Thursday, October 06, 2005strong and well reasoned take on the pro-life crowd's strange stance on allowing people to die without pain:
For whatever reason, vocal advocates within the Âpro-lifeÂ community are against assisted suicide, but are also against adequate pain treatment- or at least the real worry is that dying patients might get addicted to pain medicine. The attitude of some, it seems, is that you are supposed to die, in pain, helpless, desperate, and without proper relief, because that is how Christ would have wanted you to go.
And that sends me into what can only be described as a volcanic rage.
As I understand it, states rights are important for school boards that want to discriminate, businesses who want below poverty minimum wages, and taxpayers who don't want to provide even minimum medical care to its citizens. But states rights are a bad thing for states that don't want to mandate school prayer, want to respect the rights of gay couples to marry, and want to allow people to die in peace.
Why do I get the feeling that the right-wing is attempting to legislate their religious beliefs on America?
I know I wasn't reading Powerline Blog at the time, but I know how to use Google to look things up. Here's a link to a Google Search for the terms "Lott" and "Thurmond" on powerlineblog.com.
Here was their take at the time:
John Hinderaker: "Still, it is incomprehensible how Lott could have such a deaf ear as not to realize how bizarre it would sound to express regret that Thurmond lost the 1948 election."
Sounds to me like Hinderaker's main complaint about Lott is that he said something out loud that's supposed to be kept on the down-low.
John Hinderaker: "Lott and the other participants in the Thurmond event were guilty of a massive, collective failure of judgment in the way they handled the event."
So, the problem isn't the racist comments, but the PR problems caused by those comments?
John Hinderaker: "For Republicans to give up this moral high ground by failing to take the opportunity to distinguish between Thurmond's inglorious past as a Democrat and his mainstream present as a Republican was unforgivably stupid."
Hinderaker's attempt to claim the Republican party isn't the party of the bigoted South is hilarious. Has he forgotten why the South shifted from Democratic to Republican dominance? Hinderaker is a member of the same party of Trent Lott and former Dixiecrat, Strom Thurmond.
Paul Mirengoff: "Lott's error was not his praise of Thurmond. Thurmond is praiseworthy in some respects and, even if he were not, no one could reasonably take major offense at a general offer of praise to the 100-year-old Senator. The problem was Lott's claim that the nation would have been better off if Thurmond had been elected in 1948, a statement that seems to state a preference for Thurmond's segregationist views."
So Deacon agrees with Hindrocket that the problem isn't what Lott said, but that he said it out loud? He "seems to state a preference for Thurmond's segregationist views?" Of course he does. To suggest otherwise is laughable.
That's it. That's Paul Mirengoff's definition of being highly critical of Trent Lott. To me, it sounds a lot more like the analysis of a tactical error by a man they support. As Hindrocket puts it, their biggest concern is Lott's and other's "collective failure of judgment in the way they handled the event."
If that's Powerline Blog's go to example proving that "they don't shield anybody" and will be "highly critical" of other conservatives, I think we get the point.
Power Line is Fair and Balanced
So sez The Factor. According to Paul Mirengoff, they don't attack liberals including Dan Rather. They just promote conservative ideas. lol
Monday, October 03, 2005
A US soldier convicted of abusing Iraqi prisoners said, in remarks recently made public, she knew of "worse things" happening at Abu Ghraib and insisted military commanders were fully aware of what was going on in Iraq's infamous jail.
The comments, made by Private First Class Lynndie England in her first post-court-martial interview, contradicted assertions by top Pentagon officials that a small group of out-of-control soldiers were responsible for abuse at Abu Ghraib, and that no matter how repulsive that mistreatment was, it did not amount to torture.