Page 2 of 2
Re: The Life of Julia
Posted: Sat May 12, 2012 7:37 am
by hoost
MachineGhost wrote:
Of all the political maps I've seen over the years, I find this one to be the most accurate:
[center]
The way I always thought of it was this:
Totalitarian:
Controls social life
Controls financial life
Liberal:
Controls Financial Life
Liberal Social Life
Conservative:
Controls Social Life
Liberal Financial Life
Libertarian:
Liberal Social Life
Liberal Financial Life
Your last photo is interesting. I need to study it more to digest it.
Re: The Life of Julia
Posted: Sat May 12, 2012 8:18 am
by gizmo_rat
I was a bit late to the political compass idea, but its' (simplistic) modelling really crystallised my thinking on why I have always felt so alienated from politics.
For those of you who haven't seen it it'll place you within the map based on a fairly short set of multiple choice questions.
http://www.politicalcompass.org/test
The results can be interesting, providing you don't think about the validity too hard.
Re: The Life of Julia
Posted: Sat May 12, 2012 8:22 am
by Lonestar
smurff wrote:
murphy_p_t wrote:
Storm,
Thank you for sharing DNC talking points. Seriously.
For "Julia" and birth control...how many girls either
-can't keep her legs closed?
or
-can't afford $9 / month for birth control
Some "girls" legs are forced open by men who mean them harm, and birth control is useful if someone is attacked like that. I find it interesting that that the "keep the legs closed" crowd never seems to also consider that "open legs don't have to be entered" (or at least, "pants should be kept zippered").
Reliable birth control costs more than $9 per month if the person is unable to take generics. (Unfortunately it takes trying them to know you can't take the generic.) Nine dollars may be a co-pay, but that presumes one is able to enroll in an insurance plan, which is not likely unless one earns a lot or is working for a major corporation that provides it as a benefit. On a minimum wage job (lots of people, women and men, have those), there may not be an extra $9 per month, whether for co-pay or generic.
BTW, my comments here are not directed at the question of who pays--which I think is the main argument in this topic.
Comparing the GOP to "the Taliban" is pathetic & deserves no response...you only discredit yourself by parroting such a ridiculous statement. This is a slanderous statement
Many observers have speculated about how and why the GOP allowed itself to be practically taken over by the kind of ideologues with plans reminiscent of hostile and authoritarian groups, the Taliban being one such group. While not all Republicans share the sentiments of those ideologues, they don't seem to have much of an audible voice these days in the public sphere. The term "Taliban" may upset many people post-9-11, but it gets the point across. So Storm's comment is not slanderous; sad to say, it's on point.
BTW, Bob Altemeyer a researcher at the University of Manitoba, has done lots of research on authoritarian personalities and how they got that way, and how they handle the tasks of government. You can read (actually, download) his book, "The Authoritarians," here:
http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~altemey/
I would have to assume that only a small percentage of unwanted/unplanned pregnancies are the result of "force". The vast majority are consensual, and in today's society it is unfortunate that the female is usually left to raise the child by herself, many times demanding the help of the government. So, if the female cannot afford $9 per month (or more) then how can she ever think she can support a child? Unfortunately and unfairly, the decision of the possibility of pregnancy becomes even more her's.
Maybe it would be much more cost effective for the government to supply contraception as opposed to ultimately assuming the responsibility of providing for the child. To me, this is the conundrum we see when we look to the government for all of our needs, many caused by our own irresponsibility.
I will not be the one to try to explain or justify the Republican party, but do we actually need to post a list of the horrible atrocities committed by the Taliban to help some understand the difference between the two?
Re: The Life of Julia
Posted: Sat May 12, 2012 9:49 am
by MediumTex
Machine Ghost,
That last graphic a few posts up looks like what happens when you feed a policy wonk crystal meth.
It must have taken forever to put all of that together, even without sleeping.
Re: The Life of Julia
Posted: Sat May 12, 2012 10:28 am
by WildAboutHarry
Ah, for simpler times...
Re: The Life of Julia
Posted: Sat May 12, 2012 3:15 pm
by lazyboy
WildAboutHarry wrote:
Ah, for simpler times...
Ah, Fiorello La Guardia, "The Little Flower", was a hero of my parent's generation and the founder of my high school. He was one of a kind.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiorello_La_Guardia
According to Try and Stop Me by Bennett Cerf, LaGuardia often officiated in municipal court. He handled routine misdemeanor cases, including, as Cerf wrote, a woman who had stolen a loaf of bread for her starving family. LaGuardia insisted on levying the fine of ten dollars. Then he said "I'm fining everyone in this courtroom fifty cents for living in a city where a person has to steal bread in order to eat!" He passed a hat and gave the fines to the defendant, who left the court with $47.50.[28] But convincing proof of this anecdote still lacks.
Interesting, by today's standards he would be considered authoritarian. He must have been a bear to be around but he sure got things done and kept it entertaining.
Re: The Life of Julia
Posted: Sat May 12, 2012 6:11 pm
by murphy_p_t
I always found this quote to display courage: "If you love wealth more than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, depart from us in peace. We ask not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains rest lightly upon you and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen."
- Samuel Adams
What if this spirit of courage impacted our political process today?
Re: The Life of Julia
Posted: Sat May 12, 2012 10:27 pm
by MachineGhost
glock19 wrote:
I would have to assume that only a small percentage of unwanted/unplanned pregnancies are the result of "force". The vast majority are consensual, and in today's society it is unfortunate that the female is usually left to raise the child by herself, many times demanding the help of the government. So, if the female cannot afford $9 per month (or more) then how can she ever think she can support a child? Unfortunately and unfairly, the decision of the possibility of pregnancy becomes even more her's.
At first blush, it seems downright offensive that the government would be promoting and paying for the use of contraception when that would promote tacit promiscuity, but in actuality I believe the Julia reference was over the debate of insurance plans being able to offer Plan B or not. I'll leave aside any snarky comments as to why the government is even involved in such private business to begin with and just show this chart:
[align=center]
[/align]
The FDA approved the pill in 1960.
Re: The Life of Julia
Posted: Sun May 13, 2012 9:38 am
by Jan Van
MachineGhost wrote:
The FDA approved the pill in 1960.
And on January 1, 1970 the first
no-fault divorce law was enacted, signed by governor Ronald Reagan.
And I was born in 1962 (see the uptick, anticipation by women?) and started dating around 1978 (hmmm, weird)...
Oh, correlation does not mean causation.
