That guy had some stones to ask that question. Man, what a prick. haha. He has a good point but damn! hahaha!

Link to this comment :: ^Back to top

These politicians are getting downright scary.

It must be kind of hard to worry about the end of the "right to privacy", when an average American apparently has to worry about an end to the right to demonstrate against a political party, or protection from cruel and unusual punishment (see also this link) under the first and fourth amendments, isn't it?

I was watching Judgement at Nuremberg the other day - one of my favorite flicks, despite the campy directing and some godawful acting in places. I was struck particularly by the soliloquy Spencer Tracy gives as the chief presiding justice when he's reading the guilty verdict, even though I can't remember the precise wording.

It spoke to America's moral authority to hold the tribunals, and the responsibility of the people in government for a country's actions and the rights of its people. More to my point, it addressed the things that define how a country is viewed historically and on the world stage. Essentially, the speech said something to the effect that a country should be judged on the international stage by what it stands for, and the protections it accords people of all kinds, particularly when it is the hardest to stand for those things (warning: that link can be upsetting). Most importantly, it talked about defending the rights of a single human being, one individual.

Isn't it scary when a movie addressing America's previous moral authority to judge a repressive and barbarous regime becomes loosely applicable to America? I'm not America-bashing here: I'm trying to figure out what happened to that moral authority, and when elected governments all over the world decided that they weren't responsible to their people, or the rest of the world's people. America's just one example of a trend, unfortunately. I'm also not trying to liken protesters being detained illegally or abused by police and the state to the atrocities of the second world war, but that was the entire point of the story in Judgement at Nuremberg - that Germany under the Nazis became as evil as it ever would when a judge (i.e. a government representative) stripped the first human being whom he knew (or ought to have known) to be innocent of his rights, simply because he felt that doing so was in the political interest of the country!

What surprises me as I make this comparison, was that this was an American film, about government responsibility, morality and jurisprudence, and the importance of defending the rights of every human being. Anybody got a spare copy we can mail to George and the doublespeak gang in congress, the senate and of course, Scalia and his buddy DeLay? Someone needs to remind these fellas that if they want to be the world's, and their twisted, misinterpreted version of "Christian" morality's police force, they can expect to be held to the higher standards of ethics, conduct and morality that all "police" are supposed to be held to - for the protection of the human beings they're policing.

I know that most people reading this probably agree with me (at least in part), and that a select minority of Americans are responsible for the country's tarnished reputation, but it's just plain sad that a country could make such an about-face in less than 60 years and that the first hints of the changes which led to the acceptance of fascism in Europe in the last century could be so broadly supported by a huge number of people in a democratic country in this century, despite the world's past experiences.

Link to this comment :: ^Back to top

"Judgment at Nuremberg" is a phenomenal film to watch in these troubling times (well, troubling to some, at least). I watched it during the election, and was struck both by the judge's final speech that jman mentions above, and by the description of what happened in Germany given by Emil Janning (played by Burt Lancaster). I transcribed both and uploaded them to the Internet Movie Database--click here to read them and see if you don't agree with jman and me.

Link to this comment :: ^Back to top

BTW, Karen, I never said "thanks" for posting all that work on IMDB. Much appreciated (at least by me)! Unfortunately, it appears nobody was all that interested, but still, I'm glad it's there.

Link to this comment :: ^Back to top

I read it -- Thanks. I'm adding the movie to my Netflix queue.

Link to this comment :: ^Back to top

I'm not either, but that sounds reasonable to me.

Link to this comment :: ^Back to top

The "right to privacy" is not in the Constitution. It was established as we know it in the decision on Griswold v. Connecticut. Even in that, its defining case, the concept is weakly supported, talking about "emanations" and "penumbras" and such. It is NOT a firmly established right, and assuming it is is dangerous.

In fact, we came very close to losing it. Robert Bork was a very outspoken critic of Right to Privacy, and would have happily overturned it if he'd successfully gotten a SC seat back in 1987. Conservatives love to hide behind privacy shields all the time, but they'll never codify one into law for everyone. When "morality" is solely defined by who you have sex with, it's important for the government to be able to know who you're having sex with. The creation of a new right out fo the others is exactly the type of "judicial activism" that is railed about to this day.

It would be nice if such a right were amended into the Constitution. You're right that it seems logical and basic, but it's not there as we've come to define it, and don't think its absence has gone unnoticed by those who would prefer it not be there.

links:
http://www.oyez.org/oyez/resource/case/149/
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/griswold.html

Link to this comment :: ^Back to top

I'd rather vote for Inspector Gadget's arch-nemisis, Dr Claw

Link to this comment :: ^Back to top

redraven (sorry about the long comment), I know you're talking about this as an example of government interference in people's lives and callous pharmacists violating a patient's privacy, and I agree completely with you on the fact that medical and other records need to be handled with the utmost privacy by pharmacists and others. However, I have a problem with your comment in terms of the human rights issues. I wanted to float out something here:

Given that most women have come to believe that they have exclusive rights over all reproductive technologies, reproduction, child rearing, etc. to go along with the right to decide what to do with their bodies, and that deeply religious people could well be just as certain (and correct) that they have the absolute right to practice their faith and hold their beliefs, and decide what to do with their bodies, here's an interesting hypothetical to consider:

A woman walks into a pharmacy with a script for the "morning after pill". The woman behind the counter, a pharmacist, is not a physician, and has not sworn any oath to protect the patient, but has promised not to sin. However, just as the woman with the potential newborn is convinced she has the absolute right to make choices about her body based on her beliefs with no input or interference from anyone, the pharmacist in this situation is a devout Catholic who genuinely fears an eternity of suffering if she aids in the abortion of a pregnancy, and believes that she too has the absolute right to refuse to commit what she considers to be a sin of the most serious kind, i.e. that she has the right to use her body to be a pharmacist and practice in a way that does not violate her "right to decide". Let's further assume that the pharmacist became a pharmacist when the morning after pill was not available, just to muck up the situation a bit more, so we can't legitimately claim that the pharmacist should have avoided the profession due to her religious beliefs. I've also made both cast members women in this little hypothetical, so we can do away with any claims of sexism.

Why are one woman's rights more important than the other here? Both of them are, in their own minds, simply practicing their protected rights. Why should a Catholic pharmacist be forced to risk a "sin" and damnation (or whatever other consequences such folks fear) whenever the law changes one way or another so someone else can exercise their rights? Why should the profession of pharmacy be forced to discriminate against anyone who doesn't hold their religious viewpoint?

Granted, if access to that medication is legal, the regulators of pharmacists should require this hypothetical pharmacist to clearly advertise that they don't provide medications or counselling related to abortion or birth control, both when they are hired (hospital pharmacists are usually employees), and someplace obvious in their dispensary, if they're the usual self-employed sort.

If nobody has the right to force a woman to bear a child or have an abortion, then nobody has the right to force a pharmacist to act against their beliefs, and the pharmacist's obligations should end with a clear, public notification of their intent not to provide such services.

Never happy to let a sleeping dog lie, I feel I should point out, however, that such a requirement would clearly violate the pharmacist's right to privacy!

Any thoughts? BTW, it's my opinion that people who can't do a job that affects others for religious reasons should avoid that profession, when possible, but in this case, people who could do the job despite religion did enter the field and spend years in training, only to have the laws changed around them, creating the problem through no fault of their own.

Link to this comment :: ^Back to top

I know this wasn't directed at me Jman, so I apologize if I'm hopping in uninvited :-)

I think you make a very interesting point. On the other hand, I feel that if the pharmacist is really committed to their faith, they would want to consider another career path.

For example: If somebody works in a slaughter house and decides to become a vegetarian. Is it fair for that person not to package and ship meat because they believe that meat is murder? I realize that this comparison is kind of off a little but I think you see where I'm going with it.

While it may be more than inconvenient for the pharmacist to choose a new carrer path, they have to consider how far they are willing to go to uphold their beliefs.

That may sounds kind of harsh but that person is paid to sell and distribute a product without question.

I'd like to get into it more but I'm at work. You have a very interesting point, though, so I'll probably be back later.

Thanks

Link to this comment :: ^Back to top

jman, I completely agree with you that if a pharmacist has a strong religious conviction against dispensing birth control, they should not be forced to. I just believe they should make it very clear that their pharmacy does not do so, and should provide a list of other facilities that would be amenable to filling the prescription.

Which is all well and good, but what does a woman who may need emergency contraception (i.e., AM after pill) do if she lives in a small town or remote rural area, and there are no other pharmacies around? In the case of a woman needing this medication after a rape, when time is of the essence (or even a mistaken sexual encounter, when time is of the essence) - what is she supposed to do, should the only pharmacist in town have religious objections to assisting her, and the next pharmacy is a good distance away? Risk a pregnancy she does not want? End up having an abortion? Isn't that the very thing the pharmacist with convictions was trying to keep from happening?

My thought is: Why is it that all of a sudden, pharmacists have developed a conscience? Birth control pills have been around for years, and years, and years (since the late '50's). Pharmacists have dispensed them for years. I could understand older workers in the field feeling that the laws had changed around them, but even so, they must have known before they went into the job that there would be a requirement for them to dispense all sorts of drugs, birth control pills included. This requirement is certainly nothing new.

And what's next? We'll stop dispensing pain meds to women in labor, because the bible says that all women should suffer for Eve's original sin (and yes, there are people out there who believe that way - a good example is the woman in Texas who drowned her 5 children; her husband followed that belief and forced her to go through 5 births with no relief)? Perhaps we'll stop giving people medication for AIDS, because after all, that is god's curse upon them for living an unclean lifestyle. Yes, I realize I'm being extreme, but once we allow religion and our wacky government to dictate our lives completely, there is a potential for it happening.

Birth control pills are legal. They are prescribed by licensed physicians. Until that changes, a person has the right to an expectation that their prescription will be filled by a company that is open to the general public. No one forced the pharmacist with convictions to enter that particular job. If they object, they need to find an employment situation that is more closely aligned with their personal beliefs, and the state/federal legislature needs to stay out of the whole thing.

I think we're basically saying the same thing here. I believe people have a right to their convictions, and I try to respect that, but when they flail others with them in public (and I would think standing at the pharmacy counter is about as public as it can get), then I have a problem.

Perhaps the solution would be to make birth control pills an OTC product? If we can do it for allergies and indigestion, why not the pill?

Link to this comment :: ^Back to top

I personally object to abortion. I think that it is wrong. I believe that it wrong to take a human life, and I believe that life starts at conception.

I don't have a problem with birth control, as long as it does not include abortion of any kind. I believe in prevention of conception as legitimate birth control. Condoms and abstinance prevent conception. The birth control pill also prevents conception, as a doctor explained it to my wife and I many years ago.

But, this morning after pill actually aborts a fertilized egg, if my understanding of it is correct.

Perhaps these pharmacists, are like me and believe that abortion is wrong (for any reason, religious or otherwise) and that is why they do not want to sell these pills.

I agree that such pharmacists should not be "preaching" to anyone in public, but I do not believe that they should be obliged to sell something that they believe is wrong or harmful.

No one has the right to expect someone to sell a product that they have a moral objection to. It's free country. Go buy it from someone else. Nevermind how inconvenient that might be. No particular person can be required to do anything for someone else's convenience. That's preposterous.

Link to this comment :: ^Back to top

"No one has the right to expect someone to sell a product that they have a moral objection to. It's free country. Go buy it from someone else. Nevermind how inconvenient that might be. No particular person can be required to do anything for someone else's convenience. That's preposterous."

This comment is preposterous! So, if I go into a store and plop down a six-pack on the counter and the cashier believes it's morally wrong to drink alcohol (perhaps her religion tells her so), she should be able to refuse to sell it to me?!

Here's a better idea - if her morals tell her it's wrong to drink, SHE shouldn't drink. Her morals should have no impact on my choice to drink!

I've read a few articles on this topic - and we're not just talking about pharmacists who own a pharmacy and are choosing what to sell in their business (not that I think that makes it OK either). We're talking about any pharmacist employed in any pharmacy, and the stores can't fire them or choose not to hire them because that would be religious discrimination! If a pharmacist (or anyone else) has a religious or moral objection to birth control, then again, THEY should not use birth control. And what about condoms? Are they OK with selling condoms? Aren't they just another form of birth control?

This topic scares the shit out of me! This whole trend towards imposing one's religious beliefs on others at the cost of their personal freedoms is more than just a little frightning!

Believe what you believe and conduct your life according to your own personal moral code - and for God's sake (pun intended) let me do the same!

Link to this comment :: ^Back to top

The post that you are replying to was expounding on an earlier post of mine that is further down in the thread. In the other post I did say that if the pharmacist was an employee, then he or she should find other employment.

I am used to the Canadian system (or should I say, the way things used to be here) in which the pharmacist is a proprietor, owning his or her own business. In that case of course, the owner can choose what products they wish to stock.

I am sorry that I did not clarify this in the post you read.

Link to this comment :: ^Back to top

Mom-and-pop pharmacies are becoming a thing of the past with the continuous growth and expansions of both Walgreen's and CVS Pharmacy. Not too long ago a pharmacist at an Eckerd's (now CVS) Pharmacy up in Denton, TX refused to sell the morning after pill to a rape victim.

The lot of them are working for large corporations, nowadays.

Link to this comment :: ^Back to top

From your link, Amy:

The American Pharmacists Association, with 50,000 members, has a policy that says druggists can refuse to fill prescriptions if they object on moral grounds, but they must make arrangements so a patient can still get the pills. Yet some pharmacists have refused to hand the prescription to another druggist to fill.

In Madison, Wis., a pharmacist faces possible disciplinary action by the state pharmacy board for refusing to transfer a woman's prescription for birth-control pills to another druggist or to give the slip back to her. He would not refill it because of his religious views.

Now, THAT'S bullshit. That goes well beyond refusing to participate in what someone considers "unchristian" or "sinful" behavior and right on into the territory of coercion. The pharmacist suddenly decides to stop selling birth control, and then takes this woman's 'script hostage?

They're lucky it wasn't me or anyone I know that they pulled that shit on (and it could very well be, with male birth control pills coming to a store near you in the very near future). I'd just love to see some little weiner in a white coat's reaction when I came over the counter at them to retrieve the stolen property (i.e. the prescription slip issued by a physician to his/her patient). By force if required.

...faces possible disciplinary action....

POSSIBLE disciplinary action? He'd be facing six months in a body cast if it were me or any patient I knew in that situation.

That'd be like driving your car into a lube and oil-change joint, and the grease monkey refusing to give your keys back because he doesn't "believe" in using fossil fuels for transportation.

I don't suppose the self-righteous prick offered to pay for the raising and education of any unwanted children who might have been born as a result of his/her actions. Or to refund the cost of the patient's time and expenses to see the doctor and obtain said "sinful" prescription.

But that's just me. I've always preferred the direct approach to problem solving.

Link to this comment :: ^Back to top

A person working in a store as a hiree is NOT selling a product. They are conducting a transaction for the company that is selling the product. This is a large difference and one that is apparently overlooked. If a person has a moral objection to the selling or purchase of a product, then they obviously should not be working for an organization that sells such a product! It is their right to find another job that does not require them to be involved in transactions involving that product. THAT is the right of freedom here -- not the right to chose who may not purchase what a store is selling. THAT, my friend, is making decisions for other people based on one's personal beliefs, which, unless those people are close relatives such as children or someone else for whom one has a direct and legally recognised responsibility, is indefensible.

If you are the owner of a store or other retail business, then you chose what you will and will not sell. It is not up to your employees to bring their moral choices to what products your business sells. If someone, say, had a moral objection to automobiles because they are polluting and are objects used in crimes such as drive-bys and vehicular homicide, then working in an autodealership or an auto repair shop would obviously not be a choice. You would not, I think, condone a saleperson employed in such a place refusing to sell you an SUV because they found it morally objectionable. Nor would you likely find it problematic if such a business fired said salesperson. After all, that person was hired to do a job and has refused to do it. The company very likely did NOT hire them to make moral choices either for the company or the customers.

No, it does not make a difference when the product changes. If it did, then you could find a "moral objection" to almost any salable product, up to and including editions of the King James Bible.

The particular freedom at hand in this arguement is that of personal choice -- you may chose what you wish to associate with and what you do not. You may NOT force your choices on others. If someone does not want to sell birth control, then I would suggest they find work with some company that does not sell birth control. That is their choice to make. If a person accepts employment with a company, they automatically accept what that company does -- otherwise, I must say they are acting hypocritically.

Personally, I find this whole situation patently ridiculous and highly unanalyzed. An individual who does not want to sell a particular thing, for whatever reason, yet who accepts a job for a company that DOES want to sell that particular thing is acting most obviously against their own moral code. Or, worse, they are attempting to enforce their personal moral code on other people. Until a majority of citizens request action from governmental bodies to make particular actions illegal, it should really be a non-argument.

Link to this comment :: ^Back to top

I agree with you. Please see my response to Lucy above. I should have been more clear in my post. I forgot how seperated my posts can become in a thread, depending on whom I am responding to. I assumed that someone would see both posts, not just one of them. On it's own, the post that you responded to was not very clear. My apologies.

Link to this comment :: ^Back to top

A-MEN. To those people, I have two words: "electable employment." You work at the company at your own will. Like, duh. :D

And with the economy being what it is right now, the gas prices being what they are, and with the unemployment situation being what it is right now, you'd think some people would just shut up about their personal religious "moral code" and just be thankful they even have a damn job.

Link to this comment :: ^Back to top

I think the answer is a simple one: Belief should always take a back seat to reality. One person's beliefs should never, ever take precedence over another person's reality.

As hypotheticals go, this one is rather weak: Birth control pills have been around now since 1960, and the religious nuts have been equating "the pill" with abortion ever since (the "morning after pill" is just a stronger variant, and to be surprised by its introduction after decades of "the pill" is to be exceptionally naive of progress). As such, pharmacists of all stripes knew what drugs were out there, and they made a decision at that time to carry out their duties -- take-backs are for children, not adults.

Redraven is correct: When the only source of a legal drug following an experience like rape is in the hands of some fundie bastard, it is no different than punishing the victim. Is this what religion is supposed to be about? What happens when the pharmacist decides to become a Christian Scientist -- is it okay for them to deny all medications and instead set up a round of prayer?

I realize that I may be in the minority here, but I feel religious nuts have no rights whatsoever when it comes to affecting or interferring with me and mine: Religion is a choice, pure and simple, and that choice should never affect anyone who didn't have some kind of say in the matter.

However, to placate those I probably just offended with that outburst, I will go along with the suggestion of allowing the pharmacist to place a sign up, indicating their intentions (although I would insist that the sign read something like, "Due to my irrational belief in a power that I cannot see or experience other than through my own faith, and the fact that said faith says that I am somehow morally superior to all those that don't embrace my belief, I am not under any obligation to help you in any effort to ease or improve your situation, which is in direct contradiction to the teachings of my faith's most famous poster child, but hypocrisy is something that's also allowed in my belief system.").

Fuck, I hate fundies today...

(A little background: Before my father passed away he was a coroner, and one of the hardest parts of his job was seeing a dead child who didn't have to die, except for the parents' utter refusal to seek treatment due to "religious convictions." He would be called at least once a week to the "prayer houses" to document and collect some poor soul whose death was caused by something as stupid as a broken bone or an infection gone septic.

My father loved people, and for him to see any unnecessary suffering broke his heart, especially when help was just a phone call way. And it angered him to no end to hear the "elders" of these religious communities say that the reason the person died was because their convictions weren't strong enough.

That's why I have issues with fundies and medical treatment.)

Link to this comment :: ^Back to top

Yup. I think you guys more or less bashed the nail on the head (Sir Craig particularly) - I was asking the question about how religious rights should compare with human rights with that hypothetical because I was trying to work out myself where the right to believe we all came to earth in spaceships or some similar silly shit should end, and rationality begin. (BTW, Revolution, anyone is welcome to jump all over anything I say anytime, thanks for doing so :)

I fully agree that nobody should have to suffer real, physical consequences because of someone else's religion (or even their own, but that's their choice), although I suppose we should make reasonable efforts to accomodate the mystics, nutjobs and foil-shower-cap-wearing crowd out of a sense of decency, as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else. If their religion made being stoned a sacrement, would we let doctors and pharmacists practice under the influence of hallucinogens out of respect for their religion? Don't think so.

I have to admit, my tongue was partially in my cheek when I wrote:

If nobody has the right to force a woman to bear a child or have an abortion, then nobody has the right to force a pharmacist to act against their beliefs

Hence my suggestion of a sign warning that a pharmacist wouldn't dispense contraceptives or morning-after type drugs - thus allowing the rest of us to avoid these morons. But to be honest, I like SC's version the best, and I vote we all send a copy to the college of pharmacists/pharmacy professional association nearest us :)

When you get right down to it, I guess I was also making the point that people seem to think that rights are absolute the instant you start talking about reproduction. Newsflash: they ain't - they have to be defended, just like every other right. Every conflict over basic rights has to be decided on its own merits, IMHO.

So, while nobody objects to my doctor wearing a cross around his neck (he recently put one over his exam room door, too), I'd have something to say to him if he refused to prescribe a treatment based on his faith, or refused to treat me over my lack thereof. Something starting in "fuck" and ending in "you", I think.

Also, Sir Craig, thought this might interest you: I understand that a court up here has just ruled that some little girl with cancer has to have a blood transfusion, despite her religious beliefs against it. Clearly reason and rationality do kick in and save lives sometimes...

Link to this comment :: ^Back to top

Word up. Thanks for being objective about the situation, though. This joint wouldn't be as fun if I didn't have something to think about.

Link to this comment :: ^Back to top

This "little girl" is an articulate fourteen year old who has clearly stated her objection to blood transfusions for herself. Her parents are not the ones applying to the court to interfere with her wishes. They are in agreement with her.

The state is stepping in and saying that she has to have the transfusion. Period. I don't agree with her views on receiving blood products, but I do feel very uneasy about the state saying that blood products be forced on her. I think that anyone should be allowed to refuse any treatment or medication that they object to, for any reason whatsoever. Only if that person is a minor or clearly unable to think for themselves should that responsibility fall to a parent, sibling, or spouse.

Your "rationality" infringes on this person's right to self determination.

Link to this comment :: ^Back to top

I agree with you Gerry, a competent adult should be able to refuse treatment: but this girl is a minor, by your own account, and is not legally competent to make that decision for herself. It just so happens that the courts felt her parents weren't "competent" either, because they have a legal duty to protect the child's welfare (i.e. health, education, etc.), and so they stepped in and made her a ward of the state out of a fear of neglect. We (and the people caring for the girl) have no way of knowing if the parents are rational or competent, and the court was the appropriate body to determine that, IMHO, but only because the girl was not legally competent to make the decision for herself.

Link to this comment :: ^Back to top

Well, that's dressing it up a bit, jman.

"The girl is a minor and is not competent."


In Canada, at fourteen, she's considered old enough to have sex and get an abortion without her parents' involvement. This particular girl is, from all accounts I've seen on TV and heard on the radio here in Vancouver, a person of above normal maturity for her age. She is not a raving lunatic. She is quietly, and in a dignified way, telling us that it is against her beliefs to have a blood transfusion, and as much as many of us cannot agree with or understand this belief, it is her belief. I could understand if parents did not agree with her, and they were the ones petitioning the court, because that would be their responsiblity. I could also understand that the court would be involved if the girl wanted the transfusion and the parents were trying to prevent it.

"The parents, who are not minors, are also not competent".

Why are parents not competent? Were they examined by an unbiased, omnipotent judge to determine their competency?

By your argument, anyone who does not conform to the generally accepted wisdom (or flavour of the day) could be considered incompetent, whether they be adult or minor.

Don't agree with me? You're "incompetent." Anyone could declare that all people who hold religious beliefs are incompetent, by definition. While that might make some of the people who frequent this site quite happy, I am a little scared by it.

Link to this comment :: ^Back to top

Age 14 is less than the age of majority. Period.

See, Gerry, it's just that in our Nanny State, anyone who isn't obsessed with looking out for a child's socially-mandated best interests is "incompetent" as a parent. You should see the body of legalese that makes it impossible for a father to gain custody of his kids in a divorce, just because he's not as "competent" as the mother, according to the various myth-driven harpies in the civil service.

And as you've clearly already noticed, not agreeing with the generally accepted wisdom is OK, as long as it doesn't affect anyone else, and the person disagreeing is legally entitled to make that choice for themselves.

It only becomes a matter for the public when one of those conditions are not met.

Link to this comment :: ^Back to top

"...and the person disagreeing is legally entitled to make that choice for themselves."

This is the part that bothers me. I believe that we should all be entitled to make choices for ourselves, and that what is legal one day can all too easily be made illegal on another. I believe that this girl has the moral right to make this choice for herself, and it makes me uncomfortable that the state is involved.

Link to this comment :: ^Back to top

Do you believe that this same person should (legally) be able to purchase cigarettes, alcohol, and be able to join the military as well? Who decides when to draw the line?

Link to this comment :: ^Back to top

Obviously we, as a society draw the line on many things, including what a person of a certain age, may or may not do.

I think that it's another thing altogether when society wants to do something TO someone against their wishes, and the wishes of their parents.

In this particular instance, it may all work out for the best. If she was my child I'd want all the normal current available medical attention to be given to her, but I could see the possibility of drawing the line at something I considered immoral or unethical (not so much today, but in the future), and that would apply to me and to my children, if my children were still minors. Therefore I sympathise with someone else whose beliefs might differ from mine, but nevertheless has those beliefs. This person, and her parents, hold obviously strong beliefs and consider blood transfusions to be morally wrong. I can respect that, and am uncomfortable with the state saying otherwise, even if I myself would do for my child what the state is doing in this particular case.

Link to this comment :: ^Back to top

As a further note, I believe that we as the state often make big mistakes when we do impose restrictions on people. For instance, marijuana laws, IMO, are a mistake. I don't smoke the stuff myself, but I think it's a mistake to try to stop someone else from doing so.

Sometimes I think that we should get rid of all the laws excepting those prohibiting harm to another person, and then carefully rebuild the law books to include a minimum of restriction over personal authority and responsibility.

Link to this comment :: ^Back to top

It's very nice for you to say that beliefs should take a back seat to reality. Well, a person's beliefs are their reality. And you have no right to interfere with their reality or their beliefs.

If a pharmacist works for someone else and that person or company sells a legal product, then I believe that the pharmacist is obliged to sell that product or go and get another job, in or out of the field.

But, if that person owns the business, then I say that they have the right to sell whatever they want, or not to sell it, for whatever reason, and there's no obligation for them to explain themselves. Their objection to selling any product may have something or nothing to do with religion. That's no one's business but their own.

If I want a pack of smokes and the store doesn't sell them for whatever reason, I'll go elsewhere. If it's the only store in town, I'll go to the next town. Same thing goes for booze, birth control pills, Penthouse magazine or potato chips.

Link to this comment :: ^Back to top

This is a great video (please forgive my rant from earlier)...

Link to this comment :: ^Back to top

That was a scream! Thanks for the link, Sir.

And what's for anyone to forgive. You were RIGHT. Oh, wait a minute, is "right" a dirty word now? Nope I checked, just "left" ;)

Link to this comment :: ^Back to top

*rim shot*

Link to this comment :: ^Back to top

Mayans used to sacrifice people -- does that mean we should bring back human sacrifices to the Americas in the name of "religion"?

People used to be hanged or pressed in this country for fear of being witches -- was that right?

All your examples are rather lame. There are plenty of government offices that are open on Sunday. God is on money -- big whoop. You are no longer required to "tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God" in court -- now you can affirm that "all testimony about to be presented shall be, to the best of your knowledge, factual and verifiable." (Or something like that.) Businesses are closed on religious holidays, not because they are strict observers of said holiday, but because they understand that their employees may be and by law said employees cannot be forced to give up their religious convictions -- the businesses are being nice.

And please, please tell me you were kidding about atheists having a religion -- you cannot possibly be that dense.

Link to this comment :: ^Back to top

Hey, something Mena mentioned worries me: the Sabbath, the day when nobody's supposed to work may be on Saturday (technically, you're not supposed to walk anywhere 'cept church, either), not Sunday, so I guess the USPS and everyone else is going to hell after all, despite what she considers to be apparent religious zeal in the civil service.

Bummer. Now my mail will get lost and stolen for all eternity. Guess that also means an eternity of useless forms to fill out with blunt pencils and long, long lines to stand in...

More nutty debate on the whole Saturday/Sunday question from someone who apparently has nothing better to do can be found here. Think I'll ask them a question or two of my own ;)

Link to this comment :: ^Back to top

The post you are replying to took issue with the statement that God was "never there in the first place". How does Mayan sacrifice have anything to do with that? Equating Christianity with Mayan sacrifice is absurd.

Link to this comment :: ^Back to top

From my point of view (inasmuch as I don't believe in either Christian or Mayan gods), although they are obviously different in their details, they are morally equal. Ritually sacrificing surplus population to the gods, or withholding medical treatment to a dying person, it's basically killing someone in the name of religion.

Link to this comment :: ^Back to top

This little branch of this thread started with Mena's contention that God (that would be the Christian God) was always a part of the government in the US, i.e. that consideration of this God influenced the formation of your government and constitution. I know from previous posts that you disagree with this, and your initial post in this thread said as much. What Mena is saying, as I read it, is that you are wrong.

Now how do you get from there to "withholding medical treatment to a dying person"? Who said anything about advocating doing any such thing? Mena is not even saying (in this post, anyway) that everything done by Christians is always right, or that the influence of the Christian God (as interpreted by humans) is always good.

The contention is that one belief system is being replaced by another.

Link to this comment :: ^Back to top

Sir Craig said something about it in his comment about his father above, I apologize for not mentioning that, it is somewhat out of context. But my point is that, from my perspective, religions are all about the same, they all do nutty things.

The contention is that one belief system is being replaced by another.

Strictly speaking, I guess that's true, although I personally try not to believe in anything in the religious sense (that is, faith without proof).

Link to this comment :: ^Back to top

Equating Christianity with Mayan sacrifice is absurd.

Says you...

Actually, this reply of mine is a screw-up...I accidentally posted it instead of simply previewing it. However, the point I was going to make was that if you are wanting to go back to those "enlightened" times when the Christian God was a major fixture in American life, why stop there? Let's go even further back, to a time when the gods were not only a major fixture of everyday life but demanded sacrifice...

Damn Ryland, we need an edit feature...

Link to this comment :: ^Back to top

Why stop there?

Well, it would be obvious that those who want to go back to those times would want to stop there because that is the situation that suits them.

Simple answer, really.

Link to this comment :: ^Back to top

Exactly -- there are people who want this country to conform to their particular set of values, with little to no regard or thought to the values of the other 95% of this country (yes, I pulled that percentage out of my fanny -- sue me).

I'm asking (in my obtuse way) "Where does it stop?" in order to demonstrate to these people that once you start down that path, there is no telling where it will go, but going back has never been a good idea (otherwise why have progress at all?).

I get this feeling we may be on the same side here, just wording it differently. But Ryland is right -- Mena's point was little more than a strawman argument.

Link to this comment :: ^Back to top

Oh man, I just realized what thread I was commenting in -- I sound like a damn plagiarist ("Where does it stop?").

I guess I just brought us full circle...I need a nap.

Link to this comment :: ^Back to top

All people want their country to conform to their particular set of values.

You included.

That's why we vote.

Link to this comment :: ^Back to top

Christianity has always been practiced by the vast majority of Americans, but that does not make it part of the government as set out by the founding fathers. Read the Federalist Papers, or the writings of Thomas Jefferson. Read Article 11 of the Treaty of Tripoli. The facts don't change because you refuse to believe them.

And please, nobody is trying to replace God. Nobody wants to stop you from being Christian or eradicate Christianity. That's a huge lie, a straw man argument to get you too scared to think.

Link to this comment :: ^Back to top

I thought banks were always closed on Sundays. I wanna live someplace where banks are open on Sundays and atheists have a "religion"! :-)

Link to this comment :: ^Back to top

Man, I'm STILL laughing about that atheist comment. Am I silly or was that seriously funny as hell?

Link to this comment :: ^Back to top

Well, no, it wasn't funny as hell, actually.

If you would have a little bit of empathy or insight into what the person is trying to say, you'd realize that the meaning was probably more to do with values or belief system that religion.

We all do have a system of values, and have "beliefs" as to what is right and what is wrong. For some that is spirituality of some vague kind, or for others the laws of an organized and structured religion such as Islam or Catholicism. Some were taught a certain set of rights and wrongs by their parents, or the elders of the tribe. Wherever he, she, or you get their values or beliefs as to what is right and what is wrong from, they are equally valid in a democracy. Each of us has the rights to our beliefs or values, and to vote accordingly. We can argue about those beliefs all we want, but we shouldn't laugh at or belittle other people for having beliefs that differ from ours.

Link to this comment :: ^Back to top

No, I'm pretty sure it was funny. I don't belittle people for their beliefs, I belittle people for gross inaccuracies. If you weren't so uptight about the situation, you might have read into that, Gerry.

Link to this comment :: ^Back to top

Humour, like beauty, is obviously in the eye of the beholder.

Apparently so is what one would consider to be a "gross inaccuracy".

Link to this comment :: ^Back to top

Ummm, atheism is technically the lack of a belief in a god, Gerry, and religion is the organized human behaviour that grows up around worshipping god(s) (or whatever else that group happens to worship). Kinda hard for those folks to get all revved up to get together and not worship anything, doncha think?

So, it is a gross inaccuracy to refer to atheism (or agnosticism) as a religion: those people just don't go for religion-themed picnics and gather together weekly to compare cars and clothes.

IMO, the comment was thoroughly enlightening as to the poster's narrowed mindset. It was funny as hell. I always laugh at people who want me to tolerate their religious intolerance.

Link to this comment :: ^Back to top

Saying that Atheists are trying to replace "Him" with their own "religion" is beyond inaccrate. If you can explain how it's not, I will try harder not to laugh should somebody say saomething similar in the future.

Link to this comment :: ^Back to top

Dammit JMAN! You beat me to it! :-)

Link to this comment :: ^Back to top

I know, it sucks when someone else is typing the same idea on another PC someplace, don't it?

Link to this comment :: ^Back to top

You are may be faster but I am....um....uh....slower. Touche'!

Link to this comment :: ^Back to top

My parents believed in God. Not any God. A particular God, with a name and a personality. They believed in the God of the Bible.They loved God, and taught their children about Him.

I, myself, am not so sure about this God and what he wants from me, or for me. I am not sure if he exists as I was taught. Some of what I was taught does not make sense to me.

But, I do sometimes believe that a God exists, perhaps even the God of my parents' beliefs. For me, it seems to be as much a matter of faith that He does not exist, as it would be to belive that He does.

That is why, for me, and I suspect others, the conscious assertion that God does not exist (without wondering about it at all) is as much a "religious" idea as an other. I know that that does not qualify under the strict definition of a religion, but essense of it is there.

Link to this comment :: ^Back to top

Sorry for the spelling errors. I should have previewed more carefully.

Link to this comment :: ^Back to top

You should be a politician, Gerry. You denied the existence of a gross inaccuracy when there was a clear contradiction in terms. Those are the terms that we were having fun with. To add a whole philosphy behind what was clearly a mistake, seems silly to me.

Link to this comment :: ^Back to top

A politician? I could take that as an insult, but I won't, because I do have respect for politicians as a whole.

You're right that it was a mistake, and that you were having fun with it (a little too much, I thought, and that's why I objected).

I can see how you'd think it was a bit silly. It probably is. It just came to mind at the time, and I was stating the truth as I see it.

Link to this comment :: ^Back to top

...and that's how I would have taken it, had you not mistaken my "laughing at an obvious mistake" for a "lack of empathy and insight". Your follow-up to my jest sounded like an unnecessary lecture more than acknowledgment of the conversation. That's how I took it. Anyway, I gotta get the hell out of work right now :-)

No matter how I took it, always feel free to state the truth as you see it, though. There's always room for misinterpretaion in blogs

Link to this comment :: ^Back to top

I thought that Larry Craig(R-Idaho)'s comment was quite priceless: "Doesn't the other side have anything to talk about nowadays?"

I mean...

Isn't "the other side" taking issue with DeLay's charged rhetoric about "isolated" and "activist" judges--apparently the only issue of significance besides Major League Baseball for Congress to deal with--something? Doesn't Craig's statement being a "retort" tell him something?

Sheesh.

Link to this comment :: ^Back to top

Can't say I'm surprised. It's just more of the same old shit from the puritans and the fascists - never really changes, does it? The founding fathers managed to rein the puritans in over 200 years ago, and I have high hopes that America can do it again, although now there are two destructive groups to deal with.

However, just for reference, whenever you're listening to the government's parrots squawk on the idiot-box, here's the rules for the game these fellows are playing:

-The first player to establish a one-party theocracy wins.

-Independent judiciaries or legislative bodies must be silenced or usurped as early as possible (try to maintain some appearance of legitimacy during this stage) for your platform to succeed.

-Begin by labeling everyone who doesn't mimic you faithfully enough "activitsts" or a "threat" or "unpatriotic".

-Don't ever argue with your opponents (free-thinkers, actual public servants, lawyers, judges, initially up to 90% of the public, etc.). It's far more effective and less likely to damage your cause if you simply insult them as "traitors", ridicule them and throw them in prison or "disappear" them, a favored tactic of CIA-sponsored regimes everywhere. Exile works too, but can be less effective in the modern age with global media around. Note: prisons should made "profitable" to finance your efforts.

-Accuse a minority or external group of being responsible for all of society's weaknesses to justify your misdeeds and misbehavior, attributing their faults (and all of your society's shortcomings) to a failure to agree with your ideology. Members of a single race or religion, anarchists, terrorists, rebels, liberals, agitators and activists are all convenient targets as they either don't exist, or exist only in small quantities and cannot mount an effective defense. Appropriate media imagery and establishing grassroots fear/hatred of your chosen "victimizer" are both critical.

-Never EVER discuss or debate ANYHING! Stick to two or three simple lies (describe them as "truths"), and repeat them whenever faced with the media. Each "truth" will take 6-8 weeks to become true, at which point you can build on your "platform", which was built on "truth". Attribute anything clearly exposed as a lie to the actions of your opponents (i.e. forged documents, perjury, various plots), and reinforce your "victimizer" image with these assertions.

-Control the flow of information to the masses, propaganda is critical. Ownership of the mass media is most helpful.

-Never admit to any flaw in your platform: deflection and projection onto your "victimizer" are very effective in distracting the masses from your own actions when they might be exposed, and in keeping the public fearful.

It worked for Hitler, Stalin, Pinochet and Mussolini, why not these fellas?

These people are sickeningly transparent, and quite immune to reason or actual discussion. They've also succeeded in making Joe Q. Public think that pouting, insults and extrajudicial maltreatment of opponents are "good", and that any kind of actual discussion is "bad".

If the rational majority of the voters wake up and smell the bullshit they've been eating for the last several decades, they might just realize that the only real fault of open-mindedness is that it tolerates the existence of groups seeking to destroy it.

Link to this comment :: ^Back to top

redraven, thought you might also be interested to know (assuming you don't already) that most scholarly publications (i.e. journals, which nobody but scientists, lawyers and other professionals really read) are widely available to researchers on the Internet, either through private services, publishers or academic/government libraries.

But it was awful nice of DeLay to insinuate that a supreme court justice was using some 6-year-old's homepage to make decisions though, don't you think?

As Democrat Dick (WHY would anyone use that nickname?) Durbin pointed out in the article:

"Has the Internet become the devil's workshop?" said Dick Durbin of Illinois, the Senate's No. 2 Democrat. "Is it some infernal machine now that needs to be avoided by all right-thinking Americans? What is Mr. DeLay trying to say, as he is stretching to lash out at judges who happen to disagree with his political point of view."

Why of course it is, Dick! Disagreement, discussion and debate are ALL the devil's un-christian, un-American work!

You'd think DeLay would be smarter than that: trying to get rid of the judiciary and the last bastion of free speech in one shot is a bit much, even for one of the faithful.

Link to this comment :: ^Back to top

China's internet is government regulated, who says that the US wont do the same thing under the guise of the FCC?

Link to this comment :: ^Back to top

Actually, Jenna, I made a similar-sounding prediction about control of Internet access a while back. I think the idea was that the US would simply tax ISP services out of reach of a normal person, if they ever wanted to restrict "access". Leaving prices the same and letting globalization and trade defecits drive the real value of the American wages through the floor would, however, be equally effective.

(If you're keen on shorter term action, though, jacking up prices on the basis of a need for artificially inflated "copyright levies" to "combat piracy" would be most politically expedient, just in case any lawmakers or other corporate shills are reading this. My little contribution to the propaganda pool ;)

Sure, it's less flashy than the Chinese approach (beatings and random imprisonment), but hey, it would do the job.

Link to this comment :: ^Back to top

Sure, it's less flashy than the Chinese approach (beatings and random imprisonment), but hey, it would do the job.

But if they claim that its for preventing terrorism, they can randomly imprison anybody they want.

Link to this comment :: ^Back to top

I mean... I think she does. God, that comment could be taken the wrong way. lol.

Link to this comment :: ^Back to top

Dude, do you mean to imply that there could possibly be a right way Mrs. Scalia could take your original comment? I say you email her a copy and see how it goes ;) No doubt she'd be just thrilled that her husband's doublespeak has (with a little nudge from Anthony, and this Eric Berndt fella) got people wondering about her sex life. After all, this is a woman who's probably a very nice, grandmotherly, all-American, cookie-baking republican shill (she appears in the bottom right of the group of four pictures)...

Sucks to be married to Scalia, huh? Of course, it would have been worse for her if he'd answered...can you imagine the photoshop contests over at Fark?! Eeeeew!

Link to this comment :: ^Back to top

From a related ABC article "Gingrich Criticizes DeLay":

"That's the problem, you know, Republicans eat their own. ... Democrats stand by their own until hell freezes over," said Lott, who was ousted as Senate majority leader two years ago after making controversial race-based comments at a birthday party for the late Strom Thurmond.

Rick, surely you must know of a Republican they could use as a house leader to try and regain credibility, i.e. one who isn't a thief, a liar, a puritan or a racist. Are they that hard to come by down there?

His (DeLay's) private remarks to Senate Republicans were in keeping with the response frequently offered on his behalf by House Republicans: Blame the Democrats and occasionally the news media for the scrutiny he faces. House Republicans intend to follow the script later in the week, hoping to showcase passage of bankruptcy legislation and estate tax repeal as a counterpoint to Democratic charges that they are merely power-hungry.

Ahhh, so that's the real problem. It's not that he and his kind are lying theives or anything, it's just that people are reporting on their activities and his colleagues aren't offering enough doublespeak in his defense. Unbelievable.

The reason I commented is that I'm curious about something: could you explain to me Rick, how two legislative changes that either benefit only the incredibly wealthy (death tax rollback) or penalize average, middle class people (eroding consumer bankruptcy laws to favor corporate debtors) are somehow not indicative of a hunger for power among the ruling corporate elite and their monkeys in government?

Or are the polls correct: are moderate Republicans tired of the doublespeak too? Or are the ruling elite just so desensitized to the smell of their own bullshit that they can't even tell when they're lying anymore?

Link to this comment :: ^Back to top

surely you must know of a Republican they could use as a house leader to try and regain credibility, i.e. one who isn't a thief, a liar, a puritan or a racist.

I would be interested to know if there is a Senator or Congressman serving more than 1 term that itsn't crooked somehow. Republican, Democrat, or independant. But agreed someone has to be better than the current house leader, now that he has been "outed" as crooked he is ineffective.

The reason I commented is that I'm curious about something: could you explain to me Rick, how two legislative changes that either benefit only the incredibly wealthy (death tax rollback) or penalize average, middle class people (eroding consumer bankruptcy laws to favor corporate debtors) are somehow not indicative of a hunger for power among the ruling corporate elite and their monkeys in government?

I am sorry but ignorant shit like this just pisses me off. A death tax rollback effects EVERYBODY, sure it means that the incredibly wealthy benefit from it but so does Joe Nobody that has saved up $25,000 for retirement and dies leaving only this amount for his widow or children.

As far as bankruptcy laws are concerned GREAT!!!!! people should be held responsible for doing stupid shit. If you run up $30,000 in credit cards what makes you think that you should be able to just not pay it? I don't know if you know it, but I own a lawn care/landscaping company (it's raining today so I'm at home) I have had people file bankruptcy and include a freaking $35 cut or a $70 monthly bill. Do you think that that doesn't hurt my pocket for these idiots to not pay me? I could have been at another job making money but I was at these people's houses. I had to pay for transportation, gas, employee costs, wear and tear on my equipment, and you think these people should just not pay me. The law has been changed so that those that have the ability to pay DO pay. At least something. It's not preventing bankruptcy all together it just makes it harder for people to do dumbass things with their money and expect somebody else to just forget it and take the loss.

What pisses me off is the entitlement mentality that people have. They think just because they were born that the world owes them something (what's really funny are those that believe in evolution and natural selection). The world doesn't owe anybody squat. For some unknown reason people think that just because they want something, a Cadallic, or new home, or Playstation 2, they should get it. So they get a credit card and run up $40,000 in credit card debts on a $30,000/year job and then think that it's ok to just get rid of it and screw over anybody that gave them a chance with a credit card (I think credit cards are partially to blame, they should not be passing them out to every person with a freakin pulse either), but the dumbass that did it should not be able to walk away scott free.

And finally, why are people so obsessed with getting the money away from the rich? So they worked hard to get money (or their former family did) great. But everytime something happens in financial legislation people look to see how it benefits the wealthy. They don't even consider that it helps others as well. It doesn't matter that it effects the Joe Nobody with a $25,000 saved up for retirement or whatever else doesn't have to pay taxes on that money and so it really helps her out, WAYYYYYYYYY more than the guy with 1 million in the bank. But according to a lot of people we should tax the shit out of the financially successful and the little guy should not pay anything.

I guess this is finally, I don't know about others but I'm tired of all the bullshit, I'm tired of the Republicans shady deals but I'm also tired of the Democrats pissing and moaning because they lost big in 04, and trying to run down every Republican they can. What do you think the Republican's are going to do next time the Democrats take over? Are you going to be so gung-ho to lynch the house leader if he/she is a democrat that get's caught doing stupid shit?

Link to this comment :: ^Back to top

Well, Rick, I'm not ignorant, nor are my points "shit". Although it is ever so encouraging to see that you're ready to resort to the standard battle tactics of the right wing pundits. Problem is: they don't work on people who refuse to play the part of the monkey. Sorry!

A death tax rollback effects EVERYBODY, sure it means that the incredibly wealthy benefit from it but so does Joe Nobody that has saved up $25,000 for retirement and dies leaving only this amount for his widow or children.

Well, sure, they could've raised the amount of income that is tax exempt for low-income earners, maybe up to the poverty line, or done something to help ease the burden on the families of reservists whose pay is hit hard when they're called up, all of whom are presumably raising all-American families while they're alive, rather than rolling back a tax that hits rich white people (many of whom inherited, rather than earning it) the hardest after they're DEAD. But they didn't, now did they? Nope, true to form, they did what would benefit white corporate America the most. Sociopaths are very good at short-term thinking, too. Do some reading on the real social and economic impact of poverty, Rick. We'll have lots to talk about.

As far as bankruptcy laws are concerned GREAT!!!!! people should be held responsible for doing stupid shit. .... (I think credit cards are partially to blame, they should not be passing them out to every person with a freakin pulse either), but the dumbass that did it should not be able to walk away scott free.

Gee, isn't it fascinating that the bankruptcy law changes will benefit hmmmm, who was it again, OH THAT'S RIGHT! CREDIT CARD COMPANIES. And of course, their exceedingly talented and well-paid lobbyists.

I honestly hope you never lose your clients, or get seriously ill, Rick, and find out how homelessness or starvation feel when you can't feed your kids because you owe the millionaires at the hospital too much money, all because you had the poor taste to get cancer or MS. I always forget whether those are also plagues sent by god to punish the unworthy or not...

As for the final point in your tirade, yes, I plan to be equally "gung ho" in my criticism of any public offical anyplace who indulges in self-serving bullshit for profit. I don't care what it says on their calling cards, or what sort of doublespeak they throw at the world.

Link to this comment :: ^Back to top

. But they didn't, now did they? Nope, true to form, they did what would benefit white corporate America the most.

Or they did what was fair across the board, they didn't discriminate against those with or without money.

Gee, isn't it fascinating that the bankruptcy law changes will benefit hmmmm, who was it again, OH THAT'S RIGHT! CREDIT CARD COMPANIES. And of course, their exceedingly talented and well-paid lobbyists

OR ME!!!!! I notice you didn't bother to address the jackasses that abused me when they knew they couldn't pay their lawn bill. It's not just credit card companies it's everybody that dared to do business with these people.

I honestly hope you never lose your clients, or get seriously ill, Rick, and find out how homelessness or starvation feel when you can't feed your kids because you owe the millionaires at the hospital too much money, all because you had the poor taste to get cancer or MS. I always forget whether those are also plagues sent by god to punish the unworthy or not...

Not the same thing. Not even close to what I was discussing. Medical concerns can not be helped, some jackass with a Mastercard can.

Well, Rick, I'm not ignorant, nor are my points "shit"

You are not ignorant, I know that, but why you think everybody deserves everything is beyond me. Why you don't think people should be held responsible for their actions confuses me. I was raised that if you do the crime you pay the time. If you break a law you go to jail. If you do something stupid you may face repercussions. I don't expect a free pass in life and I don't give them out to others.

Link to this comment :: ^Back to top

I was raised that if you do the crime you pay the time. If you break a law you go to jail. If you do something stupid you may face repercussions. I don't expect a free pass in life and I don't give them out to others.

I agree with you, Rick, believe it or not. I don't expect any free rides either. It sucks that your clients stuck you with the tab for a job. They should have to demonstrate just cause before those debts are forgiven - if they entered into a contract knowing that they could not pay, you can seek relief for criminal sanctions (fraud, false pretences, etc.) or civil action for fraud. But you (or the prosecutor) have to prove they knowingly deceived you to obtain your services. This is called "due process", as I'm sure you're aware.

The issue I have is that you and me aren't in a position to decide if someone's actions are "stupid"! Our opinions don't constitute "due process", and I thought that was a basic right in the good ol' U. S. of A. However, the lawmakers believe that there should no longer be any exceptions and that debtors shouldn't have the right to that due process, which is just plain wrong.

I don't think everyone deserves everything. I think everyone deserves a chance to prove to a court or trustee or other legal body that they didn't act stupidly, or spend outrageously with money they didn't have for no good reason before being automatically consigned to the modern equivalent of debtor's prison to pay back a corporation. The changes benefit huge corporate sponsors of the American government, not the electorate. Corporations are not human beings. They do not and should not have human rights, despite the best efforts of lobbyists. Opening and building a business is both risky and rewarding. Any sensible CPA will tell you to build in 3-5% for "bad debts". It's one of the well-known risks shareholders face in operating companies and investing in their equities and debt instruments.

Link to this comment :: ^Back to top

The problem with repealing estate tax ("death tax" is a stupid name) is that it removes a check on the accumulation of huge private fortunes, and their concomitant fiscal and political power. I'm not saying that people shouldn't be allowed to keep what they've earned, but accumulating vast wealth for the sake of it doesn't do anyone any good; estate taxes redistributes some of that capital into the mainstream economy. The problem with trickle down economics is that it doesn't - the money doesn't trickle down, it stays in these huge accumulations and is effectively removed from the economy. Even some billionaires realize that (such as Bill Gates among others - billionaires who built their own fortune rather than inheriting it!), and oppose repealing the estate tax. Estate tax clearly needs to be reformed, but it doesn't need to be repealed.

And as far as the credit card companies are concerned, yes, there are lots of irresponsible people running up debt and they should be held accountable, but the irresponsibility runs both ways. Credit card companies are notorious for extending credit to every warm body - how many times have you heard about infants or dogs getting credit cards? If they weren't so indiscriminate, they wouldn't get so many defaults. The difference in this case between corporate irresponsibility and individual irresponsibility is that the corporations can afford to purchase legislation to cover their asses, leaving consumers holding the bag - all consumers, even the responsible ones who pay their bills.

Link to this comment :: ^Back to top

Sweat. A lot of people sweat for their income and they pay taxes. Some people don't sweat for their money. They live off interest payments on large deposits or stock holdings. They don't sweat. When they convince MY government to tax them LESS than people who sweat for their money I get mad.

Link to this comment :: ^Back to top

Why? Because they did it differently? I cut grass, I don't hold a doctor in contempt because he took a different road. I don't care.

My financial plan includes investing enough into a Roth IRA to be able to sit around and not do squat once I hit 59 1/2. And then I'm going to live off those interest payments and piss you off apparently. Of course it doesn't matter that I busted my ass in my own small business for 33 years before that.

Link to this comment :: ^Back to top

Quick example of why someone might file bandruptcy: Father and mother living just a scoosh above the poverty line - making enough to NOT qualify for any kind of assistance in terms of medical coverage, etc. One of their children becomes ill; needs high level medical care; bills pile up to more than these folks will ever make in a lifetime. Hospital refuses to charge off the cost(which is what they do with people who are indigent and come in for medical care), and turn the bills over to a collection agency. Collection agency hounds these people day and night - even threatening their life (this happens, believe me).

What the heck are these people supposed to do? They're not lazy, they're not shirking their responsibility, but they will never, ever be able to get out from under the debt that has been thrust upon them. They might be able to take $10 a month out of their food money, but the hospital isn't satisfied with that.

Then there's the woman who is going through a divorce. Before she can get a separation agreement signed, the husband goes out and runs up the credit cards. She's legally responsible to pay those off, even though she didn't run them up in the first place. She's got a couple of kids and is making $10 an hour. What's she supposed to do when the credit collection agencies start calling her at 2:00 AM (yes, I know they're barred by law from doing this, but it doesn't stop them), because the sonofabitch ex has disappeared, along with the child support and payment of his half of the debt?

I agree that people should pay their way; they should take responsibility for their actions. But sometimes, people need some help, and that's what the bankruptcy laws were established for. While the new law will make it harder for people who do have the capability to pay off their debt to cheat, it will make it even harder on the poor, especially women.

In a country that can spend yet another 81 BILLION dollars in Iraq, we should be able to come up with a method to help those in need. We should also stop lining the pockets of the credit card companies, who had yet another banner year in 2004. They should be held accountable for their shoddy card issuing practices (my friend's dog loves his Visa). They had a big hand in creating the monster in the first place.

Link to this comment :: ^Back to top

In your first example it's obvious what should be done, medical health coverage reform. That should be able to help solve a good portion of the problems.

In the second example that's harder. There isn't much that can be done on that one.

I can attest though, before I left/lost my job I was doing over $60K/year, I went to less than $30K/year and damn near lost my house, truck, was getting sued by credit card companies you name it, I went through it with credit. It may be more money than the $10 ex-wife but you lose over half your income in a year and you'll feel the same way. I busted my ass, took 3 jobs at one point and dug my way out. I tried to get a truck last week as a matter of fact and was told no because of all the crappy marks on my credit, the guy even went so far as to tell me that if I would have filed bankruptcy 3 years ago I would probably have a credit score of 750 and could get anything I wanted. I know the problems associated, but I didn't make excuses I made a way.

Link to this comment :: ^Back to top

A death tax rollback effects EVERYBODY, sure it means that the incredibly wealthy benefit from it but so does Joe Nobody that has saved up $25,000 for retirement and dies leaving only this amount for his widow or children.

Are you sure about that Rick. I did a quick check at this website. There is a 1.5 million exemption, so as long as your estate is below 1.5 million its 0% tax. After 1.5 million (2 million in 2006) you get taxed. There are also other rules that apply to small businesses as well as tax credits. I don't know about you but it looks like a tax break for the very wealthy only.

Link to this comment :: ^Back to top

I checked the IRS website, you don't have to file if you have below 1.5 million in assets. I don't know where your getting the 25,000 dollar figure.

What bothers me about giving tax breaks to the wealthy is that the middle class will have to make up those taxes (i.e. you and I). Money doesn't grow on trees...as my mother used to say.

Link to this comment :: ^Back to top

As I'm reading this over again, it occurs to me that the Joe Nobody that Rick is citing has always had the benefit of not having to pay federal estate taxes (state estate taxes vary), because the cap was fairly high to begin with.

When viewed that way, this wonderful thing that the Bush administration is crowing about is really ONLY for the wealthy - those of us who are poor to middle income have had the benefit of it all along.

It's that big lie thing - you tell people a lie often enough, and eventually they will believe it. Bushco has told people that they are making things better for the lower to middle class, over and over and over. Unfortunately, it just ain't so.

Link to this comment :: ^Back to top

That's ok because the estate tax break dies at the end of 2010. After that there are several varying opinions as to what will happen.

Link to this comment :: ^Back to top