Wednesday, August 10, 2011

This feeling is familiar...

Today I feel much the way I did last December, after watching the Packers lose to the Detroit Lions.  At the time, I thought there was no way they would make the playoffs.


Deekaman said...

about the same way we felt when Obama was elected. Except, we are in the majority and expect to keep it. This time it's not "Republican", it's Conservative.

And while I'm at it, WE are not the "extremists". We are where we have always been on the political spectrum. For 50 years, we've been about personal responsibility, the smallest government conducive to essential services, maximum liberty and the right to do with personal property as we please within the law. It is the Left which has moved. Far, far, far to the extreme.

I think mainstream America is picking up on that. They certainly have in my home state.

"'Compromise' is always in the direction of bigger government, more spending and greater debt."

Ordinary Jill said...

Deekaman, you will always perceive reality differently than I do. You do not believe that global warming is happening. You believe that Sarah Palin is a competent and qualified leader. You believe that the Tea Party is really a grassroots movement, rather than corporate-backed astroturf. You assume that most people have similar beliefs.

Polls have shown that a majority of Wisconsinites believe that public employees should have the right to bargain collectively; not everyone who voted for Scott Walker expected the changes he implemented. Yet you interpret the fact of his election as proof that "the majority" want to bust unions, evidence from opinion polls notwithstanding. Dale Schultz doesn't want to bust unions. By mid-August, there will be only 16 lockstep Republicans in the State Senate. Most of the damage has already been done, but hopefully we'll see an end to the creeping theocracy that evangelicals would like to impose.

Deekaman said...

You are wrong on nearly every count, but again, we percieve reality differently. But you are wrong about my reality. In mine, I believe people have a right to their property. After the Constitutional requirements of government, there ae agreed upon social contract that we pay for. Beyond that, people have a Right to the protection of their money from collusion between governments and public sector unions. Until I have some certainty that will happen, I have no problem with the elimination of some collectuive bargaining. If and when I have assurance that collusion ends, I have no problem with as much collective bargaining as can be achieved. I do not believe in "busting unions".

There are indications that Wirsch and Holperin are vulnerable. That may or may not happen, but I do know your side put all their eggs into Darling/Pasche and it wasn't even close. This puts your side badly on the defensive. Kapanke lost because he is in a Left-leaning district and was lucky to have the seat in the first place. Hopper lost because he cheated on his wife with a (then) 25 y/o staffer. People still don't care for that. But he was still close to winning. The others were not particularly close. All these indicate vulnerability.

Dale Schultz will not go to your side.

Creeping theocracy? Really? You really believe that? I thought you were smarter than that. Bachmann's "pray away the gay" may have sunk her candidacy. All we want is to be able to voice our faith in public without ridicule, without it being a "hate crime".

We are not extreme. You have moved so far to the left we appear that way in your Madison echo chamber.

Ordinary Jill said...

Are you OK with collusion between government and corporations that want outsourcing contracts financed with your tax dollars?

There were a lot of eggs in the Olsen versus Clark basket, and that race was pretty close.

Schultz is a moderate and has already come down "on my side" on a number of issues. That will not change, especially now that he is the swing vote.

Any time government policies are changed to benefit a religious organization or to enforce religious beliefs, that is creeping theocracy. Funneling public dollars to religious schools and restricting access to birth control are both examples of creeping theocracy.

Deekaman said...

No, in fact I'm not. And I've stated it plenty.

54-46 is not close. Especially considering all the unions and the Democrats put into it. Complete and utter fail. A disaster of epic proportions for the party that, just over 2 years ago believed it had consigned the GOP and Conservatives to the wilderness for a generation.

Tax dollars only go to religious schools through a school choice program because the public schools are so abysmal. The public schools have failed the most vulnerable in our society and consigned them to a lifetime of failure and poverty. You are ok with that.

Birth control is not a medical condition requiring taxpayer funding. Remember that "choice" thing you Lefties are so proud of? Men have a "choice" to keep it in their pants and women have a "choice" to keep their pants up and legs closed. Or are we no better than the animals?

Creeping theocracy. Really? How come you aren't out there protesting Sharia Law in Dearborn, Michigan?

That should be your concern regarding creeping theocracy. Islam doesn't exactly accord a high degree of stature to women.

Ordinary Jill said...

I'm glad you disapprove of collusion with corporations as well. You do realize that the voucher expansion is being pushed by corporations that want to profit from it? The Milwaukee public schools are terrible. Some rural schools are also terrible. Most public schools in this state are very good. Voucher schools in Milwaukee do no better than public schools, so it is illogical to believe that expanding vouchers will give kids a better education. Cui bono? Religious schools and for-profit "virtual" academies. Meanwhile, public schools will become ghettos of special-needs kids (the ones that the private schools won't take, since they aren't required to do so).

You quoted the stats for the Darling race, when I was talking about the Olsen race.

Sharia law has no legal standing in Dearborn, or anywhere else in the U.S. I don't think you read that NY Times Magazine article you linked. I wish that the anti-Sharia legislative initiatives that are currently so fashionable with the right-wing also prohibited laws based on Leviticus (which has some similarities with Sharia law).

When I spoke of access to birth control, I didn't just mean taxpayer funding. Some legislation actually discourages private insurance companies from offering coverage. There is no public reason to do so; it is merely the hijacking of government by puritans. And birth control is cheaper for taxpayers (or insurance companies) than unplanned pregnancies. The pill is also prescribed for a variety of menstrual irregularities and other hormonal problems. The hypocrisy became obvious when companies who refused to cover birth control for their employees started covering viagra (not just for heart conditions but for erectile disfunction).

Deekaman said...

Schools that fail children need to be fixed or closed whether private or public.

I understand Sharia has no standing currently, however that it is even being discussed is concerning.

Can please cite legislation regarding birth control and private insurance? I would be against any legislation that either mandates or bans private insurance from paying for The Pill.

I leave you with this:

"Nothing is more senseless than to base so many expectations on the state, that is, to assume the existence of collective wisdom and foresight after taking for granted the existence of individual imbecility and improvidence." - Bastiat

Ordinary Jill said...

The state budget bill originally included language to repeal the state mandate that health insurance plans cover contraception.

On the federal front, the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion bill, sponsored Rep. Chris Smith (R-NJ), would void tax breaks given to companies and the self-employed for insurance premiums on policies that cover abortion. In other words, if your private health insurance covers things that the pro-lifers don't approve of, the premiums for the entire plan are now a taxable benefit.

Deekaman said...

Abortion is not The Pill. And I thought it wasn't "birth control" either. Why, I'd been led to believe that it was only for rape and incest victims or for the life of the mother. Birth control? You guys wouldn't have fibbed about that whole thing, would you? Nah, of course not.

Not only is abortion bad for the baby, it's not real good for the mother, father or anyone else connected. Unless they have no soul.

Ordinary Jill said...

According to the pro-lifers, the pill is abortion. If that legislation had passed, you can bet they would have argued that coverage of hormonal birth control should be treated the same way.

Deekaman said...

You really believe that? I know of no one and I mean NO one who thinks The Pill is abortion. I know some who believe that about the morning after pill (I remain on the fence).

Read less Daily Kos and DU, please. And get out of Madison and into the real world.

Ordinary Jill said...

That's the official stance of the Catholic Church. It's also the excuse given by the wingnut pharmacists who refuse to fill birth control prescriptions. Did you not hear of the case in north central Wisconsin a few years back of a pharmacist who not only refused to fill the prescription, but refused to give the scrip back to the patient so she could fill it elsewhere? Fortunately, the State licensing board yanked his license to practice for that stunt. However, "Pharmacist Conscience" legislation that would allow that sort of crap is constantly being proposed all over the country. I have blogged about it before. And I don't read Daily Kos or DU. This kind of thing happens in "the real world" all the time, but you have to pay close attention and read a lot of different news sources to keep track of it.

Deekaman said...

OK. Point 1: I do not believe you are correct on the stance of the Catholic Church and even if, so what? I know of no Catholic (and in Wisconsin, I know many) who believes The Pill is equivalent to abortion. Contraception is a Sin according to the Catholic church, that is true, but it does not equal to abortion.

Point 2: I have heard of pharmacists using a "conscience clause" to avoid dispensing RU-486, but never The Pill. Even so, if we are going that way, then you have no right to protest anything in your workplace if your conscience tells you to. No EEOC, sorry. Sexual harassment offends your conscience? Too bad. Failing to return a legal prescription, however is not only wrong, but probably illegal.

You are using a lot of HuffPo, Daily Kos and DU talking points here, so I just made the assumption. At least I occasionally stop by CNN and MSNBC, AP, Reuters, BBC, Australian and China News (among many others).

You are just wrong here and you are grasping at the conspiracy theory straws with no evidence. there is better evidence that Obama's Birth Certificate is faked than your "Theocracy" claim.

Ordinary Jill said...

Deekaman, citing your own ignorance is not proof of your arguments. You say you do not personally know anyone who believes the Pill is abortion, therefore no one believes that? And you accuse me of living in a cocoon? I'll be blogging from time to time about proposed legislation that is clearly creeping theocracy. You can choose to disbelieve it, just as you choose to believe there is "evidence" that President Obama's birth certificate is faked.

Deekaman said...

I did not say I beleive Obama's BC is faked. I said there was more evidence of that than "creeping theocracy".

Look, I don't live in some Christian Conservative bubble. I know people not only here in SE Wisconsin, but throughout the country and from all walks of life. I have thousands of first and second degree contacts. No one has ever, in my entire liefetime equated The Pill to abortion. Nor have I seen a story or comment frrom any Christian Conservative indicating that was so. Nor have I seen or heard of anyone (other than the occasional kook-freak - akin to the people who think we'd be better off if we were Cuba) who wants a Christian theocracy in this country. Being in Christian Conservative circles, you would think I would hear something to that effect and I don't. People wanting more Faith in our public lives, yeah. Theocracy? Never.

I look forward to seeing evidence of "legislation" that drives us toward a Theocracy. See, I understand that while one Administration may be benevolent, I recognize that another may not be so when confronted with having near-absolute power. Regardless of which "side".