BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Underground > Switchboard >

Could four more years of the Beast be a good thing?

  
  

Page: 1(2)3

 
 
Baz Auckland
15:01 / 07.10.04
You could appy the same argument to Nixon back in 1968 though... America was going downhill, there was repression at home, a horrible war abroad, etc. etc. "If Nixon is re-elected, maybe things will get so bad, that the system will change!"

Nixon was re-elected, he resigned after two years, and the system didn't change. Even with all the domestic spying and terrorism in the late 60s, nothing changed in the end. The Republicans lost the next election, but within four years they were back and held the presidency until 1992...

If Bush is re-elected, look for things to get worse, people to get upset, but the system won't change...
 
 
iamus
15:48 / 07.10.04
True. But society is a little different now.
For one thing, we've (hopefully) learned from these mistakes. And peer to peer information moves at a rate that's phenomenally more advanced now. The internet makes the stage a little different. It's not as hard to express and cross-breed viewpoints as it once was.
 
 
grant
16:11 / 07.10.04

So how many lists do you think your name is on?
 
 
iamus
16:32 / 07.10.04
As of a week ago. Not many.
As of today.........

There have always been lists. Nowadays we have a have a better chance of making those lists cripllingly huge.
 
 
ibis the being
18:26 / 07.10.04
OK yes. But what I'm thinking just now is that, while these are all very important issues, in the long term, would having Kerry in benefit?

I don't understand this posit, I never have and I don't think I will. Excuse me for being maybe overpragmatic about things, but this is a tight race, split about 50-50. It's Bush or Kerry. Bush or Kerry. That is it. You can abstain from the vote or write in your mother, but it's Bush or Kerry. There is no use, from a practical standpoint, to stand around questioning just how beneficial a Kerry presidency will be - there is only one alternative.

I think the whole idea of this thread is very curious. It's almost like certain rare sects of Christianity in which people deliberately indulge in sin to avoid denial man's sinful nature or any pretense to false righteousness. This notion that a country can "get it out of its system" is, I think, a bigger imposition of personal psychology than you might realize. You're also making a key assumption about a national identity and, by extension, popular opinion, that says it must, according to its nature "swing" to and fro from left to right, as though a viable middle ground doesn't exist at all. In fact I disagree with this baseline assumption, and I think the middle is exactly the right place for the government to be. A good deal of Clinton's success came not from being a leftie (he most assuredly was not) or a Democrat (when one has to be one or the other just to get elected President). He was a centrist, or moderate, whichever buzzword you like. While you can't please all the people all the time, you can please the majority of Americans a majority of the time by planting yourself in that moderate, almost balanced position.

One reason I like Kerry for President (in his own right, rather than as not-Bush) is that I see him as a centrist as well. I disagree or have disagreed with some of his views and positions - he's more pro-war than me, he's less pro-gay-marriage than me - but I'm willing to not get my way all the time if I feel there's a reasonable, intelligent person in the White House who's not affiliated with any extremist groups. I don't hate Bush because he's a Republican. I hate him because he's a crazy extremist tangled up with neo-cons and religious rightists and other radicals, and that's not an appropriate position for the US President.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
09:18 / 08.10.04
Well, yeah. While it is perfectly valid to say that Clinton, Bush and Kerry all represent parts of the same bankrupt political or cultural system, it's not a viewpoint that answers the questions about changing that system.

For example, the majority of Americans, no matter how quickly the Internet allows them to converse, are not going to want to dismantle the laws and constitution of the United States in four years time, and if they did they would not have a means to. As such, who gets to appoint the Supreme Court judges which we expect will have to be appointed at some point in the next four years will have a massive impact. I still don't have a picture of what the culture shift that is being discussed here will entail, but if it doesn't entail tearing up the constitution then that is an issue, and if it does then I think four years of Bush is not really going to be enough to set it in motion unless something entirely unforeseen occurs.

Internet aside, the public already have a mechanism to communicate what they want to their rulers in the US. It is voting, and that vote generally provides a picture of what the electorate want. Right now, it shows that last time around the country was about 50/50 between Bush and Gore - the latter of whom would, while not being ideal, almost certainly have avoided international isolation, a massive deficit and the war in Iraq - and this time around perhaps about the same. While it may be comforting to think that another four years of Bush will drive some sort of culture change, and it may also be true, I'd rather not gamble on it, because in four years' time there will be fewer civil liberties and Bush will have made it vastly more difficult to remove the powers and vested interests he represents.
 
 
Tuna Ghost: Pratt knot hero
19:51 / 08.10.04
I think the whole idea of this thread is very curious. It's almost like certain rare sects of Christianity in which people deliberately indulge in sin to avoid denial man's sinful nature or any pretense to false righteousness.

Or, as Rasputin would say, to ensure an increase in the proof of God's grace. St. Paul, however, said "Shall we sin, then, so that grace may abound? By no means." But you know St. Paul, he would never go for any idea like that just on principle.

Let this be stated for the record: This thread does not detail a "plan" of any kind. No one here is going to work for Bush to ensure his victory so that America can evolve or whatever. We are not Ozymandias from Alan Moore's Watchmen trying to fool planet earth into learning a lesson it badly needs. I may be going out on a limb here, but I'm prepared to say that very, very few here (if any) thinks Bush deserves a second term or want him back. I also think most if not all present believe terrible things will happen at home and abroad should Bush be re-elected.

I am not saying these terrible things are good or that they should occur. I'm saying that it's possible for something good to come out of all this suffering you're predicting.
 
 
Tuna Ghost: Pratt knot hero
20:27 / 08.10.04
Even if I granted that the government has the right to control which methods a woman can or can't choose (which I don't), plenty of women take the Pill for health reasons...

It's one thing to outlaw the Pill on moral grounds, but clearly this doesn't extend to women who take the Pill for health reasons. Even if the Pill is forbidden to these women, it's not as if the government is just going to yank the rug out from underneath them and say "sorry, you're just going to have to suffer now, deal with it" and not supply the women with alternative medicine.

At any rate, this is probably not the best forum for this conversation.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
21:05 / 08.10.04
Why not, exactly, Johnny? Why, exactly, not? Why would that not happen? Why not, exactly, Johnny?
 
 
eddie thirteen
21:20 / 08.10.04
I do see what you're saying, Johnny, and (in the horrific event that Bush does get another four loooooong years), I hope you're right. But I think it's a little like asking whether syphillis is a good thing because its existence inspired us to use antibiotics to treat it, which in turn led to a wider use of antibiotics against several illnesses that probably didn't really require it, which in turn led to the uselessness of penicillin against several illnesses that had formerly been used to treat it, which -- although it means that a great many people will probably die of untreatable infections in the next few decades -- will ultimately be good because it means medicine will have to come up with alternative treatments that will also incidentally deal with diseases that have been heretofore incurable. In the long run, yay. In the short run -- which is only the short run if you're one of the people who isn't dying of some disease or other we could successfully have cured in, say, the 1970s -- well, the long run doesn't matter much. 'Cause you ain't gonna be there to see it.

Perhaps it sounds shortsighted, but what else matters beyond now? We can talk science fiction and speculative futures all we want, but one thing I am completely sure of is that four more years of Bush will not be a good thing for those four years, every minute of which we all will have to suffer through. What concerns me most about the suggestion that a two-term Bush presidency may somehow prove an inoculation against imperialism or what have you is not the spurious logic behind the proposition, but the resignation to another term that the speculation implies; hence my earlier vitriol. I know no one in the thread actually said they were resigned to it, but to me, it smacks of defeatism. One only has to look at the difference between this administration and the one previous to see there is indeed a great deal to lose in the event of a Bush victory, and if there is anything to gain (which I seriously doubt), well, I still think we should try to hunt for some positives lurking in a big negative only after said negative materializes. And not before, while we still have a chance to prevent it.
 
 
ibis the being
21:25 / 08.10.04
Even if the Pill is forbidden to these women, it's not as if the government is just going to yank the rug out from underneath them and say "sorry, you're just going to have to suffer now, deal with it" and not supply the women with alternative medicine.

That is some mindblowingly optimistic thinking right there.

And I think this is the right forum to discuss this issue. I'm sorry if women's reproductive health is 'icky' or taboo or something, but it's one of the most important issues in this presidential election to a lot of American citizens, and it's one of those things that would be negatively affected by a Bush reelection.
 
 
Tuna Ghost: Pratt knot hero
21:27 / 08.10.04
Ya got me. I can't say why not, exactly. There's not much keeping it from happening other than a few laws and the fact that these health issues occur in women regardless of stature or wealth or political leanings and only a fool would put the only medecine that affects these health issues beyond the reach of everyone in the country because of a conflict that has nothing to do with physical health, and the fact that pharmacutical companies make plenty of money with these Pills and would probably come out with something that is nearly identical but skirts the laws just barely.
 
 
eddie thirteen
21:34 / 08.10.04
Well...try again. We've already outlawed "partial birth" abortions, which are performed more or less exclusively to save the life of the mother. So no, I don't think that the administration would balk at outlawing the pill just because some women use it to treat conditions related to painful (but non-fatal) menstruation (suuuuuure they do, one imagines Dick Cheney saying from the corner of his pinched little mouth). I'd like to think that outlawing the pill (and certainly condoms) is a little far-fetched, mind you, but since I do not think at this point that a reinstatement of the draft is (um...how exactly are we supposed to combat all these "terrorists" when we've already dispatched pretty much the entire armed forces? For that matter, how are we supposed to maintain "homeland security" with those people overseas?), I dunno. Bush seems about as bad as worst-case scenarios get; I don't put very much past him.
 
 
ibis the being
21:34 / 08.10.04
Let me offer myself as an example of why this is a big issue, not because the world revolves around me but because I consider myself typical of a fairly large population segment (female, middle class, 18-35 age group).

I have no health insurance and can't afford any, and have no reason to think I will be able to get health insurance in the near, foreseeable future (like millions of other Americans). Thanks in large part to Bush's lousy US economy, I am just scraping by right now (like millions of other Americans). I'm a sexually active adult and though I take all precautions possible to prevent getting pregnant, but it's not outside the realm of possibility that an "accident" could happen. Condoms break, okay? If I were to get pregnant, and abortion were illegal, I'd have to carry a child to term with no prenatal care whatsoever, I'd probably have to go on welfare in the last trimester or two because I can't do my job pregnant, I don't have a job that gives me paid maternity leave, and then I'd have to either raise my child in poverty or give him up for adoption, and in either case I'd be paying hospital bills probably for the rest of my life.

And I'm supposed to agree that Bush should be president again for the sake of some pie-in-the-sky cultural revolution? Not buying it.
 
 
Tuna Ghost: Pratt knot hero
21:45 / 08.10.04
I still think we should try to hunt for some positives lurking in a big negative only after said negative materializes. And not before, while we still have a chance to prevent it.

By all means, try to prevent it. I'm out of ideas at the moment, though.


That is some mindblowingly optimistic thinking right there.

Seriously? Is it really that optimistic?

And I think this is the right forum to discuss this issue. I'm sorry if women's reproductive health is 'icky' or taboo or something, but it's one of the most important issues in this presidential election to a lot of American citizens, and it's one of those things that would be negatively affected by a Bush reelection.

It's not icky or taboo, and (obviously) neither is it something I'm well versed with. But if you feel like going into it, and nobody else seems to mind, go for it.
 
 
eddie thirteen
21:49 / 08.10.04
Um...I'll try to prevent it right now by strongly urging you to vote for John Kerry, who is -- all else aside -- the only other candidate who can actually be elected.
 
 
Tuna Ghost: Pratt knot hero
21:59 / 08.10.04
I have no health insurance and can't afford any, and have no reason to think I will be able to get health insurance in the near, foreseeable future (like millions of other Americans).

You don't ever see yourself getting medical insurance? Ever? I work for a lousy chinese restaraunt and even I have emergency medical insurance. Even at K-mart, which was nearing bankruptcy at the time, I had emergency medical insurance after a year of employment. It ain't great, but it's something.

And I'm supposed to agree that Bush should be president again for the sake of some pie-in-the-sky cultural revolution? Not buying it.

For the last time, NO ONE IS ASKING YOU TO.
 
 
Ganesh
22:02 / 08.10.04
Today's Guardian carries a short piece on Bush's war on science, specifically his appointment of Dr David W Hager to the FDA. Hager is a 'pro-life' obstetrician/gynaecologist who's authored several evidence-lite tracts including the snappily-titled As Jesus Cared For Women: Restoring Women Then And Now. In a nutshell, his practice is based on Christianity rather than, ooh, any sort of medical evidence; essentially, he peddles the line that women are spiritually-vulnerable creatures who cannot be trusted with control of their own fertility. Do a Google search on this frankly dangerous man, Johnny O'Clock, then come back and tell us again that "it's not as if the government is just going to yank the rug out from underneath them and say "sorry, you're just going to have to suffer now, deal with it" and not supply the women with alternative medicine". For Hager, prayer is the alternative medicine.

You might also want to consider the FDA's recent, unprecedented rejection of over-the-counter prescription of the morning-after pill despite the FDA's medical advisers voting 23-4 in favour of this.

Theocracy?
 
 
Tuna Ghost: Pratt knot hero
22:16 / 08.10.04
Here's an excerpt from the FDA article Ganesh posted.

In a letter to Barr Laboratories late Thursday, the FDA said there wasn't evidence that teens younger than 16 could safely use the pills without a doctor's guidance.

Warned of FDA's teen concern in February, Barr had proposed allowing nonprescription sales for everyone 16 and older, but requiring a prescription for anyone younger.

Such a step, which presumably would require drugstores to check customers' ages, has never been tried. The FDA said the company didn't provide many details, making it impossible to decide if such a program would be legal and doable.

But Thursday, FDA officials left open the door for Barr to try again, telling the company what information they would need to reconsider: either data showing young teens could use the pills safely without a prescription, or details on how to make the mixed-marketing approach work.

"Wide availability of safe and effective contraceptives is important to public health," the FDA letter said. "We look forward to continuing to work with you if you decide to pursue either of these options."


As for Dr. Hager, what can I say? The man's a freak. Obviously.
 
 
ibis the being
22:23 / 08.10.04
As for Dr. Haver, what can I say? The man's a freak. Obviously.

Right. A freak whom George W. Bush appointed to the reproductive health drugs advisory panel of the FDA.
 
 
Ganesh
22:35 / 08.10.04
To head the FDA's Reproductive Health Drugs Advisory Committee - and no matter how y'package it, the FDA is now ruling in the face of medical advice for reasons other than actual evidence.
 
 
iamus
22:50 / 08.10.04
This notion that a country can "get it out of its system" is, I think, a bigger imposition of personal psychology than you might realize

I'm fully aware of how what I type may be easily misconstrued. It's not about whether the country can get it out of it's system, act nasty, then brush itself off and act like nothing happened. It's about exploring such things as just why Bush is able to so thoroughly and easily fuck civil liberties, through confrontation with it. It's about seeing how the system can be abused, which can often only be identified and corrected by observing such abuse. Should Kerry get in and temporarily right those wrongs, the system is still open to just as much abuse as before. Ask anybody in the Temple and they'll tell you that to come up shiny and new, you sometimes have to really confront the weaknesses and darker aspects then overcome them.

I've heard the "Bush is an asshole, Kerry should win" spiel a million times.
Bush is an asshole. Kerry should win. I agree completely. That doesn't mean that we shouldn't be open to entertaining other outcomes from the ones we hope and strive for, so we can try to find the good in them.

To do so before the fact is not defeatism. To shy away and to not consider possibilities (even if all were to do is consider them) is to show they hold power over us. To try to put it out of mind because we'd rather not think about it shows fear. It may be valid, but it does us all a disservice.

There is always something to gain in every situation, no matter how bad it looks. We should never forget this. To say that nothing good could come from another term of Bush gives the man far more credit than he deserves.

For example, the majority of Americans, no matter how quickly the Internet allows them to converse, are not going to want to dismantle the laws and constitution of the United States in four years time, and if they did they would not have a means to. As such, who gets to appoint the Supreme Court judges which we expect will have to be appointed at some point in the next four years will have a massive impact. I still don't have a picture of what the culture shift that is being discussed here will entail, but if it doesn't entail tearing up the constitution then that is an issue, and if it does then I think four years of Bush is not really going to be enough to set it in motion unless something entirely unforeseen occurs.

I'm not suggesting that the American people dismantle the laws and constitution, nor that in four years that would be a possibility. What I am saying is that Bush seems to have been pretty adept at dismantling things in four years. While four more years would not improve this situation, I don't see a quick Kerry patch job rectifying it to any really satisfactory degree. I know this election is Bush/Kerry and that's it, and there has to be a choice, and, however much that choice is dissatisfactory, it is a choice that has to be made (I have issues with the electoral system as it stands anyway, but that's a whole rectal cul-de-sac that has no real bearing on this thread).

What you say about the Supreme court is very true. Since re-booting the whole system of government is not viable (and at any rate, just plain stupid), the appointment of Supreme Court Judges is a really important issue and rests on who gets in next. I have no clever (or not so clever) answers to this. Seeing as I'm not trying to provide them, that's OK. It is now an issue I'd like to explore more though.

As for having an idea of what the culture shift would entail, none of us really do. Just pitching ideas, trying to find others to pitch back. Exploring the possibilities of it.
And never discount the entirely unforseen. If the last four years taught us anything it should be that.

While it may be comforting to think that another four years of Bush will drive some sort of culture change, and it may also be true, I'd rather not gamble on it, because in four years' time there will be fewer civil liberties and Bush will have made it vastly more difficult to remove the powers and vested interests he represents.

As has been noted, there's about a 50/50 chance that we we might have to face it, gambling or not. Culture change, would then become one of the most effective ways to overcome Bush and his vested interests. No empire lasts forever, and the capitalist one that Bush represents is already showing signs of strain in the current social climate.

As for the whole pill debate, well. I'm tripley ill-equipped to deal with this one, (for the reasons mentioned upthread and the fact that I'm male) but seeing as how that hasn't stopped me yet.....
Obviously this is a very shit situation, which only looks to get worse under another Bush term. Do you think it will get that far though? I find it hard (shoot me down if this sounds naive, as stated many times, I'm only testing the waters) to believe that such and increasingly archaic viewpoint on contreception and abortion could survive for long in the western world. Obviously, over half of the american population is female, that's a lot of pressure when applied correctly. I have faith in the people to be able to draw the line in the sand and tell the government where to get off on such matters. To me, such a short-sighted viewpoint on George's side is indicitive of the passing on of his kind.

Of course, one way tell him would be to vote him out. But....... see above (this is a point I'm reitirating so much it's beginning to sound like I whole-heartedly stand behind it).
 
 
Ganesh
23:23 / 08.10.04
Obviously this is a very shit situation, which only looks to get worse under another Bush term. Do you think it will get that far though? I find it hard (shoot me down if this sounds naive, as stated many times, I'm only testing the waters) to believe that such and increasingly archaic viewpoint on contreception and abortion could survive for long in the western world.

How far is "that far"? When it comes to womens' reproductive health, the FDA is apparently placing little weight on what its medical advisors say - and its highly influential Reproductive Health Drugs Advisory Committee is to be headed by an individual who refuses to prescribe contraception to the unmarried.

And female voters apparently still favour Bush. I'm afraid I don't share your optimism.
 
 
unheimlich manoeuvre
23:29 / 08.10.04
eddie thirteen wrote:
Perhaps it sounds shortsighted, but what else matters beyond now? We can talk science fiction and speculative futures all we want, but one thing I am completely sure of is that four more years of Bush will not be a good thing...

sorry, perhaps i should start another thread for my tangent. there is a profound shortsightedness in the political-economic world system, ten year business plans, politicians only looking to the next elecion. while meludreen & johnny have seemed to express a somewhat odious "the worst brings out the best in people" mentality, what good can we honestly expect to find from four years of kerry as president. so, i may find i have slightly more choices about my body and lifestyle, but isn't my profligacy (in all ways) also a symptom of the system that is devouring the planet. can we engage in speculative fiction, without resorting to utopianism? what c/sh/would the barbelith revolutionary project be? while recognising that it isn't inevitable, surely you can entertain the notion that revolution may be necessary?

...

well, yes. pragmatically (pragmatism: the anglo-american aspiration) vote kerry, the lesser of two evils.
 
 
iamus
00:40 / 09.10.04
How far is "that far"? When it comes to womens' reproductive health, the FDA is apparently placing little weight on what its medical advisors say - and its highly influential Reproductive Health Drugs Advisory Committee is to be headed by an individual who refuses to prescribe contraception to the unmarried.

And female voters apparently still favour Bush. I'm afraid I don't share your optimism.

I should hope you don't share my optimism. Otherwise you wouldn't tell me why you thought I was wrong. I'm not going to lie, Ganesh and ibis, you both have a much better grasp of this situation and what it entails than I do.

I can't help my optimism, it's a symptom of my worldview. One which I have spent a long and considered time cultivating. But I respect both of your opinions greatly. I understand this issue means a great deal to everybody, not just Ganesh, ibis, thirteen and the rest and if you think it's being treated a little flippantly then I am sorry.

But, as I've been wondering, do you all think that voting Kerry in now will stop similar infractions somewhere in the future? Would it make a difference in future if we had to confront these issues of our liberties as they were being taken from us and show just how far we're willing to go with people so willing to fuck about with our own bodies and minds? Is it the sort of thing that should be worked on gradually? Or do we need a decisive stance now?
 
 
iamus
00:43 / 09.10.04
Oh! And Haus!

Your considered and thoughtful argument has really helped me clarfiy things. What is your opinion on these questions, apart from what you have discussed already?
 
 
Ganesh
07:14 / 09.10.04
But, as I've been wondering, do you all think that voting Kerry in now will stop similar infractions somewhere in the future?

I think Kerry's less likely to jettison actual evidence in favour of sweeping decision-making based primarily on religious faith. I don't think Kerry would've appointed the rabidly paternalistic/misogynistic Hager, for example.
 
 
Cherielabombe
08:39 / 09.10.04
In regards to women's reproductive rights, I think some of you are being incredibly naive in thinking that "people wouldn't stand for archaic rollbacks of reproductive rights." Let's look at what's ALL READY happening.

Bush started his term by reinstating the Reagan-era gag rule, which blocks funds to international family planning groups if they even mention abortion, whether or not they practice it. While there was an initial outcry, note that this gag-rule is still standing, nearly four years after its reinstatement.

During his four years in office, he has continually appointed anti-choice, anti-birth control advocates to reproductive health organizations in the U.S.

He's signed a law that limits abortion - the first change to abortion rights in the U.S. since Roe V. Wade.

He's made it a federal crime to transport a minor across state lines for the purposes of getting that minor an abortion.

In this environment that Bush has created, an increasing number of doctors and pharmacists are feeling comfortable enough to - and are legally able to- refuse contraception to their patients on the grounds they find it "morally wrong". Medical care is taking a back seat to state sanctioned 'morality'. These doctors are not providing "alternative medicine" to those patients - the only alternative is searching for a doctor or a pharmacist who will provide these services, and sometimes that's not easy - and sometimes that doctor is not covered by your health insurance.

I don't know about you, but I find the actions of the Bush administration, in terms of reproductive health for women and abortion rights, already archaic. The American public DO, in fact, seem to be standing for it. And I am in fear of what will happen next.

If you want more background info, check out some of these links

Planned Parenthood Report on the Bush administration's Abortion War

Birth Control denied to women
 
 
sleazenation
09:30 / 09.10.04
Should Kerry get in and temporarily right those wrongs, the system is still open to just as much abuse as before.

As Thomas Jefferson said; "The price of freedom is eternal vigilance".

Voting Bush out of office in favour of Kerry or anyone else is not a universal cure-all. It's not going to preclude the possability of abuse in the future.But it will prevent Bush doing even more damage in the next four years. Voting in November is the first step and the bare minimum of action required.
 
 
Our Lady Has Left the Building
10:20 / 09.10.04
Ahnold takes the lead! I've said elsewhere that if Bush gets re-elected and his policies and actions abroad and at home completely fuck up everything, then at least there will be no one left who thinks his way of doing things is best (at least, no one any rational person would take seriously) because there will be eight years of disaster to reflect upon.

Why would 8 years wake people up if 4 years didn't? And you have to remember there's a sizeable constituency of Bush supporters who believe in the Rapture and that we are at the End Times, and who would vote for anyone likely to fuck up the planet as that will bring the time of Tribulation closer. You can call them loonies but they have the vote and they have the money and Bush may be one of them.

The funny thing about revolution is it's very similar to capitalism. It's only fun if you're on top. But the great likelihood is that you won't be.

Either that, or we all go down in a nuclear fire. I'm cool either way, really.

I assume this was flippancy?
 
 
Our Lady Has Left the Building
10:23 / 10.10.04
Well, I suppose it saves time. Wisconsin TV announces Bush has already won 2004 election.
More info.
 
 
Tuna Ghost: Pratt knot hero
14:33 / 11.10.04
and no matter how y'package it, the FDA is now ruling in the face of medical advice for reasons other than actual evidence.

I would like evidence of this, please. No doubt Dr. Hager would do such a thing, but let's wait until he's actually done something terrible before saying this.

In this environment that Bush has created, an increasing number of doctors and pharmacists are feeling comfortable enough to - and are legally able to- refuse contraception to their patients on the grounds they find it "morally wrong". Medical care is taking a back seat to state sanctioned 'morality'.

I find absolutely nothing wrong with this (other than the shortsightedness of thinking that refusal of contraceptives will keep young people from having sex). I don't classify contraceptives as "medical care" (in the sense that medication and surgery are "medical care"), and for those who use them to lessen the pain of menstration, there are other medicines available, right?

Fact is, there is still a great portion of the country that is pro-life. You guys are sitting there telling me they are wrong/foolish to hold these views, but they tell me the same thing about you. To me, both stances stink of irresponsibility, but if the pro-life outnumber the pro-choice, then--wait, this sounds familiar.
 
 
Ganesh
14:37 / 11.10.04
I would like evidence of this, please. No doubt Dr. Hager would do such a thing, but let's wait until he's actually done something terrible before saying this.

That wasn't a reference to Hager; it was a reference to the FDA's decision (in May of this year?) to rule in favour of the 3 members of the medical panel who didn't want to make the over-the-counter morning-after pill legal, as opposed to the 24 who did.
 
 
Tuna Ghost: Pratt knot hero
14:41 / 11.10.04
Why would 8 years wake people up if 4 years didn't?

Finally! 'Cause it's twice as much, silly!

Nah. Really, because it would be twice (if not more) as worse. As it is now, the war in Iraq is not even close to the tragedy that Vietnam was.


And you have to remember there's a sizeable constituency of Bush supporters who believe in the Rapture and that we are at the End Times, and who would vote for anyone likely to fuck up the planet as that will bring the time of Tribulation closer. You can call them loonies but they have the vote and they have the money and Bush may be one of them.

How "sizeable" do you really think this constituency, that believes in the Rapture and would vote for anyone who will bring it closer, is?
 
 
Tuna Ghost: Pratt knot hero
14:46 / 11.10.04
That wasn't a reference to Hager; it was a reference to the FDA's decision (in May of this year?) to rule in favour of the 3 members of the medical panel who didn't want to make the over-the-counter morning-after pill legal, as opposed to the 24 who did.

But wasn't that because they couldn't tell if it would be safe for people under 16? It sounds like you are claiming that the three made their decision based on personal stance rather than medical evidence, which I am not seeing evidence of. But maybe I'm looking at the wrong article.
 
  

Page: 1(2)3

 
  
Add Your Reply