Clitoral Economics

With all the talk about how to stimulate it, you’d think that the economy is a giant clitoris. Ben Bernanke may not employ this imagery, but the immediate challenge–and the issue bound to replace Iraq and immigration in the presidential race–is how best to get the economy engorged and throbbing again.

It would be irresponsible to say much about Bush’s stimulus plan, the mere mention of which could be enough to send the Nikkei, the DAX, and the curiously named  FTSE and Sensex tumbling into the crash zone again. In a typically regressive gesture, Bush proposed to hand out cash tax rebates–except to families earning less than $40,000 a year. This may qualify as an example of what Naomi Klein calls “disaster capitalism,” in which any misfortune can be re-jiggered to the advantage of the affluent.

But even the liberal stimulus proposals have me worried—not so much for their content as their rationale. Most liberals want a stimulus package that includes an increase in food stamp allotments and an extension of unemployment benefits, which are both screamingly obvious measures. Currently, the food stamp allotment amounts to about $1 per meal, and when four Democratic congresspersons tried living on that for a week last May they ended up even crankier than if they’d had to sit through a week-long filibuster by Tom DeLay.

As for unemployment benefits: They last just 25 weeks in most states and end up covering only a third of people who are laid off. If ever there was a time to create a real working system of unemployment compensation, it is now. Citigroup has announced plans to eliminate 21,000; investment banks in general will shed 40,000. The mortgage industry is in a state of melt-down; and Sprint – how did they get into this?—will lay off 4000 full-time employees as well as 1600 part-time and contract workers.

The economic rationale for more a progressive stimulus package, which we hear now several times a day, is that the poor and the freshly unemployed will spend whatever money they get. Give them more money in the form of food stamps or unemployment benefits and they’ll drop more at the mall. Money, it has been observed, sticks to the rich but just slides off the poor, which makes them the lynchpin of stimulus. After decades of hearing the poor stereotyped as lazy, stupid, addicted, and crime-prone, they have been discovered to have this singular virtue: They are veritable spending machines.

All this is true, but it is also a form of economy fetishism, or should I say worship? If we have learned anything in the last few years, it is that the economy is no longer an effective measure of human well-being. We’ve seen the economy grow without wage gains; we’ve seen productivity grow without wage gains. We’ve even seen unemployment fall without wage gains. In fact, when economists want to talk about life “on the ground,” where jobs and wages and the price of Special K are paramount, they’ve taken to talking about “the real economy.” If there’s a “real economy,” then what in the hell is “the economy”?

Once it was real-er, this economy that we have. But that was before we got polarized into the rich, the poor, and the sinking middle class. Gross social inequality is what has “de-coupled” growth and productivity from wage gains for the average household. As far as I can tell, “the economy,” as opposed to the “real economy,” is the realm of investment, and is occupied by people who live on interest and dividends instead of salaries and wages, aka the rich.

So I’m proposing a radical shift in rhetoric: Any stimulus package should focus on the poor and the unemployed, not because they spend more, but because they are in most in need of help. Yes, when a parent can afford to buy Enfamil, it helps the Enfamil company and no doubt “the economy” too. But let’s not throw out the baby with the sensual bubble bath of “stimulus.” In any ordinary moral calculus, the baby comes first.

Far be it from me to make the revolutionary suggestion that babies are more important than profits. My point is just that our economy–with its dizzying bubbles, wild lending sprees, reckless downsizings, and planet-wide hyper-sensitivity – has gotten too far disconnected from ordinary human needs. We could take the current crisis as an opportunity to fix that, at least in part, by shoring up government support for the needy and the dislocated. Or we can wait around and watch while the appropriate imagery gets nasty, as this ghostly creature, “the economy,” starts acting like a nymphomaniac junkie in withdrawal.

Comments

[roger]

if i might wade into this conversation.

" How about the millions more women who chose to keep their babies? Do their babies come first once they've had them, or even count for anything, in your grand scheme of things? "

i have heard this argument many times before. that those who value life and seek sanctity of life are unresponsive to the costs associated with women who bear children and to the costs associated with infants who avoid/survive abortion. i might suggest that plenty of money is spent on these cases:

" In New York, Medicaid provides health care to more than three million poor people and is now a $42 billion a year program, whose costs have risen sharply in recent years. "

that was three years ago that would be billions of dollars annually in one state only. i gather that 42 billion dollars is an insufficient commitment.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/20/nyregion/20medicaid.html

[chris]

chickenshit, you wrote:

"How about the millions more women who chose to keep their babies? Do their babies come first once they've had them, or even count for anything, in your grand scheme of things?"

chicken, what's your reason for attempting to change the subject? Your question is irrelevant.

However, since you raised the issue, consider this: About 4 million children are born in the US every year. And there are about 1 million die in abortions.

Thus, 20% of all pregnancies are aborted. That's a huge percentage of lives ended.

Since my comments were a response to Barb's assertion that babies create good economic activity, how does abortion affect things?

If babies are good, is abortion good for the economy too? Or, more logically, if having babies is good, then having no babies must be bad.

In any case, the US seems to have found its balance point. Four million births and one million abortions, thinning the herd by 20%.

chicken, you asked if the women who gave birth put their children first. The answer varies with the group. And with the understanding of what it means to put a kid first.

In NY City, single mothers can get food, housing and medical care from the state. In addition the state supplies schools, police and fire protection.

To summarize from another comment I posted here, the value of the subsidy for food, housing and medical care is perhaps $22,000 a year. The per-pupil expenditure in NY City public schools is $15,000. If I knew the police and fire budgests I'd give you a per-capita figure on that too.

In short, the direct benefits to children in this country are enormous even if parents are idiots.

[chris]

roger, you quoted:

""In New York, Medicaid provides health care to more than three million poor people and is now a $42 billion a year program...""

I doubt these figures are correct. But leave it to a reporter to ignore the obvious.

If NY spends $42 billion on Medicaid for 3 million eligible participants, then it spends $14,000 per person. The US average is about $5,000. It's way beyond reason to think the costs in NY are almost triple the costs found in the rest of the country.

On the other hand, if the numbers are accurate, then we know what to expect from Universal Government Healthcare. If you multiply $14,000 times the number of eligible US residents (300 million), the product is beyond our ability to pay.

Since Medicaid IS government healthcare, we know the savings touted by liberals on this topic are fictional.

[lc2]

Ooooh, I love it ... I didn't realize chris and roger were at war over who can be the bigger misogynist asshole. Or are they actually earnestly agreeing w/each other, that the world is just full of selfish women who aren't good enough to be martyr-ish carers of children for whom they can't provide? Hard to tell ... but it seems like there's a bit of competition there.

I can't help but observe that both of them seem to care about said fetuses in theory ... until and unless they grow up and become liberals who post on Barbara Ehrenreich's forum.

Let's be honest: do either of these cyber characters seem the slightest bit capable of caring for defenseless infants? That would be an even more amusing contest: which ones would bail quicker, and consider abortion a sacred right, if confronted w/the responsibility of childcare. Hah! I'd pay good $$ to watch that play out. Lol.

[Chickensh*tEagle]

chris: "chicken, what's your reason for attempting to change the subject?"

Actually, you're the one who changed the subject from "Clitoral Economics" to abortion -- twice.

"In short, the direct benefits to children in this country are enormous even if parents are idiots."

Had me worried there for a second -- at first I thought you said, "In short, the direct benefits of children to this country are enormous." Whew!

lc2 "I can't help but observe that both of them seem to care about said fetuses in theory ... until and unless they grow up and become liberals who post on Barbara Ehrenreich's forum."

roger already addressed that by noting how much money the state spends on them. Guess you must have missed it. ;-)

So come on, guys -- which is worst for the country? The woman not coming across, allowing the abortion if she comes across and gets knocked up, or supporting the child?

[roger]

" that the world is just full of selfish women who aren't good enough to be martyr-ish carers of children for whom they can't provide? "

i never knew that childbirth and nurturing of children was either this complicated nor this dramatic. the question was why do many in society assume that the enormous cost paid by taxpayers for the birth of children and the health of children is written off as an insignificant or nonexistent contribution. why do many assume that the prolife movement does not contribute to the care of those who are born when in actual dollars a tremendous amount of money is paid out over a lifetime of employment by those who contribute to funds for the care of just such individuals. instead of intelligent discussion there is nothing more than insults and insinuation.

[roger]

" Let's be honest: do either of these cyber characters seem the slightest bit capable of caring for defenseless infants? "

why do you assume otherwise. how did you come to this accusation.

[roger]

a sacred right:

intact dilation and extraction abortion.

" According to the American Medical Association, this procedure has four main elements.[8] First, the cervix is dilated. Second, the fetus is positioned for a footling breech. Third, the fetus is extracted except for the head. Fourth, the brain of the fetus is evacuated so that a dead but otherwise intact fetus is delivered via the vagina. "

from wikipedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intact_dilation_and_extraction

i gather this has something do do with my inability to "be the slightest bit capable of caring for defenseless infants" and worrying that they will grow up and be liberals and post on this niche blog.

[lc2]

roger ...

a "niche blog" that you spend an inordinate amount of time frequenting. And just about everything from your fingers to keyboard gives me enough evidence that children should run for the hills, rather than turn to you for care.

Now I never said abortion was a sacred right. I don't rub my hands together excitedly at the thought of anyone being in that kind of jam, where they'd undergo a grueling and grisly surgical procedure out of a real or perceived lack of options.

But I'm hardly the first person to notice that men are by and large, not as directly involved in childcare, even w/the dramatic and laudable changes of the last 20 years or so. Beyond their obvious inability to be pregnant, give birth, and lactate, there is simply no way that men can appreciate the all-consuming task of infant care. You are a man, right? Much like women increasingly consider low-intervention births to be their (and their babies') birthright, even a sacred one ... men's perception of abortion would be drastically changed if those immutable biological facts could be somehow upturned. Sorry dude ... it's something you will just never understand, much like I will never understand the testosterone surges that bring you here in the first place, or the Oedipal agony that made you succeptible to messages of politicians who couldn't care less about women or children.

I also never said pro-lifers don't care about babies born to term. But consider this: the latest comprehensive study of abortion-seekers was sobering in its clear demonstration that nearly half of abortions in the U.S. are performed on women over 25, in committed relationships, many of whom already have children. Convinced yet that society's failure to love and care enough for its children plays a significant role in women's choices? Or did you think that love and sacrifice alone put food on the table ... ?

Whatever, this is a total distraction and undermining of the original topic anyway. But kudos to chris for dictating the direction of things ... like I said, this forum pretty much sucks when you two are around.

[roger]

is the reason i am misogynist because i will never understand, nor can i ever appreciate, nor can i ever anticipate the commitment of time and money involved in the birth and nurture of children or do you divine this hatred as an expression of some manner of oedipus complex.

do you see all persons as so shallow and misinformed and inane or only those with whom you disagree.

[lc2]

No, only people who go to internet forums for no greater purpose than to get people all riled up.

For what it's worth, everyone I know whose pro-life stance is rooted in a deep and abiding love of all people and not some kind of confused Madonna/whore complex, doesn't waste his/her time hectoring and lecturing women and proclaiming love for fetuses, or frequenting niche blogs. They are out in the community practicing what they preach. They simply don't have the time to get distracted w/such nonsense. Your pro-life stance rings hollow to me ... sorry!

But this will be my last word on the matter, b'c really, it's just feeding into your and chris's need to steer everything back to a conservative agenda. Like I said, *it's not needed here.* Your voice is not marginalized in the media, in the workplace, in the churches, in the stores, or on the street. We have heard everything you have to say and clearly disagree w/it (big chunks of it anyway) ... which is why we're here. So why don't you go away and practice the all-powerful love of humanity you must feel, as a person of pro-life?

[roger]

"....and not some kind of confused Madonna/whore complex........"

i have no response whatsoever to such a malicious and scathing distortion of my viewpoint.

[Anarcissie]

roger: '... i have no response whatsoever to such a malicious and scathing distortion of my viewpoint.'

Then I won't bother quoting you to point out that you just gave us one.

lc2: '... But this will be my last word on the matter, b'c really, it's just feeding into your and chris's need to steer everything back to a conservative agenda....'

That _is_ a special rightist (I would not say "conservative") talent, playing the hot-buttons, but I notice liberals and leftists like to play right along. Clitoral rhetoric, one might say -- you're all just getting jerked off. And so Barbara's pregnant metaphor has been aborted.

[roger]

no the unfortunate circumstance is not whether i responded but that lc2 can which such ease and composure call the mother of the Saviour of the world a whore.

[Chickensh*tEagle]

Anarcissie: "And so Barbara's pregnant metaphor has been aborted."

Not as far as I'm concerned. It describes the ruling class's treatment of our economy perfectly -- years of abuse to be made up for by a little pleasuring now and then. Point made; the rest is pure fun. :-)

[lc2]

There, there, roger ... I wasn't insulting the Virgin Mary! There's nothing like an immaculate conception to make a woman feel like anything is possible.

http?//primal-page.com/madonna.htm

[lc2]

ooops, that's http://primal-page.com/madonna.htm

[chris]

lc2, a while ago you declared you would NEVER respond to another post or comment of mine.

But you have. Repeatedly.

It's okay with me if you regain your resolve and stop. You won't offend me.

[Brian]

I grew up with descendants of the Puritans and the reason they were thrown out of England and other places was they were oddballs. It had little to do with religion, but with their cultural values, their aesthetism, their rigidity, and judgementalness. In short they weren't fun people so their neighbors abroad said "get out!". Its the puritans telling the history over here about all their persecutions, but they are the ones persecuting as witness the vindictiveness of our judicial system. Rather than balance interests and create fairness among people, its used as a tool of repression and yes, waste management, as well as a reallocation of wealth. The Puritans were puritanical, just as in the Scarlet Letter and the burning of local nieghbor antagonizing witch miscreants. All the draconian laws strangling America today have Puritan roots, i.e. puritanical, and that they are. So roger, you are in fact, wrong on this assumption. And there is nothing wrong with getting an education and using it to secure better employement, but unless you're at least part sociopathic and manipulative you won't amount to much even with such an education. Makes me think of GM deciding to eliminate its entire US workforce through buyouts so they simply hire cheaper workers with cheaper benifits. That is exactly their stated goal. So they want to get rid of thier "educated" experienced workforce and replace it with easy to program handed widgets that are simply cheaper. This is what rips the heart out of a culture's skill base, and surely these people pulled themselves up by the bootstraps to get ahead through all the trades they had to learn, many harder than a general college education. You fail to see the dynamics of the workplace where the old rules no longer apply. In the old regieme you could study chemical engineering and secure an entry level positon in a major oil or chemical company for a good solid career. Now you might only work a few years at over a dozen companys in a career at the whims of whomever the new sociopathic managers are. You can't build up a career momentum like before, so if your not one of the "crazies that run the place" you are just another overpaid widget to them. A secondary spilloff effect is whole new generations of children will not have the advantages of growing up under skilled, educated, parents. It is an advantage to have a father who is a skilled mechanic or engineer and mother who is technically proficient in some field, compared to parents with general labor skills and walmart mentalities lacking pride of worksmanship in the trades. This all hurts society in even deeper ways. One reason New York bounced back so quickly from 911 is the general skill base of the people of the city. They quickly self organized even beyond the governmental fire and police efforts. New Orleans just didn't do that and help had to be imported in for any recovery to start. A skilled, motivated, worker base is invaluable in making a culture vibrant and capable. Trends such as GM will eliminate that redundentcy. When you live in a town peopled with many crafts and tradesmen, engineers, and managerial talent you have a much more vibrant society. Its ludicrious to compare the US to east germany. The ability of Americans to self organized locally outside of government resources shouldn't be underestimated, and previously our kind of economy has nurtured this. In our new, freeze the labor cost economy, or sink it further, this no longer exists in many parts. It weakens our national fabric and you would think governmental policy would not align with this, but it does as corporate intererts have so co-opted it to the point they increasingly steer all aspects of its course. I think its key to incorporate in your analysis the profound dynamic changes in our political economy. As this changes all prior assumtions and makes thinking as recent as a decade old out of date. Let me be clear, in that amount of time pensions have been lost, health care access is being whittled away, middle class pay has been frozen, much work has been outsourced over seas following manufacturing, and now the workers that remain here(GM) are to be totally let go so even cheaper local labor can be hired. This is a complete elimination of the middle class economy, the very support posts that made it all possible. This is class elimination pure and simple. The America we all know arose from the middle class which is now in the final stages of being replaced and repeopled with a lower working class. This will fundamentally change the character of our country. Its profound. So the puritan argument doesn't even apply to anything happening with this. Its simply a dynamic class restructuring per the needs of large corporations to increase their profits of which the upper class benifits ultimately. As these corporations become increasingly multinational one window into the problem is global business needs demands the elimination of the American middle class-period.

[chris]

Brian, you should learn to break your insane rants into paragraphs. Anyway, despite the headache of plowing through your block of mumbo-jumbo, I did find one point of intereest. You wrote:

"One reason New York bounced back so quickly from 911 is the general skill base of the people of the city. They quickly self organized even beyond the governmental fire and police efforts. New Orleans just didn't do that and help had to be imported in for any recovery to start. A skilled, motivated, worker base is invaluable in making a culture vibrant and capable."

New York and New Orleans. Compare and contrast.

I'd say that among those killed on 9/11, the large majority were college grads. Many of those college grads also held graduate degrees. Many MBAs in the deceased crowd.

By extension, it can also be said that most others who were working in the World Trade Center and the Pentagon were college grads.

On the other had, the vast majority of New Orleans residents who were killed during Katrina and those whose residences were destroyed were not college grads. The flooding of the Lower Ninth Ward forced a huge percentage of the N.O. population to relocate.

What's different between the NY and NO populations?

Education.

The NY businesses left homeless by 9/11 were determined and resourceful. Most found new space very quickly. Three of the worst hit firms -- Sandler O'Neill, Keefe Bruyette Woods and Cantor Fitzgerald wre back in business within a week.

Small businesses in the area of the Trade Center were hurt because they were suddenly bereft of customers and because the area was closed to most foot traffic for a while. They received cash compensation.

But mostly, it was the ingenuity and determination of the business leaders and their employees that accounted for the NY rebound.

What could the government do for most of these companies and their employees? Virtually nothing except to eventually provide some financial consideration -- down the road. Thus, the people took care of themselves.

On the other hand, in New Orleans, two hundred thousand people with limited education were suddenly adrift. Once again, a large number of people were harmed by an event and the government was once again unable to offer any immediate assistance.

However, the people in this crowd also lacked the skill and knowledge to help themselves. The aftermath of Katrina speaks for itself. NO remains largely depopulated and those still in NO as well as those scattered to other cities are still waiting for salvation from the government.

An ineffectual government has accomplished little in both NO and NY. But NY has rebounded and NO is a mess. It's the people. Not the government, that makes the difference.

It is now over six years since 9/11 and the World Trade Center is still a hole in the ground. That's government at work.

But Larry Silverstein, the owner of World Trade Tower 7 has already finished rebuilding that building. It's a beauty. And it rose on the site of the destroyed building without government help -- actually, without government hindrance.

The government is incapable of competing with private industry on any level. It's foolish to pretend otherwise. The history of government ineptness in non-government activities is with us every day.

[roger]

" Your pro-life stance rings hollow to me ... sorry! "

about which you know nearly nothing.

since it is inconceivable to you that i could have a prolife viewpoint arising from philosophy, doctrine or axiom which does not have origins in anything other than misogyny lets ask a related question.

in 1997 there was a case in which a child with profound mental deficiencies was born in the seattle area.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashley_Treatment

her parents consulted with medical professionals and as a result ashley had various surgeries and hormonal treatments which stunted her growth, prevented her from developing breasts and prevented her from becoming pregnant. the rational for these procedures:

" The parents state that they sought such treatment for the best interests of their daughter, namely, to enable them to personally continue constant care for her; to reduce the risk of bedsores; to avoid the discomfort that may be associated with menstruation; to prevent pregnancy; to avoid the discomfort of large breasts, which run in Ashley's family; to prevent breast cancer; and to prevent appendicitis, which occurs in 5% of the population and which would be difficult to diagnose in Ashley as she would be unable to communicate the symptoms. They also believe that without secondary sexual characteristics, Ashley will be less vulnerable to sexual abuse. "

now the issue here is that the child underwent these alterations so that the parents could better care for her, and ashley was unable to give consent. there are two parties one of which cannot give consent. in such cases one party invariably is at the mercy of the other party for their well being and welfare. the one party is powerless to avoid the treatment or procedure which the other party imposes. the one party must submit to the treatment of the other party. this circumstance has direct and immediate application to abortion. one party is able and has the power in these circumstances. i cannot say that ashley's parents made an incorrect decision in the case. i would however ask the related question. what is the relationship between those who wield power and those who are the most vulnerable persons in our population. sanctity of life and integrity of person extends to questions surrounding abortion, capital punishment, euthanasia, assisted suicide and elder abuse. these are related questions and the relevant question is whether there are sufficient safeguards provided to the vulnerable party.

there were one and a half million abortions last year. were there sufficient safeguards afforded the vulnerable party.

[lc2]

Yawn. Bor-ing!

Barbara, next blog entry please. There sure is plenty of ripe material these days.

[Anarcissie]

chris: '... But Larry Silverstein, the owner of World Trade Tower 7 has already finished rebuilding that building. It's a beauty. And it rose on the site of the destroyed building without government help -- actually, without government hindrance. ...'

No part of the World Trade Center would ever have come into existence in the first place if it had not been for governmental powers of eminent domain and taxation, aligned with the Rockefellers' and some other parties' wealth and powers in and out of the government. (At one point, a great many of the tenants of the towers were New York State agencies; guess how they got there?) Naturally, the government has continued to be involved, hence the political disputes about the site and what should be built there among the general public _and_ the elites, which are what delayed rebuilding, not government inefficiency. If you are going to cite history you should at least read up on it, instead of reciting some tired Randian fable about heroic businessmen.

As for Siverstein's building, I'm glad you like it. To me, it's just another glass box with nothing much special about it, but it could be worse, I guess.

[Anarcissie]

roger: '... there were one and a half million abortions last year. were there sufficient safeguards afforded the vulnerable party.'

In a situation where abortion is a possibility, there are _two_ vulnerable parties, but you seem to have elided one of them. Now, I wonder why that is.

[Chickensh*tEagle]

roger: "since it is inconceivable to you that i could have a prolife viewpoint arising from philosophy, doctrine or axiom which does not have origins in anything other than misogyny..."

To me, it's not inconceivable at all that one could be "pro-life" about the mentally deficient child for non-misogynist reasons on the one hand, and anti-choice for reasons springing from misogyny on the other.

In one very real way, you're all for "sweet choice" yourself -- you take it on yourself to choose which woman gets to make her own choice and which one doesn't.

[chris]

anarcissie, you wrote:

"No part of the World Trade Center would ever have come into existence in the first place if it had not been for governmental powers of eminent domain and taxation, aligned with the Rockefellers' and some other parties' wealth and powers in and out of the government."

What's your point? Tall building are built all over NY City. Most are privately owned. The fact that the downtown WTC site was a government project says nothing. The World Financial Center, across West Street is private, as are most other buildings in the area.

In any case, my comments about the WTC relate to the inability of government to compete with private industry in any endeavor.

The creation of the WTC is a fine example. The project was conceived in 1946. It took only until 1973 to finish construction of the two main towers. Twenty-seven years from idea to reality. Not bad -- for government.

In keeping with my original statement, New Orleans can expect a similar timetable if the government -- federal, state or local -- manages the rebuilding.

You wrote:

"(At one point, a great many of the tenants of the towers were New York State agencies; guess how they got there?)"

Once again, as you have noted, government in action. New Orleans is looking at a bright future as long as that future is in the hands of people like Ray Nagin, the new governor of Louisiana or any other group of bureaucrats.

You wrote:

"Naturally, the government has continued to be involved, hence the political disputes about the site and what should be built there among the general public _and_ the elites, which are what delayed rebuilding, not government inefficiency."

The obstacles that have stalled the rebuilding of the WTC are the result of political fights. The elites to whom you refer are politicians or government figures. Not members of private industry.

You claimed:

"If you are going to cite history you should at least read up on it, instead of reciting some tired Randian fable about heroic businessmen."

My comments reflect the facts. The government is incompetent when it comes to managing business ventures. The delays that have left NY City with nothing but a hole in the ground at the WTC site leave no doubt about this.

[roger]

" In a situation where abortion is a possibility, there are _two_ vulnerable parties, but you seem to have elided one of them. Now, I wonder why that is. "

because with the exception of bertha bugarin and a few incompetents and frauds similar, the technical procedure, especially in the early stages of pregnancy, is quite safe for the woman.

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-abortion8feb08,0,35683.story

[roger]

" To me, it's not inconceivable at all that one could be "pro-life" about the mentally deficient child for non-misogynist reasons on the one hand, and anti-choice for reasons springing from misogyny on the other. "

my prolife position is uniform across circumstances and extends to euthanasia and capital punishment. the power to decide if the vulnerable party remains alive rests with forces which cannot be trusted to make these decisions based on what is best for the vulnerable party. vulnerable party category includes capital punishment cases in which the defendant cannot afford a proper defense. we cannot allow persons to be executed as a function of how much of a defense they can afford. euthanasia has similar difficulties.

" One in five cases of euthanasia occurred without the patient's explicit request, and in 17% of such cases, alternative treatment was available in contravention of the guidelines.

" Dr Ben Zylicz, of the Dutch League of Doctors, said: "I have heard about a patient where the family came from Canada because of planned euthanasia.

"The patient said, 'no, not today I don't want it anymore' and everybody pressed him saying 'look your family came from Canada, they cannot do it again'.

"In a country where euthanasia is accepted this kind of thing can happen."


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/background_briefings/euthanasia/331270.stm

[roger]

" Its ludicrious to compare the US to east germany. "

why? that is precisely the comparison made by american communist victor grossman in an effort to demonstrate the benefits of cooperative socialism over extractive and competitive capitalism. it was very well done.

http://www.h-net.org/reviews/showrev.cgi?path=272441084898390

[roger]

vulnerable party in competition with well financed and government sanctioned incompetents and fools.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/29/nyregion/29mother.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

[Anarcissie]

moi: " In a situation where abortion is a possibility, there are _two_ vulnerable parties, but you seem to have elided one of them. Now, I wonder why that is. "

roger: 'because with the exception of bertha bugarin and a few incompetents and frauds similar, the technical procedure, especially in the early stages of pregnancy, is quite safe for the woman.'

But bringing a pregnancy to term isn't. Therefore, when the State begins to interfere with the reproductive decisions of women, it's interfering with their lives and welfare.

[Anarcissie]

chris: '... My comments reflect the facts. The government is incompetent when it comes to managing business ventures. The delays that have left NY City with nothing but a hole in the ground at the WTC site leave no doubt about this.'

Except for the fact that the political disputes about the use of the World Trade Center site have little or nothing to do with government inefficiency. In a world full of examples of it, you could not have picked a less apt one.

[roger]

nearly everything the state does is interfering with our welfare. the question remains is the welfare of the party without power being protected. i have already spoken of tammy skinner case. she is held not responsible for the extermination (death, choice, cleansing of host body, murder, elimination of parasitical tissue) of the life of the vulnerable party because she performed an abortion on herself. this is nonpunishable under abortion law. the vulnerable party here is 9 month gestational age due to be born that morning and method of abortion is handgun.

http://hamptonroads.com/node/99191

[Anarcissie]

I have nothing to say about weird atrocity stories and other tools of propaganda, other than to state what they are, and to note that you seem to have a considerable collection of them.

[roger]

" weird atrocity stories and other tools of propaganda, "

yes that is what they are. not authentic case studies which elucidate ethics of medicine and weakness/failing/inadequacy of law.

[Chickensh*tEagle]

roger: "the question remains is the welfare of the party without power being protected."

First you have to convince me (and I dare say most others here) that a not-yet-viable fetus is a "party." My answer is no. And a cluster of undifferentiated cells definitely is not, and a fertilized ovum absolutely is not.

As for Tammy Skinner, you never answered my question of whether competent professional help would have been available to her had she sought it before she shot herself. You simply presumed to say, knowing nothing about her circumstances, that her child could have been cared for by a grandparent. So you needn't bother mentioning her cases again as far as I'm concerned. Anarcissie's remark about weird atrocity stories goes double for me.

[roger]

this is reported to be a fetus at 22 weeks gestation.

http://www.thetribalunderground.net/diginhalation/?p=341

i googled images and dug through a few post abortion images which i will not post here and found this one on the first page. it looks like a vulnerable person.

as for tammy skinner the point i am aiming at is that here are indisputable two viable, coherent, independent beings. one is at the mercy of the other and the other shot it with a handgun and then was not prosecuted under abortion law. this is what we know. it may well have been that relatives could have helped her. it could have been that there was available professional mental health assistance. it may have been that she mistakenly saw no other option. is it not true however that there is a tremendous imbalance in power and that the fetus lost this competition for access to continued viability. im phrasing this in the most neutral terms i have. viable fetus, poor minority murder defendant, elderly person, dutch candidate of euthanasia. these are all vulnerable populations and in my mind it seems fit to provide a safeguard to prevent abuse. why do we treat abortion differently especially when the woman feels labor pains and would have given birth that day as a natural consequence.

[roger]

" weird atrocity stories "

do you include ashley's treatment in that category.

[Anarcissie]

roger -- The purpose of an atrocity story is not elucidation and discussion but the prevention of elucidation and discussion and the promotion of propaganda. For example, this kind of thinking allowed you to magically eliminate one of the parties involved in any abortion, which is certainly convenient for the anti-abortionist view of things. If you can suck people into arguing about some crazy woman who shot herself in the abdomen, you won't have to defend your perhaps indefensible views.

[roger]

if you have come to the conclusion that factual accounts regarding tammy skinner, channon christian, ashley's treatment, dunbar village, shootings by stasi are nothing more than propaganda promulgated by foot soldiers of the empire and that ayn rand is dispensable then i would say with due respect and without sarcasm that you are welcome to these opinions.

[Chickensh*tEagle]

roger: "it may well have been that relatives could have helped her. it could have been that there was available professional mental health assistance."

And it may just as well have been the opposite.

My point is, a truly "pro-life" society would not leave that to chance; it would make sure that help was available instead of waiting until after a likely-preventable tragedy like this, then demanding punishment. You're really not doing your non-mysogyny cred any good by citing this example, the other stuff doesn't help rescue it either.

[Irene]

Karl: '... It is cute that everyone wants to dream in a sophmoric way about what could be, what should be..etc. Get real! Life isn't about "sharing", it is about "taking" and using your noggin. ...'

Anarcissie:
You're not a very good capitalist, Karl. First of all, capitalism is a mode of cooperation, of collective behavior, not of isolated individualism. Secondly, the mainspring of capitalism has been the conviction of its practitioners, from top to bottom, that life can be different and better, that things imagined can be made real. That conviction may be as delusional as you suggest, but if people come to think that way, you can kiss capitalism good-bye.

Did you mean that if people come to think only in terms of "taking," capitalism dies? Or did you mean that if people think in terms of "sharing," capitalism will die?

Your two-point assessment gives progressive beliefs that drive capitalism. Several members of my family have started businesses, and I have been very impressed with their vision energy and courage.
A large multinational that is laying off thousands of employees to increase short term profit, scarcely seems to be part of the same capitalism.

[Anarcissie]

Irene -- I was a bit too condensed in my writing. I meant that if people come to believe that it is delusional to think that life can be different or better, then capitalism will die. I also meant to refer, by implication, to the fact that capitalism is a mode of cooperation, of collective behavior, and the idea that this sort of behavior is what is going to make life different and better.

If, as Karl says, life is about taking, then capitalism is an inappropriate form of social organization. We can revert to feudalism, to the politics of the Mafia.

As it happens traditional capitalism is an authoritarian, class-based form of collectivity and cooperation, which is probably what leads to large multinationals laying off thousands of people to achieve short-term profits. But this seems to be what people like. Otherwise we would presumably see more cooperatives and more rational modes of behavior.

[Irene]

Why are we drowning ourselves in Coco Puffs and defending the right of the manufacturers to make a profit when there is little nutrition and much harm in so many food products? What kind of economy can we expect from an obese, malnourished population?

[Tom McCarthy]

>>http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4401670.stm

>>it was too easy

First, the banlieue problem is hardly representative of Europe as a whole. Those troubles have as much to do with assimilation and culture (the culture of the French as well as the immigrants) as it does with economics.

In short, you will have a hard time finding a like example elsewhere. Why don't you start with Scandinavia? We won't be hearing from you for a while.

[Brian]

there is no such term as "madonna/whore complex" and it would be wrong to invent that as meaning anything. First of all, maddona is anything but a whore as she was cutting edge for followers of the new york club dance scene to begin with and self-made by sheer endurance living hand to mouth in flats of friends sleeping on couches and putting up her own posters. Now she is a business entity that makes as of last count in the mid-20's millions a year consistently. Same with Paris Hilton, she has branded herself as a salesperson who also makes in the mid-20 millions a year. Its all an act by a trooper who puts a lot of time and energy creating her antics, and like all of us has a few mishaps along the way. Both of these woman are money making machines and they put in a lot of hours to get there, just like martha stewart did. People are just envious and judgemental, but many buy their products and enjoy them. Show biz will distort personalities and make them at times intolerable, but none of these woman are on self- destructive paths. All three are CEO's of their own companys.

[Tony Iovino]

John Edwards rode into the sunset after extracting promises from Hillary & Barack that they would work to end poverty. Your post amplifies that worthy goal.

But that leaves a question-- Regardless the road we choose to take, be it a conservative path or a liberal one-- at what point will we consider people out of poverty? Can somebody tell me? Not platitudes like "when every person is living in dignity and without fear" or some other claptrap. I can't measure that, and unless we figure out how to achieve some communistic land of perfection, where everyone is robotically equal, we will always have different strata in society. The "poor" will always be with us.

I know things are tough for some people--but on the other hand, sales of iPods just passed 125 million units-- any idea how many cell phones there are in America? Households with cable TV? I just named three products that cost the average American family over $1,000 year--costs that didn't exist 10 years or so ago. Are these necessaries? Without these items, is someone poor?

Somebody tell me-- What does the end of poverty look like?
http://redmindbluestate.blogspot.com/2008/01/end-of-poverty.html

[Ron]

I think the post misses the point. Unlike the 1940's and 1950's, we live in a global environment and compete for jobs with Chinese and other nations who will produce cheaper and faster with less personal demands on the employer. How do you fix that? We feel entitled to have everything fixed for us. We need to understand that technology develops more competition and the consumer demands lower prices when they have choice.

[Busby Seo Challenge]

Hi you are good!I'am not good, though not as good as you. You have such a great potential. Keep it up! Busby Seo Challenge

[Jim]

Roger reads books?

[Chip]

Obama is the ONE , He Can Save Us , He Will STOP WAR
He Will Stop World Warming , he Will Stop Hunger and Poverty. The WHOLE World wants OBAMA for its Leader . People who don't must be dealth with Severely , they are the Rich and Powerful they MUST BE ELIMINATED . So You Must pledge YOUR LIFE in the CAUSE For OBAMA , If You Do You Will be Rewared if Not You Will be Pushed aside . Left to DIE in a NON Obama area. Join Us or be Eliminated !!!!!!