[FoRK] [Pigdog] Civil war (fwd from email@example.com)
fork at bitfurnace.com
Thu Nov 4 08:12:10 PST 2004
I tend to agree about abortion activists being hypocrites. Most of the
ones I have met are hardly pacifists, and more than supportive of
bombing the shit out of the darker-skinned-country-du-jour. Id like to
see the right-to-life apply universally, have the US renoune its
military and nuclear arsenal, and agree to behave in a christian
10-commandments way on the international playing field.
> Okay, so I think you missed my point on the Roe v. Wade and maybe on
> the entire notion of "causes". My premise is that the people who run
> for political office are more interested in power than they are in any
> particular "cause". If they were really interested in a "cause", then
> they would continue to fight for their cause even if they didn't get
> elected, vis a vis Evan's thoughts that started this thread.
> Given that, the cynic in me says that following through completely on
> the so-called "causes" that get you elected is a self-defeating
> proposition. My example of Roe v. Wade fits entirely. Roe v. Wade is
> much more powerful as something to define a political candidacy and to
> fight against (for the Republicans) than it would be if it were
> overturned. Defending Roe v. Wade isn't a powerful enough "cause" for
> the Democrats to get them into office and similarly keeping Roe v.
> Wade off the books would be a failed "cause" for the Republicans.
> Thus, my contention here is that it won't be overturned because of the
> backlash that would occur (giving the Democrats a "cause") and that
> it's much more useful in its existing form as a "cause" for the
> Republicans, allowing them to maintain power. (Personally I believe
> that the people against abortion rights are hypocrites -- they are the
> ones who will secretly get abortions while speaking out against it;
> only those people who are or could be in such a situation have the
> right to really address the issue of abortion rights.)
> The Democrats need a real "cause" that can rally the people on an
> emotional level. The gay civil rights issue isn't big enough yet, but
> they have 4 years to make it big. The Dems need to politicize it in
> such a way that it is treated like the civil rights issues of the 50s
> and 60s. They need marches and demonstrations, lawsuits, in your face
> examples of Jim Crow-like laws. Then they have a chance to use that
> "cause" as a means to gain power. Perhaps something along the lines
> of civil liberty abuses (Patriot Act, for example) will give the Dems
> something to spin into a cause.
> But taxes, health care, blah, blah, blah -- no one gets emotional over
> these issues and they aren't strong enough to become a "cause". It
> has to be something that the common person can latch onto on an
> emotional level.
> jeffrey kay
> weblog <k2.com> pgp key <www.k2.com/keys.htm> aim <jkayk2>
> share files with me -- get shinkuro -- <www.shinkuro.com>
> "first get your facts, then you can distort them at your leisure" --
> mark twain
> "if the person in the next lane at the stoplight rolls up the window
> and locks the door, support their view of life by snarling at them" --
> a biker's guide to life
> "if A equals success, then the formula is A equals X plus Y plus Z. X
> is work. Y is play. Z is keep your mouth shut." -- albert einstein
> On Nov 4, 2004, at 10:34 AM, Cleopatra Von Ludwig wrote:
>> Actually, much as I hate to say it, the next "cause" (if we're talking
>> about the Democrats here) will have to be to alienate themselves
>> *less* from the church-going population of the country. Clearly, the
>> Republicans have won over a huge sector of the population here that
>> used to be entirely for the Dems (think of the old South). 90% or so
>> of people who said they go to church "regularly" voted for Bush.
>> "Morality" was the top issue for most people. Religious Christians (or
>> even people who just go through the motions on a regular basis) see
>> the Dems as being anti-religious heathens. While I don't agree with
>> them (my own personal heathenism aside), it's still an image problem
>> that the Dems will have to address.
>> Now, *how* this will be addressed without alienating all the people
>> who believe in freedom of choice in religion and separation of church
>> and state will be the interesting part... if the Dems are smart,
>> they'll find a way to do it (so, I don't have much hope)...
>> What it comes down to is this. Clearly, people who think like us are
>> in the minority; this election proved that. Even if there was voter
>> fraud, ballot mishandling, etc., etc., which I'm sure there was, the
>> election still was very close -- and it *shouldn't* have been close. I
>> was so mad yesterday at work that I could barely look anyone in the
>> eye -- I mean, what kind of MORON would vote for Bush??? (My apologies
>> to anyone on the list who is that kind of moron :-) (Some of my best
>> friends are Republican!) But seriously, people saw what kind of
>> president he was, and *chose* to keep him in office. If that isn't the
>> scariest aspect of all of this, I don't know what is. I mean, at least
>> in 2000 people had the benefit of the doubt -- they got suckered in by
>> his Texas swagger, they saw him as a repentant Jesus-lover, they
>> identified with his inability to use English properly, whatever it may
>> have been. But in the past 4 years, Bushie hasn't exactly held back on
>> his extremism, and _people_ _voted_ _FOR_ more of that!!!
>> I'm so frightened of what's going to happen in the next 4 years...
>> Sure, Jeff, you can flippantly remark that they might overturn Roe v.
>> Wade, and that will just mobilize the Dems. BULLSHIT. You get pregnant
>> with an unwanted spawn, and then we'll talk.
>> On Thu, 04 Nov 2004 07:04:40 -0800, Elias Sinderson
>> <elias at cse.ucsc.edu> wrote:
>>> Regina Schuman wrote:
>>>> the next cause whould be removing tax-exempt status from churches,
>>>> they have put themselves in the lobbying business.
>>> or removing personhood status from the corporations, since they have
>>> shown themselves to be unfit for the priviledge.
More information about the FoRK