Wayne Besen - Author, Activist, Columnist, Public Speaker

Monday, September 08, 2008

(Weekly Column)

The first thing that struck me about the Republican National Convention in St. Paul was the stunning lack of diversity. Only the GOP is capable of making Minnesota whiter. Into this cocoon of Caucasians stepped the ultra-pale John McCain and his moose-whacking VP, Sarah Palin, who together could have billed the ticket as "Powder and Gun Powder."

This convention proved that the GOP does not run on actual persons or positions, but manufactured personas and plot lines. The phony dog and pony show began with the enormously wealthy Mitt Romney, a former governor of Massachusetts, who oddly condemned the snooty northeastern elite. This pampered pretty boy was born with a silver spoon in his mouth, yet he haplessly works to fool blue-collar conservatives into believing that that the shiny utensil is aluminum. Has any politician ever been more "Full of Mitt?"

The most fantastical fiction of the week was the Cinderella story of "Sarah Palin." The only White House anyone ever thought she would live in was an igloo, yet there she was on America's largest political stage. The joyous thrill from her two main constituencies -- the religious right and the tabloids -- was palpable.

Palin portrayed herself as a reformer, even though she was for the infamous, "Bridge to Nowhere" before she was against it. She touted her experience as head of Alaska's National Guard, until it was shown that she had not made one executive decision in this capacity. Then, she was lauded for her anti-corruption efforts in Alaska, even as she was under serious investigation for abusing her power. Most disturbing, Palin described herself as an advocate for special needs children, as she cut the state's Special Olympics budget in half.

It is scary to think that McCain believes Palin has enough foreign policy know-how to run this nation during a time of war. Indeed, his vice presidential pick did not get a passport until 2007. There are literally college-age backpackers traipsing around hostels in Europe with more overseas experience.

As for McCain, convention speakers endlessly recounted his time as a POW. It truly was inspiring the first twenty-seven times I heard it. I suppose reliving the past is what a candidate, no matter how heroic, must do who has no plan for the future. McCain's speech was as empty as the vault used to hold the national surplus after eight years of Republican rule.

It was also fascinating to watch McCain portray himself as an agent of change. His message essentially was to re-elect Republicans to reform America from the mess that the same Republicans got us into. This was highlighted by the GOP's Herculean efforts to render George W. Bush invisible. If they had shoved Bush any deeper into the closet, he would have bumped into Sen. Larry Craig (R-ID).

Cheering on the sidelines was baroness Cindy McCain, wearing an outfit that Vanity Fair priced at $300,000. Republicans went bonkers when John Edwards got a $400 haircut -- yet seemed ambivalent about her majesty's opulent costume. I suppose the GOP is the party of the working class, if you count the minions toiling on Cindy's dress, jewelry, make-up and hair, as well as tending to McCain's private jet plane.

The convention's most pleasant surprise was its lack of overt gay bashing. Perhaps, attacking gays is not polling as well as it did only a few years ago. Or, maybe "Family Values" was an inappropriate theme considering Palin's "Family Vaudeville."

But, gay Log Cabin Republicans had little time to rejoice before Palin's church said that being gay was a choice. The Wasilla Bible Church was caught promoting Focus on the Family's Love Won Out conference, with a Bible insert that said, "You'll be encouraged by the power of God's love and His desire to transform the lives of those impacted by homosexuality."

It is imperative that Palin answers whether she agrees with the views of her church. If she does, Log Cabin should immediately withdraw their endorsement of McCain. Unfortunately, Palin will not talk to reporters until the GOP believes she is ready to go without her training wheels. The smokescreen her campaign is using to justify her silence is that she should not have to discuss her religious beliefs. Interesting, how a woman who recently asked Alaskans to pray for a natural gas pipeline now believes religion is off limits.

If Palin says that she endorses Love Won Out, it could cost McCain the election. Consider this: In 2000, national exit polls put the gay vote at 4 percent, with 25 percent saying that they voted for Bush. This translated into one million gay votes for W., which may have cost Gore Florida and New Hampshire.

While homosexuals can't be turned into ex-gays, Palin's support of such ministries could create enough ex-Republican gays to swing the election in favor of Obama.

78 Comments:

Well look who is expressing a different point of view. . .a Republican who has voiced so many viewpoints, David Benkof. http://www.bhpioneer.com/articles/2008/09/08/opinion/doc48c558fddae14125214543.txt

Discrimination. I believe marriage is between a man and a woman, so I supported the man-woman marriage Proposition 8 in California - until I discovered the Proposition 8 campaign tolerates discrimination against Jews. ProtectMarriage.com's legal counsel, the Alliance Defense Fund, has in effect a "No Jews Need Apply" policy for legal and even secretarial positions. They say they're not a law firm, they're a "ministry" and thus have a right to discriminate against Jews and other non-Christians. But even if that's true, Proposition 8 had hundreds of law firms to choose from. The fact they chose one that refuses to hire a Jew like me is very disturbing. Interestingly, Jesus himself was a Jew, so when a group has a policy that would lead them to refuse to hire their own Messiah, you know something's seriously wrong.
posted by Anonymous, at 9/08/2008 6:55 PM

"It is scary to think that McCain believes Palin has enough foreign policy know-how to run this nation during a time of war."

This is an incredible argument coming from those whose preferred presidential candidate has even less experience in public office than Sarah Palin, and none in foreign policy. Moreover, if Sen. Barack Obama is elected, he will not be a heartbeat away from the presidency, his would be the heartbeat of the president - and he would be the one making foreign policy.

Out of the four presidential and vice-presidential candidates this year, only Mrs. Palin has had to make executive decisions and live with the consequences. As for Mr. Obama, his various pronouncements on foreign policy have been as immature as they have been presumptuous. He talked publicly about taking military action against Pakistan, one of our few Islamic allies and a nation with nuclear weapons.

Mr. Obama's first response to the Russian invasion of Georgia was to urge "all sides" to negotiate a cease-fire and take their issues to the United Nations. That is standard liberal talk, which even Mr. Obama had second thoughts about, after Sen. John McCain gave a more grown-up response.
posted by Anonymous, at 9/08/2008 7:41 PM

Dumbo Ethan, that's what Joe Biden is for, plus Obama is BRILLIANT, a fast learner and was at the top of his class at Harvard Law School. Like Bill Maher said last week on his show, 'admit it, you wont vote for Obama because he's smarter than you are'. And he's definately smarter than that extremist whacko white trash Palin.
posted by Anonymous, at 9/08/2008 8:11 PM

Ethan, Palin's experience is limited to being Mayor of a town of 9000 people (whom she hired an administrator to run) and 2 years as Governor of Alaska. To say that this qualifies her to be Vice-President lies somewhere between ludicrous and deranged. McCain's response to Georgia was "grown up"? If that was an adult reaction, I will stick to the children!
posted by MirrorMan, at 9/08/2008 8:17 PM

Let's call a spade, a spade (ugh!).
The answer to the admonition by Anonymous:

'admit it, you wont vote for Obama because he's smarter than you are'.. . Not really. . . it's because he is black!
Richard Schillen
posted by Anonymous, at 9/08/2008 8:30 PM

Well that's the big Democratic talking point - that Joe Biden has years of foreign policy experience as a member, and now chairman, of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. I guess that all depends on what the definition of "experience" is.

The fact is Biden's years of service on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee is even further removed from foreign policy experience. He has had a front-row seat as an observer of foreign policy. But Mr. Biden has never had any real experience of making foreign policy and taking the consequences of the results.

The difference between being a spectator and being a participant, with responsibility for the consequences of what you say and do, is fundamental. You can read books about crime or attend lectures by criminologists, but you have no real experience or expertise about crime unless you have been a criminal or a policeman. The fact that Biden has for years listened to all sorts of people testify on all sorts of foreign policy issues tells us nothing about how well he understood the issues.
posted by Anonymous, at 9/08/2008 9:17 PM

Ethan:

You can spin it all you want - Palin is unqualified. There are more people who live on my block in Brooklyn than live in her little town. There are more people that live in my neighborhood, than the entire state of Alaska. Her so-called executive experience amounts to a weak talking point.

The bottom line is that unlike Biden, she did not get her passport until 2007.

Having a dumb, untraveled president was acceptable before Bush. Now we ought to know better.

Are you Republicans purposely trying to ruin the country or do you just create a string of disasters by accident?
posted by Wayne Besen, at 9/08/2008 9:27 PM

Mr. Besen:

You write: "There are more people who live on my block in Brooklyn than live in her little town. There are more people that live in my neighborhood, than the entire state of Alaska. Her so-called executive experience amounts to a weak talking point."

So one not only has to be an executive to have "executive experience," one must also have been an executive in a town of a certain population? What's the population cut-off? Or the budget cut-off? And, by the way, what executive experiences do Senator Obama and Senator Biden have?

You write: "The bottom line is that unlike Biden, she did not get her passport until 2007."

So having your passport for a long time, and traveling to a lot of country's, qualifies as "foreign-policy experience"? I've traveled in the military to six countries, and have had a passport for ten years and have traveled to eleven country's with it. Does that quality as executive-level foreign-policy experience?

"Having a dumb..."

By what standard is Governor Palin "dumb"? You may disagree with her on policy issues and political philosophy, but that doesn't mean she's "dumb." I'm certain we disagree on much sir, but that doesn't mean you're "dumb."
posted by Anonymous, at 9/08/2008 10:00 PM

Ethan:

To be leader of the free world and have your hand on the button, you must have a degree of experience that makes you worthy. You must be smarter than the average person and have experience.

Mrs. Palin is not distinguished from the average person in any way. Being mayor of a small state and a tiny little ville is not a disqualification. However, if this is the best she has to offer, than she is not ready to be the President of the United States.

Furthermore, in the age of the jet plane, if you have not gotten your passport until 2007 - in my book you have no business considering yourself for VP. This shows a Bush-like lack of curiosity. She is unfit to be commander in chief. period. This point is barely debatable. And almost anyone who disagrees is a partisan hack who puts party above country.

How dare anyone suggest that Palin should be in the position she is in. Kay Bailey Hutchinson was available - but McCain could not pick her because she was pro-choice. So, he dug from the bottom of the barrel and engaged in tokenism.

Palin is a joke. The silver lining is that if this unprepared neophyte ends up ruining this nation - it will be the end of the Republican Party - which will be a good day for America.
posted by Wayne Besen, at 9/09/2008 1:27 AM

Obama still might win, though. To me it seems like a 50/50 chance about now. I liked hearing Obama's ideas on the first two Bill O'Reilly interviews. Of course, who knows if he can get such things done, but...still.
posted by Joey, at 9/09/2008 4:20 AM

Wayne Besen lives in Brooklyn?! Never new that. I bet he's not a New York native, though. Anyway, Wayne, I guess it's because you didn't move to silly Manhattan that makes you have basically sensible opinions unlike those ghetto-gay activists.
posted by Joey, at 9/09/2008 4:25 AM

I'm from Miami Beach originally! :)
posted by Wayne Besen, at 9/09/2008 7:49 AM

Ethan, name one executive decision Palin ever made, name it! Last time I checked, it was a big fat ZERO!

So Maverick McCain believes the party is inclusive. So what did any of them say about gay citizens' equality, their rights? A big fat ZERO!

So Palin represents change? What change, Ethan? McCain is all for overturning Roe v. Wade as is Palin who is actually anti-women because she opposes a woman's right to choose when it comes to abortion. I would respect her if she acknowledged the law of the land while not subscribing to it herself, but she doesn't. Not all 17 year olds are emotionally ready to give birth and many shouldn't, but don't take away their right to make that decision.

If Palin is currently prevented from answering policy questions, then that alone should tell you that McCain's choice of VP was a huge blunder. In fact, she may well prove to be a millstone around McCain's neck, and I only hope that comes to fruition. The debate with Biden will prove that.

Another thing, the reason you GOPers don't like Obama speaks to deeply embedded racism and much of that is found in the southern states that are overwhelmingly republican. Looking at the convention last week, all I could see was a sea of white. Hardly a non-white person in view and hardly a party of inclusiveness. So exactly what change McCain is talking about, baffles me. He's been part of the corruption for the past 8 years, voting with Bush more than 90% of the time, hardly a maverick. If he is elected, so be it. The country will get what it deserves, another four years of failed Bush policies and a continuance of the soaring national debt, the loss of American jobs to China and elsewhere, more people losing health coverage and a war that may continue for many more years with no end in sight and a possible military confrontation with Iran. If you want that, then McCain is your man.
posted by Anonymous, at 9/09/2008 7:54 AM

Robert, McCain has been a maverick 10% of the time.
Richard Schillen
posted by Anonymous, at 9/09/2008 8:05 AM

Senator McCain and Governor Palin are clearly not as out of touch with Americans as many of you appear to think. A Gallup Poll released today shows that McCain/Palin are now winning a majority of independent voters. They now prefer McCain/Palin over Obama/Biden, 52% to 37%. The more scorn and mockery and sexism poured on Sarah Palin, the more independents move towards John McCain. If McCain can maintain a strong advantage among these independents, the election is over.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/110137/McCain-Now-Winning-Majority-Independents.aspx

Mr. Besen, what you and others here fail to explain is how Senator Obama's resume makes him more qualified for President than Governor Palin's resume makes her qualified for Vice-President. Is that not a relevant question in civil political discourse?

The bottom line is if Obama is qualified for the President based on his resume, then Palin is qualified for the Vice-President based on her resume. And if Palin's deemed not qualified, then neither is Obama. Any one - whether they support Obama or Palin - who tries to have it both ways ON THIS ISSUE is being hopelessly inconsistant and is probably, to borrow Wayne's term, a "partisan hack."

However, my question after now really digging into some polling data is how long will it take Democrats in general and the Obama campaign in particular to understand that the entire "too inexperienced to hold office" approach will do absolutely nothing to help Obama and hurt Senator McCain?

What also strikes me as odd - and actually shameful to be quite honest - is what is coming from many on this blog and in the mainstream media - that being their elitism. Sarah Palin is being called everything from "redneck" to "white trash." It's ironic that such rhetoric come from those who profess to support the ideology of the party that still claims to be the most open-minded, the most compassionate, the most tolerant, the most welcoming and the most representative of everyday Americans.

Thankfully such behavior appears to be working against the Democrats and hurting Senator Obama.
posted by Anonymous, at 9/09/2008 10:07 AM

McCain's new campaign manager, Steve Schmidt, has publicly stated that this election is not "about the issues" but is about "personality." That truly says it all. Anyone here who claims that Sarah Palin is ready to step into the office of the presidency at a moment's notice (the long-held standard for a Vice Presidential nominee) is outright choosing to be intellectually dishonest.

Ms. Palin was asked about the Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae bailout a couple of days ago. She responded, "This is good because these two agencies have been costing the taxpayers WAY WAY too much." The fact is that Mac/Mae are private corporations that do not receive tax money. Shockingly, American is in the midst of a mortgage crisis, and John McCain picks a VP who doesn't know that Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac are not government agencies. Wake up, America.
posted by Anonymous, at 9/09/2008 12:07 PM

Most of the speculation about McCain's choice had focused on former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty and Sen. Joseph Lieberman, an independent from Connecticut and 2000 Democratic vice presidential nominee. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison of Texas also had been mentioned as a possible long shot if McCain were to seek a woman. . . Please remember that McCain's strategists and folk like Rove and the other GOP CHOSE Palin.

McCain and the GOP knew of the gap and selected Palin to fill that gap. It had nothing to do with her ability to lead or govern. It had more to do with her ties to Big Energy, the Conservative Christians and Her 'Caribou Barbie' persona.

Ethan, Election '08 is going to be a tight race, yes it is. but over the next 8 weeks, there will be more discovery about Palin, more GOP fallout with Ted Stevens, and World events that will continue to shape opinions of the McCain/Palin ticket.
posted by Anonymous, at 9/09/2008 1:44 PM

Stevens, 84, has good political reasons for steering close to Palin, 44, despite her rhetoric suggesting she has taken on the likes of the man known as "Uncle Ted." He faces a tough re-election battle this fall against Anchorage Mayor Mark Begich, and Palin is incredibly popular in Alaska. Any under-cutting of the governor might be bad politics for the longest serving Republican in the history of the Senate. First, Stevens must get past a pending federal trial for charges of accepting more than $250,000 in unreported gifts from an energy services company. Prosecutors today filed documents alleging he also took gifts from other unnamed persons, including a $2,695 massage chair and $1,000 sled dog.
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/09/08/stevens_no_action_for_bridge_t.html
If Stevens is re-elected after a conviction but then resigns from the Senate or is expelled, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin would be required to call a special election.
http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2008/sep/01/senate-might-have-final-say-if-stevens-convicted/

According to Citizens Against Government Waste, a Washington watchdog group, Stevens sponsored a total of 1,452 pork barrel projects worth $3.4 billion between 1995 and 2008, making Alaska the No. 1 state in pork per capita every year since 1999.

Stevens' defeat would be a big notch in the belt of Democrats hoping to expand their party's slim control of the Senate. (The chamber's two independents typically vote with the 49 Democrats against the 49 Republicans).

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-stevens30-2008jul30,0,4890087.story?track=rss

Palin's selection as VP had very little to do with her 'supposed qualifications' and more to do with her Persona and the GOP strategy.
posted by Anonymous, at 9/09/2008 2:07 PM

Interesting comments. It appears to me that Democrats are really – REALLY – desperate to point to an Obama/Biden-like rhetorical gaffe by Governor Palin. Unfortunately, the "gaffe" alleged by Chris and others is really no "gaffe" at all.

Earlier this summer Congress – in a housing bill that both Senator McCain and Senator Obama supported – gave Treasury Secretary Paulson a blank check to invest in Freddie Mac or Fannie Mae. Real, actual taxpayer money will be spent to prop up Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. The Treasury has signed contracts to invest up to $100 billion in each company, AS WELL AS to loan them money, IN ADDITION TO buying their mortgage-backed securities!

So in reality Congress authorized an enormous bailout. And Governor Palin was right on target in her comments. The very existence of that blank check that Congress authorized earlier this summer means that Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae are too expensive to taxpayers. Governor Palin is fully in tune with reality.

But this "controversy" addresses a larger point. Many voters, including a large number of independents who are swinging Senator McCain's way, are sick of the mainstream media (e.g., MSNBC) and popular Democratic bloggers lying in wait to jump on some minuscule slip while discarding the obvious underlying point of what Governor Palin is saying. It's simply not working well for Democrats and Obama.

Furthermore, it takes about sixty seconds to find out the role former Fannie executives played in the Obama campaign. As more people investigate this issue, they'll begin to wonder why such attention is being paid to a non-gaffe, while the role former Fannie executives have played in the Obama campaign is largely, and conveniently, ignored. Then they'll get upset, and more will swing McCain's way.
posted by Anonymous, at 9/09/2008 2:20 PM

The BAILOUT of Mac/Mae will cost taxpayers billions, but in normal operations, they do not receive tax money. This woman simply doesn't know what she's talking about.
posted by Anonymous, at 9/09/2008 3:40 PM

Sorry Chris, but that just isn't so. In your attempt to explain Governor Palin's alleged "gaffe," you seem to be oddly reliant on the past tense (i.e., "Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac weren't receiving any taxpayer money"). Except, of course, now they are - just like everyone knew they would be since early this summer!

Governor Palin's point was, and is, obviously that

(1) Fannie and Freddie have ALWAYS been a huge liability for taxpayers, because...

(2) ... everyone knew that the federal government would bail them out if they failed, and

(3) a McCain-Palin administration would use the government's new authority over Fannie and Freddie to shrink these beasts down to size (or, better yet, eliminate them altogether) and protect American taxpayers in the future.

As somewhat of an aside, the top recipients of Fannie/Freddie donations were:

#1 - Chris Dodd
#2 - John Kerry
#3 - Barack Obama
#4 - Hillary Clinton

http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2008/07/top-senate-recipients-of-fanni.html

For the record, that's two Democratic presidential nominees, two also-ran Democratic presidential candidates including Hillary Clinton, at least the second most significant Democrat in the country.
posted by Anonymous, at 9/09/2008 3:55 PM

I'm writing in Hillary. And it's too bad but Obama is losing his lead because of Palin. Attacking her religion is not wise - attacking her policies, experience, and hold her to the fire on energy issues would do the democrats a world of good.
posted by Anonymous, at 9/09/2008 7:16 PM

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
posted by Anonymous, at 9/09/2008 9:09 PM

Politico Headline: "Obama, Dems sharpen personal attacks on Palin"

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0908/13315.html

Why? Probably because they're worried about headlines such as these: "Gallup Daily: McCain Maintains 5-Point Lead"

http://www.gallup.com/poll/110143/Gallup-Daily-McCain-Maintains-5Point-Lead.aspx

Add to this that Obama's in a full meltdown. Implicitly referring to Governor Palin as a pig? Is this the "new" politics Obama is allegedly ushering in? Interesting, looks a whole lot like the "old" politics...
posted by Anonymous, at 9/09/2008 9:52 PM

I hope Obama or Biden ask McCain and Palin about their views on gay rights during the debate, just to make them uncomfortable and put them on the spot, imagine the embarrassment both would feel having to say they do not think that gay citizens should have equality or serve openly in the military or in Palin's case that gays can be cured? Maybe Patrick Sammon and his fellow palinistas would think twice about endorsing either.
posted by Anonymous, at 9/10/2008 8:06 AM

Richard, now I hear it may be as little as 5%.

Ethan, for the doublestandards that your party is so notorious for, check this out and pay attention to what Karl Rove is saying. Further, if Palin is so qualified and experienced, why is she prevented from fielding questions from reporters? Do tell us? Biden is questioned by the media, so does Biden, why not Palin? Too busy taking a crash course in foreign policy?

http://ccinsider.comedycentral.com/cc_insider/2008/09/jon-stewart-ann.html
posted by Anonymous, at 9/10/2008 12:06 PM

Ethan, one more thing. Just what exactly does Palin intend to do for women to advance equality and to make their lives better? Are you aware that every piece of legislation passed in favor of women has been authored by the Democrats? Not ONE piece of legislation has been passed by your party. So what is this change McCain is talking about?
posted by Anonymous, at 9/10/2008 12:28 PM

Hey Robert. According to the Gallup Dailing Tracking Poll, Senator McCain still leads by 5 points (49% to 44%). McCain has also regained the upper hand on the leadership dimension (52% to 41%), and gained on Senator Obama in terms of Americans' views of which candidate can better handle the economy: 48% Obama, 45% McCain, a much closer gap than before the two conventions.

As for the Jon Stewart video on Karl Rove, it was hilarious! Seriously, I was laughing my ass off!! That's what all inconsistent, hypocritical, partisan hacks deserve. Karl Rove deserves it, as do Democrats James Carville, Paul Begala, and Donna Brazille.

Concerning Governor Palin's alleged lack of interaction with reporters, I guess in today's hyper-media age, waiting 2 or 3 weekends after a party's convention to go on Meet the Press qualifies as a so-called "media bubble." The fact is Palin is doing more local media interviews than mainstream ones at this point as her and Senator McCain hit the stump. I understand that she is scheduled to have an interview with Charles Gibson of ABC soon.

But if you're still not convinced, I believe last Saturday's schedule for Senator McCain and Governor Palin more than hints that the myth of Palin as the Girl in the Plastic Bubble is just that - a myth:

Saturday, September 6, 2008
Colorado and New Mexico
10:00am Media Interview
10:30am Satellite into AARP Convention
11:30am Media Interview
12:30pm MT "The Road to Victory Rally"
Colorado Springs, CO
1:45pm MT Depart Colorado
2:50pm MT Arrive NM
3:30pm MT Media Interviews
7:00pm MT "The Road to Victory Rally"
Albuquerque Convention Center

That's three set-asides for media in one day, comprising at least three hours of face time for McCain and Palin. The media was more interested in Palin than McCain in these blocs of time, and I'm quite certain that national media got their fair share of attention. That doesn't look like a media bubble to me.
posted by Anonymous, at 9/10/2008 12:52 PM

If it's alright I would like to answer that Robert. I'm an infrequent visitor to this blog and this is the first time I've commented. But your post above struck me as needing a response from someone like me - an educated, independent feminist who supports McCain/Palin. I'll aside anything relating to my disgust at how Democrats, the Obama campaign, and the media are treating Sarah. Suffice it to say, it's shocking and disgraceful!

It appears to me that what you and others try to do Robert is construct a story in which a uniquely feminine view is relevant on certain pet issues, such as abortion and sex education. But American women are divided on these issues. On abortion, for instance, a May Gallup poll found that 50% of American women are "pro-choice," while 43% are pro-life - roughly the same percentages as men:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/110002/Will-Abortion-Issue-Help-Hurt-McCain.aspx

Furthermore, as a general matter, I don't look to politicians (be they men or women, Democrat or Republican) to "speak for me." But you seem to demand that a female candidate for executive office speak only for liberal women who only support liberal causes and liberal stances. This is mad (and more than a bit sexist!)! I mean, does anyone ever say to Democratic vice presidential nominee Joe Biden, "Hey Joe! The majority or of American men think they pay too much in taxes. To fail to support tax cuts makes you a betrayer of your gender and the wrong man for the job."

Look Robert, if you oppose Governor Palin, please do so on the merits. A perfectly good argument would be, "I won't vote for Senator McCain because Sarah Palin is wrong about whether polar bears are endangered and she wants to drill for oil."

But please, don't use the fact that the majority, or a plurality, of women may disagree with Governor Palin on some issues as evidence that she's misguided or a betrayer of women, or not a feminist. Majorities - yes, even majorities of women - have been known to be wrong.
posted by Anonymous, at 9/10/2008 1:14 PM

Ethan, you're simply wrong. She said that Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac had become too costly for taxpayers, clearly indicating that she believed that they were taxpayer FUNDED. She was not referring to the bailout.

http://thinkprogress.org/2008/09/08/palin-freddie-mac/
posted by Anonymous, at 9/10/2008 1:42 PM

Actually Chris it seems that Governor Palin knows more about the workings of Freddie and Fannie better than you and many others. Freddie and Fannie are not really private companies, they're both hybrid private/government owned companies. They carry out business much like a private company, but get their lines of credit directly from...the U.S. Treasury (as opposed to a private bank)!

And where does the U.S. Treasury get its money? From our tax dollars. And when things go south, it's the taxpayers who would, and are, pay(ing) the price for it.
posted by Anonymous, at 9/10/2008 2:13 PM

Kathy, do you wear lipstick?

Seriously though, are you antiabortion? Yes or no? If yes, would you seriously allow your own daughter to die if having a child were dangerous to her survival? Do tell. Your girl Palin does! No exceptions for abortion in her view. Wouldn't you rather your daughter survive than the child? Are you comfortable with young women having been raped or the victims of incest being forced to have children they never wanted? Do you believe that Roe v. Wade should be overturned? If you do, then you will see thousands if not millions of women being forced to leave this country to have abortions and probably arrested for murder once they re-enter the country. Is that the kind of America you want to see for women? Well honey, assuming you are a real woman, you're going to get it if Palin and her palinistas like you get their way. Even if you don't agree with abortion, women should have the choice to make such an important decision about their bodies. Neocons are always blasting democrats about too much government in our lives, yet here they are, advocating government telling women what they should do, you call that pro-women policy?

Richard, to respond to your last posting. Yes, this election is about race and its clear the republicans don't want any one of color in the White House, their convention was evidence of little or no people of color in attendance. McCain's insistence on change....hmmmm....not one piece of legislation passed by a republican administration in favor of women in the past 30 years. What change is he talking about? Four more years of Bush?
posted by Anonymous, at 9/10/2008 2:52 PM

No, "Freddie," it is you who are mistaken. Top say Fannie Mae or Freddie Max are taxpayer funded is simply and factually wrong. Yes, Mac and Mae have a CREDIT LINE from the treasury, but it is paid back. A credit line is not analogous to public funding. They do NOT operate by taking taxpayer money, as they are private corporations, as is, ironically enough, the Federal Reserve. Availability to a credit line is not "taking" taxpayer money.

http://hnn.us/articles/1849.html

Even the conservative/libertarian Cato Institute took Palin to task. I quote Gerald P. O'Driscoll, an economist with the Institute: "Heretofore, if the treasury had a balance sheet there would have been a liability but there was never a taxpayer payment before the bailout ... Fannie and Freddie] were not taxpayer funded. They had taxpayer guarantee, which is worth something, especially in the stock market..."
posted by Anonymous, at 9/10/2008 2:58 PM

Kathy, if you're so offended by what Obama said in regard to the lisptick on a pig quip, don't forget, your man McCain used exactly the same line back in October 2007 referring to Hillary Clinton's health care plan. Nobody in the democratic party complained, certainly none of the women, nor did they call McCain on it and neither did the media. What do you say to that babe? You neocons don't like it when we give it back do you? Then you and your party including McCain fake false outrage that womanhood all of a sudden has been offended. Please, you're all so transparent. Its going to fire back on you, just watch! Since when has your party ever cared about women?
posted by Anonymous, at 9/10/2008 3:22 PM

Robert, the Republicans smear people, attack their patriotism, assert "guilt by association" allegations and spark divisive culture wars. But when Democrats say something that is BARELY as offensive as what exists within their dark arsenal, they cry, rant, rave, have a temper tantrum and pretend to be outraged. The "faux outrage" and "faux sexism" charges from McCain/Palin are simply an extension of the sleaze that has often been used by their party to win elections.
posted by Anonymous, at 9/10/2008 3:30 PM

Kathy, for your edification, here's proof of your man McCain's statement on Hillary's health care plan back in October 2007. Scroll about three quarters of the way down and you will see the lipstick on a pig quote by your man.

http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2007/10/mccain_rolls_out_health_plan_a.html
posted by Anonymous, at 9/10/2008 3:32 PM

I normally agree with much of what the Cato Institute puts out, but what you've quoted is not completely accurate. The bottom line Chris is that both Fannie and Freddie have an implied government guarantee and their enormous debt is financed in the context of Fed borrowing and lending decisions. When they get sweet financing deals that truly private sector firms cannot get, that financing is being paid for by the U.S. taxpayer in the form of higher interest service on the national debt. Thus, they indirectly cost the US taxpayers billions of dollars a year in a very quantifiable and trackable way.
posted by Anonymous, at 9/10/2008 3:57 PM

I like Cato also. But Mae/Mac are not tax-payer funded, which would make them public. While we agree they are a private corporation that has a credit line with the government, we seem to disagree on what constitutes taxpayer funding. For example, the big automakers may themselves be bailed out by the Feds in the future (and also receive governmental subsidies in fact), but no one could reasonably call Ford or General Motors "tax-payer funded."
posted by Anonymous, at 9/10/2008 4:08 PM

I personally don't care about Senator Obama's "lipstick on a pig" comment. I do think it was a gaffe on his part, similar to Senator Allen's four years ago.

I think Governor Palin should just ignore the comment and simply begin every appearance by pausing briefly at the podium to touch up her lipstick, and then move on. People who get the joke will love it, and those who don't will have it explained to them by others, ensuring that pretty soon, even those who don't follow the news will hear about it, to Obama's continued detriment.

And, as an aside, it's become abundantly clear that despite the media's praise for his ability as a speaker, Senator Obama doesn't speak well at all. His gift consists of his voice and his ability to read speeches, not dynamic communication skills. That's one reason why his numbers are falling. The more he strays from the teleprompter that more gaffes he makes.

Concerning abortion Robert, your basic assumption is misguided in my view, and 43% of American women agree with me. To be pro-life/anti-abortion is to be pro-women. In fact, Feminists for Life of America was founded by two women who were kicked out of NOW due to their pro-life views. A pro-life woman most often is told that she is not, and cannot be, a feminist. I myself have been told such a thing.

True feminism condemns those who support oppression - whether the oppression be against women, men, minorities, or the unborn. Modern feminism has lost sight of the true meaning of feminism in the regards that modern feminism does not acknowledge the value of a child if it is in the mother's womb.

I respect ALL human life Robert, and I do not place my morality on people - including the unborn - by deciding who should live and who should die. True feminist ideals are part of a larger philosophy that values all life, including the life of the unborn. All human beings have inherent worth - a worth which cannot be conferred or denied by someone else.

You talk a lot about "rights," but the "right" to destroy offspring is not a "right." No one has the right to destroy another human being.
posted by Anonymous, at 9/10/2008 5:43 PM

Chris, would you say that it is a mistake to say money at risk is money spent? Anyway, those of us following this issue knew taxpayer dollars were at risk as far back as May 2002:

http://www.usatoday.com/money/covers/2002-05-21-fannie-mae.htm

Here's a good quote from that piece: "The companies have become so big, their failure could jeopardize the whole U.S. economy. According to the doomsday scenario, failure could drag down a U.S. banking system dependent on Fannie- and Freddie-issued bonds. Taxpayers would be on the hook for a bailout that would dwarf the savings and loan scandal."

The taxpayer dollars were committed many, many years ago. They were committed back in its 1960s when the government was put on the hook for this, and even more later when legislation allowed Fannie and Freddie to take on investments that were never the intent of the original design. Your argument is akin to saying your home only cost you dollars after you paid the mortgage, not when you signed for the loan.
posted by Anonymous, at 9/10/2008 7:41 PM

Wayne, this was a really excellent column. I love the "igloo" bit as well as the business with Bush bumping into Larry Craig in the closet. Very smart, amusing, and dead-on target. Bill
posted by Unknown, at 9/11/2008 2:59 AM

Kathy, if that's your name, answer the question! You can't wriggle out of this one, typically republican m.o. If your daughter was Bristol Palin and you were told she would die if she gave birth, WOULD YOU BE OK WITH THAT even if she were a victim of rape or incest? Would you be ok with that, just to save the child? Since Palin closed unwed mother programs in Alaska, what kind of structure and support would be provided to such a child of incest? As you are well aware, incest often produces deformities in the genetics of the child. You're no feminist and I actually don't even believe you're a woman for that matter.
posted by Anonymous, at 9/11/2008 8:17 AM

The quote you gave said that Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac "taxpayers WOULD be on the hook for a bailout," which implies that taxpayers are not now on the hook, relegating F/F/Mae/Mac to being a private corporation, not tax-payer funded. The bailout will cost taxpayers billions, just like the S&L crisis cost taxpayers billions. But no one at the time would have said that the Savings and Loans were "taxpayer funded."
posted by Anonymous, at 9/11/2008 11:06 AM

Hello Robert. My name is Kathy, I am a woman, and I'm not sure what it accomplishes to bring up such matters. I will assume you're a man, and leave it at that.

I understand your questions and the issues they involve, but I feel it's unhelpful to address those questions before we've established some sort of baseline on the main issue. I can assure you that I'm not attempting to "wiggle out" of anything with you and your important questions. What people who disagree on this issue first need to address though is first principles. I believe that that life of a person begins at conception, and that a baby at that point deserves to have their human rights recognized, secured, and protected by the State.

So could you please briefly elaborate on when a person's life begins and when a baby achieves the point when they should have their rights recognized, secured, and protected by the State. Thank you.
posted by Anonymous, at 9/11/2008 12:36 PM

So your claim Chris is that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were completely private corporations? Who sponsored these enterprises? Who, and what, underwrote their losses? Were they subject to the same requirements that other lending institutions were?
posted by Anonymous, at 9/11/2008 2:32 PM

No my claim is that they cannot be called "tax-payer funded."
posted by Anonymous, at 9/11/2008 2:45 PM

Kathy, I'm all man baby!

Now, ANSWER THE QUESTION! Would you be ok allowing your daughter to die to save a child? Would you be ok knowing that she could lose her life giving birth? Why are you avoiding it? No, I don't believe human life begins at the moment of conception. If I can answer that, why can't you give a direct answer to my question? What's the problem? Sarah Palin would be ok letting her daughter, so you should to. I'm making that assumption because you're voting for her and you refuse to answer my question. What is the difficulty?

Another thing, what are you, a supposedly straight woman doing on a gay blogsite? You're trolling here a bit too much dear. Who's paying you, Concerned Women for America?
posted by Anonymous, at 9/11/2008 4:31 PM

Chris, I totally agree with you. They have hissy fits when we give it back to them. That vicious ad about Obama is going to fire back on them as will many more now that the McCain clip from October 2007 using the same reference to Hillary's health care plan is getting some air time. Karl Rove clearly didn't do his homework, another loser.
posted by Anonymous, at 9/11/2008 4:35 PM

OK Chris, but recall that all Governor Palin said was that they have gotten to big and too expensive for the taxpayers. Can you and I really debate that they have gotten to expensive for us? I think not, which is why Palin was absolutely correct.

I think you and I may have reached the conclusion of our reasonable, respectful exchange Chris, but I want to point out what I have neglected to so far. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were making a habit out of buying the paper on bad loans, because they knew that if they went bad the taxpayers would be forced to bail them out. There were efforts to put more restrictions on Fannie and Freddie in the past, but Democrats in Congress killed all proposals for restrictions. Why?

If you looked at which party got more of the campaign donations, you'll find it was the Democrats. Fannie and Freddie knew they could do what they did and Democrats in Congress would hold the standards lower for a taxpayer bail out.
posted by Anonymous, at 9/11/2008 7:43 PM

Kathy stated earlier: "True feminism condemns those who support oppression".

So Kathy, if barring women from making a very personal and difficult choice to have an abortion is not oppression. Why should any government control women's bodies? Whether you are pro-life or not, banning a woman's right to choose is more than oppression. Its as bad as China banning a couple for having more than two children. Oppression is oppression when you supress a basic civil right that the majority of western democracies endorse, agree or disagree.

I'm still waiting for your answer from previous postings. Tell us if you agree that it is perfectly fine to allow one's daughter to die if having a child could endanger her life? Why do you find that so difficult to answer? Yes or no, which is it Kathy? Why are you avoiding it although I think I know why? Your refusal to say yes or no is proof enough that you are in agreement with Palin. You don't even have the guts to admit an honest answer to a direct question.
posted by Anonymous, at 9/12/2008 7:59 AM

A couple of months ago you wrote an article about how James Dobson was losing influence in the Republican Party.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/wayne-besen/focus-on-the-fallacies-of_b_111183.html
Evidence suggests that he played a major role in the selection Sarah Palin as VP candidate. In any case he immediately declared his fervent support. I hope you will write a sequel.
posted by priscianus jr, at 9/14/2008 1:56 AM

McCain nominated a bible-thumping candidate who lives in the woods. Of course Dobson has changed his tune...he loves it!
posted by Anonymous, at 9/14/2008 1:05 PM

Hello again Robert. To answer one of your points up front, I am a "straight" woman. I came to this site awhile back when I saw Wayne on TV. I am not being paid by anyone to comment on Wayne's posts (which is more than a bit ludicrous, by the way). I am a middle-aged, Hispanic woman, a feminist with a Master's degree, working toward my Ph.D.

Thank you for answering my question and stating clearly that you "don't believe human life begins at the moment of conception." But if life does not begin at conception, then please share when you think life begins, and then please explain why life had not begun ten minutes prior, and shouldn't begin ten minutes later.

You ask: "Would you be ok allowing your daughter to die to save a child?"

Of course I would never want my daughter to die, just as I wouldn't want her child, my granddaughter, to die. Both have an equal right to life that I would cherish and that should be protected by our government. My daughter's doctor should be bound to do everything possible to save both my daughter and her child. If in that effort to save both my granddaughter dies, then that would be tragic and we would mourn. But it is immoral, and should be illegal, to INTENTIONALLY kill the baby in order to supposedly save my daughter's life, just as it would immoral to intentionally kill my daughter in order to save the baby.

You ask: "Why should any government control women's bodies?"

Questions like this ignore the fact that the unborn child has a separate body and is a separate individual from its mother. To say that government should without law and without restraint allow men and women to make all of their own choices is neither practical nor desirable. Do we allow people to make their own choices to rape? Or to rob? Or to drive drunk? We don't allow people to make the choices to embezzle, defraud, write hot checks, drive their cars over the speed limit, slander other people, do we?

By definition the goal of every law is to deny someone the legal ability to choose a particular activity, and many prohibited choices could even be considered "personal." For example, it is illegal to have sexual relations with a child. Is that law ok Robert?

As for abortion, it is not the government's role to protect one individual's choice to kill his fellow human beings. Given the biological fact that the unborn are living human beings, the question is not whether the government has the right to prohibit abortion, but whether it has the right not to.
posted by Anonymous, at 9/15/2008 1:40 PM

Kathy is not a feminist in any sense of the word. Her head is so far up the popes gay ass, she can't see straight.
posted by Anonymous, at 9/15/2008 9:12 PM

Kathy, at the moment of conception, a fetus is not a fully developed human being even though its alive. I just don't see it your way, never will.

So answer this. If pro-lifers like you and the Pope for example are so concerned about the protection and preservation of a fetus at all costs, why does the RC church in particular not administer the last rites to an aborted or miscarried fetus? Yes, I know baptism is a requirement before sacraments can be administered, so why does it not have funerals for them if it claims that human life begins at the moment of conception? Why the doublestandard and hypocrisy? At least they should be consistent.

Secondly, you are still avoiding my question. You said..."My daughter's doctor should be bound to do everything possible to save both my daughter and her child. If in that effort to save both my granddaughter dies, then that would be tragic and we would mourn. But it is immoral, and should be illegal, to INTENTIONALLY kill the baby in order to supposedly save my daughter's life, just as it would immoral to intentionally kill my daughter in order to save the baby.

So Kathy, I put it to you again: WHAT IF YOUR DAUGHTER WERE TOLD SHE WOULD DEFINITELY DIE IF SHE GAVE BIRTH EVEN TOUGH THE CHILD WOULD SURVIVE, WITH NO CHANCE OF SURVIVAL FOR YOUR DAUGHTER? OK WITH YOU? Dumb of me to ask I suppose, because I know your answer will be a resounding "yes".

You also stated: "Do we allow people to make their own choices to rape? Or to rob? Or to drive drunk? We don't allow people to make the choices to embezzle, defraud, write hot checks, drive their cars over the speed limit, slander other people, do we?"

Kathy, we're discussing one issue only, women's reproductive rights. Your argument is lame and is the m.o. neocons use to distract us from the issues. Its like comparing apples to oranges and has absolutely NOTHING to do with a very personal decision that women should make for themselves, not government or men for that matter.

If you're so pro-life, then I hope you oppose war at all costs as well as the death penalty. There are many religious people who support. Consistency is not very popular in religion today, instead it cherry picks to suit its own agenda.

Sarah Palin's daughter had the luxury of choice to have her baby. What you are advocating is for absolutely NO choice for women when it comes to reproductive rights. In your narrow, distorted view of life, in your world ALL women MUST bear every child they conceive, even if it could be detrimental to their health, their very lives, even if a child might be born severely disabled, even if a woman is brutally raped or a victim of incest, that's perfectly ok with you without any consideration for the well-being of the mother. I remind you that Sarah Palin shut down services for unwed mothers in her state. So much for prolife and family values.

So, lets assume you get your wish to overturn Roe v. Wade. This will mean that American women who want or need an abortion will have to leave their country to have one which would imply that upon return, they would be arrested and thrown in jail or in some states, put to death for wilfull murder? Lets be consistent Kathy!

I agree with "anonymous": Kathy is not a feminist in any sense of the word." Your insistence that women should not have choice is misogynistic at best. Nobody has to agree on abortion, but don't take away a woman's right to choice. Personally, I wish no woman had to have an abortion, but I certainly would never deny their right to have one if that was their choice. Maybe you neocons should get your heads out of your asses and start realizing that sex education in schools should be mandated, age appropriate,as well as birth control education. Burying your heads in the sand doesn't work. The fact of the matter is, young girls are having sex, Bristol Palin is proof of that. If she'd had the information beforehand, maybe she wouldn't be in the situation she is now in, a child having a child.

I'm done. You and I will agree to disagree on this one.
posted by Anonymous, at 9/16/2008 9:27 AM

"Kathy, at the moment of conception, a fetus...."

OK, stop there. A fertilized egg is not a fetus. It is not even an embryo until implantation. Statisticly, there is better then even chance the fertilized egg will end up on a tampon, then implanted. Your post in a good one though, Robert.

Words mean things, except for fundies who just generalize and lable everthing. This why so many are biggots, since bigotery is all about labeling.
posted by Anonymous, at 9/16/2008 2:13 PM

one of the most obvious flaws with making abortion a states issue, is that in some states abortion would not only not be a crime, it might even provide the service. In other states (read Alabama) you could literally be put to death.

What is it about anti roe v wade people that allows them to lack an eye for the obvious?
posted by Anonymous, at 9/16/2008 2:37 PM

Anonymous said...

"Kathy, at the moment of conception, a fetus...."

Anonymous, thank you for that! Appreciate it.
posted by Anonymous, at 9/17/2008 7:33 AM

I am a proud feminist. A proud, pro-life, anti-abortion feminist.

Robert, you are the one who didn't answer my question. If life doesn't begin at conception, then WHEN does it start in your view, and on WHAT objective basis didn't it begin ten minutes before the point you identify, and ten minutes after the point you identify?

Robert wrote: "A fetus is not a fully developed human being even though its alive."

So a person can be alive, but not be a human being? Interesting logic employed by the pro-abortion lobby...

Concerning your questions related to Roman Catholicism, I'm not Roman Catholic so I can't speak to those issues.

It's impossible for me to answer your "question" Robert, because your "question" keeps changing. And becoming more complex and unrealistic I might add. I have demonstrated that when you ask a simple, straightforward question, I have responded with a simple, straightforward answer.

Robert wrote: "If you're so pro-life, then I hope you oppose war at all costs as well as the death penalty."

It is simply a lie to even imply that pro-lifers always support our government's decision to go to war. There are tens of millions of pro-lifers in America and when war is contemplated they always express many opinions on both sides of the issue. In fact, in recent years some of the most powerful arguments against America's involvement in war have come from people with unassailable pro-life credentials.

Also, while the decision to go to war is carried out in public with often heated debate, with abortion there is no discussion. If for any reason whatsoever, or no reason whatsoever, the mother unilaterally decides to kill her baby, no one - not even the child's father!!! - can intervene.

If you want to make an analogy between war and abortion, then we should have the same standards for having an abortion that we require for going to war. Until we do that, the analogy is a fraud. Right now, the only legitimate comparison is the fact that, every day, more people are killed in the womb than on every battlefield in the world.

Concerning the death penalty, there are many pro-life people - including me! - who strongly oppose the death penalty.

However, those who support the death penalty are not disqualified from legitimately identifying themselves as pro-life. It is not inconsistent to contend that convicted murderers should be executed but innocent babies should not be. The interesting thing is, the pro-choice crowd thinks opposing abortion while supporting the death penalty is inconsistent, but somehow supporting abortion for the innocent while opposing the death penalty for the guilty is "enlightened." I heard a young man in one of my graduate courses trying to make this argument, and even our pro-choice professor acknowledged the weakness, and sick humor, involved in it.

I don't think you've actually read Roe v. Wade and those cases that followed it Robert. The overturning of Roe would merely send the abortion issue back to the states, and each state would decide whether or not abortion would be legal or illegal.

Robert wrote: "Personally, I wish no woman had to have an abortion..." Why? WHY are you PERSONALLY opposed to abortion? Why? The only basis for being opposed to abortion is the recognition that it is the killing of a child. Therefore, when you take this "personally opposed" position, what you are really saying is, "I understand that abortion is the intentional slaughter of defenseless children, but I'm not going to do anything to stop it."

That raises the question: which other innocent human beings do you think it should be legal to kill? Also, are you equally tolerant on other issues? Presumably, you are also "personally opposed" to rape, armed robbery, racial discrimination, and wife-beating. Do you have a problem inflicting your personal beliefs regarding these issues as well?

And, as an aside, it is especially fraudulent for politicians like Barack Obama and Joe Biden to take this "personally-opposed" position. Inflicting their views on others is precisely what legislators are elected to do and every vote they make does just that. Further, if a politician is not going to be guided by his own personal views, then (a) why would he bother to tell us what his personal views are, and (b) exactly whose personal views is he going to be guided by?

Of course, when it comes to this "forcing beliefs" issue, the most important point is that 45 to 50 million dead babies have had the pro-choice lobby's beliefs forced on them.
posted by Anonymous, at 9/17/2008 12:42 PM

Also, while the decision to go to war is carried out in public with often heated debate, with abortion there is no discussion.

REALLY! no discussion. Do you have any idea how much discussion might occure on the part of a woman who is considering. When a nation goes to go into a PARTICULAR war the congress discusses it. When a woman chooses to abort she can not consult congress on her PARTICULAR choice. Sorry but I am an individulast not a moral collectivist. This issue is settled in your mind. The death of a fertilized egg is just as tragic as the death of little girl buried alive after being raped hugging a stuffed toy (this happened in the Coulie case). Sorry, but I can't even imagine walking that path with you, and neither can 90+percent of the population. The dead babies arguement is lame. Picture in your minds all the ways one could take a baby from a mothers arms and torture, mame, mutilate it, and put that picture beside a 2 celled egg destroyed under a microscope. This is just silly fanatic talk. You are a extremest nut, which you have a right to be, but you must chart that course pretty much alone. Fortunatly ther are not many of you.

You did not address this point. I have never found anyone who will:

one of the most obvious flaws with making abortion a states issue, is that in some states abortion would not only not be a crime, it might even provide the service. In other states (read Alabama) you could literally be put to death.

You are likely aj/theo btw
posted by Anonymous, at 9/17/2008 3:03 PM

I support choice, and would prefer to see that there were no abortions. Not because I believe that a 3 month old fetus is a human being. i don't.

It's not a contradiction, it is a reognition that thei ssue is a difficult one.

The issue for me is a simple one. who owns my body-- me, you, or the state? Becuase we're talking about MY body. and until that fetus s out of my body, it IS my body and my life.

As far as I can tell, the people who wish to deny me that choice are frequently the people who make my way of loving a crime, or owuld if they could.
posted by Anonymous, at 9/22/2008 1:08 PM

To the girl above, I am pro-life to the core of my being. I believe that all life is a sacred creation of God. So obviously, I am opposed to abortion. Abortion is predicated on the pervasive, fallen, anti-Christian assumption the violence solves problems and "problems." In the long run, though, violence always deepens and perpetuates problems. It never solves them.

We might as a society make headway on this deeply divisive issue by taking the universally agreed upon criteria for what constitutes death - the loss of legal personhood - and simply reverse it, making it the agreed upon criteria for the beginning of legal personhood. When a person's brain activity falls below a certain minimum threshold, we no longer consider them a legal person.

So, perhaps we could get the majority of people in America to agree that when am unborn baby's brain activity rises ABOVE this minimum threshold, we should consider them a legal person, possessing all the rights of human beings. I'm told this occurs roughly around the ninth or tenth week of pregnancy.

I put this forward NOT BECAUSE IT IS WHAT I MYSELF BELIEVE (it's not), but because, in our American context, I think it might be a solution that would unite the "POLIS," allow us to work together to achieve what the majority of American want (consistently or inconsistently) - fewer abortions - and thus save the lives of unborn children.
posted by Anonymous, at 9/22/2008 2:46 PM

Ethan=AJ=Theo=kathy=website stalker
posted by Anonymous, at 9/22/2008 4:30 PM

看房子,買房子,建商

自售,台北新成屋,台北豪宅,美髮儀器,美髮
 儀器,髮型,EMBA,MBA,學位,EMBA,專業認證,認證課程,博士學位,DBA
PHD,在職進修,碩士學位,推廣教育,DBA,進修課程,碩士學位,網路廣告,關鍵字廣告,廣告
 課程介紹,學分班,文憑,牛樟芝,段木,牛樟菇,

日式料理 , 台北居酒屋,燒肉
posted by Anonymous, at 1/12/2009 10:38 AM

It may seem silly to use two-factor auth for a video game. However, with 12 million players, World of Warcraft is a big business Warhammer Online Power Leveling, and stolen accounts are worth money. Logging into someone else’s account, looting it for virtual money and supplies, then selling them on the open market can easily net $50 per account, more for particularly lucrative ones. What’s more, the account itself can be sold to offshore Warhammer Power Leveling“gold farmers” who have a constant need for accounts as Blizzard revokes theirs for Terms of Service violations. Considering that a stolen credit card number is usually worth only about $10, WoW accounts are actually pretty good targets for theft WAR Power leveling.
posted by Anonymous, at 2/24/2009 2:24 AM

成人網站,成人影片,av女優,h漫,成人網站,成人電影,a片,色情,成人影片,色情,成人電影,色情,h漫,成人影片,成人電影,免費A片,色情,成人電影,成人影片,免費A片,色情,成人網站,免費A片,成人網站,色情,a片,成人影片,情色,免費A片,微風成人,情色,成人影片,微風成人,av女優,

成人網站,成人網站,成人網站,成人網站,色情網站,色情網站,色情網站,色情網站,av女優,av女優,av女優,av女優,色情,色情,色情,色情,h漫,h漫,h漫,h漫,sex,sex,sex,sex,成人影片,成人影片,成人影片,成人影片,成人電影,成人電影,成人電影,成人電影,av女優,a片,a片,a片,a片,成人網站,成人網站,成人網站,成人網站,成人影片,成人影片,成人影片,成人影片,av女優,av女優,

av女優,av女優,色情,色情,色情,色情,h漫,h漫,h漫,h漫,sex,sex,sex,sex,情色,情色,情色,情色,a片,a片,a片,a片,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,成人網站,成人網站,成人網站,成人網站,成人影片,成人影片,成人影片,成人影片,av女優,av女優,av女優,av女優,色情,色情,色情,

色情,h漫,h漫,h漫,h漫,sex,sex,sex,sex,情色,情色,情色,情色,辣妹視訊,辣妹視訊,辣妹視訊,辣妹視訊,080視訊聊天室,080視訊聊天室,080視訊聊天室,080視訊聊天室,美女交友,美女交友,

美女交友,美女交友,情色視訊,情色視訊,情色視訊,情色視訊,哈啦聊天室,哈啦聊天室,哈啦聊天室,哈啦聊天室,ut聊天室,ut聊天室,ut聊天室,ut聊天室,聊天室,聊天室,聊天室
posted by Anonymous, at 2/26/2009 10:29 PM

專利
 專利
 當舖
 當舖
 關鍵字
 當舖
 關鍵字
 seo
當舖
 專利
 專利
 自然排序
 存證信函
 存證信函
 存證信函
 當舖
 網站排名
 當舖
 當舖
 關鍵字
 當舖
 專利
 專利
 當舖
posted by 商標註冊/專利申請達人, at 3/29/2009 9:55 PM

This comment has been removed by the author.
posted by 說妳美美美睫美甲紋繡預約0915551807, at 3/31/2009 10:16 AM

This comment has been removed by the author.
posted by Anonymous, at 7/03/2009 2:54 AM

MULTICOLORE BLACK PORTE TRESOR INTERNATIONAL
Multicolore Black Porte-Monnaie Billets
MULTICOLORE BLACK PORTE-MONNAIE BILLETS VIENNOIS
MULTICOLORE BLACK POUCHETTE
Multicolore Black Priscilla
MULTICOLORE BLACK SPEEDY 30
MULTICOLORE BLACK THEDA GM
MULTICOLORE BLACK TROUVILLE
Multicolore Black Ursula
MULTICOLORE POCHETTE PORTE MONNAIE NM
posted by Anonymous, at 1/06/2010 9:42 AM

This comment has been removed by the author.
posted by 說妳美美美睫美甲紋繡預約0915551807, at 1/09/2010 9:49 PM

This comment has been removed by the author.
posted by 說妳美美美睫美甲紋繡預約0915551807, at 6/25/2010 5:27 AM

This comment has been removed by the author.
posted by 說妳美美美睫美甲紋繡預約0915551807, at 8/06/2011 8:55 AM

This comment has been removed by the author.
posted by 說妳美美美睫美甲紋繡預約0915551807, at 7/16/2013 12:27 PM

This comment has been removed by the author.
posted by 說妳美美美睫美甲紋繡預約0915551807, at 5/14/2014 8:39 PM

This comment has been removed by the author.
posted by 福爾摩思多益雅思補習班(02) 2365-3288, at 3/28/2015 2:19 AM

This comment has been removed by the author.
posted by 說妳美美美睫美甲紋繡預約0915551807, at 5/24/2015 9:27 PM