1

I"m not concerned with much, but your comments on the McCain-Lieberman ticket.

I think it WOULD be a shoo-in assuming they get that ticket.

An assumption key in Barone's idea of a M-L GOP ticket is this: MCCAIN would have to have won the republican nomination.

If McCain win's the nomination, and brings in some fellow who even remotely attracts a few democrats, then it will cause him to win.

Do you think the religious right will vote for the Democractic choice for President (they certainly didn't in 2004)? If you look at the voice for the religious right (and maybe this is giving to much to the pundits): but democracts are weak, knee-jerk, terrorists-lovers! And, also, there's also the conservative-liberal schism!

You have to pay attention to the religious right, because they are the most active, and have the most money to spend when it comes to politics. That's the advantages of being rich WASP(s).

The country is not heavily republican like what many people think. It is still fairly evenly divided. But Wasps (oops, religious right), have that extra push of political activism. no one saw it coming in 2004, but when you looked at what voters valued most issue wise, of the voters, FAMILY values was up there (completely unexpected).

So, In short, If McCain wins the GOP nomination, then he is a shoo-in for victory (Is there any legitimate democractic challenger to him?) I think the Religious Right would have to embrace McCain if he wins the GOP nomination, cause they are not strong enough to combat the democractic, and moderate wings of the country, in terms of getting votes out there.

2

I think it is ridiculous that in a time of war that Our Leader will have to step down and we will have to elect an inferior Leader to replace Him. The elections should be postponed until after the War on Terror is completed.

3

Joe states: "While I’m sure a number of Republican congregants decided to shop for another church because of the sermon series, the “theologically conservative, middle-class evangelicals” might have also took issue with the fact that their pastor holds views that are borderline/completely heretical might also have had something to do with the stampede out the door"

Thats pretty doubtful as the issues of his views happened much before Woodland Hills started. Nevermind, the fact that his views are biblically based and I have yet to hear a good argument against them. Earth is a battleground to a cosmic war. Although God in his infinite power and wisdom, eventually gets what he wants sometimes principalities (demons, evil people, etc) interrupt his immediate plan (free will).

As a conservative (at least thats what I consider myself), I had a problem with the title of the article. Its not about conservative politics and Christianity. Its about politics and Christianity. Boyd will and has railed against liberalism and Christian/political ties to liberalism. Conservatives only have the focus of conversation because of their current political power.

As far as the "don't call me a liberal" comment. Well that reveals the sad state of conservatism today. If caring for the poor, racial reconciliation and loving one another (which are all important in the ministry of Jesus) is defined as liberalism, then go ahead, call me a liberal!

4

Nevermind, the fact that his views are biblically based and I have yet to hear a good argument against them.

Why not start with John Piper's reply to Boyd's interpretation.

As far as the "don't call me a liberal" comment. Well that reveals the sad state of conservatism today. If caring for the poor, racial reconciliation and loving one another (which are all important in the ministry of Jesus) is defined as liberalism, then go ahead, call me a liberal!

Boyd is pro-choice on abortion. His views are consistent with an acceptance of Roe. That is just one of the many reasons I think it is silly for him to pretend that he is a-political.

5

As was discussed over at Kos yesterday, Proust would have been a better choice; it would have occupied Bush for the rest of his life, which given his current performance, can only be an improvement.

But Bush also reminds me of the Woody Allen quip: "I was working on what I thought to be a major American novel, but the print was too small and I couldn't get through it."

6

Hmmm, I thought that McCain was always a staunch right to lifer and Lieberman is about as close as a Democrat is going to get to mixing 'faith' and politics (which seems to mainly consist of making lots of speeches mentioning how important your faith is).

What the beef does the religious right have with that? Or have they swallowed the Kool-Aid completely and decided Bush Jr. is the second coming of Christ and anyone that opposes him must be in league with Satan.

Personally I think a Lieberman-McCain ticket provides voters with the opportunity to reject the most self-righteous of both parties at once. A true bipartisan opportunity.

7

I have read Piper, but I'm willing to read it again.

You may want to read this however. http://www.opentheism.info/pdf/belt/summary_aog.pdf

Boyd is NOT pro-choice.

8

Tim Boyd is NOT pro-choice.

When asked if abortion should be legal, Boyd answered:

“…I thought it would be best if second and third trimester abortions were outlawed while the decision during the first trimester was left up to the mother.”

http://www.whchurch.org/whchurch/pdfs/Christians-and-Abortion.pdf

That certainly sounds to me like he is pro-choice. In fact, it is very consistent with Roe. Do you disagree? If so, I'd be interested in hearing how you would define "pro-choice."

9

According to a new study, hot dogs may cause genetic mutations. Since such mutations are what moves species up the evolutionary ladder, can we expect Takeru Kobayashi to become the world's first X-Man?

Naa he'll just get stomach cancer.

(although by comic book logic, he would presumably turn into a giant hotdog with the annoying ability to drip mustard and relish everywhere he goes)

10

Joe,

Did you stop reading the paper after that comment? Boyd did respond with those words but only as a way out of an impasse to prevent 2nd and 3rd term abortions.

He is against all abortion. That is not prochoice.

11

That certainly sounds to me like he is pro-choice. In fact, it is very consistent with Roe. Do you disagree? If so, I'd be interested in hearing how you would define "pro-choice."

Let's save this from Joe the next time someone says that Roe legalized abortion all the way up to the 9th month.

12

Joe

Sorry to use this forum for this message, but I tried e-mailing you and get a "mailbox full" rejection response. Can you e-mail me, or maybe empty your mailbox? Thanks.

13

Let's save this from Joe the next time someone says that Roe legalized abortion all the way up to the 9th month.

Actually, while Roe did not legalize abortion through the ninth month, it's companion case, Doe v. Bolton, effectively did, so this legal niggle is really moot.

14

Tim Did you stop reading the paper after that comment? Boyd did respond with those words but only as a way out of an impasse to prevent 2nd and 3rd term abortions.

I’ve read the entire article. In fact, I read it soon after it came out, which is one of the reasons I lost a lot of respect for him.

He is against all abortion. That is not prochoice.

I would say that his position on abortion is perfectly consistent with the “pro-choice” view. He appears to take the typical politician answer of being “personally opposed” to abortion while thinking it should remain legal.

Admittedly, he is not pro-abortion, as some groups are. But it would be hard to deny that his position is not “pro-choice” when he specifically states that a first trimester abortion should be left to the “choice” of the mother.

15

Tom,

I think you're wrong about Doe.v.Bolton. The ruling there seems to just be Roe's ruling

16

McCain is (rightly) despised by conservatives and Lieberman

Correction:

McCain is despised by social conservatives. -Not all conservatives.

Those of us that are for low taxes, sound fiscal policy, restrained government spending, and above all, personal responsiblity and limited government intrusion into our lives, would much rather have a McCain presidency than the alternative. He may have a few warts on those things but overall he is a much better choice than someone like our current President. As an added bonus, he is also anti-torture.

Who knew that when we elected the "Evangelical" President, that what he would be evangelizing is Big Government, out-of-control-makes-the-democrats-look-like-spendthrifts government spending, massive over-reach of Presidental powers, and even torture?

Incidentally, its interesting that on the subject of the US Government condoning torture, even if its just "stress positions", that all we hear out of the Religous Conservative poltical organizations is silence. (Although the Catholic Church has raised some fuss).

I would think they would find it embarrasing that the organizations making the most noise about the torture issue are primarily secular in nature, not religious affinity groups like AFA, FOF, Liberty Counsel, etc.

17

Patrick Those of us that are for low taxes, sound fiscal policy, restrained government spending, and above all, personal responsiblity and limited government intrusion into our lives, would much rather have a McCain presidency than the alternative.

McCain is one of those politicians who people like because they have never paid attention to his actions or his voting record. There is no reason why an economic and/or social conservative would vote for him (why do you think the press fawed over him in 2000?).

McCain opposed tax cuts for years, only to flip-flop on the issue to save his chances at running for office. "It looks political to me. It runs counter to his whole past behavior. He's got to appeal to the [conservative] base of the party, because I don't think there is a Republican in the land who can get the nomination [voting] against the tax cuts," said veteran economic strategist Larry Hunter, a senior fellow at the Policy Institute for Innovation. (http://www.townhall.com/columnists/DonaldLambro/2006/03/02/after_the_flips,_will_mccain_flop)

And limited government? McCain pushed for the establishment of a national boxing commission, threatening to hold up every piece of legislation in the Senate if House leaders didn’t go along with his plan. When he discovered that House leaders were refusing to act on his boxing bill, he attached it to every remaining bill in the Senate.

And remember when he said, “I would rather have a clean government than one where quote First Amendment rights are being respected, that has become corrupt. If I had my choice, I’d rather have the clean government." Does that sound like a freedom loving limited government conservative to you?

Also what’s the alternative you are referring to? McCain won’t be running against Bush.

Incidentally, its interesting that on the subject of the US Government condoning torture, even if its just "stress positions", that all we hear out of the Religous Conservative poltical organizations is silence. (Although the Catholic Church has raised some fuss).

What organizations are you referring to? And did you miss the religious leaders that spoke out in my symposium?

I would think they would find it embarrasing that the organizations making the most noise about the torture issue are primarily secular in nature, not religious affinity groups like AFA, FOF, Liberty Counsel, etc.

What I find embarrassing is attempting to include such things as “sleep deprivation” in the definition of “torture” (by that standard I was “tortured” in boot camp). Let’s be honest. None of these groups cared about the issue when Clinton was in office. They only brought it up because they think they can use it to score political points against Bush.

Torture is illegal in America. It has been since 1996. For all the political handwaving, nothing has changed. Only a few ill-informed people are under the impression that torture was being carried out under the Bush regime and that McCain and a handful of leftists put an end to it.

18

Boonton

I'm not sure what you mean by "ruling there." Where? Please clarify.

Doe v. Bolton introduced the language that the woman's "health" could be a primary concern in whether an abortion was justified, and because "health" has become a loophole large to drive a star destroyer through, it effectively made abortion legal through all nine months of pregnancy.

By the way, Doe v. Bolton was based on an outrageous lie. The "plaintiff," a young, poorly educated woman named Sandra Cano, had sought a lawyer for a custody dispute; she wasn't even pregnant. Planned Parenthood lawyers seized on her ignorance, wrote her affidavit for her, and refused to let her speak in court. Even for a TV interview they had Cano sit in shadows (supposedly to protect her identity) while a Planned Parenthood lawyer off-camera did the actual speaking. (Viewers were clueless because they simply assumed the woman in the shadow was speaking.)

I spent considerable time interviewing Cano back in 2002, and she has signed legal documents filed with the Supreme Court in attempt to have her case reheard. Significantly, Planned Parenthood nor Grady Memorial Hospital in Atlanta (the facility that supposedly denied Cano her abortion) could produce any documents to support their version of events.

19

Joe Carter:

What I find embarrassing is attempting to include such things as “sleep deprivation” in the definition of “torture” (by that standard I was “tortured” in boot camp). Let’s be honest. None of these groups cared about the issue when Clinton was in office. They only brought it up because they think they can use it to score political points against Bush.

As an ex-Marine recruiter you probably know the little secret about boot camp: the hurdles are high enough to cause discomfort, but low enough to ensure that most recruits pass.

The "sleep deprivation" you experienced was no doubt nothing compared to that experienced by detainess: this was the standard Soviet method of extracting confessions up to the Great Terror of 1937.

You're in the company of the Stalinists if you're going to be an apologist for that kind of torture.

20

the hurdles are high enough to cause discomfort, but low enough to ensure that most recruits pass.

Well, as a former Marine myself, I suppose you're right if the literal definition of "most"--more than 50%--holds true, but when I went through Parris Island during the late Vietnam era, the attrition rate in boot camp was close to 40%.

I suffered more sleepless nights as a grunt than I ever did in boot camp, by the way.

21

Doe v. Bolton introduced the language that the woman's "health" could be a primary concern in whether an abortion was justified, and because "health" has become a loophole large to drive a star destroyer through, it effectively made abortion legal through all nine months of pregnancy.

Actually you should read the decision (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=410&invol=179). Basically Georgia had an abortion law that worked by making it technically legal but introduced a lot of hoops a woman had to jump through (3 doctors had to agree, then a special committee at the hospital where the abortion would be done had to vote to agree as well etc.) which the court ruled the state could not do.

The decision did leave it in the attending physicians hands to judge what is 'medically necessary' but at the same time stated stated the physician's license could be challenged and revoked if he made improper judgements on that. This is effectively how prescriptions for potentially addictive pain medication is handled. The physician is trusted to write the script in a responsible way but if he starts deciding everyone and anyone who says they feel a twinge of pain can get a script for morphine his judgement can be challenged and his license revoked.

So no the decision did not say a woman could demand an abortion at 8.5 months and call it a medical necessity because being fat made her feel self conscious or other nonsense.

22

The decision did leave it in the attending physicians hands to judge what is 'medically necessary' but at the same time stated stated the physician's license could be challenged and revoked if he made improper judgements on that.

And who, precisely, was going to challenge a doctor's judgment on something so subjective as his determination of what affected a woman's "health"? This is precisely the element of Doe v. Bolton that opened the floodgates to all-abortion all-the-time.

It's the part that the notorious Warren Hern of Boulder, CO, uses to justify partial-birth abortion.

23

That's odd because if you did you'll find a lot of stories claiming that pain is not properly managed in the US because doctors are afraid to prescribe the needed medication least their licenses be questioned.

Are you telling me that medicine is SO subjective that the decisions of physicians are basically like art critics? Just matters of taste, unquestionable. Makes you wonder how HMO's ever manage to decide to accept or reject a physicians recommendated treatment.

24

The issue with pain meds is different, because one can objectively judge that x cc's of a given drug would be excessive in Patient Y's case based on medical history, body mass, and other factors the doctor takes into account. Yes, I'm sure there's a bit of subjectivity to it, so doctors err too far on the other side.

When it comes to judging a woman's "health," e.g., her mental state should she be forced to carry a pregnancy to term, on what objective basis, months after the fact, could a fellow doctor challenge his judgment?

It is apples and oranges.

And, just to throw an off-topic bomb, art is not (or should not be) subjective. There are objective standards of good art and bad art, good music and bad music, etc.

25

If a woman was told she could not get an abortion because she was too late in her pregnancy and in her 'mental state' killed tom and then claimed that her 'mental state' made her temporarily insane I don't doubt for a second that it would take more than just a doctor saying "sounds right to me" for her to pull it off.

As for pain meds the principle remains, the doctor is trusted to determine unless there is reason presented thathe is abusing the trust. To begin with if a doctor was approving a late term abortion only on the basis of 'mental health' he could be required to actually make a diagnosis using, say, an ICD-9 code or a code from the DSM.

26

Joe, the only justification for getting Bush to read Camus's The Stranger would be if he wanted to get a clearer idea of what a nihilist thinks of his own approaching execution [or martyrdom].
It's boring, but it is a classic description of psychological nihilism, rather than mere dissent, as is often taught.
If his advisor debriefed Bush afterwards, he would also be much better aware of what a lot of cynical French diplomats think!

27

Boonton

You're operating under the assumption that late-term abortions happen when a woman walks into the local community hospital and is dealing with an intern or internal medicine guy. In fact, almost all late-term abortions happen at for-profit abortion clinics where the doctor has every incentive to come up with a diagnosis that will result in a very lucrative abortion.

See again my reference to the above Dr. Warren Hern of Boulder, CO.

28

A very lucrative abortion? What would that be? $1,000? $2,000? An actual birth would gross closer to $5,000.

29

A very lucrative abortion? What would that be? $1,000? $2,000? An actual birth would gross closer to $5,000.

I'll take your word for these costs, but the difference is that those thousands go almost exclusively to the doctor with a small portion going to the clinic, whereas that $5,000 for a live birth are costs for the hospital/clinic, nurses, medicines, doctors, and various sundry things one finds on a medical bill. In short, abortion is almost pure profit.

The biggest difference, aside from costs, is the actual outcome: a living, breathing baby vs. a dead and dismembered baby.

30

Also if your goal was to be a rich doctor late term abortions doesn't seem like much of a market. First of all they are very rare in terms of abortion, not even 1% maybe. Second many (probably most) are done for very specific medical conditions such as a hyperenlarged head or a defect where the brain grows outside the skull. Third very few women get to such a late stage wanting to get an abortion.

If you're going to go after the birth defect market you're going to have to see lots of pregnant women carrying their kids to term because there's no way to know ahead of time which women will develop serious defects. In that case your income will really come from delievering babies and prenatal care. If you're going after the 'casual late term abortion' market I think you're going to have a hard time finding enough customers to pay your overhead and bills.

Sorry the 'lucrative abortion industry' is a pro-life myth. Like many medical procedures there is a market for those who provide them and people do make a living at them but those seeking vaste riches and huge profits would find a lot of better medical industries to get into...like plastic surgery.

31

I'm not buying it. 1.4 million abortions a year at an average of $300 each... that's 420 million.

The average person likely can't afford plastic surgery. But with government subsidies anyone can afford an abortion.

What they lack in price they make up in volume. If you think the abortion industry isn't profitable you're kidding yourself.

32

First where exactly do you get gov't subsidies for abortion, not that you would need many since even $300 is probably near the high end for a standard abortion these days?

Second, $420M is a pretty small market. You're talking nation-wide here. It's not like you can open a single clinic and in one place and have all 1.4M women travel to it.

To win on volumn you need to do abortions and only abortions every day but since each abortion requires one doctor you run into a pretty tight supply constraint here. How many patients can a doctor do in a day? Even if he is just writing a script for an abortion drug he can, at best, see maybe 4-5 patients an hour? If he worked a 7 hour day 5 days a week that would be 175 patients @ $300 = $52,500 per week. That's pretty good money even paying for an office and staff but what real office can generate that much traffic day in and day out? (Also if he is just writing a script can he really charge $300? At $300 he will probably have to actually DO the procedure and I doubt he can see patients at a rate of 1 every 10-15 minutes in those circumstances).

To capture the market you'd need multiple clinics in many locations but that means not only multiple offices to rent but you'd have to hire multiple doctors (you can't have a doctor work all day in Dallas TX on Monday and at the same time work in a NYC clinic). I suppose in theory you could have a company that would operate clinics the way McDonalds operates, hiring local doctors and such...doing national advertising and so on but that's not really how things play out in the medical field. Most doctors operate as small businessmen running a small office. Sometimes they will have partnerships with other docs sharing office staff and other expenses but you just don't really see many huge companies of doctors.

I didn't say there was no profit in doing abortions. There's enough for a few doctors to make a living at it and for others to use it to supplement the income of their obgyn practices. As a whole though it is not a major industry and it is not very lucrative.

33

Torture is illegal in America. It has been since 1996. For all the political handwaving, nothing has changed. Only a few ill-informed people are under the impression that torture was being carried out under the Bush regime and that McCain and a handful of leftists put an end to it.

Which is why Guantanamo was created and why we have had secret overseas CIA prisons and why we outsource torture to such countries as Saudi Arabia and Egypt. Out of curiosity Joe, do you think water-boarding is torture?

And there can be no comparison between sleep deprivation as a means of torture and boot camp. The point being that military recruits, like masochists, choose to put themselves under the whip.

As far as other things, like "stress positions", well, people who are crucified usually die from such a "stress position". Jesus probably didn't die from the wounds in his hands and feet you know.

And the McCain anti-torture Amendment passed unanimously in the Senate and overwhelmingly in the House. And since last I checked, A.N.S.W.E.R. is not the majority party, you can hardly call them a "handful of leftists".

The major Christian political groups supposed originally supported Bush in order to get what they wanted, socially conservative judges on the bench and support for a constitutional amendment on gay marriage. They wanted a conservative evangelical in the White House and they got it.

But the fact that they continue to support him in spite of his Administrations continued and open support for torture, (right now they are trying to get the CIA exempted from the anti-torture laws) shows that they really just want power, not social change. And how can they possibly justify ignoring torture? By denying it exists of course.

34

Guantanamo is a military base. As such is it subject to all of the laws of the U.S.

And the administration has stated that it is not subject to those laws if it deems violating them can be labeled 'national security'.

If they’re [secret prisons] so secret, how do we know about them?

Well because information about them was leaked. Are you really that stupid or were you just playing games? Really if someone were to write about secret prisons in Cuba or Syria or whatnot would you write such a smart ass answer?

That raises an interesting question. I don’t think we should “outsource torture” if that is what we are doing. But then should we ever extradite prisoners to those countries, knowing that they might be tortured?

We have purposefully sent people to countries because we knew their 'police' would use methods on them that we would not. The most notable case I believe was a Canadian citizen who was not extradited to Canada but to Syria or Egypt (I forget which)...but to answer your question anyone MIGHT end up being tortured anywhere so the answer is that we SHOULD NOT force anyone to be sent anywhere we know they will be tortured or treated in a inhumane way. To the degree there may be uncertainity the decision must be based on the best assessment of the situation we can make. However the decision must ALWAYS be made so as to never knowingly send someone into a situation where their human rights would be violated either by us or someone else.

Imagine it is 1939 and we happen to capture a criminal here in the US who is Jewish who has done all sorts of bad things. Would you ever say it would be morally correct to deport him to Germany knowing he would be tortured and killed in the Holocaust?

I disagree. What can make sleep deprivation “torture” is the length of time it is carried out and whether it is done as a side effect of interrogation or as an end unto itself.

What use would an interrogation technique that borders on torture really have if it wasn't carried through to the torture level? The idea is to inflict such discomfort the suspect reveals information to alleviate his situation. If the discomfort isn't serious then what could be expected to be accomplished? If it is serious then you're almost certainly crossing towards torture.

But I also want complete honesty about the situation. I want the government to say that we are a civilized people which does not condone torture and because of this we are likely to have thousands of our fellow Americans killed in attacks because we cannot illicit the information needed to stop them. I’m willing to make that sacrifice. But I think it needs to be said openly.

We are likely to lose thousands of citizens because we won't let our gov't torture people? Does anything revealed about the torture incidents so far lead one to believe that our gov't employs master tortures who are able to pick out who to target with torture in order to obtain such vital information? What we know about Iraq indicates that much, if not all of the torture, was done out of a mix of poor leadership, sadism, poor training and supervision.

Also before we even admit there's a trade off we have to count against the possible good of getting info about the 'ticking time bomb' from torture against the probable costs. These would include the loss of credibility among many whom we are trying to win over from radicals as well as creating unnecessary enemies who are seeking revenge from our real or imagined torture mistakes.

Torture sympathsizers can present us with the hypothetical but they should recognize that they are presenting us with the best case hypothetical where the torture is always directed only at people who deserve it and always to produce the most valuable information possible.