You have such a way with “words.”
At least the drunken monkey from texas will ghave a legacy to call his own. (Not to mention a whole extra paragraph for tonight’s show)

Mobi-
I have no clue why you wouldnt want an issue as important as abortion to be decided democratically. If enough people in any given state want an abortion to be illegal, why should liberal jews from new york have a right to interfere with their democratic process. Why do you hate democracy so?
And if democrats do in fact believe that the court is so important that they should be making all our important decisions for us , why dont you guys try winning an election for once, so you can appoint judges who share your viewpoints.

wow, why don’t “you guys” try not stealing an election for once. and how about–just to be really crazy–we let the decisions about women’s bodies be made by WOMEN–not by state referendums or racist, misogynist activist judges.

A few years of increasing abortion issues will do the country good.
1. Drive out the liberal Republicans from that party, force them to vote for Dems.
2. Force mainstream feminists to engage in broader alliance building, beyond thier traditional base.
3. Build a a stronger majority for women’s rights, instead of finessing the issue with courts.
Too bad for all the women injured in back alleys though.

“Too bad for all the women injured in back alleys though. ”
Why is it difficult to be honest with your arguments. As of now, only about 12% of counties in the whole country have abortion clinics. In most states where abortion would become illegal, there already is a great deal of traveling involved if someone wants an abortion. Roe v. Wade being overturned will have little impact on the state of abortions in this country, and is definitely no concern to people living in blue states where abortion will remain legal.
“and how about–just to be really crazy–we let the decisions about women’s bodies be made by WOMEN–not by state referendums or racist, misogynist activist judges.”
A little lesson: Roe doesnt say that women get to decide issues concerning their bodies. What it does say is that states cannot regulate/ban abortion.
Also, you are aware that there are some states where the majority of women oppose abortion?

“Also, you are aware that there are some states where the majority of women oppose abortion? ”
To add to that, polls taken (particularly the NY Times poll about ten years ago) indicate that women are only slightly, if at all, more pro-choice than are men (in the NYT poll, the difference was 1%, less than the margin of error).

Joe–I was about to respond, but when you quoted Ann Coulter I realized you were beyond help.
But just one thing–saying that there are states where the majority of women oppose abortion–how does that even address the issue? Newsflash–this is about CHOICE.

“Newsflash–this is about CHOICE.”
Absolutely. And what could be a bigger denial of choice than to kill a fetus? Let the fetus be born and grow up, and then decide if he/she wants to live or die.
This is about the question “What is a fetus?”
(I do agree about Ann Coulter, though. There’s no excuse for a conservative, who can win arguments on facts and logic, to indulge in sloppiness, fact-fudging and rabble-rousing. Leave those to liberals and Leftists, who have no other choice.)

“I think if conservative were in a debate with those of us on the nuanced but fiscal (and not the social), left, they would find they are in for a tougher fight. Much tougher. Which is why they avoid that fight at all costs, and why the Dems are suckers to give them the social fight. ”
You are probably correct about this. There is, however, one other issue you are neglecting. The perception that democrats are anti american/ pro Europe weaklings that has existed since the Vietnam war, and that the current democrats are doing nothing to dispel.

“I think if conservative were in a debate with those of us on the nuanced but fiscal (and not the social), left, they would find they are in for a tougher fight. Much tougher.”
If by “nuanced but fiscal left” you mean liberals-but-not-Leftists who generally agree that Capitalism works most of the time, that private property is vital and that taxation may be necessary but is unfortunate, but that there are more exceptions to the above than Conservatives would allow, then I totally agree. If I think a welfare payment should be $500 and my liberal opponent thinks $600, it’s hard for either of us to establish solid principles for our positions, and we have to admit that we’re making judgment calls.
“Which is why they avoid that fight at all costs,”
At the political level, maybe sometimes. But there’s a wealth of material from conservative think tanks and publications addressing the fiscal issues.
“and why the Dems are suckers to give them the social fight. ”
Not suckers; more like in thrall to special interests that often don’t care about the big picture. The Republicans are less balkanized than the Dems.
In any case, even without social issues, the Dems have another ball and chain attached to them: what I call the McGovern effect. Since McGovern, Democrats either have a shadow of anti-Americanism (and consequent fear and suspicion of American power) hanging over them, or they have to put in huge effort to get rid of that shadow (both, in Kerry’s case). Not every Democrat has this problem personally, maybe most don’t, but having Pelosi and Dean as party leaders sure doesn’t help.

EV:
Most policy literature I’ve read breaks policy up into social, economic and foreign policy, and abortion goes into the social category.
“Really? Since when have conservative theocrats supported an adult’s right to take his or her own life? ”
Hey, it was a rhetorical point. Or, if you like, it was from a libertarian’s point of view, or a practical one – try prosecuting a successful suicide.

DK-
“I would argue Carter is more emblematic of a problem than McGovern — McGovern was never elected, and Vietnam was a long time ago, and he was certainly a product of that era.”
I share your contempt for Carter, but I still think McGovern is more emblematic of the problem. Carter ran in ’76 as a centrist, and his post-presidential behavior has been so bizarre that it’s hard to attribute his idiosyncracies to an entire party. McGovern, on the other hand, is the classic anti-American Dem. And his blowout loss to the unlovable Nixon also illustrates my point.
As for your list of Left items, it seems that I agree with all of them, except possibly health care (but you didn’t specify what exactly we should do, so I don’t know). Yet I assure you that I am no Leftist. I would describe your views as neo-liberal, or center-liberal, not Leftist. Why are you describing yourself with a term that is not only inaccurate, but tends to scare people away?

Interesting that both Justice Stevens and Coulter are mentioned in the beginning comments, as Coulter called for his assassination over the weekend.
The Alito-abortion issue is a hypocritical joke. A Christian pro-lifer did an article on the increase in abortions during the Bush presidency (surprise! it was ignored by the national media).
The Alito issue of importance is the ‘unitary executive’ one, which smells a lot like fascism — specifically of the nazi variety. It was Carl Schmitt who ‘legalized’ Hitler’s dictatorial powers.
By the way — Halliburton has gotten the contract to build the camps for ‘dissidents’ in the US.

DK:
Re oil alternatives, although it’s true that some parts of the Republican Party have not been helpful, what have the Democrats done? (And many conservatives have in fact been in favor of such efforts. I don’t think this is a liberal vs. conservative issue. The problem is more that any big new effort needs a huge push to get off the ground, that economic special interests are opposed, that the status quo is always safer (short-term), and that it isn’t clear exactly where research efforts should go.)
As for the Dem’s disunity, I think it insures that they’ll always have too many priorities, and so won’t be able to accomplish any that are difficult.
Miriam wins Godwin of the Week for this- “The Alito issue of importance is the ‘unitary executive’ one, which smells a lot like fascism — specifically of the nazi variety. It was Carl Schmitt who ‘legalized’ Hitler’s dictatorial powers.”
Not “like” fascism, Miriam – fascism itself. No, worse than fascism. Worse than Hitler! (With so many people worse than Hitler, you wonder how bad Hitler was.) Gee, how that Coulter gets carried away.

I support Alito being nominated.
If you want to get a coat-hanger abortion, then don’t have sex.
BTW: The constitution says NOTHING about abortion. It should be left to the states.

“What, is ‘never again!’ just a slogan to you, J, or words solely for purposes of mourning? Or, does ‘never again!’ mean exactly what it says?”
It means nothing to me. I support Alito, so obviously I either deny the Holocaust or regret having been born too late to perpetrate it. Obviously.
(By the way — one of the senate staffers I spoke with yesterday told me I have a good nose.)
More like a brown one.

America, America,
More then 200 Million guns within; over 500 Billion dollars spent waging wars oustside; spying on its own citizens; courts that will decide if a woman has the rights for her own body (in a country with the highest teenage pregnancy in the world); actors for governors and buffoons for presidents; ‘Super-size me’ culture that makes one sick with cheap and bad food but unaffordable healthcare etc. etc.
Boiling Frog Syndrome, anyone?

Matityahu-
Roe v. Wade was about Constitutional rights. Federal, state, and local governments can legislate, but the Constitution trumps everything else.
The problem with this argument of just moving to another state that allows it is that 1) people don’t really have that kind of mobility- especially those who are in greatest need of protection. Young and poor women who can’t afford to move or travel for the durationof the recovery period, can’t really afford the cost of the surgery, happen to also be the ones who really can’t afford to raise a child. And have the least access to birth control- don’t let me forget that one. I’m pushing 30 and with all the hoops I have to jump through to get my prescription and get it filled on time (freakin insurance) AND then to have condoms LOCKED at the pharmacy counter in my stupid urban CVS, thus creating a de facto requirement that a pharmacist provide the condoms… Grr. I have several friends who work in areas involving reproductive rights and they have horror stories about the disappearance of access to family planning and even information about family planning. Our government is pressing abstinence and eliminating alternatives.
And 2 is that we’re a democracy (to the degree we aren’t just run by special interests), but with certain minimum guarantees of individual liberty. I think there are a lot of towns, and possibly a number of states, that if allowed to vote on the issue would be all-Christian, all-white, etc. You might think they should be allowed to do so, but the US of A is based on a system that guarantees a place for all Americans anywhere in the nation with a certain degree of freedom and protection. Roe v. Wade recognized a Constitutional privacy right that includes a woman’s right to an abortion. Similar privacy rights have been recognized in the context of allowing marriage (especially interracial marriage, which was illegal in some states until the late ’60s) and disallowing laws barring “sodomy” between consenting adults in the privacy of their homes.
The problem is that the Constitution doesn’t contain the word “privacy” anywhere in it. The understanding of privacy rights is based on the provisions it does contain regarding free speech and assembly, searches and seizures, and due process.
But Constitutional interpretation is a bit like Biblical interpretation. Interpretation parallels agenda. And even the most literal of modern folks recognizes portions that no longer have application or feasibility.

Why aren’t my comments appearing?

DK-
I’m no expert on mass transit issues, and there are probably numerous specific cases wherein you could convince me that mass transit should be instituted or upgraded, but I seriously doubt that a very significant percentage of our energy consumption is made up of people currently driving who could be reasonably accomodated through mass transit. Of course, we might not agree on what “reasonably” means. Also, I don’t agree that mass transit is “socialism” to Republicans; what looks bad to Republicans are efforts to push people into using mass transit against their wishes (say, by artificially raising the cost of driving through gas taxes or tolls). I don’t think you’d find as much opposition if mass transit was simply made available.
I can’t agree about Kucinich. The costs (to your causes, my causes, and to our country) of putting loons in office far exceed any benefits we might get.
Miriam-
The trick is to respond to the other person’s post. Anyone can throw around pre-packaged insults.
Matityahu-
The issue is this. The US Constitution specifically enumerates the responsibilities of the Federal government (unsurprisingly, the bulk of these involve foreign relations, military, finance and other areas where one central governmental entity is necessary). The Constitution also explicitly states that all areas of governance not granted to the Federal government are reserved by the states.
The Constitution makes no mention of abortion (or of privacy), and from the time the Constitution went into effect (1789) through the 1970’s, each state made its own laws regarding abortion.
Suddenly in 1973, in Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court made some shocking discoveries. First, the Constitution (in the Bill of Rights – the first ten amendments) contained a right to privacy. No, the word didn’t actually appear in the text; it was a “penumbra” of the text. (I should have asked the Court to find my missing socks in a “penumbra”.) Second, this “right” of privacy included the right to an abortion (?) Third, because the Constitution guaranteed the “right” to abort (at least in the earlier stages of pregnancy), the states could not legislate against this right. Quite a discovery, after nearly 200 years. (The decision actually goes on to discuss “trimesters” and to decide what rights the states have to restrict later-term abortions. All this from a “penumbra”.) If this all seems like a fraud to you, you’re in good company.
The reason pro-choice advocates favored this route is because if allowed, some of the states would restrict abortion.
I would recommend reviewing the Constitution – it’s only a dozen pages long.
In return, to be fair, I’ll read the UK Constitution 🙂
BTW, if anyone’s interested, there’s a great book annotating and explaining the Constitution- “Words We Live By”. Around 200 pages, entertaining, accurate, explains the debates, and evenhanded (very admirable, considering the author seems to be a liberal). And has quotes from Ted Nugent.

“Aren’t the majority of the Justices there via nomination of Bush I and Bush II?”
Many times justices switch (or reveal their true) political leanings once appointed on the bench. Souter is a perfect example of this, as is warren who was probably one of the most liberal justices ever. Eisenhower described his warren appointment as his greatest mistake.
This is why conservatives are now extra cautious with regard to appointing judges

Muffti-
The problem is that the question of the status of the fetus is a metaphysical question, and none of the answers (even mine, sad to say) come close to mathematical certainty. In the meantime, we have to make laws concerning abortion, one way or the other(s). As I wrote above, I don’t think the Constitution adresses the issue at all, meaning that the states are responsible. Who should make these decisions besides the people (through their elected representatives)?

“He (finally) recognizes the problem, but did not emphasize mass transit as part the solution.”
There’s only so much you can expect from a single speech that dealt with numerous topics. But I’ll be on the lookout for followup position material.
Re the cars, I think that you’re not recognizing that the vast majority of people in the suburbs (and even the cities) are not going to give up their cars no matter how convenient the mass transit is. Mass transit is good (for some) for commuting to work, and maybe weekend visits to a very concentrated urban center (like Manhattan). But what about heavy shopping? People with more than one child (much easier to deal with little kids in a car than on the subway)? People who travel to places other than the nearest urban center? Women who travel at night? People who just like to drive? Busy people with lots of chores at different locations?
Since these cars are going to be bought anyway, we now run the risk of double -paying (ie for both cars and, through taxes, for mass transit).

Matityahu-
“although I wouldn’t profess to being a huge fan of ‘Sweaty Teddy’ as he has made some remarks in the past that cut a bit too close to anti-semitism for me.”
I wasn’t aware of such remarks. I only mentioned the Nuge for his entertainment value (well, he entertains me!). Well, the book also has material from George F. Will (one of my major political Rebbes). I wish Jews thought as highly of Jews as Will does.
“As regards reading the US constitution, it may surprise you that indeed I already have. Several times.”
I’m not surprised. I hope I didn’t come off as condescending. My point was that it’s important for everyone to actually read the document in order to form an opinion on Constitutional issues. (It’s shocking how often I hear people opine on such issues without ever having read the Constitution.)
“I’m not sure if you were attempting to be cheeky with your offer to read the British constitution (and if you were, well bravo for striking some ironic humour into this whole argument) but you would have a difficult time reading something that doesn’t exist.”
Yes. That’s why I added the 🙂 thing. And let me tell you: as an American, as a Jew, and as a lawyer, I am in a constant state of disbelief that the UK functions at all, let alone as well as it does, without a written Constitution. Now, your turn: Could you recommend a basic book (with or without insane rock stars) describing your invisible Constitution?
“It seems to me that there must be a happy medium between the judicial fudge of the Supreme Court of the US in 1973 and ‘abortion ships’, and the sooner we can remove the rhetoric both right and left from this issue and let democracy decide the better.”
That’s what’s been argued in the US since ’73. Some say that issues like abortion become most divisive when one side is frustrated in being able to present its views to the voters. If a vote is allowed, even if such a side loses, the animosities tend to subside, because the side realizes it had a fair chance.

J,
Humourous, yes. Condescending, no. I’m also a fan of George F. Will and share your sentiments. I’ve also taken a liking to Christopher Hitchens and Boris Johnson as well.
As regards understanding our invisible constitution here in the UK, I would say that Simon Shama’s ‘History of Britain’ series is an excellent place to start, and ‘Consitutional History of the UK’ by Ann Lyon is a more in depth study.
“And let me tell you: as an American, as a Jew, and as a lawyer, I am in a constant state of disbelief that the UK functions at all, let alone as well as it does, without a written Constitution.”
Hmm, well what I can tell you is that the monarch is supposed to be here to guarantee our rights. In the event that Parliament would seek to significantly remove individual freedoms and rights, Her Majesty would have the right to dissolve Parliament. Or so the theory goes. I don’t necessarily have a problem with not having a written constitution (Judaism doesn’t have one, so we have the Talmud and, arguably, all of the interdenominational fighting comes from varied interpretation of this…sound familiar?), but in the absence of a written constitution you always run the risk of a) reliance on the good graces of a monarch to protect you, and b) the EU trying to create a constitution in the vaccum created. If you’re ever really really bored (or suffer insomnia for a few years) try reading the tripe put together by Valery d’Estaing and his chums…a better than 200 page ‘constitution’ for the EU which was voted down by France and the Netherlands and now seems thankfully dead.

Here is actual polling on support for public transportation.

Public transportation has become increasingly important to Americans as commutes have gotten longer and traffic congestion has increased. A national study was conducted among 1,003 adults 18 years of age and older living in the continental United States.
Wirthlin Worldwide conducted the interviews over the telephone between February 12th and 16th, 2003. Here are the findings.
*
” Public transportation remains a favorite of Americans and a plurality link increased investment in public transportation to enhanced quality of life. Fully, four-in-five (81%) agree that increased public investment in public transportation would strengthen the economy, create jobs, reduce traffic congestion and air pollution, and save energy. Recognition of public transportation quality of life benefits is consistent across locales.
*
” Almost three-quarters (72 %) support the use of public funds for the expansion and improvement of public transportation.
*
” A majority of the population expresses support for candidates supporting public transportation and 64% said they would be more likely to support a candidate for Congress who supports improving public transportation options.
*
” Traffic congestion is an important issue and most adults (56%) say that the need to reduce traffic congestion and the time it takes to get to work has become more important in the past five years.
*
” Most Americans, even those living in rural areas of the country, agree that their community needs more public transportation options.
*
” Regardless of locale, residents voice support for public transportation options and funding in their communities — urban (64%), suburban (59%), rural (51%) and small town (55%).

It appears there is more support for it than is commonly believed. But as DK pointed out the Democrats show their actual support for the issue by how they prioritize, and it is a darn low priority with them.

Very few democrats opposed Iraq or oppose it now other than Finegold and Murtha. So I don’t know what your talking about unless it is how many of them have attacked Bush from the right, like Billary.

Joe,
I have no legal skills or training, and would be foolish to argue the intricacies of this domain. However, I enclose a comment or two from observation of people, and social processes, for which though no expert, I hope I have as much sense and grasp as the next fellow human being.
Point made with regards to Alito, is that your current chief of puff has nominated someone who will further his agenda, a move obviously grounded in the process of American democracy, and also understandably human, if maybe not very humane (i.e. Bush saying “I’m going to have everything passed that I want get passed”). However, these are times where your government have taken justifying extreme and illegal measures further then ever before (in your own history) – not by the strength (or weakness) of individual decisions, but by the combination of the industrial (and yes – military) might that has become an integral driving factor in your politics. As such, it seems to me (in my utmost limited understanding) that by the fact people can appeal and be heard, the Supreme court still enjoys a modicum of power to debate, and indeed assert, the rights of folk with no real power in your social arena. Even if the decisions are not as clearly defined in favour of the underdog, the public exposure and interest that this institute carries by default has democratic benefits.
That is hopefully will not change with the likes of Alito, but the counterweight that the court could have carried as your democracy leaves skid marks on the slippery slope of big brotherhood, is diminishing with every judge who thinks in similar fashion to these powers and indeed actively pursuing to strengthen their status. If the court is so skewed and thus conservatively fixated , then obviously people who disagree with these tenets have little elsewhere to turn to, and though might still appeal in the hope of being heard, no important social gain will follow.
One could argue that if the court was tilted in favour of the more socially or liberally concerned, that would have been just as untenable democratic remedy, and one would have been right of government was still ‘by the people, for the people’. But it is not. The fact more than half of Americans now think it was a mistake to invade a country 85% of them cannot even find on the map, because of a decision based on deliberately false information, is an example why so. Democracy might still work in the US on State level, but on the Federal violins the music of free speech is highly Wagnerian.
In Kelo’s case, what is interesting to me is the fact that O’connor and Thomas ended up on the same side in such a David Vs. Goliath drama. I would personally tend to agree with them also, but you could note that the decision was made in favour of the greater public good, and that the ‘little people’ were allocated more then a Million dollars each in compensation. That is hardly a symptom of exploitation by big government. I live in a country where the army shoots people who refuse to give them land if they so wish to settle, and where the courts do what the ‘boss’. That is hardly the case with the US, but you are closer to that point than ever before, and I personally would find it disturbing. ending on social issues.
In any case, I suspect we are arguing semantics here, because I think big government mean corporate/big brother/ erosion of individual rights, and you mean government says.
The real act of discovery is not in finding new lands, but in seeing with new eyes. (Marcel Proust)

Konami-
The whole slippery slope argument you are making is silly. Going into last election, everyone was well aware of the criticisms of bush’s policies, the war, the patriot act, and still reelected him. This is democracy at work. You may not like the result because you buy into the whole “stifling free speech argument”, but many, including myself, do not and see it as nothing more than partisan attacks.
Democrats werent complaining about agendas from the bench during the warren era, which served as a liberal legislative branch.
If democrats want their ideas implemented, they should win an election. That is democracy.

DK-
Re Brooklyn, it probably would be a good idea to create some new lines running a Brooklyn-Queens route, but beyond that – just look at the map. There’s way too much ground to cover. It just can’t be done by train. You might succeed in reducing slightly the number of car trips, but you won’t get rid of the cars.
“I would expect that you, as a conservative, would prefer a program that helps more rather than less people, and helps those of various classes, not just the poor at the expense of the rich. ”
Sure. There are even times I’m willing to help the poor at the expense of others, though probably less often than you might be. (If the “help” in question is an item that enables the poor to escape poverty, I’m much more excited about it.
But this brings us to a question we haven’t really looked at. Are your proposals revenue-neutral (in other words, would the fares pay entirely for the system)? Are there subsidies? If there are subsidies, are they limited to offsets of the amounts that non-users of the system benefit (emptier highways, environmental benefits), or are your proposals serving as yet another government program that transfers wealth? If the latter, then you understand why there would be resistance. If the former, the cost-benefit analysis we seem to agree on would prohibit, I think, many proposed projects.
“In fact, I sometimes suspect that the problem of getting people excited about Mass Transit is the problem that it doesn’t pit people against each other. If only I could find a convincing way to claim that the lack of mass transit is specifically environmental racism instrad of an unmitigated envirnomental disaster for everyone, I would find more interest for these programs.”
Yup. The sexiness deficit is a problem. Maybe you could convince Al Sharpton to turn it into a racial issue 🙂 Personally, I think abortion IS a very important and legitimate issue (though obviously from the pro-life side), but I agree that priorities are often neglected because some issues are less sexy than others.