I'm Mad as Hell, and I'm not going to take it anymore!!______________________________________
Irony threatens authoritative models of discourse by "removing the semantic security of ‘one signifier : one signified’";[1][2] irony has some of its foundation in the onlooker’s perception of paradox which arises from insoluble problems.
____________________________________________________
I saw on CNN the nearly hulkish (that explains the title!) explosion by Hillary Clinton in Ohio today over some mailers by Obama. I found it to be rather ironic (that explains the Wiki reference!) that she would come across so hurt from someone in her own party 'attacking her' using materials that she alleges are full of lies and untruths, and then not only calls Obama a hypocrite, but compares him to Carl Rove. For a moment I thought we'd here her plagiarize Howard Beale in Network: I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take this anymore. This of course after she ran in South Carolina (and in other states) one of the most belligerent and bellicose campaigns that would have not only excited Carl Rove but made (pre Catholicism) Lee Atwater proud.
So what's the deal is it 'the pot calling the kettle black'? Or is it something more? There's an old saying that the ladies I used to work with would say 'The Devil is a liar,' which basically meant to call a person out on a lie. I feel sure that in this akward moment of irony that the ladies I used to work with would look at Ms. Clinton after she got over her temper tantrum and said those very words.
These fliers that HRC is complaining about are not new, I've examined them, and the fact is they don't tell the falsehoods that she purports to be so darned upset about. Her health plan would force people to buy health insurance, which for some odd reason she says is untrue - when it is, that's why it's a health care mandate, her words not mine. (her spin is a bit more than Texas two steepin!) As for the second leaflet the one about NAFTA - wake up and smell the truth (Ohio), Bill Clinton - or I should say Billary, because they're a team, were huge pushers and supporters of NAFTA. I find it amazing that anyone supports either party after a blunder of policy that George I and Her Wonkiness supported full-heartedly. And guess what, no one in the media believes her stunt - check out the news posts that I've linked to in this blog post, all of their languages suggest that the media at least recognizes when it's being spoon fed a line of patoohy from the Clinton machine, and now straight from the Horse's mouth.
The truth of the matter is she's on the downward slope and, out of desperation, isn't afraid anymore to step it up and sound like an angry mother, attempting to shame Obama supporters into voting for her. Isn't afraid to put herself out their and accuse somebody of something she's very much guilty of and lie in order to appear the victim and come across as one deserving pity.
The shame isn't on Barack Obama Ms. Clinton, the shame is on you for running an overpriced, mean spirited, skullduggerous, manipulative (you'll definitely want to see that linke!) campaign of expected coronation. Shame on you.
Don't make me Angry, you wouldn't like it when I'm Angry!!*
*On 2/29/08 - I learned something new - hotlinking. That site will give you an explanation. Now that I know what hot linking is and what it can do, I'll be more cognizant of it in the future. How did I learn about it, well the above picture of HRC looking scary was on someone's blog - I found the image via Google and just copied the image URL that Google gave to me. Apparently the Image was on the site of a rabid fascist in Texas - a place where no one would ever expect to find a rabid fascist and he decided instead of kindly e-mailing someone who is a relative novice to blogging and educating me to post nasty, hateful comments - which thankfully I've removed, as well as replace "his image" with one more disparaging, and quite frankly filled with inaccurate information (apologies to regular readers). But no worries - I discovered the faux pas and corrected it.
8 comments:
I seriously doubt this comment will never make it past your moderation, but what Bodacious at ivorydome.us posted about Senator Obama supporting partial birth abortions is in fact true and not, as you claim, "inaccurate information."
None other than the Old Gray Lady herself, the New York Times, reported this in an April 18, 2007 article entitled Reaction to Court’s Abortion Ruling Falls Along Predictable Party Lines.
If you scroll about half-way down, you'll find this:
The three Democratic presidential hopefuls leading in early preference polls — Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois and former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards — opposed the decision. [Emphasis added.]
...Obama weighed in with support for the dissenting opinion of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who wrote that the ruling “tolerates, indeed applauds, federal intervention to ban nationwide a procedure found necessary and proper in certain cases by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.”
As the blog author, you certainly have the right to censor this; we at Ivory Dome have had to moderate our comments too, when they started getting really abusive. But please don't delude yourself into believing that Senator Obama doesn't support partial birth abortion.
I would also refer you to the CNN article on the decision to find out what exactly was meant by the perilous phrase "partial birth abortion":
Three federal appeals courts had ruled against the government, saying the federal Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 is unconstitutional because it does not provide a "health exception" for pregnant women facing a medical emergency. The outcome of this latest challenge before the court's new ideological makeup could turn on the legal weight given past rulings on the health exception.
In states where such exceptions are allowed, the lists of possible health risks include severe blood loss, damage to vital organs and loss of fertility. Court briefs noted pregnant women having the procedure most often have their health threatened by cancer, heart disease, high blood pressure or risk of stroke. Doctors are given the discretion to recommend when the late-term procedure should be performed.
I suppose then that the argument is too nuanced for many of your fellow ivory domers to consider - to say that one supports this procedure in the rare situation where the mother's life is at risk is not a carte blanc measure of support for the destruction of post-2nd trimester fetuses. And the additional information is simply the numbers -- even the Solicitor General said the procedure is rare.
I understand that even those who support roe v. wade many are in favour of allowing abortions in the case of rape or incest or if the woman's life is at risk. I also understand many do not - specifically my fellow Roman Catholics. Although I don't support Abortion, I'm not making my decision on who I vote and support for President based solely on that issue as someone say is necessary - but then I thought, if that was the case, I couldn't vote for anyone!
should say "Don't support"
Oh, and curious Texas - sorry it took so long to post your comment was out of town visiting family - thank you for being courteous in your responding and not asinine like your fellow ivory domer which required my removing his remarks
(I think I may have posted that last comment twice; my bad! Feel free to delete the duplicate.)
The problem I have with Roe v. Wade, Doe v. Bolton, and Casey v. Planned Parenthood is that they comprise a legal house of cards, inventing a constitutional right to abortion out of whole cloth and ultimately leading to the banning of partial birth abortion for all the wrong reasons.
Roe v. Wade admits that "[t]he Constitution does not explicitly mention any right of privacy," but then strings together a series of Supreme Court decisions that creates such a right, and then proceeds to include in that right "a woman’s decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy."
Doe v. Bolton defines the health factors relating to abortion to include "physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman’s age."
Casey v. Planned Parenthood limits restrictions on abortion to only those circumstances whereby no "undue burden" is placed on the patient. (cont'd)
This brings us to Gonzales v. Carhart, the Supreme Court decision that banned partial birth abortion.
Here’s an chilling quote from this opinion, citing the “description from a nurse who witnessed the same method performed on a 26-week fetus and who testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee”:
“ ‘Dr. Haskell went in with forceps and grabbed the baby’s legs and pulled them down into the birth canal. Then he delivered the baby’s body and the arms—everything but the head. The doctor kept the head right inside the uterus… .
“ ‘The baby’s little fingers were clasping and unclasping, and his little feet were kicking. Then the doctor stuck the scissors in the back of his head, and the baby’s arms jerked out, like a startle reaction, like a flinch, like a baby does when he thinks he is going to fall.
“ ‘The doctor opened up the scissors, stuck a high-powered suction tube into the opening, and sucked the baby’s brains out. Now the baby went completely limp… .
“ ‘He cut the umbilical cord and delivered the placenta. He threw the baby in a pan, along with the placenta and the instruments he had just used.’ ”[Emphasis added.]
(cont'd)
If you read Gonzales v. Carhart carefully, you'll find that there's another late-term abortion procedure whereby the fetus is literally torn limb-from-limb inside the uterus and parts are removed.
The existence of this alterate procedure to partial-birth abortion is the legal reason that partial-birth abortion could be banned. For the woman who prefers to "choose" a dead baby with its brains sucked out, she'll have to settle for one with its arms and legs torn off, because the end result is the same: a dead baby. No "undue burden" here.
The primary reason I want to see Roe v. Wade overturned is because I think abortion should be up to the States, at least until such time as a constitutional amendment settles this one way or the other. For the Supreme Court to pronounce abortion a constitutional right is a little too nuanced for me, I'm afraid.
Maybe you can help me, Mattheus. Can you show me where in the "emanations and penumbra" of the United States Constitution is the right to do this:
“ ‘The baby’s little fingers were clasping and unclasping, and his little feet were kicking. Then the doctor stuck the scissors in the back of his head, and the baby’s arms jerked out, like a startle reaction, like a flinch, like a baby does when he thinks he is going to fall.
“ ‘The doctor opened up the scissors, stuck a high-powered suction tube into the opening, and sucked the baby’s brains out."
I agree that the events that happened were frightfully tragic! I also agree that such a procedure is indeed repugnant.
Concerning the Carhart case, what was cited as the reason that the doctor performed the late term abortion, was it willy nilly or was the woman in a particular danger. I'm trying to find that much on the back ground case but am unable to do so.
You mention that the USSC previously strung together a series of opinions to create the right to privacy which was not explicitly enumerated in the Constitution. You ask about the emanations and penumbra of the United States Constitution that would allow such acts based on a created right.
I'm not a lawyer - but I do recall that the Supreme Court in the very first two cases ever decided defined its authority as Supreme Interpreter of the Constitution. From Wikipedia the Supreme Court:
declared [itself] to be the supreme arbiter of the Constitution (see Marbury v. Madison) and made a number of important rulings which gave shape and substance to the constitutional balance of power between the federal government (referred to at the time as the "general" government) and the states. In Martin v. Hunter's Lessee, the Court ruled that it had the power to correct interpretations of the federal Constitution made by state supreme courts. Both Marbury and Martin confirmed that the Supreme Court was the body entrusted with maintaining the consistent and orderly development of federal law.
If I may, the key words in that emboldened section "maintaining the consistent and orderly development of federal law is the clencher - The Court uses Judicial Precedent as the means of fulfilling that self appointed self defined obligation of the USSC, which subsequently and consequently is why the court uses such prior cases that develop the argument to privacy within the constitution. (But that's not to say that the court doesn't go against precident, otherwise African Americans might still suffer under Jim Crow, or even be slaves)
Essentially then the Law is not something static (Thank the Heavens! I'm sure you'll agree) but rather is organic. And as disparaging as it sounds, it's always important to remember that Justice is Blind which for right or wrong, good or bad doesn't always mean fair.
Post a Comment