Right Wing on Red Bull
I was at Princeton from 1965-1969. Despite the right’s narrative that the country went to hell in those years, for most of us at the school they were glorious years of celebration, solidarity and justice. But we had one classmate who was like the nerd who couldn’t get a date, but also was willing to assure us all we were going to hell for our sins of sex, drugs and Rock and Roll. His name was Richard Land and he has served as president of the Southern Baptist Convention’s Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission since 1988.
For a guy who was a scold at 19, it’s a perfect job. But Richrd is up in St. Paul at the Republican Convention, on his version of Ecstasy over Sarah Palin.
In Minneapolis, “it was as if the whole Republican convention had started drinking Red Bull,” said Richard Land of the Southern Baptist Convention, who added that when the McCain campaign had sought his input weeks before he had suggested picking Ms. Palin.
Yes the Bible Belt is truly thrilled at the promise of a John McCain Supreme Court that would kill Roe V. Wade.
McCain used a recent appearance with the Rev. Rick Warrenat Saddleback Church in California to embrace opposition to abortion more explicitly than President Bush ever did. Asked when a fetus gains human rights, Mr. McCain responded, “At the moment of conception.”
And he has abandoned previous calls to moderate the Republican platform’s support for a ban on abortion without exception. Instead, he allowed conservative organizers like Phyllis Schlafly to shape what many advocates say is the most conservative platform in the party’s history. At Ms. Schlafly’s behest, for example, the party approved an immigration plank calling for new laws to speed widespread deportations and other punitive measures at odds with Mr. McCain’s stance on one of his signature issues.
And, to satisfy the Rush Limbaugh Global Warming deniers, the Palin pick signals a drill anywhere and everywhere McCain administration in the pocket of Big Oil. As Tom Friedman pointed out this morning,
Palin’s nomination for vice president and her desire to allow drilling in the Alaskan wilderness “reminded me of a lunch I had three and half years ago with one of the Russian trade attachés,” global trade consultant Edward Goldberg said to me. “After much wine, this gentleman told me that his country was very pleased that the Bush administration wanted to drill in the Alaskan wilderness. In his opinion, the amount of product one could actually derive from there was negligible in terms of needs. However, it signified that the Bush administration was not planning to do anything to create alternative energy, which of course would threaten the economic growth of Russia.”
I assume the Obama campaign is producing a set of environmental themed ads to highlight the obvious disconnect between those phony “Green Ads” McCain ran during the Olympics and the reality of his policy.
“Life Begins at Conception.”
How charmingly high-minded.
How equally simplistic and beside the point.
http://bgladd.blogspot.com/2008/04/diploid-dave-et-al.html
“Life Begins at Conception.”
How charmingly high-minded.
How equally simplistic and beside the point.
http://bgladd.blogspot.com/2008/04/diploid-dave-et-al.html
I can almost see McCain sitting on a post and being fed a cracker every time he says that.
I can almost see McCain sitting on a post and being fed a cracker every time he says that.
BobbyG, it’s too bad that with some of these people, intelligence doesn’t begin at the same time..
BobbyG, it’s too bad that with some of these people, intelligence doesn’t begin at the same time..
Most of the knee jerk Right to Lifers really need to be called to task for not worrying about the continuation of life, through adequate nutrition, health care, and safety.
The disconnect between “Honey, we have the power to make you have the baby, and the power to make you pull yourself up by your good American boot straps, if you want the kid not to be dead from lack of health care or a drive by shooting, or brain damaged from lead or lack of protein in developing years.
Cynically I believe that the whole sanctity of life thing can be traced back the business plans of several major religions, who realized that the easiest way to increase their power and wealth was to have the faithful breed like bunnies, and raise the kids in the faith. And no I’m not Just picking on the Catholics. Low cost new recruits come from pro-life politics, high cost comes in having to pay for the follow up. Besides misery is great motivator for hope of a better after life.
Not opposed to all organized religions, only those that act on an unwritten business plan without regards to the quality of life factor. And yes, I’m willing to call out most American Evangelicals on this. If you’re going to be political, go for the complete package, please.
For a real moment of Republican cognative dissonance check out Dubner and Levitt’s assessment in “Freakanomics”. Not sure if it’s replicable, but by their analysis the lowering of the crime rate was correlated to the availability of abortions. The cost of dogmatic Right to Life likely includes the actual dollar cost of the largest penal system on the planet, and the incarceration of the majority of black males. But I assume that’s the price of family values.
Forcing children to be born into poverty assures a perpetual cycle of humans whose only accessible adolescent sources of pleasure are sex, drugs, and the comfort of belonging to an extended family, usually based on violence for it’s social glue and income. The program, intended or otherwise, to lock up the sperm donors rather than the breeders seems kind of backwards if the intention is racial eugenics disgused as values. But that branch of the Church of All Powerful Whitey was never known for thinking things through.
Damn I really should talk to my doc about upping my meds I suppose. Or have my wife hide the computer.
Most of the knee jerk Right to Lifers really need to be called to task for not worrying about the continuation of life, through adequate nutrition, health care, and safety.
The disconnect between “Honey, we have the power to make you have the baby, and the power to make you pull yourself up by your good American boot straps, if you want the kid not to be dead from lack of health care or a drive by shooting, or brain damaged from lead or lack of protein in developing years.
Cynically I believe that the whole sanctity of life thing can be traced back the business plans of several major religions, who realized that the easiest way to increase their power and wealth was to have the faithful breed like bunnies, and raise the kids in the faith. And no I’m not Just picking on the Catholics. Low cost new recruits come from pro-life politics, high cost comes in having to pay for the follow up. Besides misery is great motivator for hope of a better after life.
Not opposed to all organized religions, only those that act on an unwritten business plan without regards to the quality of life factor. And yes, I’m willing to call out most American Evangelicals on this. If you’re going to be political, go for the complete package, please.
For a real moment of Republican cognative dissonance check out Dubner and Levitt’s assessment in “Freakanomics”. Not sure if it’s replicable, but by their analysis the lowering of the crime rate was correlated to the availability of abortions. The cost of dogmatic Right to Life likely includes the actual dollar cost of the largest penal system on the planet, and the incarceration of the majority of black males. But I assume that’s the price of family values.
Forcing children to be born into poverty assures a perpetual cycle of humans whose only accessible adolescent sources of pleasure are sex, drugs, and the comfort of belonging to an extended family, usually based on violence for it’s social glue and income. The program, intended or otherwise, to lock up the sperm donors rather than the breeders seems kind of backwards if the intention is racial eugenics disgused as values. But that branch of the Church of All Powerful Whitey was never known for thinking things through.
Damn I really should talk to my doc about upping my meds I suppose. Or have my wife hide the computer.
Ken, I agree with you quite a bit on this.
1. Levitt’s analysis is spot on, and should be placed in front of all Lifer’s aggressively. They need to KNOW that more babies born to bad moms equals bad kids.
2. Understand, that central to Levitt’s work is the argument, I’m sure you agree with, that bad moms KNOW they will be bad moms so they abort.
3. I think you therefore have to start there intellectually. Force the social conservatives to be willing to ASSUME responsibility for the babies themselves.
What I mean is, for Lifer’s ending abortion isn’t about keeping the baby with the bad mom, it isn’t about social support for bad moms, it is about “respecting” the life / baby itself… and then letting it be adopted.
As a matter of policy, I’ve always thought that the common ground both sides could really get behind is PROFESSIONALIZING ADOPTION.
Make it is absolutely easy as possible for those who wish to adopt, to actually get to adopt, make it really easy for women to carry to term for adoption, thereby REMOVING for sure, any notion of “imaginary demand” from the equation. Get everyone who wants to adopt, even gays and singles, a baby.
THEN, you have a system that proves to social conservatives that there’s NO ONE to take care fo these extra babies being aborted. They have to actually come to understand that to force them off their strident position.
So, yeah keep abortion legal, but really go long with a program that raises up and promotes not having an abortion and putting baby up for adoption. Placate the religious nuts, and prove to them the social benefits of abortion really exist.
Ken, I agree with you quite a bit on this.
1. Levitt’s analysis is spot on, and should be placed in front of all Lifer’s aggressively. They need to KNOW that more babies born to bad moms equals bad kids.
2. Understand, that central to Levitt’s work is the argument, I’m sure you agree with, that bad moms KNOW they will be bad moms so they abort.
3. I think you therefore have to start there intellectually. Force the social conservatives to be willing to ASSUME responsibility for the babies themselves.
What I mean is, for Lifer’s ending abortion isn’t about keeping the baby with the bad mom, it isn’t about social support for bad moms, it is about “respecting” the life / baby itself… and then letting it be adopted.
As a matter of policy, I’ve always thought that the common ground both sides could really get behind is PROFESSIONALIZING ADOPTION.
Make it is absolutely easy as possible for those who wish to adopt, to actually get to adopt, make it really easy for women to carry to term for adoption, thereby REMOVING for sure, any notion of “imaginary demand” from the equation. Get everyone who wants to adopt, even gays and singles, a baby.
THEN, you have a system that proves to social conservatives that there’s NO ONE to take care fo these extra babies being aborted. They have to actually come to understand that to force them off their strident position.
So, yeah keep abortion legal, but really go long with a program that raises up and promotes not having an abortion and putting baby up for adoption. Placate the religious nuts, and prove to them the social benefits of abortion really exist.
“In Minneapolis, “it was as if the whole Republican convention had started drinking Red Bull,” said Richard Land of the Southern Baptist Convention…”
And what comes out the other end is the same old bull.
“In Minneapolis, “it was as if the whole Republican convention had started drinking Red Bull,” said Richard Land of the Southern Baptist Convention…”
And what comes out the other end is the same old bull.
going back to Jon’s original post. . . it looks as though energy ads are not front and center for the time being
Per an email from the campaign asking for donations
“The McCain campaign is trying to distract voters from the real issues — so we’re going to focus on what they’re trying to hide.
They’ve come out against the life-saving possibilities of stem cell research.
They don’t even mention protecting equal pay for equal work.
They support huge tax cuts for the wealthiest 2% of Americans.
They’ve almost completely ignored the $10 billion we’re spending every month in Iraq.
And they make zero exceptions for a woman’s right to choose — even in cases of rape, incest, or to protect the life of the mother.”
going back to Jon’s original post. . . it looks as though energy ads are not front and center for the time being
Per an email from the campaign asking for donations
“The McCain campaign is trying to distract voters from the real issues — so we’re going to focus on what they’re trying to hide.
They’ve come out against the life-saving possibilities of stem cell research.
They don’t even mention protecting equal pay for equal work.
They support huge tax cuts for the wealthiest 2% of Americans.
They’ve almost completely ignored the $10 billion we’re spending every month in Iraq.
And they make zero exceptions for a woman’s right to choose — even in cases of rape, incest, or to protect the life of the mother.”
You raise a very good point Morgan, and refreshingly, it seems like the one you wanted to make. More importantly, it’s a dead-accurate criticism of fundamentalist politics that not nearly enough people have made, and that I doubt they’ve ever felt compelled to answerer.
So thank you, for putting that out there without all the confrontational and vitriolic baggage that has clouded much of what you’ve posted in the past.
It’s a big win for clarity, and it really makes a noticeable difference. Seriously, many thanks. And again, great point.
You raise a very good point Morgan, and refreshingly, it seems like the one you wanted to make. More importantly, it’s a dead-accurate criticism of fundamentalist politics that not nearly enough people have made, and that I doubt they’ve ever felt compelled to answerer.
So thank you, for putting that out there without all the confrontational and vitriolic baggage that has clouded much of what you’ve posted in the past.
It’s a big win for clarity, and it really makes a noticeable difference. Seriously, many thanks. And again, great point.
Damn, extra appendage on that ‘answer’.
Damn, extra appendage on that ‘answer’.
Morgan and Ken- I think you are both really right on this issue.
Morgan- How could that adoption movement be organized so that every clinic and church had access to a data base so that whenever a pregnant young woman who did not want to be mother came in, they could immediatly begin to find parents for the child by the time it arrived. When I think of all the American couples going to China or Roumania to adopt, there seems a better way.
Morgan and Ken- I think you are both really right on this issue.
Morgan- How could that adoption movement be organized so that every clinic and church had access to a data base so that whenever a pregnant young woman who did not want to be mother came in, they could immediatly begin to find parents for the child by the time it arrived. When I think of all the American couples going to China or Roumania to adopt, there seems a better way.
Fully agree with Morgan on that…
Fully agree with Morgan on that…
Oh, one of the points that white liberal adoptive parents who go to China or Africa are trying to make is unfortunately the “look at us, aren’t we hip and multi-cultural” style of statement. It’s too much like getting an exotic pet like a cheetah or something.
Oh, one of the points that white liberal adoptive parents who go to China or Africa are trying to make is unfortunately the “look at us, aren’t we hip and multi-cultural” style of statement. It’s too much like getting an exotic pet like a cheetah or something.
The concept I think fails to meet some feminist’s goals which is absolute control of the fetus. I’d love to be proven wrong on this… but you can see where they’d be coming from.
But, Jon you describe the tech system as it would need be, put all adoptive parents who have registered into a DB, and when a woman walks into Planned Parenthood, allow her to make contact with any and all of them and walk back out.
Flip it over and do same thing with DB in churches. Sign ‘em up, look through them.
If there’s nobody in the DB, she’s more willing to have an abortion. Just make it part of the abotion process. And, if there’s nobody in the DB, the right has less of an argument.
As I said, I think it might be deemed cultural or state influence against a woman, like showing them them videos, etc. Ultimately, I’d solve that problem with economics, by allowing there to be a profit motive (since there is already)… making adoption a bit more like surrogacy.
Also the state services groups tend to be VERY picky about children’s “rights” during adoption. Another thing where the state gets in the way.
It also raises issues because of ethnic race concerns, do white people want white babies, blacks want black babies, but again – I’m so tired of the stupid arguments, it’d be better to have clarity on the supply/demand issue brought by tech.
The concept I think fails to meet some feminist’s goals which is absolute control of the fetus. I’d love to be proven wrong on this… but you can see where they’d be coming from.
But, Jon you describe the tech system as it would need be, put all adoptive parents who have registered into a DB, and when a woman walks into Planned Parenthood, allow her to make contact with any and all of them and walk back out.
Flip it over and do same thing with DB in churches. Sign ‘em up, look through them.
If there’s nobody in the DB, she’s more willing to have an abortion. Just make it part of the abotion process. And, if there’s nobody in the DB, the right has less of an argument.
As I said, I think it might be deemed cultural or state influence against a woman, like showing them them videos, etc. Ultimately, I’d solve that problem with economics, by allowing there to be a profit motive (since there is already)… making adoption a bit more like surrogacy.
Also the state services groups tend to be VERY picky about children’s “rights” during adoption. Another thing where the state gets in the way.
It also raises issues because of ethnic race concerns, do white people want white babies, blacks want black babies, but again – I’m so tired of the stupid arguments, it’d be better to have clarity on the supply/demand issue brought by tech.
Even though Morgan’s opinion on the topic of abortion is quite intelligent and thought-out, there are a few things I’d like to point out:
(a) what about mothers who for some reason either cannot or are not willing to give the unborn baby safe support during the pregnancy? (drugs, alcohol, living in a toxic place, malnutrition caused by poverty etc.)
(b) what about babies born with impairments? Will the host parents be required to adopt them anyway? Can we guarantee the quality of _humane_ life for the kids?
(c) Can we really guarantee the adoptive parents to be good for the kid? (Note, I’m not saying we can do it now :p) Isn’t it possible, that the life we provide to these children will be full of suffering? Remember, the road to Hell is paved with good intentions.
(d) What about pregnancies that endanger the life of mother? (And again with my pet peeve: how the heck can anti-abortionists be called pro-life even in this situation?!?!?)
Of course, as Morgan himself pointed out, as long as we provide the possibility of abortion, these questions are mostly moot. Just wanted to toss them out in the view.
Even though Morgan’s opinion on the topic of abortion is quite intelligent and thought-out, there are a few things I’d like to point out:
(a) what about mothers who for some reason either cannot or are not willing to give the unborn baby safe support during the pregnancy? (drugs, alcohol, living in a toxic place, malnutrition caused by poverty etc.)
(b) what about babies born with impairments? Will the host parents be required to adopt them anyway? Can we guarantee the quality of _humane_ life for the kids?
(c) Can we really guarantee the adoptive parents to be good for the kid? (Note, I’m not saying we can do it now :p) Isn’t it possible, that the life we provide to these children will be full of suffering? Remember, the road to Hell is paved with good intentions.
(d) What about pregnancies that endanger the life of mother? (And again with my pet peeve: how the heck can anti-abortionists be called pro-life even in this situation?!?!?)
Of course, as Morgan himself pointed out, as long as we provide the possibility of abortion, these questions are mostly moot. Just wanted to toss them out in the view.