Today, the news is reporting that a doctor in the states was gunned down -in Church no less- because he was a "late term abortion" provider.

I'm not sure when abortion became a religious issue, but it is. For whatever reason, the religious right has dominated this issue, claiming that they themselves only care about the life of the unborn child.

In their ziel to protect life, the religious right that flames the passions of the anti-choice movement, and have pushed many to commit acts of domestic terrorism against doctors and women across the country.

Never mind the irony, never mind the contradictions, never mind how it flies in the face of everything that Jesus ever spoke of. But let us focus, instead, on the insanity of the rhetoric and the very argument of the anti choice movement as it is practiced by so many for so long.

The religious right/anti-choice movement have argued for too long without enough of a push back from the rest of us, that:

1) "Liberals" are pro-abortion
2) Abortion is murder
3) Abortion is a sin
4) Abortion is what Hitler, Stalin, Mao used

It's amazing that when you boil it down to the "talking points" how insane their argument is.

No one is "pro abortion". Anyone, anywhere, ever. We are "pro-choice". And it's a fucking hard choice to make. No one wants to have an abortion. No woman skips merrily to the clinic to get it done and then goes out for margaritas with the ladies to celebrate at an abortion party. It is a soul crushing experience from which many women don't ever fully recover emotionally and spiritually.

Abortion is not murder. As much as this might bother people, murder is a legal definition, not an absolute one. That's why it's murder if I shoot someone while robbing a liqueur store, but it's not murder when the state executes me when I'm found guilty. Abortion is legal, and not murder. You might not like that, but that's the way it is.

Abortion is not a sin. This one is just the most vile corruption of religious philosophy ever. It wasn't until the late 19th century that people even understood the process of conception. Don't tell me the Bible had it figured out 5000 years ago. In fact, in many cases, the Bible equates the act of breathing with life. And since a fetus can't breathe, it can't be "alive" in the Biblical sense of the word. The Bible is filled with references that fly in the face of what most "pro-life" people preach. Don't believe me? Read more here.

My all time favorite, however, is the comparing of abortion doctors to Hitler, and his group of nutcases. To be honest, I'm getting sick and tired of the constant comparisons to Hitler for everything. Hitler performed abortions not to honor a woman's right to choose, but to create master races and to discard "genetically inferior" babies (here's the important bit) EVEN OVER THE OBJECTIONS OF THE MOTHER. Hitler didn't practice abortion. He practiced FORCED abortions. NO ONE is in favor for that. In fact, the very notion flies in the face of what the pro-choice movement has been fighting for for generations.

But these are the lies, smears, and outright hysterics that the religious right/anti-choice movement have been saying about abortion. It's got to stop.

It might help them to know that even on the "Liberal Left" there are MANY, MANY of us who think that abortion is the ultimate ethical Mobius strip. It's the most repugnant of all our rights, and the lesser of two "evils" in many of our minds. But none of us sleep well at night when we hear that abortion rates have gone up.

Maybe if the religious right wasn't so against welfare, government backed daycare, and extended maternity leave, we would have less abortions in our society. I don't know. All I know is that they have got to cut back on the rhetoric before someone else gets shot.


MoonBat

I've been off for a while. Sorry peeps. Just been swamped with things. But I just wanted to post something quickly given the events unfolding in Washington.

Let me -on behalf of millions if not billions of people around the world- be clear so that the people who run America fully understand:

Civilized nations do not torture, and do not quibble as to the definition of torture.

The nation that resorts to torture first, is the nation that admits defeat.

There is no other side to this argument. There is no ticking time bomb scenario. There is nothing.

Black and white. Cut and dry.

You will not, and never will, torture in our names to "defend" our freedoms. We would rather die in an attack, than live in dishonour.

Now go and prosecute Bush and restore our dignity.

Been swamped with stuff lately. Good and bad. Exciting and fearful. So I will have lots to talk about when I get a chance.

Talk soon!


MoonBat

First off, just want to apologize for not blogging enough lately. Been dealing with some family stuff that has distracted me considerably. Ironically, the issue revolves around money -or lack thereof.

My mom is 65, turning 66 this July. She goes to her financial planner last week who suddenly realizes that she's going to be broke by 71. Evidently, this came to a shock to him. This is the guy who is supposed to manage my mom's (limited) money, and has been (again, supposedly) for the last 5 years at least.

Now, I'm going to do a whole other post about the investment systems in Canada another day, but for today I want to talk about a phrase that is suddenly entering into our conversations, and one that mom heard from this douche bag financial planner.

"Live within your means"

Have you head that lately? You probably have.

It has become the rallying call of not just Republicans but Democrats as well. It's become the bumper sicker of the 'new economics' of this American decade.

There's a political action group named for it: http://livewithinourmeans.com/

Obama has used the expression in one of his speeches: http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2009/02/unreal-obama-says-weve-gotta-get.html

And Republicans like Ron Paul have made a mantra out of it: http://ronpaulromania.blogspot.com/2009/01/ron-paul-solution-is-to-live-within-our.html

Now, on the surface, there is nothing wrong with the argument that we have to live within our means. It makes perfect sense. If you spend more than you make you go into debt and risk financial ruin to not only yourself but your family.

As a nation, if you spend too much, you risk crippling debt, recessions, and potentially disastrous inflation.

But, the advice is great for an ideal world. The fact is, we don't live in one. The ugly truth is that most people CANNOT live within their means, and we have NEVER been encouraged or been able to do so by the powers that be.

We live in a society that NEEDS CREDIT. Not only for convenience, but as a major factor in our economic survival.

Think about it: if it was so easy to "live within our means", why do we have a banking crisis? Why are so many businesses hurting because they can't get a loan, and why is the government rushing to help them out?

I mean, if we should just live within our means, why are we trying to get capital flowing again?

The reason: our system is geared towards perpetual debt. Not perpetual profit.

The abundance of credit has been a KEY factor in the economic success of the Western world for 100 years now. By providing easy access to credit and loans, governments and businesses have ensured the following:

-Easy economic expansion of a consumer based economy

-Suppression of wages of the working class (Why pay someone more when they can live off of credit?)

-Creation of a debt burden to ensure that people work for whatever salary you give them and are less likely to quit no matter how much you exploit them.

-Keeping people economically suppressed so that they are always focused on their personal situations and not the 'big pictures' of life.

The truth is, the Western economies would COLLAPSE if people 'lived within their means'.

If you lived within your means, would you go out to dinner once a week? Would you go to the movies or buy a DVD? Would you get that new iPhone or new Britney CD? Would you buy a house? Or buy a second car? Would you go on vacation somewhere or just stay home?

Would you buy a new dress? Buy a coffee on your way to work? Would you spend any money during Christmas?

Probably not. You won't be able to do much.

So, explain to me then, how does a Western economy like America survive if people lived within their means? Because, after all, the American economy is one of excess.

What would happen to companies if the average American had to live within a budget? What would happen to Mercedes, Abercombe and Finch, The Gap, Nine West, Gucci, Ford, Lincoln, Crocs, Banana Republic, Boss, Armani, Versaci, Disney World, Sony, Samsung, Apple, Louis Vuitton, Pizza Hut, McDonald's, Chanel, Rolex, Shell, Boeing, Levi's, Motorola, Nissan, Starbucks, or Nivea?

They'd go tits up, that's what.

To everyone who uses the rallying cry of "Live Within Our Means" as a front against the Obama budget -which at it's worst is somewhere between 1-2 trillion dollars- let me quote from Video Jug :

The average American today has about thirteen credit cards and about $9,800 in outstanding balances... As far as the totals, there is currently about nine trillion dollars in mortgage debt outstanding, about two and a half to three trillion dollars in non-mortgage debt, that would credit cards, which is about nine hundred million, car loans, student loans, medical debt, all kinds of other debts combined are about two and a half to three trillion dollars. So consumers have a total of well over ten trillion dollars in debt in this country and it's hurting an awful lot of people's ability to keep up.

10 trillion dollars. That's what Americans spent on credit.

So image sucking 10 trillion dollars out of the national economy. What do you think it would do? How damaging would that be on business? How many people would be out of work?

Before we all start demanding that people start living within their means, let's understand what the consequences will be: a very different Western world. No more innovations at the rate we are currently used to, no more fun gadgets to buy every Christmas, no more new car line ups every year. Good bye 401ks and RRSPs. So long retirement plans. Nice knowing you manufacturing sectors and blue collar jobs. Good luck tech sector. See ya around GDP growth.

Hello 15-20% unemployment rate for the next 20 years or so.

I completely agree that people need to live within their means. But not for some kind of sick economic morality that seems to be sweeping the nations. But because credit has become a yolk around the necks of the working class and because it perpetuates a false economic condition that cannot survive.

We need to re-engineer our economic systems so that both companies and workers make good money so that companies can reinvest in themselves and that workers can reinvest in their economies without living in debt.


MoonBat

I've come to realize -and perhaps it is naive of me for not seeing this earlier- as to why the AIG bonuses story is as big as it is.

I'm one of those guys that is constantly saying: "Why isn't the media devoting more time to global warming, or poverty, or the chaos in Africa? Why aren't we talking more about the rise of China or the history of American intervention in the Middle East that lead to the birth of Al-Qaeda?"

For the longest time I used to think that the media didn't do this for bogus political reasons or because of corporate sponsorship. Now I'm beginning to realize that they don't do it because they are lazy.

Stories like the AIG bonuses are easy to produce, because -ultimately- there are only two sides to the story. You are either for the bonuses or against them. The idea of these guys making millions of dollars after crashing the economy lights something up in the reptile part of our brain. The part that gets offended easily and wants some kind of primitive retribution and tribal justice. "It's not fair! It's not right!" is usually the rallying cry of the reptile brain.

Even President Obama said the bonuses were a moral and ethical issue.

For the media, stores like this makes for 'engaging television' and easy journalism. You don't have to cover a story. Only the reaction to the story. Honestly, how much time has been spend understanding why we are where we are with AIG versus the outrage of the bonuses? Ask yourself: what angle of the story is actually more important in the long run?

You can see the same thing with the Octo-Mom story. People were either supportive of it or against it. They spent hours talking about the 'ethical and moral' implications of having so many babies.

Considering all of the true moral and ethical quandaries we are in as a civilization, are these the best examples we can come up with? No. But they are the easiest to put on television. Why? Because these kinds of "dilemmas" are easy for people to understand.

And that's the thing. Rick Santelli had a point recently, that the outrage of the bonuses makes no sense because they represent 1% of the money given to AIG. His thesis: Why the outrage over 160 million when we just handed over 160 billion? And he's right.

But arguing about the bigger issues -like if a bailout for AIG was even required in the first place- requires a nuanced argument, with subtle details of law, economics, capitalism and principle. It means that people have to actually UNDERSTAND the issue before they can have an opinion on it.

(Why is it -for example- that no matter how complex an issue is, the media always reduces it to a two sided argument? (Think Israel vs Palestine). Is it because they are corrupt? No. It's because they are lazy. Explaining the Mobeus strip that is the Middle East is too hard. Making it a story about settlers vs terrorists is much easier.)

Why is it that we have spent more time now talking about the AIG bonuses than we did about the idea of, the implementation of, the management of, and the laws of giving AIG a BAILOUT in the first place? Because the latter requires actual thought and discussion. And the easier it is for people to have an opinion on something -and the faster you can present an argument so they can have one- the more will follow the story and be 'engaged' in it.

Looking back, I can see this happening constantly. Remember the whole Monica Lewinsky scandal? Why was that so big? Cause it was easy for people to have an opinion on it.

Gays in the military? Gay marriage? Abortion? Same thing. Reptile brain reactions to all of them.

Global warming? The role of a central banking system in democracy? The role of government in supporting a capitalistic system and what limitations should be placed on IT as well as the markets in general? Good luck seeing CNN give any of those issues any time. Too complicated. Not sexy enough.

The trouble is, of course, that the most important issues we face as a society, a people, and a species, aren't easy to understand. It requires us to educate ourselves in various schools of thought and subject matters. It means that we have to silence our reptile brain and use our higher functions to actually have an INFORMED opinion.

What is going on on Wall Street and on Bay Street and in London, Paris, Berlin, Rome and everywhere else is epic. It's a complex, almost Homer-esque tragedy playing out, and there are no Cliff Notes or Coles Notes to skim off of.

For decades, those in power have been distracting us -and we ourselves- with these simple yes or no 'issues'. Obsessing over them, we have failed to educate ourselves on the real issues that matter, and the stories that we must decode and understand.

The AIG bonus story is big for sure. But not for the reasons you believe it to be. Ultimately, our society won't feel it one way or another if those jerks get their bonus money or not.

No, this story is big because we are so stupid as a country and as a people, that this is the only part of the narrative that we truly 'get', and therefore, the only part of the story that we have an actual opinion on.

Next time you have an opinion on something, I mean REALLY have an opinion on something, odds are likely you have an opinion on a subject that is totally irrelevant to your life and your country. Not because your opinion doesn't matter, but because the issue is most likely so simplistic that it is ultimately irrelevant. It may make you feel good to have an opinion, but so what?

I'll never be able to watch the news the same way again.

Once again, Kieth Olbermann and Jonathan Turley breaks it down simply in terms of the hypocrisy of the outrage. Couldn't have said it better myself.

Another day, and another AIG freak out on behalf of the Obama administration.

Today, Obama huffed and puffed about AIG's insistence on paying $170 million dollars in bonuses.

Now I'm a huge fan of Obama and I'm disgusted at the idea of paying bonuses to the guys who broke the American economy. But as I said in yesterday's post on this, AIG is contractually obligated to do so. In fact, if they don't, they may have to pay DOUBLE because of the state laws that they operate under.

The question is not: "How dare AIG pay?". We know they have no morals on the situation anyway. The question is: "How dare the Obama administration NOT know this was going to happen?"

They effectively 'bought' AIG with tax payer money. Didn't they look at the books? Tim Giethner, used to work for Goldman Sachs. He KNOWS how things roll on Wall Street. Hey Timmy. Did it just slip your mind? (Also, I'm sure he also had NO idea that AIG paid $13 billion to Goldman Sachs -even though they were also recently bailed out.)

The US gov is just showing itself to be incapable of dealing with this mess, and at the heart of this shit storm is Geithner. It's time for this guy to step aside. He has lost all credibility in dealing with these issues.

In the meantime, don't get distracted by stories of bonuses. That's not the outrage here. The outrage is that there seems to be no accountability on behalf of the US gov as to how they are spending your money.


MoonBat