INT. HAMAS HEADQUARTERS, GAZA CITY - THREE WEEKS FROM NOW
[Hamas’ top official in Gaza, MAHMOUD AL-ZAHAR, sits at his desk, surrounded by his newly-minted officials. A secretary enters and deposits stacks of documents into a box marked “IN.”]
ZAHAR: Thank you, Eth-el. Now, my friends, to business. Who wants to start? Ahmed?
AHMED: We have a bit of a crisis developing at the Rafah post office…
ZAHAR: Well, we’ve dealt with this before! Get a few lions of Islam in there to shield the people, and we will fire righteous missiles at the Israeli devils who seek to encroa-
AHMED: -No, it’s not the Israelis.
ZAHAR: No?
AHMED: No, it’s… we need more postmen. Plus, the new stamps have been delayed, and people are angry. Particularly Mrs. Ramla al-Fetayah. She says we promised to release the new-
[ZAHAR pounds the table forcefully.]
ZAHAR: Look, we are the liberators of Palestine! You’ll have to tell this Mrs. Fetacheese -
AHMED: Fetayah.
ZAHAR: Whatever - tell her [Zahar thinks, takes a breath, lets it out with a sigh.] Tell her we’ll approve the new stamps by Thursday. [Zahar takes another moment, breathes…] Okay. Haytham?
HAYTHAM: We need a strategy for the number 17 bus out of Abasan.
[The secretary enters, dumps more documents in the IN box.]
ZAHAR: Thank you, Eth-el. My brother, the strategy remains the same. Find a hero who is willing to martyr himself before Allah, pack his vest with explosives, and -
HAYTHAM: No, Mahmoud, it’s… we need to run a few more buses on that route. Especially at rush hour.
ZAHAR: So, blowing them up…?
HAYTHAM: …would further deepen the crisis. They’re at capacity already. We got an angry letter from Mrs. Naar al-Fetayah, and she points out -
ZAHAR: Wait, this isn’t the same Mrs. Fetayah, is it?
HAYTHAM: My brother, Palestine, like any country, is filled with Mrs. Fetayahs.
ZAHAR: Oy.
AHMED: What?
ZAHAR: Nothing. Look, don’t we have any pressing and dangerous security concerns?
SUMREN: Well, the water treatment facility at -
ZAHAR: No! I mean security. The Israelis? The enemy that we are sworn to destroy and will stop at nothing to destroy us? Yoo-hoo? Anyone remember them?
SUMREN: Actually, they appear to have pulled back to their checkpoints. They’re just watching, really.
AHMED: And snickering a lot.
HAYTHAM: Yeah, why is that?
[Pause]
ZAHAR: Well, what about Fatah? The corrupt, compromising, and overly-secular authority that we deposed through the righteous strength of our words and deeds?
HAYTHAM: Also watching, also snickering.
[Pause. The secretary re-enters, deposits more documents in the IN box, leaves. Zahar is now only partially visible behind the growing stack of papers.]
ZAHAR: Thank you, Eth-el. Okay, let’s keep going. Samer, what glorious and daring tasks do you have for us to perform?
SAMER: We need more public restrooms in the Dayr al Balah shopping district. We received a series of letters and calls from a Mrs. Wasela umm-Fetayah…
[Samer continues. A sound that is not completely unlike a soft sobbing is heard from behind the stack of papers as we FADE OUT…]
Fanny Roborat
52 comments
dee
January 29, 2006 at 6:48 pm
1كلّ سياسة محلّية
Which, if Systran is to be believed, is Arabic for “All politics is local.”
dee
January 29, 2006 at 6:51 pm
2However, when I translate it back from Arabic is “All politics is sweetening.”
That works too.
waterfowler
January 29, 2006 at 7:07 pm
3Very good, Adam.
cooper
January 29, 2006 at 8:03 pm
4fouler, بوش مغفلة!
Yes, yes. Be careful what you wish for, both Hamas and Mr. Bush.
Corwin Haught
January 29, 2006 at 8:27 pm
5Hamas ran on a vow to improve public service for all Palestinians, and have generally succeded in all the muncipalities in which they have governed.
Emmarie
January 29, 2006 at 9:13 pm
6Good. This was the entry I felt most cheated out of after hearing Saturday’s Wait Wait.
Normally, a Mrs. Fetacheese is trouble, whatever name she pretends to really have.
Maximum Bob
January 29, 2006 at 10:17 pm
7Whom the gods would destroy, they first make responsible for garbage pickup.
Zach
January 30, 2006 at 12:06 am
8Hamas does indeed run many public services and they are successful.
That said, it does not run ALL of them. Imagine how your opinion of The Boys and Girls Club would change if they were given responsibilities for ALL children in the US, as well as for healthcare, energy policy, securities and exchange policy, bond issuance, tax gradation, compliance with international financial agreements, etc.
Not that I would compare Hamas with The Boys and Girls Club, I merely use it as a point of departure for noting it is very easy to succeed in areas you CHOOSE to enter, far more difficult in those you HAVE to.
While I am loathe to use the example of the USSR because of how the neo-Cons distort it, in the first year of Trotsky’s work as the Soviet Foreign Minister, he attempted to simply rant and rave and shame the Germans into a peace agreement in WWI. The Germans responded by pressing their general advance until he was prepared to speak to them like a normal person.
It will be very interesting to see what happens when Hamas tries to be its badass self at a meeting of the NATO Mediterranean dialogue or UNESCO or some equally unsexy locale.
David
January 30, 2006 at 12:07 am
9Maximum Bob,
Or if it’s Chicago, for snow removal.
Off topic for the State of the Disunion Speech -
How about a signer in that little box in the corner signing T.S. Eliot’s “The Wasteland” and “The Hollow Men” as Bush ejaculates about whatever it is he’s been scripted to say?
ice weasel
January 30, 2006 at 12:31 am
10MaxBob sort of touched on this; I picked this up somewhere, I don’t recall where exactly, but the saying goes something like this, “should the devil succeed god, he would find it necessary to assume some divine attributes.”
Which goes to say that Adam has very adeptly put his finger directly on the most sensitve part of the recent election and one reason why I think a lot of the chickenhawk squawbbling is just that.
For myself, I’ll wait and see how Hamas deals with an expanded range of pursuits not related to martyrs or revenge. They have a decent record with some of the services they already provide, which is one reason they won this election, not just a pure hatred of Israel. Ok, maybe a pure hatred…
Linkmeister
January 30, 2006 at 2:02 am
11Bravo.
Adam Felber
January 30, 2006 at 2:07 am
12Corwin -
I’m glad you brought that up - I actually thought long and hard about it before I wrote this.
Eventually, though, what it comes down to is this: Hamas’ social efforts have been very successful. That’s why you see nothing about education or health care or relief in the above…
I wrote this because I can’t help but think that the bureaucracy and drudgery of running the entire P.A., the jobs that Hamas has by and large NOT overseen, is going to have a profound effect on the organization.
You can feel like a hero when you’re teaching a class or tending to the sick. It’s when your city’s sanitation force organizes and asks for more pay, or when you have to allocate construction funds…. it’s when you suddenly are no longer a force that is appreciated for generosity but a government that is EXPECTED to perform these things (at the risk of losing your jobs)… It’s THOSE times that will redefine and challenge the group.
That’s why I wrote this.
————————
But when you say they “have generally succeeded in all the municipalities in which they have governed,” I can’t really comment - Hamas only entered politics one year ago. Before their performance could even begin to register, they’ve won the whole widget… So to me, the jury’s still out.
Whether they succeed or not, they’re in for some surprises and changes, which is what I was enjoying herein.
Sharon
January 30, 2006 at 8:15 am
13“but a government that is EXPECTED to perform these things (at the risk of losing your jobs)… It’s THOSE times that will redefine and challenge the group”
The current “administration” of GWB is a prime counterexample. I can only think of one example (Michael Brown) of someone losing a job because of incompetence. The only other losses so far are due to being indicted.
Maybe the real goal of Hamas is to prove that “government doesn’t work.”
Friedrich Nietzsche (and you thought John Bolton had a FUBAR moustache
January 30, 2006 at 8:16 am
14“Let us not underestimate the privileges of the mediocre. As one climbs higher, life becomes ever harder; the coldness increases, responsibility increases.”
David
January 30, 2006 at 12:37 pm
15Wish Jimmy Carter were a Felbernaut. I suspect that both Israel and Palestine will be better off if the Hamas that provides social services succeeds, if the leadership is capable of transforming itself. Maybe not. It is certainly idiotically fundamentalist in its “religious” beliefs.
Hamas as a major force in Palestine is, of course, a creature of Israel’s making, just as militant Islamic fundamentalism has the west in general to thank for its empowerment during the past century. Multiple wrongs seem to be business as usual. Wonder if anyone in a position to do so will push for anything right in the Middle East.
Adam’s offering strikes me as a quite appropriate, and funny, riff on the current reality for Hamas. Reality for Palestine is grim, just as is reality for Haiti, the basket case of major power manipulation and occupation.
hedera
January 30, 2006 at 2:52 pm
16Nobody here seems to be making the obvious parallel with the IRA and Sinn Fein in Northern Ireland, the other major situation where a political entity with an armed terrorist wing is elected to national office.
I think Hamas, because of its proven record in social services and education, is actually superior to Sinn Fein, which is purely a political party and doesn’t (AFAIK) do local social services; but it has the disadvantage, and it’s about to find out just how much of a disadvantage this is, that the armed terrorist wing isn’t a separate organization. When the IRA acted up, Sinn Fein could always claim it had no control over them. (Whether anyone believed that or not is another issue.) Hamas in government has no deniability if the Qassem Brigades hit Israel somewhere.
If GWB really cuts off all aid to a Palestine run by a Hamas government, Palestine and Hamas will be in a world of hurt. The same applies if Israel, as it has threatened to do, cuts off the customs and value added tax payments to Palestine from the border crossings. This may be why Hamas is pushing for a coalition government. This is certainly why Hamas is begging the international community not to cut aid to Palestine; just do a news search on “Hamas” and that’s what you’ll see. I’m wondering how long it will take the Hamas leadership to realize that they can be an armed resistance organization whose stated purpose is to destroy Israel, or they can run the Palestinian government, but they can’t do both, especially not if they want to get any international aid money.
Maximum Bob, I adore the line about garbage pickup!
Femme
January 30, 2006 at 3:54 pm
17All that much-touted liberty and democracy’s a real bitch when they use it to elect someone our government doesn’t approved of. Wonder how many countries wish they could declare our current administration a terrorist organization and refuse to deal with Dumbya?
ice weasel
January 30, 2006 at 4:01 pm
18Well Femme, without venturing too deeply into deepest, darkest tin-foil chapeau territory, the real reason “real” democracy is a bitch for the bush administration is that when the bush administration uses deomcracy, the right people *always* get elected.
Next up, Diebold to expand into the middle-east with a grant from the scaife foundation…
David
January 30, 2006 at 5:06 pm
19“Next up, Diebold to expand into the middle-east with a grant from the scaife foundation…”
ice weasel,
I think you’re on to something.
cooper
January 30, 2006 at 8:53 pm
20While we’re thinking about Diebold and our buddy, Wally O’Dell, who worked so hard in 2004 to “help Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the President”, let’s see what he’s up to these days after all his hard work. What? He had to resign from Diebold in disgrace for securities fraud and questions about the e-voting machines his company manufactures and, incidentally, sold to the state of Ohio, among others, in time for the 2004 elections? http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2005-12-14-diebold-odell_x.htm
One wonders if W could win an honest election. Looks like he hasn’t been in one yet.
David
January 30, 2006 at 9:35 pm
21Cooper,
A reasonably objective answer, based on available evidence, is no. They’re working EVERY angle to make sure neither house of congress shifts to the Democrats, who are, after all, minions of the anti-Christ, so yes, they’re on a mission from God (aka Mammon).
cooper
January 30, 2006 at 11:29 pm
22Now that Western civilization is threatening to withhold funds designated for the Palestinian Authority after Hamas won the election, I’m sure the other Arab nations, swimming in oil money as they are, would never allow the Palestinians to go hungry. Nations such as Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar, etc. will surely step up and donate money and needed supplies to the noble Palestian cause and not stand-by, sorrowfully ringing their hands, gnashing their teeth and doing nothing but kvetching about their bad luck that Israel is still in existence and breathing the Arab’s air. The Arabs will surely not stand by and watch the Palestinians being abused like the Arabs have for, oh I don’t know, the last 60 years or so.
Sharon
January 31, 2006 at 12:04 am
23Another story about Diebold, even more devastating than the resignation of Wally O’Dell under a cloud of securities fraud, was buried in the back pages just about that same time frame. In the wake of the news that the Diebold machines could be easily hacked, several states cancelled their orders. It is my understanding that the federal “deadline” for replacing the mechanical lever machines with e-voting machines (under the Help America Vote Act, a misnomer in the same family with the No Child Left Behind Act and the Healthy Forests Initiative) has been pushed back to 2007.
http://www.bbvforums.org/cgi-bin/forums/board-auth.cgi?file=/1954/1559 5.html
hedera
January 31, 2006 at 12:53 am
24cooper, buddy, I read the article you linked on Diebold, and I didn’t see a mention of securities fraud anywhere. You must have gotten that information from another source.
The degree of tightness of lip surrounding the reason “our buddy, Wally” left Diebold is suspicious, yes, but not clearly indicative of anything illegal. He could just as easily have left suddenly because his ineptitude (see Sharon’s article on the ease with which Diebold voting machines can be cracked) is costing the company money and business; that’s a sin even boards of directors won’t forgive.
As for the Arab League members stepping up to the plate to support Hamas with cash: maybe when the Lobster appears personally on earth…
Candide's Notebooks
January 31, 2006 at 9:31 am
25Superb post. We’ve picked it as one of our two Best of Blogs posts in today’s Daily Bloggerback segment at Candide’s Notebooks (www.pierretristam.com).
Vinft
January 31, 2006 at 9:56 am
26Incompetent governments often have jumped on any opportunity to shift the public’s attention to an external threat. Even though it is devastating to the economy and the lives of the Palestinian people, the threat of Israeli missiles will keep Hamas in power far better than the threat of getting the garbage picked up. If people like Mrs. Fetacheese become too unruly in their complaints, look for an increase in “incidents” that will provoke a military response from Israel, and more interruptions in trash collection.
cooper
January 31, 2006 at 10:32 am
27hedera, you’re right, I was reading several links on this and connecting dots. My mistake. I should be more fair and balanced. What I found was that CEO and Chairman of the Board of Diebold, Walden O’Dell, resigned for “personal reasons” one day before a securities fraud class action suit was filed against Diebold, Inc. and individuals (hint). See here - http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story /12-13-2005/0004233556&EDATE=
That was unwise for me to assume any negative inferrences about a proud American “Ranger and Pioneer” for George W. Bush. He deserves more - 12 to 15 years sounds about right, don’t you think?
Sharon
January 31, 2006 at 10:59 am
28I’m sure Wally only resigned to spend more time with his family. And to let someone else clean up the mess.
RRRRyan
January 31, 2006 at 12:20 pm
29YEAH ALITO!
Harold
January 31, 2006 at 1:21 pm
30Sigh. The time to stop Alito was the first Tuesday in November, 2004.
Murray
January 31, 2006 at 2:42 pm
31Adam,
The SOTU Address is tonight. No drinking game rules?
I’m sticking with my rules from last year.
1. See the president
2. Drink my self into a stupor
3. Try to forget that he is the president
ice weasel
January 31, 2006 at 4:42 pm
32Murray, that is clearly a better plan than bush had for Iraq. Well done.
cooper
January 31, 2006 at 5:40 pm
33Harold, good point. Let’s remember that in the run-up to the 2008 election. There are many more wackos in robes out there. I’m just sorry Harriet Miers was prevented by the Republican raw meat eaters from getting her up or down vote.
David
January 31, 2006 at 6:16 pm
34RRRRyan,
Assuming you value your civil liberties, and especially if you have Libertarian leanings, be very careful what you cheer for, unless overturning Roe v. Wade is one of your sine qua nons, and the other is a Nixonian interpretation of presidential powers. Only one of those two wishes will be granted, and it won’t be the overturning of Roe v. Wade, because of the backlash at the polls it will set in motion (56% of Americans opposed Alito, if his confirmation meant Roe v. Wade would be overturned - and nobody polls more or more accurately than the Republican machine).
Pete IVDL
January 31, 2006 at 6:54 pm
35Great post, H’Adam.
Now, maybe the Hamas poll-aticians will be seen wearing “WWFD” bracelets. You know, “What would Fatah Do?”. Just thinkin’ out loud…
cooper
January 31, 2006 at 11:49 pm
36WWFD - good job, Pete!
Murray
February 2, 2006 at 11:18 am
37It’s possible that putting Hamas in charge will shock them into acting like adults and deal with the problems instead of just throwing bombs. Or it could go the way our own bomb throwers did when they took power in ‘94 and just lead to corruption on a much grander scale.
RRRRyan
February 2, 2006 at 12:20 pm
38David, I respectfully disagree on both points.
1st. “Backlash at the polls” does not effect SC Justices as their term is a life term and they are not elected. Thankfully, our founding fathers had a bit of foresight in that area. No polls are going to bully our judges.
2nd. The civil liberty question is a non-issue. I will again admit it could develop into an issue in about 1000 years at this rate. With people like you crying “wolf” hopefully someone’s still paying attention when it does become an issue.
Now if we could only resurrect one of our founding fathers on the separation of church and state question. They would be quick to explain that the purpose of the statement (because that is all it really was) was we should keep the government out of the church’s business. Not the other way around which it has become.
No, I do not think it is anyone’s right to destroy their child whether in the womb or out. Supreme court precedent is not legislated law but often has the same weight. RvW was wrongly decided and God willing we as a nation will remedy that. To those of you that claim to be Christian and believe in a woman’s “right to choose” to murder their unborn child purely out of convenience. I’d really like to hear how you have rationalized this.
The reason I ask for a “pro-choice Christian”’s response is because it is clear why a humanist would do such a thing. Convenience and self are their god.
RRRRyan
February 2, 2006 at 12:31 pm
39cooper, get your facts straight, your side of the aisle opposed Harriet Miers just as adamantly. I say it serves our President right for trying to compromise with cheaters. I was all for her as was much of the religious right. Though I like Alito much more.
It’s like playing pickup basketball. The other guy will push and slap and shove, but you do it to him and he cries foul or worse wants to fight. CHARGING??? Are you stupid? A good rumble every so often is good medicine but what a JERK. Don’t expect me to feel bad when your nose starts bleeding. Now you’re gonna sue me? You started the fight you idiot. … Anyway… a little bit of venting included for your entertainment. If you call charging in pickup basketball you should probably stop playing pickup basketball.
David
February 2, 2006 at 3:37 pm
40RRRRyan,
Of course the backlash at the polls I was referring to does not affect Supreme Court Justices. It affects elections. And if you think Karl Rove, who has said himself he isn’t particularly driven by what drives the religious right, doesn’t place electoral victory first (like Vince Lomabardi did gridiron victory), you haven’t been paying attention to Karl Rove the master strategist.
Humanists do not see themselves as gods. Some of them don’t see anyone or anything as gods. And if the question is the Creator, my response is I honestly do not know the answer, nor do I think anyone else does. People make metaphysical guesses and/or accept metaphysical beliefs.
So Grover Norquist and Bob Barr, along with a very large number of Constitutional scholars, are crying wolf? Interesting.
Go back and read Thomas Jefferson. Ben Franklin’s general take was that government needed to let people have their religions because he believed religious beliefs tended to civilize people. Might be the only thing he was a bit too generous about, although on balance perhaps he was right. But my reading of history makes that contention at least debatable. What I will concede is that a lot of the very civilized people I know also have religious beliefs, but I have yet to detect a necessary relationship.
Abortions are not performed just for convenience sake. As I have elaborated in other posts, I have had direct personal experience with loved ones whose health was directly threatened by a pregnancy, and who faced the very real prospect of the pregnancy killing them. I also related the instance of a pregnancy which did, as the doctors said it would, kill a wonderful young lady. So get off this “For convenience only” horseshit and explain to me how you rationalize prohibiting the ending of the gestation of a fetus when continued gestation would kill the mother.
Sorry that I got a little aggressive with the last sentence, but the memory of that needless death, even though it was 45 years ago, is still pretty powerful.
RRRRyan
February 4, 2006 at 3:16 pm
41The fact that you experienced it first hand doesn’t change the fact that only 7% of abortions are performed because of a health threat to the mother. Don’t even mention incest and rape, that is .06%. The other 93% are convenience. Therefore I believe the generalization is very appropriate.
My bet is the young lady you mentioned was quite wonderful, especially in the fact that she gave her own life in hopes of saving a child that about 3700 Americans throw into the garbage every day, even if doctors say everyone is healthy. She’s worthy of having a biography done on her life and I’d love to know more about her and her life. Did the child survive? It kind of chokes me up a bit to think that someone was so brave.
As for you, you should be ashamed to have not learned a different lesson from her sacrifice.
Please do elaborate on her story if you can/will.
Finally, I too know someone. She had 3 abortions, all for convenience. She now refers to them as scars that will never heal. She has suffered a lot and has pieced her life back together. She counsels woman considering abortion, teaching them the things that the doctors won’t.
Abortion is quite an industry. In fact shrinks have hooked up with many abortion doctors to offer package deals. The murder and the resulting therapy for one low cost. Okay, that last sentence is completely unsubstantiated. Much like global warming.
hedera
February 4, 2006 at 8:38 pm
42Getting back to Hamas (to return to the last conversation but three): In today’s NY Times article reprinted in the S.F. Chronicle, “U.S. supports Muslim ire on cartoons”, the last two paragraphs show Hamas in Palestine in possibly the most statesmanlike action I’ve heard of on this issue in the Muslim world:
Mr. Zahar, at least, clearly understands what being elected to public office means. I won’t make any invidious comparisons to any U.S. elected officials in the case of, say, New Orleans.
I might add that the article Bay Area Muslims urge restraint, in the same issue of the Chron, shows equally measured and reasoned responses from the local Muslim community…
David
February 5, 2006 at 2:36 pm
43hedera,
Special thanks for this link - kudos to Bay Area Muslims. I also found Hamas’s response intriguing. That it is apparently so surprising is also quite intriguing. This is one of those times when I’m reminded of how often, no matter how hard we try to be legitimately informed, we are still all too often stuck with guessing in the dark. I think that what distinguishes us from reactionaries is that we do want the darkness lifted, including by shining a very bright light in every corner of America’s current administration.
RRRRyan
February 6, 2006 at 11:46 am
44You guys haven’t had many interactions with Islamic people have you? The seemingly socially responsible response is not at all surprising. The only thing that would be surprising is if Mahmoud Zahar doesn’t then gather his colleagues around him and continue to plan out the demise of those same Christians.
After nearly a decade of work with Muslims in Kosovo one of the missionary families we support have come to the profound revelation that before they can become Christian they must learn what truth means. The culture itself ignores factual reality, for them truth is whatever you can get someone else to believe.
It is a deeply rooted cultural fact. Most of you have not studied their religion, but it starts there. They actually rewrote the writings of Moses switching the roles of Isaac and Ishmael. This only works for people who do not care to observe reality since the Pentateuch predates the Qur’an by about a thousand years.
Ironically American politics seem to work the same way today. Truth is whatever you can get someone to believe. When you watched the alJazeera news casts you have to wonder who would believe this stuff. Saddam’s aid proclaiming that the infidels are surrounded and fleeing the city. It’s the culture, truth is not true. :-\
David
February 6, 2006 at 11:46 pm
45RRRRyan,
I had headed off to college, so learned only that she had died as a result of the pregnancy. I do not know the circumstances under which she learned that the pregnancy could kill her. It could be that she did not learn about this threat to her health until after she became pregnant, in which case the dilemma for which they counseled with their pastor and over which they prayed might have been whether or not to have a therapeutic abortion to save her life. If that is the case, they did take the medical diagnosis quite seriously, which would make sense.
I was no longer active in the church, and to their credit, the people I knew thought that only what I related in the post was appropriate commentary back when they told me about it. There were no details except among their very closest friends (I was a general friend and admirer of what kind of people they were).
If they chose to risk death because they did not know before she became pregnant, the decision was either courageous or foolish. For me, it was sad.
But my point is that in general the Southern Baptist Church forbade and the law severely restricted the option of abortion, which would condemn her to death whether she wanted to die for the gestation of a fetus or not. In fact, I don’t know what she would have had to go through in 1959 in Florida. I do know my aunt had, in 1954 in Florida, what I think y’all refer to as a partial birth abortion because the hydrocephalic fetus was going to kill her. Details are quite sketchy because I was only 12, but in my family the important outlines of such significant aspects of human existence were shared with us as soon as we had the capacity to comprehend what was being said.
I reject your characterization of most abortions as for convenience. I do respect the efforts of women who wind up regretting the choice in trying to deal with their own feelings. I don’t think that regret should be generalized to or inflicted on other women who have chosen to have an abortion. I really object to the harangues women entering abortion clinics are subjected to by those who believe they are railing against murder.
If you don’t believe in abortion, don’t have one. If you can counsel a woman who has had an abortion and wishes she hadn’t, do. But if you can’t resist the urge to villify the other women, leave them alone with their own particular circumstances, needs, and relationship with God. None of those are yours to judge or dictate.
RRRRyan
February 7, 2006 at 11:30 am
46“I reject your characterization of most abortions as for convenience.”
On no basis? The facts are clear. 93% perfectly healthy just don’t want a kid.
“None of those are yours to judge or dictate.”
So using your same reasoning it’s none of your business if I “choose” to kill your next door neighbor right? After all, who are you to judge? In fact, if your reasoning stands then why have any laws at all? There was a living human being before the abortion and after they are dead, terminated, deceased. That is murder and it is my place to judge. It was illegal for decades and if my friends and I hold any weight in this process it will be again.
You hypocrite! You complain that wiretaps should be illegal because it “violates your civil liberties” but deny the right of a child to live. You want to understand righteous anger? It is not Al Gore getting red faced from his frustration over trying to get a man he hates out of office. It is a pro-lifer who values an unborn child’s life more than their own life or freedom.
Would you violate my “freedom of speech” by telling me I cannot shout “recommendations” to a young would-be-murderer? Of course you would, because it violates your agenda. I have never been so proactive. I stick to the peaceful marches, but I must say, you are inspiring me.
There are some wicked people in this world, their opinions and rationalizations attest to their state. If you chip away the shell of deceit it boils down to selfish ideals. Selfless vs. selfish. What do I have to gain by seeing a child saved from the incinerator? Maybe the privilege of knowing them, maybe they will even significantly impact the world, maybe I will adopt them and love them myself? That’s the most you could accuse me of. Perhaps you can claim I have a selfish need to control others? That’s a stretch but okay. I am not pure and selfless but I base my belief in truth on principles separate from myself. It must be to actually be true.
Civil liberties… That’s liberal code for selfish ideals. The recent Muslim uproar over these cartoons is so sickening, they themselves engage in the creation of cartoons that go far beyond the case in point, they claim to hate terrorism, but you don’t see them demanding the hands of the terrorists do you? They lie when they say they hate terrorism, they live for it and if you believe any different you’re a fool. They are much like the ACLU, how in the world can they be tax-exempt? Easy, they lie, they cheat, they steal, and when it’s all done they have a lot of self serving egotists to support them. God forbid a church, or even any tax-exempt conservative group (are there any?) should mention politics. The ACLU will be there to try to have their status yanked and keep the game fixed.
It’s all pickup basketball, and David, now I see you’re one of those crying “foul”.
David
February 8, 2006 at 1:54 am
47RRRRyan,
Gotta disagree with you, as you probably guessed I would. Abortion was not always viewed as murder, and it still is not by a significant portion of the population. There will never be consensus on this issue, and I suspect the numbers opposing overturning Roe v. Wade will remain above 50%. It is murder to you. It is not to me. You are confusing potential human life with actual, legally protected human life. Prior to our ability to determine when a fetus is viable as a human being outside the womb, birth was considered the beginning of human life. It still is in our law code. A birth certificate is not issued until birth.
Roe v. Wade correctly, in my judgement, uses viability outside the womb as a reasonable guide, but the exception for the health of the mother overrides even the viability of the fetus. That’s why I said premature delivery of a viable fetus, with the state assuming responsibility for care and adoption, should be an available option, if there is some reason the mother cannot or will not continue the pregnancy.
I don’t remember saying I wanted to deny your right to speak your mind. I said I don’t like the harrassment of women entering an abortion clinic. The difficulty is defining where the public space ends and the private space begins. That dilemma is now also being played out over the issue of gay-bashers hurling vitriol at the funerals of servicepeople killed in Iraq.
The analogy of killing one’s next door neighbor doesn’t work, because there is consensus on that issue.
You are operating from a particular belief system. I am operating from an attempt to understand what is and what is not appropriate for the society as a whole for the laws regarding abortion.
If your side actually gets the majority of Americans to agree that Roe v. Wade should be overturned, then you will have your way on this issue.
If a 5-4 Supreme Court decision, contrary to the prevailing view of the majority of Americans, overturns Roe v. Wade, the law will be out of sync the majority notion of justice. If, over time, the common sense of justice shifts and the majority agree with denying a woman the right to end her pregnancy, then you will have actually won on this issue. Otherwise, no, and this is what the Republican leadership fears, because protecting a woman’s right to privacy and protection from the power of the state, at least prior to viability outside the womb, will become an issue that will cause Republicans to lose elections.
I am sorry that you feel such animosity toward people who see this the way I do. It’s unfortunate that this is such a divisive issue that there appears not to be room for peaceful co-existence. I have no desire to impose my will on you. You have every desire to impose your will on me because of what you believe. I think it is misguided in this case, because I do not think there is a common sense of justice for your view within the society as a whole, so the only workable answer is for this to be a private decision.
I suspect we’ve gone about as far as we can with this pick-up basketball game, although that seems an odd way to think of a debate over this topic. I’m not sure anyone scores any points in this one. I think I understand your view, and I think I’ve offered all I can to explain to you my view.
Murray
February 8, 2006 at 2:33 pm
48David, yer dropping yer bucked down a dry well. Arguing with those who have been given the truth by God himself is an exercise in futility. (I’ve learned not to argue with those who go door to door trying to explain why their religion is good and mine is bad). When realities have no intersecting points, all words are merely vibrations in the air. You might want to save your reasoned and compelling arguments for those who will agree to meet you on common ground. (You know, like one that hasn’t already been declared wicked by God).
RRRRyan
February 8, 2006 at 5:09 pm
49Your view is interesting. So in an admitted state of uncertainty of whether or not to consider life life before viability outside of the womb you’ve chosen to call it not life.
I suppose we are in agreement of the uncertainty of when life is life. We have just chosen to error on opposite sides. I can’t help but again suggest that when in doubt the harder path is likely the right one.
Also I’m disappointed you didn’t respond to the convenience statistics. The above combined with this leaves me with:
“So you’re saying that since you can’t be certain that a child is actually a living being until it is viable outside of the womb it is perfectly acceptable for 3441 of them to be destroyed every day since their existence is inconvenient to the would-be mother.”
You certainly must see my difficulty with that.
David
February 8, 2006 at 7:06 pm
50RRRRyan,
If you frame it that way, yes I do see (and respect) your difficulty. We are operating from different assumptions. I choose to err on the side of the mother being compelled to continue a pregnancy.
Hope we can pick up on some other intriguing lines of inquiry. This one is likely at an agree to disagree stage.
David
February 8, 2006 at 7:06 pm
51RRRRyan,
If you frame it that way, yes I do see (and respect) your difficulty. We are operating from different assumptions. I choose to err on the side of the mother being compelled to continue a pregnancy.
Hope we can pick up on some other intriguing lines of inquiry. This one is likely at an agree to disagree stage.
RRRRyan
February 9, 2006 at 11:15 am
52Yes, perhaps I’ll find something interesting in one of the newer threads. So far, not really.
Thanks for chatting.