Wednesday, June 07, 2006

Carville's Blog

"If men would consider not so much wherein they differ, as wherein they agree, there would be far less of uncharitableness and angry feeling." ~ Joseph Addison

My good friend and new blogger buddy, moderately progressive Liberal Sheila, has finally relented (under pressure from me), to publish her own blog. You can find it here.

This is a picture of Sheila with President Reagan. I stole this picture off Sheila's blog. I didn't get permission from her. I assume it is alright with her. If not, I will remove it with sincerest apologies.

Sheila, although a Liberal, is so far pretty inoffensive to us Conservatives. Of all the moderately progressives who claim they are moderate or progressive, Sheila appears to be, at least so far, genuinely moderate. That is a good thing. What this country needs is more middle of the road voices. Certainly politics would be less divisive.

I mentioned in another post, if I ever would become a Liberal, it would be because of Conservatives like Sean Hannity, whose vitreous statements regarding Liberals and frankly, anyone who disagrees with him, leaves a sour taste in my mouth.

Sheila is another reason I would become a Liberal. One of the reasons I switched sides was because I was so thoroughly disgusted with the hate spewing from the majority of Liberals on the political scene. Sheila is not like that. She truly gives a respectful, thoughtful perspective on politics.

And if you read her blog, you will find that it leaves anything but a bad taste in your mouth. In fact, if you follow her recipes (whatever she calls her dishes) you most certainly will be left with a very good taste in your mouth.

I met Sheila through blogging, on another site which I since have pretty much avoided, the commentary from most of the commenters there being hard for this old Conservative to stomach. Sheila is a calm voice of moderation in a tempest of Liberal moonbat vitriol.

Since we met, Sheila and I have become very good friends. We jokingly refer to each other respectively as Carville and Matilin. I am pretty sure that if we lived closer to each other, I might ask her out on a date, since we are both single. No, I take that back. I would definitely ask her out, and she might possibly go, as long as our destination is an apolitical place where the patrons don't know of a difference between Democrats and Republicans, or Liberals and Conservatives. And as long as our discussion doesn't degenerate into a argument over ideologies.

For the record, I will never become a Liberal as long as Liberals continue to promote an ideology that supports the wanton murder of unborn babies. In my opinion, there is never an excuse to kill babies. The Liberals speak often of freedom of choice, yet never seem to consider the choice of the only victim in all this. That of the innocent baby, who did absolutely nothing to deserve a death sentence except be unwanted, which, of course, is not the babies choice, either.

I also think it's hypocrisy to suggest it's wrong to execute vicious murderers but right to murder the disabled and infirmed, and to kill innocent babies.

There is never a valid reason to murder babies. Not even in cases of incest or rape. Where is the logic in killing an innocent because of some crime committed by someone else?

But I digress.

You can link to her blog from my blogroll, under the title "Cooking politicians"

Go visit Sheilas blog. Tell her I sent you.

23 comments:

Lone Ranger said...

My own Tonto considers herself a moderate. We'll probably face off on that eventually. I personally believe there is nothing in the middle of the road but yellow stripes and dead armadillos. How can you be moderate on abortion? Should this country execute just 750,000 babies a year instead of 1.5 million?

The WordSmith from Nantucket said...

I mentioned in another post, if I ever would become a Liberal, it would be because of Conservatives like Sean Hannity, whose vitreous statements regarding Liberals and frankly, anyone who disagrees with him, leaves a sour taste in my mouth.

I think that's a poor reason to be switching sides, rather than on the convictions of your belief. But, that being said, I too, because of the "angry-as-hell-all-or-nothing-voters" among conservatives have pushed me toward the center on the illegal immigration issue. And I've found myself sick of listening to a few of my favorite conservative voices, like your beloved Laura Ingraham.

Sheila is the Lanny Davis of the blogosphere.

Dan Trabue said...

"In my opinion, there is never an excuse to kill babies."

And so you will come out in opposition to the Iraq War because we've killed babies there?

Mark said...

Dan, I am not in favor of war, but I, unlike you and all the other bleeding heart sob sister Liberals, recognize that sometimes there is no other choice.

So no, I don't ever condone killing babies. But unforunately, war is not healthy for children and other living things.

Perhaps you think that leaving Saddam in power to murder many more babies than what some minimal collateral damage would is preferable?

Stop being stupid, Dan. You are smarter than that.

Erudite Redneck said...

An alternative view, from Chrsitian Alliance for Progress:


Effective Prevention vs. Criminalizing Abortion

Honoring the Sanctity of Childbearing Decisions - Jesus Taught Compassion, Responsibility, and Equality. Following His Call, We Support Responsible, Compassionate Programs That Are Genuinely Effective in Helping Prevent Unintended Pregnancy, An Outcome No Woman Wants. We Affirm That Each Woman's Body Belongs to Herself. No Woman Should Be Forced Either to Bear a Child or to Terminate a Pregnancy.

No one is "for" abortion. Most abortions are attended by an enormous amount of emotional pain. But we think the issue is effective prevention of unintended pregnancy, not criminalizing desperate pregnant women or the medical professionals who help them.

Over and over in the Gospels, Jesus is scathing in his dealings with hypocrites. We believe that Jesus would recognize the inherent hypocrisy in decreasing support for family planning or reducing access to contraception while simultaneously seeking to criminalize abortion. Such actions deny women and men access to basic help and information on family planning while, at the same time, forcing them to bear children. Abstinence-only education programs pushed by the right are actually associated with an increase in the rate of abortions. Such approaches like these increase the rate of abortions. They are not about protecting life; they are about controlling and punishing desperate women, especially poor women. Criminalizing abortion would also disproportionately target poor women who could not go abroad for a legal abortion.

We believe our nation has a responsibility to enact policies that help reduce or eliminate the number of abortions and unintended pregnancies. For example, studies suggest that expanded availability of emergency contraception and better public awareness of the limitations of current birth control methods could reduce the need for abortions by half, but this has been opposed by right-wing activists. International experience shows that many countries with the most - prohibitive abortion laws have the highest abortion rates. But places like the Netherlands that emphasize prevention while keeping abortion safe and legal have the lowest abortion rates. We call for government policies that respect the lives of women and provide responsible, effective approaches for decreasing unintended pregnancy.

Recognizing that Jesus teaches us by his example, we hold that he would treat women as full and complete partners today, just as he did in his own time. Therefore, we assert that creating secular laws to give control of a woman's body to the state is unchristian. We assert that compulsory childbearing (if Roe v. Wade were overturned), compulsory abortion (as in China), and compulsory childbearing or abortion based on the state's decision (as in Nazi Germany) all deny a woman's essential humanity and are immoral.

International studies show that legal constraints on abortion have low impact on whether women actually get abortions. This means only that women will have illegal abortions, procedures that are often unsafe or lethal. Americans know, from the time before Roe v. Wade, that prohibiting safe abortion procedures led directly to deaths of multitudes of desperate and frightened women. Extremists who want to return us to that time are unlike the Jesus we know from the Gospels; they implicitly hold that the life of a woman does not matter. Our government has a moral obligation not to enact laws that have been shown by history to cause women injury or death.

Poison Pero said...

I can barely keep up with the blogs I currently check daily......I'll try to swing by Sheila's though.

Way to go Ranger. Bring up abortion, and the entire topic swings.

Lone Ranger said...

The liberals' concern for the welfare of little babies in war is nothing more than a smokescreen for their cowardice.

We've killed babies in every war. In WWII, we killed thousands of babies in one bombing run on a city called Dresden. And then there were the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki -- by the way, it was a Democrat who was in office then.

But what is the result? Hitler is no longer throwing babies in far greater numbers into ovens. Saddam is no longer throwing babies in far greater numbers into mass graves.

How many babies have abortionists saved by sucking the brains out of infants?

Thanks to scientists and military researchers (I used to be one of them), we have refined our killing ability to minimize collateral damage.

Maybe someday we'll have weapons like the one on "Dune," that will genetically seek out an enemy and kill only that person. Until then, we'll just have to muck along and wage war the best way we know how.

Lone Ranger said...

UPDATE: We got Al-Zarqawi, the most dangerous terrorist in Iraq! He was killed in an airstrike on a safehouse 40 miles north of Baghdad, along with seven other terrorists. Were there any babies in the house? Dunno. But one sure thing is that Al-Zarqawi won't be blowing up any more babies in Iraq.

Sheila said...

LOL Pero, I felt the same way.

Matalin, I am flabergasted and complimented. There you go again! Everytime I think I've got your number and you show me another side.

I was going to post another one last night, but I guess blogger was down for maintenance.

I you bank on it, that I have NO stomach for the Extreme Anything. I do however lost diatribe. SO, have at that.

LR, Let me let you in on a secret....well really not a secret, but little known realization.

""""How can you be moderate on abortion?""""

Moderates paint there "Centerism" on their own core belief system. No one ever rides the fense on abortion or any other subject.

But they maybe on the right when is comes to abortion and maybe on the left for say taxes. That averages out to left of center or right of center, which equals out to moderate.

80% of this country is moderate. We're tired of the right and the left speaking for us!

Lone Ranger said...

Yes, yes. There were moderates when the Democratic party was the party of slavery too. I'm sure there were moderates in Nazi Germany. A moderate does not turn a blind eye to the murder of millions of babies.

Dan Trabue said...

"Stop being stupid, Dan. You are smarter than that."

Oh, I'm plenty smart sometimes, Mark. I'm smart enough to begin recognizing it when you're lying.

You said, "There is never a valid reason to murder babies." A point with which I agree. BUT, then you said it IS okay to murder babies during wartime. Which is it Mark? Is it always wrong or not?

This is just like your comment earlier when you said that the Dems were more corrupt than the Republicans but then offered no evidence to support your claim.

I thought you were better than this Mark, but you're lying. You're looking us in our collective virtual faces and telling us something that is not true. You DO think it acceptable sometimes to kill babies and other innocent bystanders. You apparently DON'T have any evidence that the Dems are corrupt.

I'm sorry if I'm making a big deal of this but what you're doing here IS A BIG PROBLEM. It's a problem across the political spectrum but it is an especially big problem for those currently in power and especially the Bush Whitehouse.

They think they can make statements generated like gas outta their butts with no evidence to support them in order to accomplish their desired ends. "YES. Saddam has WMD AND WE KNOW WHERE THEY ARE." "IF we don't stop them then there will be a mushroom cloud over New York." "The Left just wants to support terrorists and killers and kill little babies."

These are all lies, misdirections and strawmen phoniness created out of nothing to accomplish questionable ends. A nation or administration built out of lies is a nation and administration built upon sand. Our house WILL come crashing down upon us if we insist on continually just fabricating whatever statements we wish to make and asserting them as true and valid.

Come on Mark. Snap out of it. You ARE a good and responsible man. Act like it.

Goat said...

Mark, are you drunk or in love or drunk with love? Hold on good buddy, the lure is to be challenged by wary targets.

rusty shakelford said...

Dan you are always so excited to cast our military in the worst possible light. I guess you are unaware of this mostly because this war you are so against does not inconvenience your life at all. But we are in fact at war and our enemy uses tactics such as hiding amongst woman and children and sometimes blowing them up. Every one of us wishes we could fight this war on the open battlefield but the enemy chooses to fight from within crowds of innocent people. So quit blaming the US.
War is hell; our country asks nothing of you, show little support. If this doesn’t go right and we don't finish, it will be our children going back to Iraq.

Dan Trabue said...

I am not casting our military in an unkind light. I love and support our military folk and don't want to place them in a position of having to decide between "Do I shoot into a crowd of innocents to stop a sniper or do I get killed by the sniper?"

Specifically, I was just addressing the reality that Mark had made an untrue statement. He DOES in fact believe that there is a time to kill babies, even if unintentionally.

But you are correct in realizing that I was also addressing the fundamental wrongness of war-as-solution. And thus, as I stated, I'm expressing support for our soldiers because I don't want to place them in a lose-lose situation.

When will y'all start supporting our military?

And it sure as hell won't be my children going back to Iraq if I have anything to say about it. I'm raising my children to follow Jesus' teachings, not W's.

rusty shakelford said...

It wont be your children going if you have anything to SAY about it. Some of us support the troops by falling in with them every morning. Others support them by showing a unified front in the homeland. That is about the only two ways to "support the troops".

Make no mistake if your children one day march into war I don't think the excuse "I was against the war" will cut it. As far as comparing abortion to collateral damage in war the responsibility is not on the aggressor but on the defender. They choose civilian cities and towns to wage war and they will be responsible for the local casualties. If you were president anyone could march on us so long as they had one of those baby backpack things.

Pamela Reece said...

A lot has been said here and the subject of abortion is also one most folks feel is private. I have enjoyed reading all the comments and your post, Mark!

Gayle said...

I agree with the lone ranger. I too personally believe there is nothing in the middle of the road but yellow stripes and dead armadillos. I never would have put it that way, but thank the Lone Ranger for doing so. I cannot be moderate, simply because there is far too much at stake, abortion being a large issue, but not the only issue.

rusty shakelford said...

Dan, can you tell me where in the Bible it says war is wrong?

Dan Trabue said...

"Can you tell me where in the Bible it says war is wrong?"

Gladly, I can tell you why I'm opposed to war. As a Christian, I've been given the command to Love my enemies. To overcome evil with Good. This is the Christian's instruction/command from our God.

And so, just as the early church refused to participate in the military, so will I. It's that simple.

The Old Testament's description of the military is no great support for those who support our dense military machine. God did appear at times to use an Israeli militia to kill enemies. But God's repeated command to Israel is to trust in God to deliver them, not a military.

As a result, Israel only had an militia called together for special purposes for most of their kingdom. As in God having Gideon fight the thousands of Philistine soldiers with 300 Israeli soldiers armed with candles and horns. Or God delivering Israel by one or a few leaders such as Samson, or David vs Goliath.

Most of the early part of Israel's history, God delivered Israel God's self, as in Moses leading the children of Israel out of Egypt.

The Bible provides no basis for defense by a huge military as we have in our culture. The OT teaching is consistently use a small under-armed militia only in times of trouble. And, as noted, the NT teaching for those who wish to follow Jesus is to overcome evil with good.

Does this mean Just Peacemakers advocate passivism/doing nothing? By no means! That would be totally against OT and NT teachings. We are told to overcome evil with good. We are not to strike back, and not to cower in fear, but face the oppressor and TURN THE OTHER CHEEK.

There is a Third Way. Not fight, not flight, but overcoming evil with good that we are taught in the NT as the way to go.

Does that help?

rusty shakelford said...

Your old testament examples leave out many examples where God commanded his people to destroy every living person from another nation (In some case their own nation). Your new testament examples point to Jesus's teachings on individual behavior. As Christians we are compelled to support our nation as it was allowed to rise by God (Romans 13) By no means am I saying you are not supporting our nation (since the nation has asked nothing of you) but to say as a Christian you are opposed to participating in a war, this can not be supported by the Word of God.

Our nation is overwhelmingly powerful, this power is given to us by God.

Erudite Redneck said...

The power of this nation originated with the advanced technology of the 17th and 18th centuries against native peoples of lesser "civilization," and has been sustained by the continued exploitation of the natural resources of this continent, and those of others, and a misplaced sense of "providence" and "manifest destiny," which was just about dead until the neocon, Left-Behind element of popular Christianity took over the country in 2000 and 2004.

I wouldn't dare blame God for the power of this nation.

Here's a question. How can anyone worship a God that does the following?

" ... old testament examples leave out many examples where God commanded his people to destroy every living person from another nation (In some case their own nation). ... "

That's a pretty cruel, capricious God.

("Take ... Bible ... seriously ... not literally," he muttered under his breath ... )

DAN! As muich energy as you spend over here, you could spread some of it around over at my joint! :-) I would like to see your contribution to my current post ...)

Dan Trabue said...

Rusty said:
"Your new testament examples point to Jesus's teachings on individual behavior."

Yes, you as an individual are to follow Jesus' teachings if you want to be a Christian. What's your point?

"As Christians we are compelled to support our nation as it was allowed to rise by God"

Okay, fine. Jesus allowed that nations can and will do as they will and we're to support our nation WHEN IT DOESN'T conflict with following God. Again, what's your point?

As I stated, those of us individuals who are following Jesus will follow Jesus' teachings. If our nation doesn't, then we can't follow our nation in that regard.

Surely you don't think that we're to follow our national laws no matter what they are? I'm sure I need not remind you of Daniel refusing to follow the King's orders or Peter saying "We must obey God rather than men."?

We are to support our nation except when it comes to a conflict with God's teachings. This is basic Christian doctrine. I'm thinking you agree with me.

So, assuming you do, what's your point? If you want to make the case that our pagan leaders need not follow God, then fine - although this being a republic and not an empire, I think we're in a different situation than Jesus was.

But regardless, we who name Christ must follow Jesus' teachings, can we agree on this simple point?

ER, I stop by all the time, just don't comment so much when I'm speaking with the choir.

Erudite Redneck said...

Thanks, Dan. The choir needed to know that. :-)