It's about the numbers. Assume a clinic can see "x" number of people in a day and Minneapolis/St. Paul has over clinic times "x" people. Whereas clinics in the rural areas could see the same number of people, but only get a percentage of that total. It makes more sense to keep the clinics who can see the most people open.

Probably because the demand for the services in those large metropolitan areas is too large to justify closing one.

Your idea sounds good when initially looked at, but when you consider that each of those centers in the Minneapolis/St. Paul area services an average of X people, and the ones in the more remote areas services Y, it doesn't necessarily make sense to close the urban one if X is greater than Y.

You could potentially make the argument that the other 7 centers might be able to handle those left out by closing one in that area, but right now that would just be speculative I suppose.

valid points, both of you. could also have considered possibly a rotating schedule? though, there again, the overhead expense would probably make that prohibitive.

at times it seems that our government is falling backwards in time when they make decisions like this.

Nothing new. Societies under stress (think 30 years of wage stagnation and falling employment) revert to oppression of "others." The most readily available "others" are ... women.

Plenty of examples, from Germany in the 30s and the Islamic world since the 19th century, back as far as you care to look. My current favorite is, interestingly, colonial Virginia in the 17th century as described in Kathleen Brown's Good Wives, Nasty Wenches, and Anxious Patriarchs: Gender, Race, and Power in Colonial Virginia.

What blows my mind is how many woman are voting to shut down Planned Parenthood. I'd have thought that the woman who worked so hard to get the vote, and have control over their own bodies wouldn't vote to give up those rights.

SEEMS??!!! It very well IS falling behind. I'm old enough to remember a time when abortion was illegal.

@AaronMA, consider what D.C. Sessions said about societies under stress. Some people crave order and certainty much more than others, and in times of stress the desire for order and certainty increases. People want to feel safe and secure, and if circumstances aren't providing that, people may turn to authoritarian thinking and behavior in order to try to feel safe. That goes for women as well as men; and if people feel insecure enough, they may be willing to harm their own interests if they think what they are giving up will make them safer.

It's enough to make you think that the species name Homo sapiens was meant to be taken as irony.

Monk:

I agree with your words. Some people do desire order and certainty to such a degree that they are willing to do unspeakable things against their own interests to secure it. They have yet to understand that even order is chaotic.

I believe it was Ben Franklin who said:

"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both"

Totally apropo in todays atmosphere. Folks should think about that.

Wasn't that Jefferson who said that?

Ben

They want to make you pay and or suffer ridicule from the very same people for having to many children that you can't afford.

That's because they're Calvinists: you're bad ab initio and the poverty (along with pregnancies you don't want, kids you can't afford, etc.) are just evidence that God hates you. Since God hates you, it's the loving Christian duty of all of God's Chosen to do the work of Heaven in making you suffer.

Well, I don't have any "rich lawyers" representing me and kinda wish I did. I have 3 rich business owners; a nurse who ran against health care and whose husband is a doctor with his own clinic, which makes him a rich businessman; one former teacher who votes very well. So, maybe a rich lawyer would understand how laws work much better and not vote their religion. I would give that a try.

Reminds me of a car I saw the other day. One bumper sticker read "If you can't feed 'em, don't breed 'em" and on the other side an anti-abortion bumper sticker.

I thought, "Sorry, I don't think you can have it both ways."

Rome at its most oppressive time only took 10%. I say pay for what you use. The government nor anyone else should have to pay for someone elses sexcapades.

Only 3% of PP services go for "sexcapades" chem. The rest of it goes for things like breast cancer screening, birth control, and cervical exams. FTR (since I'm going to guess here that you aren't female) birth control typically is not taken w/ the intention of preventing pregnancy (although yes that is a benefit). Taking birth control typically has to do w/ regulating hormones and period cycles, which prevents medical problems in the future. Most men don't know a lot about why women use the pill. The pill also is used to help correct skin disorders and other physical/mental disorders like depression. You are also, yet again, ensuring that those who are least capable of taking care of themselves are the ones punished. This ends up hurting you and costing you more money. By paying for the planning upfront you then save yourself the cost of paying to support a child that the parent(s) cannot afford to support alone. So either way you end up paying for "sexcapades." Common sense would dictate you'd rather spend 6$ on a box of condoms than 150$ on monthly food stamp support. But, ya know, that would require being able to think about things for longer than a few seconds.

Well stated!

HERE, HERE! And, that fact actually exposes this "Pro-Life" movement for what it truly is: anti-woman. They don't want women to control their own bodies in any way and that includes birth control. Always wondered why the anti-woman movement chose violence and hateful protests to abortion instead of fighting for affordable, easily accessible birth control. Now, we know.

The poor can't fight back. Makes them an easy target for all.

WWJD he would tell you to go your way and sin no more. DA

I'm pretty sure Jesus would also say participating in politics at all is wrong, since you're committing loyalty to the wrong kingdom. Oh wait he actually does say that in the Bible. But when picking and choosing passages, why bother w/ what Jesus would do? I hear he was secretly a Mexican ;-)

Nah, Jesus was born on an Indian Reservation. [name that group for extra points]

DQ and Mickey.....you're both wrong. He was born somewhere in the middle east so obviously he was a Muslim. ;) And we all KNOW that we can't trust them.

(sarcasm alert...I don't mean to insult anyone)

Not really. There are a number of countries that are regressing in the guise of austerity right now. When given a budget shortfall, conservatives (regardless of their country) will use it as a tool to bring about social regression.

The same things can be seen in places like Britain and Greece, where budget shortfalls and debt are used as excuses for tripling college tuition, taking away programs that benefit the middle and lower classes, etc.

What is even more shameful is when what meager cost savings are actually created end up being transferred right back up the class ladder in the form of tax cuts for corporations and wealthy individuals.

I am unable to understand why all these republicans want children brought into the world to live in substandard conditions, get inadequate educations, and lack the proper nurturing to become the kind of adults this country needs for the future.

Having all of those suffering inferiors reassures them.

They actually don't I think. What they want is for people to just stop having sex. After all, abstinence is 100% effective (except for that once) and it's free. Have to remember, their rulebook is the bible.

"Have to remember, their rulebook is the bible."

They do a piss poor job of following all those rules in there. Even the simple ones that Jesus laid out in the New Testament are frequently cast by the wayside.

One of the things we want is for pregnancies to not be terminated. I would rather they remain in a world that I'm working on making a better place than choosing a guaranteed death for them.

We just want to allow the pregnancy to continue for a child to enter a world that we are working to make a better place rather than to be guaranteed 100% no life.

I would rather they remain in a world that I'm working on making a better place than choosing a guaranteed death for them

Really? A better place, you say? That you are working on?

You mean the place where the people no longer have no voice, the corporations and the rich run the government, the middle class no longer exists, health care is only for the rich, a right wing religious agenda imposes it's idealogy of morality on the populace based upon a mythological fairy-tale, women have no rights to their own bodies, a parasitic cluster of cells has more rights than women or children, a child can expect all the protection in the world until it is born, then buddy, by god, you're on your own. You will have no right to food, housing, education, health care, a job, clean water, clean air, or even the right to the pursuit of happiness because that is contrary to corporate culture....but "Hey! We got you to be born! Yippee!!! Don't you wanna thank us now?"

Is this the "better place" you are referring to? I just wanna make sure. It sounds as if you are all for the long, slow, agonizing, humiliating, demoralizing, drawn out death.

But hey..at least we'll have lots of little uneducated worker bees to keep those corporations running and to pay into the retirement funds of the rich. Cause the worker bees certainly won't live long enough to collect their own retirement.

They want future generations to be stupid...stupid, obedient workers, with silent, submissive women.

I think it's downright scary. Very, extremely scary. They want to take birth control options away from poor people, but at the same time never let any government funding go to helping those poor people take care of their kids. The only thing people can ever possibly do is stop having sex...but that's not going to happen. What, should poor people just never have sex? Yeah right. Poor people fall in love and get married too, are they just never supposed to be fulfilled in life because of their financial hardships?

While I do believe that you shouldn't have kids if you can't care for them, I also believe birth control should be readily available and cheap and also abortion needs to remain legal.

The logic that you want to give them a "chance at life" is poor. By that logic you're robbing someone a "chance at life" every time you wear a condom during sex.

And we wonder why people are having such a hard time. It's a combined attitude of misogyny and the hatred of poor people that are driving this stuff to happen.

While there may still be elements of higher abortion rates of girls in India and China, for the most part there is a lot of misconception about what goes on in India and China regarding birth. In the case of India there isn't government mandated anything when it comes to birthing rules, although the Indian government has considered as much. Aborting daughters over sons would likely tie back into the caste system, which is something that will only erode as time goes on and people socially evolve out of it. There really isn't anything more you can do other than to explain to each generation that it's wrong to adhere to such a belief. Social progression takes time- unfortunately- and education. I think we in the US are doing a pretty good job, frankly, of helping India w/ the latter part. I guess I'm a bit perplexed additionally how India comes up in this discussion being that India has for a long time been moving away from the caste system and legally speaking the caste rules have been thrown out. In the case of China, Americans seem to be unwilling to let go of the stereotype that it's illegal to have more than 1 child. It's not nor was it ever. This was actually a left-wing myth propagated under the same left-wing hysteria that the Chinese mass execute dogs and cats and what not. In China you are charged a slightly higher tax percentage and a one-time fee for every child you have after your first born. Therefore most Chinese only stick w/ the one child unless they are wealthier, in which case they usually pay the fee and the tax and have more than one. There may be a preference for male children over female children, but again that would require a change in the socioeconomic dynamic between men and women. Since we in the US haven't yet conquered that dynamic I don't know how we can begin chastising another country for adhering to the same behavior that we do ourselves?

It is also missing the point that in China, choice is removed from the issue of abortion. Compulsory abortion is just as heinous as the removal of choice. It is the denial of CHOICE that is the crime.

Preferring boys over girls is an old, old thing. I could pile up examples, but I'll just quote from one 2,000-year-old letter found at Oxyrhynchus in Egypt around the turn of the 20th century:

Hilarion to his [wife] Alis, many greetings.... I urge and beg you, be concerned about the child and if I receive my wages soon, I will send them to you. If by chance you give birth, if it is a boy, let it be, if it is a girl, throw it out.

Ya know, I have read about this particular phenomenon about the birth of boys over girls many times in various cultures. I have also seen the one you reference, Monk.

But, what I never understood, was how can a society, that depends on births to continue its existance, indiscriminately select girl babies as subject to abortion or "throw it out"? Women are the ones who give birth. You could have 25 women to every man. Kind of like the lions in a pride. ;) And I don't mean to disparage men or their contribution in any way (altho, I have met a few who should have been a poster child for condom use, a few women too. heehee)

....If a society continues to abort or kill the female babies......HELLO....then eventually all your women are past child-bearing age and your society or tribe will die out, or at least be severely reduced in number. What's up with that? Never, never understood that. Why do men absolutely hate women that much? I have several theories...but none that are suitable here.

It's weird, but it seems many times like people don't really understand that it's women who bear the children.

In the 19th century, for one example, when the Mormons openly practiced and defended polygamy, one of their lines of defense was to claim that it increased the number of children that were born. As proof, they pointed to the fact that men with more than one wife had more children than a man with just one wife. While that's true, it's also insane.

More recently, historians looking into Mormon polygamy have worked out that the average number of children born to plural wives was lower than the number born to single wives. That, obviously, makes more sense; but the mistake the 19th-century polygamy apologists made is one that maybe explains why many human cultures have 'thrown out' their female children, and that is to absurdly focus on the reproductive prowess of the man alone. That clearly is in defiance of actual biology, although no doubt it makes a kind of sense in the context of patriarchal cultures. Maybe.

Even in America of the 21st century, I'm not so certain that enough people really get how human reproduction really works. The American right certainly don't seem to understand it at all or they wouldn't be waging war on women.

I get what you're saying about a culture's "absurd focus on the reproductive prowess of man alone". That is, in a nutshell, one of my theories, given my readings. But, really...that's just effing silly. Like you said. It goes against nature (or rather, biology, which I think we can safely assume is nature). Man can be as prolific as he wants, but if there are not enough females to mate with, then....duh.....

And...allow me to play devils advocate for a moment....why do you say that it's "insane" when referring to one man with several wives having more children than with one wife? Don't get me wrong....I do not advocate polygamy. I'm a "soul-mates" kinda person myself....but....nature does show that many females only need one male in order to pass on the species. So why should humans be any different? I also happen to think that women should be able to mate with multiple males (contrary to polite society) in order to diversify the DNA and genes to propegate the species. The idea of polygamy, monogamy are purely human societal constructs. Not nature or biology.

Granted, there are a few species that engage in mating for life.....but...I am sorry to say...that it appears that humans are not one of them. Really, all I'm saying is that if men can have multiple wives in order to have more children....then women should be able to have multiple husbands in order to diversify the gene pool. To call that "insane" is to think that we human animals can overcome our most basic of instincts. Which is...to reproduce. Just like nature (or biology) intended.

And then of course there is parthenogenesis, where sexual reproduction is necessary only during times of environmental stress to diversify the DNA portfolio. Like those cool ass lizards awhile back. Hey, if you are going to play Devil's Advocate, have some fun with it and play God too.

Among primates and apes, equality in size between males and females correlates to likelihood of monogamy. By this metric, there is too much difference in size between men and women to make that likely. Of course individual tastes prevail. I have always been terribly drawn to women much taller and bigger than myself personally. That's why I'm happily married to an imperious paleolithic goddess.

why do you say that it's "insane" when referring to one man with several wives having more children than with one wife?

I wasn't intending to say that a man having plural wives was insane. If that is what I appeared to be saying, I'm sorry. I wasn't communicating clearly at all in that case. What I meant to characterize as insane was the insistence among 19th-century Mormon apologists for polygamy that polygamous marriages produced more children than did monogamous marriages, and that this indicated a screwy understanding of human reproduction.

While polygamy increased the number of children of the men, it did not do the same for the women involved. A count revealed that 3,335 wives of polygamists bore 19,806 children, for an average of 5.9 per woman. An equal number of wives of monogamists taken from the same general group bore 26,780 for an average of 8. This suggests the possibility that the overall production of children in Utah may have been less than it would have been without benefit of plurality of wives. (Stanley S. Ivins. "Notes on Mormon Polygamy." The New Mormon History. Ed. D. Michael Quinn. 177.)

Ah ok...I get ya. Interesting tidbit.

So it begs the question....Why is it important (from a fundamentalist point of view) for men to have as many children as possible? And why was it important at all for anyone to be having so many children? Did they think they needed to repopulate the planet?

I've read a bit about the Mormon religion and the only thing I see as to the reason on polygamy was because Joseph Smith saw it in his little hat with the "seeing stones" as well as, it was based in "true biblical marriage". But, if I remember right...the reason for that was to have as many children as possible. I never got that. But it's understandable from a particular perspective. Men could potentially father 1000 children while a woman could only realistically bear about 6-8 without killing herself or going crazy. ;) I just never got the whole "have bunches o' babies" thing.

Unless, of course, it's like that religious hate group in Kansas...oh crap...what's his name?...the one who the entire congregation is his family members and they picket military funerals saying that they died because America condones homosexuality. They carry the "God Hates Fags" signs. They hate gay people. Crap...what the hells his name? Fred something? Anyway...maybe that's how the fundamentalists repopulate their congregation? :) I'm being facetious. I really don't know. :)

It comes from Genesis. There's a passage that says God told man to go forth and be fruitful. From that more fundamentalist Christians- regardless of denomination- believe that it means you should have as many children as possible. What the passage means is that you should have children, but there is no passage anywhere in the Bible that says birth control is wrong, family planning is wrong, limited birthing is wrong (meaning having 2 kids is not any more or less bad than 6) or anything else that would insinuate that one is mandated to have multiple children. Even if you're trying to take the fundamentalist viewpoint the most you could possibly argue is that God intended for every married couple to have at least 1 child. After that? It gets a big more fuzzy (like knee caps- holla Firefly reference!) You must always remember that the Bible was written from the perspective of male dominance and that lends itself to the idea that men uncontrollably desire to spread their seed. This also, just as a sidenote, is part of why it's so hard for the fundamentalist right to understand the concept of male self control when it comes to pregnancies. Because in their world men want to have sex and produce offspring and they cannot help it and because they cannot help it they shouldn't be expected to. You, the woman, on the other hand should be expected to control it since you're expected to stay w/ the child until adulthood. And you wonder where that "breakdown of the American family" they're always complaining about comes from? ;-) Beyond that I don't think people are smart enough to realize that back in the Bible days the statistical likelihood of your child living to adulthood was marginal. You had to have lots of babies to increase the likelihood that at least 1 would survive into adulthood. Now adays it's the reverse w/ almost all children reaching adulthood. What's more in patriarchal societies there's an ingrained push to have male children (to carry on the family name, family property, etc). That still exists today. If the odds of your child dying are increased then not only will you want to have lots of babies, but you'll want to have lots of male babies. Or stop being sexist- ya know whichever.

Mickey is essentially right on the generalities of it. In Genesis 1 God says to reproduce, and so fundies think they have to pop out as many babies as possible.

As for the Mormons specifically, a desire to reproduce as rapidly as possible wasn't an actual reason for polygamy. The ultimate cause of that was the fact that Joseph Smith couldn't keep is pants on.

The Mormons had a lot of largely hypothetical justifications for polygamy, and the claim that population growth was faster with polygamy happened to be one of them. The Mormons in the 19th century were busy building up Utah, and population growth was a part of that. Encouraging large families was one way of achieving that, but so was encouraging all converts to emigrate to Utah.

But other than that, there was a theological motivation for large families which had nothing to do with the practical matter of building up Utah. It's important to understand that Mormon theology has changed over time, and that many Mormons of today are inclined to deny much of what their ancestors believed, but in the 19th century the number of wives and the number of children a man had a big part in determining his status in the next world. In Mormon theology, God was a human once who lived on another planet. All human males may themselves become gods. That's not something the kid missionaries necessarily tell you about, but it's still a basic Mormon belief. More controversially today, something that got more emphasis in the 19th century was the notion that each god ruled his own kingdom, with his wives and children as his subjects. So, the bigger the family on Earth, the bigger the divine kingdom in the next world. But that wasn't a cause of Mormon polygamy. Plural marriage came first, and then the rationalizations and mythologizing. Women were definitely and emphatically subordinated in this scheme, because while the men were busy evolving into gods, their wives would spend eternity popping out billions of spirit babies to populate the new worlds their men would be creating. The Mormon gods are probably not very big on birth control.

Ah yeah I don't know a damn thing about Mormonism other than Joseph Smith got his ideas from inside of a hat (RE: South Park)

Look up Mountain Meadows Massacre. Its a hoot. Then ask any Mormon about it. I'd love to see someone ask Glenn Beck about it.

Yep...know that one. You read "Under the Banner of Heaven", DQ? Amazing book. Scary how those folks think.

The definitive account of the Mountain Meadows Massacre was written by a Mormon, Juanita Brooks. Somehow, she managed not to be excommunicated over it.

The definitive account of Mormon polygamy is called Mormon Polygamy: A History by Richard S. van Wagoner.

Wrenching things back on topic a little, I just saw this on Think Progress: thinkprogress.org/health/2011/06/24/253392/gop-war-on-women-life-expectancy-declining/. Not exactly news, but a scary summary with lots of useful links.

Read some of that Monk. I'll go back when I have more time...but yeah, scary a bit. What are all these bonehead males gonna do when all the women die off? hmmm? Clone? Are they hoping to make women obsolete? It's a thought I've had before. And I do not mean to put all males in this category. I know that most do not think this way. Just the ones that people seem to (stupidly) continuously elect. Why do these people keep getting elected? That is what I do not understand.

Barnum's Law?

heehee....ahhh....yup.

I think it's key that people get out and vote...don't sit at home...go register...go vote! We can stop the madness.

I think there is a long term plan being orchestrated by the super rich (you can read that Koch brothers and their friends). There are too many states that are following the same playbook. They are taking away the rights of the minorities and women. They are taking away voting rights. I feel we are moving to a plutocratic or oligarcic form of government. If the "masses" are too uneducated to rule, then the upper class who have the education to rule will do so.

This is their long term plan and has been for decades.

Republicans have been pandering to the anti-abortion, socially conservative, evangelicals for 40 years and have only intensified. Now a days you can't even really consider it pandering since now the people actually being elected to offices from the Republican party are the very anti abortion socially conservative evangelicals that were once the audience being pandered to.

This is no longer a case of a political party trying to win the hearts and minds of a demographic. The political party now IS that demographic (and has done everything in its power to cast out those who don't fit that narrow mold as well).

Assuming you are right, that the party has been taken over by the far right fringe. That is not exactly what will win the general election. As Rachel has pointed out, Iowa has made itself all but obsolete. Left with a choice between the democrat and a rabid right fringe candidate, reasonable people are going to vote for the democrat...even if the people are republican.

Alienating 70-80% of the population is not a strategy that keeps the republicans as majorities in congress or get them into the white house. It doesn't get them into a position to do the other things they claim to want to do..."fix" medicare, reduce the debt, reduce government, blah blah blah.

I'm not a poli-sci major...I'm just a lowly engineer, so maybe I don't understand. It just doesn't make sense to me as a winning strategy for 2012 to have "pro-life" as the major accomplishment of the party.

It boils down to language use. Most political science scholars will insist to you that pol sci is more of a philosophical degree (indeed it is considered to be a liberal arts or philosophy degree at almost every major university in the country) than it is a science. The thing is, this really isn't so. It's just not necessarily science based on math like you as an engineer are used to deal w/ unless we're talking about economic policies. When we're talking about social policies, however, most would argue it comes down to personal belief systems. This however is somewhat distant from what actually goes on. Query- have you ever caught yourself wondering why a politician dresses the way he/she does, surrounds himself with the people he/she does (both on the stage and in the background facing the cameras), and why a politician will repeat certain phrases or words over and over again? This is because the audience member is acutely tuned in to all those elements, even though the audience member is primarily unaware of their influence. Republicans woo people by talking about "smaller government," "tax cuts," "right to life," "choice," "freedom," "liberty," and "personal responsibility." Prey tell- whom do you know in existence is opposed in principle to any of those words? When a politician says "small government" it is intentionally designed to be a vague statement. Why? Because then the audience member will fill in what "small government" means for him or her. Thus it becomes appropriate beyond what the politician actually did (or did not) say. So someone hears that and thinks "ah he's going to reduce the amount of cops in my city- because I hate cops!" and by doing so he makes an otherwise vague, empty speech have application to his life. Another person will hear tax cuts and thinks "my taxes will be reduced next year!" etc. The reason why Republicans can get away w/ restricting abortion rights- even though the majority of Americans are opposed to this position- is because the politician puts a linguistic spin on his/her words specifically designed to elicit a personal response from the audience. So instead of talking about it in terms of "I want to prevent women from getting abortions" they talk about it in terms of "I want to empower women to have more control over their bodies" (because who would be opposed to that?). Or how about "I believe every person has the right to life" (because who would be opposed to life?). "I believe every person should have the choice to live" (because who would be opposed to that?). See how it works? And then you just parrot that sentence over, and over, and over, and over. See the fringe will hear it as a positive statement, meaning the candidate wants to end abortion. The left will hear it as a negative statement, meaning the candidate wants to end abortion (lol). And the middle will hear it and substitute something entirely different. Now it will more than likely be abortion related, but it will more than likely be "yeah why should I have to pay taxes so that some whore can get an abortion?" or "she should have to keep that child as punishment for having sex irresponsibly" or "she should have to keep that child as punishment for making bad choices" etc. For most people this is where their mindset goes when they hear the "pro-life" language. When they take polls- however- the polls will then explain to them what "pro-life" actually means. It's only when the neutral consequences are presented to the person that they realize what it is they are advocating. Up until that point what they were hearing- what they were advocating- was whatever they heard in their head. Politicians know this and they deploy it artfully. This is why they don't answer questions directly, why they never lay out policy in specific or mathematical terms, why they use red herrings or other logical fallacies to derail questioning, and why they repeat words/phrases over and over. It's all done to manipulate you. So how can the right be so anti-women while simultaneously hoping to secure seats in the Congress or secure the Presidency? Because it has absolutely nothing to do w/ what their positions are, what their policies are (and the consequences of), or what they say. It has to do w/ what the average voter hears. The average voter does not vote based on a candidates policies, a factual analysis of those policies, and an assessment of whether or not said policies are good for him/her or his/her family/community/whatever. The average person votes for many reasons, but informed voting is not among the most common reasons. Hope that helps (sorry for the lengthy reply).

Also I should point out this is done by Democrats as well. I did not think to mention that before because John was specifically asking about Republicans. In fairness it must be emphasized that all politicians do this. It's not a Republican or Democratic Party specific.

That is an wholly believable explanation and completely disheartening. It means that people (generally speaking) go about doing important things (like voting), in an uninformed and nearly irrational fashion.

Is there some sort of program that allows me to go out and shake people (preferably really hard) and make them pay attention? That's one form of "community activism" that I would participate in. We could call it "shake and make" or some other cute thing.

Whew! *wipes sweat from brow* Holy crap, Mickey, I'm exhausted after reading that. ;)

That being said....I totally agree with you. :) I'm guessing that you have had some sociology, psychology, or pol sci training/courses/degree. ;) Cuz I think that you are spot on.

There....see how short that was? ;) Luvin ya..... ;)

@ John...yes...most people do vote while being completely uninformed. Scary, ain't it?

Statistically the majority of people vote solely based on party loyalty. Party loyalty is almost always decided by the family's political affiliation and in particular the parent's political affiliation. What's even more interesting is the majority of people who're registered as Independents registered as such because they claim to be disgusted w/ their party. The irony? Almost everyone who is registered as an Independent voter votes along their former party affiliation or the party affiliation of their family/parents. Statistically speaking if you were a Republican before and you now are an Independent, you are still more than 80% likely to vote or side w/ Republicans on political issues. The same applies for Democrats who then register as Independents. The next chunk of why-people-vote stats suggest people vote on 1 political issue and only 1 political issue. MSM usually is good about telling you about this (because it's simple and easy to discuss on the TV machine). So let's say you're mad about the economy and Democrats are in power. You're then likely to vote Republican solely because you're mad about the economy. Let's say Republicans are in power and you're mad about the Iraq war. You're then likely to vote Democrats solely because you're mad about the war. In both instances you are doing so reactionarily (yes I realize that's not an actual word- I TM it ;-)) and not based on whether or not the other party will change things. You saw this w/ the 2006 elections, the 2008 elections, and again in the 2010 elections. People didn't vote for the best candidate. They either were Republicans/conservative Independents who were motivated to go vote OR they were Democrats who thought they'd be "sending a message to DC" that they were angry about the economy by putting Republicans in. Literally speaking very, very few voters vote based on the platform of any one particular candidate. Statistically speaking less than 10% of voters can even tell you what the platform is of either candidate running for office. The next chunk of voters divides into trivial stuff like the charisma of a candidate, how well he shook hands, whether or not she's pretty or perceived as motherly, etc, etc. Most voters are not well educated about politics. Having said that I should point out that American voters aren't necessarily stupid. The problem here isn't that the American people lack the intellect to be better educated about political candidates. It's that we have a media who purposely misinforms or omits important information the voter should know, we have candidates and parties who have no compunctions about lying, and we have an advertising system set up to do everything possible to misinform people about their vote. Ever wonder why those fake astroturf groups start up? Because the average voter is unaware that they are fake and as such will easily believe the bull@!$%# the astroturf company puts out. I'm not kidding. People aren't inherently dumb, but they are ignorant if that makes sense. They work long hours, have homes to maintain, lives to live, and families to love and care for. They do not have time to sit and read through thousands of pages of legislation. The media is supposed to do this for the public and play the role of political watchdog. If something is proposed in the Congress that will affect you or I the media is supposed to tell you and tell you exactly how it will affect you. This way you can make the better political choice. The media now runs in 24/hr hysteria campaign mode, so now we've lost our political watchdog. Because of that you will only ever see elections tipping on a purely reactionary basis. I am not trying to be doom and gloom tonight (kind've in a bad mood, sorry), but it does make one wonder what will happen to our country if the press does not accurately inform voters.

I don't believe you have ever leaned to the right. If you want to see where the middle class jobs are going just look at the oil and coal industry. If you have an ounce of sense and a computer you can see that because of This Administrations policies 100 of thousands of $s and jobs are going over sees. He is just like George Bush. He just has different Friends (GE). We need to get rid of all of them and start over. I say you pay for what you use. If I get some one pregnant I should pay for it. I like how you demonize someone for not wanting to pay for your bad choices. No one is stopping you from paying for your own entertainment.

Honey, I worked all my life paying for my legally born children - and expected no one to fund what was my responsibility. It wasn't "fun" at the inception or for the 20+ years I raised and supported my children. I worked as an accountant understanding that no company was in business to lose money, but neither was it moral for businesses to turn employees into slaves to pay
the CEO's billions of $$$$$ for sitting in an office playing God. Oh, yes, I leaned right and voted for no Democratic candidates because I felt the smaller government was the better for citizens. Then came the wonderful Bush years - and the realization the Republican base had moved to a new low. Morally I believe that we each owe something to the people who are physically, mentally, emotionally needy or unable to provide for themselves - just because we are lucky enough to be able to share. I'm not demonizing anyone for not paying for my responsibilities, I already paid for them long since. I am simply stating that the party I used to find merit in has sold it's soul to the highest bidder. And just so you know - I have tons of sense and know how to use the computer very well. Now you go out and discover what a little bit of moral fiber towards your fellow man can do for all of us.

well if those that are better morally owe those that aren't I would like to start by having Lebron James sharing his money with me, because I know God gave him more physical talent then I could ever have. what a stupid argument. There are very few people that are lucky and become rich. most start from nothing and work hard to get it. I believe the role of our government in business should be to remove dishonesty period. If I want to give my money and time to those in need than that is my right. When you say Moral that is religion, and who wants to keep religion out of politics. For me I did spend Two years serving my fellow men on a mission for my religion helping others, at my own expense, and I would take any community project over Gov ran programs any day because 100% of what is done by those people help. not even close with the gov. Oh, use that computer and look up how much big companies are paying that support the Dem party. Dems and Repubs do exactly the same thing they just have different freinds.

So your saying? If I don't buy condoms for stupid people then all of these things happen? Really if we are worried about stupid people then maybe we should pay to have them fixed, if what you are saying is true.

For me I don't believe this crap for a minute. How about some self control. why should I pay for your recreational activities, or your lack of planning. By the same token I think my kids deserve to go to Disney Land, and since I can't afford it, or didn't plan for it I should still take my family and taxes should pay for my trip. This is how stupid your argument is.

If you can't afford a condom, and you can't afford or don't want a baby, and your with a piece of human trash man that won't own up to his responsibilities( either waring a condom, paying for the child or paying for the abortion), then don't spread your legs for him and a few minutes of pleasure. If you do don't expect everyone else to pay for your stupidity.

I do think that we as a society SHOULD have a fund to pay for rape and incest victoms, but not stupid people.

Yeah I know right? married people shouldn't be having sex or at least should only be having anal sex or oral sex. And since those forms don't pass STDs we don't need to worry about condoms. Nope.

Playing Devil's Advocate big time here, so don't take offense. But here in the great state of Oklahoma Sally Kern has stated that gays and lesbians are a far graver threat to our nation than Muslim terrorists and has gone so far as to try to sanitize public and school libraries of all things gay lesbian and homosexual. She has also said that gay organizations are trying to program children as young as two or three into the homosexual lifestyle.

If she's right, then the answer is really simple. When children are at that tender age you have to expose them to the kind of sexual behavior you expect them to adopt all their lives. That's what this country needs. Educational pornography for toddlers. How else do you expect to keep the gay away?

Like I said devil's advocate. Given Sall Kern's positions, it was the only thing that made sense. For the record I love my gay brothers and lesbian sisters my bisexual cousins and transgendered sothers and bristers. I defend the right for every teen to be puzzled as hell over their sexuality and I don't think that showing porn to toddlers is a good idea.