Did James Carville really say this?

[Enchantermon]

I tried to look up the "fisting" issue, but I can't find anything on a website that isn't biased against PP to begin with so far.

Here's an example of some facts about a conference PP gives annually at a high school.

[KatieHal]

Sometimes responsibility means doing something you don't want to do or not doing something you want to do.

I think this line in particular is a great one, and IMO is something that the people who want to defund PP should think about. The responsible thing to do is have health and education resources available to everyone, especially those in low-income and at-risk demographics. So why take away such a huge source of it, just because they also do one particular thing (abortion) that you don't want to have happening? Doesn't the good of what they do outweigh the "bad"? (and yes, I use quotations there because that is a subjective opinion)

Baggins: I wouldn't really support that idea either, and if it was a local area only issue, that does change things. Also, my searching did bring up the definition of that word on the PP site, which...is more broad than one might think, suffice to say, and without going into gritty details on the forums.

[Enchantermon]

In the same way that this isn't about abstinence-only education, this also isn't about abortion. It's about people not taking responsibility for their own decisions and actions. Government funding of Planned Parenthood is iffy to me, especially when there are free alternatives that Baggins mentioned, as well as doctors, reputable websites and a person's own brain that can be used.

And I'm also not supporting eradicating Planned Parenthood altogether. If you and many others think that it provides a valuable service to people, that's perfectly fine and I'm not going to try to blindly oppose the organization itself. But if you want it, I think you should fund it. Take the government out of the equation; let them focus on running the country and let you and everyone else who is in support of the organization keep them going with your donations. I believe, as was mentioned earlier, that PP could be supported without government assistance as long as enough people think it's necessary and are responsible enough (there's that word again) to support it themselves. And I think that the necessary number of people does indeed exist.

[Baggins]

As I understand it the right is investigating PP on allegations of not disclosing child prostitution? Something about offering abortion and other assistance to underage girls and protecting the pimps? That's their main argument for defunding?

[Enchantermon]

Those are some pretty serious charges. I certainly hope they're not true.

[KatieHal]

I think you and I will have to agree to disagree, Enchantermon.

Baggins: I haven't heard of that being the reason--largely, the people wanting it cut off make it all about the abortion availability. If it is an issue, I can already see what the differing angles would be on that--patient privacy no doubt chief among them.

To explain further--there are girls who go them for abortions who are not 18, regardless of how they ended up that way. So I can imagine it's quite possibly something that they would not always be aware of if the teen in question is an underage prostitute. On top of that, there is controversy over the legality of prostitution in general in many places, and possible retributions one would earn for admitting to the practice, both from the law and from the pimps, and then from society as well.

Not that I support child prostitution at all, but I'm just illustrating how it can be a complicated issue. And is another example, I think, of why resources like PP should be available--people in situations like that often have no other options of where to go.

[chucklas]

I never said that they don't offer important services, but I have a hard time believing their disclosed numbers that only 3% of their services are abortions...then again, it might just be that.  3% of their sevices, but each abortion comes at a significantly higer cost as anything else.  3% of services could account for a much higher percentage of funds.  Last year their budget was around 350 Million dollars while performing over 300 thousand abortions.  How much does an abortion cost?  At $500 a piece it would be 50% of their budget...

I personally do not support abortion.  I am also not an advocate against it.  Once again, it is not as black and white as people make it out to be.  Nothing is black and white.  The facts you find in the NY Times are not black and white, the numbers given from PP are not so black and white either.  It is easy to make numbers say what you want them to say.  If I were given all of their finacial records I could find a way to claim (and back the claim up) that they spent far less or far more on abortion services than they actually did.  You can't take anything at face value (on either side).  It would be very easy to say that a large amount of an abortion cost was actually "sex education" so long as there was a discussion about sex education prior to the procedure...etc.  

Anyway my main point is this, you can't just blindly believe everything you are told (from either side of an issue).  Thats the message from the original quote in this thread.  According to the quote, the left is more willing to blindly follow.  No one should.  

[Enchantermon]

I think you and I will have to agree to disagree, Enchantermon.

Okay.

How much does an abortion cost?  At $500 a piece it would be 50% of their budget...

PP gives the numbers as $350 - $950 in the first trimester.

[Baggins]

Katie I understand the murky situation, but 'child molestation' or 'statutory rape' is not protected by patient confidentiality laws in most places. Doctors are supposed to report suspected abuse last I knew. Or risk losing their licenses. At the most they are supposed to report the enablers putting the girl into the dangerous situation, in this case the pimp. In other situations the parents.

So yes these are serious allegations, bordering on libel and slander if not true. The way they got ahold of evidence of it may borders om entrapment (since the undercover individuals were posing as underage girl and the pimp). Almost in the same way To Catch a Predator borders on entrapment.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/02/13/steve-king-planned-parent_n_822548.html

A few articles from PP critics concerning various 'undercover' videos made at PP.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/feb/1/video-shows-planned-parenthood-manager-aiding-pimp/

http://www.lifenews.com/2008/12/16/state-3709/

http://www.lifenews.com/2010/07/20/state-5264/

[KatieHal]

Another source has that PP's response to this stated the following:

In a statement Tuesday, Planned Parenthood spokesman Stuart Schear said that immediately after the Jan. 13 visit, the clinic staff alerted the national organization and contacted local authorities about the possibility of a sex ring operating in the area.

In addition to said counselor being fired anyways.

[Sir Perceval of Daventry]

Amazing to see how much Social Darwinism has returned in this country through propaganda, with most being in favor of getting rid of SS, Medicare, Medicaid, any form of welfare, etc. It's very very sad to see the country being hijacked by the Tea Party.

[Blackthorne]

I wouldn't say the country is being hijacked by the Tea Party, but they have gained some popularity.  Mostly in the media, though, which likes to point them out because they're out of their damn minds most of the time.  Controversy draws more viewers, more viewers brings more ratings, more ratings brings more advertising, and ads bring the money, which it's all about anyway.

And as for "Just saying No" to sex, I only have to throw my head back and bellow with laughter.  I know it SOUNDS like the logical and easy choice, but when it comes to sex - nothing is logical and/or easy.


Bt

[glottal]

Once again, it isn't so black and white as cut programs to fund militarty.  If the republicans had it their way, they would have gone into Iraq and Afganistan with much more force and perhaps would have been done years ago.  Cutting your losses and leaving isn't always the best solution.  Look at Vietnam.  Was it good that we got out, I would say yes, but it would have been better had we gone in with a much larger force to begin with and our losses perhaps would have been greatly reduced.

Why didn't the Republicans have their way?  They had the white house and congress in 2001 and 2003, if I remember correctly.  And Obama is the one who sent an additional 30,000 troops to Afghanistan, the largest increase since the start of the war.  Anyway, it's a little too late to change what happened in 2001 and 2003.  So the question is now, what can we realistically accomplish by staying, and is that worth the cost in soldiers' lives, civilians' lives, and money?

As for Baggins' chart: interesting, but one has to make so many allowances for context (for example, the ideologies of the Republican and Democrat parties have changed over time) that I don't think the final totals are useful.  I would have preferred the totals to all have been post-1945.

As for the whole sex education/planned parenthood business, I think everybody should know the basics of contraceptives, STD prevention, STD treatment, as well as the alternatives enchantermon is referring to.  There is abundant evidence that quite a few people are not very good at practising abstinence (Bristol Palin comes to mind), and I think it's easier to educate them on contraceptives and alternative ways to have fun than to try to change their self-discipline.  I personally think Planned Parenthood has also gone so far in the "sex is a human right" direction that it sometimes leads them towards saying nonsense (even dangerous nonsense, if the part about not telling partners that you have an STD is true).  That said, I think Planned Parenthood is a net force for good, and while it's unfortunate that it's getting defunded (especially since it is such a miniscule part of the budget that is has no material impact on the deficit), it has better prospects for alternative funding than some of the other programs getting cut.

I read this yesterday, and recommend it.  I had thoughts along those lines in the back of my head, but it was nice to see someone crystalize those thoughts in such a clear manner.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/may/10/economy-public-finance

[Baggins]

As I remember the Republicans were going to ram in a few controversial policies when they last controlled house and senate under W. Bush. They backed off after the Democrats complained. I can't remember what they were though.

I wouldn't say the country is being hijacked by the Tea Party, but they have gained some popularity.  Mostly in the media, though, which likes to point them out because they're out of their damn minds most of the time.  Controversy draws more viewers, more viewers brings more ratings, more ratings brings more advertising, and ads bring the money, which it's all about anyway.

The media probably made them more relevant than they should have been. Reverse psychology where people flock to things they are told are verboten to see what it is... This might explain why tea party picks got voted in despite the media pointing out that the tea party numbers were marginal and irrelevent.

Perhaps a little of the idea that giving something negative attention is still attention, that can draw people to it. As some say bad reviews are still good reviews?

The same goes for media's competition, they spend so much time complaining about their competition that they drive people to the competition to see what's going on. So they inadvertainly raise their competitors viewership.

[chucklas]

Why didn't the Republicans have their way?  They had the white house and congress in 2001 and 2003, if I remember correctly.  And Obama is the one who sent an additional 30,000 troops to Afghanistan, the largest increase since the start of the war.  Anyway, it's a little too late to change what happened in 2001 and 2003.  So the question is now, what can we realistically accomplish by staying, and is that worth the cost in soldiers' lives, civilians' lives, and money?

Most likely because they want to get re-elected.  The are always more than just the surface reasons for everything.

[KatieHal]

Another theory is that a political party will try to push through something that's just completley unacceptable--a recent example, a bill only allowing for abortions in the case of "forcible rape" (Hello, it's ALL forcible!) and trying to define that. There was a huge uproar about it, naturally. But the idea is they know no one will support that bill as is, so they have something like that in there so they have something to negotiate with and remove as a show of working with the other side.

[chucklas]

exactly.  There are always alterior motives to actions.  Just becauser they proposed that bill doesn't mean thats what they really want/expect to pass.  It is extremely difficult to know what any one person or groups is going for.  More often or not, they don't know themselves.  Once again back to the quote that started the thread.  If you can get people to support what you want them to, then you get what you want, not necessarily what the group as a whole wants (although they might think they do).

[glottal]

Re: wars

If the Republicans thought they couldn't succeed without more troops than they thought the electorate could stomach, then they shouldn't have gone to war, as an unsuccessful war isn't so great for getting re-elected either (or, you know, ethical).
 
Anyway, back to Afghanistan.  As far as I understand, the reasons we are in Afghanistan are to:

1) Stop terrorists
2) Oust the Taliban / create good governance (lately, Obama has dismissed this goal, and said that we are not only working towards #1)

If our goal is #1, I would think that would be best accomplished by spies and a good networks of operatives, such as the team which assassinated Osama bin Laden, not a ton of troops in a full-scale war.  Meanwhile, the civilian casualties, as well as the image of a Western power occupying a Muslim territory, is good propaganda fodder for the terrorists to get more recruits.  If we only had discreet operations, there would be less to make propaganda out of.  I don't see how Obama's 30,000 troop surge, which is mostly inexperienced rookies, is going to be able to do much about this.

Not to mention that the terrorists, apparently, are doing at least as much in Pakistan as in Afghanistan.

If our goal is #2 ... I think that is impossible.  At least for the United States - other parties might be able to accomplish that eventually.  The Taliban are terrible.  But Karzai's government is also so terrible that I think, if our goal is #2, it would be impossible for the United States to reform it into something tolerable.  For example, one of the current members of the Afghan parliament, Abdul Rasul Sayyaf, is responsible for crimes against humanity, is a fundamentalist and has been pushing Afghan policy in that direction, as well as pushing laws which pardon people like himself for committing crimes against humanity.  To top it all off, he was a friend of Osama bin Laden for a long time.  It's pretty clear he became "elected" by a campaign of intimidation and fraud.  I think getting decent governance in Afghanistan is going to be impossible until people like him are out of power, and there are some very practical reasons why the United States can't simply remove their power.  We can, however, cease to support them.

As far as ousting the Taliban ... they are stubbornly refusing to be utterly defeated.  They are on their home turf - which is full of *mountains* - vs. ignorant (of the area) Americans.  Again, I don't see inexperienced rookies making a difference here.  And one reason that the local people are not doing more to resist the Taliban is that, while they are horrible, the Karzai alternative is not tempting either.

[Baggins]

Terrorists don't really have borders. They don't have capitals, they don't really have nations. There are cells almost everywhere.

[glottal]

Terrorists don't really have borders. They don't have capitals, they don't really have nations. Their are cells almost everywhere.

So we obviously have to occupy the entire world in order to defeat terror [/snark]