Do not believe that cheap things do not cost someone a great deal. Or that the great bargain does not have hidden costs.
Most importantly, be careful not to trade freedom for seemingly free stuff. The price of freedom is too great to barter away on trinkets and temporary pleasures.
It is a sad state of affairs that in a time when there is so much information available so few politicians take the time to seek a balanced understanding of the issues they choose to use as sound bites, before they spew them. In the past when news took days to travel the nation, a politician could arguably spew crap and not have a wide spread stink fest. There was time to retract, dispute and rebut before the masses became aware of the crap and absorbed it as truth.
In a time when it takes minutes, if not seconds for news to travel, it is important for politicians to do more homework, have their staff do more homework, and be more informed before they speak. In a good debate you always know your opposition’s standpoint. You never go in with only half the argument. If you really want to win, you really have to be prepared.
When a politician spews crap, who is responsible to clean up the crap? When the sound bites and election is over, who will instruct the masses that the political rhetoric is just that – rhetoric and not reality?
In the good old days of politics, the candidates bashed each other, spewed misinformation, spun webs of confusion, and appeared to really dislike each other. In some cases they may truly have been adversaries, but in most cases once the campaigning was finished, they returned to respectful associates, if not friends.
This was how politics worked. Once the newspaper was thrown into the trash, and the world moved on, the masses went back to worrying about their own worlds and forgot most of the spew of the election. This is not the case now. When a candidate spews crap, it sticks around. Others add to it, littering the internet and cable channels with more crap. The piles become so large that they remain long after the election is over.
Over time and with more experience, the candidates become better educated on specific issues and often change to a more moderate stand, thereby becoming flip-floppers. It is then up to them to clean up, not just their previous spew, but all the crap heaped on top of it. Sadly the more they work to clean up the mess, the more they are painted as wishy-washy. So they often just let the crap stand, leaving us all to wither in the stink.
I read an article claiming presidential candidate Rick Santorum does not believe that health insurance should cover amniocentesis because the results often lead to abortion.
Yes amniocentesis has led to abortions, but it has also given parents an opportunity to prepare for children with special needs months before the child comes home from the hospital.
I have been blessed to know a couple mothers who truly valued this time to prepare. In one case, the mother was able to research her baby’s condition, prepare her home and family, sell her car and buy a minivan, and most especially prepare herself for the complications that might take her baby’s life.
She was encouraged to have an abortion many times during her pregnancy; her decision against abortion was questioned and often condemned by those in association with her. However, she stood firm. Her child was given a very slim chance of making it to full term and she prepared herself. Once he made it to term, he was given a very slim chance of survival and again she prepared herself. The well prepared mother took each day as a blessing and cherished every moment. She rallied her family around her and continued to educate herself and her family on what might come next. After nearly three years of being told her child might not survive, she invited all her supporters to her son’s second birthday party. He was a joy to watch, a blessing to all. He still is.
If insurance companies do not pay for this procedure, women are much less likely to undergo it. As with any procedure, it should be the woman’s choice. Comprehensive insurance should be comprehensive. It should leave the decision of which procedure is needed up to the doctor and the patient, not up to bureaucrats and accountants.
The discussion of abortions being linked to amniocenteses should not be centered on whether the procedure is covered; it should be centered on changing the medical community’s feelings that they should encourage abortion when the chances of “normal” life are slim for the child. This is what needs to change.
Abortion may be legal and may be in some cases be in the woman’s “best” medical interest, but to encourage it for the goal of limiting possible emotional suffering or struggle later on, should not be the outcome of amniocentesis. Amniocentesis is a test and while warring against it is easier than changing attitudes, it is not the solution but the cop-out.
During the recent congressional hearing on the issue of the whether President Obama had violated the first amendment by requireing Catholic hospitals to cover services such as birth control, Rep. Darrell Issa was reported by ABC News to have “pointed out that Democrats barred Republican witnesses when they were in the majority.”* This was his argument for why the panel was so one sided.
Well kudos to him for lowering the bar to kindergarten level politics. It is no wonder the public has such a low opinion of the Congress.
*Quoted from the ABC article Rep. Darrell Issa Bars Minority Witness, a Woman, on Contraception by Tom Shine
I have just read of the new law waiting to be signed by the governor of Virginia. It would require a woman seeking an abortion to undergo an transvaginal ultrasound. The first article I read was an outraged editorial opposing the law, but what upset me was the rhetoric of the proponents for this law. It reminded me of other times civil liberties have been violated by the government. I searched and found to my dismay that versions of this law were being considered in other states as well.
Regardless of which side of the abortion debate you stand on, I ask you to consider whether this rhetoric, and the intent behind the proposed Virginia law, is not an abhorrent violation of moral decency and civil liberty?
It appears that the intent of the forced transvaginal ultrasound is to ensure that a woman seeking an abortion fully understands what she has chosen to do. This seems reasonable on the surface, but as with any controversial issue, the debate around this policy has become embroiled with little reason and volumes of appalling opinion.
So I would like to pose three comparisons; and please bear in mind I am not trying to make light of any of these issues.
Okay so let’s assume you believe abortion is murder. A legalized murder, kind of like suicide is for all intents self-murder and is not illegal, mainly because you can’t prosecute the deceased for their own death. (I would hope you would not prosecute anyone for attempted murder if they failed to succeed with their suicide.) So you can’t stop the woman from seeking a legal murder, but you feel you must impress upon her that she is killing a living being. So you force her to recognize the beating heart by “penetrating” her body against her will. This violation is justified because you are trying to prevent a murder.
Next let say you would like to go on a hunger strike, maybe even to oppose abortion. So you set out to starve yourself until abortion is abolished. 
Others would try to talk you out of it, but to no avail. So the state steps in and force feeds you through a tube, preventing you from murdering yourself. This is justified because the state is preventing a murder, a self-murder, but still a murder.
Finally let say you are a terrorist and you are planning to murder many people because they teach principles that are abhorrent to your moral beliefs. You are captured but your partners are not. So the government steps in and tortures you so you will divulge information which might put to an end your murderous plans. This torture is justified because it might save many lives. The government recognizes that you really don’t fully understand the magnitude of your actions, that your moral beliefs are misguided and you are obviously incapable of fully understanding what you have chosen to do.
It is not my intent to weigh in on the abortion debate, again it is the rhetoric that upsets me. Have we learned nothing from our past? Is there not a better way to save lives or are Machiavellian ideas to always be the justification for the disregard of civil liberty?
The real separation of church and state appears when clergy (any denomination) entangle themselves into the political debate. The masses get nervous and disassociate themselves from the debate.
While we may agree with what the clergyman says, we really don’t like clergy influencing our laws or leaders, mainly since we didn’t elect them.
I read the most interesting talking point today and longed to be back in college with others debating not just this specific issue, but how this talking point could be used in other debates.
“Nobody disputes the fact that Americans opposed to gay marriage believe passionately in their ideas and arguments. But that doesn’t necessarily mean those arguments should win in a court.”By Dahlia Lithwick author of “Why the Proponents of a Gay Marriage Ban Will Soon Be Speechless” www.slate.com
“Nobody disputes the fact that Americans opposed to _____________ believe passionately in their ideas and arguments. But that doesn’t necessarily mean those arguments should win in a court.”
Lesson learned from political news coverage. Have your propaganda ready to deploy before you go out and make a scene.
Propaganda is like makeup, you have got to keep a bunch on hand if you plan to go out in the public.
If you enter a political fight, you are eventually going to get a black eye. So make sure you have plenty of makeup to cover your bruises when the inevitable punches land.
This advice should also be heeded by anyone in the public whose policies or actions have the potential to create a public fervor.
Pithy Ponderings 