Ryan's True Abortion Position

During the Vice-Presidential debate between Joe Biden and Paul Ryan, Martha Raddatz presented an excellent question regarding the role religion plays in each candidate's position on abortion.  Paul Ryan articulated the following at the heart of his response:

"... I believe that life begins at conception. That’s why — those are the reasons why I’m pro-life. Now I understand this is a difficult issue, and I respect people who don’t agree with me on this, but the policy of a Romney administration will be to oppose abortions with the exceptions for rape, incest and life of the mother..."

This response seemed to shock many people because it apparently strayed from the position that Ryan has been offering on the trail recently.  The Washington Post wrote:

... [T]he position Ryan articulated Thursday — “the policy of a Romney administration will be to oppose abortions with the exceptions for rape, incest and life of the mother” — is different from Ryan’s earlier position of no abortions, except possibly in cases where mother’s life was endangered.  

While it is true that he has stated something different, verbally, he certainly did not actually take a different position.  Under careful observation, what Ryan has done here has simply been to offer what is known as a modus vivendi.  This phrase literally translates as 'a mode of living' and implies some degree of toleration but certainly not acceptance.  It is essentially a recognition that something must be tolerated for the time being because the balance of power prevents a firm implementation of one's own position.

Why should I consider his position a modus vivendi?  Because it is clearly contradictory and therefore not possibly Mr. Ryan's actual position.  If he believes that "life begins at conception" as he stated then the list of acceptable reasons for abortion should be significantly shorter.  This is because he considers abortion in every situation murder since it is the act of terminating what he considers to be a living human regardless of the stage of the pregnancy.  Since he considers every abortion murder, rape and incest should absolutely not be permissible reasons for abortion, especially since the creature whose presupposed "life" is at stake is not at fault for the rape or incestual act.  According to this line of thinking, the developing "bean" did not ask to be conceived of rape or incest and likewise should not be punished.

The only possible reason acceptable according to Mr. Ryan's reasoning should be when the life of the mother is at risk, and this reason opens a very large debate.  Since we are talking about exchanging a life for a life a huge ethical debate begins.  First and foremost, at what point do we declare that the mother's life is sufficiently in danger before we approve an abortion.  Presumably we want to be certain that the mother has no chance of living if the child is to be aborted but in medicine there are no such certainties.  Therefore, is a 51% chance of the mother's death acceptable?  Or should it be more like a 1 in 10 chance of living?  These are the questions that Mr. Ryan's position are inviting.

It is not of this articles opinion to ask whether you agree of disagree with abortion, but rather to present Mr. Ryan's position without the smoke-screen.  The importance of this issue is of course that he is currently taking a softer position than previously thought, but he does so only as a modus vivendi. The problem with a modus vivendi is that once the balance of power shifts in some way (such as a Supreme Court appointment or Congressional majority, both of which are extremely possible in the coming term) the toleration becomes unnecessary.  Without need for tolerating the opposing position you can be certain that the true position will be exercised.

Why Can't Corporations be Beat?

Last week I found myself engaged in a conversation with a couple of friends on topics ranging from Nietzshe & Marx to current US foreign policy.  Since it is presidential election season, much of the conversation remained relevant to current topics in politics such as the deficit, taxes, campaigning, and the role of government (thanks to my self-proclaimed libertarian friend).

The details of my exhilarating Friday night aside, the truly fascinating part of this conversation came about after one friend expressed his frustration with government in a way that I have noticed is very typical of many casual observers of politics (by which I am not necessarily implying 'low-information voter').  This scenario usually begins with a bit of a rant about nothing being accomplished in DC, is then followed up by complaints about wasteful programs and various follies of the federal government, and tends to finalize with some form of a visual show of disapproval and exhaustion (I.e. sp,e combination of a down-turned head shake, a facial expression of disgust, and the throwing of one's hands).  This, I'm sure, is an occurrence that many of us have seen and possibly even preformed ourselves.  What really struck me, though, was the response he was offered, or rather force-fed, by a guy that I consider to be particularly articulate, well-read, and usually rational in his evaluation of social matters.  He was not argumentative, nor was he empathetic, instead I thought of how a harmful mental patient might be quelled...

His offering was, to paraphrase:

Yes government sucks, of course it does, because it has been hijacked by corporations.  Political actors no longer need to be truly responsive to the people, it is now simply and entirely political theater for the enjoyment of the population.  The corporate donors are now the puppet-masters and that is the way it will continue... No use in denying it... No use in trying to change it...  

Fear not, Dr. Huxley is prescribing you Soma, "One cubic centimetre cures ten gloomy sentiments."

I have been chewing on this for about a week now because of the message (and the source) and I must say that this frightens me. It is easy to understand why my friend would say that corporations are manipulating our political system.  The obvious thing to point out is the decision of the Citizens United case which gave way to Super PACs, something which Stephen Colbert has done quite well exposing.  Another event to point to is the institutionalization of advocacy groups that really took shape in the 1960's following the centralization of the federal government in the post-New Deal era.  This all aside, it is important to think about what is actually happening within our "corporate political takeover."

As corporations are able to exert more influence, through lobbying or through financial support by way of campaign donations and political action committees, they are affecting the messages we receive in both number and content.  They are targeting us in ways that will work best according to their studies, whether it is through fear, random lie, or just playing the numbers game as they bombard us with ads. 

Candidates on the other hand remain vague as they attempt to appease every potential segment of the voting population they can.  In doing so there are no bold pronouncements, with fewer substantial messages offered.  My feelings on how to reverse this are expressed in part through a wonderful book by Jeffrey Green entitled The Eyes of the People: Democracy in the Age of Spectatorship.  The very stripped down and simple concept here is that we as citizens must demand more as critical observers of our politicians.  We must not simply say 'my guy is better and your guy worse because my preferred cable news outlet says so.'

In the first place, politics is not a sport with a routing interest, we must demand to understand in relatable terms which candidate behaves according to our collective best interest. More importantly, we must demand a news outlet that professionally relays political coverage in a responsible manner, or rather support the few that remain.  To this point I would like to offer the following soundbite of Ellis Henican speaking at the New York Press Club recently.

Download
(Courtesy of C-SPAN's Washington Today)

A final thought, regarding this proposal for raising the bar of political discourse. It seems fairly obvious that this is part of an epidemic of our culture. Our choices of entertainment speak volumes to our political awareness. We have given up newspapers for US Weekly magazine, just as we have traded 60 Minutes for Housewives of Trashville. Although I know it is somewhat ironic, I truly suggest the South Park episode from this past week entitled Raising the Bar. These guys do a great job pointing out not only that people now watch nonsense, but they also question whether they play a role in it all.


All I'm saying is, DO NOT INTERRUPT ME WHILE I'M WATCHING 'OW MY BALLS!" CAUSE THAT IS NOT COOL!

... Oh yeah, and raise the level of discourse with your family, friends, in your books, magazines and on your TV.

-Orlando

German Police Quit Klan - Just Got too Weird

Germany - Documents have recently surfaced in the Baden-Wuerttemberg region's domestic intelligence agency that reveal two serving German police officers were members of a Ku Klux Klan group.  The European White Knights are a European Klan-offshoot with a bizarre initiation practice:

"The new clansman couldn't see a thing. His escorts had blindfolded him. He was led into a closed room, and was only then allowed to remove the blindfold. The room was filled with candles, with a wooden cross in the center. The newcomer was given a razor blade with which he had to cut his finger and make a mark with his blood on a written copy of the Ku-Klux-Clan vow. He sank to his knees, and a blunt sword tapped him on his shoulders"

Amazingly, the officers admitted to being part of the European White Knights during 2001-02.  However, after a few months, things apparently just got weird...

"According to their own accounts, they voluntarily left the group after witnessing xenophobia and racism."

So, just for clarification, the Ku Klux Klan members were turned off when the Ku Klux Klan wouldn't host a multicultural wine mixer?  I'd have to draw the line there as well.

Since they were good sports about quitting the Ku Klux Klan once they realized that the Peace Corps office was actually on the other side of the building (apparently both have similar looking hoods), the officers received nothing more than an official reprimand after the 2004 investigation.  They still remain on the force today.

"They didn't know that the Ku Klux Klan was a racist organization? I wonder how much stupidity a police officer can exhibit, how far removed from real life he has to be, before he's removed from service,"

- Andre Braun, president, Federation of State Employees of German Criminologists (BDK)

Truth, son!

The European Union Taps MAC

It seems that the $110B Euro bailout of Greece was not going to be nearly enough since many other nations are finding themselves in the rears. As reported by Deutsche Welle, the European Union (EU), the International Monetary Fund (IMF), and individual EU members have decided to contribute $850B Euros ($1T US) to use for bailing any troubling EU Country. This will initially mean Greece, Spain, and Portugal, but could include more if things progress elsewhere.

Since the economic turmoil that escalated in Greece, the DOW Jones has been hectic at best plummeting below 10K at its worst. Since the approval of this "eurozone-stability package" the DOW has been on the rise as tensions are relieved on Wall St, and is currently up over $300 on the day.

The single most troubling fact about this package is that the IMF receives more funding from the US than any other nation, actually more than triple of what most nations contribute. The US foots 17% of the bill with Japan in second paying 6%, so the $250B Euros ($320B US) that the IMF is contributing will actually contain $54 Billion dollars contributed by the US. That is of course considering that the IMF is actually receiving the funds that all other nations are promising and not simply being held afloat by US support, which could mean that a much larger portion is actually US funded.

IMF Funding by Members


Members currently using the Euro:

• Belgium
• Germany
• Ireland
• Spain
• France
• Italy
• Luxembourg
• the Netherlands
• Austria
• Portugal
• Finland
• Greece
• Slovenia
• Cyprus
• Malta
• Slovakia

Read More HERE @ DW-World.com

Is Democracy in Iraq Destined for Failure?

Iraqi’s made their return to the polls March 7th in order to choose the next group of members to serve in the Iraqi Parliament. As forecasted, polling stations were marked for violence, as explosives killed 38 people. Nevertheless, millions turned out to receive their purple finger and contribute to their young, fragile state. Big brother nations, such as the United States and Britain, have been quick to shower their brainchild with praise, but others have not been so appreciative. Despite a lack of election results, opposition leaders have been crying foul, citing potential fraud. Preliminary results will not be released until March 10th.

Al Jazeera published an article Sunday surveying this election cycle. They explain that Farag al-Haidary, chairman of the Iraq’s electoral commission, has urged patience as officials continue the vote counting. Al Jazeera’s article also details the violence, foreign support, and voting irregularities related to this round at the polls. Despite mortar attacks, Iraqi leadership remained positive; Prime Minister al-Maliki called the attacks “just noises to scare the Iraqi people from voting.” International support was lead by President Obama, whose fate lies in no small part with the success of the Iraqi government. Concerns of voter fraud are also mentioned, but arrive without a shock as it is not a problem exclusive to Iraq.

While the article grants its readers a broad understanding of the events surrounding this Iraqi election, it also quietly exposes some much larger questions including one rather gaping issue; sustainability. Election fraud is mentioned, but is unfortunately buried at the end of the piece, taking a back seat to some propaganda. Prime Minister al-Maliki is quoted early in the article as saying, “But I know the Iraqi people. They have conviction. When there is a challenge, they persevere, and you will see for yourselves the large number of people that come out to vote.” The Prime Minister’s comments were in response to the reports of violence and fatalities targeting polling stations. In an attempt to sandwich the bloodshed between positive comments, the lead-in speaks to the widespread and diverse involvement this election day.

To soften the blow of reported violence, voter turnout is mentioned to be in the “millions,” serving as a segue for statistics that demonstrate the country’s vast political landscape. This is probably an attempt to boast the political culture of the new Iraq, but a phrase such as “millions of people” is rather ambiguous when speaking on such matters; millions could very well mean 2 million, which would equate to roughly 8% of the population of Iraq. More concerning, however, are the facts that follow, claiming that “more than 6,000 candidates from 86 political groups” are vying for parliamentary positions. With numbers like this it is difficult to believe that a sustainable Iraqi government could be possible in its current state.

The ability to make a well informed decision when faced with a ballot containing more than 6,000 candidates would be inconceivable; a voter would have little choice but seek a method to easily identify candidates which closely embody their interests. Much like most Americans, a majority of Iraqis would be forced to vote based solely on party affiliation, which presents a problem very similar to the first scenario since there are currently 86 parties to choose from.

The 2005 elections resulted in protests over the closed list ballots, a practice which has since been changed, but this political landscape is far from free of the stigma’s that plague faltering governments such as Italy. It is important that the citizenry feel properly represented, but a government’s sustainability can be greatly compromised by a lack of majority leadership and weak party coalitions. Politics like this, in which parties are treated like varieties of pickles rather than ideological alliances that serve as a general platform, are the reason that Italy has had 61 governments in nearly 65 years. If Iraq fails to clean up its act, it could be headed down the same troubled path.

------
Read More HERE @ Al Jazeera

Robert Gibbs Still Isn't Funny

Just the facts... Rob. The White House Press Secretary needs to stick to the facts and save the comedy for open mic night.

This guy is just not funny, plain and simple.

Palin's Crib Notes

Will Sarah Palin ever say uncle? She never makes any attempt to improve herself, refusing to increase her vocabulary or work on her grammar. She never breaks free from an over-the-top folksy persona, desperately attempting to connect with the average American, and frequently peppering in a "You bet'cha" or that infamous wink. Each tactic seems to be a desperate attempt to conceal her stammering style of public speaking. She's no W. but a course in public speaking would not hurt.

She showed up to the National Tea Party Convention, a movement that she claims to support, but the $100,000 price tag for her appearance would suggest just the opposite. The price paid may have gained the movement media attention but not in a fashion they may have desired, such as party politics. Instead national attention has been centered squarely on Palin's incompetence. The former Governor was caught, during a speech that criticized President Obama for using a teleprompter, with a list of "key terms" written in ink on her palm.

Again:

• ENERGY
• TAX CUT
• LIFT AMERICAN SPIRIT

How could any career politician need help remembering include ENERGY, TAX CUTS, and to LIFT THE AMERICAN SPIRIT? These have been the key points for every American politician over the past few decades! These are the slam dunk issues... WOW

Jon Stewart of The Daily Show said it best: