Iyow - in your own words

Try to subvert the will of the voters again… and again…

The South Dakota legislature, dissatisfied that the voters struck down their attempt at banning abortion, has introduced a new bill:

Bill Number: SD H 1293
Summary: Prohibits abortion throughout all stages of pregnancy except in cases of life endangerment, rape, or incest. Also contains an inadequate health exception. Amended in February 2007 to add a section that automatically refers the bill, if enacted by the legislature and governor, to the 2008 general election ballot.
Sponsor: DeVries ®
Introduced: 01/31/2007
Last Action: Introduced

This bill adds a clause for rape and incest, likely hoping that change would make it pass this time, and added a clause that would automatically send the bill to the ballot.

But there's more

Starting with the good news…

Lately it feels like heroes are in short supply, and we all need a few people to admire, right? It’s like a physical manifestation of optimism, something to hang onto while you hunker down and try to weather the scary stuff.

Cecilia Fire Thunder, President of the Oglala Sioux Tribe, is a throw-yourself-to-the-ground-in-prostration kind of hero. This woman is going to be on a coin or a stamp one day, and not some randomly-sized dollar coin no one uses either (sorry, Susan).

In response to South Dakota’s draconian and misogynistic abortion legislation banning abortions, she has announced plans to open an abortion clinic on Sioux land.

But there's more

A Question:
How does one defend being:
1) FOR the death penalty, but AGAINST abortion?
or…
2) AGAINST the death penalty, and FOR abortion?

I’m not saying it’s impossible—but it seems taking either position would require higher-order reasoning and not a reliance on a pithy rejoinder like “I support life!” or “Killing is always wrong!”

And yet somehow it seems the first case (despite its inherent hypocrisy) is supported by the Right, and the second case (again, despite its inherent hypocrisy) is supported by the Left.

People who are against both the death penalty and abortion? Hmmm… how do we classify them? Well, I guess Catholics would apply here, but how many in the US, including American “cafeteria Catholics,” would find themselves agreeing with this?

Anyway, that’s a bit of a segue into the world of Latin America, where two leaders dominate the discussion among the incessantly bickering Left and Right in the Developed World:
FIDEL CASTRO
and
HUGO CHAVEZ

If you fall into either of two prevailing political moods today, then they’re both either:
DICTATORS
or
BENEVOLENT SOCIALISTS

Yes, I know they’re friends, confidantes, political bedfellows, ideological buddies, whatever. But isn’t there a clear difference between the two?

One of them was elected in free elections by his own people. Twice.

The other has not allowed elections since he seized power over 40 years ago.

So… regardless of how despicable or wonderful you think they are, one duly deserves the legitimacy of leading his people, while the other duly deserves the contempt of squelching the basic freedoms (expression, assembly, pursuit of happiness) of the people he is supposed to be uplifting.

Maybe it’s the ends justifying their means. You could be such a fan or opponent of their political/economic model that it really doesn’t matter how legitimate their power is. It’s just wrong or right.

Anyway, just getting this rant out…

(Yes, I’m aware that a precious few are willing and able to set aside today’s current polemics and render a more nuanced perspective, although I have to say, in my opinion, that precious few is really a precious few…)