The random political thoughts thread (Part Deux)

[Strangler Lewis]

I think Morrigoon's post shows why, Roe, while to my mind a sensible pragmatic decision, has muddied the abortion debate. If we take out the woman's penumbral constitutional right to privacy and stop debating how when and if, with the advance of science, a fetus might be deemed a person with due process rights, we're left with the typical "ick or not ick" legislative decision--the type of decision that will have to be argued about if Roe goes.

We make these legislative decisions all the time: killing and eating your own chicken is not ick. Killing and eating your own dog is ick. Roe had the ick/not ick balance down fairly well since, as has often been pointed out, pregnancies often terminate naturally in the first trimester anyway. Terminating an advanced pregnancy on a whim--something I assume happens approximately never--would be ick.

I predict that when Roe goes away--and it will if McCain wins--even states with the most burdensome restrictions, having won the larger point, will end up with statutes looking something like ick/not ick. At any rate, everyone should get used to discussing issues without resorting to constitutional crutches.

[wendybeth]

So, looks like things might be even more serious than anyone is letting on:

ON the Verge of a Complete Financial Meltdown.


No wonder they're clamping down on short selling and talking about taking further regulatory measures. So much for an unrestrained free market system being the bestest thing ever.

[sleepyjeff]

Originally Posted by wendybeth

So much for an unrestrained free market system being the bestest thing ever.

Yeah, maybe one of these days we'll actually try it.

[tod]

Originally Posted by wendybeth

So much for an unrestrained free market system being the bestest thing ever.

Here's an economist summarizing the rescue efforts thus: "It is privatizing the gains and profits, and socializing the losses as usual. This is socialism for Wall Street and the rich."

--t

[wendybeth]

Originally Posted by tod

Here's an economist summarizing the rescue efforts thus: "It is privatizing the gains and profits, and socializing the losses as usual. This is socialism for Wall Street and the rich."

--t

I love this statement- it's true, and I find it amazing that fiscally conservative people who are concerned about government spending on social programs don't seem to have a problem with government bailouts. Like he said in the article, it is necessary now to do so, but in a manner that doesn't bail out or enrich the individuals responsible for the most egregious transgressions.

I have a co-worker who is rabidly conservative - he has nothing good to say about any sort of government assistance for the private sector and is very much anti-tax, yet he was an ardent supporter of the new stadium in Seattle and had no problem with the increase in taxes and creative financing that paid for the structure. I guess everyone has their price. (He is equally rabid about sports).

[sleepyjeff]

Originally Posted by wendybeth

I love this statement- it's true, and I find it amazing that fiscally conservative people who are concerned about government spending on social programs don't seem to have a problem with government bailouts.

Oh, I got BIG problems with it. See my sig line

I have a co-worker who is rabidly conservative - he has nothing good to say about any sort of government assistance for the private sector and is very much anti-tax, yet he was an ardent supporter of the new stadium in Seattle and had no problem with the increase in taxes and creative financing that paid for the structure. I guess everyone has their price. (He is equally rabid about sports).

He probably figures they are going to get his money anyway might as well have a nice sports stadium instead of something he could care less about such as marine science centers, rock and roll museums and ridiculously expensive artwork for prisons