A New Twist in the Debate on Mothers — New York Times

I made a graphic to help illustrate the underlying thematic point of the New York Times article linked above on mothers, motherhood, and the vice-presidency and presidency.

UPDATE: This article sums up a lot of my thoughts, as well.

When Joe Biden tragically lost his wife and infant daughter in a car wreck in 1972, not a single colleague, friend or competitor advised him to quit his newly won Senate seat to raise his two little surviving sons.

Rather, he was sworn into office from the injured boys’ bedside, and took to commuting an hour and a half each way from Delaware to Washington. And when Biden’s second wife gave birth to a daughter, no one thought to ask him to step aside and stay home.

They all do it. John Kennedy did it; so did Barack Obama: Men run for office and serve in elected positions while creating small children without ever being patronized as “super dads” or “multi-taskers.”

Nor are they penalized, ridiculed or dismissed for ignoring their kids. They’re good dads.

If Sarah Palin, tapped as John McCain’s running mate, were a man, it’s unlikely we’d even be having this conversation. (A man, or a Democrat.)

Indeed.

High court affirms gun rights in historic decision — AP

The Supreme Court has ruled that the United States Constitution grants people the right to own guns, something that should be obvious to anyone who would just read the Second Amendment itself.

The court had not conclusively interpreted the Second Amendment since its ratification in 1791. The amendment reads: “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”

The basic issue for the justices was whether the amendment protects an individual’s right to own guns no matter what, or whether that right is somehow tied to service in a state militia, a once-vital, now-archaic grouping of citizens. That’s been the heart of the gun control debate for decades.

Writing for the majority, Justice Antonin Scalia said an individual right to bear arms exists and is supported by “the historical narrative” both before and after the Second Amendment was adopted.

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. It can’t be any plainer. There are already people lamenting the decision, expecting gun-related violence to increase; however, if one just takes a moment to think about it, one will see that the only people affected by this ruling are the people that were getting killed by murderers.

Those in DC (which has one of the highest murder rates in the country) who were not allowed to own guns (everyone), and who followed the law, were the ones getting killed. Those who were shooting people with guns obviously didn’t follow the law that said they couldn’t own one, thus they owned guns “illegally.” Those that would shoot people who would break in and rape or murder their wife or children are the ones actually affected by the ruling: now they can defend themselves.

I’m going to make an easy prediction: gun violence is going to go down over the next few years in all cities that had handgun bans.

Dismal Signs for the GOP — George Will

It’s looking bad for realistic Republicans out there. While hopeless optimists point to the evenness of the candidates on the Republican side, “realistic Republicans are looking for shelter.”

Nov. 4 could be their most disagreeable day since Nov. 3, 1964. Actually, this November could be even worse because in 1964 Barry Goldwater’s loss of 44 states served a purpose, the ideological reorientation and revitalization of the party. Which Republican candidate this year could produce a similarly constructive loss?

Today, all the usual indicators are dismal for Republicans. If that sweeping assertion seems counterintuitive, produce a counterexample. The adverse indicators include: shifts in voters’ identifications with the two parties (Democrats now 50 percent, Republicans 36 percent); the tendency of independents (they favored Democratic candidates by 18 points in 2006); the fact that Democrats hold a majority of congressional seats in states with 303 electoral votes; the Democrats’ strength and the Republicans’ relative weakness in fundraising; the percentage of Americans who think the country is on the “wrong track”; the Republicans’ enthusiasm deficit relative to Democrats’ embrace of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, one of whom will be nominated.

The articles is a good read to all who are interested. For myself, I think this is the first election where I really don’t feel compelled to vote for anyone. Giuliani, McCain, and Huckabee seem to only be Republicans in name; that is, it would seem to be a losing position to argue that any of them are actually conservative. Romney seems to be the closest candidate to the ideals of “conservatism,” but even he has a chequered past.

Republicans lost in 2006 because for the previous six years they stopped acting like conservatives. Spending like Democrats and engaging in non-conservative tactics (such as letting Kennedy write the education bill) didn’t do much good to conservatism, and they consequently lost badly. I suppose the party stands a real chance of continuing to fracture and hemorrhage as long as Republicans forget that.

Clinton Criticizes Obama in NH Mailer — AP

Sometimes I consider the thought that my political views are sometimes skewed based on various factors, but is it really impossible that we sometimes meet on common ground no matter the topic?

[Obama] voted against requiring medical care for aborted fetuses who survive, a vote that especially riled abortion opponents.

So an abortion doctor botches killing a baby and the baby lives. And, we actually have legislators who vote against keeping the baby alive because it is not, in fact, a “baby,” but a mere “aborted fetus?” Is that right? For the love of all that is holy, how can anyone, even an abortion proponent, be for that? The article above is actually stating how Clinton believes she is for more abortion rights than Obama, but it is hard to see how a person could grant more “rights” than leaving a baby to die on a cold table.

I hope that the doctors at least throw the babies in the trash so they don’t have to watch them suffer; maybe they can hide it by putting a half-eaten sandwich over top of it. Imagine how awful it would be to watch the final moments of an aborted mass of cells.

It says Clinton has a record of fighting “far-right Republicans” to defend abortion rights, while Obama has been “unwilling to take a stand on choice.”

?

Senate Republicans bar Iraq withdrawal plan — Reuters

Here is another article about how it’s all the Republicans fault we’re still in Iraq, and a very quick analysis of why it’s actually more the Democrats “fault.”

Despite passionate appeals by Democrats, who noted that 2007 had been the deadliest year for U.S. troops in Iraq so far, Republicans stopped the proposal that had passed the House of Representatives on a largely partisan vote on Wednesday.

[…]

The bill would have given President George W. Bush about a quarter of the $196 billion he wants for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan in fiscal 2008, while setting a goal that all U.S. combat soldiers withdraw from Iraq by December 15, 2008.

“What will it take to end this war? How many lives, how many limbs, how many broken families, how many innocent victims?” the Senate’s No. 2 Democrat, Dick Durbin of Illinois, asked. Over 850 U.S. soldiers have died this year.

Senator Durbin asked, “[w]hat will it it take to end this war?” Senator, simply don’t fund it at all. Right now, the war effort receives zero (0) dollars unless you, and the other Democrats in power, fund it.

Democrats have tried repeatedly to limit the war this year, and Republicans promised to keep blocking their attempts.

Democrats can do more than limit the war, they can end it by not voting on ANY more money. This article is another magic trick done by the mainstream media to make you think it’s all the Republicans fault that we are in Iraq, but Democrats control both Houses of Congress. This war could be over before you could say “Saddam’s rape rooms” if the Democrats wanted to end the war. Thus, I think it’s very plain that the Democrats are continuing to play magic tricks on the voters. “Just don’t pay attention to the elephant jackass in the room.”