My mom, who lives in Mumbai, India, has trouble understanding American politics. Recently she asked me to give her a brief summary of what's going on.
I explained, "There are two parties in American politics. There is a stupid party and there is an evil party."
In an attempt to put my own cards on the table, I confessed, "I am a proud member of the stupid party."
Then I added, "Sometimes, American politicians do things that are both stupid and evil. Those things we call bipartisanship."
I was kidding, of course, but the humor arises out of the element of truth in this description. Consider the charge of stupidity. Would the Republican Party be in the confused state it is now if Bush had appointed a vice president who was electable and actually sought the nomination?
I'm not saying Bush shouldn't have appointed Cheney the first time around. Cheney inspires irrational and paranoid loathing on the left--he's Darth Vader for the Michael Moore set--and this alone was good reason to keep him reasonably close to the Oval Office, not to mention the nuclear arsenal.
But when Bush ran for re-election, he should have sent Cheney packing. Then the GOP would have an heir apparent who would have an inside track to the nomination and who could claim up-close experience in the responsibilities of governance. If Bush had done this, he would have shown both foresight and concern about the future of the GOP.
Now let's turn to the evil party. What other term is appropriate to describe a party where Ted Kennedy's endorsement is actually counted as a positive? This is the moral equivalent of Republican candidates rushing to make campaign commercials with Larry Craig. Notice how the moral scoundrels in the GOP are typically hounded out while the moral scoundrels in the Democratic party generally continue to enjoy their prestige and good standing.
Any party with a sense of decency would ignore and marginalize Ted Kennedy. Besides, what constituency does this man represent? Is it really that important to lock in the votes of dissolute, philandering seniors who still go down to Florida for Spring break?
So here's the situation. Kennedy offers his blessings to Obama and offers to say some black masses for him. Meanwhile, Hillary's camp claims that Obama turned away while Hillary was shaking Kennedy's hand because she is a woman.
Given the irrelevance of gender to this situation, the Hillary team's reaction is downright comic. Yet the shrews at the National Organization for Women are echoing the cries of sexism from the Hillary camp. All that remains is for Obama to counter with the race card and accuse Hillary of making such charges because he is black.
As the election gets closer, I'll try to give my mom a more detailed account of the issues at stake. But I think I've given her enough to keep her informed, and entertained, at least through the primaries.
Reader Comments ( Page 4 of 37)
46. Unfortunately I can't access LJ from this computer. I wasn't saying she had to carry the fetus for 2 more months, but I think she had to jump through numerous hoops to have the fetus removed from her. It's been a while since I read the story, admittedly. It's somewhere in the archives and I will look when I get home - if the comments haven't gone on a completely different tangent, that is. :)
K at 1:37PM on Jan 30th 2008
47. I agree with many of the prior comments. You have got them reversed. The evil party is definitely the republican party. What they have done to this country and the world in the last seven years is unbelievable. Start unnecessary wars, threaten many countries and irk our long time allies to where they are ashamed to be associated with us. Torture people, something that we would never before done admittedly, wiretap illegally our own citizens, give massive tax refunds to the rich and corporate America while amassing the biggest deficit in US history and cut benefits and services to the poor and elderly. The democratic party is dumb not to have fought hard enough against the craziness of this admnistration.
Rick at 1:40PM on Jan 30th 2008
48. So, a baby is not a baby until it is born because it is considered a parasite while still in the womb?? Has anyone considered the fact that this baby needs to be attached to your boob every few hours AFTER BIRTH in order to LIVE (and needs to be held as well but I'll put that aside for now)... It is still a 'parasite' but one outside of the womb. For the next 18 years I might add.
Ask any pregnant woman about the 'parasite' she is carrying around and I wonder what kind of answer you will get Linda. Please.
Shannie at 1:48PM on Jan 30th 2008
49. k here is an absurdity. i said i think life begins at conception. i think more people than not agree with that.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
I doubt that very seriously or there would not be continued support for Roe v. Wade. It's an absurdity in any case.
As to when life begins, it begins on formation of the gametes. You can't fertilize a dead egg with a dead sperm. The kind of life you're talking about, that of an individual in a dioecious species has two beginnings. Life in this sector of the universe more than likely 'began' in numerous places on the planet three billion years ago and was never extinguished, so that's where life begins for real around this star.
According to Public Policy and the law that has arisen from it, life begins at birth.
Conception, once again can only occur using LIVING components - living haploid cells, not dead ones.
One of the consequenses of outlawing abortion and forcing women to deliver would be a 25% increase in the country's birth rate. I've never heard even one anti abortionist address the social problems legalizing their beliefs would create.
Presumably if these babies starved to death it would be no more immoral than their position on stem cells, which are suddenly babies and it's murder if you need them to save lives, but medical waste to be disposed of otherwise.
It certainly demonstrates that stupidity and evil aren't mutually exclusive.
The idea that bush could have somehow stood on his own without cheney is similarly stupid. He's nothing but a sockpuppet and as big a part of the evil as he is the stupidity.
Clif Kuplen at 1:50PM on Jan 30th 2008
50. Here we go again Linda. Before, you were misunderstood in a humans to fungus analogy. Now it's fetuses to leeches.
Every menstruation is a child that will never be born. We need to pass a law to put an end to this torrent of tragedy!
Mokele-Mobembe at 1:54PM on Jan 30th 2008
51. Why presumably would these babies starve to death? Aren't there enough Hollywood types to adopt these children? It does seem to be the trend these days.
Shannie at 1:57PM on Jan 30th 2008
52. .
TJ at 1:57PM on Jan 30th 2008
53. Nice try... are you planning to donate your unfertilized eggs to prevent this tragedy?
Shannie at 1:59PM on Jan 30th 2008
54. Dear Dick (I mean Dinesh)
Please that the Foreign America quiz as follows:
First...Oh.. go kill a cow.
Secondly, tell me about baseball, hot dogs, apple pie and chevrolet? What is your take? Can you elaborate?
Lastly, your ideologies will not work in America. We must stop foreign SoBs like you from entering our county. It's time for you to go home forever.
Oh yah, by the way, I can tell american politics is not your cup of tea...and you don't have a horse in that race. Got it!
ROD eAGLESON at 2:52PM on Jan 30th 2008
55. Shannie, you are responding emotionally to a scientific remark. A baby outside of the womb is considered to be autonomous, which is why our laws apply to him or her from that point forward.
A fetus is not autonomous, which is what the "parasite" remark was referring to.
Try to be objective. The term parasite is clearly defined in biology and anyone familiar with the definition would not be offended by the statement Linda made.
The way you are using the term, lots of people are parasites. Those on welfare, sugarbabies, loser boyfriends living off their girlfriends...
emma at 2:06PM on Jan 30th 2008
56. 50. Why presumably would these babies starve to death? Aren't there enough Hollywood types to adopt these children? It does seem to be the trend these days.
Shannie at 1:57PM on Jan 30th 2008
xx
no there aren't. The hollywood types I know about are george murphy, sonny bono, ronald reagan, arnold schwarzeneggar, fred thompson, mel gibson and chuck norris. Your party seems to suck up to them rather than take actual conservative positions on much of anything. I don't know any hollywood types who have democratic political careers.
As usual a smartassed retort and no substance. You are ME! here's yer sign..
Clif Kuplen at 2:07PM on Jan 30th 2008
57. The abortion issue is a religious issue. Since there is a separation of church and state, and since religious values should NOT be placed onto people who are not a member of that religion, there is NO REASON to make abortion illegal. You can not force people to live by rules based on your own personal beliefs. How can anyone not see how inherently wrong that is?
Strados at 2:10PM on Jan 30th 2008
58. Why presumably would these babies starve to death? Aren't there enough Hollywood types to adopt these children? It does seem to be the trend these days.
________________________
Ah, here goes the condemnation of those who are trying to do some good again...Cast the first stone much?
FYI, Hollywood celebrities make up a tiny percentage of the overall population and the percentage of those who adopt is even smaller, so I doubt they could compensate for a 25% annual population increase.
emma at 2:16PM on Jan 30th 2008
59. I consider it interesting that JC in the NT mentions: in the case of adultery that one must not throw stones, that one must rescue beaten-up dudes in ditches (good samaritan story), that one must rescue animals caught in thickets, but he never talks about unborn children. Why do you suppose that is?
Yeah, sex outside of marriage is morally questionable, and yeah, the death of something so beautiful as a baby is tragic, but somehow I think the right-wingers are going overboard when they say one can't ever have an abortion at any time, anyplace for any reason..I've even heard them slam the Morning After Pill. There is such a thing as a compromise, and a middle ground, y'know...
The Goddess Athena at 2:13PM on Jan 30th 2008
60. Secondly, tell me about baseball, hot dogs, apple pie and chevrolet? What is your take? Can you elaborate?
ROD eAGLESON at 2:52PM on Jan 30th 2008