I love this post at Cupie's. She really hit it where I feel I missed. You gotta check it out.
"A culture of life"? Instead of an abortion, woman should abstain from sex or adopt out the bad mistake, the rape, the incest, good times ladies, grab them coat hangers femme-nazi-terrorists, you might need them and keep in mind Dubya doesn't want to impose his religion on anyone.The medical institutions must embrace "high technology", but don't even think about buying prescription drugs from Canada or off the internet for that matter, its wrong and illegal. God forbid we ask the pharmaceutical companies, or the FDA for that matter, to make these drugs affordable, there are mortgage's on billion dollar homes at risk, so suck up the generic drugs bitches.
Raising the minimum wage is hard work, its hard--work.
Go read it and check out her other stuff while you're there. It's good times. I'm seeing a lot of people pumping out some great writing and observations. I always love to read Cul. He posts the best articles, and often things that infuriate me beyond belief.
Sandy always entertains me with her stories. She is a great read. We have quite the internet history, me and her, and I love it that even though she and her family got moved to Germany by the military, she's still blogging her little heart out and letting us in on all her rousing daily thoughts.
Speaking of people I love to have in the blogosphere with me, I can't even describe how happy it makes me that Darcie has a blog and I can check up on her everyday! I feel like I get to be more a part of her life that way and it's fun for me.
Man, there are so many great blogs out there. I wish there was enough time in a day to keep abreast of them all. I've been exploring my comrades in the Progressive Blog Alliance, and I gotta tell you, these are some kickass comrades to have. Check them out at your leisure. I think it doubtful that you'll be disappointed.
;)
Posted by: Cupie at October 16, 2004 12:12 AMHey..thanks cutie-pie! Wouldn't it be a hoot if we're still blogging and reading one another as "grandmas" and shit...haha.
Posted by: sandy at October 16, 2004 12:50 AMSandy and Cul are daily fare for me.
Both bloggers have unique and insightful perspectives. (Of course... I'm a gay man having a long distance affair with a heterosexual military wife... but that's beside the point...)
it's a JOKE people ;-)
Posted by: Richard at October 16, 2004 09:05 AMWell...WE ARE! :) Now I'm jealous of Neil & Karen..:)
Posted by: sandy at October 17, 2004 03:07 AMhahahaha...hey thanx for the props, Maria, but that link is bizzare and goes nowhere
Posted by: cul at October 17, 2004 11:53 AMWhat the F man? Thanks for the heads up! I'll fix it pronto.
Posted by: Maria at October 17, 2004 11:56 AMWhile we're on the topic Maria, the post below was forwarded me by a friend who found it an unspecified blog. I've just copied and pasted it... but I was wondering about the Dred Scott case reference that Bush seemed to pull out of his ass. What do you think??
***********************************************
"I've talked about this privately with a few friends, commented on a few
blogs, and it's so important (to me), that I figure I ought to post about it
for maximum impact.
During debate #2, when Furious George seemingly pulled out a non sequitur
about the Dred Scott (!) decision of 1857, most of us rolled our eyes and
laughed. Call it his "You forgot about Poland" moment in the second debate.
But no. It was NOT a non-sequitur.
It was conservative code for pro-lifers, the neocons and their base
can be sure the deepest, darkest corner of this bunch knew EXACTLY what Dear
Leader was referring to.
The Dred Scott decision was handed down by the SCOTUS in the case of a
slave, Dred Scott, who made his way to the North, where slavery was illegal.
His appeal to the SCOTUS to allow him his freedom was denied. Unfortunately,
they ruled that, as a BLACK MAN and SLAVE, he was NOT considered a "person",
but "property" under the laws of the state from which he began his legal
journey (Missouri). Therefore, he had to be returned to his "owner"
forthwith.
His owners freed him anyway, but he died the next year.
How does this tie into abortion? Easy. The neocons are framing the stage for
a showdown. First, the Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004
has set the stage for a fetus to be
judged as an independent person according to the law. Sometimes, this is
referred to as the "Laci and Connor" law after you-know-what.
So now that there's one statute on the books that unequivocally states:
The law covers the "child in utero," defined as "a member of the species
homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb."
So yes, even at 9 weeks gestation, the embryo is now covered by a law that
entitles it to federal protection.
On to Dred Scott.
It will be put to the SCOTUS that, in light of the Unborn Victims law, a
fetus/embryo is a PERSON, NOT "property" (of its mother), which is how they
interpret Roe v. Wade. The Dred Scott decision has always been viewed in
hindsight with shame and anger, and it's been used to incite racial hatred
for a very long time. The neocons will argue that if we don't grant our
unborn children the same rights as our born children, we are basically no
better than we were when Dred Scott was told he was "property" and ordered
to return to his master.
That's it.
Prepare yourself for the end of safe abortions, and a new era of
coathangers, sepsis, and lots of dead women. Women have always had
abortions, and they always will. I cannot make sense of the moral relativism
used to justify death of WOMEN, IRAQI CIVILIANS, and SOLDIERS, but not
groups of cells that COULD or COULD NOT be human beings one day (barring
miscarriage or other circumstances that occur in pregnancy that terminate it
through no one's fault.)
Sometimes I just don't know about the human race, period. I just don't know.
And we only teach abstinence to our young people? Oh God. In Giuliani's
words from 9/11/01: "The casualty count will be almost more than we can
bear."
What do I think? I think that's horrifying. I intend to write a post about all of the sexual, reproductive and "moral" issues that have become such a centerpiece of American politics. I'm still trying to wrap my head around all of the thoughts that I have on the subject and find a way to quell my personal outrage enough to articulate a comprehensible point of view. Thank you for posting that Richard. It gives me one more thing to add to my list of things to figure in to my thoughts about what conservatives are trying to do to our personal freedoms.
Posted by: Maria at October 18, 2004 08:10 PMWe lose sight of democracy when our government meddles in deciding what IS or IS NOT morally right for us. When that happens, then who can discern between whether we are a democracy or whether we are a theocracy. Many of the European nations back in the middle ages may have had their kings and queens, but the real rules were the Bishops and the Pope. While our country does not allow the church to prosecute, it sems our "leaders" have become reliant upon the religious rhetoric to decide the policies - or so it seems.
I still call bullshit on this whole "Bush is a Christian" ploy. I think it is merely a way to get those votes. An act. Just like his presidency and whole life seems to be. What sets him apart from other repubs of the past is the fact he does not have my respect as either a presidernt or human being.
Bush Sr., Reagan, Eisenhower - they had my respect. I didn't agree with their policies and didnt't liek their administartions, but they alwasy had my respect. This fucking monkey is such a dirty liar that he should be thrown into jail.