Apparently frightened by the current wave of conservatism in opposition to Obama’s policies, news organizations have chosen to frame the conservative movement as “radical.” After all, when you are unable to respond to the issues, the second best thing is getting out of discussions by saying that your opponents just aren’t worth arguing with.
Newsweek is on the forefront of such wusses and has released a web article entitled “Even Reagan wasn’t a Reagan Republican.” The point, of course, is to show that the previous republican presidents just wouldn’t cut it in today’s conservative Republican party.
I find it hilarious that Newsweek is trying to reprimand Republicans for not being like Nixon. I mean, why would I want to disagree with the guy who said that “we were all Keynesians now?” </sarcasm> Or how about Ford? I think we can all say he was an idiot when appointing Stevens to the court.
And then we come to Reagan (and Bush). Looks like they’re stretching a few points here to make it fit with their story. For instance, could it be that deficit spending was caused by fighting a war? No mention of it. And look at his domestic policies – wilderness protection, nominating O’Connor, etc.
First, all of these are easy to cherrypick. After 2 terms of Reagan’s presidency, you would think that Newsweek wouldn’t have to use any of his actions as governor of CA. After all, if he’s really not that conservative, there should be oodles of anti-conservative stuff.
Secondly, how does Newsweek know that wilderness protection or whatever is frowned upon by Republicans? I would agree with several of the things mentioned, or would at least like to see debate on the issue.
Thirdly, a lot of these things are things that conservatives disliked even then, and given the consequences of those actions (like having O’Connor, Souter, Stevens, etc on the court) Republicans should learn from their mistakes.
All in all, I think it’s quite good that we don’t choose to follow in lock-step with everything that has been done in the past. You keep the good decisions, throw out the bad ones. And all of our presidents, democrats and republicans, have made bad decisions. Republicans just make fewer.
In a recent article on the pro-abortion website RH Reality Check, staff writer Sarah Seltzer bemoaned that fact that abortion not a popular punchline. “The lack of abortion jokes creates this hyped-up atmosphere of tragedy and controversy around something that is quite common and needs to be discussed more,” she said.
The catalyst for this comment is an unreleased episode of Family Guy, in which abortion is the target for the show’s infamously edgy and irreverent jokes. Seltzer identifies the lack of abortion jokes as “a damning silence” and quotes another blogger who calls it “a textbook example of how systemic sexism works.”
For all her concern about sexism, Seltzer shows a complete lack of sensitivity towards women who have had abortions and a failure to recognize that abortion is simply not funny for the majority of Americans. (Ironically, when a pro-lifer tries to show a medically accurate and scientific depiction of what occurs during abortion, they’re soundly condemned by self-appointed spokespeople for women for their insensitivity.)
Seltzer continues by complaining of otherwise “edgy, sexually hip shows” that take “the typical TV copout route of a miscarriage or a pregnancy carried to term.”
“TV has created this bizarro world,” she says, “where a choice that most American women would consider strongly after an unintended pregnancy is all but erased.”
Seltzer is right when she points out that abortions occur all too often. After all, according to the Alan Guttmacher Institute, at current rates more than one-third of women (35%) will have had an abortion by age 45.
But why is abortion rarely portrayed on television? Judging by the content of current TV shows, it’s hardly because of puritan censorship. Instead, most people realize that abortion is not just a medical procedure. It’s the taking of a human life, and that is what makes it off the table for discussion.
But let’s have an open conversation on abortion – not filled with jokes and flippant remarks, as Sarah Seltzer advocates, but a nation-wide discussion of the brutal procedure itself and the pain that it leaves behind. Otherwise, we are indeed contributing to “a damning silence.”
My short pain-story about my vacation at Apollo Beach – dentists there are located in easy to find locations. Fortunately, when I needed a dentist, I had no problem finding one. I knew going to the dentist, I would get the highest quality dental care possible. The waiting room was nice and the staff was friendly and efficient.
When facing my dental emergency I wanted to get to the dentist fast in they were right there when I needed them. Since I was in a lot of pain and was apprehensive about getting my teeth done.
The dentist was very understanding and skilled. Since cosmetic dentistry, veneers, bondings and crowns are routine for these dentist handling my dental problems was easy. A consultation and an x-ray and I was on my way to a healthier more attractive smile.
I realized I could get all of my dental need taken care of in the Apollo Beach office, fillings, cleanings and tooth whitening. The dentist explained how important it is to the overall body to take care of the teeth. I did not realize the range of illnesses the teeth could affect diabetes, heart disease and other physical problems. These are serious problems that are exasperated by poor dental health.
Not only did I need tooth repair I suffered from misaligned teeth. The orthodontist services provided by the dentist in Apollo Beach were able to use invisalign to help my teeth. A nice smile helps the confidence and the health. I am glad I took the time to get my teeth repaired. The dental professionals also provide services for pediatric patients and install implants. Regular dental appointments would have prevented many of my problems. Many people I talked to practiced preventative care.
Like many, I was not alone in my fear of dentist but the office was skilled at sedation dentistry too so I had nothing to worry about. Every one of my complaints was covered. By qualified professionals, I could put my trust in. Going to the dentist for me was not easy. It was important for me to do my research and reports from former patients show the dentist in Apollo Beach
come highly recommended. The dentist listened carefully to my concerns about the procedures and there was a payment plan to fit my budget. I avoided the dentist afraid of the cost but my, I realized my reluctance was unfounded, and I was glad I took care of my dental health.
Everyone strives to be healthy and one of the ways in which people strive to achieve this is through weight loss. Being overweight or obese has many health problem attributed to it, including heart disease as well as high blood pressure. On both sides of the Atlantic obesity is becoming a huge problem as the number of people overweight climbs ever higher. This not only causes death and distress, but also adds to the burden placed on this country’s National Health Service, where many of the resources are taken up with treating those who are suffering from ailments caused by obesity.
There are various ways to lose weight, the most common and well known of which is through exercise and dieting. However there are also a variety of other methods including drug and surgical options. As well as these there are also various aids and supplements that people can take to help in the way that they lose weight via varying means. Such supplements can take the form of Hoodia Weight Loss Supplements, found from the South African desert plant Hoodia gordonii, found out in the Kalahari, where bushmen have been reaping its benefits it for many years.
This plant is thought to contain the secret of weight loss and could make up the future of losing weight. A molecule inside the plant, known as P57, has been found to halt someone’s appetite by sending a message to the brain telling it that you have eaten enough and that you are full, even if you are not. As a result someone might eat less than they would normally, helping the person to lose weight.
The company Phystophar (a British pharmaceutical company) which is heading the research into the plant has published its results for the world to see, leading to people the world over becoming aware of its properties and potential benefits. They studied the eating habits of volunteers, including their daily calorie intake. Their findings showed that those who had taken the Hoodia supplement took in far less per day than those who did not. BTW, great resources by my friend from Poland on http://szczuplakobieta.pl. If you know Polish, there’s a a ton of knowledge about weight loss products and fitness in general. You should check this video about african mango.
There is still a long way to go before Hoodia is ready to go. The plant itself is going to prove tricky in providing its benefits, being a plant that grows in specific conditions over a long period of time. There are also side effects to look into, meaning that anyone who wants to take the pills would have to take these into account. However, soon Hoodia Weight Loss Supplements could change lives.
One argument that I hear time and time again against pro-lifers is “Why don’t they quit this and actually do something to help women? Hypocrites.” These people seem to think that they are making an original, thoughtful point. However, their suggestions have already been in action for many years. In fact, pregnancy centers now outnumber abortion clinics (Times.)
So why have so many people not heard of these centers? One reason may be that the general public finds it difficult to justify the idea of a caring pro-lifer with the idea of pro-lifers as “anti-choice fanatics” which they receive from the news. (Interestingly, news of pro-abortion violence is rarely heard, although there have been a greater number of crimes.
However, for the first time, a major news source has decided to cover this “new” side of the pro-life movement. Time magazine wrote a cover article entitled “The Grassroots Abortion War”. The article explains the services that crisis pregnancy centers offer and gives an in-depth interview with Deborah Wood, the CEO of a North Carolina center, portraying her as compassionate and competent. While the article surprisingly describes the movement as “kind, calm, nonjudgmental”, it also gives voice to critics who state that the centers are not giving correct information. These claims should have been investigated by the Time, not simply quoted and unsubstantiated. Despite these shortcomings, this article is certainly a revolutionary look for the American public.
“Our President has lied to us.” “He has falsely led us into this war.” “He has abused our civil rights.” “He has exceeded his Presidential powers.” “Americans are dying because of this war that should have never been fought.”
You might have thought that I was talking about our current president, but actually, I was referring to criticism about the 16th president, Abraham Lincoln. Now considered one of our greatest presidents, Lincoln was bombarded with criticism from the press, from the Democrats, and even from within his own Republican party. Because the presidential criticism is very similar today, it is valuable to examine how the public opinion of President Lincoln has changed.
One of the main complaints against Lincoln was that he had dishonestly led the United States into the Civil War. In fact, a Democratic rhymester wrote:
“Honest old Abe, when the war first began,
Denied abolition was part of his plan;
Honest old Abe has since made a decree,
The war must go on till the slaves are all free.
As both can’t be honest, will some one tell how,
If honest Abe then, he is honest Abe now?”
At first, Lincoln rebuffed all claims that the war was against slavery and maintained that the Civil War was solely to save the Union. He stated in 1862, “If I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves, I would do it; and if I could do it by freeing some and leaving the others alone, I would also do that.” Then, after his Emancipation Proclamation, which declared all Confederate slaves free, many slavery-supporting Northerners began rejecting Lincoln.
Similarly, Bush has been the object of criticism saying that he lied about the reasons for going into Iraq. Senator Ted Kennedy, who has been re-elected by Democratic constituents since 1962, called the decision to invade “dishonest” and stated, “The Bush administration misrepresented and distorted the intelligence to justify a war that America should never have fought.” Soon to be Majority Leader of the Senate, Harry Reid stated, “We all know the vice president’s office was the nerve center of an operation designed to sell the war and discredit those who challenged it.” (Hardball with Chris Matthews’ for November 3) Some today go as far as to say that Bush is seeking revenge for his father, George H. W. Bush. Others say that it is a war for oil or a means to get the company Haliburton rich. Also, like Lincoln, Bush has been accused of changing his reasons for invading Iraq. Critics state that the initial reason was Saddam’s Weapons of Mass Destruction, and now, it is liberating the Iraqi people. They fail to see that by overthrowing Saddam, the Iraqi people are freed, just like Lincoln’s critics failed to see that in order to reunite the Union, slavery must be abolished.
The second complaint against Lincoln was that he was overstepping his role as President and violating our civil rights. During the Civil War, Lincoln often took matters into his own hands, such as when he proclaimed a blockade against the South, arbitrarily increased the size of the Federal army, and advanced $2 million to three private citizens for military purposes, all without the approval of Congress. Moreover, he suspended the writ of habeas corpus during the Civil War, defying a ruling by the chief justice of the Supreme Court (Merryman, ex parte). The criticism was so strong that “His enemies termed him a dictator and a tyrant.” (Encyclopedia Americana).
Likewise, critics of Bush claim that he has violated our rights through the warrantless wiretapping of terrorist suspects. For example, political magazine CounterPunch refers to our nation as being in “the national security state that kills people abroad while destroying our rights here at home.”
Generally, Lincoln was criticized greatly during the Civil War. “He was beset not only by the difficulties of the war, but by opposition from men on his own side. His cabinet was rent by internal jealousies and hatred; radical abolitionists condemned him as too mild; conservatives were gloomy over the prospects of success in the war.” (The Columbia Encyclopedia) “Throughout the war Lincoln was the subject of frequent, and often vitriolic, attacks, both from the Democrats who thought he was proceeding too drastically against slavery and from the Radicals in his own party—men like Charles Sumner, Benjamin F. Wade, and Zachariah Chandler—who considered him slow and ineffective. Partisan newspapers abused the President as “a slangwhanging stump speaker,” a “half-witted usurper,” a “mole-eyed” monster with “soul … of leather,””the present turtle at the head of the government.” Men of his own party openly charged that he was “unfit,” a “political coward,” a “dictator,””timid and ignorant,””shattered, dazed, utterly foolish.”” (Encyclopedia Americana). In fact, even Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address was branded as “ludicrous” by the London Times and by Democratic editors as “dishwatery” and “silly”. The now famous speech attracted little attention at the time.
Similarly, Bush has been labeled as stupid and tyrannical, and his historical speeches, such as the infamous “Axis of Evil” speech, have to my knowledge only been ridiculed by the mainstream press.
However, the tide began to turn in Lincoln’s favor in his 1864 campaign for reelection. In order to take power away from the anti-war Democrats, the Republican Party banded with the Democrats that supported the war to form the Union Party. In fact, Lincoln’s own running mate was a War Democrat. Also, soon before the election, the North had a series of victories. With that and the votes of the Union soldiers, Lincoln won the presidency for a second time. Almost a year later, Lee surrendered and the Civil War was over, to the great relief of the people. Lincoln died at the very pinnacle of his fame, only five days after the end of the bloodiest war in American history.
Thus, the criticism against Lincoln is very similar to that against President George W. Bush. The allegations against him, like Lincoln, include lying about the purpose of the war, being incompetent, overstepping presidential powers, and violating civil rights. However, somehow Lincoln was able to regain his popularity and more. The reason, of course, was because he managed to win the Civil War. Likewise, I believe that Bush, too, will be seen as one of our greatest presidents if he can only establish a peaceful Iraq in the Middle East. This is not to compare Iraq to the Civil War, but only to compare the similar criticism. Therefore, Republicans and the rest of Americans should not give up on Bush. Now, some might try to argue that Bush will never achieve greatness like Lincoln because he is too stupid, too wrong, too whatever. Nevertheless, they forget that these were exactly what were said about Lincoln too. Thus, if history does indeed repeat itself, then the critics will be wrong once more.
I’ve just made my own Cafepress shop at http://www.cafepress.com/speakoutstore. I’m featuring two messages on many different shirts, aprons, and even mousepads. The messages look like this:
One of the t-shirts looks like this:
So please, go check it out. Also, any suggestions about the messages would be appreciated. Are they easily understood? Is there a way they can be improved?