I've Moved!
Well Played, Sir is now The Evolution of Reason.
Visit my new blog site at www.evolutionofreason.wordpress.com!
You will find my entire archive at my new site.
Thank you for visiting!
At first, I hoped it was a fluke. Maybe a few rogue conservatives that started calling themselves "constitutionalists." Maybe Sarah Palin loyalists? Unfortunately, I keep hearing this absurd claim from conservatives. They really think that they are constitutional loyalists!
It drives me crazy to hear this, and it doesn't even take a lot to discredit them. A few simple questions will dispel this ridiculous attempt to make them feel that they are no longer a party of backwards, anti-equality, anti-progress religious fanatics.
Do you support the implied right to privacy in our Constitution that has been recognized by our Supreme Court...including the right to choose abortion?
Do you support the equal protection (14th Amendment) of all people within the boundaries of a state? Including illegal immigrants? Including homosexuals who choose to enter into the contract of marriage?
Do you believe in the freedom of, and from religion, that is provided in the First Amendment? Including not allowing the government to write any laws respecting the establishment of religion? (This means no anti-abortion laws.)
There are more questions that I could ask to disqualify any conservative as a "constitutionalist." However, I've never had to ask more than this. If they can truthfully answer yes to the above questions, you should probably follow up with something like, "are you aware that you are actually a liberal?"
I do understand that conservatives recognize that there is a bad connotation with the term "conservative." It tells people that you are against progress. That you want to go back to the way things used to be and don't want our society to progress...at least not at a reasonable rate. Don't be mad, conservatives...you've done this to yourselves. This makes them want to find a new term for themselves that sounds a little more positive. Unfortunately, the closest term I could find for conservative ideology is "constitutionalists of convenience." I use this term to mean that they passionately believe in the Constitution when it fits neatly into their ideology. However, they believe that anything that falls outside of those ideals, like gay marriage and abortion, should not be protected by the Constitution because it offends their religious and moral beliefs. This means they are willing to ignore the Constitution when it is not convenient for them.
Conservatives, whatever you choose to call yourselves...and I can think of a few more terms if you would like. Please...I beg you...stop calling yourselves "constitutionalists." You're just making yourselves look worse.
Be careful, conservatives. You might actually be a liberal fighting to convince yourself that you are a conservative. Oh, the horror!
I know this because I actually talked to one this weekend. I was in a hotel having dinner, and I began a conversation with a conservative about some hot topics. As I expected, we made absolutely no headway with the abortion (contraceptives) debate. There is no winning in a debate about that. The debates I really enjoyed were about "entitlement" programs and gay marriage.
In these discussions, I simply used a sequence of logical questions to get the poor closet liberal to admit that they didn't really align with conservatives in the way they thought. We began discussing the law being free from religion. This conservative played the "Constitution was written on Christian beliefs" card. Well, that was an easy one. I simply got the person's agreement that the Constitution was written to protect freedom of religion, and freedom from religion. Once that was established, I asked if they believed that the government should be forcing some Christians' beliefs on others? Of course, it was hard to admit, but I got the "no" I was looking for.
Then it was time for the self-proclaimed conservative to play the "but marriage is a gift from God" card. Another simple one (that seems to be a trend with conservative arguments). The easy argument here is that, while it is fine for a church to refuse to marry people because of their beliefs, marriage as far as the government is concerned, is purely secular. It is a contract that has specific rights and responsibilities included. If religion is taken out of the argument, then we're only left with a contract (called marriage) that the government has no reason to deny to a gay couple.
At this point, I got an agreement that, even though the conservative didn't agree with homosexuality, there was no reason that the government should be denying gay marriage. This person did attempt to say that they would have to vote against approving gay marriage if it came up because they didn't agree with it personally. Well, the discussion immediately became about forcing the person's beliefs on others versus allowing others to make decisions on their own. No matter what logic was used, this was the last hiding place for this faux conservative. There was not going to be an admission that, even though they said the government should not be writing any religion's beliefs into law and there was no reason that the government should be denying gay marriage, this person actually believed as many liberals do and would vote to see progress in freedom and civil rights. I warned this person to be careful because they might actually be a liberal in conservative clothes.
At some point, we transitioned to a discussion about "entitlement" programs. We agreed that Social Security, being a system that is paid into by workers, is not what many people refer to as an "entitlement" program. (We had a discussion about the word "entitlement" before we started in which we decided that we would use the word to basically "charity" as many conservatives use the term. We agreed that, by the true definition of the term "entitlement," social security was one. I'm pretty sure the sentence, "I've paid into that my whole career, you're damn right I'm entitled to it" was uttered.)
Then we agreed that there should be some reform to the programs. We agreed that people on welfare should be subjected to drug testing. The surprising part was that, while the conservative thought Medicaid should be destroyed, we agreed that everyone in a country as rich as ours deserved to have basic necessities like food, shelter, and healthcare. This conservative told me that they believed we should move to a single-payer healthcare system. Stop. Re-read that last sentence. Now realize that this conservative works in the healthcare industry...and has for over 25 years. At this point, there was no denying the obvious. I had to tell this person who proclaims to be conservative that they are actually a liberal. Yes. This anti-abortion, anti-gay marriage, self-proclaim Christian conservative is actually a liberal who is refusing to see the truth. If you believe in the freedom to live one's life, if you believe that the fundamental rights outlined in the Constitution apply to all of us, if you are a true Christian...then you should be very careful with whom you align yourself politically. You may actually be a liberal in conservatives clothing.
Unbelievable! Two representatives in the Michigan legislature have been completely silenced because of what they had to say about a proposed abortion bill. Here are the details from the Detroit News:
House Republicans tried to silence two female Democratic lawmakers Thursday for floor outbursts a day earlier referencing male sterilization and a female sex organ.
The majority party prohibited state Rep. Lisa Brown from speaking on the floor Thursday after she ended a speech the day before against a bill restricting abortions by referencing her female anatomy.
"I'm flattered that you're all so interested in my vagina, but 'no' means 'no,' " said Brown, D-West Bloomfield.
State Rep. Barb Byrum, D-Onondaga, also wasn't recognized to speak Thursday for a disturbance she caused on the House floor Wednesday when the GOP majority wouldn't allow her to propose a ban on men getting a vasectomy unless the sterilization procedure was necessary to save a man's life.
Majority Floor Leader Jim Stamas, R-Midland, made the decision to prevent Brown and Byrum from speaking on any of the slew of bills the House was racing to pass before adjourning for the summer...
"My concern was the decorum of the House, not of anything she said," Stamas told The Detroit News.
"I ask all members to maintain a decorum of the House, and I felt it went too far yesterday," he said.
Speaker Pro Tem John Walsh, R-Livonia, gaveled Brown out of order for saying "no means no" — because it suggested Brown was comparing the abortion legislation to rape, House GOP spokesman Ari Adler said.
"It has nothing to do with the word vagina," Adler said.
Some male Republican representatives, however, said Brown's comments were vulgar, "inappropriate" and "offensive."
"What she said was offensive," said state Rep. Mike Callton, R-Nashville.
"It was so offensive, I don't even want to say it in front of women. I would not say that in mixed company," he said.
During a Capitol press conference Thursday, Brown noted "vagina" is the "medically correct term" for the female organ at the center of the Legislature's ongoing abortion restriction debate.
"If I can't say the word vagina, why are we legislating vaginas?" Brown said. "What language should I use?
"We're all adults here."
House Speaker Jase Bolger, R-Marshall, would not address the controversy that had become a national news story by late Thursday...
"I followed the House rules," said Brown...
"The war on women in Michigan is not fabricated — this is very real — and it comes at the highest levels of state government," said Senate Democratic Leader Gretchen Whitmer of East Lansing.
Okay...where do I start? Let's start with my opinion on the question. I've been very confused about the trend of regulating people's rights to their bodies and beds over the last few years. The problem is that no one can really define when life begins. There are theories, but they can never progress past the theory stage, so we will never know (until we stand face-to-face with God) when life really begins. How can we justify restricting people's rights for a theory? It is not the government's place to decide the issue of when life begins based on the religious beliefs of some. As Rep. Brown said, why do they want the rest of us to adopt their religious beliefs? Is there not a Bill of Rights that specifically forbids the government to create any law respecting the establishment of a particular religion? I don't remember anywhere in the Bill of Rights that said that this doesn't apply when it concerns women's vaginas or other internal organs.
I do think there is a much more pressing issue with abortion - father's rights. In fact, I believe father's rights is a very overlooked and important issue starting at conception and going all the way through a child's life. Men are not given any say in medical procedures such as abortion, men are expected to pay a disproportionate amount of support for a child in regards to the amount of time they are allowed to spend with the child, and are constantly reminded that they are not as important in the lives of the child as the mother in contradiction to what the law actually states. Before anyone tries to argue this point with me you need to know that I am a victim of this problem. I pay two-thirds of the costs to raise my child don't even get to have her half of the time. I had to fight to even get that amount of time. The system rewards mothers for denying the father more time with their child by giving them more money if the father sees the child less. All of the assumptions surrounding father's rights need to be changed.
Anyway...I'm not going to go on about abortion here because it's a useless debate. People hold such strong opinions about it that they will most likely never change their position. So let's talk about the rules of the House. First, take a minute to watch the actual footage of the situation.
Chapter III
Conduct in Debate.
Rule 28. When any Member is about to speak in debate or present any matter to the
House, the Member shall rise and respectfully address the Presiding Officer, confine remarks to the question under debate, and avoid personalities.
Chapter V
Amendments to be Germane.
Rule 60. No independent or new proposition or new question shall be introduced under
color of an amendment. All amendments must be germane to the main question. When the
question of germaneness is raised, the Presiding Officer shall rule on the question.
Let's start with Rule 28. I have watched the video of the debate. I heard nothing that violated Rule 28. Until Rep. Brown said the word "vagina" in her remarks, no one raised a concern. After, the Speaker stated that he expected the members to respect the decorum. When watching the video it seemed that he was speaking to the people who were applauding her remarks. Either way, I didn't hear anything that wasn't respectful, not confined to the question under debate, or didn't avoid personality. So, Rep. Bolger, under what rule and grounds did you ban this woman from speaking on other bills? I don't remember reading a "no vagina" clause in the rules.
Now we move on to Rep. Byrum and Rule 60. On the video I saw a woman who was legally and properly elected to represent the people of her state standing and asking to be recognized on the floor of the legislature be completely ignored. Wow. When she stormed off (justifiably angered by the refusal of Bolger to even recognize her) she was told she was out of order. Why? A few seconds before you wouldn't even recognize her existence, now she's out of order? This was a childish game played by a boy who is drunk with his power.
So these are the problems I've seen with this situation in the legislature. Now let's look at how these problems have been caused by the people.
When I listen to political talk today or watch commercials for politics here is what I hear: Democrat, Republican, Liberal, Conservative, etc.
People have become so polarized in line with their political parties that they have completely lost their voice. The only things I hear the average person saying are almost direct quotes from politicians and political analysts. There is no original thought or questioning anymore. Our country was founded by people who questioned the government. In fact, they wrote the right to one of the most important documents in our nation's history - The Declaration of Independence:
That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
One of these founding fathers, George Washington, even warned the people of the dangers that political parties posed to our rights in his farewell address:
However combinations or associations of the above description [political parties] may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely, in the course of time and things, to become potent engines by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion.
So when was the last time you questioned those who you feel are part of your political party? Would you question them if they silenced those with an opposing viewpoint? Would you question them if they refused to recognize the person you chose to represent you in government? At what point will you question them? When they start to regulate your body? Your bedroom? Your rights? Your freedom? But, at what point is it too late? I know this quote is used entirely too much, but it is very pertinent to this situation:
"First they came for the Jews and I did not speak out - because I was not a Jew. Then they came for the communist and I did not speak out - because I was not a communist. Then they came for the trade unionists and I did not speak out - because I was not a trade unionists. Then they came for me - and there was no one left to speak out for me." -Pastor Niemoeler (victim of the Nazis)
It is time for the people of the United States to speak out. Our freedoms are in jeopardy. I don't care what your philosophy is...you can't tell me you agree with legislators being silenced because the "majority party" doesn't agree with what they have to say or doesn't like the technically correct and medical terms that they use. I have seen so many people since 9/11 stand up and try to say how patriotic they are. They wear their flags and yell their support for the United States and the military. But many of the people that yell the loudest are the most unpatriotic people I have ever seen because they will not only allow this behavior to stand, but will support it because it lets their agenda get passed.
How do you fight this? I'm not saying we need to rise up and overthrow the government. There is only one way the people can voice their disgust with this situation. They need to do their research, find a candidate they can support (regardless of what party that candidate is affiliated with), and place an educated vote that removes the people who are abusing their power from office. Be warned...you will not find a candidate that agrees with everything you want. As another blogger I follow recently stated, "No one will ever be perfect so if you’re holding your breath for a messiah, you’re wasting your time." If you can find an independent candidate who does not bow to a party, even better!
If you will sit idly by and allow this kind of nonsense to continue in our government then I will tell you that, no matter how loud you shout your support for the United States or whether you shake the hands of the military personnel who fight for your freedom, you are no patriot, sir, and are turning your back on those who have fought and died so that you can elect someone to stand up in Congress and fight for your rights. If you let someone silence your voice Congress then you are spitting on the graves of those same men and women. Either stand up and make these people respect your rights or admit that you are no patriot and have the decency to stop shaking the hands of patriots while you spit on the freedoms that they have fought to preserve.
