WHAT ROUGH BEAST? America sits of the edge

Tartarin,

I do believe it is a common problem, and I think I rather fairly well acklnowledged that. I tossed in a few Democrat anecdotes to follow your Republican openers and because they happened to be the ones with which I had direct and personal contact.

However, bad as it is I don't know of any way to completely eliminate it without inducing even worse side effects. An essential feature of our Democracy is the action of people in self-organized groups to address common interests. For this reason I don't see the dangers you evidently do in the interaction of politicians with such groups of people, whether those groups are businesses, labor unions, professional associations, or single issue advocacy groups.

Lola,

Getting it problem ?? Getting it problem !!

I'm here and I HAVE A CIGAR !!

We all have another problem which has just raised it's ugly head again with the passage and presidential signature of the partial birth abortion bill. Within one hour it was blocked by the ACLU and their hand picked federal judge. I am neutral on any abortion issue but don't we have a shift in power here to the judiciary?
Isn't this legislation by judiciary against the will of the people? In the latest poll a majority of the people ---I think it was 63%, favored a ban on partial birth abortions--it was passed by both houses of congress and signed by the president----all representatives of the people. The ACLU and one federal judge blocked it.

Laugh, Blatham told me you'd take it that way, george.....................

Cigars are very good.........I love a good cigar, but don't send the special prosecutor (or is it the persecutor) after me...........I hate that man! Very, very funny.

Perc,

Yes, I agree about the courts. But unfortunately they are in fact the check on the other two arms of government. I didn't like it when they decided the election. I thought we should have had a re-count. But there they were, the Supremes.........doin what they do. And it will be the same with the abortion issue. Unlike you, I care a lot about the abortion issue. Not so much because of the young women here in the US. Or at least those with plenty of money. We'll always be able to obtain a safe abortion if necessary. It's the poor in this country and the developing nations with their human rights issues for women and over population problems that I'm upset about. The abortion issue is not about murdered babies. It's about moralistic control. Just as the capital punishment issue is, or at least that's the way I see it. Good to see you here, perc. Enjoy, have a cigar.

Lola said:

Have a cigar-----believe I will and just enjoy this discussion which has risen to a new level of mutual respect and civility.

Perc

It is conceivable, in fact, I think it is precisely the case, that this PB ban is designed as an incremental step on the way to overturning Roe v Wade. That ruling is, as you know, a target of the Christian Coalition.

So, for any individual who holds that the state ought not to be inserting itself between a woman and her doctor, this is no small issue.

As regards the role of the courts...they do have a role, and it is partly to restrict arbitrary infringements of rights and liberties.

The ACLU, over the years, has managed to gore everyone's bull. They are passionate about one thing: civil liberties. So, though I've disagreed with some of their issues, I continue to respect (and contribute to) their cause. I like the idea of a group of (often) young lawyers making damn sure my freedoms are protected. As for the role of the courts, Blatham has nailed it.

Today's installment of Washington Report from the Family Research Council.......enjoy:

http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=PR03K02&f=PG03I03

You know, I wanted to ask Craven about the countries that do not allow political donations too, dammit. That is interesting. Guess I can't now.....grrrrrrrrrr.

In Oz, we allow 'em, but they must be declared (haha) above a certain amount. Parties also get funded publicly somewhat, once they get above a certain number of votes - to stop lunatic fringe parties from getting public money.

I guess that is a sort of odd sounding system - but 'tis meant to encourage equal opportunity politically.

Dlowan -- I don't know if you've been following the Howard Dean ("people-powered Howard") saga which includes, in the next couple of days, a referendum among Dean's supporters as to whether he should take public funding (which he and most of his supporters are for, in principle) or try to raise enough money among supporters to avoid public funding. If you're interested in the ins and outs of this, you might want to check the debate going on in Dean's blogforamerican.com -- his town meeting on the web.

I'm one of those "600 registered" supporters who's been asked to consider this and then vote in the online referendum -- results will be announced on Saturday. This is where the rubber meets the road. I've thought about my "vote" for the past 24 hours and realize that if there's any issue in American politics which supercedes, for me, the issue of who wins the next election or even "get Bush out at whatever cost," it's reform of the campaign finance and election systems. (I was sorry, too, not to have Craven's info since, unlike those who believe that American is simply above comparison to other countries, I think we can learn lot from democratic successes and failures elsewhere!)

Yes, I wanted to ask Craven about what he knows about those countries and corruption regarding campaign finance. I'm curious.

Tartarin - since I cannot affect American elections, I tend to avoid knowing a lot about them.

They scare me somewhat....

For those interested in sources for concern about theocracy:

http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=14472&start=180

I don't want to post twice. But we can talk about it here. Didion is right.

"I like the idea of a group of (often) young lawyers making damn sure my freedoms are protected".

I hope you are never the victim of a crime Tartarin but if you are I hope you have a damn good "older" lawyer because those same "young" lawyers working for the ACLU will probably be defending the guy/person who committed the crime against you. They say they are pro-victims rights but they really only pay lip service to that claim by printing a victims rights handbook. They need to take some victims cases to prove it to me.
BTW--why don't they protect the rights of all Americans not just , gays and pedophiles and to remove all references of God from the daily life of America. Their next target is getting lots of action since it's close to Christmas which is-----their next target. It really doesn't bother me because I think the commercialisation of Christmas is hideous and odious but it will upset a bunch of folks and the end result will be further polarization of the electorate toward the right.

The ACLU has a fabulous sounding charter but why are they so selective in the cases they take-----it looks very suspicious to me when they only take cases that will make the biggest headline and do the most to further their agenda which seems to want to change the cultural face of America.

I see someone has the same shallow knowledge about the ACLU he has on just about every other subject imaginable.

hobit,

Was that your version of an intelligent rebuttal?

No, it was a simple statement of fact, unfortunately.

Why don't you contribute to them, Perc, as I do? Perhaps they could take more cases...

George, I think Hobit's right. Perception's response is shallow, silly and meaningless.

I think the ACLU thread is three doors down and to the left.

george

did you take a look at that other thread which lola just linked to? There are a number of relevant quotes by Pat Robertson and Ralph Reed. Relevant, as lola notes, to what Didion has written of.

I suggest there is a real threat, at least possible, in what is voiced there.

Blatham,

Hadn't seen it. I'll look and check it out.