Walter Hinteler wrote:I'm not that sure about pharmacies - I doubt, however, that this is possible according to the
German Pharmacy Law.
That what is possible -- possible for pharmacists to refuse selling morning-after pills, or possible for the state to compel that they do?
For goodness sakes, thomas. If you will not acknowledge the significance of what Lola (and Krugman in this case) keeps pointing to, then listen up to a long-time Republican senator and Episcopal minister...
As to what the Dems ought to do now (which entails a clear-sighted and historically accurate understanding of precisely how the Republicans have succeeded in increasing growth and power over the last three or four decades) the following piece by Bill Bradley echoes pretty exactly what I (and others) have been contending for sometime now. There is rather more to the story of the Powell memo (what led to it, the whos involved) but this is a historically significant point and as shorthand, a fine place to begin.
Quote: A Party Inverted
By BILL BRADLEY
Published: March 30, 2005
FIVE months after the presidential election Democrats are still pointing fingers at one another and trying to figure out why Republicans won. Was the problem the party's position on social issues or taxes or defense or what? Were there tactical errors made in the conduct of the campaign? Were the right advisers heard? Was the candidate flawed?
Before deciding what Democrats should do now, it's important to see what Republicans have done right over many years. When the Goldwater Republicans lost in 1964, they didn't try to become Democrats. They tried to figure out how to make their own ideas more appealing to the voters. As part of this effort, they turned to Lewis Powell, then a corporate lawyer and soon to become a member of the United States Supreme Court. In 1971 he wrote a landmark memo for the United States Chamber of Commerce in which he advocated a sweeping, coordinated and long-term effort to spread conservative ideas on college campuses, in academic journals and in the news media.
To further the party's ideological and political goals, Republicans in the 1970's and 1980's built a comprehensive structure based on Powell's blueprint...
CONTINUED HERE
blatham wrote:For goodness sakes, thomas. If you will not acknowledge the significance of what Lola (and Krugman in this case) keeps pointing to, then listen up to a long-time Republican senator and Episcopal minister...
Your witness is making my case as eloquently as he is making yours. All these elements -- criminalizing stem cell research, abortions, and the euthanasia of patients like Terri Schiavo -- are already implemented in German law, just as they are in the law of most other European nations. We also don't have gay marriage -- we do have civil unions, but I think our Supreme Court has ruled that while these are constitutional, full-fledged gay marriage wouldn't be. Moreover, while a few European countries do have more-or-less full fledged gay marriage, many more of them don't even have civil unions. I guess there is an approximately equal number of countries who give some recognition to same-sex unions and those who don't give any at all.
Based on all these facts, are you contending that Europe is dominated by the religious right? If not, what, in your view, is the relevant difference between our legislation and what the Republicans want? I'm not arguing with your contention that most of this legislation is undesirable. I'm arguing with your charge that it is a sign of religious fundamentalism. Even if false, this charge is easy to make and hard to defend against, and frankly I think you and Lola are taking advantage of that.
thomas
Societies of the sort you or I or Lola live in are very complex. Sussing out the pertinent forces and dynamics and persons which are truly causal in producing change (or inhibiting change) is not a task one ought to be very confident will deliver up clear truths. So I do understand your complaint about such claims being difficult to defend against. But as liable to fault as such investigations might be, they are still necessary. I was speaking last night with the doorman to the building where I am staying. He is from Sarejevo and his family, once very wealthy, were left with nothing. You too know the dangers of societies going, quite blindly, over the edge.
We cannot just assume that Germany and Europes histories will parallel the American experience and trajectory. Take Africa, which has now become the most prominent anti-gay voice within the Anglican community. Clearly, that is a consequence of how christian theology there is marked by earlier cultural values. The path by which Germany got to legislation/values on abortion, for example, will not necessarily be the same route by which American leglislation/values arrived.
The proper study of America in this case is America.
Its only bad if its the US, and its even worse if somehow it can be associated with The Current Administration/Republican Party, Thomas .... can't you get that through your head
Gotta love irony. Pity those least likely to recognize it for such are those who perpetrate it.
blatham wrote: The proper study of America in this case is America.
I disagree -- the ethics of sexuality, the beginning and the end of life don't depend on the complexities of our societies. People in Europe, where most Americans descend from, rely on pretty similar sources for their ethical views as people in America do for theirs; if you look at polls, you will find that their views are not too different either. Nevertheless, they have had their governments pass laws, and have committed themselves to constitutions, which prescribe very different
legal norms. In my opinion, this is good evidence that reasonable people can disagree on whether stem cell research, abortion, or euthanasia ought to be criminalized, and whether same-sex unions deserve legal recognition or not. As a corollary, the fact that some American Republicans want these issues regulated by European-style laws doesn't establish that they are religious fundamentalists -- which is what your article claims.
Well said Thomas. And it also does not explain how so many on the right are self-proclaimed agnostics or athiests and yet they continue to support what are called conservative views re right to life when it comes to 'pulling the plug', abortion for convenience, the traditional definition of marriage, etc. And it continues to be frustrating when we cannot debate the issues themselves on their own merits without some needing to demonize people of faith, people with mostly conservative values, or the administration in power.
I am far less concerned with motive or intent than I am with the effect of law and policy. A bad idea or policy is a bad idea or policy no matter who came up with it and likewise a good idea or policy is a good idea or policy no matter who came up with it or why.
Thomas wrote:Walter Hinteler wrote:I'm not that sure about pharmacies - I doubt, however, that this is possible according to the
German Pharmacy Law.
That what is possible -- possible for pharmacists to refuse selling morning-after pills, or possible for the state to compel that they do?
Possible for the state to compel that they do.
the religious extremists in government are to wackos like randall terry what sinn fein is to the ira.
randall terry and his ilk are terrorists. no more, no less.
Thomas
How fearless and unflinching in your principles you are.
It has been a pleasure just watching here, and on the Shiavo thread. How rarely any of us break ranks. Not that I thought you were wearing any party colors, or anything--but still. Your unflappable strength of character is admirable.
Thomas wrote:blatham wrote: The proper study of America in this case is America.
I disagree -- the ethics of sexuality, the beginning and the end of life don't depend on the complexities of our societies. People in Europe, where most Americans descend from, rely on pretty similar sources for their ethical views as people in America do for theirs; if you look at polls, you will find that their views are not too different either. Nevertheless, they have had their governments pass laws, and have committed themselves to constitutions, which prescribe very different
legal norms. In my opinion, this is good evidence that reasonable people can disagree on whether stem cell research, abortion, or euthanasia ought to be criminalized, and whether same-sex unions deserve legal recognition or not. As a corollary, the fact that some American Republicans want these issues regulated by European-style laws doesn't establish that they are religious fundamentalists -- which is what your article claims.
fearless and unflinching thomas
Not to put too fine a point on it but do you actually consider that you have a better grasp on the dynamics of present Republican Party politics, specifically the nature of and influence of the modern religious right, than Mr. Danforth? If so, how have you managed this feat?
blatham wrote:Not to put too fine a point on it but do you actually consider that you have a better grasp on the dynamics of present Republican Party politics, specifically the nature of and influence of the modern religious right, than Mr. Danforth?
Not on the dynamics themselves -- just on whether those dynamics are directed towards goals that are fundamentalist, or towards goals I merely disagree with. Criminalizing stem cell research, criminalizing abortion, criminalizing euthanasia, and not recognizing same sex unions are goals I disagree with, but not necessarily religiously fundamentalist goals.
blatham wrote:If so, how have you managed this feat?
Because I believe I may know more about American politics than Mr. Danford knows about European politics, and about the laws they produce. As a result, I may have a broader perspective on this than he does. Sorry for sounding arrogant, but I really think I do.
Thomas:-
What does "ethics of sexuality" mean?
The view from over here.
All these arguments are being put up and nobody seems to have any idea of the outcome of any of them if they succeeded.
Your nation is split on religion,race and the urban/rural question besides on sex,generation,party and wealth.
Also,all easy issues have been settled.Any controvesy left is thus difficult and bitter.
Also,you need an unreachable majority,given the amalgum of splits,to change the constitution.
Also,the constitution needs changing.It's out of date.The longer you put it off the more resources will be drained into the satchels of the legal profession and affiliated industries.But you have to put it off because of the impossible majority problem.
You can of course change the constitution by the normal method of civil war.The winners get to write it.One way,a traditional way,of maintaining a semblence of unity is to have a foreign war as Mr Putin is often said to have done in Chechnya (?).
The more the argument proceeds the more politicised it gets and the more polarised.
You will never agree to the "goofing off" strategy because you are money mad.
It must be obvious to anybody who can count to five that the balance of power between the rural and the urban is a function of agricultural commodity prices.
Politics is diplomatic negotiations between representitives of the powers involved.When a nation is not "in form" in the athletic sense the others notice because they study the matter.This key aspect of politics is beyond all our ken.We do not have the information.
Politics may be seen also as deals in parliament or similar places between friends and enemies alike,reciprocal swindling,spying,granting of favours and decisions made in accordance with "established rules of procedure".We know next to nothing about this as well although there are some who like to think they do.We have no choice but to leave it all to them or become one of them.
Some might think that politics consists of winning over the masses by demagogery but that can only be done given the state of the masses by making promises which can't be kept:a sleight of hand.
We can change our constitution at a moment's notice and once it is changed we all,more or less,accept it.That is in response to facts and events.And we have our glorious Queen in whom we all trust.
spendius wrote:What does "ethics of sexuality" mean?
It means questions like, "who ought to sleep with whom, depending on what?", and, "which sexual relationships, if any, ought society privilege over others?"
blatham wrote:Not to put too fine a point on it but do you actually consider that you have a better grasp on the dynamics of present Republican Party politics, specifically the nature of and influence of the modern religious right, than Mr. Danforth? If so, how have you managed this feat?
Blatham exhibits an almost medieval reverence for the credentials and compelling authority of anyone who expresses an opinion in conformity with his own prejudices. Even Thomas Aquinas gave less weight to the Argument from Authority than his other, more objective formulations.
Some prefer to think for themselves. (I would specifically cite Thomas here, were it not for his ugly avatar and very occasionally odd political opinions.)
I don't know the context in which former Senator Danforth uttered his opinion and I don't know what aspects of the matter he had in mind or was promoting. His opinion is moderately interesting, but hardly persuasive. Washington is filled with present and former politicians, one of whom has likely said just about everything. Damn little authority there.
It is a pretty safe bet, I think, that Senator's Danforth's remarks would not have been posted had they seemed to reflect a different opinion. I wonder if he knows he is a new guru for the Left? And will he be similarly held up as an authority on those issues on which I know he holds a more distinctively rightish conviction?
And yes, with a very few exceptions, you can certainly find politicians in Washington and everywhere else who share at least one common view with somebody. And with very few exceptions, every politician who has ever existed has no doubt been publicly wrong about something. It would be nice if we could stop electing imperfect human beings to office.
I think it would be productive to put more emphasis on the merits or lack there of on the principle stated or the concept proposed than is put on the person stating a principle or proposing a concept. I think the Democrats, for instance, have at least appeared to put much more emphasis on their approval or disapproval of people than on the principles and concepts presented by those same people.
And I think that's one thing in which they are wrong and should fix before the next election.
Interesting observations Spendius.
Our constitution is indeed a bit rigid, particularly compared to the more informal one in Britain. One can trace protracted struggles over key issues in our history - state's rights, slavery, the expansion of the power of the Federal government, and several others. There have always been hotly debated issues, escaping easy resolution, in our political debates and some (not all) of those that preoccupy us today will become elements of the continuing long-term struggle.
The British example is a rather exceptional one. Whatever were the conditions that enabled you to arrive at a relatively stable, but largely unwritten 'constitution', they haven't come together to produce a similar result in many other places. Very likely you escaped several civil wars, and perhaps the collapse of your system, by exporting dissident peoples to distant colonies in American, Australia, Africa, and other places. We were one of those places, and the facts of our revolution and rejection of the British system required that we define ourselves in that revolutionary act against a still powerful and still threatening former master. Hence our Constitution.
So far we are doing reasonably well, despite all the sound and fury. I doubt that these matters are worse or more divisive than the developing struggle in Europe over sovereignty vis a vis the EU. I will concede that so far even the EU has shown a bit of that British pragmatism and adaptability. However the the forces of doctrine and codification are visibly at work, weaving rigid structures and rules that, if expanded too far, will come to rule your lives. I am also bemused at the British appetite for the largely absurd attempts to further codify "international law" in a series of very poorly thought through treaties such as Kyoto, the ICC, and The Law of the Sea, etc. These monsters will be far more difficult to control and change than any of the matters that so preoccupy the United States today. Thankfully, so far, we have had the good sense to reject them.
Thomas wrote:blatham wrote:Not to put too fine a point on it but do you actually consider that you have a better grasp on the dynamics of present Republican Party politics, specifically the nature of and influence of the modern religious right, than Mr. Danforth?
Not on the dynamics themselves -- just on whether those dynamics are directed towards goals that are fundamentalist, or towards goals I merely disagree with. Criminalizing stem cell research, criminalizing abortion, criminalizing euthanasia, and not recognizing same sex unions are goals I disagree with, but not necessarily religiously fundamentalist goals.
blatham wrote:If so, how have you managed this feat?
Because I believe I may know more about American politics than Mr. Danford knows about European politics, and about the laws they produce. As a result, I may have a broader perspective on this than he does. Sorry for sounding arrogant, but I really think I do.
thomas
I do not have time this morning to take you fully to task. You make a presumption or two I do not think you are entitled to make. Here is the bio on
Danforth
The other presumption is your understanding of America and its politics. I said earlier that, in this instance, the proper study of America is America. Of course there are similar values and cultural notions shared in all Western World nations. But it hardly follows that profound differences do not exist, differences that arise out of local histories. Just consider for example the differences between Alabama and New York within a single nation, not to mention France and America for goodness sakes. Or consider the two New World nations of America and Canada which ought to be even more alike than USA/Germany. Yet in Canada the evangelical tradition has been an insignificant element in political activism whereas it has been a fundamental part of American political dynamics since the beginning. That is local historical reality. You presume too much.
