My Photo

December 2014

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
  1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
28 29 30 31      

BlogStats


« Racists? – Obama and Holder | Main | GMC = General Motors China »

01 June 2012

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00e54f86f2ad883301630609b61a970d

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference The Great Divide – the debate continues:

Comments

Earl Crabb

I've made my case before, but I'll do it again in case someone missed the first twenty or so times...
I agree with conservatives that lower tax rates for all would jump start business and bring in more revenue, providing that the loopholes the wealthy use to avoid paying are closed. The Norquist pledge makes that a tough sell for most Republicans.
The Democrats need to get off the rules and regs bandwagon. This forced Bataan-like death march to renewable energy will ultimately be their Achille's heel. Natural gas needs to be developed, with safeguards to protect water supplies and leakage. If that delays solar, wind, etc., it will only give those technologies time to develop more viable systems.
Both sides need to put a stop to social engineering. Gays are not three-fifths of a human being. Abortion should be discouraged but not outlawed, especially in cases of rape, incest, or the woman's health. (Just call me a libertarian on those issues.) Stop trying to force Catholics or others to go against their beliefs.
Healthcare and social security are necessary evils. Making retirement savings voluntary is a sure recipe for disaster. Health care is a tough nut to crack, and Obamacare is deeply flawed, but there needs to be some government involvement.
I'd go on in greater detail, but I know there's a time limit on comments, so I'll close by saying that if we don't figure this shit out together, we're no better off than those dumb hillbillies a hundred years ago, and history will record it that way.

Ryan Mount

Is this a blog entry about another blog entry about a series another blog entries that you have been conducting? Holy Plato Batman. Where's The Gorgias when you need it.

At this level abstraction, is it even possible to have a reasonable conversation about specific issues and policy? Or are we at point where we are mere abstractions in the debate, so far removed from the actual topics, that all we have left is hearsay and frankly name-calling?

What is a "leftwinger?" Or the "mainstream left." Or a "conservative?" What are these categories we speak of. They seem like flimsy and whimsical constructions.

For the record, Michael's a good guy on a number of levels. I'd let him watch my 6 kids. Michael, are you free Saturday night? ;-)

George Rebane

EarlC 1028am - Bob, good points and I agree with almost all of them. (I break into a grin reading about putting "a stop to social engineering", and couple of lines down seeing that letting people provide for their own retirement "is a sure recipe for disaster".) But what you don't address is the 800lbs gorilla problem of what all evidence points to is a permanently polarized population attempting to continue as one sovereign nation-state. Well, almost - one side wants America to give up that kind of statehood. Talking past that point and adopting the Rodney King plaint does not get us closer to a resolution.

RyanM 1037am - Yes, MichaelA is a good guy, and from what I can tell, with the best of motives for America going forward as a strong sovereign nation-state in the world community.

However, the "flimsy and whimsical constructions" are and have been part of the international dialogue on governance for over a century now. I try to use them as concise labels for well publicized ideologies and ideologues. We cannot communicate without the use of labels; all we can do is attempt to use ones that are either broadly understood and/or well defined. None of them are nor should be taken as being pejorative.

THEMIKEYMCD

If state's rights survived to the extend to which the founders hoped such a divide would have occurred naturally; freely (one could choose to be free or be enslaved to the state). Today the power of the state's are nil and the power of the mob is amplified. Morality is at a low (as proven by laws being accepted on the basis of a mob rule). I refuse to accept laws as moral just because the mob voted for them.

An obvious (slow, long term) solution would be a focus on state's rights (via nullification, 10th Amendment, etc) and let individuals decide.

George Rebane

I hearken back to these thoughts and invite your (re)consideration.
http://rebaneruminations.typepad.com/rebanes_ruminations/2010/10/is-america-too-big.html

Also, Walter Williams' 'Should We Obey All Laws?' is relevant to this discussion.
http://townhall.com/columnists/walterewilliams/2012/05/16/should_we_obey_all_laws/page/full/

Greg Zaller

Let's not take words out of context, George. "I don't know" was used as an expression of weariness. Cute insults make for a poor debate.

I am much more right than left, if left at all. The "left" aren't everyone that disagrees with you, George.

I also posted this on Crabb which you might have missed: "Listen guys, few know more than I how deeply government is the problem. In a few minutes I will be off to court to defend my right to evict some folks that got the way they are clearly because of government. I would be the hardest right republican possible if they also weren’t a bunch of hypocrites.

My point isn’t that the left is right. It is that the right is equally as wrong. We need to get out of the box, there are other ways to do this, and we need to stop squabbling, and get get busy truly solving these problems.
Reply"

BTW they didn't show and we continued with the eviction. Now I am calculating how big a dumpster I am going to need. All of this is because of government enabling.

THEMIKEYMCD

I define the "left" as those wishing to use government FORCE (via immoral laws, compulsion, collusion, corruption, proposition process) to enslave individuals to the point of giving up their inalienable rights to serve the collective (though, ultimately the elite).

I define the "right" as those wishing to protect their inalienable rights (property, life, individual freedoms, etc) from the heavy hand of government (collectivists/elitists/planners).

Those on the "left" don't accept their label. Time and time again their actions support the FORCE of government while their word claims otherwise.

Interestingly, those on the "right" wear their label proudly.

George Rebane

GregZ 200pm - Apologies if your declared position on the ideological spectrum trumps your written word. Your understanding of the history of the Right, and your assessment that "the (R)ight is equally wrong" served to effectively camouflage your true colors.

But I'll be the first to concede that the confusing of 'Right' with both the mis-ascribed ideology of fascism and the current conservative/libertarian values of governance serves to add more heat than light to these discussions. However, it is what the Left lamestream has saddled us with since FDR's day.

RR is a continuing and expanding dialogue between its readers, and no post of mine stands alone in the sense that it covers all the bases upon which its stated propositions are founded. Thousands of words have preceded these in the five-year life of this blog, and every post and comment I have contributed lends its weight (or in some eyes weakens) what I daily add. I can be and do invite to be taken to task for all my previous sins, but not putting everything into every post is not one of them.

(Use either RR's search, or google with 'rebane' added to the key words to discover my past.)

billy T

Mr. Crabb seems like a delightful fella. Really liked his cartoon with Nevada City as the beauty queen and Grass Valley as....the maid of sorts. The Great Divide is nothing new. The names hurled at the opposing sides since George Washington to today is nothing new. Tame considering what Andy Jackson had to endure. Even Honest Abe was a civil liberties squashing "buffoon". I lean right cause of individual liberties, personal responsibility, and the old "Don't thread on me." Spending time on the res has shown me what a tragic way of life those that live by The Great White Father in DC's handouts. More than tragic. But I really get my radar maxed out when government encroaches year after year under the guise of this utopia thing. History is full of countless examples of good intentions run amok. More threatening is the history of control freaks that have set them up as gods to themselves. These harsh taskmasters replace God with "the state". Stalin killed more of his own than Hitler killed in many nations. Nobody really knows how many countless millions Mao murdered. I do know that when Mao took over China, the number 2 person on his enemies list was a humble Christian minister named Watchman Nee. Died in prison for being a threat to "The State". Yep, the State must be the God of these "socialist" nations. Like Bob Dylan wrote "you got to serve somebody". So, when somebody states how wonderful life will be if we just try one more time to do socialism differently, well...I remember the first European experiment in the New World and how it utterly failed. The Pilgrims dropped socialism for survival after just one year and we keep trying to revert back to that. Guess I am just a rubber meets the road kind of guy. Don't know how many times I have uttered the expression" The road to hell is paved with good intentions." Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

George Rebane

billyT 722pm - You are a delight to behold through the thoughtful and revealing scribbles with which you grace these pages.

And yes, Sir Robert of Crabb is a delightful fella with many talents and always a good word. His self-assigned quest to join the unjoinable - the right and freedom to win or lose on our individual merits that opposes mind-melding into a mass to seek a sullied salvation through elitist diktats - is an honorable joust with the windmill. A place in the pantheon will reward his labors.

Douglas Keachie

"My point isn’t that the left is right. It is that the right is equally as wrong. We need to get out of the box, there are other ways to do this, and we need to stop squabbling, and get get busy truly solving these problems."

~GregZ~

I think I've been pretty much saying the same thing for awhile now. I owuld think the following article I read in Wired at the Asian Garden today would be of interest.


http://www.democracynow.org/2012/3/21/exposed_inside_the_nsas_largest_and

Scott Obermuller

"We need to get together and solve this." That is the talk of the dominate party. We have been hewing hard left for decades. When do we get just one year of less regulation and taxes? Want to sit and talk middle ground? Fine - let's talk about abortion. Middle ground is just killing half of the humans. Which half? I dunno, you tell me. We are such a socialist country that middle ground is a joke. I wish that just one tenth of the folk that talk about middle ground would put in clear concrete terms what they are talking about. They won't. Saddles on dinosaurs may make you feel good, but it ignores 100% of what needs to be discussed. How is this country worse off if there is a saddle on a dinosaur? Who forced you or anyone you know to believe in something they don't want to believe in? Now tell me how this country is better off by having a AG that spews racists hate speech? Where is the middle ground? Jindal is trying to have true choice in Louisiana. Are the "middle ground" folks willing to give it a try? I haven't seen any support yet.

Michael Anderson

Scott, the country is much worse off if the cost for the statue of the dinosaur w/ a Western saddle is hoovered out of your and my wallets. Isn't that what we are talking about here?

So OK, let's talk abortion. I've been married twice, and both times I was told that if you try to legislate my womb, I will cut off your balls by popular vote as well. Seems reasonable to me. My balls cannot create life w/o a womb, and since the womb belongs to someone other than me, and nurturing a living being for nine months is what is involved, I will always defer to the person to whom that womb belongs.

Late-term abortions are another story altogether. Legislation, agreed upon by serious and responsible adults, will define this state by state. It will take time, but hard decisions require hard work.

Michael Anderson

Alas, our denouement must wait until tomorrow, or even perhaps the next day. Let us hope the recipe is still robust, worthy, and well sought-after.

"Goodnight sweet prince." From good ol' Willy Shakes.
http://michaelnewberry.com/art/fig/pw/denoue.htm

Greg Zaller

My attempt at describing the left and the right:

On the left, the government should protect the poor from exploitation, and on the right, the poor should look out for themselves.

The left approach fails because the poor rely more and more on the government until they produce nothing and the system starves. The right approach fails because the poor are exploited without protection to the point that they can't survive and the system collapses.

I think that if we were taught to look out for each other there would be no need for the right or the left. The system would be self correcting and stable. This could be done with education. There are many ways to set up education systems like this that work. We need to do this.

Todd Juvinall

GregZ, do you believe in fairy tales? The "right" does not exploit, the "right" educates you to fish so you can be fed or the rest of your life. The "left" wants to give you the fish (after taking it from the fisherman) whenever they want it. There, my simple view. Your simple view is just wrong.

Douglas Keachie

"hewing hard left for decades" is a very accurate statement in terms of history, but I think the meaning you intended is better conveyed by "skewing.

"the "right" educates you to fish so you can be fed or the rest of your life."

Tell that to the Detroit auto workers, if you can find any.

Todd Juvinall

Regarding abortion. I diverge from some on this. I believe the government should stay out of a woman's womb but I also do not want to have my taxes for them. If it is a right to privacy as the SCOTUS determined (out of whole cloth mo less) then I have the right to privacy of my money don't I? Many men already have lost their "nads"and are what I call "metrosexuals". Wooses and wimps in matters of conscience. Mostly liberals.

Douglas Keachie

Somebody mentioned "no Skynet yet" but again the article I cited above certainly gives rise to the notion that there might be the data and processing power for it coming on line soon. I think putting a failsafe nuke in the middle of that complex, operated and protected by strictly mechanical connections to the trigger point, again a strictly mechanically hardened site, would be a damn good idea. And make sure it is all earthquake safe.

http://www.democracynow.org/2012/3/21/exposed_inside_the_nsas_largest_and

George Rebane

GregZ 615am - Many of us, in fact, are "taught to look out for each other", it is part of our religion and, moreover, part of our rational social philosophy. But such care is taught to be rendered on an individual basis, not through government diktat. As history demonstrates, it is a perverse belief that charity is best when dispensed with forcefully taken monies through distant and faceless bureaucrats responsible to no one.

Douglas Keachie

Many men in boardrooms and stockholders already have lost their "nads" and have sold out their country to the Greed Goddess.

Douglas Keachie

Yes, charity is much better dispensed in precise measure to accounting needs of the businesses involved, picking up tax deductible advertizing on the backs of all the little children and their play areas, or high profile gifts for PR, as in donating a $10,000 police dog. I'd believe in the latter if the donation was in progress BEFORE Bandit the German shepherd was shot in Sacramento, the donation by the Maloofs.

If we just had lower prices and higher wages, more of the middle class might be able to make bigger donations, and maybe battered women's shelters would not need to be so large.

Scott Obermuller

I think the saddle on the dinosaur was private money. Control of our bodies is legislated in many ways. Why are women exempt? Abortion is about taking human life. If you are pro-abortion - fine. Don't hide behind cute phrases and don't say you are middle of the road. I was asking what is middle of the road in areas such as that. Saying that it is legal to kill a human one day, but not the next is an interesting call, but highly subjective and hard for me to accept considering that it is ageism in the extreme. I'm aware that the same ageism is called for at the other end of life, so I'm not surprised.
Greg Z's description of the left and right are telling. He throws the Constitution away and wants only "protection" for a chosen class. I'm in total agreement about schools educating all children to be capable of thinking and producing for themselves, but that ain't gonna happen with the current ed system. The left has been very successful in taking almost complete control of the little ones from toddlers through grad school. There is a reason Pres Zero wanted more money for govt run programs for the very youngest. The left wants a socialist system of controlling the people from cradle to grave, and it is very close.
As far as the right wanting the poor to look out for themselves - Actually, the conservatives want everyone to look out (think and produce) for themselves. It's a far better way to live. Just because the govt isn't helping, doesn't mean there isn't help. The right is not against helping your fellow man, the right is against govt control of our lives. The govt has been "helping" the poor for decades. Spent trillions. Care to take off your blinders and measure the results? Then check out the millions that have, with help from the private sector, led happy and productive lives. It's mostly a matter of equal opportunity vs equal outcomes. If the govt has a door for the public, then anyone who walks through that door gets the same treatment. Bill Gates or Joe (or Jane) Doe. If the homeless have the "right" to sleep anywhere they want, then so do I. That is middle of the road.

Douglas Keachie

"but that ain't gonna happen with the current ed system."

"but that ain't gonna happen with the current set of parents"

"but that ain't gonna happen with the current tax structure"

"but that ain't gonna happen with teachers being among the lowest paid and least respected of the professions"

So Scott, what magical ed system would it happen with, and how are you going to get it, and how will you pay for it? When just one ordinary but extraordinary classroom teacher, nationwide, gets paid $200,000 for one full year of teaching, you might get change. As it is, you stick your tongues out at them and go "nah, nah, nah," all day long, and today is no exception.

Douglas Keachie

Every homeless person, especially the mentally ill, that dies in the streets, is ABORTED by society.

George Rebane

DougK 946am - what in hell does "ABORTED by society" mean??

And since ALL social issues depend on their numbers, how would we compare the number of homeless dying in the streets with the millions dying in the wombs or upon forced exit?

THEMIKEYMCD

Being homeless in American is a choice.

Todd Juvinall

Scott makes some very good points about the "body" and governments "rights" to have a say in it. I like the law that says suicide is illegal. Try and prosecute that one after it is practiced!

Now we have the nannies telling people they can only buy a 8 ounce soda in New York because obesity is so prevalent among the welfare class there. How is that law OK (with all the standard do-gooder reasons (such as the government has to pick up the tab in healthcare for fatties) and a woman's womb? Is fat different than a baby? The abortion supporters say babies and fat are equal. Why do libs say they can control some aspects of a persons body and not others? Scott, take it and run with it. You seem to have a good skeptical set of explanations. Maybe the left will listen?

Douglas Keachie

I means society choose to cut off life support, just as insurance companies ABORT patients by refusing to pay for needed treatments. Where have you all been? Everyday society makes choices which KILL human beings. Usually in the name of, "we can't (choose not to) afford that." Society affords all kinds of other things, things that it chooses to affort, like aircraft carriers. We have about 2,340,000 deaths in the USA per year, including 34,000 suicides.

Note that very very few proportionately, occur in the third and even the latter half of the second trimester.

AbortionGraph

Douglas Keachie

Why are you in favor of having the government have babies that are unwanted by the mother and must be supported by the tax payers? Such kids often grow up to be the very kids you complain about teachers not being able to control, as if it is the teacher's fault the kids was born and raised in a household that didn't want him.

As near as I can tell from the chart, we lose 40 times as many folks to car wrecks as we do to third trimester abortions.

Douglas Keachie

Being homeless is a choice about the same way being slammed into and killed by a drunk on a blind curve with no lights on a rainy night is a choice.

Douglas Keachie

Interesting thing about that graph. The middle portion is wider than either edge, thus emphasizing, falsely, by larger area, the number of abortions that occur then.

Scott Obermuller

Keachie - you know perfectly well that sort of education exists and the teachers get paid less than the union teachers. Pres Zero stomped it out in DC as one of his very first accomplishments. "Sorry poor kiddies - back to the union hell hole school". Of course, his 2 daughters won't be going there, but it's what we need to do to keep up the dependentcy class. Bobby Jindal is trying to make quality education available to the poor kids in Louisiana that is free of govt monopoly. What happened to the middle here? Where's the support? The judges have decided that the mentally ill can't be controlled by coercion, so we can not get them the meds and help they need. It's a touchy subject and I'll agree that it's a tightrope walk of forcing people against their will to get help vs govt control of our lives. The idea that a homeless person dying on the streets is because, as a society, we don't care, is total nonsense. You lefties claim to be such great humanitarians, and you know where the homeless are. How many times have you driven around picking them up and taking them to your home and feeding them and giving them money and letting them lounge around at your house? Try forcing one to get in your car on a freezing night and he doesn't want to go and the cops show up. It's just not that simple to say that our society is heartless. There is an abundance of help from the govt and the private sector. I'm very uneasy with the idea of the govt being allowed to force me to take medications. What if it's used as the Soviets did? What safeguards will exist? Who is paying the salaries of the "experts" that decide I am in need of help? But let's please get off of this nonsense that we don't care.

Douglas Keachie

Your government does care about you, which is why it is building this:

Skynet's hardware is almost in place. I think putting a failsafe nuke in the middle of that complex, operated and protected by strictly mechanical connections to the trigger point, again a strictly mechanically hardened site, would be a damn good idea. And make sure it is all earthquake safe.

http://www.democracynow.org/2012/3/21/exposed_inside_the_nsas_largest_and

Douglas Keachie

We have no problems building jails, and feeding prisoners. One in every one hundred Americans lives in one today. How about a bank of secure, 1 on 1, sleeping bathing facilities, with a human watching to make sure just one willing person goes into each such locker? Enough space for a single bunk, and a shower commode combination area, and a few healthy snacks. This does not have to be large, most yachts 28 feet and larger do this four four people, inside a curved hull with pointy ends, motors, etc. Spend the full night, putting your clothes in a bag in a chute before you go to sleep, clean clothes in the morning, and a free breakfast coupon awaits you when you exit. Mass produced these shelters would be far cheaper and more effective than most of what we've got going now. A person regularly living in one would be employable. Pay something each night, and get an upgraded one. Put a real bottom safety net in place, instead of, "where would you like to get mugged, raped tonight?"

Douglas Keachie

"Jindal is trying to have true choice in Louisiana."

Here's your "true choice" in LA with Jindal:

Of the plans so far put forward, Louisiana's plan is by far the broadest. This month, eligible families, including those with incomes nearing $60,000 a year, are submitting applications for vouchers to state-approved private schools.

That list includes some of the most prestigious schools in the state, which offer a rich menu of advanced placement courses, college-style seminars and lush grounds. The top schools, however, have just a handful of slots open. The Dunham School in Baton Rouge, for instance, has said it will accept just four voucher students, all kindergartners. As elsewhere, they will be picked in a lottery.

Far more openings are available at smaller, less prestigious religious schools, including some that are just a few years old and others that have struggled to attract tuition-paying students.

The school willing to accept the most voucher students -- 314 -- is New Living Word in Ruston, which has a top-ranked basketball team but no library. Students spend most of the day watching TVs in bare-bones classrooms. Each lesson consists of an instructional DVD that intersperses Biblical verses with subjects such chemistry or composition.

The Upperroom Bible Church Academy in New Orleans, a bunker-like building with no windows or playground, also has plenty of slots open. It seeks to bring in 214 voucher students, worth up to $1.8 million in state funding.

At Eternity Christian Academy in Westlake, pastor-turned-principal Marie Carrier hopes to secure extra space to enroll 135 voucher students, though she now has room for just a few dozen. Her first- through eighth-grade students sit in cubicles for much of the day and move at their own pace through Christian workbooks, such as a beginning science text that explains "what God made" on each of the six days of creation. They are not exposed to the theory of evolution.

"We try to stay away from all those things that might confuse our children," Carrier said.

Source: http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/06/01/us-education-vouchers-idUSL1E8H10AG20120601

Michael Anderson

"For the record, Michael's a good guy on a number of levels. I'd let him watch my 6 kids. Michael, are you free Saturday night? ;-)"

Nope, goin' on a camping trip that weekend. Catch me next time (-;

Michael Anderson

If Governor Jindal wants to do the voucher thing, I think he should be supported by the constituency in his state, 100%. If the majority rules, let there be vouchers in Louisiana.

That being said, Louisiana will have to withdraw from the Union, which I also support. I think the southern states should secede and form their own country.

Vouchers are unconstitutional, but if you live in territory such as Louisiana, it's time to move past that and create a new country in that region. I support this effort.

billy T

Abortion on RR? Not a topic that is usually discussed here, but it is the part of The Great Divide. I have just 2 points to make. First, there is a 50% chance that "the thing" in the womb has a penis. If it has a penis, then it obviously is not part of the woman's body. It is living in her body, growing in her body developing a heart beat, fingers,feet, head and spine inside her body, but a male with a penis is only in the body, not the mother's body. Second, it is hard for me to name any argument that has reverted from English back to Latin. Fetus means "unborn child". Talking about terminating the life of an unborn child is not done in polite company and is rather horrifying. But if one changes the term Unborn child back to its Latin roots, then it is a "thing", an it, a fetus. Now, discussing a fetus is not distasteful and rather clinical. Which sounds better? Talking about an unborn child with an innie or outie (boy/girl) or talking about a thing called a fetus? Thus the Great Divide on the setting the ground rules for labeling it "it" or labeling it "her/she or him/he".

Earl Crabb

Yes, billyT., the dreaded scarlet "A" word does come up...A touchy question, indeed. It's rather barbaric, and has been since ancient times. I would certainly never advocate it, but then, no one is asking me. I've talked to enough women who are in their seventies now who done it before it became legal. It was usually at the request of the parents, or rather, demanded. Outlaw it and you'll just take it back to those enlightened times. Most likely it would be outsourced like everything else.Perhaps it will spawn new businesses in the border towns north and south of us. So will Big Daddy then require an ultrasound or vaginal probe before you can leave the country? (X-rays are definitely out!)

Todd Juvinall

MichaelA said this in a previous post on this thread,
"Vouchers are unconstitutional, but if you live in territory such as Louisiana, it's time to move past that and create a new country in that region. I support this effort."

My question is where in the Constitution does it say anything about requiring a public eduction (and its infrastructure)? Please explain.

Douglas Keachie

Todd, "the common good." How stupid do you want your fellow citizens to be/ Too stupid to read the instructions on the bottom of the boot to drain it? They'd make great pilots, now wouldn't they? Expand that thought downwards to the lowest private. Now try providing for the "common defense."

Douglas Keachie

A country inhabited by too many unwanted children who grow into unwanted adults, is a country that will abort itself.

Todd Juvinall

Please show us where it is enumerated and I will agree.

Douglas Keachie

So, Todd, for you the Preamble is an illegal part of the Constitution? Please review the following, and remember, the whole Constitution was written by the infallible Founding Fathers, who would be most unhappy with your attempt at partial Constitution abortion.

http://www.apsanet.org/imgtest/preamble.pdf

Todd Juvinall

The Preamble is not the law, please show us in the enumerated document and I will agree.

George Rebane

The Constitution says nothing about "the common good" (DougK 755am), nor do I find anywhere in the document that "vouchers are unconstitutional" (MichaelA 1053pm). A mighty wide door to government control would be opened were debate to stop on the 'provide for the ... general welfare' power of Congress. The progressives, of course, argue that the door is already wide open and the federal government can do anything it pleases under its Art1sec8 provisions which includes the famous 'commerce clause'.

I am also pleasantly surprised to see MichaelA's support for a particular form of the Great Divide.

Douglas Keachie

So we should rewrite all our textbooks to erase the Preamble? You are arguing that the Premable is not part of the Constitution? Making church sponsored schools into public charter schools violates the principle of separation of church and state, which is not in the Constitution either, but it has been part of a legal cases that have made their way to the SCOTUS.

Please review the following, especially McCollum v. Board of Education Dist. 71, 333 U.S. 203 (1948)

Court finds religious instruction in public schools a violation of the establishment clause and therefore unconstitutional. :

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/church-state/decisions.html

Douglas Keachie

For those unclear on this, a church school that dleetes evolution and replaces it with a religious belief is performing religious instruction.

Again, from my earlier comment above:

"At Eternity Christian Academy in Westlake, pastor-turned-principal Marie Carrier hopes to secure extra space to enroll 135 voucher students, though she now has room for just a few dozen. Her first- through eighth-grade students sit in cubicles for much of the day and move at their own pace through Christian workbooks, such as a beginning science text that explains "what God made" on each of the six days of creation. They are not exposed to the theory of evolution.

"We try to stay away from all those things that might confuse our children," Carrier said."

Source: http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/06/01/us-education-vouchers-idUSL1E8H10AG20120601

Steven Frisch

Hey, if we are going to go back to the Constitution, as written in 1789, lets just acknowledge that blacks are only 3/5 ths of a human being. Denying 233 years of history would really be the great divide!

Douglas Keachie

Illustration of point made earlier, about insurance companies which used to abort citizens:

(Reuters) - Texan Sam Lovett had no health insurance in August 2010 when an emergency hospital stay brought the news from his doctors that his liver was failing and he could die within less than a year without a transplant.

The small distribution center where he worked did not provide health insurance. Lovett, 43, who lives near Comfort, Texas, was not able to buy private coverage on his own because of his already bad health. Though he had the resources to cover routine medical bills, he now needed a $400,000 organ transplant and no doctor or clinic would take him without insurance.

"They were making arrangements to send me to a hospice. One doctor flatly told me that I had a better chance of leaving the hospital dead than alive," said Lovett, who had a history of alcoholism and obesity.

But in the months that followed, Lovett was able to enroll in the Pre-Existing Condition Insurance Plan (PCIP). The program was created by the healthcare law that President Barack Obama, a Democrat, signed in March 2010 despite the united opposition of Republicans in Congress. The program paid for Lovett's transplant surgery at the Mayo Clinic in Phoenix last December.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/06/03/us-usa-healthcare-uninsured-idUSBRE85206I20120603

Todd Juvinall

One thing we can always rely on is the idiotic statements of SteveF. Hell, Keach is more coherent. The Preamble is not the law. That is an argument made by the LEFT all the time. Now they want to use it and we simply point out it is not the law. Then a stupid statement by SteveF poops up and puts words in our mouths about slavery! The Constitution has amendments as enumerated in the document (the law). Those Amendments gave all people equal rights. If there was no way to Amend the Constitution then StevF''s inane (as usual) remarks would be cogent. But, my simple request is to show us all where in the self enumerated Constitution where it says it will require a government or private eduction system. When you do I will agree. Otherwise you are incorrect.

Douglas Keachie

Dear Todd, If you really believe that this country would be better off with all education the responsibility of each individual adult, for each kid that comes along, unwanted or wanted, with ZERO tax dollars devoted to said education, then why would you be arguing that private schools should be getting tax dollars? You do seem to agree, by your indicated desire for this welfare education handout, that education is in the interest of the country, even if it is polluted by a wide variety of religious beliefs, including NeoNAZI, peyote smokers, and group marriage oriented Mormons (you want their values paid for by your taxes?).

You know, maybe the receipt of such tax subsidies should be based on test scores? Hey, we want to make sure we are getting the right bang for the buck. Spend too much time on Creation and not enough on evolution in Biology, and guess what, your kids fail that part of the test, and you loss your funding. How about them Mendel apples and peas? The same standards you want to apply to teachers in public schools should equally apply to your wonderland array of private schools. Schools after losing accreditation could continue to take the test, but only under outside observation, we don't want no cheat'n.

Steven Frisch

Todd, you just made my point....thanks. The constitution is not an end, it is a beginning, it is a living document, and the rights we enjoy are re-interpreted by every generation through amendment, judicial interpretation, and new legislation. So we do not consider blacks 3/5 ths of a human being, not just because it was original wrong in our system, but because the 14th amendment changed the law.

I have watched as those here have even challenged Marbury v. Madison--so when you say you don't want to go back to the 'originalist' interpretation of the constitution you are not fooling me. You and others here have been contending that all along. After all, you are the one that said "minorities should just shut up" about voting rights.

George Rebane

Is it not true that all human life has finite value, the amount to be determined by time and place and circumstance? Most certainly those amounts can be pinpointed today. For example, I can calculate for you the dollar amount that Caltrans puts on a human life every time it decides to decorate the side of a road rather than use the money to extend a center barrier somewhere. And we can get more detail in looking at the dollar value of life in other pursuits.

Most of the abortion debate revolves around government funding it when taxpayers are divided on the issue, claiming deep religious and moral beliefs. We already proscribe many kinds of medical/surgical procedures. For example, should parents want their daughter to be circumcised, they would have to go to another country to have that done. A start at resolution would be not to have the federal government fund abortion, and leave such funding up to each of the several states.

Re the "living Constitution" debate. The Left wants to maximize the modalities of "re-interpretation", while the Right wants to minimize them, overwhelmingly tending toward amendment leavened by a bit of judicial interpretation. But never allowing legislation, much less bureaucratic regulation, to sully the intent of the Founders. The latter (successful) attempts to abrogate the fruits of our Revolution should be definitely (rolled back and) restricted to hewing to the Constitution as currently interpreted, and never to inject a new or broader interpretation by themselves. The Left, of course, totally disagrees.

Douglas Keachie

"But never allowing legislation, much less bureaucratic regulation, to sully the intent of the Founders"

I wonder why the Founders ever bothered to make a preamble for their Constitution, since conservatives, at least here this week, seem to feel it was just window dressing with no meanings to be considered? Did the all knowing, all intelligent Founders, waste their time for the sheer hellova it?

George Rebane

DougK 1235pm - First, the Preamble introduces the document and gives the reader and overall flavor and purpose to the legal strictures which are to follow. I don't understand your focus on the Preamble to apparently support some point you are making.

Douglas Keachie

Focus is due to Todd and others' discounting of the phrase "the common good" and others. Todd still hasn't announced whether he is in favor of public schools or subsidized private schools, regardless of any political or religious stripe, or how to evaluate them.

On pensions in California, try: http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/06/02/us-usa-california-pensions-idUSBRE8510BQ20120602

billy T

I once voted for a black man for President of the United States. I was in the 3% in California that voted for Ambassador Alan Keyes. In hindsight what bothered me about Mr. Keyes was his constant references to the Declaration of Independence. A fine document, along with the Gettysburg Address that every school kid could recite verbatim in the "old public schools systems". Alan Keyes was a wonderful orator and statesman in a nation void of of his skills. Yet, I kept thinking what about the Constitution? It took 13 years or so to hammer out our Constitution and we expect Iraq or foreign nations to whip one out in months, but I digress per usual. Abortion is legal per the Supreme Court. That is the law of the land whether I like it or not. The Constitution is our "law of the land" whether I love it or not. States rights are not some right wing wacko idea and those that quote the Constitution are not to be disparaged like the white racist gun toting Tea Party luving beer bellied meat eating pick'em truck driving blue bloods that cling to antiquated silly notions form and wear little American flags on their lapels. Wheew, that was a long sentence. Can't find public education in the Constitution, expect that part we ignore about mandating setting aside open space for colleges (my interpretation). I love the preamble and the Declaration of Independence, but the Constitution is where we live. The former documents set forth the spirit of "the law", the latter is the law. Concerning the Great Divide, I was interested by the porn star "actor" hiding in France that send a body part to the Conservative Party in Canada. First I though it was an Occupy member, but details emerge that indicate he sent a pox to both their houses. The case began Tuesday, when a package containing a severed foot was opened at the ruling Conservative Party headquarters. A hand was discovered at a postal facility, addressed to the Liberal party of Canada.

George Rebane

DougK 112pm - Sometimes it's more than hard to follow you (at least I'm so encumbered). Of what import or provenance is "common good" that it be here counted or discounted??

Douglas Keachie

How come I am not surprised that neither of you do not understand the concept of, "common good," as it might affect various legislative activities, including funding public education? I wonder if the Founding Fathers would find that gap in your education a tragedy?

Douglas Keachie

I edited without removing the "not," twelveth word in.

George Rebane

DougK 224pm - We do very much understand the concept of "common good" and sincerely believe the form of governance our ideology recommends will maximize it. The implication you have given all along is that the Founders wrote "common good" into the Constitution, which they did not as I pointed out in my 816am.

It goes without belaboring again that both your definition of "common good" and its method of achievement are worlds apart from the conservative/libertarian concept of "common good". You make your points by putting words into our mouths, and we attempt to make ours by pointing to the sorry history of collectivism whenever it has raised its ugly head.

Hence the topic of this post.

billy T

I have an idea what common good means to social justice advocators. Not my concept, but I never had to read a book on my moral compass. Don't lie. Take care of the elderly and orphans and feeble, especially burn victims, which have a special place in my heart. A child who has survived a terrible burn usually has lost a parent in the fire, thus leaving the little one with extreme physical, mental, and emotional anguish. Be honest in all personal and business dealings and show favoritism to no one, i.e., don't be a respected of a person's status. Don't cheat on taxes and overlook slights, real or imagined. Be the same person at work, at play, at home. Be industrious and take care of all obligations immediately. Never short change or short sheet. Do what one can and then more. Sure, my shortcomings are more than one can ever imagine. Respect authority (which is instituted for the common good) and fight against power (which is abuse of authority for personal gain, including status). I have a higher responsibility since I am able bodied with a semi quasi capable mind. Thus, "if a man will not work, he should not eat" is my mantra. The operative words are "will not" as opposed to cannot. Does not do society any good to have 47% pay no federal income taxes or to illegally hide assets from our National Treasury. Heard a former major of Nevada City spout that not having health insurance or being ill interferes with her pursuit of happiness. That statement says it all concerning the left's idea of social justice, IMHO. Giving everyone an A on a subject in a class whether they deserve it or not is unfair, also IMHO. The problem with social justice is that suddenly I must pay for the whole planet, even those countries that feel they have zero responsibility for looting their own national treasuries. http://www.foxnews.com/world/2012/06/01/rio-20-conference-negotiators-producing-mammoth-messy-and-expensive-grab-bag/?test=latestnews

Todd Juvinall

When we point out the Constitution allows amendments SteveF makes an absurd attempt to claim that he is somehow gaining agreement from me the document is a "living" document! This is why no one believes a liberal. They are constantly trying to put words into others mouths. The Founders placed enumerated laws in the document then left the states the rest not listed and then to the people. The desperation of SteveF and DougK to be right on an obvious thing they are wrong is hilarious. If one wants to change the document, the Founders gave us a couple of ways to do that. We can Amend and we can call a Constitutional Convention. So SteveF, get that little book out and read it again a few times and then when you gain a understanding of the "enumerated" document, rejoin the debate.

DougK, you need to study the difference between the power of a Preamble and the actual Constitution. The common good is understood by us and we do our part to keep a strong military a a National Guard to ensure the "common good" is still here. Dougk, you should thank George and Russ for their military service that protects your right to post some really dumb stuff here.

Douglas Keachie

Todd, did you know that the rest of us learned the word, "enumerated" many years ago? We so happy you have discovered it too.

Todd, you still haven't answered the question about socialized education? Are you in favor of it, or opposed? Either way, why do you take the stand you do? Then you can thank me for being a teacher. BTW, as I-Y medical status, due to birth defect hearing loss, I could not volunteer. You, as a married man, could have.

Paul Emery

“Today’s so-called ‘conservatives’ don’t even know what the word means. They think I’ve turned liberal because I believe a woman has a right to an abortion. That’s a decision that’s up to the pregnant woman, not up to the pope or some do-gooders or the Religious Right. It’s not a conservative issue at all.”

Conservative icon, Barry Goldwater (R), a few years prior to his death in 1998, on a woman’s right to choose.

Gregory

Today's so called "liberals" really don't know what the word means.

As a Marxist I once had a date with informed me, "liberal" means you're for taking money from some people to give to others.

Douglas Keachie

"who" not "with"

Douglas Keachie

"Good Knight, Sweet Prince..."

Douglas Keachie

Do tell us more about your experiences as a Marxist.

Gregory

"Hey, if we are going to go back to the Constitution, as written in 1789, lets just acknowledge that blacks are only 3/5 ths of a human being." - Frisch


Idiocy from Frisch, who should know better. It did no such thing, though it's become a popular fiction on the left. It was a compromise on the formula for apportionment of representation in the House between the abolitionist North that did not want the South to dominate the House based on slaves who could not vote.

Free blacks got their full measure of representation by the 3/5's compromise, and Frisch knows it. The humor in this is that wanting black slaves to count as a full person was what the southern slavers wanted. Abolitionists didn't want them counted at all.

I guess we'll just have to put Frisch down on the pro-slavery side.

Gregory

Gee Keach, I've been a Marxist my entire adult life. What's not to like? Went from being a Harpo Marxist to embracing Groucho Marxism with the passage of time. Hail, hail Freedonia!

I was also a Lennonist while John was working with the rest of the Beatles but the navel contemplations of his Yoko years led me to dropping that affiliation.

Steven Frisch

Talk about twisting in the wind,,,,the hoops Greg and Todd have to jump through to be apologists for the original racism of the American system of government is amazing. I am of course not supporting slavery, I am condemning it, and using the disenfranchisement of our fellow human beings as an example of the dangers of interpreting the US constitution as an originalist in a modern era.


Steven Frisch

Yeah, lets judge the normative definition of 'liberal' by Greg's dating experience!

Todd Juvinall

Gregory, your smackdown of Frisch was spot on. How a so-called, educated person such as SteveF can interpret the Founding document as a racist one show why there is a huge whole in the comprehensive ability of a liberal. He and DougK are tied at the hip. What a hoot!

Douglas Keachie

Se post in Zimmerman thread. Todd, how's that white black marriage thing working out back in 1776? You know, between a man and a woman only? Liaisons (Tom Jefferson) yes, marriage, no.

How many blacks crossed the Delaware? Oh, that didn't get cleared up until AFTER WWII.

Steven Frisch

Todd, the beauty of our country, and a testament to our founding documents, is the point that a nation born of enslaving one sector of its population can change, update its constitution, and move on. To believe that slavery was anything but racist, and an original evil, is just ignorant. And the great bulwork against full rights was the doctrine of states rights....the very doctrine that so many of you here are professing every day.

Todd Juvinall

SteveF, you have it exactly backwards. We are not racist here, we believe in the equality of all regardless of immutable traits. You however are a racist since you see all issues in terms of color. To come here and try your racist views is proving a flop. When you get liberated from your idiotic racial profiling lifestyle then maybe you will attain credibility here.

Douglas Keachie

Todd, you may well not be racist, but the majority of the white population in 1776, if transported to the here and now, would be profoundly shocked and dismayed to see equality somewhat in action. They were definitely racist by today's standards. Steve F has plenty of credibility here, and you have plenty of incredibility here too.

Gregory

The claim Frisch made wasn't a simple recognition of racism existing from 1776 through 1789, but that "Hey, if we are going to go back to the Constitution, as written in 1789, lets just acknowledge that blacks are only 3/5 ths of a human being."

That's just flat out false. Say it, Frisch... under the constitution of 1789, free persons of all races were counted, for the purpose of representation in the Congress, just the same. And it was the slavers who wanted slaves to count the same as free men and women because they wanted more power in the Congress.

Steven Frisch

Greg, what point of the fact that enslaved African-Americans were only counted as 3/5 ths of a person do you not get? The only reason the slavers wanted slaves to count was to boost their representation--not to enfranchise them because THEY COULD NOT VOTE. Yes, freed blacks were allowed to vote, but only in certain states, and only if they were property owners. You guys are digging a damn big hole!

Douglas Keachie

"free persons of all races were counted, for the purpose of representation in the Congress" of course they counted thyem for purposes of representation, they needed every warm body they could get to keep up with the Southern slavers. How many blacks actually got to vote 1789 and nearby years?

Gregory

The issue regarding what a true liberal believes in really was put in nice focus by that commie babe I had a date with. I note that no one generally on the left here disagrees in any significant way.

Liberalism used to stand against the coercive powers of the state and for the liberty of the individual. Modern liberalism revolves around insuring coercive powers of the state to assure a politically defined social justice outcome, standing original liberalism on its head.

Regarding Goldwater and abortion rights, I doubt you could find quotes of his to support the concept that, once one agrees it's none of the government's business whether a woman has an abortion or not, one must reverse directions entirely and state that it's the government's business to pay for the abortion if the says she cannot afford it.

Goldwater, like many Arizona Republicans, had a wide libertarian streak. It cuts both ways.

So now we're back to modern liberalism believing government is there to take money from person A to spend on person B if person C, in the government, thinks person B deserves it. Everyone gets their needs met except person A, the one being shaken down.

Gregory

So many inconsistencies, so little time. All in quotes is from Frisch 12PM:

"Greg, what point of the fact that enslaved African-Americans were only counted as 3/5 ths of a person do you not get?"

First, the "enslaved" wasn't in your first statement, and neither black or African American was in the 1789 document at all.

"The only reason the slavers wanted slaves to count was to boost their representation"

Thank you for noticing; my point. And the slavers agreed with you; they wanted 5/5 counts for their blacks in chains.

"--not to enfranchise them because THEY COULD NOT VOTE. Yes, freed blacks were allowed to vote, but only in certain states, and only if they were property owners."

I said nothing about enfranchisement. It wasn't about voting; for example, white women were fully counted for apportionment, weren't they?

Whether they could manage to vote or not wasn't the point here; for example, whether they were counted one for one, as a 3/5, or not at all (like an native American who wasn't subject to taxation). It was whether their existence was reflected in their state's Congressional delegation.

"You guys are digging a damn big hole!"

You are a big hole, Steve.

Douglas Keachie

One of GG date's opinion on liberalism? How you like to contemplate one of my date's opinions on astrology? Or another one's opinions about Brussels sprouts? Or the one with opinions about Barry Goldwater, or my wife's opinions about Richard Nixon? What a kidder!

Gregory

Keach, she was your kind of gal.

Douglas Keachie

My gals are very much more multidimensional than that.

Steven Frisch

Some people are just much more comfortable in two dimensions Keachie. It does not threaten their .......small ideology.

Gregory

Frisch's monodimensional politics seen here:

http://youtu.be/iazv-tIy5Js

Todd Juvinall

GregG that was spot on.

Gregory

I guess my demolishing of Frisch's misdirections (04 June 2012 at 01:14 PM) was just too spot on. A shame; I was hoping he'd continue with his red herrings regarding the 3/5's compromise and voting rights.

You see, the census counts used for apportionment were never about individual voting rights. Men, women, children are all counted, as are resident non citizens, whether legal or illegal. Felons and cretins, too.

This may be the first time anyone has stood up to Frisch on his mischaracterization of the 3/5's compromise. It's a popular misunderstanding in some circles, as it allows one who wants to ignore the Constitution to have a faux outrage in order to do so.

George Rebane

Gregory 117pm - Extinguishing faux outrages is always appreciated. And moreover, it is good for the soul of the so outraged, because it saves them from the sinful pride that often accompanies the exercise of such outrage.

billy T

Excuse me for popping in here with another topic under the subject of The Great Divide, which you are free to dismiss and continue on with a very interesting and information discussion of the 3/5 personage in our Constitution of the United States. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/06/06/2-major-california-cities-approve-pension-cuts-for-city-workers/#ixzz1wzdJat5R

Douglas Keachie

Hear Yea Hear Yea, Rebane's Blog breaking news:

"There was no racism in Colonial America and the writing of the Constitution, especially the 3/5th representation for Southern states slaves compromise. Ignore the man behind the red, white, and blue curtains...So say we conservatives one, and so say we all..."

Ben Franklin is laughing his head off.

George Rebane

billyT 608am - actually you're right on target re the Great Divide subject. While cities in the real world have to deal with real solutions to the fiscal mess their profligate pension polices have gotten them into, there is still a very large liberal flat earth cohort that believes none of it. Can you imagine the ignorance abetted by ideological cataracts that such people suffer under, and by their actions in the voting booths spread that suffering over the country?

George Rebane

DougK 1046am - I hope that is you again taking both sides of an argument, using full quotes no less. The alternative to your talking to yourself is that somehow you weren't able to grasp the content of the comment stream dealing with the 3/5 issue and early Constitutional interpretations.

Douglas Keachie

George, my mind is less compartmentalized than the average conservative, who has such an easy time avoiding connections that might disturb their conscience and need to see only certain things certain ways. Conflicts like these send alarm bells off in my mind like crazy, and so I post.

Gregory

By "by less compartmentalized", Keachie probably means not bound by reality or logic; as a result, he can invent straw men faster than anyone can try to demolish them. Remember recently when he couldn't tell the difference between a statement in a Teacher Quality document, that a teacher's graduation from a top 100 college was associated with better student outcomes, from his caricature of it that claimed the document stated such a graduation was *REQUIRED* for higher test scores?

Keach just can't tell the difference between what others write, and what he thinks they wrote. George, I'll say again, Keachie doesn't represent modern American liberalism; I understand you like having a caricature of a leftist to poke fun at, but RR is not the better or the more diverse by putting up with him. There's a reason he's persona non grata elsewhere.

In this thread, absolutely no one wrote anything like "There was no racism in Colonial America". Pure straw man.

Frisch wrote "Hey, if we are going to go back to the Constitution, as written in 1789, lets just acknowledge that blacks are only 3/5 ths of a human being." That was not in the Constitution as written in 1789; if one thinks they were trying to say slaves were only 3/5 human by granting the slave states an increase in Representatives for their slave population, how do you interpret the treatment of native Americans, who were counted as 5/5 if they paid taxes but not counted at all if they were not subject to taxation?

I sincerely doubt the constitutional conventioneers believed in some sort of taxpayer transubstantiation that turned Indians into humans. No, they were just trying to come up with a formula for determining the number of congresscritters each state should get that all could live with.

This was entirely a compromise that enabled a Constitution to be written and agreed to by the several states, one of those sausages that had to be made to get it done. Had it not been ratified, there may well not be a USA surviving to this day.


George Rebane

Gregory 135pm - Yes, but then there are those lucid moments.

In DougK's 1136am my concern is not so much that he's all over the place, but that he has established a "connection" with discussants who don't visit these pages, and may exist undisturbed only in his conscience. Early on, most of us were advised not worry about people who talk to themselves, but only about those who also demonstrate their ability to carry on a full blown conversation, solo.

The comments to this entry are closed.