This isn’t how I look. This guy looks BETTER than I look…
Today I feel like one of those guys I used to see nodding of in a heroin haze when I lived on Capital Hill…
1. Governor Ralph Northam endorses infanticide. Said Virginia’s Democratic Governor this week, explaining a bill that barely failed to pass in the Virginia legislature, “[Third trimester abortions are] done in cases where there may be severe deformities. There may be a fetus that’s nonviable. So in this particular example, if a mother is in labor, I can tell you exactly what would happen,” Northam, who is a pediatric neurosurgeon, told Washington radio station WTOP. “The infant would be delivered. The infant would be kept comfortable. The infant would be resuscitated if that’s what the mother and the family desired. And then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and the mother.” How can this possibly be interpreted as anything but post birth euthanasia? Marco Rubio tweeted, “I never thought I would see the day America had government officials who openly support legal infanticide.”
Really? I did. The pro-abortion movement has been moving relentlessly to this point for decades. (New York just legalized late term abortions.)If progressives and feminists want to see Roe v.Wade substantially weakened by the Supreme Court, this is the way to guarantee it. Of course, Northam gives all sorts of indications that he might be an idiot. His response to the predictable criticism of his statement was this tweet:
“I have devoted my life to caring for children and any insinuation otherwise is shameful and disgusting.“
Yeah! Why would anyone question my devotion to children just I advocate killing the ugly ones right after they are born? After all, they’ll be made “comfortable” until they die. (I have to admit, the “comfortable” bit really annoys me, as if that mitigates what is being done.)
2. “If I keep saying the same thing, that’s as good as an answer, right?” Congressman David Cicilline (D-RI) appeared on Fox News this morning and was asked about Northam’s statement. “I believe that Roe v. Wade is the law of the land, and that women have a right to choose. We were sent to Washington to end government corruption,” he replied. Well, yes, but are you not troubled by killing a baby after it has been born? “I believe that Roe v. Wade is the law of the land, and that women have a right to choose. We were sent to Washington to end government corruption,” Cicilline said again, not changing his words at all. Of course Roe is the law of the land, but doesn’t this exceed what the Supreme Court intended? “I believe that Roe v. Wade is the law of the land, and that women have a right to choose. We were sent to Washington to end government corruption.”
Three times the Democrat defaulted to what was apparently a scripted talking point, and refused to address the question. Is it possible that anyone is fooled by that tactic? It sure didn’t work for Marco Rubio, when he got stuck on the scripted line “This notion that Barack Obama doesn’t know what he’s doing is just not true. He knows exactly what he’s doing” during GOP Presidential debate, repeating it even after Chris Christie had accused him of mouthing pre-programmed responses. Cicilline was even worse, reminding me of Rep. Gary Condit when he was being interviewed by Connie Chung about his involvement with Chandra Levy, a Congressional intern who had disappeared. “I’ve been married 34 years. I have not been a perfect man. I have made mistakes in my life. But out of respect for my family, out of a specific request by the Levy family, it is best that I not get into the details of the relationship,” Condit said three times in the interview, convincing everyone who heard it that he was guilty doing something dastardly to the young woman. (Apparently he wasn’t.)
To me, doing this seems like an admission of incompetence.
3. Baseball Ethics note (indulge me, I’m sick). One again, the baseball commentators and sportswriters are lining up with the players union to argue that something is amiss in the fact that teams are not shelling out the huge salaries baseball’s free agents “deserve.” This morning I heard two such pundits have this exchange regarding Adam Jones, a veteran outfielder looking for a contract.
“What do you think, Jones is worth maybe 4 million to a team like the Giants for a single year?”
“That’s about right. Of course, he may just not want to play for that little.”
“Yeah, we’ve seen that before. That’s not the level he’s used to, and he may just decided to stay home.”
What does that tell you? It tells me that the players don’t need the money they are demanding; it’s all ego to them. Imagine being so secure financially that you can say, “Eh, it’s not worth it to play the sport I love for a lousy four million dollars.”
4. I’m so confused! Will someone explain to me how the United States can openly and self-righteously interfere with Venezuela’s elections while simultaneously holding an endless investigation into Russia’s alleged dastardly interference with our elections?
5. I believe the term is “shameless.” I’m too sick to summarize this one. You’ll have to read it here, an then you’ll be sick.
6. The Fake News Codex. This is a useful site: it catalogues all of the hoax and satirical news websites.
Ethics Alarms 
Jack, get better, I wish you a speedy recovery.
#4 Because of the Monroe Doctrine, South America is our backyard, and we have the prerogative to help our southern friends in times of need, like the moment is now, with Venezuela. Now with Russia, since they are not the USA, any participation in American affairs by them is considered an encroachment and unfriendly. Now some might say, aren’t former Soviet states Russia’s background and part of their doctrine. While that is a plausible argument, it is completely wrong, because of the Truman Doctrine and Containment, making all those former Soviet states our background also. I hope that helps out with any confusion.
(I’m sure that’s how Henry Kissinger would describe it)
The Monroe Doctrine! I was trying to think of something of that sort to describe the situation
Aleksei, Aleksei. The reason the United States can openly and self-righteously interfere with Venezuela’s elections while simultaneously holding an endless investigation into Russia’s alleged dastardly interference with our elections is simple: TRUMP!!!
I never was fond of the Monroe doctrine. We don’t have any right to control, we didn’t even colonize them in the first place so there’s no cultural continuity. Maybe I could see enforcing neutrality, and accepting if they choose monarchy or communism. We should be expected to have more concern for closer states, but that applies to every state not just us. If we can’t keep our piddies out of others’ elections, turnabout is only fair.
I am SO tired of the Russian story. This is what realpolitik is at the international level, get over it and plan the next battle better because whining isn’t going to change a thing. No matter how much you cherish or hate one thing. Learning how people deal with loss is useful. I may not have liked Nixon or Carter, but they were survivors, who learned and took new paths after their defeats.
This does beg the question of the motives of those who conitnue to push the Russia story.
The Monroe Doctrine I learned in my history classes was not that we had the right to interfere with other countries in the Western Hemisphere. We’ve obviously done that (in this hemisphere and elsewhere), but I don’t think it is part of the Monroe Doctrine.
The Monroe Doctrine said ‘hands off’ to the European powers that wanted to bully or take over some of the Latin American countries. Great Britain found it useful to tolerate this policy in the decades before we were strong enough to truly enforce it ourselves, which enabled us to keep it.
The perfect example of this would be the French takeover of Mexico in the early 1860s. We were obviously a bit too preoccupied with other matters to dispute this initially (not to mention that we didn’t have good access to Mexico at the time), but once we concluded the ‘Late Unpleasantness’, we sent ultimatums to Napoleon III to get the heck out — which he did.
That’s right. It was also a symbolic statement that the US was an international power that had a sphere of influence to be respected by Europe, and that it was projecting itself as the great power of the Americas, the Big Kid on the block. This was more than a little premature, but a smart diplomatic move.
Yep, that’s examples of why I don’t like it. We order Europe out, but we’re allowed to interfere all we want anywhere Non-interference and golden rule? Too bad.
We had the logistics to support an enormous standing army, a very deep reserve of combat veterans with experience in the nastiest of fighting, and really could have used an outside fight to rally around.
No one in Europe (likely the world) wanted to engage us at that point.
Very apt analysis. The actual state of your enemies armed forces should always be considered before initiating any action.
(4) I would say because they are socialist. Our proponents of ‘Democratic Socialism’ should be eager to get to Venezuela to sort out this whole misunderstanding of socialism.
Maybe we can get Governor Northam to help kids with their homework since he loves them so much…
Another interesting story from my home state:
https://abcnews.go.com/US/5th-grader-calls-911-math-homework-im-calling/story?id=60712570
Well, I don’t know if he said he loved them. Given to totality of his statements, many people would agree that he ‘took care’ of children.
Two quick hits:
Regarding #2, the irony is that Roe said that in the third trimester, the State has a legitimate interest in the life of the child and could pass reasonable restrictions on abortion.
(Of course, this is based on my reading of Roe 20 years ago, but I am ptysure that, even if wrong about my memory, Roe does not apply here.)
Re #4: (again, spouting off recklessly). My understanding is that the Venezuelan Constitution has something “like” our 25th Amendment but allows another person to take over the government if the executive does certain things that are contrary to his duties. (Very vague description on my part, but it sounded to me that it was like our 25th, only MUCH broader.)
So, this would not be s question of meddling in an election but which government OUR government recognizes.
(Of course, you know that, for the USA and the Confederacy, the issue of international recognition was an important one.)
That is what I think is going on here.
-Jut
Great Spelling, Jut! You are officially not as bad as Jack. Be proud of that!
-Jut
1. That’s the dirty little secret of the pro-choice movement. Women don’t want the right to choose or any of that other garbage. They want good sex without consequences, and they want to be free of the obligations to any family. There is a reason there was that whole abortion sequence done to Christmas carols in ABC’s Scandal. It was to spit in the face of anyone who might even dare question a woman’s absolute right to take a gestating life so she could get on with her own.
2. Actually a fairly common tactic by people who think they’ve said all they have to say, or that you either didn’t hear or didn’t comprehend what they said the first time. I’ve used that same tactic on a secretary who disputed my instructions, someone else who insisted on bashing Columbus to me after I told him to get off the subject (getting louder each time until I was shouting), and my then 6yo cousin who was acting like a brat and refusing to stop.
3. It’s a different world they live in.
4. Ask Jimmuh Cahtuh, who implied that the 2004 election here was corrupt, but a contemporaneous election in Chavezland was on the up and up.
5. Can’t be bothered.
6. helpful, but few surprises.
2. I’m still waiting for a newscaster who has the gumption to ask people reading talking points, “You’re not answering the question. You seem to just be reading an approved talking point. Can’t you speak for yourself? You’ve been elected to represent your constituents. Is reading talking points conscientiously representing your constituents?”
And unless I’m missing something, talking points seem to be a uniquely Democrat Party phenomenon.
In case no one’s noticed, talking points and people letting people who use them get away with it, drive me crazy. They are the most awful, signaturely significant development in political science of my lifetime. Probably worse than Sam Donaldson.
Marco?
Polo! (Couldn’t resist)
There’s always an exception to the rule.
Marco was (is?) a squish. The Swamp is both parties, otherwise known as the Elite Establishment.’
This is how the Swamp handles dissent: talking points.
RE: 1
I have come to the conclusion that the abortion issue is a smokescreen for a far more insidious plan.
Beginning in 1973, we have been being conditioned to believe that abortion is ok because the fetus is merely a blob of undifferentiated cells in the first trimester and non sentient later on. Now by characterizing these late term abortions as needed to ensure women’s health – you know, those female victims of male oppression. The Virginia bill Northam was promoting, by his own admission, allows termination even after delivery. That is infanticide nothing less. He even referred to the child as an infant. But, we know all this.
What if we are being conditioned to accept government sanctioned destruction of life that has outlived its usefulness. If we can accept infanticide why should we not accept geriatricide? We know that we are 21T in debt. Medicare is nearly insolvent but we want Medicare for all so government will provide us with universal access to health care. In order for government to provide all the rights people come to expect it will be necessary to reduce the demand for rights. That can be accomplished at tbe front end through abortion or on the back end by denying life saving care for those who are no longer net contributors to the government coffers.
With climate change rapidly increasing due to population growth that requires more resources, an increasing carbon footprint, and higher demand for decreasing per capita amounts of clean fresh water it will be necessary to limit the population’s growth to a manageable amount.
Margaret Sanger would be proud of our stewardship of the planet.
It’s a bit of a misnomer to imply Sanger would be fond of the current state of the abortion movement. I don’t say this to defend her at all. From what I read of her books she was more a birth control advocate vs. rampant abortion. She certainly wanted certain races “exterminated” (her literal word) but wanted to also see favored races (Darwin’s term) breed at higher rates and not have abortions.
You are most correct Chris that eugenics is at the root of all this. From Denmark to Portland, OR, there has been a rapid increase in legislating death while allowing certain authorities to determine who should & shouldn’t live. Pretty much the direction we’re going in is a shit show – but you know, choice, comfort, and convenience is what matters, not the weak, vulnerable or meek.
Mrs Q.
With Orwellian newspeak so prevalent these days the use of terms like we are promoting “women’s reproductive health” when we kill their viable child after “making it comfortable” makes me wonder why any sane person could rationalize this procedure.
You are correct that Sanger was not a big abortion advocate but that was because she favored sterilization which would be needed only once and was permanent. Abortion was far riskier in her day. Nonetheless, we should ask why are abortion clinics located primarily in low income neighorhoods and never in affluent ones. This suggests that abortion advocates are targeting a population segment that has a higher likelihood of being net dependents on government. By promising Medicare for all while couching all the rhetoric in terms of protecting women’s healthcare choices we are deluded into believing this is a benevolent act.
Once government eliminates virtually all third party payers, the government can begin to decide who gets what services. When government has that power it can appropriate health services to sympathetic voters who can benefit the power structure electorally; both geographically and philosophically.
I note, with some amusement, that getting Barak Obama to approve a Social Security COLA was like pulling teeth from a chicken. Why? Because he believed ‘old folks’ voted conservatively and, thus, should be ‘economically euthanized’.
The Nazis called such people, “useless eaters”
An ethics issue to wrote about.
http://groups.google.com/d/msg/Talk.Politics.Guns/jYJzql8VjpQ/tX4V9mmwEwAJ
Sen. Kamala D. Harris, the California Democrat and presidential
aspirant, lamented on Monday the lack of congressional action on gun
control, saying a solution would have been possible after the 2012
massacre of 20 children and six adults at Sandy Hook Elementary School
in Newtown, Conn., if only lawmakers had been placed in “a locked
room, no press, no one, nobody else” and required to examine “the
autopsy photographs of those babies.”
“And then, you vote your conscience,” she said at a CNN town hall in
Des Moines. “This has become a political issue.”
Does she think that shutting lawmakers in a locked room and forcing them to view photos of aborted fetuses will make them change their minds about abortion, too?
This is just grand-standing. I would, however, advocate shutting them in a locked room until they make an agreement with the President and end the shutdown, though.
That was one of my first thoughts too.
Here is more on Kamala Harris.
http://groups.google.com/d/msg/Talk.Politics.Guns/rkOPVZdFTEM/GPb5UtdHBwAJ
http://www.mercurynews.com/2014/02/27/gun-laws-in-california-concealed-carry-ruling-appealed-by-attorney-general-kamala-harris/
“Local law enforcement must be able to use their discretion to determine
who can carry a concealed weapon,” said Kamala Harris, who was then the
California Attorney General.
I have always wondered how #BlackLivesMatter would view this. After all,
according to their narrative, cops are just Klansmen with badges who
habitually gun down unarmed black men. How could we trust such people with discretion to determine who may carry a concealed weapon.
And yet, just yesterday, she tweeted this:
Today, we remember #MikeBrown and recommit to ensuring truth,
transparency, and trust in our criminal justice system. #BlackLivesMatter
So I wonder if any reporter from the network broadcast and print media would ask her any of the following questions:
– If the reason that “[l]ocal law enforcement must be able to use their
discretion to determine who can carry a concealed weapon” is because they are just Klansmen with badges, why shouldn’t the Stormfront White
Nationalist Community also get to decide who can carry a concealed weapon?
– If the reason that “[l]ocal law enforcement must be able to use their
discretion to determine who can carry a concealed weapon” is because they habitually gun down unarmed black men, why shouldn’t the Crips also get to decide who can carry a concealed weapon?
– Is more black men dead or in prison a worthy price to pay to make lawful
gun ownership more difficult?
– Is making lawful gun ownership more difficult a worthy price to pay to put
more black men in prison?
– Does some magical guardian fairy turn these Klansmen with badges into
freedom riders whenever they exercise their “discretion to determine who can carry a concealed weapon”?
The fact that people think that Democrats don’t support infanticide is a testament to the whitewashing of history done by our schools and the press. It was quite common for pediatricians to kill babies with birth defects. Usually they were ‘made comfortable’ and fluids were withheld. The babies die in a few days. From the remarks of the governor, it seems this practice has resumed (or it took place in quiet).
This practice was widespread and studies were done to see if you could kill the children of the poor, operate and treat the children of the rich, and do it without the poor parents finding out. It turns out you can and the doctors involved (at University of Oklahoma Children’s Hospital) published how to do it in the article “Early Treatment and Decision Making for the Treatment of Myelomeningocele”. Pediatrics, Vol 72, No. 4 Oct 1, 1983.
This practice came to light in the Baby Doe case in Indiana in 1982. Ronald Reagan issued executive orders against such infanticide, but the AMA and the Democrats were against it. The Supreme Court ruled it unconstitutional to forbid it.
So, the Democrats and Democrat physicians have been dedicated to infanticide for decades. Nothing has changed. The only thing new is that you know about it.
I am increasingly convinced that with rare exceptions politicians from both parties don’t really believe the things they say or care about the issues they either support or condemn. Their purpose is merely to check off the boxes that will resonate with voters, sufficient to get them elected and reelected. I am reminded of this quote from the 1840s:
“When it comes to be once understood that politics is a game; that those who are engaged in it but act a part; that they make this or that profession, not from honest conviction or intent to fulfill it, but as a means of deluding the people, and through that delusion to acquire power; when such professions are to be entirely forgotten, the people will lose confidence in public men. All will be regarded as mere jugglers –the honest and patriotic as well as the cunning and the profligate- and the people will become indifferent and passive to the grossest abuses of power, on the ground that those whom they may elevate, under whatever pledges, instead of reforming, will but imitate the example of those whom they have expelled.” -John Caldwell Calhoun
It seems to me that we have finally arrived at this point.
I agree. If the system no longer serves the people, what are the people to do?