Entries Tagged 'Politics' ↓

Clarification On My Pro-Choice Stance

If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my RSS feed. Thanks for visiting!

Yesterday I posted about changing from Pro-life to Pro-choice.  I don’t think I articulated my thoughts as effectively as I could have so I am going to attempt to clarify what I meant.

When we hear Pro-choice we immediately think Pro-abortion.  When we hear Pro-life, we think of anti-abortion.

What I was trying to say yesterday is that those who support abortion are Pro-choice only for abortion and are not Pro-choice in other areas.

Pro-life is only Pro-life for abortion.

Here are the definitions I used yesterday and will again use today.

Pro-choice – People have the right to make decisions for themselves as long as those decisions do not take away from the rights of others.

Pro-life – People have the right to life and since they are not making decisions that will prolong their life, the government will make the decisions for them.

I am not referring to abortion with these terms, but as I defined Pro-choice above abortion would violate that belief since abortion violates the right to life of the baby.

Those who say they are Pro-choice are not.  They try to take away future choices and excuse past choices.

If you think about it, every vice can be excused with genetics or a disease.

What, you are addicted to cocaine?  It’s not your fault, your great grandfather must have been a coke addict.

You’re a drunk?  You have alcoholism, it’s a disease.

There is a lot of controversy about this next one… You’re gay?  It’s genetic, it’s not your fault.  Actions are not genetic.  Even if there were a gay gene, which there is not, homosexuality is an action not color, race, or gender.

If scientists decided to find a murder gene, would that mean murderers were no longer responsible for their actions?  Of course not.

I remember first reading about how scientist found the gay gene.  I read the report and noticed that the gay gene has been found in heterosexuals as well as homosexuals, and that not all homosexuals have the gene.  Doesn’t sound conclusive to me.

Read this study on the gay gene if you are interested in learning more.

Bad choices are excused as some sort of disease or genetics.  The same is true with unruly kids.

If you are a bad parent and your child is out of control, then your child must have ADHD or something like that.  I am not saying that all diagnosis are lies designed to push drugs on kids. There certainly are real problems out there, but I do believe that many of them can be resolved by better parenting.

Ever heard the one about being big boned and not fat?  Let’s face it you eat too much and move too little.  I am overweight and according to the Wii fit, obese.

I know that it is my fault.  I work in front of a computer everyday and eat foods that aren’t always healthy.  I get a little exercise playing basketball on Tuesdays and Football on Saturdays, but I am still about 40 pounds heavier than I would like to be.

Many health related illnesses disappear with proper exercise and nutrition, but instead we are prescribed drugs.  We want a panacea that requires no work, but all the benefits of work.

Instead of making excuses for your life, make expectations for your life.  If you want something changed, change it.  If you want a better life, seek a better life.

Think about who makes up the government.  They are mostly career politicians. This means they have spent their entire lives trying to get elected.  When someone wants to win favor over the masses, what do they usually say?  Anything that will appeal to the masses, anything.

What do they actually do?  Whatever it takes to stay in office.  How many politicians on both sides have been disgraced by affairs, lying, breaking laws, etc? And we want them making decisions for us that effect our lives?

I am certainly not anti-government.  The government is there to protect our rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.  The problem comes in when they start trying to define which rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness we actually can have to ourselves and which rights they need to make decisions about.

To summarize, when I say I am Pro-choice I mean I support the option to choose my way of life. As long as I am not infringing on the rights of others, why can’t I have that right.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Why I Switched to Pro-Choice

With all of the talk of health insurance care reform lately it has really got me thinking about where I stand.  I was thinking specifically of whether I am Pro-choice or Pro-life.

Before it has never been a question.  I was Pro-life, but recently I have changed my view.  I think life is very important.  Life is a God given right, but so is choice.

We are here with the ability to make choices for ourselves and because of this, I am Pro-choice.

When I say that I am Pro-choice, I am not referring to the choice to murder babies.  I am referring to the choices that affect me.  I am not saying at all that I should have the choice to enter a building and shoot everyone in sight without consequence.  I don’t believe in taking away other people’s choices.

There was another plan in heaven where the choices would be made for us and we would have no say in the matter.  We are taught that we are here because we chose the plan where we have a choice.

Lately I have come to the conclusion that there were some that said they did support the plan of choice, but secretly supported the plan of force.

When we look at political parties in general Republicans want small government and as few laws as possible.  They expect most people to be honest and have integrity.

I am not referring to politicians here, just the everyday Americans of each of the major political parties.

Republicans live in less densely populated areas where you know your neighbor. They don’t like other people telling them what they can and cannot do with their own lives.

Democrats look to the government for answers to problems. They typically live in densely populated areas and/or work for the government. They believe that what is best for them is best for everyone.

They believe that most people are dishonest and will rob an old lady if they didn’t think they would get caught.

I want the choice of wearing my seat belt.  I have worn it since I was a kid long before it was a law, but it used to be my choice.  I think the market will dictate what people want.  I don’t think airbags and all the safety features needed a law to be inserted.  People will drive safer cars as long as they have the other features they want.

I also want to choose what food I eat.  If I want to eat a burger full of sodium and dripping in fat, then that is what I want.  That doesn’t sound appetizing to me so I will choose not to eat something like that, but I want the choice.

If I want health insurance I want the choice to pay for it, I don’t want to be force to pay for it.  If I can’t afford to pay, I have a choice to increase my skills to get a better job. Minimum wage is for high school kids, not adults supporting a family.

If I want a gun to legally protect myself and my family from the guy with a stolen gun, I want that choice. If all I could legally have is a butter knife, who would win that battle?

Pro-lifers want to force me to have a healthy life rather then letting me choose a healthy life.

They want me to raise my kids by a standardized plan rather then letting me choose what is best for each of my children.

They think by making it illegal to own anything that could take another life then crime rates will drop.  I’m not going to say anything about that.

Pro-choice and pro-life aren’t specific to any political party.  There are both types in both major political parties.

It really does make sense to me as to why some people are Pro-lifers.  In densely populated areas there is a lot of crime.  People feel helpless and want help from somewhere.

It reminds me of when my daughter was in pre-school.  If a kid on the playground would push her down she would run to the teacher and tattle.  The teacher would tell her to go work it out. She wouldn’t say anything to the kid that pushed my baby down.

At first that really irritated me. I don’t want some bully kid pushing my daughter down and getting away with it, but then I really thought about it.  If my daughter doesn’t learn how to deal with adversity, she will not be able to function properly in society.

Do you see the correlation here?  If you don’t deal with your problems and figure out a way to work it out or accept it, you will not be able to function in society.

Luckily I still have the choice to have my own beliefs.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Is The Decision on Citizens United v. FEC The End Of Government As We Know It?

The current United States Supreme Court, the h...

Image via Wikipedia

The supreme court ruled that corporate spending on political ads is a form of freedom of speech and protected under the first amendment.  This over turns a 20 year old decision that prohibited corporations from running political ads. In Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce the Supreme Court declared, “Corporate wealth can unfairly influence elections when it is deployed in the form of independent expenditures.”

This decision on Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission found that the declaration of the previous violated the First Amendment rights of a corporation:

Although the First Amendment provides that “Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech,” §441b’s prohibition on corporate independent expenditures is an outright ban on speech, backed by criminal sanctions. It is a ban notwithstanding the fact that a PAC created by a corporation can still speak, for a PAC is aseparate association from the corporation. Because speech is an essential mechanism of democracy—it is the means to hold officials accountable to the people—political speech must prevail against laws that would suppress it by design or inadvertence. Laws burdening such speech are subject to strict scrutiny, which requires the Government to prove that the restriction “furthers a compelling interest and is narrowly tailored to achieve that interest.” WRTL, 551 U. S., at 464. This language provides a sufficient framework for protecting the interests in this case. Premised on mistrust of governmental power, the First Amendment stands against attempts to disfavor certain subjects or viewpoints or to distinguish among different speakers, which may be a means to control content. The Government may also commit a constitutional wrong when by law it identifies certain preferred speakers. There is no basis for the proposition that, in the political speech context, the Government may impose restrictions on certain disfavored speakers. Both history and logic lead to this conclusion. Pp. 20–25.

The entire 183 page opinion can be found here.

Is this new?  Before now corporations would setup a Political Action Committee (PAC) and receive donations.  The PAC would then do the corporations bidding.  Now the corporations no longer need to form a PAC and can directly campaign for the candidate they want.

Here are my thoughts on the matter and I must warn you that some of them are tongue in cheek.

First off the media, except for Fox, leans to the left. They air stories in favor of liberals and against conservatives heavily during elections.  This last election was a prime example of this.   By the media favoring one candidate over another they have been campaigning for the candidate or party of their choice with no consequence, because of freedom of speech.

Now other corporations that are not running TV channels and reporting “news” can campaign for their political candidate whether it is the same as the media’s  or not.

The other common theme I have been reading about is how now our politicians are going to be elected by corporations and not American citizens.  I don’t see how this can be as long as we still vote as individual people.

Remember Ross Perot?  He was a billionaire and couldn’t buy the election.  Many would argue that he would have one had he not quit and then came back.

I think the American people are smarter than they give themselves credit for.  Sometimes a candidate is elected under false pretenses and the public realizes that after they are in office.  When they are up for reelection they don’t make it.

Another interesting thing I read was about the legal status of a corporation.  Sometimes they are protected under the 14th amendment and sometimes not. Rather than go through every thing I will direct you here to read for yourself.

The 14th Amendment states: “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;”

If a US corporation is a citizen of the United States and protected under the constitution, how long will it be before the other amendments and laws apply to them as well?

Citizens have the right to vote, why not corporations?

Will corporate mergers soon have all the rights and privileges of a married couple?  That would depend on gay marriage.

Would a hostel take over or massive layoffs be considered assault?

I don’t seriously believe any of that will happen or should happen, but those arguments could be used.

After reading articles from both sides of the aisle, I don’t see that this ruling is as drastic as some make it out to be.  I even saw on MSNBC where Keith Olbermann went as far as to say that is is worse than the Dred Scott case where Roger Brooke Taney, referring to slaves, stated:

They had for more than a century before been regarded as beings of an inferior order, and altogether unfit to associate with the white race, either in social or political relations, and so far unfit that they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect.

Olbermann then says that the statement made “in fact led to the civil war”. Unfortunately the civil war was over a rail road and not slavery, but is saying that corporations can spend money on elections directly rather than giving the money to PACs to do it for them worse than saying slaves are inferior and not fit to associate with whites?

Now Olbermann is saying there is no way to stop large corporations from deciding our elections. None.  It seems he forgot that, like I mentioned earlier, corporations cannot vote. American humans vote and we decide the elections. Some may argue that the electoral college decides, but there is an argument for everything.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

What Does Scott Brown’s Election Mean?

Donkey and ElephantI have been reading several blogs and comments about the recent Massachusetts senator race between Democrat Martha Coakley and Republican Scott Brown.  I am not going to choose sides since I am not in that state, but instead point out some themes I have noticed.

First off, the democrats lost “Ted Kennedy’s Seat” that has been controlled by him for 46 years.  Now a Republican won the seat and both sides have their reasons as to why.  This is a major upset for Democrats and a huge victory for Republicans.  The Democrats lost their 60 vote filibuster-proof control.

I personally think there are more important matters to tend to before health care, like unemployment and our countries failing economy.  Providing government sponsored health care can’t help unemployment or boost our economy.  Washington DC could use an overhaul too. :)

These are comments, snippets, and/or summaries  from blogs that I have read. Citing all of them will take too much time so you’ll have to trust me on this.

Democrats: The loss is because people are worried about the economy. It does not say anything about health care reform.

Women voted for Scott Brown only because he is handsome and didn’t know/don’t care about his politics.

Voters are, for the most part, ignorant and believe any sound bite they hear.

The teabaggers are passionate about voting and came out in numbers.

The Dems need to start enacting the legislation THEY want instead of negotiating it down to what the Republicans want. Maybe now they’ll start acting like Democrats. Either way, they’ll never get a Republican vote, so why appease them?

Republicans have decided to vote “No” to everything the Democrats want so they can blame the failures on the Democrats.

As they say, “Never underestimate the power of large groups of stupid people.”

Republicans: The people have spoken, they do not like health care reform.

This is another step in the trend of voting out Democrats

The people want their country back

The Democrats had a majority and locked the Republicans out, now there has to be some bipartisanism.

“Why did Coakley lose, and Brown win? Simple: You really can’t fool all the people all the time.

The Democrats have fooled a lot of people with their quasi-religious, holy-roller movement of redistributing money, saving everybody by governmental entitlements, and stealing money from the rich to give to “its rightful owners.”

But no matter how many times the media prattled about health-care “reform,” the people ultimately knew a takeover when they saw one. They rebelled against that semi-fascist expropriation of a basic, essential aspect of all our lives.  It was a bridge-to-nowhere too far.”

There is much much more, but I was starting to get irritated with the same stuff in different words. What I find interesting is if the names and parties were removed all the comments could and/or have come from both parties at one point or another.

What were Republicans saying after Obama won?  They credited the victory to the media.  Sound familiar?

From what I was reading, many of the Democrats that left comments seem to support the stereotype that Republicans are “dumb as dirt”, willing to protect their beliefs with “guns blazing”, are all secretly members of the KKK, believe anything Fox news says, gay bashers, and similar things along those lines.

The Republican comments about Democrats support the stereotype that Democrats are Stalin wanna-bes, Pro-gay, Pro-murdering babies, Anti-religion, Anti-family, elitists, brain washers, liers, cheaters, and much more.

My opinion on the matter is that our country will never recover and become the great nation it can be as long as we have Democrats and Republicans.

Parties used to be a way for people to come together and vote according to which group closely follows the person’s individual beliefs.  Now it has turned into people saying anything they can to be elected and not doing what they say they will do.

How many politicians have switched parties so they can be elected again?  Is there really any integrity in that?  If someone’s core belief system can change just like that do they really belong in a position representing a section of our country?

I think the idea of political parties is fine, but the idea and the reality of them are completely different.  What our country needs are people that state their beliefs, honor their beliefs, and stick to their beliefs.  I am not suggesting they should be close minded, but any compromise should not be opposed to their core beliefs.  With people like this Americans will know what the person stands for and can then decide if they agree or not.

You might say we already have this system in place.  Do we really?  How many politicians can articulate their own personal beliefs?  Don’t they all regurgitate the party philosophy?

The goal of the politician is to get reelected. It is no longer their goal to improve our country and protect our rights.

With both parties always slinging mud at each other, it seems their best message is “Choose me, I’m the lesser of two evils.”

Can’t we choose the good person?

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]