Skip to main content

Musings

 

Right-To-Lifers Don’t Go Far Enough

 

    I was pro-choice, but I’ve changed my mind.  The problem is not that the State should govern what a woman does with her body, the problem is that the State has not gone far enough.  The argument is that to protect the life of a fetus, the State must overrule a woman’s privacy and bodily autonomy and regulate her body for her.  Fine.  If we want the State to be in the business of protecting life through bodily regulation, then go all in.  Stick to the prime directive.  Protect all life.

  The State should govern both men and women to protect life.  The State should tell any healthy person what to do with their body in order to protect life.  So, if someone needs a kidney, liver, or any organ transplant to save their life, the State should find someone and take whatever parts are needed to save that life.  If not, then we are allowing organ-icide.  (Let’s start with the Senate and the Supreme Court.  They’re mostly old and on the way out, anyway).

  However, requiring someone to be vaccinated against Covid-19, or any other virus, as has been done for decades, in order to attend school, work or any event, to protect the public health, well, that’s an invasion of privacy and cannot be allowed.  Slippery slope, you know.

 

On the Deep State and Trump

 

  I’m confused.  Donald Trump pledged to replace the idiots in previous administrations with the best people, and to rid government of the Deep State.  So, he appointed a record number of judges, and he hired and appointed a great number of top cabinet and agency officials and staffers.  Then, many of them were indicted and were replaced; many resigned and were replaced; many were fired and replaced, and fired and replaced, etc.   Okay.  So far, I understand.  This could have happened in any previous administration (although it didn’t in 200+ years).  But, it could have happened.

  What confuses me is the fact that in 60 or so court cases brought by Trump’s legal team to reverse the election results, he lost every one of them.  [note: nine of Trump’s lawyers have been referred for sanctions as of August 25th.]  Many of the judges ruling against him were appointed by him or other Republican Presidents.  There were also heads of agencies, most notably his Attorney General Willian Barr, his guy, his protector, his “Roy Cohn”, who certified that the election was free, fair and well run.  Even a Republican-led Congressional Committee came to the same conclusion.  Rudy Giuliani, Sydney Powell and the pillow guy said they had irrefutable evidence, but they never presented any, even in the court cases.  They presented lots and lots of hearsay, but no real evidence.  It was unanimous:  Trump lost in a free and fair election.

  So, these people were all appointed, hired, or endorsed by Trump; therefore, they could not be part of the Deep State.  Then, they failed to support him, were fired, indicted, convicted or resigned, so they must be part of the Deep State.  But, if so, how could he have appointed, hired or endorsed them in the first place, if he, and only he, could put the absolute best people in his administration?  How could he support so many people who turned out to be Deep Staters?  How could so many people end up in the swamp that he claimed only he could drain?

  Would some MAGA people out there please explain this to me so that I can MAGA, too?

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

John Henry and The Common Good

Well John Henry said to the captain "By   god I ain't no fool Before I die with a hammer in my hand I'm gonna get me a steam drill, too, lord, lord Get me a steam drill, too" - parody by the great Smothers Brothers They had the right idea.   Instead of millions of workers being put out of work by robots, workers should have ownership of the robots that replace them, which they then lease to the companies that they once worked for, giving them a wage, a stake in the success of the company, and the opportunity to do other work as well.   This would be not too dissimilar to the annual dividends that all Alaskans get from the energy companies, although there will need to be an alternative as we move away from fossil fuels.   This would all fall under the broad umbrella of taking care of the common good, a concept that we've too often replaced with individualism.   Entrepreneurial spirit is fine.   I had it when I ran a small business. ...
Post a Comment
Read more
The National Rifle Association-backed gun advocates claim that passing this law or that law wouldn't have prevented this mass shooting or that mass shooting.  It's a completely false argument.  It's like saying that passing this election reform law or that election reform law wouldn't have prevented Donald Trump or Mitch McConnell or Paul Ryan from being elected.  It may be true, but it would be a good start. - Pete Barkett   02/22/18
Post a Comment
Read more
 Bannon Up! This analogy is far from perfect, but it represents to me a futile mindset.   A sacrifice bunt in baseball involves giving up an out to advance a runner into a better position to score a run.   Occasionally, a pitcher tries so hard to throw pitches that are difficult to bunt, that he ends up walking the batter, which moves the lead runner into scoring position, gets no out, and puts another runner on base.   I’ve heard former coaches and players announcing games cry, “He’s trying to make an out.   Let him!”   I believe Steve Bannon wants to go to prison, to make himself a martyr and hero to the right-wing nuts who support him.   I say, let him.   I’ve heard some pundits worry that convicting him would further infuriate the right-wing nuts.   I think it’s time to abandon that type of thinking.   We have seen time after time that making concessions to appease these people is completely unproductive.   They see conces...
Post a Comment
Read more