I think I've figured out why the Republicans are so concerned about the Democrats having a 60 seat majority in the Senate.

They assume that the Democrats will behave the same way they would if they had a 60 seat majority (oh wait, and the way they did behave when they had a majority but fewer than 60 seats).

They are assuming all Democrats think alike and agree on all issues and will always vote the same way, much the way they would like to believe their own party is or should be, despite it not actually being quite that uniform.

The Democratic party is very diverse and has not in recent memory been driven by a single absolute ideology. I have no reason to believe that having 60 people in the Senate who have a D by their names will amount to a blank check for President Obama, or to hear some Republicans say it, a rapid move towards socialism.

Which is too bad, really, because a bit more socialism would actually be nice.

I think I now get what the problem with the right wing 'logic' is. Besides that there isn't any, I mean.

Either they completely fail to understand that ownership and operation are distinct, or they do understand it very well and the only way they can get people to see one as bad is to conflate the two.

Take this quote, from this crazy op-ed:

We all now own 60-percent oil GM (Government Motors). Barney Frank and Chris Dodd will be designing the cars you are expected to drive. These aluminum foil, duct tape cracker boxes will be cluttering our highways if the public is forced to buy them. Our national death toll will grow tenfold.

Wait, what? Because the government owns a majority share, government employees and elected officials will be designing cars? Did the majority shareholders in GM before design the cars? No? OK, then, what's the problem?

I've seen the same bogus argument against health care, too. The idea that if the government helps to insure the uninsured, obviously it means they will be making medical decisions, as well, which is ridiculous.

(The piece also contains the typical complaint that "it sounds like socialism to me." Again, no one seems able to explain why that's even such a bad thing, except that people seem to have a visceral reaction to the word 'socialism'.)

So if they really believe this nonsense, I guess I can at least understand their opposition to the government buyout or health insurance. But if they don't actually believe it and are just using the argument to convince people these policies are bad, what is the actual reason for their opposition?

I consider myself pro-choice and support abortion rights without exception. I can envision NO situation in which I would be more qualified than a pregnant woman and her doctor to determine the best course of action.

This post comes out of a discussion I had today about possible restrictions on late-term or so-called 'partial birth' abortion as a 'compromise' with the anti-abortion groups in exchange for allowing fully unrestricted abortion before a certain point.

I do not believe it is right to place any limitations on how late abortions can be performed or restrict what circumstances they can legally be performed under.

Consider a situation in which a teenager becomes pregnant and agonises for three months about whether or not she wants to terminate her pregnancy (because contrary to the beliefs of many on the other side, it is not an easy decision to make), but there's a law that says abortions can be performed after the fifth month of pregnancy only if the woman's life is threatened by the pregnancy or potential childbirth.

So now she's four months along and decides to have an abortion and makes an appointment for the following week. Enter the relative who finds out about the pregnancy and decides his/her daughter/niece/granddaughter absolutely must bear the child and raises the issue and claims she must be farther along than four months, and takes some legal action to temporarily stop the abortion.

And it's entirely possible that by the time it's determined that she was less than five months along, she's in her sixth month and can no longer have an abortion according to the law.

Such restrictions will inevitably lead to that kind of nitpicking and delaying, but without them, no one can use any such tactics to prevent a woman seeking an abortion from obtaining it.

Now, I don't think people should be getting elective late-term abortions, and for the most part, I am pretty sure they don't (again, contrary to the beliefs of those on the other side, who seem to believe it is an easy decision and that women will endure eight months of pregnancy only to end it on a whim). I think those procedures should be reserved for cases where the woman's life is in danger or where a traumatic childbirth would result in a child being stillborn or dying shortly after birth, as in this heartbreaking example.

But that is where I trust trained medical professionals and believe the law should, as well. We have to believe that a doctor who examines a pregnant woman and determines she can give birth safely to a child with a reasonable chance of survival will refuse to perform a late-term abortion. If we can't trust doctors, who can we trust?

If the doctor performs the abortion anyway, the state medical board can revoke the doctor's licence, and there are already laws against practising medicine without a licence.

Are there unethical doctors? Certainly. But like the idea of 'innocent until proven guilty', we have to believe that in most cases the doctor will make the medically and ethically sound decision.

As it would be better to set a criminal free than imprison an innocent person, it would be better to have a situation where one doctor performs a possibly unethical elective late-term abortion than where a woman who needs an abortion cannot have one.

And above all, we cannot, under any circumstances, allow terrorists to stop doctors like George Tiller from caring for their patients and helping those most in need when few others will.

I posted this yesterday, and in a comment, expressed some concern about how many such fringe wackos are out there who would murder doctors.

the answer?

way too fucking many.

By now I'm sure most of you have heard about the doctor who was murdered in Kansas today.

I don't care what your position on abortion is, if you don't think it was wrong - no, evil - that this man was gunned down in cold blood, then you are not a human being.

It is nowhere close to pro-life to murder doctors, regardless of whether or not you agree with what they practise.

And if you think that what was done to this doctor was acceptable and right, then you are just as much a murderer as the person who pulled the trigger.

mood: angry

I mean, OK, I get the objections to Lynch's meaningless and idiotic amendment requests. But as stupid as they are, they also will have absolutely no effect on anything.

No religious organisation has ever been legally required to perform any action that it did not believe in. An Orthodox Rabbi can refuse to marry a Reform couple on the grounds that they 'aren't Jewish enough'. The Catholic Church can refuse to marry a Catholic to a non-Catholic. And so on.

The law doesn't prohibit them from doing that, nor should it. In fact, it can't, considering the First Amendment's guarantee of freedom of religion.

But as dumb as I think these changes are, there's really no harm in letting them through, especially if the alternative is maintaining separate but unequal civil unions instead of equal marriage. Opposing the new bill because it grants exemptions that already exist is not productive.

So just pass the damn thing already and get Lynch to sign it.

well, not the phillies so much, but their fans. holy crap their fans are obnoxious. I mean, I knew this, but still.

I have no problem with heckling when the targets are players, coaches, and umpires (and maybe some good-natured ribbing to a fan who drops a foul ball). That's all part of the game. I'll be right there with you booing the players and teams I don't like, and yeah, even my own team when they play like they did today.

That is, I'll do that here - I'm not going to go to another ballpark and loudly root against the home team. (This is one of the reasons I won't go to Yankee Stadium unless the Nationals or Cubs are playing - that way I can at least root for the visiting team.)

But for Phillies fans, it seems anything is fair game. Players, other fans, birds, their beer, themselves, whatever. At home or away, even.

And because Washington just can't seem to develop a baseball fan base (hint: true fans will come even when the team is playing poorly), the ballpark was mostly filled with Phillies fans today.

I would say we should fight fire with fire and send bus loads of Nationals fans up to Philly when we play there, but there are two problems with that. One, the Nationals just don't have that many hard core fans, and two, the Phillies tend to sell out their games without any outside help.

My proposed solution is to sell tickets to Phillies and Mets games for much less than their regular price. If people can get in for under $5, the place will be filled with Nationals fans and filled in general. Concessions sales will be way up, and it'll look awesome on TV.

And it'll get loud when the home team scores, not when the visitors do.

apparently Dollhouse is all I post about these days. I clearly need to write more.

( more actual thoughts on the most recent episode )

dollhouse. whoa. that was intense. no spoilers here, but anything goes in the comments.

holy shit.

this had damn well better get a second season.

Tags: tv, tv:dollhouse

uh, yeah, last night's Dollhouse. um. I think I have the words now. and lots and lots of speculation about what's to come.
( dollhouse spoilers )

Tags: tv, tv:dollhouse