see - http://www.nationalreview.com/...y/qa200604240727.asp
and http://www.nrbookservice.com/p...ge.asp?prod_cd=c6902

Some of you may know Ponnuru as a contributor to National Review online. This is an interview with him concerning his new book, on how the Democratic Party has become what he calls the "Party of Death."

Ponnuru is no fundamentalist pro-lifer:

quote:

I tried to stay pro-choice on abortion for as long as I could, but I couldn't rationally sustain the position. I just couldn't see either how an embryo or fetus could be something other than a human being, how its moral status could depend on how other people felt about it, or how recognition of its humanity could be compatible with abortion. My views on the stem-cell questions all followed logically from there. On euthanasia, the turning points were, first, coming to see that there is a sensible distinction between accepting death and willing death and, second, the Schiavo episode, which struck me as monstrous.

He notes that the Democratic Party was once, one the whole, anti-abortion and generally pro-life on most issues. Their alignment with radical groups like NOW has led many of its once pro-life leaders (Clinton, Dean, Gore, J. Jackson) to do an about-face on the topic, demonstrating that they stand less on principle than what is politically expedient. Ponnuru believes that this has cost the Party its credibility, and elections.

Coincidentally I had read that NRO article too and thought it very good. It�s a rather sad thing, huh? At best one would expect proponents of abortion to promote their cause reluctantly -- as a thing that is, at best, a necessary evil. But by the verge and vigor that they usually espouse abortion, you�d think they were freeing slaves or something. You�d never suspect they were the same people who are so vehemently and uncompromisingly for the rights of minorities of any stripe, no matter what � no questions asked.

Fetuses apparently don�t contribute much money to the Democratic Party, nor do they often attend campus rallies I suppose.

Yes! Well-said.

John Paul II called no political party the "culture of death." He did call America the "culture of death." It covers a consistent ethic of life, including the death penalty, war, poverty, abortion and euthanasia.

Some thoughts from Buckminster Fuller:

"When blimp photographs are taken of giant stadia packed full of rock-concert or football fans, we get an idea of what 100,000 people look like. We think of Hiroshima as the worst single killing of humans by humans. That was about a 75,000-capacity
-colliseum full. Each day of the year, year after year, a 75,000-capacity-stadium-full of around-the-world-humans perish from starvation or it's side effects. Despite an annual average 5-percent world food-production overage, of the amount of food adequate for the world's population. This daily killing of innocents dwarfs
the Auschwitz killing."

"There is something patently insane about all the typewriters sleeping with all the beautiful plumbing in the beautiful office buildings- and all the people sleeping in the slumbs."

"There is enough room indoors in New York City for the whole 1963 world's population to enter, with room enough inside for all hands to dance the twist in nightclub proximity."

"It is now feasible to take care of everybody on earth at a higher standard of living than the world has ever known. It no longer has to be you or me. Selfishness is unneccesary and henceforth unrationalizable as mandated by survival."

--------------------------------------------------
Abortions in the USA are by comparison the result of about 3,000 deaths per day. Does any political party offer a pro-life ethic? How could people work together on this? What role does fear of financial insecurity play in deciding to abort?

Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, when asked about the half million deaths of Iraqi children cause by sanctions replied, "We think it was worth it." Is either party concerned about children?

http://www.xs4all.nl/~stgvisie...remedeformities.html

After this, what moral ground can either party lay claim to?

Yes, I've been horswoggled for a long time now, about 25 years on the religious right.

Abortion and gay marriage are a wedge issue. One of the cardinal principles of Straussian neoconservatism is that there is one truth for the masses and quite another for the leadership.

If the corporations and the military industrial complex really cared about children, would they run up a nine trillion dollar debt for our grandchildren? Would they start wars all over the world if they cared about children? They just wanted to get our votes and ABSOLUTE POWER.

People are seeing through the con. The religious right is in a free-fall. Most of the "Christian" congressional leaders have been bought by corporate interests. Mammon has replaced God.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ralph_Reed

Yep, I'm ashamed to admit that I trusted him and sent money and read his voter guides for about ten years. Depressing...

Authoritarian regimes come in in sheep's clothing. They have gay people and perverts and take their wives and mistresses in for abortions. Just follow the scandals...

The flock has been fleeced, and the preacher left town with the Church secretary.

America, America, what has become of you!

That's what I see. Other people may see something else, and they have a right to their opinion.

Yes, I've been horswoggled for a long time now, about 25 years on the religious right.

Michael, you sound like one of those "seminar" callers on the Rush Limbaugh program who call up and say "I�ve been a conservative for a long time now, and I just can�t take any more of it." It�s hard to believe that you were ever the conservative that you say you were. You sound like the typical far-leftists.

MM, JP2 didn't call America the culture of death; he said there was a culture of death in America and the Western world. Big difference!

This book is only about abortion and related pro-life issues, so I don't know why you bring in sanctions against Iraq, corporatism, gay marriage, etc. No author is required to justify an opinion on one topic by referencing another. Take a little time to read up on red herring fallacies, as you do this quite often.

I'll go along with the Conference of Catholic Bishops and JP II on all political issues, and if they call me a far-left liberal, than so be it.

Survival of the species is the main concern. Perhaps since we are using depleted uranium weapons on children during the last several administrations,
we might consider extending the franchise to children, and multiplying the mother's votes accordingly, as the Iroquois, and while we are at it, consider the effects of all political decisions
upon the next seven generations. That should take care of the environment, nuclear weapons, and many other problems, such as abortion.

I feel that the one percent who have gained 186% and the one tenth of one percent who have gained
471% from this administration, the plutocrats and the oligarchs, are seeking hot-button moral issues
to sway an unsuspecting public. A reference:

http://en.wikipedia.org/Paul_Krugman

Most other issues serve as a smokescreen for the wealthy and the powerful, IMO. Most of the print and televised media are owned and controlled by this elite, and they know that to keep control of the rest of us, they have to keep pounding away at
the bourgeois value system, which at the orange meme they are unlikely to share. They will still have access to abortion, and whatever they do in their limousines and motel rooms anyway, while they laugh at the people P.T. Barnum said were born every minute, and roll civil rights back to a feudal past.

Most people have a concern with human life, being in the midst of it, rather that the next quarter's earnings. Some of the best people vote a certain way precisely because they are the best people. Smart propagandists know this, and it pays to get the issue from the think tanks into the media. It pays very handsomely, but carries a gret potential to destroy human life.

Corporations do not care about human life. I could list many examples.

Ask Adam Smith what the worst sort of government would be. You may be surprised by his answer. Ask Abraham Lincoln and the Founders what they feared most for America's future.

We are in danger of losing the Republic, and there is nothing republican about that. Survival of the species outweighs gay marriage for now. Let's save everyone, and hopefully we shall survive long enough to deal with the tragedy of abortion.

I see the military industrial complex taking control of the government, as the greatest danger we have ever faced in our history. Let's address that culture of death in an agressive manner.

Hopefully we can address abortion as well. 100 countries have eliminated the death penalty. Why do we still have it? Is that a pro-life position?

Let's not play along with those who value life and freedom very little, and hopefully all children will grow up in a democracy, not an empire.

I'll defend to the death your right to a different
list of priorities.

Thomas_Paine@Patrick_Henry.org

This is the future, and it started last November.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Kaine

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consistent_Life_Ethic

MM, you're still all over the place with red herring fallacies, and that makes it impossible to dialogue with you.

The topic here is Ponnuru's book and the points he's making about how the Democratic Party has moved through the years to becoming an inflexible proponent for pro-choice policies. All the points you're bringing up about corporations, etc. have no relevance to this discussion. Neither does the consistent life ethic. Ponnuru might not be a consistent lifer, but he still might have it right about abortion and the Democratic Party. See?

Yes, it's too bad that they decided to go that way.
Jesse Jackson started out pro-life. Dennis Kucinich
had to change his position about six years ago. That's just off of the top of my head. I think they are trying to ease it out of the platform a bit, and stop demanding the rigid ideological adherance. Christians like Kucinich and Jackson know better.

These ideas lack integrity. Orange meme pragmatism
would support euthanasia and abortion, I fear.
They do not have a religious frame of reference.
The Founders said that only a religious and moral people could make this thing work.

It's not God's way. It won't fly. These schemes lack integrity and will fail to a large extent. I don't believe that having this bunch control all branches of government would be wise either, especially with extraordinary powers now ceded to the executive branch. It's an elite view and people won't support it. People will use intuition and common sense and reject this, even if they can't get the truth from the media. Bucky Fuller said that politicians are now obsolete as decision makers. Move over, rover, the people take over.

Sometimes the news from the alternative media is helpful in this regard, sort of an advance warning. There is so little useful information in the mainstream. Sometimes I wonder if the New World Order is working both sides of the street.
If they can't get us one way, the other will due just as well. God's bigger than that, and I have noticed, usually wins in the long run.

Ramesh Ponurru. Was he born with that name?

MM, I don't think the problem, here, is with (Spiral Dynamics) Orange pragmatism, as Orange is generally respectful of rationality and natural law. The shift to pro-choice pretty much coincides with the widespread emergence of Green, and its emphasis on ethical pluralism/relativism and secularism. Since the early 70s, the Democratic Party has become more Green and the Republican Party has become more Blue; both parties are attuned to the needs of Orange, of course.

I'm gonna frame that post for future reference, Phil.

The situation has changed with modern life support
and the ethics are lagging behind the new developments. Some day, we will either have people
who can discern when the soul has left the body, or perhaps some technology for this, such as the mysterious loss of two ounces weight upon death.

Imagine two beds in a hospital room with two individuals in a persistent vegetative state.
The soul has left the body on bed "A," so turn off the machines. The soul is still hanging around in bed "B", so leave that machine on. One could imagine such situations becoming commonplace.

What you said about the green meme is helpful, as I had some very mixed feelings listening to a talk
by Stephen Levine, a Buddhist teacher. He was talking about hospice work and putting pills in apple sauce to "help" people die. A physician got up and angrily got into his face about it.

Blue meme. It's against the law.

Orange meme physician. It's against my oath.

Green meme. Relieve suffering. Have compassion,
"help" them die. They are begging you to "help" them, so just do it.

I'll bet that most doctor's have done it or know someone who did. It's hard to know what I would do in a situation like that. I would pray... alot...

There's not so much discontinuity from one meme level to the other, MM. That something is against the law doesn't cease to matter in Orange, for example, nor is Orange lacking in concern about suffering (medical research and the development of pharmaceutical interventions comes from Orange). Healthy Green ought not have any quarrel with Orange and Blue -- only with their "excesses."

Somewhere in all this (early 60s), Green emergence brought about a growing sensitivity to "patriarchical abuses," which was, for the more radical feminists, equated with Blue/Orange Christianity. That's not a fair analysis, of course, but once one buys into it, it becomes easy to disregard traditional views about sexuality and life, as these are often synonymized with patriarchical control and repression. What emerges as an alternative ethical principle is freedom/choice -- that one decides for oneself what is appropriate sexual behavior, and that anything that tries to place restrictions on that is about patriarchy/control. Given fallen human nature, this emphasis on "choice" opens the door to justifying almost any kind of sexual behavior; so long as one is freely consenting to it, what's the problem? This approach ignores the wisdom of the ages, which took into account the explosive energies and vulnerabilities that are part of sexual expression, and attempted to indicate boundaries within which sexual expression could be life-giving.

With the pill and abortion legalized everywhere by the early 70s, a profitable industry to provide for these services emerged in short order, with support from feminists who put pressure on politicians to back their agenda or else be smeared as anti-woman. When it comes to politics, money seems to speak louder than principles in far too many cases, and that's what Ponnuru is proposing happened to the Democratic Party. They rushed in to grab the dough more quickly than did Republicans, as the feminist message resonated with Democrats' attraction for justice issues. So the feminists were added to the Democrats' growing coalition of justice-oriented supporters as they tried to surf the rising Green Wave into the future, winning a few elections along the way and controling the House until 1994 and the Senate until 2004. That Green tide is falling, however . . . not enough votes left in the coalition to win elections. Republicans/Red-staters have distanced themselves from the more radical positions of the Party, providing voters with a clear choice, and the Democrats have been losing. Will they "get it" or not? If they do, they'll have to decide what they stand for, and being the party of abortion rights doesn't seem much to be proud of.

I'm tracking with you so far on this, Phil. Would this represent an example of the kind of thinking
you are seeing here. Hot off the press:

http://www.nexuspub.com/articl...iew_bishop_spong.htm

He's right about some of this, but I feel sorry for him that he has "lost his first love", as Jesus admonishes in the Saint John's Apocalypse. He has thrown the baby Jesus out with the dirty bathwater, and thrown dirty bathwater on the Baby, as have the Dems for the most part, IMO.

Once again, great-full to be learning from you.