Underdog
❝❝Public pressure had nothing to do with it. Like most great moments in American history, ordinary people chose the right thing and to hell with what the elected officials thought or did. Americans have been doing that for almost 250 years. It's a part of our mythology. How many of our great stories and films are about the underdog taking a stand and winning?❞❞
NeoNote — Abortion is not about women's rights
❝❝Abortion is not about women's rights.NeoNotes are the selected comments that I made on other boards, in email, or in response to articles where I could not respond directly.
Yes, I know most here do not agree. But there are two things you must consider. First, it's not a right unless the other person has it too. Which means that "reproductive rights" just excluded half the population. Now, that doesn't mean I am saying no abortions. I'm just pointing out that abortion is not a right, any more than designer shoes.
Second, not all women think that abortion is a right. You can denounce them, you call call them misguided, but they don't agree that abortion is a right.
Finally, before you complain about judicial decisions, remember that Roe vs. Wade was a judicial decision that circumvented existing law.
And as I told you before, "these people" see it as a matter of preserving human life. The "opening bid" was Roe vs. Wade. I don't agree with them on everything, but let's get the timeline right.
Like it or not, the rights of the fetus are a part of the discussion. As are the rights of the father. Reproductive "rights" can't trump that, but reproductive privilege certainly does.
If this were a matter of rape, you might have a point. But sex is still (mostly) a consensual activity.
Their passions and their beliefs are just as strong as yours are. They aren't going to accept defeat quietly, anymore than you would.
While neither you nor they will admit it, the other side has some truth.
And in case you hadn't noticed, you have damn little power over your health care now. The left isn't blameless and totally virtuous in this matter, and I wish we would stop pretending that they are. Government is government and power over is power over. No matter how noble the motives, no matter how much it's for the common good, it still takes away choice.
Practically every reason that healthcare is messed up is because of government interference. Whether it is special perks and privileges extended to major pharma firms, or the approval period for new drugs and procedures, or Medicare and Medicaid setting prices for procedures and treatment while exploding costs far beyond inflation, or the active suppression of nurse practitioners, or screwing up insurance so badly that people have no idea what they are paying for or if it would be cheaper not to go through their insurance, the list goes on and on.
It doesn't help that every government fix involves more government.
And why do people keep raising the issue of rape when it comes to women's medical care?
Just to point out the obvious, both Republicans and Democrats have turned women's bodies into battlegrounds where there can be no compromise.
*sighs* The original stat for American women was one in five women will be sexually abused in their lifetime. Abused, not necessarily raped. It's also not accurate.
I don't accept your premise of either/or.
Nor do I accept that sex and abortion are tied to rape. Funny, I don't think that most relationships have to be about who has the power.
If you don't think that Democrats exploit women's bodies, then why is it so important to denounce the women who don't agree?
The original study was the 2007 Campus Sexual Assault study conducted by the National Institute of Justice, a division of the Justice Department. Here's what two of the authors had to say:““As two of the researchers who conducted the Campus Sexual Assault Study from which this number was derived, we feel we need to set the record straight. Although we used the best methodology available to us at the time, there are caveats that make it inappropriate to use the 1-in-5 number in the way it’s being used today, as a baseline or the only statistic when discussing our country’s problem with rape and sexual assault on campus.
Second, the 1-in-5 statistic includes victims of both rape and other forms of sexual assault, such as forced kissing or unwanted groping of sexual body parts—acts that can legally constitute sexual battery and are crimes. To limit the statistic to include rape only, meaning unwanted sexual penetration, the prevalence for senior undergraduate women drops to 14.3%, or 1 in 7 (again, limited to the two universities we studied).””
Until someone else mentioned it, I deliberately avoided mentioning rape. I specifically talked about sex, responsibility, and abortion. A casual reading of some of the other responses here (including yours) would seem to excuse a woman's responsibility before the fact because of, you know, rape. Maybe I'm just being extra dense here, but it seems like the only reason rape isintroduced into the discussionmentioned is to specifically excuse women from responsibility.
When someone starts offering two and only two alternatives, that's the cue to look for the fourth, fifth, and sixth choices.
There are conservative women who disagree with you on abortion. Why aren't they a part of the discussion?
Why should your morality and choices govern the actions of another? Isn't that what you say would happen if conservatives "win?"
One other thing. Roe vs. Wade. Decided by eight old, rich white dudes and one rich, old black dude.
“You can't circumvent the topic of rape when discussing abortion.”
Why not? Are all or most women raped? Do all or most abortions happen because of rape? Why is it so very very necessary to make this part of the discussion when rape is not usually the reason for abortion?
Again, I am not saying that abortion should be illegal. I am saying that it is more than just the woman involved. I am not arguing over the definition of life. I am not dragging out charts and pictures to show a fetal heartbeat or how it responds to touch at what point in the pregnancy. I am saying that abortion is not a right when it excludes the man. And at a certain point (which I have no idea what is), the fetus.
If you want men to act responsibly, that means their sex partners should too. That means that yeah, women should think about consequences before sex. That means that if abortion is an option, it should happen before the last trimester and probably before the second. And yes, that means that the man should be involved in the decision. If they aren't, then men are just being encouraged to be irresponsible.
Just like what is happening now.
The default is for the man NOT to be involved. The default is for the man to ignore the consequences. Claim that only the woman can choose, and the man doesn't have to choose.
That's why abortion as it is now is not a right.
I am not denying that rape happens, although I do not think it is nearly as common in America as some claim.
I just think that always discussing rape when talking about abortion doesn't do your argument any good. As it is, based on what you say abortions should be performed if the woman was raped and never for any other reason.
Yes, I am arguing. I am saying that abortion isn't a right if even the discussion doesn't have to include the man. And the man is not usually or even mostly a rapist.
That's it.
Everything else is something that others have tried to hang on me.
*shrugs* Your choice has reduced this to either/or.
Here's the inevitable result. You can imprison them and/or kill them, or they can imprison/kill you. Force rules. Might makes right. Submission must happen. Power over, now and forever.
Is that what you want?
*shrugs*
Like I said, reproductive privilege excludes the man. And if a woman excludes the man from the choice, then he has no reason to be responsible. “He is literally just a donor of genetic material…”
Who said I didn't consider women as human beings?
I'm a guy who believes the aunts and grandmothers theory of history.
I seek the Divine in every lady I meet. Sometimes I succeed, sometimes not. Sometimes it's my fault, sometimes not. I knew my first strong woman from before I was born. She learned it from her grandmother, the strongest woman I've ever known (www.neowaylandDOTcom/files/StrongWoman170330.html).
Why do you assume that because I dissent on some things I would throw you to the Christian patriarchy?
Why are you measuring somebody's strength by something granted by politicos?
Again, I haven't said no abortions. I've just said that if it's only the woman's choice, then it's not a right.
For the last fifty years or so, American men have lost rights when it comes to children. Somehow the discussion about abortion always includes vague allegations of rape and domestic violence as if most men did terrible things to women.
Most men don't do these things. We're not guilty, we shouldn't be blamed for what we didn't do and are not likely to do. The presumption of guilt should not shape relationships and sex.
Even now, you are escalating. The discussion started about abortion. Then domestic violence got added. Then rape. And now you added murder.
Everybody shares a right. Privileges exclude people. Only some get privileges. Privileges are not rights, and rights are not privileges.
Now I am not talking about rape, I am not talking about domestic violence. I am not talking about what happened 100 years ago or last week in France.
What I am saying is that if the baseline of social behavior now means that a man will not be involved the decision to have an abortion, then it is a privilege, not a right
You keep assuming that I have their beliefs.
I don't.
I'm saying that it is not about rights when only one person is allowed to decide.
Then if the man's desires don't count, does that mean they don't owe child support?
"Want" doesn't have anything to do with it.
Accepting responsibility does.
But not if they are denied the choice.
Then give me numbers instead of allegations.
At the same time, I'll point out that by excluding men from the decision, they never have to be responsible. Under the circumstances, the surprise is not that some men flake out. It's that others don't.
It's not just "men" who have this opinion. That's the point. Women don't all agree with you and it's foolish to pretend that they do.
My first sex rule is "Consenting adults only.". The first derivation of that is "Your desire does not control another's choice."
I absolutely agree that children need happy families. I also think they need male and female role models, but that is another discussion.
I think the power and the responsibility doesn't just lie with men.
I do know that for a while, CA had a law that if the mother published the name of a man she claimed was the father a certain number of times, that man was obligated to pay support even if genetic testing showed there was no relationship. I know a few guys who got caught in that trap.
I am not saying most women are irresponsible.
I am saying that having sex without considering the consequences with your partner is irresponsible.
I'm saying that our "system" of excluding men from the decision about abortion encourages men to be irresponsible and guilt free.
Do I think that birth control is a good thing? Yes.
Do I think that abortion is a right? No, not if it doesn't include the man.
Do I think that late term abortion is a good thing? Definitely not in the third trimester and I would question any that happen in the second.
Do I think that men can be unfeeling jerks more concerned with their own pleasure than their partner's feelings? Yes, especially if they are not held responsible for their actions. If the man isn't allowed to talk about abortion with his partner, why should he care? That is the society we live in. He's encouraged to think it's the woman's fault if she gets pregnant.
The hook-up culture certainly hasn't helped. If the guy doesn't have to work at seduction, why should he pay attention to her feelings?
I still don't think that rape should be part of the discussion about abortion because most abortions happen without rape. The only reason I can see for treating rape as the norm for abortions is to silence criticism about abortion.
If you want to shut people out of the conversation for whatever reason, that is your choice. Just don't expect them to accept your "rights."
If you want to blame all of this on men, that's your choice too. But most of them will resent you for it because they didn't do what you are accusing them of.
So that's where we are. Because I said abortion wasn't a right, you've said I am anti-woman and a bad Pagan and a bad person. But I've not prevented abortions. I've not voted against abortion. I'm not arguing against abortion. All I've said is that abortion is not a right. I haven't tried to turn back the clock.
If you really want to fight what's happening in these states, you're going to have to find a justification other than the "right to an abortion." I'm being honest with you. I'm not attacking you and I am certainly not attacking women as a group. I am telling truth. It's what I do.❞❞
NeoNote — Unjustified privilege
❝❝You're making unjustified assumptions.NeoNotes are the selected comments that I made on other boards, in email, or in response to articles where I could not respond directly.
Is the climate crisis a thing? To some (like most pagans), yes. To others like (not conservative) me, no. It's an article of faith, not far removed from monotheism or forgiveness of sin. The issue is that because of the alarmism, those who believe in the climate crisis don't tolerate dissent because of the "urgency" of the problem.
At their best, American Christian conservatives are extremely community minded. A child lost in the woods? They are there looking. Death in the family? Somebody is bringing meals by. The problem is who they identify as being part of the community. Something that is not helped by some like pagans setting themselves outside the acknowledged community.
Most claims of conservative racism are because the conservatives involved didn't see any reason to grant special privilege when people already had rights recognized by law. It doesn't help when conservatives are routinely accused of white supremacy simply for being the wrong skin color regardless of their words and actions. There is a vast difference between not supporting the claims of groups like BLM and being racist. Because conservatives (and libertarians too) see rights as individual and not collective, the idea of identity politics is repugnant. You have rights because you are human, not because you are Hispanic, female, wore a pink hat in a march, or consider yourself non-binary.
What's more, the idea that only "whites" can be racist because of something that was done in their great-great-great grandparents time just doesn't fly. Racism comes in all colors. I've seen casual racism my entire life. I've also seen most people reach out for no other reason than someone else needed help.
Finally, judging people by label is a mistake. The label has no inherent vice or virtue. It's the individual who makes the label mean something through their words and actions, not the other way around. Power from victimhood depends on the pity of others and will make you less than you are.
Here are some of the demands for privilege I've seen during my life.
The idea that one skin color and one skin color alone can decide what is and is not racism. I still know people who try to convince me that a "black" minister saying "Hymietown" is not racist.
The idea that inner-city poverty is a more important than reservation poverty.
The idea that a person whose family came from Nigeria two generations ago has a claim on the success of a person whose family came from China five generations ago.
The idea that skin color should trump evidence in a crime.
And as long as we keep qualifying the legal definition of who is and is not allowed to marry, that problem will not go away. Previously I've pointed out in discussions on this site that somehow in the call for marriage equality poly marriage wasn't even a consideration. That selectivity is a consequence of defining rights by group instead of individual.
Pardon, but the bit about how some threw poly people under the bus should be stressed. Because the "struggle" wasn't about marriage in whatever form it could take between consenting adults, it was about "gay marriage."
It wasn't about rights. It was about privilege for some taken at the expense of others.
No, there wasn't a "polyamorous community" fighting to be recognized. I had some LGBT activists tell me emphatically that poly people didn't deserve marriage because they hadn't fought for it.
That is where my issue is. I'm perfectly willing to fight for equal rights. But I hear demands for "black" rights, Hispanic rights, women's rights, gay rights, and for all I know rights for people with ingrown toenails. Not to mention Christian rights, pagan rights, Muslim rights, atheist rights, and pastafarian rights. That doesn't even count the constant efforts of government to define government powers as rights (police rights, Congress has the right…). It seems that everyone wants to carve out their own piece but no one is willing to help carve out a piece for any group but theirs. Especially if they don't agree with other groups.
It's not about rights. It's about privilege for some taken at the expense of others.
Oh, and by the way, "white" cis males are guilty for all the troubles in the world. Especially when they don't abase themselves to the demands of self-identified victims-of-the-week. No matter what they personally have done or said, "white" cis males are undeniably and collectively guilty. Or so I am told. Again and again and again.
How that is not racist is beyond me.
Meanwhile "people of color" tell me that they are fighting for the rights of the victimized. And they are. But not if those victims live almost invisibly and don't advance certain causes. And definitely not if those victims have different politics. If there is an oil pipeline that gets TV coverage, the "champions" are all over it. But every day poverty on Amerindian reservations, well, that just isn't important enough.
So tell me, when is it reasonable when some victims are deliberately overlooked? Maybe it's not about rights. Maybe it's about privilege.
Human rights are the only ones worth fighting for. Maybe we should worry about the rights we share instead of a place in the pecking order. It's not a right unless the other has it too.
“I still wouldn't characterize them as privileges.”
I know. That's what's so frustrating. Human rights get moved to the back seat, then to the bicycle with a flat tire thirteen rows back.❞❞
Roots of the housing collapse
Wednesday - 30Jan2019 Filed in: Free Markets&Politics
GFC Lessons Not Learnt
““In reality, the real causes of the financial crisis lie deeper; to problems going back a century. In the early 20th century, the American government faced an alarming problem. The Russian Revolution of 1917 terrified government officials. They believed that to deter the rise of communism, more Americans needed to become invested in the system of private property: the best way to make the average American a good capitalist was to make him a homeowner.
The federal government thus began insuring bank mortgage lending, thereby expanding finance available for middle class consumers. But there was a catch: any new housing must be racially segregated to gain federal insurance. No insurance was to be extended to African-American purchasers or to white purchasers moving into African-American neighbourhoods. This practice, known as “redlining” of neighbourhoods, largely provided home ownership for whites while denying it for African-Americans.
Unable to own their own home and forced into poor quality neighbourhoods, African-Americans missed out on generations of wealth-building opportunities. As house prices rose over time, the gap between minority and white household wealth grew greater. So by the time President Bill Clinton was inaugurated in 1993, he faced a familiar problem—too few low-income and minority Americans owned their home. Clinton was under enormous pressure from housing activists to radically expand homeownership. Activist groups were particularly critical of banks’ strict underwriting standards for home loans, such as requiring high credit scores and solid downpayments. They claimed these higher standards disproportionately hurt low-income earners and minorities. Their answer was to wield the power of the federal government to force the mortgage market to loosen its underwriting standards, so that more and more marginal borrowers could qualify for a home loan. Prominent community activist Gale Cincotta made this clear, testifying before Congress in 1991, that “lenders will respond to the most conservative standards unless [federal government agencies] are aggressive and convincing in their efforts to expand historically narrow underwriting”.””
— Daniel Press
NeoNote — Not defense
❝❝I just want to point out that American "defense" policy involves military action against nations when Congress hasn't declared war.NeoNotes are the selected comments that I made on other boards, in email, or in response to articles where I could not respond directly.
Even Trump complained when Obama launched military actions without Congressional approval.
You tell me. Should we change the Constitution so the President can attack any other nation on his authority alone? Or should we insist Congress does it's job?
Is this about America, right or wrong?
Or is it about liberty?
How about multiple missile attacks?
And is it right to launch missiles into other nations? You've said that eight months is sufficient. Is four months? Is four weeks? Is four days?
Is it right for other nations to launch missiles into our country?
After all, we have a proven record of meddling in the governments of other nations.
So you are saying that the U.S. has the unique power to fire missiles into other countries.
So much for freedom.
Obviously there is.
And it's even covered by that top ten list of yours.
At the very least, I think using a missile against innocents qualifies as murder.rob
Too late.
I do have a solution for the opium fields. But it doesn't involve armies. It would be a lot more effective though.
Oh?
There are an awful lot of people who got shot at who would disagree with you.
ETA: Not to mention all those overseas military bases.
You're arguing over definitions and a matter of degree.
Might doesn't make right. I've told you that before.
Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should do something. Or that you are justified in doing it.
Justified?
And if we're wrong, does that make us weak? Or just a bully that no one wants to face?
There is a century old story that I tell sometimes. Back during the Russian revolution, President Wilson sent American troops to intervene. The "mission" was murky at best, which led to failed promises and out-and-out lies. Wilson did this without Congressional authorization, we weren't at war with Russia.
Fast forward a couple of decades. Some of the Soviet General Staff had faced American soldiers in the trenches. They knew exactly what American words were worth.
And after WWII, that shaped the Cold War.
All because an American President took it on himself to intervene in a revolution without Congressional authority.
Don't get mad at me. It's right there in the Constitution. And if Congress hasn't declared war, then why are American troops fighting?
Considering who has been President, do you really want no checks and balances when it comes to war?
So why do we have troops fighting when war has not been declared?
Politicos have sacrificed the nation's honor and the lives of American troops for what?
Why do we have troops fighting when war has not been declared?❞❞
Destroy masculinity
Monday - 12Mar2018 Filed in: Quotes & Thinkums
“Every High School Principal Should Say This”
Saturday - 10Mar2018 Filed in: Morality & Modern Life&Can't stop the signal
Deserve rights
Friday - 09Mar2018 Filed in: Quotes & Thinkums&Morality & Modern Life
“I am an American and a Patriot”
““I am an American and a Patriot. I am my country's keeper. The President and Congress report to me. And so - I will stay informed and involved. Ignorance, apathy, and complacency are my enemy. I will make my voice heard and not just at election time. Silence is the same as consent in the face of oppression. I can make a difference. I matter.I am an American and a Patriot.””
Read More...
Theodore Roosevelt on immigration
Friday - 04Nov2016 Filed in: Quotes & Thinkums&Morality & Modern Life
““In the first place, we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin. But this is predicated upon the person's becoming in every facet an American, and nothing but an American ... There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn't an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag ... We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language ... and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people.””
— Theodore Roosevelt, 1907
Rigging against the voters
Wednesday - 02Nov2016 Filed in: Politics