Category Archives: Politics

Of all the varieties of virtues, liberalism is the most beloved. Aristotle

Leave a reply

An acquaintance of mine told me several years ago that the Republicans passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964.  Being from Louisiana, I thought that was not the way I remembered it.  I was 8 at the time so I thought I would go back and look at the historic data.  On face value he certainly had a valid case to make. 

Civil Rights Act of 1964 Signed into law by President Johnson on July 2, 1964.[1]

Here are the actual vote totals:

Totals are in “Yea–Nay” format:

  • The original House version: 290-130   (69%-31%)
  • Cloture in the Senate: 71-29   (71%-29%)
  • The Senate version: 73-27   (73%-27%)
  • The Senate version, as voted on by the House: 289-126   (70%-30%)

Here are the actual votes split by party:

The original House version:[2]

  • Democratic Party: 152-96   (61%-39%)
  • Republican Party: 138-34   (80%-20%)

Cloture in the Senate:[3]

  • Democratic Party: 44-23   (66%-34%)
  • Republican Party: 27-6   (82%-18%)

The Senate version:[2]

  • Democratic Party: 46-21   (69%-31%)
  • Republican Party: 27-6   (82%-18%)

The Senate version, voted on by the House:[2]

  • Democratic Party: 153-91   (63%-37%)
  • Republican Party: 136-35   (80%-20%)

However, after looking into it further I discovered the votes by region – northern versus southern.  Here is how that looks:

Here are the actual votes split by party and region:

Note: “Southern”, as used in this section, refers to members of Congress from the eleven states that made up the Confederate States of America in the American Civil War. “Northern” refers to members from the other 39 states, regardless of the geographic location of those states.

Totals are in “Yea–Nay” format:

The original House version:

  • Southern Democrats: 7-87   (7%-93%)
  • Southern Republicans: 0-10   (0%-100%)
  • Northern Democrats: 145-9   (94%-6%)
  • Northern Republicans: 138-24   (85%-15%)

The Senate version:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964

 
After seeing this it came back to me why I thought the Republicans opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964.  The reason I remembered it this way was because all the Southerners I knew switched parties from Democrat to Republican after that vote.  The Democratic Party in the Deep South largely became Republican in the years that followed.  It seems that Civil Rights raised a demon, the cry from the dying pangs of ghost of the Civil War.  Apparently, the Southern Democrats blamed their party for enacting the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and seemed to have found a new and welcome home in the Republican Party.  This is why I associated the Republicans with opposing the act – everyone I knew while growing up that opposed it were Republicans – now.

[1]^ Dallek, Robert (2004), Lyndon B. Johnson: Portrait of a President, p. 169
[2]^ a b c King, Desmond (1995). Separate and Unequal: Black Americans and the US Federal Government. p. 311.
[3]^ Jeong, Gyung-Ho; Gary J. Miller, Itai Sened (2009-03-14). “Closing The Deal: Negotiating Civil Rights Legislation”. 67th Annual Conference of the Midwest Political Science Association. p. 29. Retrieved 2009-11-04.

All War is Evil

Leave a reply

In this case, evil is not meant in the sense of religious evil or theistic evil but in a humanitarian sense.   Religion and God(s) have always found a way to justify war.  War is evil because it is not a zero sum game.  Only those that have emotional distance from war can treat it like a zero sum game.  Distance allows folks to fashion a marketing campaign to justify war.  Death affords no distance.  The life of the innocent child killed in war is never brought back to life.  The family lives in the hollow catacombs of their child’s death until they die.  The tragedy can’t be made right; it is absolutely irrecoverable and irrevocable.  Women, children, the old, friendly fire, collateral damage is not a number that is offset by the `would have’ number, the number that `would have’ died without the war.  There is no erasure of tragedy for those that have lost loved ones.  There is only the empty void where a life used to be.  There is no just war; only a necessary war.  The marketing of a just war is a huge rationalization for evil.  Only those devoid of the emotional impact of war can deem it glorious.  The tragic loss of a loved one to war is organic.  No amount of words can overcome the inert downward pull of that pit.  Only ignorance and emotive indifference can once again renew the call to fight the glorious battle.  Was Iraq and Afghanistan necessary?  Was our country going to be over-thrown by these thugs?  No.  Did we suffer tragic loss in 911?  Yes.  Will our killing rampages in the world change our tragic loss?  No.  We tell ourselves by cleverly crafted tomes that we will prevent more loss of life by our action and thus, justify our wars.  By killing others we create a `greater good’.  What is that `greater good’ in the case of Iraq and Afghanistan?  We have created many more enemies all over the world and given Al Qaeda a recruitment bonanza.  Even our old friends have more ambivalent or even negative relations with us now.  We killed more of our young people now than were killed in 911.  We killed hundreds of thousands of non-enemy combatants (babies and kids to start with).  All the discussion of a `just war’ does not offset or equalize the tragic loss of one child.  It only provides an easy escape for those that would perpetuate this tragic loss.  If you perpetuate war you are as guilty as if you pulled the trigger on the baby.  You can tell yourself otherwise but your justice rings hollow.  In the ears of tragedy, your defiance to allow the full weight of your rationalization to indict your personal responsibility is absolutely detestable.  Your good has become evil, a humanitarian evil.  You have become part of the problem not the solution and the more you deny and justify, the more you create the problem once again.  War is a black tar baby that every generation has resolved to leave behind only to re-entangle us again.  We create a new generation of patriots and a new generation of patriot haters.  Go ahead, hold your ears and scream of my evil intentions but evil begets evil and graves only cry for more graves.  Until you live with the gravity of your ideas on a daily basis you have yet to live in the reality of tragedy.  Don’t tell those of us who live that on a daily basis that justice has anything to do with erasing our loss.  Don’t tell us your virtuous intentions give us emotional buoyancy or offset our organic reality.  You only soil yourself in our view.  Go ahead gather your warmonger friends and have your death parties all over the world but no one can silence the hellish voice that you perpetually resurrect in your violent zeal.  Peace does not come from war, only death and tragedy.  Perhaps evil is necessary in extreme times but no one should take any pride or glory in evil unless one is evil.

Capitalism or Marxism

Leave a reply

What is it we do not like about Marxism? Is it the lack of motivation to create real value? What is the practical difference between a government based economy and a credit based economy? When money is free, money has no value. If Capitalism or Marxism is in the business of bankrupting value there is no difference with regard to the disruption of production. Why extol the virtues of Capitalism when it enslaves folks to getting more debt/credit to pay off last month’s debt/credit? Any influx of capital that is so large no one could ever spend it, even in the form of endless credit, will squelch motivation, reduce productivity and motivation – it reduces value. Don’t think for a second that capitalism is inherently immune from `what the bad guys do’ or that government is the only way to bring an economy to a grinding halt (to repackage a quote – those that do not learn the lesson of recent history only welcome it once again) – private enterprise can just as easily conjure up all the practical evils of the dreaded Marxist ideology.

Fallacies from Anti-Abortionists

Leave a reply

Fallacy of Omission:

———————————

When anti-abortionists cite the Gallup poll below…

“More Americans “Pro-Life” Than “Pro-Choice” for First Time”

take a look at the whole Gallup poll:

 http://www.gallup.com/poll/118399/More-Americans-Pro-Life-Than-Pro-Choice-First-Time.aspx

 – you will see that since 1976 the averages have not really changed:  approximately 20% suggest that abortion should not be allowed under any circumstances (currently 22%), 70% to 80 % since 1976 believe that it should be allowed in all or some circumstances (approximately 25%, currently 23%, suggest it should be allowed under any circumstances).  This trend has not changed.  Therefore, when folks describe themselves as “pro-life” they obviously do not mean that they are hard liners who do not approve of abortion under any circumstances.

Fallacy of Contradiction:

———————————

Here are excerpts from a discussion with Erin Manning, a hard core catholic advocate of anti-choice and an associate of radical right, extremist Rod Dreher. 

“It is high time to stop pretending that we do not know what this nation of ours is allowing—and approving—with the killing each year of more than 1,600,000 innocent human beings within their mothers.”

“…on the death penalty, I accept Catholic teaching” which in effect means it is acceptable as a “last resort”.  She also stated, “I don’t generally support the death penalty in most instances, and also recognize a strict and limited definition of justifiable self-defense killing and just war.”

…need I add more?

An example of a loaded question:

———————————

“At what point does a baby get human rights in your view?”

Rick Warren, Saddleback Church – `question’ for candidate Obama

To me, that asks the question, “When is a fetus considered human and as such get human rights?”.  What I hear in that question is, “When does [human] life begin?”  For those that are pro-choice a baby and a fetus are different.  “Baby” necessarily means “human” since a baby exclusively belongs to the category “human”.  There are no “babies” that are not “human”.   If the question is, “Do “babies have human rights?” – The answer is of course they do because they necessarily belong to the category “human”.  If this is the question, it turns out to be a very uninteresting question since it is a necessarily true, logical syllogism:

A is B. 

B is C

Therefore: A is C

All babies are human

All humans have human rights

Therefore: All babies have human rights

If this is the real question, it is an insult to Obama’s intelligence since denying it would mean you can not comprehend plain logic (otherwise known as stupid).

Here is the insidious part – anti-abortionists are really using code to plainly state (to the initiated) – you are a demon, you are evil because you kill babies and deny them human rights.  Those that are pro-choice do not think they are killing babies but anti-abortion code insist that they are and deny them a response that is something other than believing anti-abortion OR killing babies.  In effect, if you are not pro-life, you are a demon.  This forum was “suppose” to have the appearance of objectivity and fairness but as evidenced in this description it was a setup – just another opportunity to preach to the choir at the expense of someone with another legitimate point of view.   IMO, Republicans have been very successful employing this type of technique.  It usually just takes a little thought to show the clay feet on your evil demons.

Worse Than Fallacy:

———————————

The defense attorneys for the killer of Dr. Tiller, a Kansas doctor that performed abortions in Kansas, claim that the murder was a “Moral Murder”.   So these folks think that they can commit or condone or rationalize the murder of Dr. Tiller based on a kind of reverse moral murder – they think they are protecting babies.

Also, the Catholic Church has sanctioned capital punishment and “just” wars.  In this case, god has appointed a person to carry out his work – therefore, it is not murder it is an act of god.  So, these zealots think that god appointed this guy to kill Dr. Tiller!

It is ironic that Erin has regularly called pro-choice folks (and me) Nazis (Rod has never censored Erin for this).  The anti-abortion folks use it freely to describe you if you believe any kind of abortion should be allowed.  They say that you are a “baby-killer” and sanction your murders with your morality.  They claim that you commit genocide sanctioned by the state.

For your information the Nazis quickly banned abortions for the genetically pure and deemed it murder of babies. 

Are you starting to see how this works?  If so, take it to the voting booth.

Rod Dreher is a Liar

Leave a reply

Unfortunately, Rod is a remote cousin of mine and someone I enjoyed debating with until he started lying about me to stop the debate.  It used to be that lying was not Christian but things change I guess.

While blogging at:

http://blog.beliefnet.com/crunchycon

on a thread called:

Cardinal Egan: “I know what I saw.”

The full thread address is:

http://blog.beliefnet.com/crunchycon/2008/10/cardinal-egan-i-know-what-i-sa.html

Rod Dreher has been a commentator at the National Review Online and the Dallas Morning News for many years.  He also writes in other conservative columns.  He has vehemently opposed abortion rights and is an extreme right-wing, conservative Catholic.  The blog mentioned above shows the picture of a fetus and references an article by the Catholic archbishop of New York.  In the thread there are also many more graphic pictures of aborted fetuses.  In the thread I argue with some of these folks about pro-choice.  If you read the thread you will see that at one point Rod accuses me of calling the person I’m debating with a fascist.  He censored the thread and asked me to leave the discussion.  I love to debate and have done it for years.  I have never called anyone a fascist which I regard as losing an argument.  Rod made this up, lied, so he could justify censoring the post.   The context of this post can be seen in the thread (apparently, the comments have been disabled now) but in summary Erin is trying to push the argument for choice into an extreme position characterized by, why not genocide if abortion is legal?  Here is the post that was censored:

“Erin,

Many of us have principles and the vast majority of us are not into genocide.  I think we have decided to kill innocent humans already born by democratic vote in Iraq and Afghanistan if you voted for Bush anyway.  You may have found some way to excuse yourself but many of us in this country and in Europe hold you responsible.  I did not condone those wars nor would I condone any killing of human life.  I would agree that there are times when it is necessary but we should be repulsed by it (if we really are human).  You seem to be content  to setup your own straw men to argue with but no one has even remotely stated what you said.  If you can push the argument in that direction you are right but most of us get off that train before it gets to the station.   Genes are not human life neither are cells.  Humans make decisions regularly about the viability of human life, i.e., capital punishment, “just” (or unjust) wars, euthanasia, etc.  Where the lines are drawn is always up for discussion.  There are no absolute, clearly defined rules for how we make those decisions.  Again, you have participated in making life and death decisions already if, for example, you voted for Bush.  I could just as easily push the argument to ludicrous extremes by asking you why you think you and your representatives are entitled to kill innocent women and children on Iraq and Afghanistan.  Is life and death a decision that you and your representatives made for others without their consent and without any culpability on their part?  The answer is obviously, Yes.  Therefore, according to you, if you draw the line at certain folks and not others why not ‘ol dad and inferior races?  Can’t you see how shifting the argument into all or none can equally indict you as well?  If drawing these lines make us guilty then we are all guilty – you too!  Your innocence is feigned at best and hypocritical at worst.  In any case, very few of us want to take joy in these decisions and fashion a fascist, god-philosophy about who lives or not.  To insist that one has to go to that extreme to do what all of us already are doing (whether we want to admit it or not) is to ignore the reality of the situation and engage in a dialog with yourself.  Maybe you can find a neo-Nazi group to have that discussion with but making the rest of us parrot those extremes is really only to discredit your argument.  I think most people know the difference between extreme ideologies and reasonable ideologies.  When you push it as far as you like you become a McCarthy and the rest of us walk out of the room.  I know you have lots of ways of justifying your intolerance but I, for one, hold you accountable and refuse your simplistic argument style.  Those of us that are pro-choice have principles that we believe are just as valid as yours.  We do not like abortion and would not think of becoming genocidal maniacs – that is really all about you Erin.”

Erin has also moderated this board and is very involved in the Republican, anti-abortion movement.  I saw at least one person that already protested the censorship (but it may be censored by now as well).  Beliefnet is a good, impartial site dedicated to fair and open discussion of religious, political and social issues.  Rod only runs one small portion of the board (crunchycon).  If you are interested in protesting this censorship I would invite you send a post to the link above (only email and screen name required) protesting censorship on this site from the right or engaging in the topic of the  thread yourself.  Let’s take action in whatever small ways we can folks!