ellenmillion | Politics

Politics

I don't generally follow party politics, and I usually lean slightly more democratic than republican (when forced to choose), but McCain TOTALLY won me with his VP nomination. I have nothing but respect and admiration for our governor Palin. I think I may have cheered out loud when I read that. Go Sarah!

PS: Don't worry, that's probably all the politics you'll get out of me for the whole rest of the election.

ETA: WHY I like Sarah Palin. Disclaimer: I don't generally follow politics, and I base this fondness on not much more than my own personal experiences... you want a fair, in-depth and researched opinion, that's not here. This is the stuff that affects me directly.

Point 1. She's tough and charismatic. She usually has a smile on her face and is upbeat and cheerful. I really like her get-it-done attitude. It's something I respect in anyone.

Point 2. She repealed the fee hikes for business licenses that her awful predecessor levied.

Point 3. She thinks ahead and gets it done. Alaska is going to get a natural gas pipeline someday soon. Not only is she working towards that, she's not considering 'oh, we've negotiated it' as the end of the deal. She's already allotted the money to improve our roads to the point where they will handle the construction equipment needed to make it happen. She's looked at things that slowed the 70's gas pipeline and thinking YEARS ahead.

Point 4. At the same time, she's managed to get an oil relief bill through the red tape so that every Alaskan is getting an extra $1200 with their PFD next month. I dunno that it's the best possible solution to the problem, but it Got Done, and I gotta give kudos to her for that.

Point 5. She doesn't say stupid things. There are so many people in politics that I otherwise like that just up and say Stupid Things periodically and make me cringe to support them. She hasn't done that (that I've noticed).

Point 6. Some folks are saying her 'husband is in oil' like this is a bad thing, but he is an oil operator, which is a far, far, FAR cry from being an oil CEO or an oil executive. An operator is a blue-collar, dirt-under-the-nails job. I like that, too. If we smear everyone who ever works in oil ever with the paintbrush of Slimy Big Oil Execubots, that would include a LOT of good, hardworking technicians I know and would be brutally unfair. I like politicians who come from families that work for a living.

Someone mentioned that she ran on a creationism in school campaign, too, but I honestly don't remember ever seeing that. Like I said, I don't pay much attention to politics.

As with all politics, I do suggest you do your own research and go with your own gut. But I feel GOOD about Palin being our VP.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

She's charismatic and I don't doubt she's done a lot of good for Alaska. It's possible she'd be a good VP. But I just can't get behind the pro-life thing, no matter how smiley the candidate is.

Forgive me for intruding, I'm not even American, But I fail to see how being pro-life is bad. As somebody said once: 'try asking a veterinarian how far along during pregnancy a phoetus becomes an horse and hear what he tells you'.
One has right of choice, *before* and in case of rape or incest...there are other ways, nobody is forcesd to raise the baby.
killing them after birth is homicide but killing them before is a right? There's something there I don't quite get.

A lot of the trouble is in the labeling - how could "pro-life" ever be bad, if all you look at is the label? And how could a baby be only a choice, and not a life? The issue is much more complex than the labels.

Basically, though I don't know that I could ever choose, myself, to have an abortion unless the situation were dire (in the case of a Trisomy 18 baby, for example) and even then I'm not sure, I wouldn't know what I would do until I were faced with it ...

Even so, I resent like hell the idea that any part of my government thinks it can legislate that situation. That people out there think that they can tell me what is right and what is wrong for me under all circumstances regarding my reproductive choices.

I don't *care* what people think in their own heads. What I care about is what they try to pass as laws.

EXACTLY - I consider myself 'pro-choice', but that does NOT make me 'pro-abortion'. I do not believe abortion is birth-control or should be used as such. Like you, I don't know that I would ever choose to have an abortion, but I don't like the idea of big government gettin' all up in my koolade, if you see what I mean.

Another thing that bothers me about Palin is this: http://www.grizzlybay.org/SarahPalinInfoPage.htm and, I really found her 'we'll demolish that glass ceiling' (paraphrasing) speech to be a bit 'pander-y' (if that's a word).

ETA: I'm not too keen on the fact that the website is painting Alaskans in broad strokes (ie: "Like many Alaskans, Palin believes that bears – and all Alaskan wildlife, exist for the sole purpose of serving humans" - surely not?!), but some of the things there make me pause - especially points 4, 6, 7, and 10.

Edited 2008-08-30 03:55 (UTC)

It is good that the public is educated. The whole 'thwarting the will of the public' thing is bullshit. 'The will of the public' has been based on so much misinformation and outright deception by so-called 'animal rights' folks that it boggles the mind.

I lived in Alaska for the better part of twenty years, and the number of Alaskans who actually understood the issue I could count on one hand.

Seriously, they are complaining that educating people about the specifics of the program is a bad thing. Good lord.

But even passing a law allowing abortion is a choice and a message on the part of the governement, there's no neutrality on this matter.

Abortion was criminalized in an era when available medicine was not able to discover or diagnose problems with a fetus, and also in a very paternalistic society. Since there was no way to know that there was a medical problem for certain, the choice to get an abortion was nearly always based on social issues - the shame of unwed motherhood, the disaster of another mouth to feed on a family that couldn't feed the children it already had. There was no birth control, and unwanted children weren't adopted, they were either abandoned or sent to orphanages where the survival rate was abysmal.

The survival rate of women who were desperate enough to seek an abortion anyway despite the illegality was also abysmal.

The attitude toward abortion engendered in those circumstances, that it was practiced only by the poor, the foolish, the soiled, the evil, the dregs of society, has somehow managed to carry over today into a world to which it has no tie, and makes no sense.

There would not have been a need to legalize abortion if there had not been first a criminalization of it. There was already no "neutrality."

That wasn't a complaint, was a statement of fact, there's *no way* to be neutral on the issue.

I stand my ground, there may be mitigating circumstances in a homicide, but that doesn't change the fact that it *is* homicide.

BTW official governement data over here (from this year) show that the legalization of abortion did *not* make clandestine abortions disappear there are those that do not want to go into a hospital, want things done after the legal term, want an abortion no question asked and so...and not few.

And I believe Ellen has had enough already oif this debate on *her* LJ

This is where the labels become silly.

I'm pro-choice, but I'm also certainly very pro-life. I'm not anti-life, for certain. I believe, that even though abortion wouldn't be MY personal choice, it should be available and protected for women who have NO other choice. There are plenty of unwanted children in the world as it is, and people aren't exactly clamoring to adopt. I should also point out that when abortion was illegal, people still found ways to have it done - ways that were dangerous, inhumane, unhealthy, unsafe... It's not going to magically go away when the government stops protecting it.

When "pro-life" rhetoric becomes downright dangerous is when it's coupled with the current "regulations" being passed that give doctors the ability to be "conscientious objectors" to medical procedures or prescriptions they disagree with. Down to a pharmacist being within his rights to reject supplying birth control pills. Add to that, that Palin doesn't seem to support sex education, and you've got a really, really bad mix, in my opinion. If you're going to outlaw abortion at LEAST give people the proper tools to avoid getting pregnant.

As well, if you were raped, or molested by a family member, would you really want to carry that child to term?

Doctors have the right to be conscientious objectors here, (thank God) and that doesn't stop anybody wanting to have an abortion, would you want to 'force' a doctor to perform an homicide? No thanks, ditto for farmacists.
The one about adoption...sorry there are year-long waiting lists here.

-As well, if you were raped, or molested by a family member, would you really want to carry that child to term?
Loaded question, I don't know what I would do (and neither do you or anyone else until one is in that siutuation), but has the innocent to pay for the crime of another?

Actually, I think one can figure out what they would do if they were pregnant with a rapist's child without having it happen. I can tell you that it took months for me to stop feeling sick over it after being raped, and there is NO way I could have spent nine months carrying his child if I'd gotten pregnant. I agree that most of the time you have to be in a situation to know what you would do, but this is one time when I feel confident that many women can understand and figure it out. And whether or not a two week old group of cells is actually an "innocent life" is a whole other matter... but in my opinion, that group of cells should not take precedence over a woman whose had a terrible experience. At some point I think abortion does become murder, but not at the beginning.... and this is all a huge gray area that one person or group shouldn't be able to decide on for everyone.

Here's were we differ 'that group of cells' is a human being.
I and you were 'that group of cells' once.

By that token, using condoms is homocide. There are people who will argue that is the case, by virtue of nothing more than the same faith your 'group of cells' must be a human being. Are they wrong? If so, why are they wrong but you're right?

Of course, you might actually believe that, I suppose. What you're espousing isn't really very far from it.

Not true: condoms act by not allowing fertilization, the sperm doesn't *reach* the egg, much less fertilize it, neither the sperm nor the egg are alive, on their own, each has only half of a genetic code.

Once fertilization has happened what you have is a human being, why? Because if left to it's own devices (barring interruption of pregnancy by natural occurrence or artificial means)it will grow and be born as human being, I've never heard in nature of something 'magically transformed'into something it wasn't to start with.

(no subject)

pseudopagan.livejournal.com - 2008-08-31 15:07 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2008-08-31 15:13 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

pseudopagan.livejournal.com - 2008-08-31 22:31 (UTC) - Expand

Let me be clear on something.

There are many MANY medical fields out there. Nobody, NOBODY has to take on a field of expertise that "Forces" them to perform any procedure they have moral objections to. If you don't want to be in a position to perform an abortion, pick a different medical field. It's that easy.

If you don't want to distribute birth control, which will help REDUCE the numbers of abortions being performed in the first place, don't be a pharmacist.

'birth control' is one thing, the 'pill of the day after' is an abortive, and by the way women *have died* during clinical text for it. We have something potentially deadly that was experimented on women, I haven't heard anyone from the pro-choice field (at least over here) protesting against THAT hazard against women's health.

And so if I were in the USA I wouldn't have the right to choose to be a gynechologist if I did want to be able to not perform abortions? Well that's great for allowing one freedom of choice...
Frankly, with all the problems we have over hereI'm happy to live were I live.
And don't kid yourself, were abortion is legal it *is* used as birth control, I see it happen all the time with my Chinese immigrant women at the preliminary talk:
" I don't want the child"
" OK have you had previous abortions ?"
"Yes"
" How many?"
"...I don't recall...was it 4 or 5?"
Even the doctor cringed at this, and she isn't an objector.
By the way it isn't *that* easy, a woman has to have blood tests before and an ecography, so one would need to stay clear of radiology and lab too, why has one to be frightened of leaving doctors their freedom of choice? Fear that too many would opt out? That would tell me something...

From what I know of China, it's not an equable situation. And even IN China (and all around the world), we wouldn't SEE abortion used as "Birth control" if people were properly educated and given access to contraceptives - but sex education is taboo to the religious right (we must'n't let children know they have penises and vaginas), and contraceptives are met with superstition and fear in many parts of the world, often due to religious underpinnings that frown upon masturbation, condoms, and premarital sex, but don't give people the tools to deal. In Africa, people still believe they can cure their AIDS by raping children, and because of the very strong Catholic influence, combined with a lack of funding and lack of outreach, there's nothing much to counteract this behavior and rampant spread of a preventable disease... but I digress.

If you find it morally repugnant to perform an abortion, as a gynecologist, then yes, you should choose another field. Even if abortion were -outlawed-, it would still come up as a medical procedure that's occasionally necessary to save the life of the mother. It's like any other job, really. If you don't want to wash dishes, don't be a waitress.

The problem, however, with this pending regulation, is that it affects primarily people in lower-income areas who don't HAVE access to many doctors, and it gravely affects preventative methods (as much, if not moreso than abortion - most people will go to specific abortion clinics, not general doctors). The doctor refusing the procedure doesn't even have to provide a referral (and it's not limited to abortion - a doctor could refuse treatment to a Muslim individual based on morality, a doctor could decide not to treat a kid who's a recognized gang member, and theoretically be within his rights). This violates the very oath taken when one becomes a doctor.

I must note I have also seen no statistics, for that matter (at least from an unbiased source) that shows abortion being used as birth control. Only anecdote.

But you know, none of that matters. What matters is that abortions will continue to happen whether legal or not - the difference is the level of care and guidance that can be offered, and the level of danger the mother is potentially in. I, as a woman, have absolute domain over MY body. It is MY choice, not the government's, and the government has no right to place directives on my body, whether by writ of majority or not. Of course I dearly wish to see abortion rates drop and dwindle. I would love if it weren't needed at all, and were a rare medical procedure. But until people step up and begin actually educating people on proper prevention methods (aside from abstinence), I would rather see women able to get it in a safe environment.

(Ellen, I'm sorry for polluting your journal with all this rhetoric, and I'll bow out now.)

(no subject)

marina-bonomi.livejournal.com - 2008-08-31 06:53 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

pseudopagan.livejournal.com - 2008-08-31 15:14 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

steppinrazor.livejournal.com - 2008-09-01 06:17 (UTC) - Expand

As a side note, Palin doesn't support a woman's right to choose even in the case of rape.

Me neither, here a woman can give birth anonimously and leave the child in the hospital, to be adopted

Okay. I guess I'm just trying to convey that in the American political context such a stance is generally considered extreme, particularly for a Democrat. This gets back to my earlier interest in what issues Ellenmillion is generally interested. She may vote based more of fiscal issues than social ones. She may be socially conservative. She may not know these aspects of Palin's background. I don't know.

I empathize greatly with your attempts in this thread... I just wanted to say.

Unfortunately, I suspect many of the women who argue for maintaining abortion do so out of fear: they're afraid they will need the option because of violence or the possibility that their lives might be consumed by the raising of a difficult child (or burdened by the sorrow of a child lost young to a crippling disease), and so they are speaking from emotion, which cannot be argued.

I find your argument that my basis for wishing to continue to maintain reproductive rights over my body is fundamentally out of fear, to be repugnant, and an attempt to reduce my reason and concern to nothing more than hysterical ignorance.

Thank you.

... So you suspect this of women who argue for keeping abortion medically and legally available. And you believe arguing from emotion cannot be argued.

-- How can you test your assumption in a way that enables freer conversation, unafraid discussion?

-- I thought there were several types of argumentation, and emotion is one. (Pause for a google check... OK, not what I was thinking, but this is kind of interesting: A classical (greek-based) arrangement of argument styles ... an overview of argument pedagogy: disputative/debating and constructivist styles ... and arguments types including emotional arguments with similar logical flows)

Enough digressing.

While I do feel fear, I do not necessarily speak from fear. I believe I do not choose from fear. I could be mistaken; as I've come to learn in my 40 years than my emotions, values, moral and ethic principles, reason, and experience form an integrated whole -- they cannot be compartmentalized, and nor should they be. This whole just as patchy, uneven, and fraught with things still to learn as everyone else's. I do try to make each argument clear on its own basis, whether it's based on emotions, economic ramifications, social concerns, the ethics of shared and individual responsibility, belief and faith, or other. I attempt to discover inconsistencies in my thought and resolve them as often as I try to discover cross-connections.

Yes, I suspect it, because the reasons that women bring up for keeping abortion legal are always based on situations that are uncommon but frightening, and when pressed about using abortion as birth control they often say they are against it.

The remaining scenarios usually involve things out of their control that they want to escape.

I don't blame them; I feel these fears also. But I, too, try not to speak from fear.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only