A double standard

Seems to me hypocrisy itself is in the mainstream of the American tradition.

I think the difference between the conservative and progressive participation in politics is that when conservatives involve themselves, they do so to force compliance with their morality where as progressives don't demand conservatives act as they act so much as just demanding they back off and allow others to act as their own consciences dictate. Example: (I know it's an extreme one) Abortion. Conservative moral position on abortion forces progressives to act in ways that are contrary to their conscience (no abortions for anyone, ever). Progressive moral position, on the other hand, does not demand that conservatives *have* abortions, but rather that they back off and allow people to decide as their consciences dictate. Same with gay marriage - if conservatives get their way, same-sex couples are left out in the cold. If progressives get their way, there's no effect on conservatives at all - they're not forced to suddenly become same-sex couples. Rather, they're merely asked to back off and allow people to act as their consciences dictate. So the conservative religious perspective in politics is that everyone must comply with them. The progressive religious position in politics is that everyone should get to decide for themselves. The only way this could be considered a double standard is if they were demanding the same thing. They're not.

And who sez that abortion and gay marriage aren't the sacrements of the Left?

The Left has it easy because it can scream hypocrisy when a visible figure on the right demonstrates a moral failing. Although it s strangely ironic because the failing is almost always from the perspective of the sinner on the Right. When you have no underlying morals of your own, you can t be hypocritical. Parenthetically, I remember that when Amy Irving was married to Steven Spielberg, they were going to have a baby. Two babies actually, because Irving was impregnated by her lover and Spielberg had impregnated his. And the response from the mainstream press was ho-hum. Because violating the sanctity of marriage in an extreme way is not a moral failing from the Left s perspective, but blowing your own money on slot machines (Bill Bennett) is hypocrisy. Hmm Would Spielberg and Irving had been similarly castigated like Bennett if they had blown their fortunes on slot machines? Here s the thing with the religious Right though. It married itself to the Republican party. And that explicit alliance has been a burden to the party because it limits dialog and enforces standards that lie outside of essential morality. So we have explicitly Republican affiliated Evangelicals making pronouncements not only about abortion, but also issues like global warming which are essentially policy related albeit with the potential for knock on moral implications. The point is, politicians are like the mafia. You get in bed with them for a penny, you re in bed with them for a pound. Better the tactic of the Catholic hierarchy to promulgate moral teaching apart for any specific Caesar who wields political power.

"When you have no underlying morals of your own, you can t be hypocritical." Yeah, but that doesn't describe the left. If some leftist spouted off racial epithets, for instance, the Right could say that person was hypocritical. And rightly so. We have morals. Not always exactly the same ones as the right, granted. But "no underlying morals" is simply not true.

I hear you, except there *is* no debate over global warming.

hear you, except there *is* no debate over global warming. Well said!
I assume you are joking, WW, but if not I couldn't ask for a better example of what I mean about liberal intolerance of idea diversity. 17,000 scientists wackos can easily be put in a camp somewhere to make sure nobody speaks against the GW juggernaut...and that could be more union jobs to run the camp...a liberal win-win...

Jesus - where to begin? -smoking nazis - don't say you can't smoke. Just say you can't endanger the health of others when you do it. -don imus - I don't know any progressives that really gave to good gosh darns about Imus. -iq research taboo - I'm not aware of any taboo against IQ research, though I'd be willing to concede it after reading primary sources. -creationism taboo - no one has a problem with people believing creationism. We just have problems with teaching it as science since it isn't. -global warming debates - I have no idea how conservatives' freedoms are hindered by debating global warming. -pc laws - what PC laws? -school vouchers - How are conservatives kept from sending their children to private schools? -gun control - You got me there. Conservatives' rights are definitely being oppressed by progressives by not being allowed to own automatic assault rifles and rocket launchers.
-hate crime law - How does that infringe on the rights of conservatives unless you believe they should have the right to assault or kill people for reasons of gender race or orientation. -fairness doctrine - does not infringe on conservatives' rights to state their cases. -title IX - "No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance" - Yes - conservatives' rights to discriminate against women are infringed upon here.
2 out of 11? Yeah. You're oppressed.

2 out of 11? Yeah. You're oppressed. Thanks, tv. I just love it when liberals actually stand by their positions like Title IX. It's refreshing.
My restrictions are fair, crys the lib, and yours are not! Abortion is not protecting human rights, it's restricting womens health! Title IX is not gutting men's popular sport programs, it's making it fair! The fairness doctrine does not restrict free speech, it allows for equal time! Sheese. Let's get something straight: Any such laws are cutting one person's freedom over anothers. Period. The anti-abortionist or the anti-smoker both agree: somebody is getting hurt. They want to pass laws to stop it. When we add up the scoreboard, libs want to stop a lot more things than cons. This has nothing to do with what position one take on them, or how correct they are. But the facts are hard things: libs love to control their fellow man a lot more than cons, right or wrong. For a look at the world run by liberals, and how obsessed they are in enforcing their ideology, check out this.

When we add up the scoreboard, libs want to stop a lot more things than cons. This has nothing to do with what position one take on them, or how correct they are. But the facts are hard things: libs love to control their fellow man a lot more than cons, right or wrong. Conservatives want regulation over what happens in a person's private life. Progressives want regulations over what happens in public life. Private life has nothing to do with you. Public life has to do with all of us. Ergo - conservatives are wrong to try to impose their will over personal private issues. Progressives are not wrong to impose fairness in public life.

In public life, decisions must be made that are most fair to all participants. What's wrong with that?

...conservatives are wrong to try to impose their will over personal private issues. Progressives are not wrong to impose fairness in public life. Don't see it. Cons oppose abortion because it kills another person - that's public. Cons oppose drugs because they effect everyone else - that's public. Cons oppose porn in public so their kids aren't exposed to it - that's public. Look at libs reaction to homeschooling to see how opposed they are to personal freedom when they don't like the ideology of that freedom.
No, libs and cons both want to change the public for the better. Libs just want to do it more often.

"Libs just want to do it more often." I really can't argue with a statement like that. Not because it's fact, but because it's pure opinion.

I know. I know. First I said "That's all there is and there ain't no more." Then my next message began "One more..." I caught it. My fault. (Actually, I think that's pretty funny!) :-)

wildwest, Susan S., and tv, you prove my point. You all are so obsessed with your own ideology and can't even see I'm not defending cons here. They like to control as well. My point is simply libs are more likely to control than cons and are a lot better at it, as my list above shows. If anyone doubts this liberal desire, just listen to tv when wants to make:
decisions must be made that are most fair to all participants...What's wrong with that? Sounds like Nurse Cratchit. As Gandalf says, we would use our new power with a desire to do good. And that's all the green light liberals need.

Sounds to me like you're defending cons in a way by saying "At least we don't like to control people *as much* as you do." But all you have are opinions to back you up. I'm sure we could all come up with anecdotal evidence to prove a point. And you have yet to respond to even one of ~tv's points in his last posting. He's right. You're pitching softballs. You have a right to express your opinions, certainly, but you haven't given me a reason to take them seriously for myself.

"why should the state pay for books for school kids but not homeschoolers? Ideology. Control." Better watch out for those black helicopters!

OK.

"Libs will continue to try and prevent poor blacks and homeschoolers from getting a decent education too...but you know, somehow I doubt the NEA will make a peep about Hillary...as they give her a fortune in money to keep the poor blacks and homeschoolers down via law." Why is it the only time conservatives care about the education of Black people is when it serves their agenda for homeschooling and school vouchers to aid religious schools?

Why is it the only time Susan S. cares about the education of Black people is when it serves her agenda for trashing conservatives? See, it's not true about us, either. But go ahead and paint all conservatives as racists, S.S.; because we all know that "racist" means "people who don't support every facet of liberalism in all its glory, and who challenge the idea that raising taxes and pumping more money into failing schools is the only way to fix education."

w/e? Translation, please? whatever

"But go ahead and paint all conservatives as racists, S.S.; because we all know that "racist" means "people who don't support every facet of liberalism in all its glory" Oh dear. Defensive much?

Earl Warren died before I was born. Susan S and WW, It sounds like you are both implying cons are racists. If so, why not just come right out and say it? If not, what are you saying? And what does this have to do with the subject at hand?

It just seems that the liberal mind is some peoples' prison. Which is what I do not understand. No matter what gets legislated, preached or enacted, we are still free to think.

Right, tovart. Political correctness, on the other hand...

wildwest: racists are conservative Huh? Margaret Higgins Sanger, Hitler, Stalin, Mao Tse-tung - they were all racists. They were also: pro-abortion anti-free market pro gun control Heck, if racist-->conservative, where were the Northen conservatives when America was anti-birth control, anti-abortion, anti-tax? No liberals at all? All you've done is define racist as conservative. If so, that's not what 99% of America means (outside of NYC) when they say conservative.
So it doesn't really work. I could claim that all eugenic supporters are liberal, but it simply isn't true even if many were.

"a point needed here because blacks are already hurting bad on the education front (much worse than poor whites), and so libs are really cruel to not allow them into better schools." Agreed. School choice and charter schools are available. Since there is no evidence that students using vouchers perform better (or for that matter, kids at charter schools perform better), liberals are just concerned about padding the coffers of the local church through government subsidies. And who is preventing homeschooling? There are legitimate criticisms--and again, no objective data showing they are successful--about accountability, but despite the fantasies of conservatives, homeschoolers aren't being jailed even when the provide subpar education.

"Subject-change during debate is another tool liberals use a lot more than cons these days" Sure seems that way to you, doesn't it? :-)

"School choice and charter schools are available." Can you name 6 large school districts in the whole country where parents have a "choice" to send their kids to a private school unless they can afford the tuition? Charter schools are more widely available, but still greatly outnumbered by traditional public schools. As to homeschooling, I find this statement from the NEA letter linked above humorous- "They agreed that homeschooled children have done well on national tests and were the top spellers in the National Spelling Bee two years ago, but felt home school instruction should meet certain state educational standards."

~tv, Are you sure you didn't mean "shouldn't have to have children"? You said "shouldn't have children". Big differnce.

WW, First time I've heard that quote. Any sources?

Wait wait wait... What part of this statement, "People who can't afford to have children shouldn't have children," translates into taking actions to force them to stop against their will? It's possible to believe that breeders popping out children faster than they can care for them is wrongheaded and stupid without taking it to a genocidal extreme.

tv, My response is informed by your comment on another thread about putting birth control into the drinking water. I suspect this is hyperbole. Even so, it displays a shocking hostility toward "breeders."

cs, You're right. That was hyperbole. You're also right that I use the term "breeder" when I'm feeling particularly contemptuous toward uppity heterosexuals. I'm certainly not suggesting genocide against the straight race. We need you guys to keep bearing us gays, after all.

"I fail to understand what's so threatening about this concept of school choice." Nothing. The question is whether government money should pay for churches to run schools where religious indoctrination takes place. I agree with you about minimally-regulated homeschools. It's the fringe of that movement who suggests that there is somehow a war against homeschoolers and that they are about to be tossed in jail.

But Starrs, by that token, we could ask why we don't all get to prosecute the wars we individually think are worth waging.
By the same token, we could ask why we don't get to choose which corporations get subsidized and which don't. Would you agree that's a fair extension of your argument? If not, why?

TV, the wars analogy obviously is not a logical extension. Can we allow all citizens to choose their own foreign policy? Of course not. I would agree that all corporations should receive no federal subsidies, and would point out that you do, at least, get to decide where to spend your grocery money.
Susan, that's silly, and you know it. I think it an entirely reasonable proposition that I pay a lot of taxes every year, much of which goes to a useless and corrupt public education system. On top of that I pay $16,000 a year for my two kids to go to private school. Why is it unrealistic for me to think I should get some tax credits or a voucher in return for tax monies paid in? I'm lucky enough to afford this; what hope do the poorer among us have? You haven't told me why we can't have sxhool choice, you're just loading up with fallacious comparisons about your pet peeves in government spending. Last point: if you had a choice of where your kids went to school, you could choose one that teaches sex ed with a method you find acceptable.

"You haven't told me why we can't have sxhool choice, you're just loading up with fallacious comparisons about your pet peeves in government spending." Because government money should not pay to support religion. Since most private schools are religious, using MY tax dollars to support YOUR proseytltizing religion and its schools isn't reasonable.
Public education is like foreign policy, in that it exists for the common good. I think foreign policy and defense policy is corrupt, yet because it is for the common good I don't ask for a rebate so I can pay for my private defense or foreign policy. If you believe poor people shold have options, then encourage corporations to pay for it. Or give more money to your church so they can pay for it and do, you know, charity work. But don't ask for MY government money so YOUR priviilieged kids can go to a private--likely religious--school because you aren't willing to roll up your sleeves and improve public education.

Erin, it is perfectly fair for you to attack Margaret Sanger's beliefs and actions, but shouldn't you attack what she actually said and did? Why insist on misquoting her? I considered you someone who was very honest in her beliefs, even though I sometimes disagree with you. Your willingness to misuse the words of others has damaged your credibility in my eyes. I would prefer to return to my original respect for you.
The context of the letter you quote is that she was struggling to promote maternal and child health care--including access to birth control--in the black community, to provide them with equal access to the assistance she wanted for poor white people. Her efforts were opposed by many right-thinking people such as yourself, who tried to scare the black community away from the clinics by claiming Sanger wanted to eliminate black people. Much as, say, Islamists today try to scare people away from Western medical assistance by claiming that immunization injections are a plot to cause sterility.
We do not want word to go out does not mean we don t want anyone finding out about our nefarious plan mwah ha ha. It means we don t want people getting a false impression due to the lies being spread about us.
Here is a slightly more extensive version of your quote: It seems to me from my experience ... in North Carolina, Georgia, Tennessee, and Texas, that while the colored Negroes have great respect for white doctors, they can get closer to their own members and more or less lay their cards on the table ... They do not do this with the white people, and if we can train the Negro doctor at the clinic, he can go among them with enthusiasm and with knowledge, which, I believe, will have far-reaching results ... His work, in my opinion, should be entirely with the Negro profession and the nurses, hospital, social workers, as well as the County's white doctors. His success will depend upon his personality and his training by us. The minister's work is also important, and also he should be trained, perhaps by the Federation, as to our ideals and the goal that we hope to reach. We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs. I don t have access to the whole letter right now, so I ve been forced to use other than primary sources. In your version, there s a phrase at the end, to any of their more rebellious members. This hasn t been present in any version of the quote I ve seen online. Are you sure those are Sanger s words, and not a false addition? Where did you get this? Oh, and here s another quote I found, from Martin Luther King, Jr. There is a striking kinship between our movement and Margaret Sanger s early efforts. . . . Our sure beginning in the struggle for equality by nonviolent direct action may not have been so resolute without the tradition established by Margaret Sanger and people like her. But I m sure he wasn t nearly as concerned about the welfare of black people as you are.

Great point, Susan S. "If you believe poor people shold have options, then encourage corporations to pay for it. Or give more money to your church so they can pay for it and do, you know, charity work." At least that would be completely in line with the conservatives' philosophy. A conservative co-worker once told me she thinks churches should be the ones caring about the poor and does not want to be taxed for it. Well, OK then.
Conservatives here are simply appropriating the liberals' philosophy, which they do when it is convenient for them.

I appreciate your comment, Norris. It's quite true that Sanger had some ideas that look wacky from a modern perspective. The whole eugenics movement in the 20s and 30s is a fascinating and peculiar phenomenon. Yet some of the very people who held those ideas also had genuine concern for the poor and spent their lives in dedicated service. It's not always easy to sort out the good and bad aspects of their convictions. Anyway, I'm willing to hear critique of Margaret Sanger. I'd just prefer it to be based on accurate interpretation of her meaning. I don't think it should be that much of a problem for pro-life people to find things to disagree with that she really said!

Especially since there seems to be recurring throughout the bulk of the threads today an urgent insistence that certain among us breed, breed, breed.

Andy, I am reminded of that lovely poem about the Purple Cow: I can tell you anyhow I'd rather see than be one.

"If you believe poor people shold have options, then encourage corporations to pay for it. Or give more money to your church so they can pay for it and do, you know, charity work." Thanks, Susan! 1. So you believe that poor people, to have options, need to somehow pay more or have someone pay on their behalf. Any particular reason? Do you believe they somehow less worthy than the rest of us? 2. Why should business - or individuals - have to sink any more money than the billions already spent to ensure that kids have a shot at an equal chance for a decent education? 3. I sponsor two full scholarships that I pay out of my own pocket, Susan. One is for the school my kids go to here in the sticks. The other is at a private Christian school in the nearest large City. Last year the latter went to Cindy, the gifted daughter of a single mom struggling to make ends meet. Cindy's school is awash in drugs and violence, and has no programs for students of her caliber. Cindy's mom can't afford to tansport her to a decent school outside the district, and can't afford private tuition. It is a privilege to be able to make a difference in her life, but I can't do it for every child in her neighborhood, let alone the city. BUT: if Cindy's mom was given a voucher by her school dictrict, equal to the cost of her public school education, she could ostensibly choose a better school for her daughter, perhaps a private school nearby that wouldn't involve transportation. Or a public school with gifted programs. What objection do you have to this? Why should anyone have to pay more for opportunity that should be granted to each one of us? 4. In addition to paying private school tuition for two kids other than my own - which is my choice - I substitute teach when I can at my kids' school and at Cindy's school. I sit on the boards of two charities and raise funds for them. I don't think any of those things are relevant to the discussion, nor are they going to change the nature of our broken public school system. So, I do plenty of 'you know, charity work'. 5. I tried to work with the public school system, but in the end, all they want is my money. Union derelicts, cronyism, and incompetents rule as much there as they do in the current administration. 6. Passing this off on corporations or someone else hardly fits in with the egalitarianism you put on here. In short: get stuffed, sister.

Starrs, Good for you!

You may be surprised by this, TV, but as a Catholic I actually agree with this statement, as does my church: "In fact, when one can't afford to feed the brood one has already bred, having more children could be considered fundamentally immoral (not to mention downright stupid)." But the problem with Sanger's ideas is twofold: one, the methods of birth control she advocated are fundamentally dehumanizing (admittedly from a Catholic philosophical perspective; read 'Humanae Vitae' for more details), and two, Sanger was all about the government or public agencies deciding which people were too poor to have kids, something I think most people would find troubling at the very least. To take that last notion a bit further, there's obviously a problem if a family can't provide food or shelter for its members (though to be fair this circumstance may arise when a family which has been providing these things suffers an unexpected hardship which deprives them of these necessities--it's not always the case that people are just out there indiscriminately having children they can't feed or shelter). But in our overly materialistic society there lurks the temptation to classify as "poor" those people who can't afford the luxuries we've generally come to see as necessities--and then to place expectations on their child-bearing decisions accordingly.

I remember hearing many, many of the move "privileged" among us articulating their disgust at life conditions inherent with poverty.
I remember the accusations about "Welfare" mothers -- those accusations often consisting of breeding to work the system. Some people bemoan the squalor and crime, but also bemoan anyone's attempt to curtail it if that means limiting family size (or building casinos). I'm not saying you, Starrs, or anyone personally, but my own experience has been more of disgust at the impoverished than any empathy.

"That said, these 'get AIDS and die, faggot" statements are completely and utterly beyond the pale, and I find no humor in them whatsoever." Well said.

tv, "Why would poor people... subject themselves and their existing children to further hardship by breeding beyond their ability to care for their offspring?" First of all, I think people should be responsible to provide for their children. However, family decisions are not purely economic. Personal, moral and cultural factors certainly come into play. The primary reason I am responding to your post is your assertion that "having more children could be considered fundamentally immoral." It is quite interesting to read a poster who reacts passionately against traditional positions that homosexuality is immoral, then describe having children as immoral. Wow. Just wow.

Susan, as usual you're missing the point to make an irrelevant comment about religion or the elite.
Here it is: THE PRIVATE AND/OR RELIGIOUS SCHOOLS DON'T HAVE THEIR HANDS OUT. THE POOR PEOPLE DO, HOPING SOMEONE WILL GIVE THEIR KIDS A HAND AND NOT MORE #@#*& PLATITUDES ABOUT QUALITY PUBLIC EDUCATION!!! School choice is not 'choice' when we get to control what schools the kids choose. This is like talking to a bag of hammers. Over and out.

"It is quite interesting to read a poster who reacts passionately against traditional positions that homosexuality is immoral, then describe having children as immoral." cs, Seriously, I think you're reading something into his comments that isn't there.

Susan, "We have a public system that will not be improved by shifting dollars to elite private schools and religious schools." Some conservatives (I didn't say all) do not want to improve public education. They want to destroy it in toto. Starrs, Easy, easy. I get your point (whether Susan does or not, but she is less likely to if you shout). What I want to know is, why is it conservatives who scream so loudly against "handouts for the poor" suddenly in favor of them on this one issue? Why aren't they saying, "Look, get a job, bum! You want to send your kids to a good school? Y'gotta pay for it, buddy! There ain't no free lunch in this cutthroat world, Mac! It's all for one and one for all! If you're really down and out, maybe a church can help ya. That's what they're for. That's NOT what gubmint is for!!" It would seem totally consistent with their philosophy. (Now you're gonna turn around and ask why liberals don't talk like conservatives on the school choice issue because they believe so much in the government doing everything *for* the poor and not just providing for police and military protection -- and enforcing morality in the bedroom. How 'bout it Susan?)

Also, education is an investment by our society in its future. We won't really be better off as a society if we raise a generation of unemployable illiterates. (Of course, we are raising a good number of those now, but I'm referring to the *theory* behind public funding of education.)

"Where are the studies of places where vouchers have been permitted? Is this happening on a wide enough scale, over a long enough period, to actually do meaningful statistical comparisons?" When vouchers were used in Cleveland, Milwaukee, and Florida, there was no evidence that children who received vouchers performed better.

But in our overly materialistic society there lurks the temptation to classify as "poor" those people who can't afford the luxuries we've generally come to see as necessities--and then to place expectations on their child-bearing decisions accordingly. If you're speaking of the birth license issue, I don't think you'd have to worry about that kind of assessment from a State agency. Regardless of the reputation they have to the public, most departments of social services do right by the people they serve. Washington and Louisiana base their services off of totaly family income, and believe me, what they consider low is LOW income. If there was a licensing board for people in true poverty, I just can't see any state agency considering not being able to afford a new iPod as grounds for not allowing a license. 4 kids and 2 adults in a 1-bedroom apartment making 10k a year? Yeah - I could see grounds for thinking twice. A more cooperative and compassionate approach would be to offer incentives for receiving depo implants, on a fully voluntary basis. I don't think asking people who *truly* can't afford to bring another child into the world to think twice about what that means is a horrible act. It would be the State saying "Hey - we know you've got it rough. We'd like to offer you and your family a leg up on the section 8 housing list (for instance) if you'd go on a voluntary contraception that you can quit at any time."
I don't want to selectively breed the poor out of existence. I'd rather educate poverty out of existence. As long as we're shelling out billions to bail out banks and corrupt corporate types, why can't we shell a little downward to offer poor parents free tuition at community colleges.
Get class sizes down by hiring more teachers and building more public schools, and attract and retain the best teachers by paying them what they're worth. I don't buy the idea that we can only private schools should have the good teachers and the small class sizes and the new books every year and the well stocked lab facilities and the music and arts programs and the sport and extracurricular programs that will help them grow up ready for more than standing behind a cash register waiting on people who make more money than they do. I don't buy it that the state should suck money out of an already underfunded system to tell people they're on their own to find a good spot in a good school. We have the money in this country to make them *all* good schools.
You know, for a movement that focuses so much on the family and the child, moneyed conservatives sure don't like the idea of actually shelling out of their own pockets to improve society by helping to eliminate poverty through education.
You're right - we're too materialistic as a people. If we'd turn off the tv, stop listening to pundits complain about crime and poverty in order to sell us stuff we don't need, we could spend that time andmoney doing something to make it better for everyone. Jesus I sound like a friggin hippie :) I dunno - maybe I'm a crunchy lib in an existentialist's body?

TV,
Gosh, where to start. By "depo implants" do you mean Depo-Provera injections? If you do, this isn't exactly like taking aspirin. There are women for whom this drug is definitely contraindicated--so how exactly would this program work? Would women have to choose between their health and their eligibility for improved state housing benefits? And this drug is injected every three months, so how would continued eligibility be enforced? By opening up private medical records for review by the Department of Housing? And if the woman gets pregnant anyway (which can happen especially in the first fourteen days or so after the initial injection) how long will she get before she gets kicked out of the nicer housing? What about the woman whose deeply held religious beliefs don't allow them to use contraceptives? You're saying, in effect, that religious beliefs/values are a luxury to which the poor aren't entitled, that if they want the 'goodies' the State is handing out, they'd better be prepared to violate their consciences. After all, they can always quit being Catholic/Muslim/Fundamentalist etc. and become Unitarians if it means a nicer home for the family, right? I know you use the word "voluntary" and of course, your program would be. But it would have the effect of rewarding contraceptive use and punishing its non-use, which would have the effect among the poor of making it mandatory in all but name. Now, what you say about education does make some sense, and I applaud your desire to provide greater educational opportunities for the poor. Unfortunately, I've become rather cynical about public education, generally speaking. It's rather like Social Security in that it's a corrupt system that is in the process of imploding, but none of our politicians want to expend the political capital necessary to fix it. They'd have to take on the NEA, for one thing.
And there's one more problem. You say, "We have the money in this country to make them *all* good schools." Dorothy Parker was once asked to use the word "horticulture" in a sentence, and she quipped "You can lead a horticulture but you can't make her think." I've heard from a local teacher about the kids who show up at school dirty and hungry and incapable of meaningful educational participation. Notes home to the parents (or, more often, parent) are routinely ignored, and as long as the school's providing breakfast, lunch, and free day care the child's parent or guardian doesn't really care. I realize that these children are not all children, but as long as we have the situation where parents have no intention of being involved in any meaningful way with their children's education these children will be a part of every public school, draining the efforts of the teachers to engage the other students and actually teach them. So throwing more money at the schools won't solve the problem of uninvolved or non cooperative parents, who only want the schools to keep their children out of their way for as long each day as possible.

No, I'm not letting you off the hook that easy. You seem to be suffering from a lack of vision here, and I want to open your eyes to something. When you take people out of poverty, so they're not worrying about scrpaing and surviving every moment of every day, they have time to devote to things like raising their families by doing more than "putting food on their families." To not even try to make things better because things are currently so bad is the most ludicrous thing I've ever heard today, and I've been talking to Norris for most of it, so that's saying something. I know Depo has side effects. I know a few women who take the injections. There's also Norplant, but I have no clue what the problems with that are. One would hope that someone would work on coming up with better contraceptives.
As far as people who want their cake and eat it too (i.e., those who don't want to limit their family size becuase contraception is "naughty" or whatever) I don't know what to tell you. I don't think of it from that perspective., so I don't have the answer. Best that we get people of all perspectives at the table rather than not bother sitting down, though, don't you think?

Erin, I have to thank you for inducing me to read some more things by Margaret Sanger. I ve never been on the committee to canonize St. Margaret Sanger, but thanks to you I now admire her more than I did before. There are excerpts from My Fight for Birth Control available online, which I recommend for anyone who wants to know more about her motivation. Did you know that she was a nurse in the slums of New York City? Day after day, night after night, I slept only in brief snatches, ever too anxious about the condition of that feeble heart bravely carrying on, to stay long from the bedside of the patient. With but one toilet for the building and that on the floor below, everything had to be carried down for disposal, while ice, food and other necessities had to be carried three flights up. It was one of those old airshaft buildings of which there were several thousands then standing in New York City. At the end of two weeks recovery was in sight, and at the end of three weeks I was preparing to leave the fragile patient to take up the ordinary duties of her life, including those of wifehood and motherhood . Hey, I don t care if you approve/disapprove of birth control, if you ve never nursed a sick woman day and night for three weeks under those conditions--something she did repeatedly--you don t have the right to sneer at someone who did, and say she cared little for the poor. She also got arrested repeatedly and went to jail for her convictions, and jail was no picnic then. Re: misquoting. Again, I think you re missing the point. You ve used an excerpt from a letter--which neither of us can access in full, so I guess it s moot whether it s completely accurate--but you ve twisted the actual meaning to make it look as if she said something she never intended. This shouldn t be so hard to understand in the age of the manufactured misleading soundbite. You re very tenacious, and that s a virtue, but I don t quite get why you waste so much energy insisting on this one questionable item when you could be making other points.

At the moment, I feel a bit like one of those people running around at the circus trying to keep plates spinning on poles. I'll try to answer everyone who's talking to me. TV, first. I'm not at all sure where you get the idea that I'm saying that things are so bad we shouldn't even try to improve them--I'm just pointing out that in reality it's quite hard to make lasting and significant social changes. That doesn't mean we shouldn't try to make things better for as many people as we can, but I'm always reminded of that bit from the Hippocratic Oath, that says, "First, do no harm." I know, we're not doctors. But I do think that even if we have the best intentions in the world we'd better be pretty darned sure that the actions we're taking are actually going to alleviate the sufferings of others rather than creating new and harder burdens for them to bear. On the issue of contraceptives, I happen to believe that NFP offers the most benefits to the most people (and before anyone suggests that the poor will never use it, I'd point to some third-world countries where Missionaries of Charity have successfully taught the method to illiterate women living in extreme poverty conditions). There are no side effects for the woman, there are no problems returning to fertility--it's very natural, and produces no huge profits for any giant Pharma concern. It respects women's dignity, in my admittedly radical opinion, by respecting her cycles and not viewing her fertility as a disease which must be attacked medically (a very male-dominant viewpoint, to me). As for education, what would be wrong with taking a very crunchy approach? What would be wrong with making schools truly local schools, again, instead of handing unfunded mandates down from both the federal and state level, mandates which are often extremely peripheral to the real purposes of education? I recall hearing about a tiny high school in the rural Northwest, which had eight graduating seniors in an average year--yet this high school had to spend the same amount of dollars AND hours teaching drug abuse prevention (including units which were clearly tailored to helping inner-city kids avoid drug dealers) as the huge high schools in the distant cities. There is no way that a high school in the middle of Rural Nowhere U.S.A. should have to be run exactly as if it were a school with thousands of students in the middle of New York City; yet thanks to the federalization of education that's exactly what we get. And for the problem of uninvolved parents/uninterested students we need there to be some actual consequences for failing, consequences that aren't measured by someone's rigged scores on some phony standardized test. Individual teachers should be able to throw individual students out of their classrooms, for one thing. In countries where education is a privilege instead of a right and where failure costs you something there are fewer problems. If I were going to fix education, my first act would be to lower the age of compulsory education to fourteen or fifteen--but then make it impossible for high school drop outs to get a driver's license until they are eighteen. How's that for a start?

Erin, I've enjoyed reading your proposals for fixing public education. I question some of them; others sound pretty good. Thank you for sharing them.

Thanks, wildwest! I know there are aspects of any reforms to public education which might be impractical, but I hope enough people are dissatisfied with the status quo to start entertaining some alternatives.

Erin--oy. I wouldn't be up this late except that I'm printing out a bunch of stuff I need for tomorrow. I feel sorry to have put you to so much trouble with all the typing and stuff, but I guess you must be enjoying it or you wouldn't do it! Not sure how to respond briefly. I'm not even going to discuss this quote any more, because I've run out of ways to say what I thought must be a pretty clear statement. We're just talking past each other. Your paragraph about "shadowboxing" is funny (sincerely--made me chuckle), because that's exactly how I feel about you! We must be too similar. give Sanger a pass because she was once a slum nurse This is an example of the above, from my perspective. I read this and think, whoa, a pass on WHAT exactly? I believe I've already said a couple of times that I don't necessarily agree with every single thing Sanger ever said or did. In fact, I don't even know every single thing she said or did! But of the things I do know, some of them seem like really good things. Your specific statement that I was responding to was not about eugenics, the KKK, or any of the things that you now bring up. It was this: Margaret Sanger's concern for the poor was pretty much centered around her zeal to make sure fewer of them were born. I think this was an unfair statement, and I do think that spending WEEKS in a stifling tenement trying to save the life of an impoverished mother shows a much greater concern for the poor than you are willing to grant her. That's all. It does not speak to her thoughts or actions in any other area, nor did I imply that it did.
I'm saying "Sanger did some really selfless and helpful things for the poor." In my mind, you might respond with "Well, okay, then, I guess she did. But I still don't like her because I think she was a racist." Or you could say "Well, I don't care if she saved lives or not, because she invented Planned Parenthood, so she's evil." But when you say--and forgive me if I paraphrase--"Oh, well then I guess YOU think it's okay that she was a RACIST." I feel as if this is coming out of left field and is one of those disingenuous tactics you speak of. We can talk about whether she's a racist or not. But it has little to do with what I just said. It would be nice if we could actually learn to communicate at some point, instead of arguing about what we're arguing about! :)

Sigaliris, It finally struck me why we can't communicate on this. If someone were to say to me, "Sure, I don't admire everything Stalin did, but you have to admit that he was trying to help the poor and starving in his country," I'd realize immediately that I had no basis for communication with that person. Similarly, I view Margaret Sanger as one of the most evil figures of modern times, responsible for unleashing the greatest factor of familial destruction and the annihilation of the human soul on the world. But you celebrate what I abhor; you admire what I hate; you speak appreciatively of what I turn away from in utter disgust; you see as good what I believe in the very depths of my being to be incomparably evil. We have no way to talk to each other about Sanger or her work--because you believe as Sanger did and most people today do, that the human female suffers from a disease called fertility which must be controlled and even eradicated at all cost.

David J. White, I don't quite understand your concept of marriage if you think that "keeping your legs together" is a normal and healthy way to treat a woman's relationship with her husband. Would you care to explain a little more about how this works, or what you mean by this? I think there is some expectation in marriage that husband and wife will be having sex.

"Don't you think this might fairly be considered as putting words in my mouth?" Says the woman who has no trouble putting them into mine. If you're really not operating in bad faith, please read the encyclical "Humanae Vitae" for a preliminary explanation of why artificial birth control is bad for women, the family, and humanity. Feel free to point out which of the Pope's predictions back in 1968 have *not* come to pass in our contraceptive world. I'll even provide a link to it: http://tinyurl.com/9km3 Now, this won't give you the whole philosophical grounding necessary to understand my position on the issue, but it would be a start.

Sigaliris, I thought Erin referred you to Humanae Vitae, not for it's arguments, but to point out the validity of its predictions. N.

Stalin cared about the poor? News to me.

What church is that that teaches married women to keep their legs together" even when they are married? So married people are not supposed to have sex either? Is that Church teaching?

I wondered if it was more of a shifting of blame myself. How about if someone does a study on the benefits of birth control?

You must mean willing to "make" a child, adoption does exist, but must not count for much. But in the eyes of the Catholic church, a man and his wife are not to have sex at all, let's say if someone in the marriage proves to be infertile -- no sex? What is the point in getting married if you're still not allowed to have sex even in he confines of marriage?