WIP

Just as an alliance was formed behind the scenes in the U.S. during the 70's, between the economic right and evangelicals, mostly through Jerry Falwell and the Moral Majority -- there is the same strategy playing out across Canada now, mostly under the radar. Right now I'm about half way through Marci McDonald's book: The Armageddon Factor, and unless the outside observer is aware of Stephen Harper's move from mainstream Christianity to the evangelical right, and the influence of advisers -- many of whom coming from the Canadian branch of Dobson's organization, then the common thread that binds Conservative social policies and political appointments such as putting a creationist in charge of Science & Technology, the shift to pro-Israel M.E. Policy, the attacks on abortion and family planning, the defunding of activist womens’ groups, the withdrawal of subsidies to gay pride events across the country, the cuts to KAIROS, and giving grant money to Bible schools, will all go unnoticed by most Canadians until it is too late to stop the destruction of traditional Canadian values. This happened in the U.S. already, when an army of politically trained religious activists invaded and overran the Republican Party, and now it's right here under our noses. In those early days when Reform Party associations were forming in Ontario, it looked like a real grassroots movement....until Presto's boys from out west came in to take control.

Which is not going to last anyway! Oil...and coal, and methane gas, are forms of stored sunlight....and that is the key problem that rapacious pro-growth capitalists can't seem to get through their heads! It took millions of years to put that stored sunlight into the Earth, that the oil companies have sucked out in the last 150 years....and there's not much left! Why do you think there is so much development of the tar sands in Alberta? The tar sands were discovered long before the first oil deposits out there, but nobody wanted it. In fact, for years the only commercial development of tar sands was to use it for paving roads....and things would have stayed that way except that the easy to get oil is almost all gone now, at a time when oil consumption is still growing. And of course it's why oil companies are trying to sink wells through three miles of rock off the coast of Brazil right now....and the engineers still don't know if there exploratory wells will actually be capable of reaching the continental shelf deposits down there. As they drill deeper and deeper, the temperatures and pressures increase, along with the risks of blowouts....as observed in the Gulf of Mexico. I think an examination of BP's conduct regarding their attempts to put cost-control ahead of safety in the Gulf, illustrate that these great captains of industry are also single-minded, greedy psychopaths who will risk anything...including destroying the planet, in their quest for more wealth and more power. We've seen this attitude with those Wall Street wizards that turned commercial banking into a ponzi scheme, and we see it with actions of the oil companies right now, who disregard the risks that climate changes so far may have already set up positive feedback effects, and have run an expensive propaganda and lobbying campaign to prevent any public action to end the Oil Age before they've sucked out the last drop. The only reason why U.S. national security interests are so expensive, and require an armed forces larger than the combined armies of the rest of the nations, is because the U.S. has made the running of an oil-dependent global commercial empire as part of their security interests! If the U.S. was just looking after its own borders it wouldn't need naval fleets and air bases covering the globe. Are you serious, there are even territories within the USA that want their bases out....like Puerto Rico. There are demonstrations against the naval base in Okinawa for decades now, but the Okinawan's interests are ignored by the Japanese Government. Same with the bases in the Philippines; back when Cory Aquino became president after a popular uprising, she reneged on her promise to remove the naval and air force bases. We've covered the issue of buying off local authorities to keep these bases running before; it's only when the costs get too high for their worth, that the U.S. closes them down and moves to a new location.

Maybe you just write too much, because I'm not finding where you draw the line and declare new life worth protecting.....and interfering with a pregnant woman's interests. Are you advocating banning birth control pills and IUD's as all of these whackjob anti-abortion groups do? They claim birth control can "kill" a fertilized egg by preventing the new egg from implanting and being able to grow. Most sane, rational people...who don't have hidden agendas of transforming society back to what it was a hundred years ago believe that a fetus has to be in the later stages of pregnancy, where it has started to develop some cortical function that can be considered a start of conscious awareness...before we start talking about giving it individual rights that are enjoyed by the rest of society. In poll after poll, even after the constant bombardment of church propaganda for the last four decades, the majority of people still stand about where they were back in 1970 -- fertilized eggs are not babies....pregnant women should have the right to choose if they want to have an abortion in the first and 2nd trimester....and late term abortions should only be done when the pregnant woman's life is in danger, or there are serious birth defects that will badly degrade whatever quality of life the new baby would have. Most of us set the bar fairly high before we start respecting the rights of fetuses more than the rights of pregnant women!

My point of interest is the little mentioned stories of other women who played a major role, especially in the early days of the Egypt Uprising, and aside from Mubarak thugs trying to infiltrate those demonstrations, the crowds were safe to be in. It was the party crowd afterwards that was dangerous and anarchic -- was made up of thousands who came out for the victory party, even though they would not step up earlier when there was risk involved. Oh, so you take a trip to India, and now you're an expert on a nation with over one billion people! Well, rather than take your word for it, I'm reporting on the news articles I noticed on this subject. I just happened to mention India, but I could have easily said Mexico, Indonesia, Brazil, Iran and surprisingly...Japan, since they are also nations who have introduced female-only public transitbecause of the high incidence of harassment and sexual assaults. As for India specifically, it is likely articles such as this that got passing attention previously: In our cities, the harassment women face on the street, in the public domain, has taken on new forms. It is not just the touch; it is also the talk and the look. Walk down a street in practically any city in India, big or small. It is rare that you get through unscathed. If you are not pushed and prodded, you will definitely hear unwanted comments. And even if you are stone deaf, you cannot avoid the look in the eyes of the beholder who virtually undresses you in public. So am I exaggerating? Is this just a generalisation? Is this not the lived experience of millions of women, particularly younger women? Irrefutable data We now have some data that establishes what we already know. We did not need it. Things can change without producing numbers to show the extent of the problem. The problem itself should be enough to warrant some attention, to invite some thought on how things can change. In continuation of a campaign that they began in 2004, Jagori, a women's group based in Delhi, has conducted an interesting survey of Delhi in the context of women's safety. Some of their findings are not surprising; others make one pause and think about what needs to change in the way our cities are structured. The study itself was a joint Initiative of the Department of Women and Child Development, Delhi, Jagori, UNIFEM and UN HABITAT. It included 3816 women, 944 men and 250 "common witnesses". The latter is an interesting category as it included men and women who would have witnessed incidents of sexual harassment. These could be shopkeepers, bus conductors or drivers, or others, men and women, who have fixed locations on streets or other public areas. As a result, the study is textured and also more credible......................... The majority of those in the survey were under 35 years of age. Over 40 per cent of the women and around 37 per cent of the men were college or university educated. However, roughly half the men and women, and 93 per cent of the common witnesses earned less than Rs.10,000 a month. For those who have lived, or live, in Delhi, it will come as no surprise that 85.4 per cent of the women, 87 per cent of the men and 93 per cent of the common witnesses said that sexual harassment was "rampant" in public places and that this was the single most important factor that made Delhi an unsafe city. The locations where such harassment takes place are also interesting. While 84.9 per cent of the women reported it in market places, 83 per cent talked about Metro stations, 82.4 per cent in areas around schools and colleges and 79 per cent in industrial areas. School and college students faced the highest incidence of verbal harassment as well as visual harassment (flashing, for instance). Interestingly, public transport, particularly buses, were the places where women experienced the maximum sexual harassment. This is something any woman who has had to travel on a DTC bus regularly can concur, regardless of her age. Also significant is the fact that the majority of women expressed a lack of confidence in the police, and said they would not automatically turn to them for help in the face of harassment in a public space. Over 40 per cent of them felt that either the police would not act, or they would trivialise the complaint. In fact, according to the survey, very few women, less than one per cent, have actually complained to the police about this kind of harassment when it occurs. What is sad is that while the women had no faith in the police, those who witnessed acts of harassment admitted that they did not come forward to help, as they did not want to be involved. The road was the location for the maximum amount of harassment, including while women waited at bus stops for their buses, followed by harassment once they actually got onto the bus. Widespread violence The survey concluded that "women and girls face violence and the fear of it on a continuous basis in the city. Due to the fear of violence and harassment many women do not have the autonomy to freely move in a variety of public spaces . markets, parks, bus stops, roads." None of this data is particularly startling. It pertains to Delhi but could be applied to most Indian cities in varying degrees. In small cities, the absence of public transport probably forces more women to stay inside their homes, as their mobility is restricted. In the bigger cities, although some forms of public transport are available, they are not geared to make women feel safe or comfortable. It is interesting that even the much-celebrated Delhi Metro was cited as a place where women were harassed. http://www.indiatogether.org/2010/aug/ksh-harass.htm I know this issue is a matter of scale and degrees; sexual harassment and concerns regarding public safety, keep a lot of women off the streets late at night if they have to travel alone in my town, but it does appear that the problem is worse in India, and that there is still an attitude that women shouldn't be out there anyway......which is sort of the same attitude that social conservatives are trying to bring back here!

There is also another aspect to U.S. supported Arab regimes that is rarely mentioned. The U.S. (and Israel also apparently) seem to turn a blind eye to the constant anti-Jewish messaging that is promoted right on Mubarak's state TV network. Both governments have apparently tolerated Egyptian TV running programs like the Protocols of the Elders of Zion as long as the Government backs up U.S. and Israeli policy. But, the net result is that if present day Egyptians hate Jews, along with hating Israel, some of it has come right from their own allies, and not groups they declare to be the enemies, such as the Muslim Brotherhood.

Have you noticed that these clowns who get their stuff from Foxnews and rightwing radio have been using violent and threatening rhetoric for years now. It's only been since the shooting of Congresswoman Giffords and the killing of six, that liberals and progressives have been taking it seriously. According to them, standing up to a bully is being violent....just look at Beck's latest stupid crap about a socialist/muslim alliance. An even better example is how these Republican and rightwing clowns are calling peaceful demonstrators in Wisconsin "goons" and "thugs." This is the typical fascist rhetorical approach that likeminded leaders in Algeria, Libya, Egypt, Bahrain, and Yemen have taken, where even peaceful resistance is declared to be violence, because it prevents the fascist from carrying out his objectives.

Yes, but there have been many environmentalists who have been tracking this problem of rising populations/declining food supplies for a few years now also. My problem with this guy is that in his summation, he is presenting it as a strictly economic and political issue, when the underlying causes are ecological. Many environmentalists who have been monitoring declining water resources and depletion of topsoil, have been warning that the good days of the Green Revolution were about to come to an end; the economists only started picking this up when world commodity prices started rising a few years ago. Oh, I totally hate Alex Jones! I remember him from when he was on Art Bell's late night conspiracy radio show and making his grand claims about 9/11. Back in the first few weeks before there were additional video clips, he was claiming that the planes hitting the WTC weren't actually passenger planes....but as soon as one claim gets blown out of the water by new evidence, he's off to the next one. The problem with Jones and the other 9/11 Truthers is that they distracted attention from the real evidence of failure from the Bush Administration on down the chain of command. I haven't flown on a plane to a U.S. destination since 2000, so I don't have direct experience with airport security to go on, but this may be another issue where Jones makes a mountain out of a molehill, and makes legitimate criticism of over-zealous security look like part of collection of conspiracy theory clowns. Which doesn't address the point because many basic food commodities were already subsidized by governments to keep the poor satisfied. When prices go up, most of these countries have to borrow money they don't have to reduce food prices further. It's already here, and prices will keep rising unless we have the miracle of the whole world breaking out in good weather! We are not at the same point where food riots would break out....but the way things are going, it might be just a matter of time.

So far I only found one! But that's because most rightwingers are not in to thinking -- they are motivated by emotion, and do not feel any need or wish to examine anything using logic.

Well, thanks for being the only one on the right so far who's capable of something more than bumper sticker-slogans! To me, the paradox in rightwing religious thinking about abortion, is that their whole version of morality is solely based on following pre-ordained rules, and does not address actual results or outcomes of applying those rules. Deliberately creating or allowing a system that creates poverty, can lead to unnecessary death from child neglect and malnutrition, greater level of violence, and of course - earlier death from the combined effects of life on the margins of society. Back in the summer, our local newspaper ran a cover story examining the different neighbourhoods of Hamilton -- one of the most shocking results was that life expectancy is 12 years less in two northend, broken down neighbourhoods, than it is in the new subdivisions up on the Mountain. I imagine the same story can be told about most cities across North America. So, doing nothing and taking a laissez-faire approach to poverty...especially child poverty, can also be considered murder, infanticide or manslaughter. On the other hand...I don't want to waste time arguing this stupid abortion debate that goes on in every forum here, but, like I've said elsewhere, there has to be some point in a woman's pregnancy (I would say very late in pregnancy) where the state deems that a fetus should be protected and allowed to continue living, possibly against the wishes of the woman who has spent months feeding and allowing the new life to grow inside her. If the state follows the dictates of these whackjob conservatives and declares every fertilized egg to be equal to conscious human beings, then all life is devalued and trivialized. Virtually every form of birth control can be banned for its abortifacient properties (which anti-abortion groups are trying to do) and every pregnant woman who had an accident such as falling down a flight of stairs, and had a miscarriage -- could be investigated and charged with murder of the unborn...and that is also on the books of some of these whackjob pro life states in the U.S. But, I said earlier that I don't believe conservatives' claims that they are merely following the rules -- I think the results of their anti-abortion/no aid to the poor advocacy leave us with a harsh, patriarchal state where women are back out of the public square to make babies, and the gap between rich and poor is even greater than it is today. This has been how things were done earlier in earlier times, and that's what the leaders of these movements want to return us to again....whether or not the authoritarian followers are smart enough to figure it out. And there is a larger problem I have mentioned elsewhere, that the U.S. is not going to be able to maintain its military and economic supremacy over the coming decades, regardless of their wishes. Right now, the U.S. is looking like every other flailing empire, anxious to hang on to its advantages. And that "geopolitical scheme" in my way of thinking, includes the economic globalization that has taken off since the end of WWII, and has ramped up our energy requirements, along with needing oil for growing food...something that was totally unnecessary just a few decades ago. And modern, globalized agriculture and food transport is not going to last much longer either, because of the rising cost of oil, and the ecological damage done by destroying topsoil and adding what may actually be the greater portion of human-created greenhouse gas levels. Ideology aside, the underlying reasons why governments love military spending is because it provides them with the opportunity to project power, and to use against their own people, if they try to overthrow them.....the U.S. started making use of private armies in New Orleans, after Hurricane Katrina; I expect this will be a trend that will continue if the economy declines and there is significant unrest at home. We've already seen through the Bush and the Obama administrations that there is no respect left for civil rights....every individual right can be violated now when the Government sees the need to. I used to be where you are now, but I changed my views both about conservative/libertarian philosophy and on religion. I don't believe in God or the existence of anything supernatural any more now than I did before, but I do believe that religion can serve to bring out both the best, and the worst in people. It can inspire tolerance, understanding and concern for those who are different; or it can engender fear, loathing and hostility. And, I probably don't need to explain to you what I see wrong with the kind of God, or the kind of religion that's practiced to underline rightwing social and political thinking. There is a general consensus among historians who track social trends that a rightwing religion got its real momentum when the Cold War got serious, and both socialism and atheism could be tied to communism by rightwing fanatics....like Joe McCarthy for one! They changed the Pledge of Allegiance to add God in 1954...if I'm not mistaken, as a way to solidify this doctrine. There may be a range of views on religion in Rightwing Land, but the atheist wing of this movement, like the Ayn Rand followers, are not leading the parade. FoxNews will call on Yaron Brook from ARI, when they want an ideological argument for rightwing economics or military policy, but they don't let him discuss his views on Christianity. The same can be said of this Tea Party trend in the Republican Party. They said it was all about deficits and taxes, but look at those House Republicans now! They are back to the guns, god and gays agenda. And fighting socialism meant supporting capitalism; so the historic contempt for the rich, and the accumulation of wealth had to be revised, and they started glossing over all of the condemnations of both in the Old and New Testaments to find a few parables that could be interpreted as justifying materialism....as long as they give their 10% to church of course! I don't think most on the left will excuse patriarchal cultural abuses that are brought over here with new immigrants...with the exception of some who follow post-modernism, where everything is relative and there is no right and wrong. For most of us, it is more about avoiding the rush to judgment that plagues the right -- where they make no attempt to learn about, or understand people who are different than them, and come from a different background. The big failing of the rightwing hostile approach to Muslim immigration for example, is how well this approach has worked in Europe....where the Muslim-haters here bitch about Eurabia and such, without asking themselves why we don't have a similar situation of Muslim immigrant ghettos over here. Most people just want what's best for themselves and their families, and do not view themselves as soldiers and cannon fodder for some great religious war. A liberal approach seems risky to people who are fearful and suspicious because it means giving the benefit of the doubt that people who look different, and may act a little different, are still basically like us. The conservative approach in this matter, is to keep them at arms length, and marginalized, just like Europe's example. Because it doesn't match the thinking of that rare animal - the rightwing atheist! But, I'll point you to the work of people like Manitoba University sociologist - Robert Altemeyer, who published his results from years of study of authoritarian and non-authoritarian personalities. The authoritarian types are more aggressive, but actually show higher emotional reactions of fear and hostility even in neutral situations. They are rule-based in their thinking, and that sets the majority of them up for religious fundamentalism...so it's no surprise that the demagogue who's looking to take advantage of these kinds of people gravitate to religious appeals and symbols. They are patriarchal, because their religious and family upbringing is more likely to be patriarchal, or elevate patriarchal virtues if they come from a broken home or such. That may not be your thinking....but you are the exception to the rule, and the outlier in rightwingland.

And your point is?

Exactly! This is a problem of scale. When my cousins were still living in Subbury 20 to 25 years ago, they used to complain that it was like living on the Moon; but that pales in comparison to the kind of global disaster we are heading in to by the intensifying greenhouse effect.

I just want to extend a word of thanks for this and other posts that give a little information about how the welfare system actually works. I've never been in the system, and I've never discussed the details of welfare and disability programs with my sister-in-law or others that I know who are either on public assistance, or have been in the past. It just doesn't seem to be the topic of polite conversation. But, I do know that middle class people who want to bitch and carp about people "living off them" are usually talking out of their asses. Most people are small game hunters by nature it seems; they'd rather attack someone who's under them on the economic ladder than go after the big game at the top of the heap!

If I might jump in here; the reason why I find your air pollution/CO2 equivalency argument invalid is because you've never addressed the point that reducing air pollution is actually a contributing factor to global warming, and may be the significant factor why global temperatures did not rise as quickly from 1940 to 1975 as they have since 1975, when emission standards were applied to automobiles and factories. I'm not making an argument in favour of air pollution! But, the simple fact that clearer skies has allowed more sunlight to be absorbed and melt polar ice caps etc., is a clear example of how, on balance, rising carbon dioxide levels is a much more serious problem than the effects of local air pollution.

Okay, show me the evidence! And this is the definition of a simplistic, biased statement since you haven't mentioned the efforts by big oil companies to maintain their system of tax incentives, while denying any tax incentives for the development of alternative energy. I wrote a piece about this awhile ago....BP did a quick take on alternative energy in their "Beyond Petroleum" phase, and scrapped it to double down on tar sands and deep sea oil, because the numbers came in showing that they would never be able to set up a centralized, controllable system of wind or solar energy that would allow them to rake in the equivalent profits. If oil remains the "foundation" and "bedrock" of civilization, it will be because of deliberate manipulation and strategizing by these oil companies who have no interest in seeing the oil age end....climate change be damned! Most of the oil that the U.S. spends their billions "securing" does not even flow to U.S. markets in the first place. The U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East is primarily set up to guarantee the smooth transport of oil for companies like Exxon, who didn't even pay one cent in corporate taxes to the IRS. U.S. Foreign Policy cannot be explained using the filters of what's good for its own national self-interests. It only makes sense in a world where large, multinational corporations have bought the political systems in the U.S. and most of the other nations in the World. Bullshit! Why does the U.S. need 1000 bases scattered around the World, and feel the need to dominate every region in the World? It's all about empire, and it's not even an empire that is interested in serving its own national interests. It's an empire that is primarily dedicated to serving the plutocrats that own most of the World's wealth. If it was all about the Cold War, the U.S. Military-Industrial Complex could have started winding down its costs and obligations after the end of the Cold War. Instead, they had to go out seeking a new enemy to justify military bases, proxy wars and continued spending on armaments....and I don't need to even mention the name of who the new enemy is that we were given when the so called "Clash Of Civilizations" began shortly after the Cold War ended. Even if that was true....which it is not in most cases....why shouldn't modern wealthy nations with their own modern military forces, such as Germany, Western Europe, Japan, South Korea, be expected to defend themselves. If there are U.S. military bases that are wanted in the colonies, it is at the behest of despots and dictators that are financially supported by the U.S....and popular uprisings are trying to dispose of today. You think the people of Bahrain want that U.S. naval base there? Why not allow democracy and put it up for a vote? We know what the princes and king want, what about the rest of the people; I'd be interested to see how they would vote if that base was put up for referendum!

Yes, but sexual harassment is worse for women who aren't all covered up. In India, women complain that if they are wearing Western-style shorter skirts they are literally violated on the buses and trains, and unless it devolves into outright rape, the police will not even file charges against the offender....the presumption being that she was enticing male attention. The same thing still goes in Italy from what we are hearing lately from women who have had large demonstrations against Berlusconi, and want these issues of sexual harassment and the constant bombardment of nude women on TV shows dealt with.....most of the TV happens to be owned by Berlusconi, so his latest sex scandal court trial has served as a useful event to deal with these issues. So, it's not just the Middle East where this is a problem; it's the presumption in many traditional cultures that men either arent' capable of, or shouldn't have to control their sexual impulses.....and it's the thinking of conservatives on this side of the ocean too!

They must be using different definitions to classify hunger and starvation! The one thing I do know is that the near future,as well as the longterm future is bleak when it comes to famine and starvation. I've heard a couple of population experts say recently that they have become skeptical of this 9 billion figure for 2050 as the peak world population; because the global food supply system is already straining to support the near 7 billion we have now. Just in: Climate Change May Cause ‘Massive’ Food Disruptions Global food supplies will face “massive disruptions” from climate change, Olam International Ltd. predicted, as Agrocorp International Pte. said corn will gain to a record, stoking food inflation and increasing hunger.

I know you're right, but maybe others who are leaning in this direction might sit up and take notice....or at least read something on abortion/birth control that doesn't come from one of these propaganda sites! There's not much you can do to persuade the great army of authoritarian followers who want a simple world with simple answers, and reinforce their simple-minded beliefs by reading only the filtered propaganda from websites that are intended to reinforce those beliefs. I've read recently that many women who work at Planned Parenthood clinics in the U.S. are facing hostility and death threats just because they educate about birth control and make arrangements for women who are seeking abortions. This sort of intimidation would not be possible without that army of simpleminded religious authoritarians.....and it's sad to see so many women in these movements who are willing to trade away any future rights they will have over when and how many children to have in the future. Right now, a lot of them feel secure in waving the placards and taking their place in the anti-abortion demonstrations because they know that if they close down the local clinic, there's always another one a few miles away....but what about when they're all gone....I doubt most of them have thought that far ahead.

If there is one big reason why I bolted and left all of rightwing political thinking behind me, it was the gradual discovery over the last ten years that individual conservative and libertarian causes weren't making sense. There were all of these little paradoxes like: why are rightwing capitalists who casually brush off poverty on the local and global level, so wound up about "unborn babies"....so wound up that they wave their general rules against government interference; why are U.S. conservatives so concerned about every penny spend on domestic budgets, but change the subject quick when it comes to government spending on the military; how did Rightwing Christianity go from the traditional suspicious and hostile view of those who accumulate wealth to one that celebrates and revels in material wealth. These are just some of the mysteries of modern political/religious thinking that stopped making sense and cannot be explained as long as issues are compartmentalized into neat little categories: abortion, taxation, government spending, defense etc. An integrated view is necessary that examines the agenda behind the Conservative Movement and takes a look at what their goals are for transforming what they consider a secular, immoral society. There have been many writers on the left of late who are taking a hard look at the authoritarian roots of conservatism and taking an integrated approach to right wing causes as a way to understand what this movement and its philosophy is really all about. A good jumping off point for exploring conservative motivations is posted today by George Lakoff on Alternet: What the Right-wing Assault on Women, Unions, the Environment, Health Care and PBS Is All About The central issue in our political life is not being discussed. At stake is the moral basis of American democracy. Budget deficits are a ruse, as we've seen in Wisconsin, where the Governor turned a surplus into a deficit by providing corporate tax breaks, and then used the deficit as a ploy to break the unions, not just in Wisconsin, but seeking to be the first domino in a nationwide conservative movement. Deficits can be addressed by raising revenue, plugging tax loopholes, putting people to work, and developing the economy long-term in all the ways the President has discussed. But deficits are not what really matters to conservatives. Conservatives really want to change the basis of American life, to make America run according to the conservative moral worldview in all areas of life. Conservatives believe in individual responsibility alone, not social responsibility. They don't think government should help its citizens. That is, they don't think citizens should help each other. The part of government they want to cut is not the military (we have 174 bases around the world), not government subsidies to corporations, not the aspect of government that fits their worldview. They want to cut the part that helps people. Why? Because that violates individual responsibility. But where does that view of individual responsibility alone come from?............... The way to understand the conservative moral system is to consider a strict father family. The father is The Decider, the ultimate moral authority in the family. His authority must not be challenged. His job is to protect the family, to support the family (by winning competitions in the marketplace), and to teach his kids right from wrong by disciplining them physically when they do wrong. The use of force is necessary and required. Only then will children develop the internal discipline to become moral beings. And only with such discipline will they be able to prosper. And what of people who are not prosperous? They don't have discipline, and without discipline they cannot be moral, so they deserve their poverty. The good people are hence the prosperous people. Helping others takes away their discipline, and hence makes them both unable to prosper on their own and function morally. The market itself is seen in this way. The slogan, "Let the market decide" assumes the market itself is The Decider. The market is seen as both natural (since it si assumed that people naturally seek their self-interest) and moral (if everyone seeks their own profit, the profit of all will be maximized by the invisible hand). As the ultimate moral authority, there should be no power higher than the market that might go against market values. Thus the government can spend money to protect the market and promote market values, but should not rule over it either through (1) regulation, (2) taxation, (3) unions and worker rights, (4) environmental protection or food safety laws, and (5) tort cases. Moreover, government should not do public service. The market has service industries for that. Thus, it would be wrong for the government to provide health care, education, public broadcasting, public parks, and so on............ In conservative family life, the strict father rules. Fathers and husbands should have control over reproduction; hence, parental and spousal notification laws and opposition to abortion. In conservative religion, God is seen as the strict father, the Lord, who rewards and punishes according to individual responsibility in following his Biblical word. Above all, the authority of conservatism itself must be maintained. The country should be ruled by conservative values, and progressive values are seen as evil. Science should have authority over the market, and so the science of global warming and evolution must be denied. ...................... Freedom is defined as being your own strict father - with individual not social responsibility, and without any government authority telling you what you can and cannot do. To defend that freedom as an individual, you will of course need a gun. This is the America that conservatives really want. Budget deficits are convenient ruses for destroying American democracy and replacing it with conservative rule in all areas of life. What is saddest of all is to see Democrats helping them. Exactly Mr. Lakoff! There are too many Democrats and liberals elsewhere who haven't been paying attention to the overall strategy that has changed our way of life over the last 30 years. And those who don't want to live under a Christian version of Muslim theocracy better wake up to it while we are still able to have a say about it.

You are totally disgusting for smearing the name of a doctor who saved the lives of many women with late-term dangerous pregnancies by posting shit like this! These anti-abortion crusaders that fomented this smear campaign that Dr. Tiller was a murderer for performing late term abortions along with the media agitators like Bill O'Reilly who publicized the campaign, are the ones with blood on their hands...not Dr. Tiller! These people you support, and yourself as well, depending on what if any active role you play in this fascist movement, are accessories to murder of doctors, nurses, and clinic volunteers who have been killed by crackpots on the fringe of this movement, who don't just go home after the anti-abortion demonstrations and rallies, but stalk abortion clinic staff and staff of organizations like Planned Parenthood, that are primarily dedicated to offering birth control information. The murderer of Dr. Tiller was inspired by people like you who throw the murder charge around carelessly, and you are just as complicit as the rightwing clowns who fomented the state of paranoia down in Arizona that led to the shooting of Congresswoman Giffords and the murder of six people at the event. All of the right wing clowns who fomented the hysteria over crackpot interpretations of language, currency and constitution issues inspired the Tucson Shooter to carry out his crime. Likewise the most egregious, foul members of this so called pro-life movement like Randall Terry, have had several members of their organizations and even inner circles run off to kill, or attempt to kill abortion providers. Then, afterwards, Terry and similar scum wash their hands of the affair and declare that it had nothing to do with them! You wave your religion around and make stupid arguments about life, and declare yourself to be something above us atheists, who for whatever reasons, got fed up with being told that mythology has to be taken as fact. The fact that you can make no distinction between Dr. Tiller, and the murderer of Dr. Tiller is all the evidence I need to know that declaring embryos and fetuses to be equal to conscious human life, is a philosophy that devalues and degrades ALL human life!

This is how you can be sure that the crusade against abortion has nothing to do with morality or concern for life. Best unattributed quote is "their concern for life ends when it comes out of the womb."

If there were half a billion starving back when Paul Ehrlich wrote the Population Bomb, at a time when there were 3.5 billion people in the world, and there are now one billion starving at a time when the World population nears 7 billion, it still doesn't add up to cutting hunger in half: The Population Bomb Revisited

Why is this important to you? You're the one who advocates the overfed and the underfed fight to the death for dwindling food supplies in poor countries. Why should you care whether or not women there have abortions?

Whatever the details are, I found a little insight on Al Jazeera English Channel last night when they interviewed an Egyptian female activist about problems women were experiencing of late in the Square. From her summation the crowd that gathered on Friday and over the weekend, was not the same as the crowds protesting before Mubarak was forced out of office. It seems that in the early days, only the committed activists, willing to risk death and/or imprisonment went to Tahrir Square. She said that she stayed overnight several nights in a row and had no problems from the men who made up the majority of protesters. But, after the fall, the crowds turned into celebrations, and more people came into the Square who had played no part in the protests, and were just looking for action. From a cultural perspective, Egypt and many other Middle Eastern countries (India also) never had women in public before the last 30 years or so. The covering up of women in many cases has come from the women, not the men, in an attempt to achieve some protection from unwanted groping or fondling from men when they are riding buses and going to and from work.

If I'm not mistaken, wasn't Hillary making a speech admonishing Arab governments to allow freedom of speech and the right to peacefully assemble and demonstrate against government policies? If it was, it's kind of ironic!

NO spare any who really care about civil liberties! The continued trampling of civil rights in the name of security under the Obama Administration is worse than having it under Bush; because at least Bush was setting a precedent with the use of torture, secret prisons, domestic spying etc.; but the fact that Obama and team are carrying out the Bush legacy to the letter means that it will be even more difficult for a future U.S. administration to undue the damage and bring back respect for liberty.