Drudge Headline
 

The headline of the drudgereport right now is "Here Come the Democrats!"

The drudgereport must be a real right-wing republican website to have a headline like that. LOL.

It is.
Let's all welcome our new speaker of the house, Nancy Pelosi.

LOL....YAHOOO!!!!!!!!!

where's the puking smiley??

how is speaker decided anyway?

yeah a puking smiley would be nice. she grates on me, i can't stand to listen to her.

there is a vote amongst democrats to decide speaker. in this case since she is the current minority leader she'll probably have no trouble at all getting the necessary support. it's probably a foregone conclusion. if there was some controversy surrounding her or discension in the ranks there could be serious challenges, but that doesn't seem to be the case

There's an outside chance that Repent knocks her off,and then somebody else will get it.

what a night!

i suppose you can only skate by for so many years by making people scared that if you let gays marry, then people will marry their dogs -- that if we don't bomb every country we don't like, that they will bomb us -- and that abortion is the plague of this society.

people woke up and realized that other things matter, like wages and getting by day to day, and being uncorrupt.

hm. what. a. freaking. night.
couldn't have enjoyed it any more!

Regardless of the national races, here's what heartened me most:

South Dakotans rejected a law that would have banned virtually all abortions, Arizona became the first state to defeat an amendment to ban gay marriage and Missouri approved a measure backing stem cell research.

Since the religious fundamentalists in this nation seem to be losing their touch at the ballot box maybe we can actually start focusing on, oh, Iraq, the economy, our energy policy, health care... stuff like that...

Good on ya, SD, AZ and MO! (Okay, Arizona is still pending, but I'm hopeful. And poop on WI, for approving it!) And a special shout out to Texas Congressional District number 22, for putting a Democrat in the seat formerly held be Tom DeLay, that bastion of Congressional ethics. Sorry about Kinky.

Though I'm pretty okay with the elephants hanging onto the New York State legislature. As I've said, I am a fan of divided government.

Pelosi annoys me, too. I think she's a wimp. But I'll take her over Hastert! ;)

Yep,

As I watch my stocks fall. Yep what a night!

But was "Here Come the Democrats" meant as a good thing? Tee hee. Now, if the headline had read, "Here Come the Democrats-- Awesome!" I'd see your point. ;) In all fairness, though, I read the article linked to the headline and it seemed very much just the facts; I didn't see a right-wing bias at all.

Here, C@C, this'll make you feel better. :) Now you just have to hope for Pres. Clinton or Obama in '08!

http://money.cnn.com/2004/01/21/mark...ion_demsvreps/

i agree. i've been following the SD Ban for some time and am thrilled that it got voted down. The AZ bill should pass, the numbers are certainly looking like the last 6% of reporting precincts won't change the outcome.

i was telling a friend earlier today, that i cannot speak for the western portion of middle america -- the dakotas, iowa, colorado, kansas etc -- but i've lived on both coasts and in the midwest. in those places, by and large, we just want you to keep your nose out of our business.

i have no problem with people who are disgusted by abortion and who are anti-abortion, but i DO have a problem when they tell other people how they have to approach the biggest decision of their life.

but the religious right is clinging to what they have in SD -- on another message board I was informed that they approved a marriage ban, they increased cigarette taxes and voted to outlaw marijauna (which if i am not mistaken is not "news" at all!). i guess the religious right now is learning what "little victories" mean :)

i'm religious, but i'm not conservative. i consider myself a very serious Christian, but not a fearmongerer -- and i fancy myself very in touch with reality. arizona is huge news. one state gets the ball rolling.

essentially, this was the iraq/mind your own business election.

****ing great.

And a more in-depth article on the economy and which party is in the White House:

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/arc..._05/006282.php

I do think there's a lot of middle meeting ground in the abortion debate, but both sides will have to agree to meet, and I think it will take people really willing to have a long look at themselves and asking themselves what it is they're opposed to? Abortion? Or sex? It seems to me, if one is truly opposed to abortion, and wants to see the number of abortions decline, purely on the basis that life is sacred, then one should be pushing like crazy for comprehensive sex ed and availability of contraceptives, in order to cut down on unintended pregnancies. (Europeans have about the same rate of teen sex as America, but far fewer teen pregnancies and I think it's because Europe is more realistic about horny teenagers and makes sex ed and contraceptives available to them). If one is opposed to sex, then abortion is opposed, along with sex ed and contraception, because pregnancy then can be used as a punishment ("Have sex and get pregnant and ruin your life with an unwanted child!"). Which doesn't seem very pro-life to me, but then I don't think pre-marital sex is a mortal sin. And I don't think pregnancy should be a fear tactic; it should always be a cause for celebration. If the anti-abortionists, who are truly against abortion for it's own sake and the pro-choicers (most of whom, let's face it, are very pro-contraception) could agree to work together to push sex-ed and contraception use, the number of unintended pregnancies would fall, as would the number of abortions and then everyone can be happy, (except the fundamentalists who are mad because other people are getting laid).

I did have to give props to South Dakota in that at least their proposed ban was consistent with a true anti-abortion stance-- one can't say a child conceived because an intruder broke into a house, tied up the husband and raped the wife is any less innocent than a child conceived because a 15-year-old didn't know how to put a condom on properly-- though I think it was that consistency that was its undoing with the voters. Life is a big grey area, and while we like to talk in stark terms of black and white, when confronted with the possibility of stark consequences, most people tend to be more reasonable, I think.

I read a really good book, "When Abortion Was a Crime," looking at the roughly 100 years in the country when it was illegal (1867-1970, give or take) and the fact that stuck out the most to me was that even at the height of abortion's illegality, there were estimated to be 500,000 abortions a year-- to put that in perspective, compared to the population then and now, the abortion rate (most of which were illegally done- this is pulling from accounts and police records) was EIGHT times higher then, in the midst of Victorian morality and illegality. Women had, per capita, more abortions then than they do now, when it's legal (somewhat). Outlawing it again won't end it. Preventing pregnancy, however, could reduce it to safe, legal and rare, which would be a very, very good thing for all sides, don't you think? I do, anyway.

that is the single most fascinating piece of information that has been shared with me in months. it really is. thanks.

in what way? if you don't want to have an abortion, then don't get one. simple as that.

sound scientific study generally refutes many of the ideas that the anti-abortion team purports to be true, ie items about fetuses feeling pain etc etc. Their only argument is that life begins at conception -- and since we cannot PROVE that, then keep your hands off it. If they could prove that, then they wouldn't have to lie about things like the pain issue.

So what am I missing?

But we can all agree condoms are a good thing, from a contraceptive and disease prevention standpoint, yes? :) Wrap your meat so it stays fresh! :) :)

obviously, the process of conception puts in motion the potential for a human being -- so i'm not sure what you're getting at with the first part up there. that's science, i understand how the pregnancy process works (and while it is tangential in your point of view, i was unclear on the fetus thing -- i'm not trying to purport that a fetus as 9 months could not feel pain, but i don't believe that abortions should happen at 9 months anyway. my point was your fetus doesn't suffer early in the pregnancy).

i say life does not start at conception and could not see how it does. therefore, no, i do not think it 'may' start at conception, because what happens at conception is not life. i still contend that if you believe that life starts at conception, then by all means treat your conception as such - but do not insist that others MUST do the same when there is no proof for it.

i have a tony leonard 'portrait' of her. she's gorgeous, always a fave of mine.

Bababoo,
I'l just chime in with two pennies worth in response to this question that you posed:
"Also, answer me this (yes or no): would you say that life may start at conception, we just can't be sure?"

It's really not a "yes" or a "no".
My observation has been that life continues. Where it starts is for you to find.
Now, if the thinking is in reference to the stage 16 mitosis embryos that are sitting in liquid nitrogen waiting for their viability to expire before they are disposed of as "medical waste", my opinion is that the use of the "embryonic stem calls" they contain be used to expand existing cell lines, and hopefully fine a purpose better than being discarded. Maybe some remedies for devastating diseases will be found.
And, please, don't bring the fear of "cloning" into the discussion.
DTS

Baba,
You might have missed my response above, cause you keep asking...
"When does life really begin?"

The best I answer I can say is that it continues.

Can I ask you a question?
Have you ever attended a funeral for a first trimester miscarriage?

Me neither.

your points are obviously well thought out while still being the standard pro-life fare. both sides have legitimate arguments for the vailidity of their stance, which is why i much prefer a hands-off approach of everyone taking care to make their own decisions. it is simply not black and white like killing a police officer is. that is a human being. we can all agree on that. we can all agree that doing that is wrong. see. black. and. white. so comparing abortion to murder and using the criminal justice system as an example is inherently flawed logic (which you seem to think i am incapable of grasping thanks to your little 'reverse-engineering' dig above. i enjoyed that one.)

i cannot fathom thinking that way. i cannot fathom that the product of conception is somehow as valuable as a human being as you or i. why? because it is not a human being. it is not a sentient, able human being. it really is that simple.

the abortion discussion/debate is such old hat for me and isn't really interesting -- but this all came out of the SD law that got voted down yesterday. the problem with that is that there is no health exception, no rape exception, no incest exception, and no way to twist the wording of the law to pretend that those exceptions exist in any way. that's simply unenlightened thinking. we're worried about "killing" clusters of multiplying cells, but we're not worried about ruining the life of an ACTUAL, LIVING HUMAN BEING by forcing her to carry her rapist's baby to term?

that's cruel. plain and simple. so basically this bill says some lives are more important than others. and i just cannot figure out how something that could not survive on its own is worth more than a human being? beats me.

let's make crazy examples now. if pro-lifers are so concerned with masses of cells being "human beings" then by all means I don't understand how they shower, brush their teeth or do anything that would otherwise kill bacteria or other microorganisms. life is life is life, right? if we essentially evolved from monkeys, then who are we to assume that the bacteria in your mouth is not the root of the next step in evolution? can you for sure refute that? then you're a killer too so get off your horse. i contend you should stop brushing your teeth and showering because you cannot say for 100% sure that there is no basis to this ridiculous argument i have just made.

sound stupid and illogical to you? that's how "life starts at conception" arguments by and large sound to me.

Bababoo,
"I was writing whilst you were posting the earlier one. At any rate, I am not sure what you mean by that (especially outside the context of those stored in nitrogen tanks). Please explain"

Explanation:
Human eggs are harvested at fertility clinics. They are ferilized in vitro (in a petri dish) to be implanted. As excess embryos are created for implantation, those that aren't used are stored in liquid nitrogen (-300) until they are no longer viable (alive). There are over 400,000 presently. We don't have that many "serrogate mothers" to receive them.
Would you prefer that they become "medical waste" for disposal or would you rather they be used as a source of "embronic stem cells" to expand existing cell lines and further the research that seeks cures to diseases such as Parkinsons, Alsheimers (sp), some forms of cancer, neurological damage...and many other applications.

Brian are you saying as a "very serious" christian that we "basically evolved from monkeys?

Skippy,
I'll let Brian answer your question.
My understanding is that it had a whole lot to do with blue-green algae that existed for over 2 billion years before other life forms evolved.
I have to check the pre-cambrian fossils and get back to you.

i'm sorry you feel that way, i thought we were still having one.

i feel that the portion regarding forcing a woman to carry her rapist's baby to term and the psychological trauma that could ensue was compeltely legitimate. it seems to lay a hierarchy to human life if we are to assume that conception equals life in this situation for the sake of argument.

and obviously i was being ridiculous and irrational in my example of bacteria evolving into humans. however, it cuts to the very root of our conversation. you say that since i cannot be SURE that life does not start at conception, that we should err on the side of caution and not have abortions. i say that if we cannot be SURE that bacteria is not the next step in human evolution, then we should err on the side of caution and not kill it.

it seems like perfectly sound logic....don't get tripped up by the ridiculous and impossible hypothetical i used to illustrate that.

Dts, as a christian i disagree. I think God created the universe and earth and people. But lets not debate about that. We are going to disagree and neither one of us is going to budge. My problem comes when a self-titled "serious christian" says we basically evolved from monkeys. As a christian you either believe in all the bible or none of it. You can't pick and choose what you want to believe in it. Either its all god inspired and god breathed or its just a nice collection of stories.

absolutely. Christianity is not as simple as many want it to be. It is not as black and white as many want it to be.

It does not mean that you have to act ignorantly and pretend that things which are sound science are not true. Being a Christian does not mean that you have to be unrealistic, unintelligent, and unwilling to question things.

You can read whatever you want into my statement that I am a serious Christian. I take my faith and my relationship with God very seriously and I do my best by Him at all times. I may not be your version of a Christian, but I am a Christian all the same. Your reading of my faith is irrelevant.

Baba,
If this is "the chicken or the egg" discussion...leave me out.
I went into that one once long ago in a Philosophy 101 class.
No answer was found, though I still shake my head thinking about some of the arguements presented.
If you know the answer to your queston...enlighten me.

Brian not judging your faith just clarifying. I just dont agree with it. Gen 1-27 says god created man in his own image. I fail to see how one can draw we evolved from monkeys and you forget that science cannot prove we evolved from monkeys, just like i cannot prove that god created us. Being a chrisitan doesnt mean that you are unintelligent or unquestioning but you do have to have faith. Either god created the world and man or he didnt. Either he died and rose again or he didnt. It's not as gray as you make it seem. I agree there are gray areas in christendom. However, creation and his death aren't one of them. Because the bible basically revolved around those two points.

true. but there is very sound science that shows evolution in general, that species adapt and become completely different from what they once were.

did God create man? Yes. do I believe that God just laid man down as step one? No. Do I believe in evolution? Absolutely. Do I believe evolution is God's work? Yes.