Bush and the Culture of Life
While just on the tred-mill, there was a special report given with President Bush addressing many questions from a group of reporters. I know that I indicated below that I would stay away from politics today, but there is so much there, I could not resist.
Bush was asked, by one reporter, what legislation he would propose to insure his stance on promoting a culture of life. He responded by saying that he wants to be sensitive and compassionate towards life and will do what is necessary to insure that life is preserved.
The whole right to life issue is in a separate category, as is stem cell research, but here is my question: How can Bush justify at he wants to be sensitive towards preserving life when, (1) he is absolutely unequivocally pro-death penalty, (2) many Americans here live at or in the poverty level, and find it difficult to support their own children on a daily basis (3) there are many who suffer from mental illness, and services and funds, at the federal level are being cut thereby diminishing the quality of their lives. Are the poor, the mentally ill, and those on death row less deserving of his compassion towards life? Do people who are actually alive have less value than potential lives in being?
This seems to be rather a contradiction to me. What are your views?
Thank you for your minds.
Bush was asked, by one reporter, what legislation he would propose to insure his stance on promoting a culture of life. He responded by saying that he wants to be sensitive and compassionate towards life and will do what is necessary to insure that life is preserved.
The whole right to life issue is in a separate category, as is stem cell research, but here is my question: How can Bush justify at he wants to be sensitive towards preserving life when, (1) he is absolutely unequivocally pro-death penalty, (2) many Americans here live at or in the poverty level, and find it difficult to support their own children on a daily basis (3) there are many who suffer from mental illness, and services and funds, at the federal level are being cut thereby diminishing the quality of their lives. Are the poor, the mentally ill, and those on death row less deserving of his compassion towards life? Do people who are actually alive have less value than potential lives in being?
This seems to be rather a contradiction to me. What are your views?
Thank you for your minds.
29 Comments:
Barbara, you have hit the nail thru the board. What I don't understand is that "they" don't get it!
Great post -- it drives me batty when I hear him go on and on about his culture of life. He seems deeply concerned about the nine months before birth but no so much about anything that happens after that. He's a walking contradiction, he's a hypocrite, he's a grown man who's unable to string together a complete sentence.
Since we all agree that Mr. Bush is a contradiction, why and how do you think he became elected to another term?
Why do so many people like him and buy into his one liners, and conclusions, without thought?
There have been problems viewing this blog. I am testing the ability to publish a comment. Please bear with me. And, no, I do not think this is the result of a right wing conspiracy.
These comments don't make a whole lot of sense. Meegan said, "...he's a grown man who's unable to string together a complete sentence." What does this have to do with anything being addressed here?
I am also pro-death penalty because I value the life of the ones who are murdered, and the lives of their grieving families. But, I am perfectly happy with no death penalty and having them imprisoned for life instead.
I think that pro-life issues can be addressed while simultaneously addressing the problems of poverty and mental illness.
I do not believe for one second that Bush is only concerned about the abortion issue and not very concerned about the poor and ill in our country. It's leaps like this that make these exchanges less than honest.
I disagree with dddragon. No nail was hit at all.
It is fair to agree to disagree, but I am curious, Jamie Dawn, how do you reconcile the two? Spending billions on a war abroad, and simply ignoring the problems and issues here at home? I think meegan has a very interesting point about the entire issue regarding the culture of life.
Abortion is a separate issue, one I will address in the future.
But I am curious how you reconcile the two concretely. This is not an attack by any means, simply an inquiry.
Thanks so much for your input.
My flip answer is, Bush (and conservatives like him) hold pre-human life sacred. Once the thing is born, it's on its own! -- looks like meegan already noted that.
I cannot tell from Bush's policies that he cares about poverty. I cannot tell from his policies that he cares about poor mothers. I cannot tell from his policies that he cares about health care for all.
He probably does care about the victims of violent crime.
I disagree that problems and issues at home are being ignored. It's just not the truth.
These same problems and issues have been with us during all the previous administrations, and no magic bullet has been found to deal with them. Were there suddenly no poor among us when Reagan was president, or Carter or Bush 1 or Clinton?
None of these presidents provided a cure all for these societal ills. They each made progress in certain areas, and they each failed in others. It's the truth. The problems we face as a nation are too complex.
I think that people decide they hate Bush or they hate Clinton, etc... and then they are blinded to all the good these and other presidents and leaders have done. I call it being harshly conservative or harshly liberal. When a person gets like this, they put blinders on.
When Clinton had us fight in Kosovo, I didn't start bellyaching over the money spent and how he was abandoning the poor and ill among us. Lord knows the poor and needy could have used those funds, right? He made a choice to spend money and to send troops. I supported the effort and rejoiced in the result. Could that money have been better spent? Some would argue, yes.
I've said it before and I'll say it again. Bush will be judged harshly for any and all blatant mistakes he made or makes, and he will be given praise for his accomplishments, just like every other president.
Presidents make hard decisions every day, and live under a great deal of pressure.
I have disagreed with some things past presidents have done, but I have never thought that any of them didn't care about the people of America.
If I thought that, I'd be one of those people with blinders on.
It is easy. Bush is in office mainly due to the evangelical revolution. These people only care about three issues, abortion, gay marriage, and un-separating church and state (they want to install a one-way door, with the latch on the church side). All other issues are meaningless.
So when Bush talks about "protecting marriage" or "the culture of life", he is speaking directly to his base. And because his base does not care about the death penalty or any other issues for that matter - they do not see any contradictions.
"They" do get it. It is the rest of America (myself excluded) that do not.
Just pretend that all you care about are three issues, and you will see.
And Jamie, while it is possible to blend a pro-life stance with other things, the current republican party does not want to do this. It is time for people to wake up, put all the B.S. aside, pay attention to what is really going on, and use the power of the vote to put everyone currently in office OUT OF WORK. And I do mean everyone, democrats and republicans. Send a message.
Doug, I'm glad you took the invite and added your two cents to this discussion. I hope Allen does the same.
"Iraqi children? Collateral damage."
You just wrote on Thornblog today, that you believe WW II was a just war.
Innocent lives lost in WW II? Collateral damage.
It's all in how you look at it. If you believe a war is just, you prepare for, but do not aim for, innocent loss of lives. It's like you think Bush is happy about the losses. Do you cheer the losses of WW II? Of course not. Do you still think the cause was just? Should we have done what we did, spent what we did, and lost so many lives in the process?
If Iraq becomes a stong democracy, and other surrounding Middle East countries begin becoming democratic as well, then Bush's efforts will be applauded.
If everything falls apart, and nothing good is accomplished, then he will be held to account, and I'll be right there holding him to account along with you.
The Bush administration believes that poverty and mental illness are best addressed at the state and local levels where efforts can be more efficient. Since the Johnson Administration the federal government has spent hundreds of billions of dollars and had zero impact on these problems. It's time to take a different approach.
Allen & thc:
President Bush today made a statement, without qualifying, interpreting nor exmplanation, that he was, and I quote, "sensitive and compasionate towards life." He did not say pre-born life, but interestingly this is how you have interpreted it, so for the sake of your argument, I will use that as the basis upon which to repond.
It seems, that meegan does have an excellent point actually, when she does talk about Bush and the right wing conservatives being more interested in the first 9 months of life, or beforehand, as opposed to the quality of life as it exists now.
I have worked in the field of child abuse for many years. Some parents are not ready willing or able to properly parent children. Adoption is not always a solution, as not all children are deemed adoptable, and some linger in foster homes, out on a limb for months, even years.There is abuse, molestation and much mistreatment of children. Under your theories, they would be better served if born, abused, neglected, lived in poverty, sent to prison and then put to death, rather than give them a solid, quality, life.
This reasoning does not make sense to me, but this is what I see happening in our society today.
As for the mentally ill, many are outcasted by their own families, with little state funding to protect them. Consequently, they end up homeless, and living a life of horror.
You are welcome to disagree with us, and speak your mind as you choice, but please, have aittle humility and grace. To call someone inane is not appropriate, and makes you appear to feel superior to those around you. You say that "something which will drive you away from, and is INANE here is to say that "Bush seems to care more about the first nine months of life than the rest." How, if at all does that differ from Bush's statement that he is interested interested and sensitive to the quality of life? His statement was vague, yet it was intrepreted by yoruself to include pre-born life, which to me, is exactly the point that he was trying to make.
Now I ask you why should a life in being have more rights than a life that already exists? We will not even go into the brutality of the war, and the many deaths that have resulted.
Wow! This question really caused some folks to be less-than-tolerant towards other's ideas! It brought out such strong feelings because it's a great post.
I had to go back to your original post to decide what you want us to comment on. You say that abortion and stem cell research are separate issues, however you go on to write, "Do people who are actually alive have less value than potential lives in being?"
When Bush says that he will do what is necessary to ensure that life is preserved, surely he is talking about banning stem cell research and abortion, as well as euthanasia, or even just letting someone die by removing feeding tubes.
As you point out, he is very much in favor of the death penalty. He doesn't mind waging war. I agree with you that he is very much a contradiction.
No president can correct all of our social ills, but he ran for the office, and then ran for a second term, so he must think that he can do a better job than anyone else. So if he can't address all of our ills, perhaps he should be trying harder to protect the QUALITY of life for those who are already born.
Allen,
To label me a leftist is not an accurate statement, and it makes me think that you have not really been reading what I have written. But on the other hand, to conclude that Michael Moore is a historian is also a great leap in logic. So for now, I will stay silent. Since labels and words are important to you, I would appreciate if you use them correctly, please. (I can almost see the steam coming out)
But so you know, I promise a very, very good topic tomorrow, something I think you will truly enjoy!
Tan Lucy, I appreciate the nature of your comments and sensitivity towards the issues dealt with here.
Quality of life here in America does if fact appear to be decreasing rapidly in many areas from employment, affortable health care, cost of transportation and down the line. It is an issue that I am very passionate about, indeed, and I truly appreciate your seeing it for what it is. Thank you.
"Under your theories, they would be better served if born, abused, neglected, lived in poverty, sent to prison and then put to death, rather than give them a solid, quality, life.
This reasoning does not make sense to me."
It makes no sense to me either. Who here is denying people a solid, quality life?
I would never argue against someone having a solid, quality life.
I support our tax revenues going to the needy of our society, and those revenues have been doing just that... under Democratic & Republican administrations.
What portion of Bush's budget actually goes towards pre-birth life? How much money is spent actually preserving this?
Conversely, what portion of the budget goes towards programs addresssing societal ills and helping bring a better quality of life to our less fortunate citizens?
How much money is spent on people in this country AFTER they are born?
There is no "ignoring" going on here. Look for yourself:
Go to the Health and Human Services website and check the facts if you're really interested in where the money of the Bush administration is being spent:
http://hhs.gov
I wish so much that these tough problems were a thing of the past. I hope someday they will be. But I don't blame Bush, or Clinton, for them.
I honestly believe that Republicans and Democrats would love to see these problems actually solved.
I did say I would have no problem with the death penalty being thrown out. I don't mind life in prison as an alternative.
As for wars and killings,,, I made my point on this earlier.
This has been quite a vigorous exchange of ideas.
I love this kind of debate and discussion. I'm impressed with sound, reasoned arguments.
I too have wondered this B. Look at how fast everyone was pointing fingers in the Terri Schiavo and how they were quick to lay the blame on the other party. But when comon interest came into play, everyone was more careful with their words.
I often wonder how much politicians really believe in what they are standing for or against or if they are going with the flow of the rest of their party.
Jamie,
I cannot answer the amount of funds allocated towards any particular program, as this is outside my area of expertise. I still am not certain that my point is being understood in the way that I wished it to be, however. I actually think LAZY IGUANA had a point about the subjects that conservative Republicans like to discuss, and for now, I will let it be.
Thank you for the website referral.And thank you for staying calm, cool, collected (not angry)as well.
Thanks, Barbara.
I hope you and all those who've commented will actually go to the Health and Human Services Website: http://hhs.gov
I have spent the last hour looking it over and comparing the budget of the previous administration (in the areas of women and children especially) and the current administration.
I think if people really will take a little time to actually check what is being spent, some of their fears will be put to rest.
I can't imagine anyone who has commented here, NOT being interested in checking the actual figures of funds spent in the past, currently being spent, and proposed spending on improving the quality of lives in our nation.
I'm going to try to keep this short because these comments are probably pretty well finished for the day.
Allen, although my comments sound like a "ridiculous statement" to you, I truly believe what I wrote. A lot of it has to do with the constant barrage of Bush's claims of "compassion" and of "promoting a culture of life."
I honestly do not believe that he is all that deeply concerned with life, as he claims. Obviously I have no way of reading his inner mind. But I don't think he is losing much sleep over the thousands of people who have died in Iraq. Obviously, this is its own subject, but it is odd for someone who seemed to have no problem with invading a country that did not attack us to continue to brag about how much he cares about each and every human life. My problem lies not so much with the statements themselves but in what I see as his hypocrisy. You may see this as "groupthink drivel," but I am very sincere in my beliefs. I am not making this statement so that I can fit in with the group or make everyone agree with me. I AM glad you commented, though, and I'm especially glad that Jamie Dawn did, as well.
Barbara, I'm really glad I discovered your blog. I also really appreciate the way you moderate it. I see you as someone whose "agenda" is to provide a civilized forum for people to bounce thoughts off one another. I want to learn new things and new ways of thinking -- and this seems like a place where that is encouraged.
Thanks, meegan!
I'm glad you found this blog too.
Name calling and conclusion drawing are something that I find inappropraite, regardless of the forum. Usually, they are signs of an ability to deal with issues in a meaningful way, in my experience. It reminds me of a child who becomes angry and says, I won't play unless I can play my way.
Please visit often.
last comment should read, 'inability' instead of 'ability.'
A quote from Meegan:
"But I don't think he is losing much sleep over the thousands of people who have died in Iraq. Obviously, this is its own subject, but it is odd for someone who seemed to have no problem with invading a country that did not attack us to continue to brag about how much he cares about each and every human life."
Let's take your logic through to fruition:
I'm sure you were REALLY angry with Clinton for sending troops into Kosovo when they didn't attack us at all either. And that horribly horrendous occurrence in Mogadishu. Just ghastly!
He probably didn't lose any sleep over it though.
Aren't you just furious at both Clinton and Bush? Back to back warmongering presidents! It must just make you furious with both of them.
AND, in our past history, we had the audacity to attack Germany during WWII when they never even attacked us. It was Japan that attacked us.
According to your logic, we had NO business declaring war on Germany and killing innocent lives there, as we defeated Hitler and Naziism.
Obviously, we have a long history, under several presidents, of not being very serious about being compassionate about human life.
Meegan, if you agree with the statements I made above, then you truly do have a foundational belief in what you've said, and I respect that.
If you do not agree with the above statements, then your logic is based on your personal feelings for who happens to be in the White House, and not on a core belief.
There's no way to know if our presidents who have overseen wars have lost sleep over the lost lives. I would guess that all of them have. They would have to be pretty darn hard-hearted not to.
Good grief, it's nearly midnight! Good night.
Allen,
I consider the words, stupid, inane to be name calling, yes, and I think they would be characterized that way by just about anyone.
Perhaps it is the tone of the statements made that reflect some anger and inability to accept a position other than your own. A contridiction, at least the last time I looked, is showing that one or more than one statement, when read together, makes little sense.
Which, in my estimation, is really what Mr. Bush is all about. If in your opinion I am insulting him, than, I will accept that.
Both most individuals, I believe would give a different meaning to stupid as opposed to contradictory.
Anyway, check out today's topic. It might be something you will like to weigh in on and give your opinion, please.
Thank you, Doug, for your great information, and statistics.
And I was beginning to conclude that it was futile to argue the un-arguable!
The right wing is full of hypocrisy and double-speak. The phrase "Culture of Life" is just one example. My husband and I have made a conscious decision not to refer to the anti-abortion movement as "pro-life" because the two are not remotely synonymous.
Hello !.
You re, I guess , probably curious to know how one can manage to receive high yields .
There is no need to invest much at first. You may begin to receive yields with as small sum of money as 20-100 dollars.
AimTrust is what you need
The company incorporates an offshore structure with advanced asset management technologies in production and delivery of pipes for oil and gas.
It is based in Panama with offices around the world.
Do you want to become really rich in short time?
That`s your choice That`s what you wish in the long run!
I feel good, I started to take up real money with the help of this company,
and I invite you to do the same. It`s all about how to choose a correct companion utilizes your savings in a right way - that`s it!.
I take now up to 2G every day, and my first investment was 500 dollars only!
It`s easy to get involved , just click this link http://adepyvok.freewebportal.com/igafyze.html
and lucky you`re! Let`s take our chance together to become rich
So this year I tried www.fxcm.com Forex trading and lost $1300. I was wondering if I can somehow put this on my tax return as capital loss and where I would put such an item.
[url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l_g8RMKfk5w]unlock iphone[/url]
Hello!
You may probably be very curious to know how one can make real money on investments.
There is no need to invest much at first.
You may begin to get income with a sum that usually goes
on daily food, that's 20-100 dollars.
I have been participating in one project for several years,
and I'm ready to share my secrets at my blog.
Please visit my pages and send me private message to get the info.
P.S. I earn 1000-2000 per day now.
[url=http://theblogmoney.com] Online investment blog[/url]
Good day, sun shines!
There have been times of hardship when I felt unhappy missing knowledge about opportunities of getting high yields on investments. I was a dump and downright pessimistic person.
I have never imagined that there weren't any need in big starting capital.
Now, I feel good, I begin take up real money.
It gets down to select a proper partner who utilizes your money in a right way - that is incorporate it in real deals, and shares the income with me.
You can ask, if there are such firms? I'm obliged to tell the truth, YES, there are. Please get to know about one of them:
http://theinvestblog.com [url=http://theinvestblog.com]Online Investment Blog[/url]
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home