home

Fourth of July Afternoon Open Thread

Enjoy your day. This is an Open Thread.

Update (TL): I've added the graphic and will repost some thoughts from a prior year: Given our President's stunning disregard for the rule of law and that it's the Fourth of July, I'm wondering what thoughts you all have on patriotism and liberty and on how this Administration has driven a stake in the heart of both. For opposing the war, we're called unpatriotic. Our civil liberties have been disregarded by everything from the NSA warrantless monitoring program to no-fly lists, the Real I.D. Act and federal immigration raids on workplaces.

One of the best tools we have is the ability to cast a vote and take our country back. 8 Years of Republican rule must come to an end. November can't come fast enough for me, and I'll be voting for every Democrat on the ballot. I encourage you to do the same.

(Again, Big Tent Democrat started this thread, the graphic and update are mine. J.)
< Jesse Helms Is Dead | Early Evening Open Thread: Chimes of Freedom >
  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Happy Fourth (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by Lahdee on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 11:20:52 AM EST
    On this day in 1863 John Pemberton surrendered Vicksburg to US Grant believing he could get better terms on a Holiday. He did.

    The Fourth of July was not celebrated in Vicksburg for many years after that.

    And Mr. Lincoln? He spent the day urging Gen. Meade to finish off Lee's army.


    i know a woman over 80 in (5.00 / 1) (#205)
    by sancho on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 04:54:20 PM EST
    vicksburg who wears mourning black on the 4th of july in remembrance.

    [ Parent ]
    Enjoy the festivities.... (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by kdog on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 11:27:39 AM EST
    everybody, and this one goes out to all of you on this day of celebration of our independence....We Gotta Be Free.

    So Just Like Pepsi... (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by DoggieDaddy on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 11:49:00 AM EST
    It's all gas and no substance.

    Seconded. (5.00 / 2) (#12)
    by Fabian on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 12:07:53 PM EST
    Biked to third shift the night of the downtown fireworks.  Traffic is always a nightmare then.  Went down the street of a troubled neighborhood with residents setting off bottle rockets and other fireworks.  Contemplated how often people remarked they heard something like a firecracker when they got shot.  Was glad to get to work at the children's hospital, where the ER docs were standing by to treat the depressingly predictable injuries.

    Fingers are surprisingly fragile things.  It just takes a little damage to connective tissue to destroy a joint.

    Charlie Crist getting married in the fall (5.00 / 5) (#14)
    by ruffian on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 12:10:52 PM EST
    He popped the question to Carole Rome yesterday.

    Someone really wants to be VP.

    To A Woman? (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by JimWash08 on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 03:06:56 PM EST
    Err... nevermind. :P

    But, congratulations to the couple. From interviews I've seen with him on TV -- esp. on CNN with Wolf Blitzer, where he never fails to mention that Wolf's mother is a very happy resident of his state -- he seems like a good guy.

    My relatives and friends in FL, all liberals, actually have good things to say about him too; though I've not checked in with them recently in light of (offshore) Drillgate.

    [ Parent ]

    He's more tolerable than many Republicans (none / 0) (#130)
    by ruffian on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 03:40:07 PM EST
    I'll say that for him. I'm never going to agree with him on most policy issues, but he is a low-key guy and easy to take.

    He offset his offshore drilling sins with a big buyout deal for Everglades restoration, which from what I read he pretty much came up with himself, so I am inclined to be charitable for a while.

    My big gripe with him is the usual Republican obstinacy on taxes, even when it means gutting the university system.  

    [ Parent ]

    Bride-to-be is a costume company heiress (none / 0) (#153)
    by ruffian on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 04:07:28 PM EST
    Causing one dog-park cynic to remark this morning "Aren't they all?"

    [ Parent ]
    hehehe (none / 0) (#16)
    by andgarden on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 12:12:07 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Patriotism (5.00 / 2) (#28)
    by nellre on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 12:24:25 PM EST
    My hero is Thomas Jefferson. His writings reveal how he and our other founding fathers invisioned the future for America. He also cautioned us to what could destroy it.
    My patriotism is a love for that vision, and effort toward keeping it in focus.

    I hope our wisdom will grow with our power, and teach us, that the less we use our power the greater it will be.

    Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny.



    A hottie of the Revolution, my eHarmony soulmate (5.00 / 2) (#77)
    by Ellie on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 02:34:25 PM EST
    Enlightened, brainy foodie, master gardener, alpha inventor -- a pasta machine! how cool is that? -- and putterer and able to yap about it at a diverse table.

    I'd marry TJ (and keep Che on the side). Actually, either option wouldn't be bad.

    Damn, it's after 3pm and I still haven't had breakfast cause I've been doing brunch, lunch and blunch for everyone else.

    I've been so busy flipping I haven't had a chance to flop on the nearest lounge and chew on something more nutritious than occasional insects or the sticky fist of a random baby.

    Menu today: Japanese style buckwheat Okonomiyaki (sweet or savory pancakes w/choice of toppings), Freedom Muffins* and a cavalcade of grill and griddle fare .

    *It's my twist on the Corporate Clown McMuff or Corporate Ruling Class'ammitch.

    [ Parent ]

    Also ... (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by badger on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 02:56:26 PM EST
    "God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion.

    The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions, it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. ...
    And what country can preserve its liberties, if it's rulers [and candidates!] are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance?

    Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from
    time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure."

    [ Parent ]

    Heros of the Revolution (none / 0) (#195)
    by RalphB on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 04:46:18 PM EST
    We could stand a few today, or even one ...

    "The battle, sir, is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave. Besides, sir, we have no election. If we were base enough to desire it, it is now too late to retire from the contest. There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! Our chains are forged! Their clanking may be heard on the plains of Boston! The war is inevitable-and let it come! I repeat it, sir, let it come.
    It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace- but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death! " -- Patrick Henry, 1775



    [ Parent ]
    Commenter Andersen @ Corrente posted this link (5.00 / 5) (#31)
    by jawbone on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 12:32:56 PM EST
    to Jan Crawford Greenberg's take on Obama's takes on recent highly controversial Supreme Court rulings, then discusses his recent remarks about late-term abortion and no need to consider "mental distress."  

    Guess who on the SCOTUS agrees with that? Scalia and Thomas...so far.

    OK, I am well and truly scared of our Dem presumptive nominee.

    In a recent interview, Obama appears to back away from his long-stated positions on abortion (and a proposed federal abortion rights law he had co-sponsored), repudiate 35 years of accepted Supreme Court rulings on the issue and embrace a view on abortion restrictions that has been expressed on the Court only by Justices Thomas and Scalia.

    Obama's remarks are printed verbatim in the interview, published yesterday in Relevant Magazine. Read them  -- there's no mistaking that Obama says he no longer will support what's long been a cornerstone of the abortion rights debate: The Court's insistence that laws banning abortions after the fetus is viable (now about 22 weeks) contain an exception to allow doctors to perform them if necessary to protect a pregnant woman's mental health.

    Interesting addition to Jeralyn's post and the comments below. And, of course, what's a woman's mental health in comparison to having her bear a baby to term? As used to be said in the pre-Roe days: If men could become pregnant, abortion would be a sacred rite.

    Just remember that Jan Crawford Greenburg (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by scribe on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 02:37:38 PM EST
    is seriously tied in with the Federalist Society, though it is not immediately evident.

    You will not get straight analysis out of her.  Period.

    [ Parent ]

    Does mental distress (2.00 / 0) (#62)
    by tben on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 01:34:46 PM EST
    equal mental health?

    Given that "mental distress" is not some precise medial diagnosis, but can literally refer to anything, and need have nothing whatsoever to do with any real health issue, are you basically claiming that there should be no restrictions whatsoever on late-term abortion?

    Are you seriously trying to claim that Obama's position, accuraltly stated, is one that is held only by people like Thomas and Scalia?

    [ Parent ]

    If you don't like late-term abortions (5.00 / 4) (#75)
    by Dr Molly on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 02:25:40 PM EST
    then you are free to not have one.

    [ Parent ]
    Simple answers to simple questions (5.00 / 6) (#94)
    by badger on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 03:01:49 PM EST
    ...are you basically claiming that there should be no restrictions whatsoever on late-term abortion?

    Yes

    Are you seriously trying to claim that Obama's position, accuraltly stated, is one that is held only by people like Thomas and Scalia?

    Yes.

    This has been another edition of "Simple Answers to Simple Questionbs".


    [ Parent ]

    the first (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by tben on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 03:10:53 PM EST
    answer is, imho, a perfectly legitmate opinion and position. I just wanted to know whether that is what was implied by the argument here, as it seemed to me to necessarily be.

    The second answer seems extraordinarily distant from the reality that I percieve as I look across the American political landscape.

    [ Parent ]

    Do you actually believe that a licensed (5.00 / 1) (#121)
    by hairspray on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 03:29:36 PM EST
    physician would terminate a viable 3rd term  pregnancy if a woman walked into a clinic and said she had "mental distress?"

    [ Parent ]
    Of course not... (5.00 / 4) (#127)
    by madamab on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 03:35:40 PM EST
    it's a right-wing meme just like so much of the abortion debate is.

    "I mean, if those pesky wimminfolks had their way, they'd all be orderin' up abortions like we order chicken dinners! Lord knows they don't know what to do with their very ownselves unless we menfolks tell 'em!"

    The next time a man tells me what I can do with my own ovaries, I'll start talking about mandatory vasectomies. I hope that will shut them the f*ck up.

    [ Parent ]

    of course not? (none / 0) (#135)
    by tben on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 03:47:08 PM EST
    I dont follow your logic. Please explain.

    You too seem to imply that there would be something very wrong with such a late term abortion for frivolous reasons. Right? I mean, why else would you say "of course not"?

    So what is wrong with Obama saying the same thing that you seem to be implying? And, of course, what would be wrong with enforcing a law against such rare occurances?

    I am not sure how the little "wimminfolk" quote fits into this. There are many serous people, including (gasp) women, who feel it is entirely proper to have such very late term abortions, that do not endanger life or health, be illegal.

    As I try to figure out what exactly your postion is, it seems that you think the practice describe should never happen, but no man should have a role in passing a law to that effect? Does that summarize it?

    [ Parent ]

    republican talk (5.00 / 1) (#139)
    by Dr Molly on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 03:53:04 PM EST
    There are many serous people, including (gasp) women, who feel it is entirely proper to have such very late term abortions, that do not endanger life or health, be illegal.

    yeah, they're republicans. or they're people wanting to impose their religious convictions or morality on others. who cares what they think? they're are also lots of them who hate gay people, etc.

    [ Parent ]

    Doctors have morals too, you know? (5.00 / 2) (#161)
    by Grace on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 04:16:10 PM EST
    No doctor is going to give a woman a late term abortion just because she wants one.  That would be like cutting a healthy leg off a person just because they would prefer to be an amputee.  It just ain't gonna happen.    

    [ Parent ]
    but grace (1.00 / 1) (#191)
    by tben on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 04:42:30 PM EST
    the issue is not what most doctors would do. Most people have morals. Most people dont go around stealing or murdering. That is not an argument against having a law against the activity - even if only a very few ever break that law.

    [ Parent ]
    Doesn't matter. (5.00 / 2) (#196)
    by pie on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 04:46:24 PM EST
    That is not an argument against having a law against the activity

    You don't get it.

    I repeat: You don't get to say what I do with my body.

    You're not going to win this one.

    [ Parent ]

    I have no interest in (none / 0) (#200)
    by tben on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 04:51:10 PM EST
    telling you what to do with your body.

    Now why dont you actually track what we are talking about and focus your comments on the relevant issues at hand.

    [ Parent ]

    Wow. (5.00 / 2) (#209)
    by pie on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 04:59:06 PM EST
    You aren't getting it.

    It's none of your business what a woman does concerning her body.

    Any woman.

    If you're married to one, she may consider your opinion, as will a daughter for a few years.  If you have a mother or grandmother, she also might listen.

    But each is her own person who doesn't need someone to legislate what happens to her body.

    It's as simple as that.

    [ Parent ]

    Regardless of your feelings about abortion- (5.00 / 2) (#182)
    by PamFl on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 04:36:37 PM EST
    I don't believe that ANY MALE has the right to control a woman's physical, mental, or emotional health in ANY way. That includes the 8 male Supreme Court justices and male politions.
    Give them an inch, and they will take a mile.

    [ Parent ]
    Should I answer tben? (3.00 / 2) (#141)
    by madamab on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 03:54:12 PM EST
    Seems to me it would be a waste of time.

    [ Parent ]
    You Probably Should (1.00 / 1) (#143)
    by JimWash08 on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 03:59:13 PM EST
    Or he'll downrate you for no reason.

    He loves those 1s and 2s.

    [ Parent ]

    LOL (none / 0) (#148)
    by madamab on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 04:02:11 PM EST
    Troll downratings do not concern me. :-)

    [ Parent ]
    I think you're right (none / 0) (#142)
    by Dr Molly on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 03:55:37 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    tee hee :-) (none / 0) (#146)
    by madamab on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 04:01:20 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Madamab....NO...you are correct. Tben (none / 0) (#202)
    by PssttCmere08 on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 04:52:24 PM EST
    is on here everyday either baiting the commenters or insulting them, sometimes both and then feigns ignorance (although not completely sure it is feigned).  Welcome back...

    [ Parent ]
    That's what I was thinking too... (5.00 / 0) (#147)
    by Grace on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 04:01:51 PM EST
    There is no way a doctor would terminate a viable late pregnancy for "mental distress" unless there was something more to it.


    [ Parent ]
    Mental Distress (4.40 / 5) (#166)
    by waldenpond on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 04:22:54 PM EST
    Is a broad term that covers different mental health issues.  Having worked near the mental health field, I am familiar with the terminology...

    Mental Distress...generic (anxiety disorders, manic depression, schizophrenia, etc)
    Mental Distress... wikiMental Distress... Veterans PTSD

    Mental Distress covers a broad range of mental health issues.  My familiarity with the term... and active mental health event.

    The concern over Obama's position for me... what physical health reasons would he use as criteria, what mental health issues would he use as criteria... is a full-blown, suicidal schizophrenic event legitimate or not?  Where is the line?  My belief is the line should be determined by the woman and her doctor.

    [ Parent ]

    As I said... (5.00 / 0) (#170)
    by pie on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 04:26:06 PM EST
    they're changing the framing.

    We will not allow any return to coathangers.

    [ Parent ]

    well, that is not the law (none / 0) (#175)
    by tben on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 04:31:35 PM EST
    AS I understand it, and correct me if I am wrong, the states do have the right to ban post-viability abortions, so long as there is an exception for mental and physical health. Right?

    So it is not now a question simply between a woman and her doctor - the doctor must satisfy the state that the post-viability abortion is medically necessary.

    Do you object to this current state of affairs? Do you think there should be no legal oversight whatsoever, until birth?

    Or do you support the current state of affairs and just fear that Obama is playing into arguments made by those who want to erode the current state of rights?

    [ Parent ]

    At last! (5.00 / 1) (#198)
    by pie on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 04:49:02 PM EST
    Do you object to this current state of affairs? Do you think there should be no legal oversight whatsoever, until birth?

    You got it, dude.

    [ Parent ]

    I support the woman (3.66 / 3) (#203)
    by waldenpond on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 04:53:13 PM EST
    making the decision.  Obama's statements were contrary to a state having the right to set limits with exceptions to the physical and mental health of the woman.  I don't fear Obama is playing into arguments, I understand that he disagrees with the law....

    His words were that..... In an interview this week with "Relevant," a Christian magazine, Obama said prohibitions on late-term abortions must contain "a strict, well defined exception for the health of the mother."

    Obama then added: "Now, I don't think that 'mental distress' qualifies as the health of the mother. I think it has to be a serious physical issue....

    I believe it should be left to the woman as the legislation regarding the issue would be impossible to manage.  What is ok, what isn't and who decides?  Not me.  The issue of morality is personal... I do not believe in imposing my morals on a woman who makes this decision for herself.


    [ Parent ]

    but the issue is... (none / 0) (#154)
    by tben on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 04:07:29 PM EST
    should they be prosecuted if they did.


    [ Parent ]
    No, that's not the issue, actually. (5.00 / 2) (#158)
    by pie on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 04:12:53 PM EST
    Or it's an "issue" of your making.

    You won't win this one.

    Trust me.

    [ Parent ]

    win what? (2.00 / 0) (#169)
    by tben on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 04:25:27 PM EST
    Have you read the article that we are supposedly discussing? It relates to Obama's comments about the mental health exception (which he supports) to the ban on late term abortions. He merely mentioned that he did not think the exception should be construed so broadly (any mental distress) that it would effectivly legalize all such abortions.

    That seems to be much less an issue than many here seem determined to make it, and I wonder why that is.

    So yes, many people here seem to think that these type of abortions are wrong - no doctor would  ever do them. Obama seems to agree with them. But if some doctor did do one - well, should that be allowed? Should he be allowed to claim that there was some danger of "distress", and that be enough to render the otherwise illegal abortion legal?
    That IS the question.

    And I am just exploring these ideas. I would probably come down not too far from your position, but I do think it interesting to think about what people beleive and why.

    [ Parent ]

    Yep! (none / 0) (#177)
    by Grace on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 04:32:27 PM EST
    Performing late term abortions is a very specialized field.  It's much more risky than a first trimester abortion.  Most doctors don't/won't do them.  

    [ Parent ]
    And it's all about (5.00 / 1) (#187)
    by pie on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 04:39:44 PM EST
    saving the life of the mother when the baby is not viable.

    But this isn't where they're going, of course.  It's an attempt to make all abortion illegal.

    You don't get to tell me what I can do with my body.

    Happy Independence Day.
      :)


    [ Parent ]

    not many, but some, yes (2.00 / 0) (#126)
    by tben on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 03:34:40 PM EST
    especially if it were unambiguously legal.

    But it is an interesting question. By asking as you have, you imply that maybe there is something wrong with that. Right off, that seems to put you to the "right" of some of the commenters here.

    And more to the point - if that is something that no physician would ever do, then what is wrong with Obama saying that it shouldn't be done?

    [ Parent ]

    Not that I think you'll absorb this, but (5.00 / 3) (#134)
    by Dr Molly on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 03:46:43 PM EST
    what is wrong with Obama saying that it shouldn't be done?

    A woman's personal moral decisions about abortion are none of your business, Obama's business, the government's business, or anyone else's business.

    What an eclipse of history we are living through these days. We have heard all of these talking points and fought against them all before. It just goes round and round.


    [ Parent ]

    ok, I am just (none / 0) (#138)
    by tben on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 03:51:55 PM EST
    interested in where people really stand on these issues. It really is quite complicated, and lots of people, in my experience, act as if their position - not just on the surface, but down to first principles - are shared by large number of people, when there really is a lot of differneces on all the levels.

    So basically, would it be correct to say that your position is that the only legal rights or standing involved are the mothers - until birth, or cutting the cord, or some time around then? The fetus has no standing until it breathes on its own?

    [ Parent ]

    Read (5.00 / 3) (#136)
    by pie on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 03:48:16 PM EST
    this, and focus, if you will, on what is said here:

    Eight years after the anti-choice movement first introduced "partial birth" abortion legislation in the U.S. Congress and state houses across the country, it is still not recognized for what it is: part of a carefully crafted, national strategy to ban all abortion.  It's easy to understand why anti-choice zealots portray the bans as narrowly drawn for the limited purpose of stopping a certain late-term abortion procedure. The mystery is why many pro-choice leaders and the mainstream media have been slow to expose the reality that nowhere in most of the bills is there any reference to stage of pregnancy - not viability, not trimesters nor weeks of gestation. A simple look at the legislation reveals that calling these bills bans on late-term abortion is factually inaccurate.

    The term "partial birth" abortion cannot be found in any medical dictionary because it is a political term that anti-choice zealots made up as part of their public relations campaign to stigmatize all abortion. When talking about the bans, advocates use graphic language about late-term abortion that is different from anything found in the legislation itself. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), which represents most ob-gyn specialists, has rejected these bans, which fail "to use recognized medical terminology and fail to define explicitly the prohibited medical techniques it criminalizes."

    Just for starters.


    [ Parent ]

    Interesting (5.00 / 3) (#165)
    by nycstray on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 04:22:04 PM EST
    I always wonder how you could have a "partial birth".

    [ Parent ]
    this strikes me as having nothing whatsoever (1.00 / 1) (#145)
    by tben on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 04:00:58 PM EST
    to do with the topic under discussion.

    We are not revisiting the so-called-partial-birth abortion question. The issue is late term abortions - and yes there is a time factor mentioned in the very comment that started this thread - and the question of whether the effect on a woman's health is to be defined so broadly as to encompass "distress" of any kind - i.e effectivly making any late term abortion, for any reason, legal.

    This has nothing to do wiht "partial birth abortion". Pay attention.

    [ Parent ]

    Dismissive and ignorant. (5.00 / 1) (#150)
    by madamab on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 04:04:01 PM EST
    What a winning combination.

    [ Parent ]
    Uh huh. (5.00 / 2) (#162)
    by pie on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 04:16:24 PM EST
    They've just changed the framing.

    [ Parent ]
    You have no idea what you (5.00 / 2) (#137)
    by hairspray on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 03:51:53 PM EST
    are talking about. You pose a ciruclar argument in your last thought.  But more to the point, do you know of "some" physicians who have actually aborted live fetuses and then smothered them as they took their first breath when there was no medical justification for the abortion? If you believe that you really don't know what you are talking about.

    [ Parent ]
    i am not sure how you define circular (none / 0) (#151)
    by tben on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 04:05:56 PM EST
    I think my last line makes perfect sense.

    And the issue is not aborting live fetuses either. Geez people are you guys actually reading the original comment and the link, before you start spouting off about my comments?

    The issue is late-term abortions and how one crafts the mental health exemption to the current ban on such abortions. Obama supports the mental health exception - unambiguously, even though Greenburg falsly claims he doesnt. He just doesnt think it should include any old "distress" - i.e. that it really should be limited to cases where there really is a danger to health. Whats wrong with that?

    [ Parent ]

    Obama's an idiot (5.00 / 2) (#156)
    by pie on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 04:11:33 PM EST
    if he goes anywhere near this issue.

    I'll kick his a$$ myself.

    [ Parent ]

    Who do you think (5.00 / 1) (#189)
    by PamFl on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 04:40:57 PM EST
    should be designated to make this decision of a woman's mental or emotional health?

    [ Parent ]
    ah! someone (2.00 / 0) (#199)
    by tben on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 04:49:13 PM EST
    who is actually tracking the real issue.

    I think it primarily should be made by the woman's doctor, of course. But there is oversignt of doctors, no?

    If a doctor said that continuing a pregnancy would lead to highly dangerous blood pressure levels, and so a physical exception to the abortion ban were justified - but if fact he just made that up and there was no real danger - then how is that overseen, discovered, adjudicated? I imagine it would be the same for any spurious mental health diagnoses.

    No doubt it would be rare, but I think a lot of people feel it important - because a fetus that has reached viability is seen as having some right to some consideration.

    [ Parent ]

    Wrong again. (5.00 / 2) (#201)
    by pie on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 04:52:14 PM EST
    who is actually tracking the real issue.

    No one gets to decide.

    tben, I think you should get pregnant.

    Really, I do.

    [ Parent ]

    'Any Old Distress' (5.00 / 1) (#213)
    by daring grace on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 05:07:18 PM EST
    I confess I'm feeling kind of holiday-lazy and not interested in googling right now.

    Is this really an issue? I mean, my sense is that the vast majority of abortions are performed in the first trimester and that those done afterwards are largely related to health issues.

    When I read this statement by Obama, I found myself questioning what the point of making this point is, beyond (yes, sorry to say, it feels this way to me) some kind of low grade pander. Low grade because it could (does) serve to infuriate a substantial part of his base while gaining him little, if any, ground from the other side.

    Is this an issue really, based on the numbers, or what?

    [ Parent ]

    Yes, what you are arguing is. (none / 0) (#172)
    by Grace on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 04:27:42 PM EST
    And the issue is not aborting live fetuses either.

    A fetus that is 7+ months (which is the definition of late term:  3rd trimester) is a viable baby!  (Unless there is something seriously wrong with it!)  

    [ Parent ]

    Exactly!!! (5.00 / 0) (#181)
    by pie on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 04:35:06 PM EST
    A fetus that is 7+ months (which is the definition of late term:  3rd trimester) is a viable baby!  (Unless there is something seriously wrong with it!)

    Effingdemocrats.  

    Those who can't stand for something stand for nothing.

    [ Parent ]

    actually no (none / 0) (#186)
    by tben on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 04:39:39 PM EST
    its considered a baby if it is delivered. The term "fetus" applies till birth.

    [ Parent ]
    Happy 4th July TL readers (5.00 / 5) (#33)
    by outsider on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 12:33:40 PM EST
    I stopped by here for a while during the primaries to join in the discussion, and indulge my interest in US politics, although oddly I'm a Brit (you won't be surprised to hear that most of us badly want to see a Dem back in the White House, though my choice was for HRC - hence my gravitation towards this site).  But I enjoyed the site enough that I still pop by for a read every now and again... Anyway, all the best from across the pond!

    I vow (5.00 / 7) (#39)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 12:37:16 PM EST
    To support and vote for every Democrat who stands for Democratic Principles.  You can count on that.

    The rest? The DINO's?  Not so much.

    The problem with our latest contender (5.00 / 3) (#125)
    by hairspray on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 03:34:32 PM EST
    is that he is not a Democrat, he is an independent and therefore a basic tenent of the FDR Democratic party, 'to improve the material well being of the lowliest citizens of our country' is not an issue. In fact Michelle Obama complimented Hillary for making them aware of the plight of so many of our citizens!  Oh well, maybe the Stevensonian wing of the party is still part of the Democratic party.  But first we must have moral and inner renewal.

    [ Parent ]
    Anglachel (5.00 / 4) (#133)
    by Valhalla on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 03:44:14 PM EST
    had a great post on this very thing.

    [ Parent ]
    Absolutely the best thing I have (5.00 / 2) (#140)
    by hairspray on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 03:53:51 PM EST
    read on why the Democratic party is split almost down the middle.

    [ Parent ]
    ah yes the 4th of July, Independence day (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by thereyougo on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 12:45:40 PM EST
    Increasingly the country finds itself losing more of it to corporations while taxpayer funds pay for wars on their behalf and the words associated with the 4th of July, freedom and liberty, pose threats to national security - so we are told.

    Not much into celebrating that!

    It's my birthday (5.00 / 9) (#53)
    by JavaCityPal on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 12:56:20 PM EST
    Not as old as the USA, and not young enough to invite clowns to the party.

    :)

    [ Parent ]

    Hey, Happy Birthday! (-: (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by thereyougo on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 01:33:05 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Java....you are never too old to invite (5.00 / 2) (#70)
    by PssttCmere08 on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 02:12:15 PM EST
    clowns to your party...how are you doing?

    [ Parent ]
    Happy Birthday Java (5.00 / 2) (#89)
    by ruffian on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 02:55:16 PM EST
    And my best to you and your family.  I've been thinking of you since your post the other day.

    [ Parent ]
    Happy Bithday!!!!!!!!!! (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by Maria Garcia on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 03:06:19 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Happy Birthday! (5.00 / 1) (#98)
    by madamab on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 03:08:28 PM EST
    And many happy returns!

    [ Parent ]
    Happy Birthday! (5.00 / 1) (#211)
    by RalphB on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 05:05:07 PM EST
    send in the clowns, it couldn't hurt

    [ Parent ]
    Happy Birthday Java! (none / 0) (#101)
    by JimWash08 on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 03:11:44 PM EST
    Hope you are having a great Fourth; what an honor!

    ---

    And Happy Fourth to one and all; Webmistress, Webmasters and visitors at TalkLeft!

    [ Parent ]

    Happiest of Birthdays to you, Java! (none / 0) (#118)
    by Anne on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 03:25:21 PM EST
    Will include a birthday wish for you with the one I am making for the country!

    [ Parent ]
    After some of the other comments, (5.00 / 1) (#208)
    by Anne on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 04:58:34 PM EST
     I realized I must have missed something from the other night.  Java, I clicked on your name to see your recent comments and saw what everyone was referring to.

    I feel so terrible wishing you the happiest of birthdays, when of course, this may be one of the worst.

    Deepest apologies and heartfelt sympathy for you and your family.

    [ Parent ]

    Nice to see you posting; you were in our thoughts (none / 0) (#128)
    by Ellie on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 03:35:43 PM EST
    Happy Planetary Arrival Day!

    Throwing this out for the freak-factor, since this is an idiosyncratically important weekend for myself, too -- ;-D -- how freaky is this ... ?!?

    I always get calls from two of my ex-boyfriends on this day. They're on different continents. They always call at the same time, so that while I'm talking to one, it's virtually guaranteed that the other will be on my voicemail shouting out wishes and tunes.

    How's that for star-crossed lovers?

    It. Happened. Again. Today. Just. Moments. Ago.

    (Oh, and I know they don't arrange this because they hate each other.)

    [ Parent ]

    You must be very independent (5.00 / 2) (#132)
    by ruffian on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 03:42:46 PM EST
    and Independence Day reminds them of you!

    [ Parent ]
    HAPPY BIRTHDAY (none / 0) (#178)
    by Jackson Hunter on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 04:33:48 PM EST
    I hope that you have a great one JCP!

    Jackson

    [ Parent ]

    Happy birthday! (none / 0) (#190)
    by Grace on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 04:41:49 PM EST
    and here's to many more!!  :)

    [ Parent ]
    but a good day to BBQ. :-) (none / 0) (#47)
    by thereyougo on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 12:48:04 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    On patriotism and liberty (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by ruffian on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 12:47:53 PM EST
    What has been lost over time is the idea that citizens need to have the courage to defend liberty. We all salute the courage of our men and women in uniform, as of course we should, but we need the same courage here at home so that we do not hand our liberties over to the government in the name of security.  We can't expect the people in the military to be the only ones prepared to die for our ideals and liberties.

    We have not done a good enough job communicating our courage to our leaders.  And they have not done anything to model courage to us.


    Okay, I admit it. I'm wearing my flag shirt (5.00 / 4) (#51)
    by Cream City on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 12:52:19 PM EST
    that I found on sale years ago.  It comes out once a year, if only to embarrass my children, fated to have an American historian for a mom.  The flag shirt is the least of it.  You oughta hear their riff on some of our dinner-table conversations.  Okay, so I talk in footnotes sometimes.:-)

    And yes! the musical 1776 is on tap tonight, as ever, when they will be here to again have to endure hearing me sing along . . . and see me getting all moved by so many marvelous, poignant moments amid the laffs.  For those here who may not ever have seen it, don't miss it.  I'll be the first to admit that sometimes history is taught better with a bit of fictionalizing to fill it in.  And music.

    My husband and I drove our smart car (none / 0) (#129)
    by hairspray on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 03:39:31 PM EST
    in the annual 4th parade (small town-77k) with flags and banners, etc. It was a celebration to include conservation and green.  I admit to cringing at the words of one song "It won't be over til its over over there, and the yanks are coming." What George has done to my love of country is shameful.

    [ Parent ]
    When was the first 4th of July Celebrated? (5.00 / 3) (#55)
    by befuddledvoter on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 01:04:18 PM EST
    When Was the 4th of July First Celebrated? Greg Soltis
    LiveScience Staff
    LiveScience. com
    Tue Jul 1, 5:11 PM ET

    John Adams predicted in a letter to his wife Abigail that Americans
    would celebrate their Independence Day on July 2. Off by two days -
    not too bad for government work.

    On July 2, 1776, Congress adopted the Declaration of Independence,
    signed only by Charles Thompson (the secretary of Congress) and John
    Hancock (the presiding officer). Two days later Congress approved the
    revised version and ordered it to be printed and distributed to the
    states and military officers. The other signatures would have to
    wait.

    Many actually viewed the Declaration of Independence as a yawner - a
    rehashing of arguments already made against the British government.
    John Adams would later describe the Declaration as "dress and
    ornament rather than Body, Soul, or Substance." The exception was the
    last paragraph that said the united colonies "are and of Right ought
    to be Free and Independent states" and were "Absolved of all
    Allegiance to the British Crown."

    For Adams, it was the momentum towards achieving American
    independence initiated on July 2 that future generations would
    consider worth celebrating, not the approval of this document on July
    4.

    Interestingly, the pomp and circumstance that many Americans presume
    took place on July 4, 1776, actually occurred days to weeks
    afterwards.

    The Philadelphia Evening Post published the Declaration' s full text
    in its July 6 newspaper. And the Declaration of Independence was
    publicly read from the State House in Philadelphia on July 8. Later
    that day, it was read in Easton, PA, Trenton, NJ, and to the local
    embryonic militia to provide much-needed inspiration against the
    formidable British.

    The shouting and firing of muskets that followed these first public
    readings represent America's first celebrations of independence.

    As copies spread, the Declaration of Independence would be read at
    town meetings and religious services. In response, Americans lit
    bonfires, fired guns, rang bells, and removed symbols of the British
    monarchy.

    The following year, no member of Congress thought about commemorating
    the adoption of the Declaration of Independence until July 3 - one
    day too late. So the first organized elaborate celebration of
    independence occurred the following day: July 4, 1777, in
    Philadelphia. Ships in the harbor were decked in the nation's colors.
    Cannons rained 13-gun salutes in honor of each state. And parades and
    fireworks spiced up the festivities.

    Fireworks did not become staples of July 4 celebrations until after
    1816, when Americans began producing their own pyrotechnics and no
    longer relied on expensive fireworks from across the pond.

    Since 1777, the tradition of celebrating America's independence on
    July 4 has continued.


    A Native American view of the 4th (5.00 / 2) (#61)
    by Cream City on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 01:34:07 PM EST
    from my state historical society's enewsletter today -- of especial interest, perhaps, to you New Yorkers, too.  Your loss, our gain, when the last of the Mahicans moved here:

    In July 1854, John W. Quinney (1797-1855) returned home from Wisconsin. A leader of the Stockbridge (Mahican) Indians who helped organize the tribe's emigration to Wisconsin in the 1820s, Quinney had been invited to speak at July 4th celebrations in Reidsville, N.Y.

    In his speech there to 2,000 listeners, he described how to him the festivities marked "the triumphal days of a people who occupy by conquest, or have usurped the possession of, the territories of my fathers, and have laid, and carefully preserved, a train of terrible misseries."

    His speech was printed in an Albany newspaper and later reprinted in Madison. It traces the history of the Mohican nation and tells exactly how they had been dispossessed of the Hudson River Valley, reduced to starvation, and ultimately moved to the frontier wilderness of Wisconsin.

    "I have been taught in the schools and been able to read your histories and accounts of Europeans, yourselves, and the red man: which instruct me, that while your rejoicings to-day are commemorative of the free birth of this Giant Nation, they simply convey to my mind, the recollection of a transfer of the miserable weakness and dependence of my people from one great power to another."

    You can learn more about Indian views of white historyat the Web site of the Stockbridge-Munsee Community.

    Btw, his sister Electa -- a highly educated and assimilated woman also forced from New York to the West -- was our first public schoolteacher in Wisconsin in 1828.  Thanks again, Easterners!

    Celbrating the 4 th of July and our (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by my opinion on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 01:54:24 PM EST
    country is very important. Always country before party. Political parties are not bound to anything.

    Some people would claim freedom... (5.00 / 2) (#65)
    by Dadler on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 02:02:51 PM EST
    ...is the reason they can criticize and slander those who dissent from the government line.  The right does this: they'll say it's a free country and that means they're free to go after those who dissent.  Problem is, it requires no freedom at all to call someone criticizing the government a traitor or whatever invective one chooses.  You can go after the government's critics in any tyranny in the world and do well for it.  Increasingly, and disturbingly, the same is true in "we're number one!" America.  

    and a song for how i feel (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by Dadler on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 02:08:32 PM EST
    A little ditty called "Who the F*ck?" by the inimitable PJ Harvey.

    Favorite line: "I'm not like other girls/You can't straighten my curls."

    Happy fourth, y'all.

    [ Parent ]

    Love PJ! (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by Dr Molly on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 02:45:48 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Thanks everyone for the TUNES!!! (none / 0) (#81)
    by Ellie on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 02:43:07 PM EST
    I cached all the TL tunes via You Tube into my Real Player, then shuffled through my speakers.

    Nice mix!

    [ Parent ]

    I hate to go over old ideas (5.00 / 5) (#72)
    by Montague on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 02:14:39 PM EST
    But Republican rule would already be over if the Dems in Congress would grow a spine!  I've voted for them all my life but I'm not sure they are getting the message.  I'm beginning to believe my only way of sending a message that will resonate (and yes, I DO send emails and make phone calls to the offices of my reps on a regular basis for all the good it does) is to stop enabling them and sit out the election.  Honestly, with a rare few exceptions, even the Dems care more about their own cush jobs than they do about their constituents and the Constitution.

    It's remarkably freeing (5.00 / 4) (#95)
    by Valhalla on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 03:03:56 PM EST
    to take that step.  I went 'Unaffiliated' in June and am sitting out the top of the ticket and also supporting the DNC.

    I'm putting my money and time into very particularly the causes I care about, my local candidates (one of whom is running a sticker campaign because of admin problems getting on the primary ballot), and national-level candidates I care about.

    I'm supporting those who speak for me and stand up for me in the times and places where I can't.

    It feels good.

    [ Parent ]

    July 4th (5.00 / 4) (#73)
    by cmugirl on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 02:19:12 PM EST
    I went to the National Archives in DC today and on stage they had Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, and Ben Frankin reading the Declaration of Indpendence. This is truly a remarkable piece of writing when you really stop and think about what the founders were doing when they signed their names to this document - they were committing treason, and in effect, possibly signing their death warrants. When you read the grievances against King George III here, think about who it reminds you of today. And yet, remember that like the Phoenix, we too shall rise above the disaster that is our own King George (even if I don't have faith in either presidential candidate, I do have faith in the American people).

    =========

    IN CONGRESS, JULY 4, 1776
    The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America

    When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

    We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. -- That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, -- That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. -- Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

    The concept of sacrifice (5.00 / 4) (#86)
    by madamab on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 02:53:46 PM EST
    must be re-introduced to the American people. The Founding Fathers sacrificed everything to establish our nation, and look what we've become.

    Bush told us to go shopping after 9/11. I knew he was going to be a terrible president, but to me, that was the first sign of how much trouble we were in.

    People in a real war, not a war on a feeling, don't get to buy iPods and choose from eighteen types of lettuce at Whole Foods.

    No wonder the troops think we've forgotten them. What impact do Iraq and Afghanistan have on the lives of most Americans?

    [ Parent ]

    Abstractions (5.00 / 1) (#107)
    by Valhalla on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 03:16:55 PM EST
    The war is largely an abstract issue to most Americans.  It's stats on the news (sometimes) and a political issue to be swatted back and forth by many.

    I have relatives in military service, including a cousin who was stationed in Afghanistan.

    Of course, everyone is free to have an opinion, and say what they like, but it is sometimes difficult to not be annoyed by people on both sides of the issue who spend enormous amounts of energy at their keyboards bemoaning or cheering the war (as the case may be) whose connection to it is largely academic.

    [ Parent ]

    Keyboard kommandos... (5.00 / 3) (#120)
    by madamab on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 03:28:30 PM EST
    I have the same reaction sometimes, especially when it's an American Enterprise Institute type bloviating on how we are "fighting for freedom." And I don't even have anyone in the Service in my family, so sometimes I annoy myself!

    True story: My dad was almost drafted. He was the last kid in line, and the guy looked at him and said, "What's a nice Jewish kid like you doing in a place like this?" My dad shrugged and said, "I dunno."

    The guy said, "You got anything wrong with you?" Dad said, "I had asthma as a kid."

    The guy stamped his application 4-F. Sometimes you get lucky.

    My heart goes out to you and all the military family and friends today, and I hope they come home safely and soon.

    [ Parent ]

    Rove and John Edwards to debate (5.00 / 4) (#82)
    by scribe on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 02:44:35 PM EST
    in Buffalo, 9/26.  Tickets to go on sale soon.

    I can't get my linking button to work (go figure), so I'll just tell you to go to the Buffalo News site (www dot buffalonews dot com) to read about it.

    I hope John gets sharpened up and a moderator who will tell Rove to STFU when he starts lying and interrupting.

    Think this means that Edwards won't (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by Anne on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 02:53:42 PM EST
    be Obama's VP?

    Or is this a head feint to throw us off the track?

    [ Parent ]

    Will Edwards be debating the (5.00 / 1) (#157)
    by nycstray on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 04:11:48 PM EST
    "new progressive agenda" or the old Democratic party platform?

    I'd love to see Hillary debate Rove.

    [ Parent ]

    Oh, me too. (5.00 / 1) (#160)
    by madamab on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 04:15:54 PM EST
    Rove is going to be really, really tough. We will need a master debater to combat him.

    I hope Edwards is up to the challenge.

    [ Parent ]

    WE THE PEOPLE did not do our job (5.00 / 1) (#144)
    by Saul on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 04:00:37 PM EST