Political links for a Tuesday.

[pauraque_bk]

idlerat warns of the dangers of privatizing Social Security, Bush's first order of business for the new term. We didn't hear enough about this during the campaign, possibly because it's neither an emotional hot-button nor necessarily simple to explain, but it's important.

*

AP: Key GOP Senator warns Bush on judicial choices

NY Times: Abortion remark by GOP Senator puts heat on peers

Arlen Specter is a moderate Republican, in line to head up the Senate Judiciary Committee. He did a little saber-rattling after the election, warning Bush that he may meet with resistance if he attempts to appoint justices who will overturn Roe v. Wade. Naturally, this is causing a stir. ani_bester has the scoop on what the American Family Association said to their mailing list about it. Now Specter's backpedaling, but he still may be blocked from becoming chairman.

Despite being pro-life, I think we'd be better off with Specter. The way to reduce the number of abortions (in my opinion) is not to ban them outright at this point, but to promote the use of condoms and the Pill. President Bush supports and funds abstinence-only sex education to the exclusion of other programs, but abstinence-only can't be shown to work. If Roe v. Wade is overturned with sex education in such a state, I see a future of more unwanted pregnancies, more abortions, and more unsafe abortions that threaten the mother's life as well.

And if you're pro-choice, I reckon it's a no-brainer. who_is_sylvia has information on how you can let the Republican leadership know you support Specter for the chairmanship (if, in fact, you do).

*

AP: Hungary pulling out -- more could leave after [Iraqi] election

Hungary, the Czech Republic, and the Netherlands have announced they're pulling out of Iraq. It isn't mentioned in this article, but unforgettable Poland is also scaling back its involvement.

With allies pulling out, the natural concern is whether a draft will become necessary (though Bush has often said he won't institute one). You can't become a Conscientious Objector when there isn't a draft, but you can compile a CO claim and have it ready in case you need it. I don't say this to be an alarmist -- it's simply that your claim is stronger the earlier it's compiled. (Two people on my flist have had friends of theirs in the National Guard be called up for duty in Iraq in the past week, and another is facing the possibility -- love and luck, all.)

Comments

[gmth.livejournal.com]

I'm in a real quandary about Specter. He's one of my Senators and under normal circumstances I wouldn't cross the street to spit on him if he were on fire. But I am also fiercely pro-choice. *sigh*

I suppose I'll write to my other Senator, Rick Santorum, who is even worse by a factor of about 10. Talk about politics making strange bedfellows...

[pauraque]

The way I figure it, anyone who's going to put up resistance -- to scrutinize Bush's picks at all -- will be better than whoever they might pick to put in his place. No matter who the President is, it's fundamentally unwise to have no check on his power in appointing justices -- I mean, this is seventh-grade civics, right?

Rick Santorum, by the way, is one of the scariest politicians there is in my book. I practically have nightmares about him gaining more influence!

[cschick.livejournal.com]

Rick Santorum would not just like to make abortion illegal, but all contraceptives, divorce, "deviant" sexual behavior (aka, anything not het missionary-style) . . . he's the pure example of a right-wing neo-con. According to him, all of the above have caused the downfall of the American family and true American values.

I'm not sure that writing to him in support of Specter, or against appointing judges to overturn Roe v. Wade would be helpful. (In fact, writing him in support of Specter might backfire.)

edited because it posted without spell-checking despite the box being checked. . .

[gmth.livejournal.com]

I couldn't in good faith not contact him with my concerns. Regardless of his views he is one of my Senators, and I feel duty bound to let him know my position on things. It's the only way I feel my voice can be heard (even though I have never received anything from him in return except for those form leters saying, "Thanks for letting know how you feel, but here's why you're WRONG...").

[theatresm.livejournal.com]

There's a love-hate relationship in PA with Specter. (You either love 'im or you hate 'im.) What's undeniable is that he knows the system, knows how to use it, and he does have more moderate views on issues like abortion and medical research than the average Republican at the present time.

If Roe v. Wade is overturned with sex education in such a state, I see a future of more unwanted pregnancies, more abortions, and more unsafe abortions that threaten the mother's life as well.

Yup. Now, how are the ultra-Conservatives going to explain those figures, if anyone bothers to call them on them in the future? I don't for a minute believe that the only casualties are going to be among the "godless Liberals."

Semi off-topic sidebar: What the hell use is Balance of Powers if one branch can deliberately rig the composition of one or both of the other two? Someone on NPR yesterday used the ominous phrase "permanent Republican presence" in reference to either the House or Senate (maybe it was Congress overall). I would say it's highly unlikely given free elections, but I'm no longer confident in the ability of my fellow voters to make discerning choices based on the welfare of all, rather than on self-interest and "faith." And then there's the ever-popular re-districting tactic. /sidebar

We so need a viable Third Party. I think it has to be a moderate buffer between the two current party platforms, since the division is so vast (and despite the fact that compared to most of European politics, even US Democrats are seen as conservative...).

[pauraque]

Yup. Now, how are the ultra-Conservatives going to explain those figures, if anyone bothers to call them on them in the future?

Well, at the moment it seems they're trying to avoid anyone even getting those figures, if the second article is to be believed. They've changed the standards to show only how kids' "attitides" about sex have changed, not whether they actually had sex, got pregnant, or eventually had an abortion. Surely this is either naive or self-serving, possibly both.

We so need a viable Third Party.

The only way I see that happening is if we switch to an instant-runoff system, where you can pick several candidates in order of preference. If people could vote for a third party without "throwing their vote away", I think that would do it.

This struck me especially during the recall election debacle here in CA. We were given the opportunity, on the same day, to vote against the recall, and to pick a candidate in case the recall did pass. If we hadn't been allowed to do that -- well, the result would still have been the same, but the numbers would have looked crazily different. We'd have had the same "a vote for Davis is a vote for Schwarzenegger" business we hear on a national level.

[neotoma.livejournal.com]

idlerat warns of the dangers of privatizing Social Security, Bush's first order of business for the new term.

It's going to be a nightmare -- I read Paul O'Neill's book (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0743255453/qid=1100010340/sr=2-1/ref=pd_ka_b_2_1/102-7700320-0978518), and he did find a way to revise Social Security without sinking it. Bush refused to meet with the man about it!

The way to reduce the number of abortions (in my opinion) is not to ban them outright at this point, but to promote the use of condoms and the Pill.

Don't forget to also make it easier for women to have and raise children -- it's so very hard and expensive to raise a kid by yourself, yet women are *still* villified as single moms if they do get pregnant and decide to keep the kid. It's not surprising that abortion is a more attractive option for so many people, especially in bad economic times.

Of course, the real solution is changing society so that comprehensive sex-ed is de rigeur, instead of controversial, and so that women don't have to choose between going through an unplanned pregnancies and staying out of the poorhouse. Doing *that* will take years, if not decades, and a lot of hard work.

Outlawing abortion is a just a quick fix -- one that doesn't actually help anyone, but sure looks good in the papers.

With allies pulling out, the natural concern is whether a draft will become necessary (though Bush has often said he won't institute one).

No, he's just pulling up poor buggers who are out already! (http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/2004/Nov/06/ln/ln10p.html)

[pauraque]

Don't forget to also make it easier for women to have and raise children -- it's so very hard and expensive to raise a kid by yourself, yet women are *still* villified as single moms if they do get pregnant and decide to keep the kid.

Yes, good point. There are a lot of wrong ideas floating around about why people have abortions -- the truth is that there are many reasons, with various possible solutions. No one blanket action will stop all abortions; it's simple-minded to think so.

No, he's just pulling up poor buggers who are out already!

Yeah, I almost talked about that. I wish Kerry had pushed the "backdoor draft" issue more than he did -- people need to know about it.

[arclevel.livejournal.com]

From the first article, Sen John Coryn: "'I’m hoping that he will stand behind the president’s nominees.'"

From the second, "With that power, some Republicans said it would be counterproductive to then have a chairman who might balk at some of the president's choices."

We've completely lost sight of the entire function of our governmental system, haven't we? Congress and the President's office are supposed to have an adversarial relationship. That's what happens when the government is working correctly. Congress has two primary functions: making laws and limiting the president's power. The fact that there is outrage at the idea that a Senator might do his Constitutional duty by evaluating nominees rather than rubber-stamping them is deeply distressing for the state of our federal government, no matter *what* the issue is.

Last Tuesday night, when it became clear that Bush was going to win, I freaked out. Went through a brief phase of hating everyone who voted for him (including certain family members and close friends) and was convinced that the country was going to be irreparably damaged. I spent Wednesday and most of Thursday trying to calm down and convince myself that, really, it wasn't so bad. We survived one term, we can survive one more. Since then, I've become slowly convinced that on Tuesday, I may have underestimated the damage done. As I've said elsewhere, the problem isn't that Bush is still in office, the problem is that he has no opposition with any strength. If moderate Republicans do rubber-stamp every decision of the president, we're doomed. */optimism*

Your position on abortion sounds very similar to mine. I'm uncomfortable with it and dislike pro-choice extremists, but I absolutely can't bring myself to side with the pro-life movement. I find that the movement (as a whole, generally not individual followers), after you take away the radical fringe who want to kill abortion doctors, is still one of the nastiest, most vicious, least compassionate political movements in the country. (The anti-gay rights movement is a close second. I hate the fact that this description fits the two movements closely correlated with Christian groups, including most moderate Christians.)

All of that ignores the fact that what Specter said wasn't even remotely pro-abortion. It was a statement of fact. The various groups' outrage also shows an inability to actually read what is said; if it doesn't fall directly into party line, it must be exactly the opposite. And people wonder why Americans are so frustrated and pessimistic about politics.

[pauraque]

The fact that there is outrage at the idea that a Senator might do his Constitutional duty by evaluating nominees rather than rubber-stamping them is deeply distressing for the state of our federal government, no matter *what* the issue is.

Yes, precisely. It's part of a disturbing trend of "we must stand behind the President no matter what" that's been building since September 11th. Mindlessly supporting the President is neither virtuous, nor patriotic, nor productive. _I_ don't agree with everything that comes out of the mouths of politicians I generally support -- I don't have to. It doesn't work that way.

Your position on abortion sounds very similar to mine. I'm uncomfortable with it and dislike pro-choice extremists, but I absolutely can't bring myself to side with the pro-life movement. I find that the movement (as a whole, generally not individual followers), after you take away the radical fringe who want to kill abortion doctors, is still one of the nastiest, most vicious, least compassionate political movements in the country.

Yeah, it's a problem for me. I sometimes hesitate to call myself pro-life because of the negative connotations, but it's the most accurate description of my position, and I want people to know that not all pro-lifers are nutjob radicals with no sense of reality, nor are they all Christians, nor are they all Republicans, etc.

One of the problems is that while it's okay to say "Well, no one likes abortion", it's less okay to put forth sane ideas about how to have fewer of them. It's at the point where neither side will budge, for fear of looking weak or letting their position slip, losing supporters on one side or the other.

Each side has so viciously demonized the other that I suspect it may be up to the quiet, moderate middle to do the work of actually solving the problem of unwanted pregnancies.

[neotoma.livejournal.com]

One of the problems is that while it's okay to say "Well, no one likes abortion", it's less okay to put forth sane ideas about how to have fewer of them. It's at the point where neither side will budge, for fear of looking weak or letting their position slip, losing supporters on one side or the other.

I don't think this is quite true. While it's true that you don't hear as much about it in the media, there are a lot of groups, mostly feminist-orientated in my experience, that are trying to make it easier for women not to have abortions.

The methods for lowering the abortion rate without actually outlawing them range from helpful to completely counterproductive, however. The ones I think work better are ones aimed at social justice and equality; making it easier for a women to have a kid instead of making it harder for her to have an abortion. If you make it harder for women to have abortions and yet it's even harder to have a kid, the abortion is still going to be a preferred choice for the majority. But if you make it easier for women to have kids -- more health care, more child care, more flextime and parent-friendly jobs, living wages, than more women (married or not) are going to decide that yes, they *can* have the kid.

Of course, you do have to accept that there will still be women who don't want to be pregnant, for whatever reason, and will do what they have to ensure that they don't remain that way, whether that means a quick trip to Canada or amateur surgery.

[arclevel.livejournal.com]

Much agreed. I have seen some groups, frequently associated with churches, that are pregnancy support centers or the like. I think these are a good idea, but they aren't nearly enough -- this is why we need more affordable but reliable child care, alternate educational programs for pregnant teens, and, oh yeah, near-universal health care. Private groups can't do this; at least some of it needs to be government (and not by funding faith-based programs). Support centers do need to be honest, though, when discussing options with their patients, and be understanding that many women are considering abortion, yet are not monsters. I don't think most of the religious-based groups are very good at that (though I don't know much about most specific groups). The attitude tends to be that it's something you don't even *consider* unless you're a horrible excuse for a human being.

Those groups aren't what I think of as the pro-life movement, though, at least in a political sense. The political movement is all about making sure that anyone who has or performs an abortion is prosecuted like the monsters they are, and nobody has sex unless they're married and want lots and lots of kids. Oddly, this actually contradicts the line on sex from most conservative Christian churches -- sex is a gift from God to married couples and intended as a joy, not just a tool for procreation.

[meridym.livejournal.com]

We didn't hear enough about this during the campaign, possibly because it's neither an emotional hot-button nor necessarily simple to explain, but it's important.

Actually, toward the end of the campaign Kerry regularly mentioned that Bush had plans to privatize Social Security...and Bush and his surrogates denied this, accusing Kerry of using "scare tactics" on the American people.

Edited for clarity.

[pauraque]

Yeah, I know he did, but it was too little, too late. It's a hard issue for candidates to touch, for the reasons I mentioned -- it's perceived as difficult to understand, and doesn't have a strong, immediate moral component. And I think it'd be especially difficult for someone like Kerry, who'd already been pigeonholed as someone who blathers on about complex "intellectual" matters that go over the heads of the people.

[meridym.livejournal.com]

And I think it'd be especially difficult for someone like Kerry, who'd already been pigeonholed as someone who blathers on about complex "intellectual" matters that go over the heads of the people.

True. How funny that Bush was never able to be pigeonholed as truth-challenged, which he surely is, as even this example proves.

[bardsmaid.livejournal.com]

I'm appreciating the various political points you've been bringing up since the election, Eo. Rather than grinding our teeth or curling into hibernation for the next four years to avoid the disaster of Bush policies, we need to get informed and get working to create better alternatives.

The scariest element of all this, from where I sit, is the apparent inability to think critically of so many voters--to be swayed by the repetition of soothing, simplistic sound bytes when the core problems, as problems tend to be, are complex and nuanced.

[pauraque]

Yeah. Bush appealed to people's wish for everything to be simple and easy, when I think (I hope) deep down most people know it's not.

[ausmac.livejournal.com]

Hi. I have started up a HP community, hp_flashback for the recommendation of quality fanfiction in all the various forms of fanfiction in the genre. I'd very much appreciate it if you could mention it in your journal and I'd be very happy to list you as a source journal in the fandom on the community information page, especially were it reciprocal.

*blink*

[pauraque]

As a matter of fact, I already know about hp_flashback, and have it friended. I saw it on daily_snitch, which has a far greater readership than my journal... Is there some special reason you wanted me to advertise your comm?

Re: *blink*

[ausmac.livejournal.com]

It's no problem if you don't want to mention it, I was roving through LJ and saw your journal, it looked interesting so I thought you might care to mention hp_flashback. Around 140 have currently friended it and I didn't see you, sorry. But as I say, no problem. (-: