C: I have received the Observer-Reporter for over 20 years even with the political left slant in most headlines. The endorsement you gave in 2004 to John Kerry was weak at best but the endorsement for Obama lacks any reasoning or facts on him. You talk more about how John McCain is not ready than Obama being qualified. Could that be because of his slim resume as you mention. You compare his slim resume to Sarah Palin who is running for VP with John McCain. Truth is she has more experience in governemnt than Obama. Biden? The guys a joke and not worth talking about. I can't subscribe to a paper that endorses a SOCIALIST. And Obama is a socialist if you care to check. Thank you for your time. Now I will call and cancel my subscription. - T.S.
Answer No. 1: "Error of opinion is to be tolerated when reason is left free to combat it." - Thomas Jefferson
Answer No. 2: Oh, shut up you nasty old crank.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
47 comments:
I just love you G.O.E. - you say what I am afraid to, but most certainly think.
Give 'em heck!
There’s an issue that your newspaper failed to address in its editorial endorsing the Democratic candidate: Obama has promised to sign, as his first presidential act, the Freedom of Choice Act, a bill that he co-sponsored. FOCA will mean abortion on demand in all nine months of pregnancy. Partial birth abortion will be resumed, that is, sticking scissors into the brain of a partially aborted infant to kill it. It seems a dichotomy to me that your newspaper considers newsworthy a report that a man is jailed for stabbing his son, but there is no mention of the heinous and gruesome murder of infants that will resume under an Obama presidency. That man is more “temperamentally” suited for the presidency and I'm a nasty old crank.
If he signs that bill... does that retroactively make him qualified? Since he would have a sponsored piece of legislation...
-ellipses
Brant,
My heart is warmed by your thoughtful, insightful, and erudite response which reflects impeccable journalism. You make your critics’ point that the mainstream media are a group of cookie cutter insensitive blowhards far better than I ever could.
It was just my attempt - sarcastically, of course - to point out all the misinformation that gets spread, and accepted as fact, in the course of political campaigns. Obama does not favor unfettered abortions for anyone at any time. He is not a Muslim. He is not a terrorist. But you have people at campaign rallies screaming this stuff. It's ridiculous. If you disagree with the guy's policies, his actual policies, you should vote for McCain. If you disagree with McCain's policies - not his long-ago ties to a crooked banker or his treatment of his first wife - vote for Obama. We just need to stick with the facts that are pertinent to the future of the country. Is that thoughtful enough for you?
"Obama does not favor unfettered abortions for anyone at any time."
Brant,
You are wrong about this. Obama thinks abortion is good social policy and favors no restrictions.
Anon... I am not sure we are drawing a clear distinction here... I think that legal abortion IS a good social policy... and that if abortion were illegal, that would be a BAD social policy...
-ellipses
Ellipses,
Obviously, Obama is your man and the polls indicate he will win the election. But Christian humanism will continue to fight against secular humanism.
And secular humanists will continue to fight against the religious right trying to impose its will as government policy. The battle will go on long after all of us are dead. On an issue like abortion, it's hard to find middle ground. The religious right wants no abortions, for any reason, even if carrying the child is likely to kill the mother. Wingnuts on the opposite side want absolutely no restrictions, to the point that a woman could go into an abortion provider's office the day before her due date and have the procedure. I think a solid majority of people, me included, want to reduce the number of abortions, to zero if possible, but don't favor the approach of either "fringe."
Anon... How about the right to die? How do you feel on a person's right (real or proposed) to end their own life and for a physician to assist? I'm just curious because it serves as an interesting parallel to the abortion argument... Nobody hopes to have a painful and terminal disease, but many would wish to be able to escape that agony if the situation presented itself. On the same note, no one gets excited when the number of abortions spike... no one is giddy waiting for their first abortion... it's a choice no one wants to have to make... but many are stone cold in favor of that choice being available if the circumstances present themselves.
-ellipses
Ellipses and Brant,
Dostoyevsky wrote, "If God does not exist, everything is permissible." And St. Paul wrote that all men, pagan and Christian, know God's moral law. There can be morality without religion. God instills morality in our hearts through grace. See Romans 1:17-21if you are so inclined. The point is that men, in their hearts, know that abortion and euthanasia are wrong, as they know that slavery and racism are wrong, without being religious. "Thou shall not kill" is not for only Christians. Ellipses, I watched my mother die an agonizing death from pancreatic cancer. At one point she asked me to help her end her life. If I had acquiesced, we would both have been denied a particularly beautiful moment when, near a natural death, not drug-induced, her face became luminous and she experienced joy as she beheld her Savior. Catholics believe that suffering is redemptive. The secular world has a repugnance for any form of suffering, be it the inconvenience of an unwanted child or terminal illness. Its remedy is to kill.
I do appreciate the comments from both of you.
In one's life, where there is not that "faith" in God (or even the belief of His existence), that suffering is not necessary. I, for one, would prefer to die in a numb, drug-induced stupor... rather than waiting through months of agony, hoping for a moment of illumination... surely, those who die of drug overdoses, independent of terminal illness, either get to experience the realization of God or simply slip off into death. If God exists, be it in the form you believe, or in a different form, I imagine that knowledge of Him is provided to those who die "unnatural" deaths. However, I must reiterate a rather dull point... This is not to encourage a mandate... but rather, to allow a choice. You would perfectly able to endure your "penance on earth", if that were your choice... but I should at least be afforded the choice to exit when I see fit and with whatever comfort level the miracle of science can provide.
-ellipses... equally enjoys your comments... and hopes that perhaps, we are developing the conversation that Park was looking for
I can't do any better than that. Ellipses, whatever his detractors might say, if a true genius. I would just add that you really have no idea whether your mother beheld her Savior. She may very well have just been delirious from pain that you could have spared her. This whole suffering to the end thing sounds like a snuff film to me, much like Gibson's movie on the Crucifixion. I am absolutely in favor of euthanasia, and I would never presume to tell a woman what to do with her body.
Ellipses,
I'm not good with suffering, either. My mother was as comfortable as possible, with food and water available and her pain at a comfortable level. Without even considering the morality of assisted suicide, legalizing same certainly carries the risk of involuntary euthanasia. Just look at Holland.
I am absolutely in favor of assisted suicide, with the knowledge that there could be a "mistake" made on rare occasions. Some people want to fight terminal illnesses until the end. Others, in looking back on their lives, might think that they have had a good life and no longer want to struggle on in the face of intense pain and suffering. I think it's humane to assist those people who make that choice, rather than force an elderly or sick person to hook up a hose to their car exhaust, or even more sickening, to put an elderly couple in the position where one shoots the other, then him or herself. Also, I did not mean to belittle the previous poster who talked of his mother seeing her Savior on her deathbed. If that is comforting to him or her, I'm glad for that. We all need something to hang onto in times like that. I'm just saying that the only person who really knows what they experience at the time of their death is the person who is dying, and such perceptions can be altered by the effects of severe pain or medications. I have been an atheist since I reached the "age of reason," but if, on my deathbed, an otherwordly figure comes to me in some fashion and asks me to join his or her team in the afterlife, I'm open to reconsideration. I'm a person who believes in what he sees, and if I see that, it's something I'll have to ponder. I just hope it's not this week. Cheers and good wishes to you all.
This is all very lovely, but the original post was about the endorsement of Obama. While labelled whine whine whine, the answers provided by GOE were about as mature as the orignal post.
How do you respond to the left-leaning headline accusation. By reading these blogs, the poster appears to have a point. The O-R editorial perspective is very liberal (at least socially).
Remember, people do pay to read your product, and you just did one heck of a job trying to explain yourself and open a dialog with this reader.
Actually, I just went back and re-read the original post, and it was not written disrespectfully. GOE's response was out of line, even if this does come down to a matter of opinion. Very disappointing.
Accusing the O-R of slanting headlines without offering a single example, calling Joe Biden a "joke" and labeling Obama a socialist. (Obama is not a true socialist, though he's certainly way left of McCain). Yeah, that original post sure was respectful.
"Oh, shut up you nasty old crank." I guess that was meant to be funny, but it was hardly a way to treat a 20 year subscriber. You must have too many subscribers to worry about that one. Don't worry though, you will take care of that soon enough based on your ability to engage them in a dialogue. If a reader does not agree with the O-R editorial staff and its blogging cronies you simply belittle them. Your endorsement was weak on examples as well, so do not pick on TS.
First of all, T.S. already made up his mind and quit the paper before I could answer him; and second, Jeesh! Doesn't anyone have a sense of humor anymore?
"Doesn't anyone have a sense of humor anymore?"
I do. But I'm scared because of what's happening. After the election of Obama, the MSM will stomp out any dissenting voice, be it by intimidation, belittlement, harassment, or Joe the Plumber tactics. This will and already has had a chilling effect on any public dialogue. And it creeps me out.
Holy jeez! I thought you had to import idiocy of that caliber!
Obama pretty much does favor unfettered abortion, including the killing of babies born alive during an abortion. That pretty much sums it up for me. This lack of regard for human life signals the road that our society is heading down. Cheer if you like, but I hate it that you could take the rest of us down with you! Hitler started with "mercy" killing as well. Only those that he felt were too retarded, too sick etc. Obviously the slope was pretty slippery. A skilled leader who virtually eliminated unemployment and poverty, along with anyone that he did not want to have around. We are on that slope.
Would you care to elaborate on your claim there? When you say that he is in favor of killing babies born alive during an abortion... why do you say that? I know the answer, but I am fostering conversation...
-ellipses
Obama voted numerous times (2001, 2003 and 2004) against proposed Illinois legislation that would have granted rights to any baby that was born alive during an abortion. Obama has done a poor job defending his vote. In the absence of a coherent defense, it would appear that Obama would go to any length to defend a woman's right to kill her baby (not weaken abortion rights). This I find troubling. It is tough standing still on the slope. If you for one instance recognize the fact that these "fetuses" are human beings with any rights, many of the pro-abortion arguments look pretty barbaric. Thanks for fostering conversation...
Obama voted against that legislation because it included no provision for considering the health and/or life of the mother. It's that simple. I'm curious. If a woman is carrying a baby, and there's a very good chance, because of a medical condition that develops, she could very likely die, do you condemn her to that very likely fate, or do you allow an abortion?
Here's the definition of born alive:
"the complete expulsion or extraction from his or her mother of that member, at any stage of development, who after such expulsion or extraction breathes or has a beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles, regardless of whether the umbilical cord has been cut, and regardless of whether the expulsion or extraction occurs as a result of natural or induced labor, caesarean section, or induced abortion."
Please be so kind as to elaborate how a mother's health could be in danger AFTER the birth of her child. Why is it necessary to kill the child?
I do not see if the baby was born during the abortion how it impacts the mother's health. The baby has been born. Do you throw it in the trash or do you give it medical attention? One would assume that the mother is being cared for as well.
My apologies. I misread the previous post and thought it was related to abortions in general. Anyway, here's an excerpt from "The Hill" regarding the Illinois legislation you reference:
From 2001 to 2002, Obama voted either "present" or "no" on the legislation. In his floor speeches at the time, he cited in particular his concerns about the constitutionality of the definition of a "born alive infant" and the inclusion of potential civil and criminal penalties for doctors in these situations. He also warned that the bill might compromise the relationship between a woman and her doctor. The measure failed in the Illinois Statehouse in both 2001 and 2002.
Without reading the entire bill, I can't say whether I agree or disagree with Obama's assessment of it. I would say, in general, that any baby who is born alive should receive medical care, based on the desires of the parents, not the state or federal government. I also still would like an answer to the question of whether a woman whose live is in danger because of a pregnancy should be allowed to have an abortion.
I meant "life."
I would say that there are very few instances where this would be relevant, but for the sake of argument, ok, yes. If that is what Obama stood for, I could see his appeal to many people.
However, that is not what Obama stands for. He cannot wait to sign the Freedom of Choice Act, which as stated by someone earlier, creates a fundamental right to abortion, up to the final weeks of pregnancy, eliminates state level laws including parental notification for minors, state and federal funding restrictions on abortion, and conscience protections health-care workers. Additionally, he plans to repeal the Hyde amendment, which protects citizens from having to pay for abortions that are not necessary to save the life of the mother and are not the result of rape or incest. He also has not supported the Pregnant Women Support Act, which does not make any abortion illegal, but is meant to provide pregnant women considering abortion crisis resources.
I guess my point is that Obama is militantly pro-abortion.
And the answer to my question regarding abortions to save the life of the mother ...
First line of my last post was refering to your question...
Gotcha. That's where a lot of the pro-life people lose me, when they want a child who has been raped or a woman who might die to be forced to carry the fetus to term. I would have no problem with a ban on abortions after the first-trimester, provided it had those exceptions. Anyone who can't determine in the first three months whether to have an abortion should have no recourse thereafter, in my opinion.
That is why I find Obama so out there. He appears to be dead-set on creating on-demand abortion at any cost. And the cost will be high.
If I recall correctly, something like .03% of abortions are actually "late term"... and the reasons for those very few actual procedures range from a health problem that develops late in the pregnancy to even the mother being mentally retarded and the pregnancy not discovered until too late... if I had to suppose why people keep late term abortion on the table, it would be because so few abortions occur later in the term... rather than draw an arbitrary line (1st trimester) and have complications arise (the girl was 2 days past the "deadline")... they try to keep it unrestrained, banking on human decency to keep the truly abhorrent procedures to an absolute minimum... Nobody wants babies aborted at 7 or 8 months... but nobody wants the raped teen who is in denial about the abuse and doesn't realize she is pregnant to be denied a procedure because she's past the cutoff date.
Your clever little ditty brings to mind something I read from Mere Chrsitianity. When we read something bad about someone and then it turns out that that person is not quite so bad, are we inclined to be disappointed, or do we say, "Thank God even they aren't quite as bad as I thought." If we think our enemies as bad as possible, it is a process which will make us into devils. Through this process, we might insist on seeing everything as bad, and we shall be fixed forever in a universe of pure hatred. Even though many Catholics consider Obama their enemy, I was very heartened to visit a blog today and learn that prayers are being requested for him and his ailing grandmother. That is Chrstianity -- loving and praying for your enemy, despite hating his agenda.
Maybe it is Chrstianity : Chrstianity -- loving and praying for your enemy, despite hating his agenda.
It certainly isn't Christianity--hate that shows no compromise for other religions or beliefs!
Have a blessed day.
Suisun City, CA
I consider it a reign of terror when a religion prohibits its followers from using contraceptives in a world that is being ravaged by overpopulation. But of course the pope, who in reality just happens to be another human like you and me, is infallible, if he chooses to invoke that "power."
Brant,
What aspect of alleged overpopulation troubles you? Or are you just dissing Catholicism? If you are an environmentalist concerned about the spotted owl or a species of bug, then that’s another topic entirely.
Are you trying to tell me that overpopulation is a hoax (just like that gosh darn global warming)? I'm talking about overpopulation that risks the people of the world not having enough food to eat, and wars breaking out because of that. But, why worry? Lets just blithely ignore that and coast through life unaware.
Y-
You have NO idea who me and my "ilk" are!
You should not assume anything....as you make an ass out of you and me.
The original post is about Obama-not abortion. You are the one who is pushing your agenda!
If you really want to know... I dont condone abortion. If you do away with the choice- "babies" will be terminated under other circumstances. Other cultures have ways of addressing unwanted pregnancies too, althought politically incorrect to address it. There are too many reasons to list why abortion should be a medical procedure option. That doesnt mean using it as a form of birth control! The choice should be personal.
And that overpopulation of which you lament is a result of Catholics not using contraceptives? Sorry Brant, but Catholicism represents a culture of life, not a culture of death.
Suisun City,
I apologize for offending you. Sadly, abortion is used for birth control today and will be used in that manner to even a greater degree when Obama signs the FOCA legislation, with no restrictions for the 9-month period of pregnancy.
Is that Culture of Life thing like the "Circle of Life" from the "Lion King." I liked that. Just so we're clear. I have plenty of dislike for the Roman Catholic Church and most other organized religions. I won't list all the reasons, for they are plentiful. I, do, however, love a lot of individual Catholics, Christians, etc. It's kind of like the way Catholics feel about gays. Hate the church, not the parishioners.
Very nice analogy, Brant. I like that, too. The Risen Christ moves us all through despair and hope, through faith and love, till we find our place in Heaven. Lovely.
I just knew I'd get it eventually. ;)
Post a Comment