br />I don't think a battle of the stomachs is going to resolve anything much, but you're setting the terms of the argument here and trying to show me a better way of resolving disagreements than through reason and logic, so I'll keep following along for now.Woozlehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17948248776908775080noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6851578517872251953.post-63094663666914554572009-06-25T19:21:44.466-07:002009-06-25T19:21:44.466-07:00Knowing two couples who have spent thousands of do...Knowing two couples who have spent thousands of dollars and waited nearly two years for children to adopt (one successful, one still waiting) I dismiss #1 completely.<br /><br />#2 - I'm willing to make health of the fetus exceptions...but only for terminal diseases. I know someone who recently aborted a 6 month pregnancy because the baby had Down Syndrome. That turns my stomach.Mike at The Big Stickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11510309563965977831noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6851578517872251953.post-78441194449805278752009-06-25T18:15:58.707-07:002009-06-25T18:15:58.707-07:00Well, no, it wouldn't have been okay to abort ...Well, no, it wouldn't have been okay to abort her, because there was no compelling reason to do so. She was (1) a wanted child (2) with no apparent health issues.<br /><br />Now...<br /><br />If #1 had been untrue, you would insist that she be born anyway, into a home where she might not be properly cared for, rather than killing the fetus <i>before it has the ability to feel pain or loss</i> (at which point it certainly is not a person by <i>any</i> reasonable criteria).<br /><br />If #2 had been true -- let's say some truly horrible developmental issues only became apparent during the third trimester -- you would insist that she be born with possibly crippling physical or mental deformities and be unable to enjoy life to its fullest. You would also condemn the doctor who performed this painful but essential euthanasia as a "killer".<br /><br />Why in the world would you want to convince me not to abort under those circumstances?Woozlehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17948248776908775080noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6851578517872251953.post-8475129682478549042009-06-25T12:45:57.413-07:002009-06-25T12:45:57.413-07:00...so: if this experience has failed to convince m...<i>...so: if this experience has failed to convince me that abortion is always wrong, does this mean that you now believe nothing else is going to work and that you might as well give up trying?</i><br /><br />Yeah - pretty much. If someone has that experience and still believes it would have been okay to abort the child, nothing I can say is going to make a dent. <br /><br />So you don't even allow for personhood to begin at birth? It apparently only occurs when the child develops a personality? Yeesh...then I was correct in saying trying to convince you of the incorrectness of abortion isd a pointless exercise.Mike at The Big Stickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11510309563965977831noreply@blogger.com