HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » DirkGently » Journal
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 24 Next »

DirkGently

Profile Information

Gender: Male
Hometown: Orlando
Home country: USA
Current location: Holistically detecting
Member since: Wed Jan 27, 2010, 03:59 PM
Number of posts: 11,668

Journal Archives

Cruz is Greg Stillson.



"Mr. Vice President, Mr. Secretary, the missiles are flying. Hallelujah, Hallelujah."

There's note down thread about his dad saying Ted is here to bring about "The End Times."

There is an element of Christianity in America that is essentially an apocalyptic death cult. They look forward to the destruction of the world, beginning with a massive conflagration in the Middle East and think that needs help coming about.

Not the kind of man you want with his hand on the nuclear trigger.

A majority of the disasters we're dealing with now

trace their roots to not only that one disastrous policy decision in Iraq, but to the entire philosophy behind it, which did not start with the neocons.

The "that was then / look forward" approach is nonsense. What is required is an appreciation for the fact that America's long policy of intervening everywhere, fostering "regime change" whenever the right people find it expedient has not only been immoral and ineffective, but has made things infinitely worse in nearly, if not every single case.

This is the Kissinger School. This is Chile and South and Central America then and Iran and Iraq now. It is a failed, destructive, frequently evil policy of imposing American influence for questionable reasons in inexcusable ways, with horrific results.

And now we're supposed to forget the unqualified catastrophe of Iraq, in order to apply the same reasoning, employed by people following the same logic for the same ends, to "win" vis a vis ISIS?

We need to consult with Kissinger, and the legions of doomed idiots who wrought the majority of this chaos, and collectively get out of their way so they can ... what? Do more of it until it works?

No one who thought invading Iraq on the say-so of Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, et al., was a remotely good idea should be heard to even offer a suggestion on American foreign policy, ever again, and they should die of shame before even thinking we need to hear their thoughts.



There's nothing smeary or unfair about it.

What I wish the Sanders campaign would articulate a little better is that there is no need to prove, as HRC suggested, that she "changed her vote" on something due to her ties to the financial sector.

It's not a question of quid pro quo corruption. It's a question of point of view. Ms. Clinton eats, sleeps, and breathes Wall Street thinking. Her framing of the financial meltdown as the result of a few insurance firms, i.e. "shadow banking" ignores the fact that the major banks were all eyeballs-deep in the heedless mortgage lending that led to the crisis.

These are her friends. Her colleagues. People who like her well enough to pay her a fortune just to speak with them.

It's not that they are paying her off. It's not that she is trading dollars for votes. That is not the question.

The question is: How do you regulate people with whom you identify as peers and colleagues? People whose point of view you have absorbed through your very skin?

This is not a Hillary Clinton problem. It is a problem with the way everything is done, everywhere. It's not the only problem, or the only thing we need to discuss, but the fact that Ms. Clinton sees everything as fine so long as she is not accepting envelopes full of cash in exchange for American policies is an enormous problem for her and for the rest of our political system.

And she does not seem to want to acknowledge it.

The "It's a center-right country" theme is expired.

No one seems to be acknowledging the pendulum is swinging back to a truer "center" than the one given us by the post-Reagan nightmare from which we are slowly awakening.

Barack Obama, a true moderate, does not get elected twice in Center Right America. Center Right America does not see candidates arguing about who is the real "progressive."

It's not 1990, much less 1980, anymore, Mr. Matthews.

The Clinton team seemed embarrassed.

Ms. Clinton gave a good speech, but she sounded tight and brittle. Diving in on top of Cruz, skipping Bill and Chelsea's planned comments, and beating it out of town without congratulating the Iowa crew seemed like panic.

I think they were very displeased and abashed at their premature claim of victory.

I'm guessing whoever made that declaration to Andrea Mitchell got several ears full of Ms. Clinton's displeasure.

Respectfully as to Ms. Clinton,

on whose behalf is this vehemence that single-payer WILL NOT HAPPEN?

It's one thing to opine it's not a realistic goal in the short term. And I take no issue with suggesting we tune and polish the ACA in the meantime.

But no one is actually this determined we cross out and totally discard the world's proven-best approach to health care. The one employed by all other wealthy democracies.

No one but the health insurance industry.

Is that where she's coming from? I don't accuse -- I'm really asking.

Because otherwise, it makes no sense to me to frame a single-payer healthcare system as not just a challenge; not just a long term vs short-term goal, but as some kind of unthinkable anathema.

Weird.

The free market has not once been ahead of the curve.


The free market cares about the environment exactly 0%. Exxon started to raise the alarm about global warming in the 1970s, but buried its own research because it realized it would rather make money right up until disaster struck.

The free market did nothing about smog until the government intervened.

Nothing about the ozone layer until government intervened.

Child labor. Egret feathers. Seatbelts and airbags. Slavery.

The free market takes action to put ethics, human health, the environment, or long-term thinking of any kind ahead of immediate profits approximately NEVER.

The need is never going to go away.

In countries where good sex education and contraception are readily available, abortion continues to be utilized and needed. In some years the rate goes up; in others it goes down. Teenage abortion rates go down with better education, but adult women continue to need them.

And the "rare" formulation feeds the rightwing idea that there is something wrong with it, and the ideal number would be zero. They propose there is a moral hazard in women doing what they deem fit with their bodies. To me it's another flavor of the pretend "concern" behind these TRAP laws.

Birth control will always be less than completely effective. Rape and child abuse will always happen. Individual health concerns will always require women to be able to make the decision to end pregnancy. It's not "sad and tragic" or a "necessary evil." It's health care.

So why support the idea we should be equally concerned with getting rid of something that will always be necessary?

But it’s also worth reiterating, as Adele Stan did this weekend and reproductive rights activists have been saying for years, that if you’re more than nominally pro-choice, you cede important ground by embracing the “safe, legal and rare” formulation that Douthat cited as a consensus. As the National Network of Abortion Funds tweeted, “Let’s reject ‘rare.’ If abortions are legal & accessible, number of abortions performed should = exactly the number of abortions necessary.” Suddenly, “rare” becomes more about a lack of real choice rather than choosing from an abundance of options. If, as a matter of public health policy, we are doing a terrible job of preventing unintended pregnancies, and some women want abortions and can’t have them, then the current rate is too low.

http://www.salon.com/2012/02/21/debunking_the_rights_contraception_myths/

Well, no. "Rare" is stigmatizing rightwing framing.

It's not even a controversial observation. "Rare" gives weight to the rightwing premise that abortion is a moral hazard. It is also, unfortunately, precisely the kind of calculated triangulation that gives progressives a lot of their misgivings about the Clintons. It's a deliberate sop to the religious right -- "We hate it too, of course."


But "safe, legal and rare" is not a framework that supports women's health needs: it stigmatizes and endangers it.

In a 2010 research article, Dr Tracy Weitz, Director of Advancing New Standards in Reproductive Health (ANSIRH) program at the University of California, San Francisco, wrote that "rare suggests that abortion is happening more than it should, and that there are some conditions for which abortions should and should not occur".

"It separates 'good' abortions from 'bad' abortions", she added.

Steph Herold, the deputy director of the Sea Change Program – an organization that seeks to create a culture change around abortion and other stigmatized reproductive experiences like miscarriage and adoption – agrees. "It implies that abortion is somehow different than other parts of healthcare," she told me. "We don't say that any other medical procedure should be rare."

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jul/09/hillary-clinton-abortion-legal-but-rare


What’s really at issue in Douthat’s column is the perils of accepting the right-wing frame when constructing liberal positions. By unilaterally presenting abortion as a very bad thing in the 1990s, the message mavens of the Clinton administration, with their construction of “safe, legal and rare,” gave abortion opponents a rhetorical rationale for piling on restrictions that, in many states, make abortion inaccessible to increasing numbers of women — despite the fact that the Supreme Court decided decades ago that their right to the procedure is protected by the Constitution.

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/political-animal-a/2012_02/breaking_where_abortion_is_ava035510.php

Debunking the right’s contraception myths

But it’s also worth reiterating, as Adele Stan did this weekend and reproductive rights activists have been saying for years, that if you’re more than nominally pro-choice, you cede important ground by embracing the “safe, legal and rare” formulation that Douthat cited as a consensus. As the National Network of Abortion Funds tweeted, “Let’s reject ‘rare.’ If abortions are legal & accessible, number of abortions performed should = exactly the number of abortions necessary.” Contrast the following data points — the 87 percent of U.S. counties that lack an abortion provider, the financial barriers that right-wingers would like to increase with insurance bans, and the significant stigma around abortion — with the fact that almost half of all pregnancies are unintended. Suddenly, “rare” becomes more about a lack of real choice rather than choosing from an abundance of options. If, as a matter of public health policy, we are doing a terrible job of preventing unintended pregnancies, and some women want abortions and can’t have them, then the current rate is too low.

http://www.salon.com/2012/02/21/debunking_the_rights_contraception_myths/

"Safe, legal, and RARE" -- Hillary Clinton.

This has been a bit of an odd fight for HRC to pick. Other than her close ties to Wall Street and her support of the Iraq war, I think her most substantive deficiency as a progressive has been her triangulation on abortion rights and gay rights.

Her adoption of the anti-abortion position that we should be just as concerned with making abortion "rare" as with ensuring safe, legal access, always struck me as a politically calculated betrayal. It's along the same lines as her other fudges, delays, and silences on human rights. Marriage equality leaps to mind. Remember that odd non-answer about how she never changed her mind, but rather the country "evolved" or something?

To me, Hillary follows this same pattern of trying to be as safe as possible first, then backfilling once something has already been decided. I do not see how she can claim to be the real "champion" when her pattern is to equivocate first, never push for anything not already well supported, then speak up loudly when the fight is over (and claim she never changed her thinking in the process).

Which results in this precise kind of undermining.

"Safe, legal, and rare?"

This is the best "champion" we have for women's reproductive freedoms?

I'm sorry, but that just is not her style. Champions stick their necks out.
Go to Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 24 Next »