to compare voter ID laws to such legislation is absurd. In an era when you need a picture ID to drive a car, board a plane, get government benefits or do just about anything in contemporary American society, it takes an active and partisan imagination to claim asking someone who is voting to properly identify themselves is akin to Jim Crow. But one must ask if voter ID requirements are racist because they disproportionately affect the poor, how can similar restrictions anywhere else be deemed non-discriminatory?
Photo with 11 notes
Nobody is asking Christians to get gay married or study up on natural science or even remove their idol worship from their winter solstice celebration. And yet the Christians express their situation as victims of democracy. They claim that we, as a nation, do not respect their religious freedom.
As long as the IRS grants tax breaks to married couples and families, is it reasonable for a democracy to give the tax paying community a voice in the issues of what does and does not constitute a family? If the purpose of the tax breaks is to benefit the community, I think the community should be able to discuss the merits of different kinds of families.
As public schools receive public funding, is it reasonable for a democracy to put the lesson plan to a vote? If a local community feels that Jesus has His place in public schools, they have a right to put Him in the lesson plan. If the same community feels math should not be taught to girls or that The Flying Spaghetti Monster offends them, do they have a right to withhold their tax dollars from funding that which they feel is objectionable?
And as far as local cities collect taxes to pay for beautifying the streets and public spaces, is it only fair to let the tax paying local community democratically elect the design of the decorations and which idols shall be hung by the street lamps? If its a snowman or Christ figure, does a community have a right to decide what image of cultural meaning should be paid homage to?
That’s the beast of society: man is born free and yet everywhere he is in chains. To enjoy wonderful things like public education and public beautification, we might have to put up with a little loss of liberty. Some of our tax dollars are going to go to things that we disapprove of. Its a fact of freaking society.
Indignation is not one sided. Atheists cringe at the notion of tax dollars going to artists who paint Christian images in court rooms. Christians get up in arms about the issue of public health clinics providing contraceptives or birth control. I can certainly understand the desire to tell everybody to just shut up because it could be a whole lot worse. We could live in a society without a public court system or any public health facilities. But that’s not the future they want. They love government programs but only so far as they reflect their values and nobody else’s.
If I didn’t know any better, I’d jest that Christians and Atheists like the constant quarreling. They hate each other but they need each other. Cathartic. Ironic. Its everything you could ask for in a comedy and more.
“I’m surprised to get a gay marriage question from a college crowd.”
Rick Santorum starts off a gay marriage discussion with dickish sarcasm.
“Its a shocker for me!”
Whats interesting is how the college students proceed with their opportunity to get Tea Party favorite Rick Santorum to explain his reasoning behind his opposition to gay marriage.
“How does it effect you? Why not allow legal marriage?” a student asks.
Sidestepping the issue a bit, Santorum says roughly, don’t ask me why I’m against something. Tell me why you’re for it and I’ll tear down your position.
This is a total crap shot. The best way to win an argument is to set your opponent up to tear himself down.
“Don’t you have to make the positive argument for why the law ought to be changed? That was not his argument,” Santorum said. “Your question was, why don’t you want to change the law?
“If I am going to say we need to build a bridge over the river, you’re going to ask why I want to build a bridge. You wouldn’t ask why don’t you want me to build that bridge?”
Santorum is re-framing the issue. Classic misdirection. Don’t ask me why I am such a party pooper. Show me the value-add for the party and maybe I’ll participate?
This is where the college students begin to fail.
You want people to have the right to visit each other in the hospital? You don’t need a marriage contract to do that, Santorum explains. You can legally arrange this with a contract.
So we agree that all men are created equal and have a right to pursuit their own happiness. But you say this means anybody can marry anybody they want? Anybody can marry anybody else? Can anybody marry several people? No? Why not?
“That’s irrelevant!” the students cry.
Sanatorium continues “If it makes three people happy to get married, based on what you just said, what makes that wrong and what you said right?”
By this point the argument is over because the students start to backtrack. That’s somehow different, they say. One students has the guts to say that they don’t agree with polygamy but what happens among consenting adults is not the government’s business. But its too little too late.
“I would suggest you go make that argument,” Santorum concludes.
The argument being, if marriage is an institution designed by God then it should be regarded as a church issue to be handled by the churches. Thus, no government body shall make any legislation regulating marriage or the civil unions of individuals. Marriage should be free as speech and religion.
Further, government may not grant tax breaks to those who participate in the sacrament or confession. Why is government, then, able to grant tax breaks based on participation in other church practices such as marriage?
In closing, Santorum expresses his concern for children who grow up without knowing their mother and father. I wonder then, is he making an argument against adoption altogether? If what he says is true, that he believes as he says, should he be taking a stand against parents who put their children up for adoption and not trying to stop willing parents from adopting? Very strange, indeed.
Rick Santorum is an elementary logician who is able to trump a group of idealistic college students. Nice try, bro. But I see through your game.
Also interesting how the video begins as a Newt-roast but ends with an unintended nod-along with the prospect of a moon colony.
Also, other strange sentiments expressed by this interview:
The role of government is to see investment opportunity where the free market only sees risk.
The role of government is to inspire young students to study science when they’d otherwise want to study social issues.
But not: is there any benefit from returning to the moon, aside from immaterial pride? And prowess?
Post with 4 notes
Taking a moment to reflect on recent political conversations with people and how we always seem to be talking past people and failing to really connect. Why is that? Is there something inherent to the two sides on every issue that prohibit us from understanding each other?
This is the core of liberalism: Its not about taking from someone who has to give to someone who doesn’t. Its about identifying a systemic problem in our society and fighting for a solution. Its about seeing to it that someone is dealing with those problems.
Conservatism, at its core, is strikingly similar: Its about identifying the goodness in society and fighting to preserve it. The familiarity of family values. The enduring value of the home. The virtue of being loyal to the company.
On both ends, I see coercion and imposition of guilt. We’re going to put all of this to a vote and whichever idea is most popular is going to become our idea. And together, we’re all going to believe in it. And if you don’t believe in it then well, you hate America. And you hate the working man. And you hate people with money. And you hate the gays. And you hate Jesus.
And all of this because you don’t buy into the group think that this is the issue that needs our immediate support and we need to attack it head on with a big bat and a bull whip.
Maybe some of these traditional values need to be re-considered and maybe we should take a lesson from Occupy and encourage a diversity of tactics to helping those in need. We can all benefit from taking a step back to listen to each other, including ourselves.
Post with 8 notes
Is it funny how Ron Paul’s campaign simultaneously launches an attack on a woman’s right to choose and the sanctity of life?
Video with 2 notes
I am no Romney supporter but this is probably the single most reasonable thing to come out of the jerk’s mouth. Lets forget for a moment that this is the same guy who created the state healthcare plan for Massachusetts. What he is describing in this clip is the crux of the free market healthcare program. Not the program that we’ve come to know and “love” as the “free market” system where insurance companies fuck over consumers. The real free market healthcare program where health insurance companies provide real value or they lose market share to those who will.
“I like to be able to fire people” taken out of its context here sounds like he’s anti-worker. In it’s intended context, he’s making the definitive argument against corporate power. Its the opposite of anti-worker. Pro-consumer is pro-worker.
If only he had continued to say “What we need are competitive options!”
We aren’t going to see those options if the state continues to regulate the consumer in buying across state lines and we sure as hell aren’t going to see a diversity of options if we permit the state to compel consumers into purchasing a minimum plan from designated government partners in the private sector. Insurance companies need to be put into a position where they need to earn consumers.
We don’t currently have that. We have misrepresentation of the facts. The Republicans will have you believe that the Democrats want a free healthcare program that burdens the taxpayers. The Democrats will have you believe that the Republicans want to enable insurance companies to charge an arm and a leg for basic coverage. The truth is, they both want to compel individuals to buy at least the minimum product from designated private corporate providers and to manipulate market value through subsidies or tax credits. Then sit back and watch as those designated government partners become filthy rich with lazy programs that don’t work for consumers because they don’t have to. Its a ‘right to consumers’ program.
And that is why you should never vote for a politician who says he is going to fix healthcare. I would never vote for Mitt Romney because he doesn’t actually believe the words he is preaching here. But in this clip, he is saying the right thing. Government can’t fix your healthcare program. Only you, the consumer, can fix your healthcare program by making smart choices. And government needs to enable you to make smart choices by observing your natural liberty to buy or not buy whenever and from whomever you want.
An ultimately to empower local communities to pool together extra resources, as available, to pay for those who can’t pay for themselves. This idea is missing from mainstream dialogue that humanism and charity is too important and too personal of a virtue to leave up to giant bureaucracies like federal governments and multinational corporations. Nor is it sustainable. We need to handle these issues ourselves as local communities.
Post with 3 notes
I hate how people argue about the issue of abortion. When I hear people yapping about pro-life and pro-choice, I figure they might as well be arguing about Spider Man versus Batman. We have to agree on the premise of the argument before we start talking about any conclusions. They might as well be talking about fictional comic book characters.
Is abortion murder? Well, what is murder?
If we can agree that murder is ‘killing another person’ then what is a person?
Is a fetus a person? Is a convicted criminal a person? Is every human, living or dead, a person? There is no definitive answer to these questions. One person’s misogynistic assault on the woman’s womb and a woman’s right to choose is another person’s systematic genocide of unwanted babies. Both arguments have credence.
There is no right answer. There is only consistency with one’s own premises. So what’s the point of arguing with someone who doesn’t understand the premises of your conclusion?
Page 1 of 8