Hello,
I am not trying to kiss rear here. Actually, I have posted on another topic in which I have disagreed with you. But you left little room for other comments on this topic. You pretty much ripped to shreds the dumbest political comment I have ever heard or read, at least by Howard Dean, and that is feat that is noteworthy...:)

Casey Caldwell

Oh, no. I didn't vote for him. He doesn't speak for us. Besides- elected officials aren't exactly known for their eloquent speaking skills...
May I quote?
"aiiiiiiiggghhhh!"
lovebob

Oh, no. I didn't vote for him. He doesn't speak for us. Besides- elected officials aren't exactly known for their eloquent speaking skills...

Yeah, but there's a significant danger that, as head of the party, who you do vote for could be following his lead.

I understand the notion behind sacrifice; that you give up or destroy thing A (often a thing of commonly recognized value) for the sake of thing B to indicate the greater value of thing B (sometimes a thing of more spiritual or intangible value.)

And I can understand the meaning of saying that someone has no strong values that they're willing to make great sacrifices for, nothing that a person is willing to put their life or finanical success on the line for.

I can also understand the claim that a person has no consistant values. An philosophical Epicurian might rebuke a thoughtless hedonist for numerous one night stands, saying that his lifestyle would lead to disease and pain, that his actions weren't consistant with the value that he placed on feeling good. Of course, polititical parties have been calling each other hypocritical since as far back as I can remember so it's not like this is a new charge.

But I don't see how a person can have NO values. Heck, Hitler and Mao had values. Everyone has values. Even materialists have to admit that physical goods are only a means to an end - an indicator of some other less physical value.

I've known a lot of folks who would be considered 'leftist' who were willing to give up financial security and even personal safety to live according to their beliefs. One friend with a masters degree, an author of multiple books, makes close to minimum wage arranging for people to teach in China, because she believes building a bridge between our culture and theirs could help prevent a war later on. Others have suffered arrest as a form of protest against the Iraq war.

You can't tell me a person like this is not willing to sacrifice anything.

A person might refuse to recognize values different than their own or might recognize those values and disagree with them or disparage them. But the notion of having no values whatsoever?

"Values" obviously has come to take on some coded meaning that's different than the standard meaning, in the same way that "pro-life" has come to be shorthand for 'legal rights from conception and an opposition to euthenasia' while "pro-choice" has come to refer to the desire for laws which keep abortion legal.

Anyone care to enlighten me on what "values" is a code word for?

I understand the notion behind sacrifice; that you give up or destroy thing A (often a thing of commonly recognized value) for the sake of thing B to indicate the greater value of thing B (sometimes a thing of more spiritual or intangible value.)

And I can understand the meaning of saying that someone has no strong values that they're willing to make great sacrifices for, nothing that a person is willing to put their life or finanical success on the line for.

I can also understand the claim that a person has no consistant values. An philosophical Epicurian might rebuke a thoughtless hedonist for numerous one night stands, saying that his lifestyle would lead to disease and pain, that his actions weren't consistant with the value that he placed on feeling good. Of course, polititical parties have been calling each other hypocritical since as far back as I can remember so it's not like this is a new charge.

But I don't see how a person can have NO values. Heck, Hitler and Mao had values. Everyone has values. Even materialists have to admit that physical goods are only a means to an end - an indicator of some other less physical value.

I've known a lot of folks who would be considered 'leftist' who were willing to give up financial security and even personal safety to live according to their beliefs. One friend with a masters degree, an author of multiple books, makes close to minimum wage arranging for people to teach in China, because she believes building a bridge between our culture and theirs could help prevent a war later on. Others have suffered arrest as a form of protest against the Iraq war.

You can't tell me a person like this is not willing to sacrifice anything.

A person might refuse to recognize values different than their own or might recognize those values and disagree with them or disparage them. But the notion of having no values whatsoever?

"Values" obviously has come to take on some coded meaning that's different than the standard meaning, in the same way that "pro-life" has come to be shorthand for 'legal rights from conception and an opposition to euthanasia' while "pro-choice" has come to refer to the desire for laws which keep abortion legal.

Anyone care to enlighten me on what "values" is a code word for?

In politics, terms carry peculiar (as in unique) meanings that many times don't obtain outside that sphere.

"Values" in the political arena came about when the left wanted to avoid the impression that they lacked that mainstream note that the right had been generally known for, and had been using the term "Family Values" to describe.

"Family Values" is in itself a slight generalizing of the phrase "Traditional Family Values," which started off on the far right. The shortened version plays better to a broader Repub. base without alienating the true "traditional family values" segment. Generally, an effective move on the part of Repubs. When used on the right, the term has strong connections with pro-life causes such as abortion and euthanasia; and to a lesser degree, with stay-at-home soccer moms who raise their own kids instead of the daycare center workers, and traditional family structures (man-woman marriages as the only legitimate union, separate spheres of responsibility in the family, the husband as the primary breadwinner and still the "head of the house," etc.) Sure, not all Repubs support each of these elements with equal enthusiasm, but the party as been able to throw a big tent over the common impulses that run generally in the same direction.

(As I'm typing this, I'm watching a commercial on TV: Barbara Bush, the former First Lady, is promoting families eating meals together as a way to strengthen America. That's right in tune with the platform).

This identification left the Dems looking as if they lacked any ethos that supported life or close family structures; that the V-chip in the TV passed for parental supervision and that they were a little too quick to "pull the plug" on Grandma. So they have started banging their own drum and use the more general term "values." They are less clear exactly which values they are promoting, compared to the Repubs, but now they can say "we have values, too!" This is a defensive move to close a perceived vulnerability, e.g., pawn blocks knight.

The Dems are trying to incorporate "values" and "God talk" (seeing the resonation the right gets from Middle America, which is still quite religious) into their dialogue, but they're so vague on the one and so unfamiar with the other that the results are sometimes comic, e.g., the mis-quoting/mis-identification of Bible verses that are "sewn into" speeches, etc.

I'm not trying to be hard on the Dems here, but in this particular area they seem to be scrambling to consolidate a shrinking base and do a little image make-over as they see themselves losing elections and influence they enjoyed in the middle of the last century by giving lipservice to (or if you prefer, re-discovering) mainstream "values".

The Dems are trying to incorporate "values" and "God talk" ... into their dialogue ... the results are sometimes comic, e.g., the mis-quoting/mis-identification of Bible verses that are "sewn into" speeches, etc.

Yeah: sometimes works when done on cue, but you end up placing the book of Job in the New Testament if you let the reporters ask you questions. It's a bit like me trying to convince a professional chef I knew a lot about gourmet cooking: he'd see through it in a minute, and I'd been an arrogant fool if I thought I could pull it off.

I'm not trying to be hard on the Dems here, but in this particular area they seem to be scrambling to consolidate a shrinking base and do a little image make-over as they see themselves losing elections and influence they enjoyed in the middle of the last century by giving lipservice to (or if you prefer, re-discovering) mainstream "values".

Great writing, and dead-on insight, in my opinion.

It's tough when your values and policies don't sell, and you're neither willing to abandon them nor your quest to put them into power. That leaves you with either spinning or lying about them.

Neither is pretty.

Tim,

It's fair to say at the least that the Republican party hasn't been any more honest about their ambitions than the Democrats.

The Republicans have touted themselves as the party of lower taxes and strong defense, but they've actually drastically grown the size of government and run up the national debt. Right or wrong, how often do you hear that plan explicitly endorsed? In everything I've ever heard, the Republican party has promised to lower taxes while, at the national level it has dramatically increased spending. The Republican party spent the 90s trying to convince people that high taxes were caused by welfare, which, while needing reform, was never more than 1% of the national budget. There's a good argument to be made for many Republican policies, but that hasn't stopped Republican polititians from using incredibly vauge terms and outright deceptive tactics.

SOME MEDICAL CONDITION MIGHT REQUIRE THE REMOVAL OF THE BABY FROM THE WOMB FOR ITS OWN SURVIVAL AND PLACEMENT IN INTENSIVE CARE (FOR EXAMPLE, ALLERGY TO THE MOTHER).

I'm curious whether this is possible or not - taking a 3 month old fetus and putting it in 'intensive care.' How long does a fetus have to gestate before this becomes possible? If it is possible, so be it. That seems like an effective solution to the mother's body vs baby's body diellema. But could you provide some support for your assertion? Congress recently passed a law outlawing the use of technology to create artificial wombs, and I thought that the option you suggest (removing the baby from the mother) was effectively hindered by this.

The Republican party spent the 90s trying to convince people that high taxes were caused by welfare, which, while needing reform, was never more than 1% of the national budget.

I should probably ammend my previous comment. If you include all forms of government subsidy (medicare, medicaid, etc.) as "welfare" and not just the actual rolls themselves, the numbers are a fair bit higher.

Abortion is very wrong. Taking a life away from this earth when you can just send it to adoption. But we need the steam cells for many diceases. I think we should just clone humans and take theirs.